re's another one. What about some kind of UV light that doesn't hurt humans but it's bad for viruses? Put in lots of public areas. And I think that's being worked on too. So it would be easy for me to imagine that this Operation Warp Speed, which caused all the vaccine making companies to work at super pace, they probably in the process of working as fast as they can, they probably invented all new processes. They probably figured out whole new ways to do things. So my guess is that our ability to create vaccines in the future is going to be way better. Probably because didn't you think that it was impossible to create a coronavirus vaccine? We heard that six months ago. Six months ago the top experts were saying nobody has ever made a coronavirus vaccine that works and now we have it. That's probably a big deal.

Have we come close to the point where we could pick off any virus and do what we just did? Because it looks like we're on the border of, I'm optimistic, of curing an incurable virus. What would that do to the world if we learn how to consistently cure incurable viruses? I don't know that this is the one incurable virus that we'll ever be able to get on top of. I've got a feeling we invented processes along the way that would allow us to maybe take on other viruses that we couldn't take on before. So that's the good news.

All right, here's a little update. Fact check. There's a lot of rumors going around and I like to clear up the rumors. And if you've fallen for any of the fake news, I like to clear it up. So here's a little fact check. The Dominion voting systems did not kill Epstein. So if you're seeing anything else, it's fake news, right? So the voting software did not kill Epstein. That's fake news.

The president retweeted me again, I guess last night, and I didn't realize it when I woke up this morning and I looked at one of my tweets and I thought, well I guess that was a pretty good tweet. Look at the retweets on that baby. Fifteen thousand retweets. Don't see that a lot, at least at my level. And I'm feeling pretty good about my tweeting ability until somebody else tweeted that the president had retweeted me and then I thought, oh well that would be a reason why there would be so many retweets.

Here is the tweet that the president retweeted. You may have seen those. I said the most corrupt institutions and individuals in America have declared that the election was free of fraud and that's good enough for me. What's wrong with the rest of you? So the president retweeted that.

Now the funny part about this is that he retweeted me. Was it earlier this week or was it last week? A few days ago he retweeted me and the thing that that creates is it paints a target on my back. If you get retweeted by the president you end up in a lot of articles where they'll show the retweet and they'll say crazy thing the president's thinking and crazy thing the president's doing and now he's being supported by other crazy people.

So apparently my Twitter followers have reached a level where if I tweet something, just the fact that I tweeted something can become national news, which is the damnedest thing. It just sort of happened in the last few months that that's especially true. So the president retweets me and if it's exactly like last week all these minor publications and other bloggers and stuff are going to start shooting me in the back because I'm just in the story. That's all it takes. You just have to be in the story and you're a target. So that'll start all up again.

Can we confirm yet, do you feel that this is fair for me to make this claim that my prediction that the world's greatest dad joke actually happened? Meaning that there were tons of people who were lying to pollsters intentionally and that that would be the big reason that the poll numbers were way off. So the existence of quote shy Trump supporters. I've seen it confirmed in two places, Breitbart and someplace else. Do you think that that's confirmed? Do you think that the news has accepted that the reason the polls were so off is because people intentionally were pranking them? Because they'd always say that, right? You know you've heard it from me but you don't hear the actual legitimate, if you can call them that, news business. You don't hear them saying the reason is people were pranking them. They don't say that.

But I feel like that is the reason because so many people said they were and then it turns out that the category that the pollsters most got wrong according to Breitbart is the thing they got wrong was they failed to detect Trump's support from quote educated whites who tell dad jokes. Who is it? You know who tells dad jokes? Educated white people. Now also uneducated white people and other people as well. It's not the only group that tells dad jokes but what is the biggest group in America that tells dad jokes? I'm not bragging about it. I'm just saying, you know, and I don't have science to back me up but don't you think, wouldn't you go with this gross stereotype that has educated older white guys that tell the dad jokes, right? Would you agree with that or not?

I'm not saying that there's no educated Black guy who ever told a dad joke. I'm just saying it's sort of concentrated in one demographic group. Now is it a coincidence that that's the same demographic group that was underpolled? What would be the other reason that pollsters can't find educated white people? What would be the other reason? Are you saying that educated white people don't have cell phones or phones? What would be the other reason? There's no other reason. Educated white people are probably pretty easy to reach. They have phones. They answer them. You know they have opinions.

