Search Posts

welcome back America you know we have an opportunity this election to help save the country and I'm not kidding you see what's happening to the country things we've never thought were possible what's happening in the streets the anti-americanism the anti-semitism the violence that's taking place you see what's happening with a lawless border and the horrendous inhumanity that's taking place there our economy that used to be prosperous and vibrant is on its back people are very down people are very distrusting of each other our country's coming apart why because the Democrat Party has the man they want in the White House and this is the mindset of the Democrat Party they hate America ask yourselves this question where is this party trying to take us we know we're Trump and the conservatives want to take where is this party trying to take us they're taking us off the cliff this election is so critical and we have a great opportunity to put our foot down it's called November I'll see it tomorrow night on life Liberty and Levin

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

- Welcome back, America. First of all, I want to correct myself. I got to thinking about it. The US Attorney and the former DA in Manhattan took a pass on the Bragg case. I just want to make that abundantly clear. We're here with Congressman Barry Loudermilk, the Congressman from Georgia, House Financial Services Committee member and a subcommittee chairman. Congressman Loudermilk, you put out an 81-page report and you've made it abundantly clear, both on my radio show and elsewhere, that as you look into the conduct this January 6th committee, you're finding things that are extraordinarily troubling to you and your other members. That is, among other things, the mass destruction of evidence, whether it's video, whether it's deposition, whether it's text, whether it's emails, the movement of certain information behind firewalls encrypted so you folks have been unable so far, even with forensic experts, to break through and get the information. Most of this occurred a week before the Republicans took over the House, so it was done in a very aggressive way and done in a purposeful way. But you've also found a number of substantive things involving whether or not President Trump did in fact offer the National Guard. Liz Cheney has been running around and said that's false. Liz Cheney keeps referring people to the report. Liz Cheney keeps doubling down. Also, you have information from a witness who did in fact testify, but was not included in the public pronouncements about January 6th, a deputy chief of staff to the president and on and on and on. Information about Cassidy Hutcheson, so let's begin. Number one, in terms of this committee destroying and hiding information, have you made any progress? - Well, we've made progress in actually getting access to some of the documents that they moved to the executive branch, in my opinion, which was to keep it from public view and keep it from us. Four documents went to the White House. Eight documents went to the Department of Homeland Security. We were able to get the redacted copies of the testimonies of White House employees, which we included in our report. And through pressuring the White House, we're finally, they never gave us unredacted copies, but they allowed us to come to the White House and review the unredacted copies. And after looking at it, we realized there's enough that was remained unredacted in the copies. They sent us that showed a different story than what this select committee was presenting. DHS, for months, they just went silent on us. Now they're telling us, oh, we still haven't finished our review of these documents. It's been well over a year. They're slow walking it. But we have at least now have Homeland Security is as of last week said, well, look, you can come look at these documents as well. But for some reason, they sent us the key document that we were looking for, which was the transcribed interview of the driver of the SUV that Trump was supposedly take the steering wheel from. So we did make some progress there. We're still trying to break passwords. But the biggest, I think, violation of public trust and house rules was the destruction or the hiding of the videotapes of all the depositions. Those, I think, are clearly-- they admitted to getting rid of those. And so of everything that they've done, I think that is the biggest violation. Let's dig in a little bit further, Congressman. This National Guard issue, I had the acting defense secretary, Christopher Miller, on my radio show about a year ago. He said, everything you're reading in the media is not true. And hearing from the Democrats is being spun that, in fact, Donald Trump did offer the National Guard. He offered it in front of him. He offered it to him. That is, he told him to be ready in case they're called up. Cash Patel, Chief of Staff, has said the same thing. So they're trashing both of these men. They're twisting what they have said. And in fact, Mark Meadows testified that they had a National Guard unit, specifically positioned at Andrews Air Force Base, should it be necessary. And the former secretary of defense also told me on the radio that he believed it was January 5, the day before, that he got a call from President Trump. He wanted reassurance, did President Trump, that, in fact, we were in a position to help and that everybody had everything they need. And you also came