so here's science, a great pile of evidence, of not just any evidence but very detailed, evidence. >> okay, i have a few minute , it's just as well because i promised not just the question of what science relations what the evidence is also the question of why does this relate, why was it that aristotle saw the importance of forming observations with biology, and everything else you wrote about. why was he not a modern scientist? >> the answer is although empirical evidence, he didn't think that was it was only empirical evidence. people philosophy to what extremely important. so skip forward to writing 2000 years later, as you know was a philosopher, not a scientist even though he wrote extensively about physics. why is he not a scientist? cause he believed empirica evidence is not the only thing that counts andfiguring out the truth . that in his great philosophical system he had knowlee ultimately depending on the knowledge of , he's a great rationalist but people met the evidence, his theology and his philosophy and his physics into one beautifully wrapped up package but it's too

the most important rule is this wool, the evidence rule, that evidence would be critical. only empirical evidence, it is at the absolute core, the kernel of science. insofar as there is such a thing as a scienfic method, it lays down a test that tells u what empirical evidence, the ccessful argument conducted on the empirical test. it prohibits a philosophical argument, arguments -- iill say a little bit more about this. it will like that is wide open, not as limiting as the paradigms. and a lot of disagreement. it doesn't tell scientists how to interpret the evidence they produce, they disagree a lot but it doecreate access. everyone agrees, all the scientists agree every argument they have is resolved by conducting, making some observation and they agree about what is irrelevant. this is a kind of consensus on how to go on. the reason this rule is so important even though it doesn't say much is it has these functions. it binds scientists together because they agree how to go forward. second it pits them against one another arguing their series against rival theories or s

i said that evidence would be critical, only impurecal evidence counts. that's at the absolute core science. what is that? it lays down or an empirical test and it tells you what empicircal is. so it prohibits any other kind of argument in particular prohibits, for example, philosophical arguments but i will say a little more about this later. okay. now those, a rule like that is actually very wide open. it's not nearly as limited as one of coons par time and allows for disagreement. it doesn't tell scientists how to interpret the evidence they produce and, in fact, they disagree a lot in how to interpret the evidence but it does create a certain kind of consensus, everyone agrees, all the scientists agree that every argument they have is to be resolved by conducting some experiment, some motivation and they agree which kinds of experiment observations are relevant. they have this kind of consensus on what counts to move the game and how to go on. the reason the rule is so important even they it doesn't say much, is that it has these functions. first of a

it's the evidence rule. it says that evidence will be critical and only empirical evidence counts. the absolute kernel of science. so in so far there is such a thing as a scientific method, what counts as an empirical standard or proposing what empirical evidence is and it says all scientific arguments must be conducted in terms of the results ofempirical tests so it prohibits any other kind of arment . in particular it prohibs for example philosophical arguments, arguments based on dubious theories, i'll say a bit more aboutthis . those like that is actually a very wide open, it's not the only paradigm. it allowfor a lot of disagreement. it doesn't tell scientists how to interpret t evidence they produce, and in fact they disagree a lot on how to interpret the evidence. but it does create a certain kind of access, everyone agrees, all scientists agree that every argument they have is to be resolved by conducting some experiments or making some correlation and they agree which claims of experiments. so this means they have kind of consensus on what counts as moves in the game and h

what evidence? because i didn't hear because we don't have the evidence of a winner or loser, get ok. they show we have the advantage of a winner. we don't have evidence of this fraud. we have no evidence being put forward. we have no witnesses talking to cameras. we have no, we have, we have just, you feel like a should have known or louisiana and doesn't have the right. doesn't have any legal right to call an election. ok jenny, how do you see the meet because of this? just gaslighting people there making the situation worse. well, you know this laura says, you know, if you have the math, then you don't need to investigate that brought this is, i think that's not what it was. i said you had to have evidence. i did not say i said we had to match don't conflate, those are 2 separate things and you don't have it. if you have the map to follow up on the set. no, i didn't buy it. that's not your problem here in this exact problem. if the democrats did in fact stuff, the ballot box as they appear to do,

all we have with this is no hard evidence. there is tons of evidence for so much evidence. you're going to be blown up.