So I feel as if that prediction was a hundred percent correct and one of my greatest predictions. But not like I was the only one who predicted it or anything like that but it was certainly one that lots of people doubted. There were lots of people on the other side saying I think those poll numbers are right but they were not. However it was all overshadowed by the temporary situation that it looks like Biden won. Emphasis on temporary. We'll talk about that.

CNN in one of their news stories on their site said, spoke about the claims of election fraud and they include this sentence: claims are all false. Now do you think CNN can report that as a fact that all of the election fraud claims are false? Does that sound like a fact to you? Now here's the thing. It could be a fact, right? We have not conclusively ruled out that a hundred percent of the fraud claims turn out to be false. Hasn't been ruled out. But you know what? It also hasn't been ruled in. It's definitely not a fact. It is something that could be true if anybody looked into it in any depth. It's something that could be false if somebody looked into it in any depth. But what it surely isn't is a current fact that can be reported as fact.

Let me ask you this. So it's also been reported by let's see, Politifact and Lead Stories and the AP and more, quote, that there's no credible evidence that Dominion voting systems software impacted any vote tallies during the election according to the Associated Press, New York Times and Politifact. Now let me ask you this question. So speaking of the Associated Press, New York Times and Politifact, which one of those organizations got a court order to do a line by line code review of Dominion's voting systems along with an audit of all their processes and interviews with their employees? Which one of them did that? I don't hear anything yet. None of them.

How in the world could anybody conclude that this vote software didn't impact anything? How the hell would they know? The fact that they think you're so freaking dumb that you would take their denial of any evidence as proof of no evidence. They're really playing you for suckers here in a really big way.

Now to be fair, so I'm going to be a little bit fair and balanced here if I can. If you were in charge of the world you would probably, you know I'm speaking hypothetically, if you were in charge of the world there might be times you didn't want to give people the full technical truth because it might be bad. In other words people might take the truth and act in the wrong way, misinterpret it, get too worried about it for no good reason, etc. And so I have some empathy for major news organizations and the people in them who probably are feeling the weight of responsibility of keeping the republic together because that's real. The news business could tear apart the republic or they could hold it together. It appears that the major media is trying very hard to hold the republic together. I like that.

All right. I want to dislike it because it feels like it's working against what I think is true which is that there was some fraud in the election. I think we'll find that. But I also appreciate that there is a higher responsibility than the truth. I hate to say it but there is a higher responsibility than the truth. The higher responsibility is to take care of your fellow human beings and if a little bit of a lie, a little bit of a shading of the truth gets that done, I'm not really going to be the one who says well that was unethical or immoral or impractical or illegal or anything. If the intention is to protect the republic I can't hate that even if I wouldn't have played it the same way.

All right but I feel as if it is a direct lie to say that nothing's been proven in the context of nothing being searched for and the complexity is such that you couldn't possibly know if anything happened or didn't happen. It is unknowable by its nature until you do a deep dive and short of doing that deep dive to declare that it didn't happen when all of the requirements for it to happen are in place. So the place that you would look for a crime is where there are a hundred percent of all the variables that would suggest oh there definitely was a crime. We haven't looked into it but we're pretty sure.

Let me give you an example. If you took a high end automobile and parked it in a dangerous crime filled neighborhood and left it unlocked with the keys in the ignition and then you wait, let's say you wait a year, do you need to go back and check to find out if the car was stolen? You don't really have to check. If you leave it there for a year and it's unlocked in a bad neighborhood, a high end car with the keys clearly in the ignition, it's stolen. All right? Do you need to do a deep dive? You don't even have to go back and look. That car is gone.

Likewise if you have an election system that is deeply complicated and you waited long enough somebody will find a way to take advantage of that complication. Not once in a while, not we're worried that it will happen, not it happens often, not there's a bias in that direction. No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying just like the high end car parked in the dangerous neighborhood with high crime it's definitely going to be corrupted. Not a little bit, not sometimes, not once in a while. Every single time. You just have to wait long enough.

Now have we waited long enough? Meaning have there been enough elections and enough years have gone by that anybody who could find weaknesses to exploit would have by now found those weaknesses and exploited them? Of course.