in touch with a witness and witness information of, believe it was Deputy Chief of Staff, which he heard most of this, and actually heard the mayor of DC turn down any help. Is that right? That's correct. And that was one of the supposedly missing documents. That was Tony Ornato, who was the Deputy Chief of Staff. Two Mark Meadows, over operations. Now, he had been the head of secret service detail until President Trump promoted him to the Deputy Chief of Staff of Operations. And we knew that he had done multiple transcribed interviews with the committee, but there was one that was just commonly referred to as the missing Ornato interview. And our team, through a lot of diligence and digging, we were able to find that. And exactly what you just said was in there, that he had testified to the committee, that he heard the conversation with Mark Meadows offering up to 10,000 troops. And even in early January, not long after the attack on the Capitol, Vanity Fair of all publications had ran an article that Trump had offered National Guard and told Secretary Miller, you have full authorization to get the Guard ready. That was in January by a liberal publication. So there is much more evidence. We even have evidence from the White House transcribed interviews that we received from the White House employees, where one of them said, that responded to a question by the select committee, which was, when President Trump first heard of the attack on the Capitol, what was his response? And this White House employee, who was physically with the president that day, said his immediate response was, get Pelosi and Milley on the phone and see what help they need. There are several instances on the record where he had offered and even was trying to get people to take the National Guard. But it was Pelosi. It was Bowser that turned down the offer. But it was crucial that they destroy the truth. It was crucial that they cover it up. It was crucial that witnesses that corroborate the president's position, that people who had evidence that would demonstrate that the president did what he said he did, it was crucial that those people be silenced, that they not be heard, that their information be killed, that they not have public testimony when the click lights were there. And so this whole argument about Donald Trump leading an insurrection, impeached on an insurrection, charged with the Klan Act and the rest, but still the environment is created about an insurrection. Donald Trump was never, ever, ever involved in or promoted an insurrection and is a rational matter, Congressman. If you're supporting an insurrection, wouldn't there be an email, a text, a sentence, a witness anywhere who said, I heard Trump say we're gonna take the building, I heard him call it so and so and say, we're gonna do these things, not one word. When we come back, Cassidy Hutcheson who was a key witness in a darling of the meeting wrote her own book and was taken under the wing of Liz Cheney, you found out information about that too. We'll be right back. Welcome back America, Congressman Barry Loudermilk. What about Cassidy Hutcheson who Liz Cheney took under her wing, who got an enormous amount of publicity, who wrote a book, what about her? - Well, she's very interesting because she was interviewed probably more than anyone else. Her first three interviews by the committee lined up with everyone else that they had met, that they had invited in to testify. But what's interesting is some of this we've derived from Cassidy Hutcheson's book and Liz Cheney's book is after her third transcribed interview, she had a meeting with Liz Cheney. After that meeting, she fired her existing attorney. Liz Cheney arranged for her to get a different attorney. And then they held another, a fourth transcribed interview. But unlike the others, this was just her and Liz Cheney and Liz's hideaway office in the Capitol. And the only others present was a court reporter and a videographer. No other member of the committee knew that this interview was going on afterwards. Liz Cheney showed the videotape of her testimony and the committee moved to have an emergency hearing at that moment to parade her in front of America that she could tell these sensational stories. They never tried to corroborate her story at all. In fact, going forward, I told our team as we start looking at all these transcribed interviews, don't just look at the way people answer questions, look at the questions that were asked and more importantly, the questions that weren't asked. And many times they would not ask firsthand, people had a firsthand account of these instances, they wouldn't even ask these questions because they didn't want anyone to give a testimony counter to what Cassidy Hutchinson had testified. - And that includes the so-called beast, the presidential limousine, where she conveys this story where Donald Trump is struggling with the Secret Service agents who's driving the car, grabs them by the neck, which is so preposterous. She wasn't there, so she, it's all hearsay, if worse. They put her in front of the clig lights, it's headlines everywhere, but they didn't bring in the people who were actually involved that day, including the driver, the Secret Service driver and the others, who I understand from you and your report, said none of that ever happened, correct? - That is correct, but he had to interject that. So she made these accusations in June. They didn't call the driver in until