evidence. there's something about looking out into the world gathering evidence that makes science very powerful. you might summarize it like this. we give a theory only if it agrees with what we see out there in the world and give credit if it agrees with what we see out there. but i think the story about evidence can't be the entire explanion. and here's why. these words were first written by aristotle greek philosopher, writing about 2,000 years ago and also thought it was very important they should agree with the fact. but he didn't invt a science. for all of those marvelous discovies and technologies we had to wait another two millennia. so, sothing is going on in modern science and certainly looking at the evidence that wasn't around in aristotle's time, and that the that is what motivated me to pose these questions. one is a more specific question about the success of science. what is it modern science is doing with the evidence that makes it more successful than the ancient greek philos

they have evidence. they have no responsibility to share with the needy at that your threat against them or any state certified any election. but they will be if you can see this in court, and again, remember that december 12th date and bush versus gore. well, yesterday the night where a lot of wait until that date. so let me added speed and let the court trials begin . and i think we're, has he had nightmares that have been built up yet in the darkest nights and a lot of americans don't appreciate their being disenfranchised because for every voter they commit fraud and yes, challenge it. that's why i know while driving and yes, exhausted from the lack of damage and rudy giuliani, the only i don't know what i have to agree and i think giuliani leading the charge it's precarious at best. ok, rudy is, is good what he did, what he does, he's not ok and he's good at it. ok. and this is too important for the american people in my opinion. and i want to play and i'll be here not just when he says the more ter

i just said what's the evidence, they never came up with any evidence. and so i know you demand evidence of this net and right now you're not demanding evidence now and then your state, then there's a system and there are laws and jen, and, and people like are given the opportunity to go and peter, your colleagues are showing no i go by the law. i emotion. ok jeff? yeah, that that's a great point. like i don't respect the results of the election if the election was too late. duly process and here saying it's not about her feelings. i am actually slightly better for my business model to not have tried in office for the next 4 years. and i know it's just speaking as a political consultant celeb. this is not hers. this is about the american system in and sharing their checks and balances. work really just pointed out overnight that the boxer joe frazier, you know, who some years passed, was actually seen on a motorola daily ad boated as was will smith's grandmother? i mean these are just random examples and i just have to say are now they are. and so he's n

advantage of a winner we don't have evidence of this fraud we have no evidence being put forward we have no witnesses talking to cameras we have no we have we have just like a should have known or louisiana and doesn't have the right doesn't have any legal right to call an election ok jenny how do you see the meet because of this just gaslighting people there making the situation worse. well you know this laura says you know if you have the math then you don't need to investigate that brought this is i think that's not what i heard as i said you had to have evidence i did not say i said we had to match don't conflate those are 2 separate data and again you don't have it if you have the math you got me to follow up on the set no i didn't buy it that's not shout out here this exact problem if the democrats did in fact stuff the ballot box as they appear to do you are saying that you know it out yet rudy giuliani there were not i had an early night out here in the dark and i'm filled up yes i'm sorry i was really doing under there and there are so there were actually a 169000 ballots t

we need to take evidence.s election can't be determined based on hypothetical s or possibilities or potentials. it has to be decided based on what actually happened and for that you need a trial. not in front of a jury. this is not for damages. it's for injunctive relief so in front of a judge but the evidence has to be put before a judge. so far the judges have been very skeptical because they haven't seen the evidence and it's time for the trump team to put up, they have to come up with the evidence. maybe they won't show it to the media but let them go to court before friday. there's no reason why they can't put the evidence in monday, tuesday, wednesday, let the public see it, let the court see it, let's decide whether there was merely a potential for abuse or real abuse. the american public is entitled to know that and to resolve this election once and for all. maria: absolutely, we all want clarity and we all want to see this evidence. alan before you go i've got to ask you about these recrimi nations ag

be of evidence you're absolutely. sure. your rhetoric has no factual basis behind it typical for a state democratic. i'm not under current law to be on the right. i'll i don't care what you are you're a booster of the democratic party i'm not you'll say i'm going to hold on and i don't like to interject something that may bring some sanity back back to this here may i go ahead but hold on a minute i just want to put a point in michael michael for a few seconds ok the numbers it's hard to see the mounting up biden has around 5000000 more votes than trump roughly can you credibly say there were 5000000 fraudulent votes cast i would estimate there are 2500000 brought you up well it's into the states that will overthrow the election and the various swing states in which they happen there are adelson that they need. are those the states where. where the difference are those are the this is the network or are we also going to i'm going to count to you hold on guys ok i thought those are the things you have been with her where it