Somebody says this is interesting but disingenuous. What the do you know about my inner thoughts? Seriously what do you know? Whoever said that, what do you know about my inner thoughts and why would I even lie about this? What would even be my motivation for being disingenuous on this topic right now? Can you think of one? Did I run for election? Nope. Would I? I don't make money somehow? Nope. My traffic is higher today after Trump has allegedly lost than it's ever been. I don't have anything to gain. The only thing that I have a benefit for is telling you the closest thing to a useful filter on reality that I can. I don't have an incentive that's outside of any ethical bounds because everything that I want and need is well within those bounds. I either have to do a good credible job at doing this or nobody watches. What reason would I have to lie to you? Really seriously what reason would I have to lie to you? Think about that because people need a reason.

All right and if you think it's because I would be let's say embarrassed if I predicted Trump and he didn't win then you really don't know me because I don't get embarrassed by mistakes. I wrote a whole book about it about how I don't get embarrassed by mistakes. It's right over my shoulder right there. So I wouldn't care about getting embarrassed. I wouldn't care about failing. I wouldn't care about being wrong. None of it would have much effect on me. And what reason would I have to lie to you really? Can you think of one? Because I can't think of one.

All right. Triggered. Here's another fake news from CNN. Their headline says Trump threatens to deny New York a vaccine. Did you see Trump's press event there and did you see him threaten to deny New York the vaccine? Nope. Nope that didn't happen at all. Do you know what did happen? The opposite of this headline. That's what actually happened.

So CNN says Trump threatens to deny New York a vaccine. Here's what really happened. Trump said I sure wish we could get you that vaccine but New York won't take it because they're going to do their own testing etc. But I would sure like to give it to you. Can you let me give it to you? Is there anything I can do to please let me give you this vaccine because I would like to give you this vaccine if you'll let me. That's what happened. That's what happened. And then CNN reversed it and makes a headline Trump threatens to deny New York a vaccine. Didn't happen. It just didn't happen.

All right here is the most interesting persuasion thing that happened that is being reported incorrectly of course and it goes like this. And you probably saw this story that I need to give you Trump's quote because the way he chose his words is the story. And it goes like this. Trump said I will not, this administration will not be doing a lockdown. Trump said speaking for the first time and then he went on and said hopefully whatever happens in the future who knows which administration it will be I guess time will tell but this administration will not go to a lockdown.

Now the way it was reported is that the president has doubts about his own claims that there is fraud and that the election went his way and so it's been reported as that even he doesn't think he won necessarily. Here's the story that they missed. Are you ready? What is Trump's biggest risk or the claim against him at the moment? There are lots of claims against the president all the time but the biggest one, the hottest one at the moment is that he's going to try to become a dictator and not leave the office even if the election is certified to be Biden's. That's his biggest problem right? People think he might literally just try to cling to the office.

In his statement where he talks about I guess time will tell and who knows which administration it will be he is signaling as clearly as you could possibly signal that he's not going to keep the office no matter what, right? Did you see anybody report what I just said? The biggest story completely ignored that the president has pretty much confirmed that in his own opinion he's not going to be fighting to cling to the office if it goes against him. I feel like that's as clearly as you could say that. Completely ignored. And then they turned that into I guess he thinks he didn't really win the vote. That's not exactly what I'm seeing. I mean that's also true but I feel like what we're really seeing is him giving no seriousness whatsoever to the ridiculous thought that he's going to turn dictator and try to cling to office. There's no indication of that.

Now did you see there was some kind of weird statement that General Milley, the joint chief of staff, made and it was reported that it was a sort of a broadside to the president and that really he was sending a message to the president that the military is not gonna get involved in the transition or whatever. And I thought this General Milley guy, I don't have much confidence in him frankly from just a little bit I've seen. It's only about his gaffes so I'm sure he's done great things or he wouldn't be in that job but what the public sees is not terribly encouraging.