September. Of course, this is already national news and they're pushing this narrative that Trump is this irate guy, he's crazy, he's tried to choke a Secret Service officer, tried to grab the steering wheel from this guy. You would think when they bring this guy in, that is one thing they would ask him. They didn't even ask him if that incident was true, he had to interject it on his own. That right there tells me they did not want to get to the truth, they had their predetermined narrative, they were gonna suppress anything that countered these sensational stories that Ms. Hutchinson came up with. And again, hers was third party. She said she heard Tony Ornato, Tony Ornato called her over after the speech on the lips and said, did you hear what happened in The Beast? Tony Ornato testified in the same transcribed interview that we released, that never happened. He never told her anything like that and had never heard of that story at all until she testified to it in June. And so again, they suppressed anything that was contrary to what Ms. Hutchinson said because her story played right into the narrative that they wanted to sell to the American people. You have to assume all this material that was destroyed, interviews and all the rest, actually cut against their narrative. Otherwise, why would they destroy it? That is a perfectly legitimate inference. And you have to assume it was intentional, somebody ordered it. And you have to assume there are witnesses to this. Liz Cheney has made herself the face and the voice of this committee. She's doubled down, she's been all over the internet, trashing anybody who disagrees with her, keeps referencing them to page whatever it is of the report, which of course is not the final say. And so my question to you is this. Are we gonna be able to get to the bottom of this, the destruction of the information and the use of this committee and our tax dollars to advance another horrendous hit job on the former president and his staff on behalf of the Democrat Party? Are we gonna be able to get to the bottom of this? In other words, at some point before the next election, because God only hopes you guys hold on, but you may not. Are we gonna have testimony under oath, under penalty of perjury by Liz Cheney and others so we can get to the bottom of this, have them straighten it out, turn to the pages of the report they want you to show and then show them the other information and ask them how that information didn't get into this report and so forth and so on. - Well, Mark, that is our plan. We still have a lot more investigation to go. We're gonna build upon what we laid out in this report. We're already working overtime now on the next phase of information and once we compile all that together, at some point, we're gonna need people who were on that committee and we're gonna call them in and we're going to ask some difficult questions for them because we got to make sure the American people not only know the truth of what happened, but something like this never happens again in this country. - Amen. I mean, they want us to know the information, so why did they destroy half of it? Congressman Loudermilk, I wanna thank you for what you're doing. Keep it up and we'll definitely wanna have you back. God bless you, my friend. - Well, God bless you, Mark. Thank you very much. - We'll be right back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

In other words, the case that was brought against Donald Trump should never have been brought. There shouldn't have been a sentencing hearing. There shouldn't have been fines. There shouldn't have been anything. This case against Donald Trump is a greater, more gray violation than anything we've ever seen under the excessive fines part of the Eighth Amendment and much worse than the Timbs case. The case brought against President Trump violates over 800 years of history of Western Enlightenment and the law dating back to the Magna Carta. President Trump's case is much stronger than anything before, much stronger than the Timbs case that the court ruled on. Why? The prosecutor for the state, Letitia James, campaigned for office on the platform of destroying Donald Trump. Her statements are now evidence of her intent and motivation in any appeal and central to the violations of the Eighth Amendment. Two, the state consumer fraud statute used against President Trump has never been used this way against anybody else in the history of the statute by the state of New York, ever. It's been used against him and his family. The Associated Press reviewed nearly, and I report as they report, 150 reported cases under the statute used to punish Mr. Trump and stated that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or brought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry. Actual fraud, harm, detrimental reliance. Those are the three elements of fraud. No one was defrauded here. No one was harmed. No proof of detrimental reliance. None of them exist. Also, no testimony by anybody who lost anything. No complaint filed by any bank, by any insurance company, by any lender. In fact, the testimony was to the contrary. Now, there was no trial. There was no jury. Wow. Sounds like pre-1215, if you ask me. The judge ruled on the papers and he ruled that Donald Trump was guilty. And that was that. All the back and forth, all the hearings were about the fines and the penalties. Before Donald Trump stepped into that courtroom, he was guilty, according