is there any evidence that the election is being stolen from him. all right we saw him talk for about 5 minutes there and say has lots of evidence but did not give any of it which begs the question what is he talking about and he has not gone into any instance he's in his tweets many of which have been censored by twitter for lack of evidence he says just read the media the evidence is there well i've been following right wing media here fox news has been talking about evidence about corruption but again not many examples coming through what i have seen is the example in atlanta of poll watchers being turned away republican poll watchers of course they were there to protest the counting of votes and in fact they were turned away because there was already over 100 poll watchers from both sides in that polling place and they were turned away because there were too many so that is one instance that they've pointed to without saying that in fact there were republicans in that room another one which was reported by the new york times or was that the post

we have evidence that shows it.thand testimony of witnesses who saw it happen, know how it was developed, know why it was developed and saw it work to achieve its purposes and many others and we have irrefuteable statistical and mathematical evidence. maria: sidney, what do you make of the eric kumer who has been written about in the press? he's the current vice president of u.s. engineering at dominion voting systems, apparently he admitted on social media to rigging voting machines in order to prevent president trump from winning re-election. he's an activeist, he's been active on social media. apparently he said to someone who was overheard don't worry about the election, trump's not going to win. i made blank, blank, sure of it. what was eric kumer and what do you know about this individual? >> well, he holds several patents on some of the things they use in the voting machines. so he knows exactly how it works. he knows you how to use it. and we have information about him being in other countries for rigged ele

so much evidence that he was, there's no evidence or times of evidence denying the result of the vote count. turning a deaf ear to state election leaders from both parties and ignoring court rulings and judges and very swing states. and they march, they insist the election was rigged, and that this fight isn't over yet. so i'm going to start chopping is the one for us. it's like fake news is complete, all of it is like file real news and you'll be able to find out the truth. president donald trump and his lawyers have not presented evidence of voter fraud in their numerous lawsuits. still, his supporters take him at his word. they believe he was victorious, and his win snatched away by the democrats. hope is that true? i think that's why we're all going to stop the city. president elect joe biden and vice president elect kamel harris 12020 presidential election by taking back the traditional democratic strongholds of michigan, wisconsin, and pennsylvania. and by winning 3 states, a usually vote for republicans me. but truck isn't admitting defeat, in fact, on his way to another round

trial evidence takes time. this is basically an opening statements of the american people can understand what the networks have been hiding and what they refused to cover, because all your fake news headlines are dancing around the merits of this case and are trying to delegitimize what we are doing here. let me be clear that our objective is to preserve and protect election integrity. president trump has been saying from day one that this is about maintaining free and fair elections in this country, not about overturning an outcome. it is about making sure election integrity is preserved in every american should want that. if every american is not on board with that, you have to ask yourself why, and if your fake news network is not covering this or allowing you to cover it fairly and accurately, you should ask yourself why. this is absolutely a legitimate legal basis. we have been asked to provide an entire case that generally would take years in civil litigation. i have tried cases with far simpler facts. on

if there's no crime scene evidence, or case evidence, then there's nothing to d.n.a. test. and if there's no d.n.a. to test, it's extremely hard to prove that your client is innocent. that's when they are you hearing in rene's piece, it was a very bloody crime scene. the murder weapon was never found, but there was a purse that had a bloody fingerprint in it, and there was a drawer in the bedroom with a bloody fingerprint on it. they d.n.a. tested some things, but not those. and the only d.n.a. found at the crime scene was the victim's from denver. you know, the, i think out of 41 pieces of evidence, they tested 7 for d.n.a. . and so, you know, they're in trouble right at trial because you can't get convicted on your own confession alone. so they go and they try to round up, jailhouse snitches, but only one worked so it was her confession, and a jailhouse snitch, which is so common in false confession cases and you have the confession and then the extra evidence because there's no physical evidence corroboration to the confession is snitch you know, because i have no partic

evidence that there is voterfraud and i think it plenty of evidence that there is voter fraud and iover the next few days and weeks. first of all, dr carol swain, multiple investigations into widespread voterfraud multiple investigations into widespread voter fraud allegations have not shown at the evidence that it exists... that is not true. well, it exists... that is not true. well, it is true, and in terms of the rejection you're talking about the one that donald trump was most upset about is fox news projecting things forjoe biden and that is fox news, something that is deeply entwined with the presidency. not any more. is. there are some commentators who are and we know which ones they are, but we have people arrested just doing this... just during this election cycle that were engaged in election cycle that were engaged in election fraud and we have seen the things taking place in pennsylvania. i think this election is going to be decided in the courts because there is enough evidence of... and reports of things that are taking place in some of those states that have to be inv

