President Donald Trump incited his supporters to "stop the steal" at a "Save America" rally on Wednesday, encouraging them to object to the election...

FNC host Mark Levin comments on voting fraud in the 2020 election: MARK LEVIN, FOX NEWS: Hello America I'm Mark Levin and this is Life Liberty and Levin and I'm glad you're with us. Fraud in an election. What is fraud? There's criminal fraud, there's civil fraud, what happens when a state abandons completely its constitution? The Supreme Court of that state conducts itself lawlessly? Is that fraud? I'm talking about a battleground state called the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It has one of the oldest legislatures in our country, one of the oldest constitutions in our country. We all know Philadelphia is the birthplace of our country, that's where the Declaration of Independence was written, and where the Constitution was written. It's a very, very important battleground state. And the Democrats wanted to make sure, that in 2020, it came out for Biden, because in 2016, it came out for Trump. You hear this phrase, systemic fraud, "there's no evidence of systemic fraud," you see reporters interviewing "officials" of various state governments saying, "there's no fraud whatsoever." Let me ask you a question, fourteen months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you had voted by mail-in ballot, it would have been discarded. If that mail-in ballot had been counted, it would have been fraud. 14 months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot without a signature, the ballot would be discarded. If it was counted, that would be criminal fraud. 14 months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot with a signature that didn't match the signature that they had on file, that would be discarded, if it was counted, that would be criminal fraud. 14 months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot beyond election day, it wouldn't be counted, if it was, that would be fraud. If you sent in a ballot without a postal date stamped on it, it wouldn't be counted, and if it was, that would be fraud. Or, if you sent in a ballot where they couldn't tell what the date was, if there was a smudge on the ink, it wouldn't be counted, and if it was counted, that would be fraud. All of those ballots today, count. They were all counted in Pennsylvania, because of unconstitutional and illegal changes that were made by officials, quote, unquote, "officially," by individuals in Pennsylvania. None of this is discussed in a single news room on a single news TV show, radio show, or any other show. So, I want to slowly walk you through what took place in Pennsylvania, and this sort of thing has taken place to some degree or another in numerous states. October, 2019, fourteen months ago, the Republican state legislature of Pennsylvania passed an omnibus bill called Act 77. In Act 77 they included language there changing the election laws to allow universal mail-in voting. The problem is, Pennsylvania, being an old state, having an old constitution, one of the original state legislatures didn't allow that, there wasn't even early voting in Pennsylvania. And the only way you could have a mail-in vote was through the absentee ballot, and you had to go through a process there, a multi-step process in order to get an absentee ballot. Well, you might say, well what about Covid-19? In October, 2019, there was no Covid-19, was there? There was no virus. This push for mail-in voting has been going on with the Democrats for at least a decade. One of the first places they imposed it was in California, and they've tried to do this in every state. So the Republican state legislature in Pennsylvania buckled. They passed it as I said in an omnibus bill, and the Democrat governor, who is a leftist, signed it almost immediately. And in fact, in all of the statewide offices in Pennsylvania, you have left-wing Democrats in those offices, and you have a Republican legislature. Okay, that's the mail-in voting, what else happened? What else happened was, the governor didn't think it went far enough. He went to the legislature and he said, you know the signature requirements, we really shouldn't have that, the postmark requirements, we really don't need that, these other requirements that it has to be in by election day, there ought to be a few more days after election day where we can count the ballots, and the legislature said, no, no, we're not going to do that. He said, oh yes you are. So he winds up going to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has seven justices. A couple of years ago they had an election for three justices, the republicans really weren't paying attention to it, the democrats were, and they backed three hardcore leftists for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Among other things, they were thinking of 2020. The labor unions poured in a fortune, the teacher unions poured in fortune, the usual groups poured in a fortune, and they won all three seats. And now the makeup of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is, as I said the members are elected, is five to two Democrat. And the Democrats, when it comes to election law, those five stick together. Much like the three Democrats and John Roberts on the US Supreme Court. So, what did the Democrats do? They said, well you know what, we have a good idea, a few months before the election, they said, yes, no signatures required, you don't need signature comparisons, you don't need a postal date, and if the postal date is smudged, you are to count it anyway, oh and yes, even though election day ends on Tuesday at 8pm ET, we are going to extend it to 5pm ET on Friday. They had no legal or constitutional basis for doing any of that. So they violated Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the United States Constitution which leaves the power to the state legislature to make the election laws. Now let's circle back, stay with me here, the reason why reporters don't cover this is either they are left-wing, or they're too stupid to follow this. The moment the state legislature in October 2019 passed the change to its election laws with mail-in voting as the base, they violated the state constitution of Pennsylvania. Now, why is that? Under the constitution of Pennsylvania, if there are to be any election law changes, you have to amend the constitution. Did they amend the constitution? No. What's required to amend the constitution of Pennsylvania? It's very complicated. There needs to be a majority vote of both houses of the state legislature, not once, but twice. Then there needs to be a respite. Then there needs to be ads in at least two papers in every county in Pennsylvania, all 67 counties, then there needs to be a respite. Then, finally, the citizenry of Pennsylvania get to vote on whether or not they want the amendment, it has to be on the ballot. Did that happen? No, it didn't happen. The citizenry of Pennsylvania, we talk about disenfranchisement, they weren't asked to