>> So after the supreme court dismissed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's empty lawsuit
that looked overturn President Trump's loss, he scurried to the safe confines of Maria Bartiromo's
show to discuss where the clown car is gonna make its next stop. And I'm actually very curious, cuz
you don't get a chance to hear what the next stage is cuz they, a lot of times, don't know.
So, anyway, during this interview on Fox Business on a show called
Sunday Futures with Maria Bartiromo, which I'm not sure which futures they discussed, but she did ask
Paxon if he had a Plan B after he lost the Supreme Court bid. Let's see what he had to say.
>> AG, do you have a Plan B? What's next, in terms of the Trump
legal challenge to all of this? >> Going forward, I think the Trump
campaign is taking our arguments that we tried to get in front of US Supreme Court. They are now
gonna take those, I think, state by state because I think they are legitimately good constitutional
arguments that don't depend on actually proving me every little instance of fraud.
>> So, okay, this is on the Fox Business Network and maybe if you speak fast enough, maybe the
folks listening won't really know what you just said. But, the tail end of that, the very last
part of what Pax said, I'm sorry, AG, had to say was, he's gonna now take these cases, hopefully
Trump will take his case from the Supreme Court and take it to every state because it has a
lot of good components that don't necessarily have to prove every little instance of fraud.
Well, what the hell are we doing this for? Hey, you know what? I'm gonna take this case to the
court. I'm gonna go on Judge Judy, even. Was preset. I'm gonna go on Judge Judy and
you know what? I don't have to necessarily prove any moments in anything about my case.
All I have to do is just say that it's there and then maybe you'll let me be on TV and give me
$2,500. I don't know. It doesn't matter but you know what Judge Judy would say, as crazy as she
is? She'd kick you out of the court and tell her bailiff, I think he's pissing, what does she say?
Is he pissing on my head and tell me it's raining? Something like that is what she likes to say. But,
again, this is an attorney general in the United States of America for a very large state,
but his reasoning is, we don't have to prove every little instance of fraud.
>> Yeah, well, why don't you just say you're cheating? You just said, we lost 59 times in
a row, including the Supreme Court twice, cuz we couldn't prove instances of fraud,
so now we'd like to take the election that we lost, even though there was no fraud in it.
Well, what is that? That's stealing the election. You just accidentally admitted
you're against democracy. And that's the whole point of this all along.
It's Texas saying, I don't like the way Georgia voted or Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, so, I wanna just get rid of their votes. That's literally the ask.
That's why even the deeply, deeply right wing Supreme Court was like,
no, that's not how our constitution works. One state doesn't get to take away the votes,
all of the votes, of another state and say the guy who didn't win is now the winner
and, by the way, all the meanwhile admitting, well, we can't prove instances of fraud.
>> Yeah, that's why you lost 59 times. >> I'm saying this, every point of this
sentence where he said, every little instance of fraud. Are they little instances of fraud?
I thought fraud was rampant and it's a horrible thing. But all these people that you brought in,
some random lady in Michigan, another random lady in wherever other state
they were arguing their case in, bring them in in front of a bunch of folks to testify
of these little instances of fraud that didn't happen.
So why'd you bring them in if they're so little and insignificant,
that you don't have to show it's every time. It's a big deal, until it's not a big deal.
Suddenly it's just little instances of fraud that we don't really have to show
any evidence of. You know why they're used to not having to show any evidence of anything?
Because their supporters have been nodding every time they say something, go,
maybe the courts will do that too because we've gotten this far by not saying anything
for the past month and a half, or I think it's about a month and a few days.
So for the past over a month, we've been saying nothing and getting somehow tons of money for
it and support, enough people to be in the streets like they were in DC to attack each other over it.
Why would they think the court would be different? Because they live in the fantasy land that
they expect everyone else to join them in. >> Yeah, so Stephen Miller went on TV this
morning and he's one of the worst parts of the Trump administration, which is saying a lot.
And he said, well, I mean, different slate of electors didn't get seated or certified
anywhere and we lost every court case but those different electors, the alternate electors,
exist somewhere. So Congress could just say that they should apply instead of
the Electoral College that just certified the vote today.
Okay, yeah, I mean, you could do a military coup and you could do a lot of different things
and declare Trump king, but you can't say
that he won this election in a democracy. That's the one thing you definitely,
definitely cannot say. So they're just now at the point where they're like, I don't care, man.
I don't have any evidence. And I don't need any stinking evidence, and we didn't win the popular
vote and we didn't win the electoral college. I don't care, I got alternate electors. Okay?
They're in my head. They're dancing around in my head. And I think our Congress can just say,
the alternate electors in Stephen Miller's and Ken Paxton's heads,
they're the ones who decide the election.
They decided that Trump lost but should be president anyway, so that's what we're doing. It's
not a thing. None of this is a thing. And if you believe any of this nonsense, you hate America.
You do. It's literal. You're saying I hate our form of government. I hate our Constitution.
I hate our democracy. I just want Trump to be king. That's all I want. I want my guy who abuses
people I don't like to have power over you and I'll do anything, including destroy this country,
to get it. That's what AG is saying. >> Yeah, my very last thing on this.
It's very obvious that the idea isn't, I've become convinced there's no way that their
objective is to be given the election anymore, to be given a second term by
any courts or anything that they've been pushing for, because obviously those ships have sailed.
The objective now is to see what happened in DC on Saturday, well,
it happened also in the state of Washington, as well, in other cities across the country.
That's now the new objective. Just unrest, anger, violence, arson, and fighting. That's all that's
left cuz there's no way they think it's gonna happen. The only thing they have control over
left are the crazy supporters who are now angry and violent. That's all that's left.
>> Yeah, well and then there's of course the grift, the grift that keeps on giving.
They raised $200 million for Trump's so called Legal Defense Fund, which they tell you in an
asterix does not go to his legal defense fund. So, the grift is left and the violence is left
and them trying to delegitimize Biden so they could attack him for four straight years, so we
can't get anything passed for the American people, whether it's healthcare or higher wages, etc.
That's what's left. But in terms of their theoretical arguments, the two that they're down
to is what AG said in that clip, which is, yeah, we don't have any instances of fraud but, the ship
has sailed. There was lots of fraud that we can't put the genie back in the bottle and prove it now,
so since we can't prove it, that proves that there was so much of it earlier that went by us.
No, it doesn't prove that at all. It kind of proves opposite.
And then the last argument is in the actual brief submitted to the Supreme Court. So this is by
the 126 republicans in the United States Congress. They supported Paxton's brief in the court.
And I'm now quoting Forbes, the brief argues a sizable portion of the American public has,
quote, serious doubts about the integrity of the election.
In other words, we lied and told everybody there was something wrong with the election
and they believed us. Since they believe us, you should overturn the election even though there was
nothing wrong with it. >> Yep.
>> A comedy. >> We were successful
in fooling enough people to say ridiculous things, therefore that should be the new reality.
>> Yeah, if I can trick enough people into believing my lie, you should make my lie real. No,
no, we shouldn't. That's not how America works and that's not how our court system works
and even the most conservative Trump appointed judges in the country said, hell no. One of
the trouble boarding judges said you have neither the facts nor the law on your side.
>> And another Trump appointed judge said, I don't want you to mistake what I'm saying here.
It's not just that you lost on procedural matters, you lost on the merits.