to this Democrat elected judge. I want you to think about that. When President Trump walked into that courtroom, he was already adjudicated guilty. The judge in the case, an elected Democrat like the prosecutor, an elected Democrat, had made earlier statements in other settings, very negative about Donald Trump, that should have caused him to recuse himself. But obviously, he didn't. None of them do in any of the cases where we know that they're biased against Trump. And I'm going beyond the fact that what this judge should have ruled immediately is, Madam Attorney General, you have no case under the Timbs case. And you have no case because a case like this has never been brought. You're talking about a former president of the United States. You're talking about a candidate for president of the United States. You're talking about a man who built the skyline in New York City. And you're bringing me a cockamamie case. Next thing you know, you'll bring the Ku Klux Klan case. Oh, wait a minute. They already did that in Washington. And what does the judge do? He orders nearly half a billion dollars in fines and interest, orders President Trump and his sons to turn his business over to the state, effectively the state of New York, to be managed by another former prosecutor of his choosing. Latisha James, the state prosecutor, she's made the rounds on the Sunday shows bragging about what she accomplished, bragging about how she upheld her campaign promise. So Trump properties, she says now, if he doesn't come up with four hundred million dollars, what is effectively bond in order to have the privilege of appealing the decision by this judge and the actions by the state government. She will seize the properties and sell them from under him. Sell them from under him at pennies on the dollar. Think about this. You know what this is? From her campaign statements, from the judge's prior statements, from the use of a statute that's never been used this way against anybody else in the history of New York, the lack of a trial, the lack of a jury, a decision on the papers, and all the rest of it. This is a prima facie case of a violation of the Eighth Amendment. It's not even a close case. The state prosecuting judge had to know in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that this kind of state action was absolutely, unequivocally, unconstitutional, a violation of the Bill of Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The judge even said, "President Trump," in his statement, "I'm doing what's close to the maximum, if not the maximum, because you didn't show remorse. You didn't bend your knee. You didn't kiss the hand of the state, that is, the hand of the king. So we're stealing your property out from under you. We're stealing it, and we're going to sell it if we have to, and you'll have no recourse." No recourse? What did Ruth Bader Ginsburg say in her opinion? "Nine to zero," the Supreme Court ruled, "that other liberties are affected, other liberties are affected, when a king, when a tyrant, when a dictator, when a state, when the federal government treats citizens this way. There is absolutely no legitimate basis of any kind, legally, factually, for what was done here, except to steal the property from Donald Trump to try and bankrupt him, because he's Donald Trump, because he's a former president, because he's running for president, and they're doing the dirty work of the Democrat Party and the Biden regime, the new king." I'll be right back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

My question is this, why would the people who have bankrolled Jill Biden's past campaign and are bankrolling this campaign, and the people who voted for Jill Biden last time and tend to vote for him again this time, why would they be encouraged to support Nikki Haley? Why would they be encouraged to go into a Republican primary in order to get her to be the nominee or have a strong showing? I would just ask people, given what's going on in this country around the world, what kind of a Republican do you want to nominate to take on Biden and to take on this horror story? Is it a person who relies on the same elements, the money people, the party leaders, and the voters in the Democrat Party? and sounds so smart to me. I'll see you next time on Life For Liberty.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-Rise up and resist this man! -When he leaves office as a private citizen, he will no longer have presidential immunity. -Can we actually get him? -The New York Attorney General has joined the Manhattan District Attorney. -Days of this president might number -- -Claims that you campaigned on a get-Trump agenda. -And we will rise up together, and we will resist this president. Bring him down! -State News. -[ Speaks indistinctly ]

