Speaker Calls for Federal Takeover of “Crooked” Elections (Full Transcript)

In a Q&A, Speaker 2 argues some states botch or corrupt elections and says the federal government should intervene despite constitutional state control.

Download Transcript (DOCX)

Speakers

Add new speaker

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Thank you for taking our questions. What exactly did you mean when you said that you should nationalize elections? And which 15 states are you talking about?

[00:00:07] Speaker 2: I want to see elections be honest. And if a state can't run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it. Because if you think about it, a state is an agent for the federal government in elections. I don't know why the federal government doesn't do them anyway. But when you see some of these states about how horribly they run their elections, what a disgrace it is, I think the federal government, when you see crooked elections, and we had plenty of them. And by the way, we had them last time. But go to 2020. Look at the facts that are coming out. Rigged, crooked elections. If we have areas, take a look at Detroit. Take a look at Pennsylvania. Take a look at Philadelphia. You go take a look at Atlanta. Look at some of the places that are horrible corruption on elections. And the federal government should not allow that. The federal government should get involved. These are agents of the federal government to count the votes. If they can't count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over.

[00:01:05] Speaker 1: But the Constitution says it should be states that administer elections, Mr. President. That's what the Constitution says. You know what?

[00:01:10] Speaker 2: They can administer the election, but they have to do it honestly.

Summary

In a Q&A exchange, Speaker 2 argues for greater federal involvement in elections, claiming some states run elections poorly or dishonestly. They assert that states act as agents of the federal government in counting votes and that when elections are “crooked,” the federal government should intervene or take over administration to ensure legality and honesty. Speaker 1 notes that the Constitution assigns election administration to states, to which Speaker 2 responds that states may administer elections only if they do so honestly.

Copy

Download

Title

Debate Over Federal vs. State Control of Elections

Copy

Download

Keywords

nationalize elections Remove

Remove

federal oversight Remove

Remove

state election administration Remove

Remove

election integrity Remove

Remove

2020 election claims Remove

Remove

Detroit

Remove

Pennsylvania Remove

Remove

Philadelphia Remove

Remove

Atlanta

Remove

Constitution Remove

Remove

Copy

Download

Key Takeaways

Speaker 2 calls for federal intervention when states allegedly fail to run honest elections.
They characterize states as agents for the federal government in federal elections.
Specific locales are cited as examples of alleged election corruption (e.g., Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta).
Speaker 1 raises a constitutional point about state responsibility for administering elections.
Speaker 2 maintains states can administer elections but must do so honestly, implying takeover if they do not.

Copy

Download

Sentiments

Negative: The tone is accusatory and distrustful, emphasizing claims of “rigged” and “crooked” elections and alleging corruption in specific jurisdictions.

Copy

Download

Enter your query

{{ secondsToHumanTime(time) }}

Back

Forward

{{ Math.round(speed * 100) / 100 }}x

{{ secondsToHumanTime(duration) }}

Select Audio file