the amistad project put out mathematical evidence, other evidence showing that there could be as manyat were fraudulent or um properly counted, improperly filed. that's the sort of mathematical evidence i think the courts have been looking for. now they'll have to adjudicate do we believe it, is it strong enough for a court to intervene in the election. but that's, i think, the challenge for the legal team the, they've got to show a scope of conduct, a scope of fraud that would have overthe taken the -- overtaken the lead had these things not occurred. lou: and that evidence statistically, mathematically, however you wish to express it, falls on the same line as any other circumstantial evidence of only with considerably more power given, given the bent, if you will, for science these days and math mathematics one would . >> sure. lou: i don't hear a lot of people on the left paying attention to these minuscule possibilities that this vote could have been cowered out in a half dozen -- carried out in a half dozen states the way that vote unfolded. >> listen, there are the theoretical

if i had any evidence, the and concrete evidence that there is a criminal act here, i would be very loud about it and would definitely be stating that. unfortunately, the evidence we have does not point to anything in particular. as far as this is what happened to him at 1st, the coroner withholds the results out of respect for the mourning family, but in her mailbox. she also found warnings. it felt vaguely threatening and that i was being disloyal to the president. and that i shouldn't disagree with the president, especially in such a public way efforts to get to the bottom of the one beer case have resulted in countless files and articles. much of the information is contradictory, establishing the truth would also pose a challenge to the federal court in washington, where the warm beers file a lawsuit against north korea. with the help of unfriendly experts and lawyers, pyongyang does not contest of the case and the trial takes place with the plaintiffs only and strangely enough, without flicker and the coroner appearing as witnesses. one expert witness urges the judge to hand down a

gee, there's no evidence. next time you say that, you'll be lying, because there is evidence. by the way, this is public. you can all get it. it's attached to the complaint in constantino versus the city of detroit. then she was instructed by my supervisor not to ask for a driver's license or any photo id when a person was trying to vote, don't ask for identification. why would you not ask for identification? because you knew that a lot of people not entitled to vote are going to come in and early vote. because you knewillegal immigrants would be allowed to vote, or an italian expression, unless you're stupid. unless you're stupid you know a lot of people from camden came over. it happens all the time. it's about as frequent as getting beaten up at philadelphia eagles football game. happens all the time. all the time. it is allowed to happen because it is a democrat, corrupt city and has been for years, many, many years. they carried it out in places they could get away with it. they didn't carry it out in neutral places. they didn't carry it out in republican places. they did

that evidence.oday trump friends and close advisor christie christie made the he's not impressed with his friends legal team or listen. >> the alleged fraud outside the courtroom but when they go inside the courtroom they don't plead fraud and they don't argue fraud. this is where i was concerned about at 2:30 a.m. on wednesday nights. i've been a supporter of the president and i voted for him twice. elections have consequences. we cannot continue to act as if something happened here that didn't happen. you have an obligation to present the evidence and the evidence has not been presented. reporter: someone who's been oddly silent at least publicly and on camera is attorney general bill barr. i'm at the justice department right now and he put out a memorable several weeks ago to u.s. attorneys, arthel and neville, telling them to invest eight if any evidence comes up and if there is any investigation that is warranted but largely no real movement from the attorney general on these cases. arthel. art

putting on evidence takes time. this is basically an opening statement so the american people can understand what the networks have been hiding. and what they refuse to cover because all of your fake news headlines are dancing around the merits of this case and are trying to delegitimize what we are doing here. let me be very clear that our objective is to make sure to preserve and protect election integrity. president trump has been saying from day one that this is about maintaining free and fair elections in this country. it is not about overturning an outcome. it is about making sure that election integrity is preserved and every american should want that. if every american is not on board with that you have to ask yourself why and if your fake news network is not covering this or allowing you to cover it fairly and accurately you should ask yourself why. this is absolutely a legitimate, legal basis. we have been asked to provide an entire case that generally would take years in civil litigation. i have been a pr