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Now, New York, what do we have? Let's not forget we have a DA, a Soros DA, a Democrat DA. He breathes life into a case that was rejected ultimately by the prior DA, another Democrat. And what is that about? Nondisclosure agreements. Nondisclosure agreements. It is a completely phony case. There's over 30 charges of federal crimes against the President of the United States. He takes misdemeanors, and they weren't even misdemeanors, but he takes them, turns them into felonies, makes these preposterous allegations. And that's the first set of indictments. Every one of these prosecutors is conflicted. Alvin Bragg, a Soros prosecutor, a radical Democrat in Manhattan, and he ran on charging Donald Trump. Fannie Willis, a radical elected Democrat who's fundraising off the charges against Donald Trump for her next election. Jack Smith, a former top official in the Eric Holder Department of Justice, worked closely with him, with former FBI director James Comey and his general counsel Andrew Weissman, who's all over MSNBC spewing his stupidity. And of course, Smith's wife is a Democrat activist and Obama's sycophant with a long record of prosecutorial abuses of process, that is Jack Smith, pressuring and threatening witnesses, bankrupting criminal targets, leaking campaigns with friendly reporters, like Haberman over there at the New York Times, other news outlets, the Washington Post, CNN, and so forth. Now, let's step back. This DA in Atlanta, as well as Jack Smith, what are they doing? What have they done? Alan Dershowitz wrote an important piece for the Daily Mail. Among other things, he says, during the course of our challenges, since Bush Gory was representing the people of Palm Beach County in that litigation. Many tactics similar to those employees in 2020 were attempted. Lawyers wrote legal memoranda outlining possible courses of conduct, including proposing a slate of alternate electors who would deliver our preferred election results to Congress. This is normal. In 2000, Florida state officials were lobbied to secure recounts in selected counties, which we thought the tally would favor us. We were trying to find at least 600 votes that would change the result. The new indictment features Trump's phone call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, which was captured in an audio recording. In the conversation, Trump asks him to find 12,000 votes. In my mind, says Dershowitz, this call is among the most exculpatory pieces of evidence. Trump was entitled as a candidate to ask a Georgia state official to locate votes that he believes were not counted. Trump was told that in some of these Republican counties that the votes aren't in yet or they can't, you know, actually find the ballots in the votes. And he says, well, can't you find whatever it is, 11 or 12,000 votes? That's it. In 2000, attempts were made to influence various Florida officials to recount the votes. Now the former president's request that Georgia's Speaker of the House reconsider the count was being considered as soliciting a public official to violate his oath. You understand the extent to which the criminal activity is the criminal activity of the Biden administration, the Department of Justice, Merrick Garland and Jack Smith. They are the criminals. Let's look at what Hillary Clinton did. Oh, I know the media hate to do this because the media are frauds, unfreedom of the press, an entire book on what the media have done to this country. This is not a free press. This is a problem. Russia type press. This is a state press. This is a press that everything I'm telling you right now, they will never discuss. They will never have a legal analyst on there discussing it. The people who watch these programs, even though they have very, very small audiences, the big part of their audience members of Congress, people in the White House, other press and influencers. That's their audience. That's their audience. As for these judges, judges are flesh and blood. They're human beings too. And some of them are better than others. Some of them are radical activists, Democrats. Some of them are brilliant and objective. Unfortunately, Trump is getting most of the former. Tired book on that too. Men in black. So what did Hillary Clinton do? She walks the country free. She's gaggling all over the place. She's getting into friendly media. She's laughing about all these indictments. Hillary Clinton should be in prison for her entire life. Over 4,500 criminal statutes in the US code that exist today. The one mostly used are conspiracy, false statements, money laundering, obstruction, perjury, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, tax evasion. Hillary Clinton. To convict Clinton, it must be shown that she acknowledged that classified emails were contained on her private server. And they said the most recent tally by the State Department of their review of 30,000 Clinton emails indicates at least 671 emails sent or received by Clinton contained classified information. This fact stands in stark contrast to the statement she gave to reporters in July of that year when she said, "I'm confident that I've never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent or received." According to the October 16th Fox News report, the FBI is also looking to see if Clinton committed gross negligence on the Espionage Act for failure to keep national defense information safe. 18 U.S.C. 793. They're using that against Trump. Notably, the information doesn't necessarily have to be marked as classified to violate the statute. The article citing an intelligence community source who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the intelligence source said, "The subsection requires a lawful possession of national defense information by a security clearance holder who through gross negligence, such as the use of an unsecured computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper secure location." She even hired an IT person on her own, Don, who works for the Department of State to handle the server. That's how much she didn't want anyone to know about the