hear it, but he was referring to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as "Joe and Ho." Now, he didn't make that up. You've seen that going around the internet. Here is my advice to Republicans slash conservatives: that line of attack on Harris just doesn't work. So if the only thing you're trying to accomplish is to make Republicans and conservatives less popular and to get them fewer votes, then that's the way to go. Because the personal sexual past of anybody, we just can't make that part of politics. It just can't be. If she broke some laws, okay. But otherwise, since that didn't happen, it's just counterproductive. It's just counterproductive. It doesn't do anything. So I would say don't do that.

All right. So here is the Democrats' plan for retaining power or getting power, I guess, back from Trump. They have three ways to win. Three different ways to win. Number one: fair and square. Let's say Biden and Harris just get more votes. That's one way to win. Number two: rig the election with mail-in votes and fraud and all that. Could that work? Absolutely. Because you're only talking about some battleground states. How hard would it be to rig the votes with mail-in votes in battleground states? Easy. Easy, I would think. So they could win that way.

But they have a third plan, which is the dangerous one. And that's the one that goes like this: Phase one, make sure that the election will not be seen as credible no matter who wins. Now this is a big deal because we're better off with an inaccurate vote count that we mistakenly think is credible than we would be if we got exactly the right vote count, let's say with no errors whatsoever. Impossible, just say that. But we don't think it's credible. That would be the worst case, right?

So if you had a choice of a good vote count that we don't trust or an inaccurate vote count that for whatever reason we do trust, you want the one where we trust. Because otherwise the country is in trouble. And it looks like the Democrats are setting up a situation that guarantees the outcome will be in question. Wouldn't you say that that's obvious at this point? It's fairly obvious that the intention of the mail-in voting is to make sure that you can't tell who won. That is the intention.

You don't have to be a mind reader to know that if you could select from choices that have more integrity versus less in a national election, you would never choose the one with less integrity unless you wanted less integrity, right? You would only choose that option if that's what you wanted. Otherwise you'd say, all right, everybody's got the same risk. Go to the voting places and vote.

So once they get there, let's say Trump wins but narrowly. If Trump wins but narrowly, they're going to say that the vote was not valid. And they're going to start whatever legal and or extra-legal process to remove a president that they would then label as a dictator who refused to leave office. How do you know this is true? Because you can see the disinformation campaign very clearly there on CNN. You're going to see more and more of this. It's going to be "what happens if Trump refuses to leave after he loses?" Right? Every time they bring up that hypothetical, they're forming a truth that they can then just transfer into whatever happens.

So reality hasn't given us an outcome or election yet, but CNN is already forming the truth about it, which will then just be ported over to the actual situation. And so the truth that they're selling, the brainwashing if you will, the disinformation campaign... And by the way, if I had heard anybody talk the way I'm talking right now five years ago, I would have laughed and said, "You stupid conspiracy theorist. There's nobody trying to overthrow the government." But then we just watched it. We know for sure that the Democrats, the FBI, and the media did in fact try to overthrow the government. That's not even speculation at this point. It's proven, demonstrable fact.

So if they did it once, would they do it a second time? The reason to do it a second time is way bigger. There's way more incentive to do it a second time. Do you know why? Because we haven't yet jailed the people who did it the first time. If the, let's say, I won't name any names, but don't you think there's some extra people who have some trouble coming? Some people whose names, you know... I've got a feeling that the Durham probe and the election are racing right now. And if Durham can get certain people indicted and or in jail before the election, that might be one thing. But those same people who might be indicted and or go to jail are probably going to push pretty hard for the option of making sure that the election result is not credible if Trump wins. Because in order for some people to stay out of jail, they might have to rig the election and remove the legally elected president to stay out of jail. To stay out of jail. Would anybody rig an election to stay out of jail? Yeah, yeah. Especially if you rigged the last election or you tried to by having a coup and removing the presiden