if we have not seen the hard evidence. he claims that his campaign is going forward with these legal lawsuits and they are going to produce it, but those spreads are getting much more narrow and possibly will change as time goes on. >> and again, all joe biden has to do is turn one of those states blue. it nevada, arizona, georgia, north carolina, pennsylvania, ad he gets to 270. and so when he gets to 270, clearly i would think the biden campaign -- now, joe biden said let's wait for it so maybe he will wait for the vote to be complete and all of the states, but the question i wanted to ask the president was let's say over the course of the next 72 hours the vote goes your way and you end up with 270, will you claim victory? the president clearly didn't take any questions, but i don't know if joe biden, if he wins one more state will come out and say that's it, i'm the winner, we are going to start building a transition team, which i'm sure that he's already doing as well because that would be the prudent thing to do beca

so none of the trial if he was to use the word evidence evidence evidence. we are in a crisis we need the art and science of make it one - - medicine that using the sequence multi- drug approach it doesn't prevent hospitalization. >> one is the workforce issue to say hospitals are not overwhelmed based on the uptick of the surge of kate's is but they don't have the workforce which again speaks to if we focused on early treatment you can have a more ready workforce but a of nurses and doctors to stay home because schools are closing they have to take care of their kids from my standpoint we have not done a very good job of addressing this in a logical way. we are missing the key ingredient to solving this crisis which is only effective treatment. so what have the studies because we scare them away from participating in the trials in the us to do a study and the difference between the random control trial. >> mtees hydroxychloroquine very effectively. those that cherry picked themselves and all those who are not doing well didn't report and did notell me so i

evidence -- evidence was located at the arson and officer-involved shooting scenes. evidence recovered included the suspect's knife, frying pan and screwdriver. five bullet casings and 11 less lethal projectiles were also recovered from the scene. video -- video was recovered from multiple sources, including the following -- body worn cameras and privately owned surveillance cameras, smartphones and muni video. additional video is being sought by investigators. witneswitnesses -- witnesses ofh the arson involved shooting have been identified. additional witnesses are sought by investigators. the suspect -- the suspect has been identified as antonio estrada, date of birth may 28,1994. mr. estrada was arrested for the following violations -- 245 [c] with the california penal code assault with a deadly weapon. and the california penal code, exhibition of a deadly weapon. 148 [a] [1] of the penal code, resisting or obstructing a peace officer. 451 [b] of arson of a structure. and lastly, 453, [a] of the california penal code, possession of a flammable substance with inte

you've got to have the evidence there.hear why you're saying what you're saying. not just what you're saying. but why you're saying it. and depending upon who it is, if you're not a supporter of the president's, you're going to be upset about it but just blow it off because you don't like him anyway. if you're a supporter and it's true, you're going to be angry about it. if it's not true, you should be even angrier. so it just puts it in a bad situation. as i said, we shouldn't have inflammation without information. >> to that point, who will make the governor's argument to the president, and who in the republican party will say, hold up, if anyone? >> i think there's a process that has to go on here. first of all, you know, if the president wins arizona and the vote narrows and he overtakes it, it gets a whole lot more complicated. then the stakes get higher about pennsylvania. if, in fact, the president doesn't overtake biden, then there's -- then there becomes no path, or georgia is certified for biden, there's no path.

that i think we can prove by circumstantial evidence and a little bit of direct evidence.s was a nationwide plan by the democrats to catch up, so you don't keep people -- maria: are you -- >> go ahead. maria: are you being flat-footed. did you get flat-footed? we were talking about the potential for cheating. even i said look, it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt after we know what happened in 2016 with the coup. i mean, going into this, so you how come the observers weren't in place. were youla flat-footed after the election? >> no. why do you think we know about it? because the observers were in placee and they were pushed out of place. the first lawsuit was brought on the day of the election. we couldn't have brought it any earlier. the first lawsuit in e philadelphia was brought on te day of the w election. the day after telex while they n,were counting, the court allod us to be six feet closer and they moved six feet away. maria: you're saying you've got 10 lawsuits. you've got 10 lawsuits coming out this upcoming week. >> right now we have one. we have two