And here's what I think that the head of the joint chiefs should have done. So the way he played it was like it was really serious and there was some real risk that the president would try to get the military involved. That was really the wrong way to play it. Really the wrong way to play it. Here's how he should have played it. Let's say I'm General Milley. I'm the joint chiefs of staff and the press says will you get involved if there's some dispute about who the real president is? Here's how you answer that. You laugh at it. You say that's not the job of the military. Ha ha. No we wouldn't get involved in that in any way. Civilians need to work that out but if you need somebody killed you know come see us but we don't get involved in this stuff. And just treat it like it's not even serious because that's the way I want to think about it as a citizen. I don't want to hear that the military is mulling it. Do you want to hear that the military treated the question like it was even serious? I don't even want to go that far. I don't even want to hear the joint chief of staff deny that they would get involved. I want them to think that is such a stupid freaking question that they're not even going to answer it. It's like oh come on that's not what we do. Ridiculous. No it's funny that you would even ask that question. Do you know the military? No we don't do that. This is not what we do.

And everybody who thought this was going to happen I guess they could still say well it still might happen but anybody who had this thought and really really thought that the president would try to cling to power with a military intervention that is really crazy. I mean that's different from just having a wrong opinion. That's a little bit crazy.

I think the press continues to do their trick of debunking the weakest claims. So if you're a low information voter you think they debunked all of the claims because what they're saying is there are no credible claims. Now what they usually mean is that the courts have not seen credible claims of fraud yet. That might be true. I don't know what the courts have or have not seen. I'm not sure anybody knows. Do we? Have we all seen the claims but whether or not the ones that have been submitted as claims are valid or supported by the courts or not I would see them as a stalling action.

In other words you want to get the public a little bit pregnant with the idea that you're looking for fraud and it might be there. So you want to get that idea in the public's head. So this first flurry of lawsuits probably were just a stalling action to keep that idea in the public's head and say we're working on it actively which would sound way better than we think there's fraud we're not doing anything about it right? Imagine if the Trump administration had said we think there's massive fraud and then people would say all right what lawsuits are you filing and they'd say well we're thinking about getting some together at some point don't have all the data. What would that look like? It would look like there's nothing there right?

But by filing a bunch of lawsuits on things which may be just the first things they could think of or the first indications that there might be a problem they just get the system going. They get something that looks like momentum. Momentum is everything. I'm going to be talking about that later as well. If you get the momentum looking like there's something your team is doing that's moving forward then everybody's minds can get in that mode. It's like oh okay there might be something coming and then you can be ready for it. So I think that's all that's happened. The good stuff is still to come on the evidence but you'll see the debunking going after the weak stuff.

And here's the easiest one to debunk. So easy that I wouldn't even make this claim even if you thought it was true. Here's a claim that even if you think it's true it's the worst one. That dead people voted. Now do you think any dead people voted in this election? I do. Yeah. In the whole United States you're telling me that there wasn't one ballot filled out by a relative you know for their dead grandfather or something? Oh yeah there's a hundred percent chance somewhere in America a dead person voted at least once right?

Now how does the media debunk it? What they do is they'll go to find one person who is on a list that is claimed to be dead people voting and then they'll find that that person is actually alive and they'll say look ha ha these idiots they're claiming that all these dead people voted but we picked this one name off the list we found him he's alive here's a video of us talking to him. Ha ha dead people don't vote. But of course that's the selective debunk. They'll just it's easy to find people who are mistakenly on the list of dead voters. It doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Now if I had to bet I would think that the total number of dead people voting will not rise to the level that that would change the election result but certainly not the only claim is it?

Did you see Matt Gaetz tweet? I retweeted it. So he retweeted a graph that shows that historically you can tell how many people in each age group have registered to vote and you can see you know this year the graph shows this many registered and the following election this many and then you get to 2020 and in 2020 the number of people over the age of 90 who registered to vote just went off the charts. Off the charts.

Now could it be a coincidence or could not coincidence but could it be the result of really good Democrat get out the vote? Do you think the Democrats were so good at getting out the vote but it mostly worked for people over 90? Because the data suggests that even if the Democrats were excellent in their get out the vote then it really only worked for people over 90.

That's interesting isn't it? Why wouldn't their get out the vote work for everybody? Why would it work really really well for people over 90 but it works about the same as it worked in prior elections maybe a little bit better about the same as prior elections for everybody else? What could it be?

Now could there be any legal explanation for this? I think so. I think so there could be right? I can't think of one but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist right? So you never want to think that your own inability to imagine alternative explanations means they don't exist. It might be. Maybe there's some reason for this. Maybe they did a, maybe you know let me give you an example. Let's say t