server. By the way, that's a crime too. You're not allowed to subsidize or receive private moneys for doing what is a government job, and that's sort of what he was doing for her at her request, but nobody talks about that. She destroyed over 30,000 e-mails. They destroyed their cell phones. Nobody was dragged in front of a grand jury. There was no search done of her home for any other servers or information. She did an interview. Her staff was permitted to be there. Her lawyers were permitted to be there. Her lawyers destroyed this information based on header information, not substantive information, and she escaped. In the Presidential Records Act that applies to Trump, which gives the president authority over documents like no other official in the government, including a secretary of state or an ex-secretary of state, she didn't have that defense. She didn't have that statute. Trump has that, and he's charged with 40 counts. And he's charged with a total of 91 counts from these three prosecutors. Now, let's look at the Bidens quickly. You have a U.S. attorney, stupidly appointed by Bill Barr, not a special counsel, who for five and a half years, five and a half years investigating under Biden, during the course of the five and a half years, he allows the most significant tax violations to run, that is, outrun the statute of limitations. So good is he at this, that Merrick Garland then appoints him a special counsel to give him more protection and more authority. Shortly after he's appointed a special counsel, another statute runs last week. Did you hear about that? Involving possible bribery. That one's now off the table. This guy created the sweetheart deal and he approved it until the judge stopped them. And now Hunter Biden's lawyers saying, you know, this judge is biased. We need a new judge. That's the guy they pick. The Bidens are involved in bribery, extortion, money laundering, false statements, fraud, far violations and more. No investigation of Joe Biden whatsoever. No grand jury, no U.S. attorney, no special counsel, no public integrity section, nothing. And the man receives tens of millions of dollars, his family does, just because his family is so important. None of them have a real job, not one of them. But they received tens of millions of dollars from the communist Chinese, over $31 million, according to Peter Schweizer, nearly $50 million, according to Congresswoman Mace. We don't even know it's so big. And he's the president of the United States who was bought and paid for, as is his family. Not one investigation of Joe Biden. Look what they're doing to Trump. Look how they're breaking the Constitution. Look how they're breaking the law. The law is being used to destroy the law, very fast now. Be right back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

History is lost on prosecutors, it's lost on all these debate shows, it's lost among lawyers who talk about January 6th, "Oh, it was an insurrection." No, it wasn't. We've had contentious presidential elections in the past, I mean really contentious. Some have almost led to civil wars, one did. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and his chosen vice presidential pick, Aaron Burr, tied for first place. Because back then, the ballots were separate for president and vice president, even though they might run in the same party. And it was 73 to 73 electors, due to a communication error among Democratic Republican electors, or a Burr led conspiracy depending on whom you believe. In other words, Burr was disloyal to Jefferson. Jefferson was really running against Adams at the time, but he only got 65 electoral college votes. So the first of only two times in American history, the election went to the House of Representatives. They had over 30 votes back and forth, and back and forth, the House was to choose the next president, Alexander Hamilton had enormous power. He disliked Jefferson immensely, but he hated Aaron Burr. So finally what happens is Alexander Hamilton, of course he was the first Treasury Secretary, he turned the tide by lobbing his fellow Federalists to throw their support to Jefferson. A couple years later, the famous duel that took place between Burr and Hamilton, where Burr killed Hamilton and then Burr fled the country. It seems a little more contentious than what took place on January 6th in the last election, but there's more here. Let's take a look. 1824, this was a doozy. There were four candidates, they were all the Federalist party, had dissolved, they were all Democrat Republicans. Then there was Andrew Jackson, you might recall, the hero of the war of 1812. He won the popular vote by fewer than 39,000 votes. Captured 99 electoral votes. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, he took 84 electoral votes, came in second, 41 votes, went for William Crawford, he was the Treasury Secretary, and 37 for the House Speaker, Henry Clay. So no candidate earned a majority of the electoral votes. The election again went to the House of Representatives. Clay was eliminated, he was the lowest vote-getter. Only three candidates can be considered, but the House still controlled. After a month of back and forth negotiations, it went on and on. Henry Clay's supporters threw their weight behind John Quincy Adams, even though he had gotten less votes than Jackson, less electoral college votes than Jackson. So Adams would become president and he would choose Henry Clay as his Secretary of State. Soon after his inauguration, this enraged Andrew Jackson. He resigns from the Senate, he called it a corrupt bargain, he said the whole election was a fraud, and then he would go back and run again the next time around and he would defeat Adams. But this almost led, almost led to a civil war. Then 1860, presidential election wasn't just contentious, as is pointed out, it tore the nation apart. Abraham Lincoln got about 39% of the popular vote. He was running against Senator Stephen Douglas, the Democrat from Illinois, they were both from Illinois actually. Also, running for president was John Breckenridge, as well as John Bell of Tennessee. Lincoln won, as I said, about 39% of the vote, but took most of the electoral college votes in the North and California and Oregon. Breckenridge won the electoral votes in most of the South, along with Maryland, Delaware. Bell won Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia, Douglas captured only Missouri, despite finishing second in the popular vote. You had a real mess. Just weeks after Lincoln's victory, South Carolina voted to secede. Six more southern states followed, forming the Confederate States of America in February 1861, and they elected Democrat Jefferson Davis as their president. I would say that was pretty contentious, America, but it also gave us Abraham Lincoln. Here's the biggest, 1876. Democrat Governor Samuel Tilden of New York won 250,000 more votes in the popular vote than Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican. He also got 19 more electoral college votes, but Tilden was still one electoral vote, one, short of the required 185 majority, and 20 votes remained uncounted. In Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, why? Because their votes were too close to call. Each party accused the other of fraud. And yet in Oregon, one elector was declared illegal and replaced with controversial results. So you had a crisis here, the greatest electoral crisis in American history. And threats of another Civil War was 1876. So what happened here? Congress established a 15-member commission of senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court justices. So they said, you know, we can't free this out. Let's have a commission. So this is about as far as from the popular vote in the electorate as you can get. But keep something in mind. Congress is making all these decisions. Not a Department of Justice, not a prosecutor. In every one of these cases where fraud is alleged, where there's lobbying, where there's pressure on state legislatures, and so forth and so on, it's the give and take of politics. And Congress has the final say under the Constitution. Congress and nobody else. So they set up this 15-member commission of senators, congressmen, Supreme Court justices, seven Republicans, seven Democrats, one independent, ultimately to decide the election. After that swing vote turned to Hayes, that one controversial elector goes to Hayes. Hayes, even though he is 20 Electoral College votes behind, even though he got 250,000 less votes than did Tilden, it goes to Hayes. And so what does the commission say? Well, the swing guy went for Hayes. We'll give the other 19 Electoral College votes to Hayes. So the commission picks the president, Rutherford B. Hayes, who had the less popular vote, the less Electoral College vote, and they threw the 20 Electoral College votes remaining to Hayes. And after the Democrats, they said, you know what, we don't have to put up with this. We're going to filibuster this and block the official vote count that's going to take place. So what did they do after that? Well, they met at a hotel in Washington in February 1877, and they worked out a compromise. The Democrats would accept Hayes' victory, provided that Hayes removed all federal troops from the South. The compromise consolidated Democrat control of the region, the South, effectively ended Reconstruction, reversing the gains that African-Americans had made during the post-Civil War era. So the Democrats not only did that, they undermined the efforts that had been undertaken by a Republican president earlier, Ulysses S. Grant, to send the U.S. Army into the South to destroy the Klan. All that changed as a result of the 1876 election. Now, later, they'd pass the statute to try and work all these things out. But it's amazing. Nobody was indicted, Mr. Producer. Nobody was charged with anything. It's just incredible that we have the election of 2000. Al Gore, George W. Bush, all came down to Florida, a couple of hundred votes. Al Gore brings the first lawsuit, and it becomes litigation hell. Different districts throughout the state, forum shopping by both sides, trying to find judges that would uphold this part of the law, that part of the law. Meanwhile, the radical left-wing Democrat controlled Florida Supreme Court steps in and keeps changing the law, changing the law, changing the law to try and get Gore over the finish line. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court steps in and says that's enough. That's enough. The voting has to stop at some point. The Supreme Court of Florida can't keep changing the rules. They are destroying one person, one vote, the entire concept. And so George Bush winds up being the winner. And he wins the Electoral College by five votes. He also lost the popular vote by over half a million votes. That was a very contentious election, and we all know it.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.