but you can't say there is no evidence. this is what we call evidence. this is direct evidence. not circumstantial evidence. i tried many cases as did all of my colleagues here. you put a witness on the witness stand, the witnesses testifying to their own knowledge. this witness goes on the witness stand and she will say i was told to adjust the date on the absentee ballots. i witnessed election workers and employees going over to the voting booths with voters in order to watch them vote and coach them for whom to vote. completely illl. she will testify to that. you can cross-examine her but you can't say there was no evidence. next time you say that you will be lying because there is evidence. by the way, this is public. you can all get it. it's attached to a complaint in costantino versus the city of detroit. then she was instructed "by my supervisor not to ask for a driver's license or photo i.d. when a person was trying to vote." don't ask for identification. why would you not ask for identification? because you knew a lot of people not entitled to vote were going to come in

there's no evidence.if judges prevent the trump campaign from going forward in, for example, involve the dominion voting is m, they're never gong to gather the quote un, quote, evidence that's necessary in a trial. in a court proceeding. seeking some remedy or relief because you don't go to court with boxes and boxes full of evidence sometimes you can. but you're not required to and so all of this talk from republican senators who have no idea what they're talking about, mitt romney, ben sasse who was just elected, so he's not all work up about anything. adam it's over already and so forth maybe it is maybe it isn't. but why won't they embrace our legal ?m why won't they embrace our constitutional system and encourage the courts to go ahead efficiently to act on these cases so we can get to the bottom of it. there's reason to be concerned, ladies and gentlemen. there's different kinds of cases the trump campaign is bringing. number one, of the sort i just said they want to test this machine system either

do you have evidence of that? >> i have video evidence i posted on my twitter account. have photographic evidence i posted on my twitter account. there is no question theyer at dekalb county elections office with a shredding truck. we have video evidence they were shredding documents and putting them in bins and trying to drive off. judge jeanine: it seems, lin, your argument is similar to the argument made in pennsylvania, but apparently with no positive ru9, and that is article one section 4 of the constitution doesn't allow anyone but the legislators to amended anything as it relates to election law. is that the issue you are taking up on appeal? >> if the judge follows through on his comments and dismisses that count of my complaint. we'll file an emergency appeal in the 11th circuit. the law gives me standing as a voter to file the lawsuit. you are right, the supreme court authority that only the legislator can change the rules regarding a federal election. the secretary of state acted unlawfully. he has been caught. we just have to get this in front of the right c

there's some much evidence you're going to be blown away. that would be evidence. you're absolutely wrong. all we have is the, are these eye witnesses but no hard evidence. donald trump has every single right to challenge any outcome that he wants you. he can call for recounts in any state that he wants to. but if he doesn't have evidence, the judicial process is going to take place and he's going to lose. so this is just another continuation of a presidency that's been rife with fantastical lies. and really making a mockery of the american democratic system in an effort to try to hold on to power . that is simply not his anymore. the american people have rejected. donald trump as president of the united states. donald trump legal challenges are very different from the litigation that followed elections in 2000. so says the lawyer of the then when a george w. bush is the guest on the latest edition of going on the ground in 2000, they vote recount in the key state of florida ended with 5 to most u.s. weeks of back to back legal fights that went all the way to the u

fraud,he question of when we first started to see what the evidence was, people said you don't have evidence for fraud. or irregularity. we have been putting these examples out on twitter. we've been taking them public. were definitely on the outside looking in. but i think we have to ask ourselves as a democracy, how many illegal ballots are enough illegal ballots for us to say that we have to do much better? and if we are going to water down the ballots of legal voters, don't we understand that we are violating one of the most important civil rights we have as americans? >> do believe if your efforts are successful, president trump wins nevada? >> we are going to continue to pursue all of these irregularities and were going to fight if we have any legal avenue to bring these abnormalities to the courts. to your specific question, have we produced enough illegal voters to overturn the election? that, of course, is an absurd question. let's first start covering the if there are illegal only have access to so much information. i encourage you all to start asking these questions alongside us.