vote on this change in election laws for mail-in ballots let alone all these other changes that the supreme court made, they weren't asked at all, they were utterly disenfranchised. So the state legislature in October 2019 acted unconstitutionally. The governor, by signing it, acted unconstitutionally. The state supreme court by changing even the unconstitutional law acted unconstitutionally, plus violated Article II. This matter has now been appealed to the United States Supreme Court. You have some courageous individuals in Pennsylvania including Congressman Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, who ran for the house in Pennsylvania and six other petitioners that said, wait a minute, this whole thing is a disaster. We're going to sue that this whole thing is unconstitutional. So they sue, it goes to the commonwealth judge, appellate judge, and she's very courageous, and she rules, yes, I'm going to put in place a temporary injunction, the Pennsylvania governor, Secretary of State, both Democrats, stop certifying electors, we're going to have a hearing in my court on Friday, two days later, and I'm putting in a temporary injunction because the petitioners are likely to succeed and win on the merits. Wow! The Attorney General who is also a left-wing Democrat, who was also on the ballot at the time, he said, no, no, we want to subvert the appellate court, get around the appellate court, just like we got around the constitution in the first place, and go to our five friends on the supreme court of Pennsylvania, they'll take up our case. So, rather than prepare for the hearing on Friday, the Attorney General runs to the supreme court of Pennsylvania, and what does that court do? Within 48 hours, over the weekend, the weekend before this one, they rule, you know what? Laches, you're here too late, so we're going to throw your case out, throw it out with prejudice, meaning, you can't bring it up again, and don't you dare knock on our door again. Done. Laches, what does laches mean? Basically, in plain English it means, you're too late, you had a time to come before, but you came too late, why did you come after the election, because you lost? You should have come before the election. The problem is, the word, standing. And Pennsylvania has a very strict standing requirement, which is sometimes honored and sometimes not. If the Congressman and candidate brought this suit before the election, what do you think the five Democrats on that court would have said, Mr. Producer? You have no standing, you haven't been hurt yet, there hasn't been an election. So, in other words, you have no due process whatsoever when it comes to the State of Pennsylvania and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. To appeal to the US Supreme Court, you need what's called a federal question. And there's not only a federal question here, there's a super-duper federal question if there ever was a federal question. Why does all this matter, well of course you're electing delegates and state senators, you're electing congressmen and so forth--the Electoral College is a federal creation. The entire Electoral College process depends on the integrity of the states. And so if you have a state that sends its electors to the electoral college, that is, the governor signs a certificate of ascertainment, it goes to the archivist of the United States, he collects all the electoral college votes, sends it to the joint session of the new congress that meets on January 6th by statute. They have all these electors, and wait, there's Pennsylvania, well, Pennsylvania's electors are tainted, because they're presented to the United State Congress which will then select the President and Vice President of the United States after they count them, they are presented to the United States Congress, but it could be argued that they're illegitimate, because the state legislature didn't follow the state's own constitution. Now you might say, but under Article II, the state legislature can do whatever it wants! No, it can't do whatever it wants, what if the state legislature passed a law that said, only Democrat electors can ever go to the Electoral College, that would be ridiculous. The framers and certainly the ratifiers in the state conventions assumed that the states would follow their constitutions. When you have plenary power, general power, that's not lawless power to do whatever you want, it's to do what's legal within the confines of the law and the state constitution. So, there's a huge federal question here. And then finally, some people are saying, well, what do you expect the United States Supreme Court to do? To rule that these 2.6 million people or so who voted with mail-in ballots, that their votes don't count? First of all, we're a nation of laws, what was fraud 14 months ago, shouldn't be legitimate today, especially when the state violates its own constitution, and those public officials in Pennsylvania violate their oath to that constitution. But putting that aside, no it's not the job of the United States Supreme Court, the job of the United States Supreme Court is to address the federal issue. And what the court should do, if Mark were a justice, is the following. It should take the case up because there's clearly a federal issue, it's gonna wind up in the Congress. It should rule that what the state of Pennsylvania did violates the federal constitution on a number of grounds, and is in fact unconstitutional. So, what's the remedy? The Supreme Court doesn't have to fashion a remedy, it could leave it to the political bodies as Article II leaves it to the state legislature or in the end, can leave it to Congress. But Congress needs to know that those electors it received, it received in violation of not only the Pennsylvania state constitution but that those electors are tainted under the federal constitution because of what the state did under the state constitution. In criminal law, we have the fruit of the poisonous tree, I'm not making a direct parallel, every step that's taken past the initial step where the law has been violated in criminal law, it doesn't matter, all the rest of it, even until the end, is poison. Well, that's really the same thing here. And so I ask you, when the Department of Justice says, "We see no evidence of systemic fraud," isn't that kind of irrelevant? What we see here is fraud perpetrated against the people of Pennsylvania, against the American people, and the Electoral College process by politicians who violated the constitution repeatedly, who violated the rule of law by a rogue state supreme court, and unless the US Supreme Court, as it did in Bush v. Gore, exercises legitimately its power of judicial review, we have a potential constitutional crisis in this matter, and one way or another, Congress will have to resolve it on January 6th. But the US Supreme Court shouldn't just sit there and take a pass. When in fact, it is time for the US Supreme Court to intercede, which is exactly what the petitioners are asking it to do.