evidence, evidence. listen, we're in a crisis. we need both the art and the science of medicine. what these doctors are telling you and the what the real world evidence is telling you is that patients using this multi-drug approach at home is the only schans to reduce authorization. remdesivir doesn't prevent hospitalization because you have to be in the hospital to get it. >> one thing i disagree with, dr. jha, the workforce issues. the hospitals currently aren't overwhelmed but they may based on the uptick, the surge in cases, but the biggest problem they have in hospitals is they don't have the workforce. which, again, speaks to, had we really put our -- and focused on early treatment, prophylaxis, you might have a more ready workforce, you've got nurses and doctors who have to stay home, schools are closing, take care of their kids, we have not, from my standpoint, done a very good job of really addressing this in a logical way. you know, just talking -- it's got to be testing and now vaccine. we are

there's tons of evidence that there's so much evidence you're going to be blown away by also this hour several arrests are made in the armenian capital, where people gather for an anti-government protest, and they're unhappy about the terms of the new troops signed by armenia and azerbaijan. a very warm welcome from all of us here at r t h q in moscow. thanks for joining us for a global news update this hour. we start with the ongoing fallout of the u.s. presidential election in the u.s. . the knives are out for donald trump, supporters media personalities have called for them to be named shamed and sacked. some even calling for the destruction of the republican party. if the past to lose all his enablers, have to lose. they have to. we have to collectively, in essence, burn down the republican party. we have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weathered this storm, they will do it again. threats like these aren't only being heard from rank and file liberals. some of the loudest voices are saying, if you don't get with the liberal program, good luck fi

i want to see the evidence for it i want to see all the evidence but to have enough evidence not just that or the other but let me slain how civil litigation works. this is in criminal litigation. the trumpet campaign does not have a grand jury and they don't have the fbi investigators and they don't have subpoena power. they are bringing civil suits. now, let me explain this. to file a civil complaint you need a reasonable basis and in fact and law. allegations can be made on information and belief. the motion to dismiss test the legal sufficiency of the complaint assuming everything in the complaint as true does it state a claim upon which relief can be granted. for a motion to be dismissed everything is assumed to be true and all reasonable inferences are granted to the plaintiff and if the judge still does not think that there could possibly be a case, even down the road after discovery, he or she will dismiss the case for it one of the things that troubles me greatly is the number of cases that the term campaign have brought have been dismissed and in my view we should have been

if he was to use the word evidence, evidence, evidence. we are in a crisis. we need the art and science of medicine. patients using the sequence multidrug approach at home is the only chance to reduce hospitalization. remdesivir does not prevent hospitalization because you have to be in the hospital to get it. >> one thing i completely agree with dr. jha on is the workforce issue. our hospitals are not currently overwhelmed, but they may. the biggest problem is they don't have the workforce. to, had we, speaks really focused on early treatment and prophylaxis, you might have a more ready workforce. but you have nurses and doctors staying home because schools are closing. they have to take care of their kids. from my standpoint, we have not done a very good job of addressing this in a logical way. we are missing, to me, the key ingredient to solving this crisis, which is early effective treatment. we should be pouring billions of dollars. but because of the scare tactics with hydroxychloroquine -- we scared people away from participating in the trials in the u

anecdotal evidence -- there is anecdotal evidence of voter irregularities that deserve investigation, scrutiny by reporters and by state officials. but these examples of voter irregularities and claims and allegations don't automatically become a front-page story just because someone says it should be a front-page story. we are looking at the integrity of the elections. we are also talking to election officials and experts to understand as the people who monitor elections, what are they seeing. what are they hearing. what do they believe is the truth. as ben bradlee would often say and carl bernstein decades ago with the washington post, the job of a reporter is to get the best version of the truth. as close to the truth as possible. the pursuit of the truth often means you hear about anecdotal evidence of voter issues, but then you talk to election officials and they tell you those examples are anecdotal and the election has integrity. you have to reflect that in the reporting. host: robert costa, president trump this morning continuing to tweet about the election results, saying thi

this is the time for hard evidence.his press conference was long on heated rhetoric and short on hard evidence. jillian: the director of press communications for the trump campaign will join us to answer more questions. today vice president mike pence going on the campaign trail headed to georgia to rally support for incumbent senators david purdue and kelly leffler in the state's runoff election. it will determine if the gop keeps its senate majority. senator lindsey graham is urging voters to make their voices heard. >> let's when the senate seats, hold onto the senate, let's tell senator schumer, you're not going to run the place by keeping the two georgia senate seats republican. >> purdue and leffler are being challenged by john ossoff and rafael warknock. we will discuss the runoff race. president-elect joe biden says he will not pursue a national shutdown but is not ruling out a nationwide mask mandate. ashley strohmeyer has more on the latest push to get the pandemic under control. >> reporter: joe biden has tal