elected, change their opinions too. It really worked.

I'm going to tell you that you could not have watched that as an objective citizen and walked away from that thinking there was no massive fraud. If you saw that it wasn't proof, and what I saw at least in there wouldn't hold up in court, but man it was persuasive. It was really persuasive.

Now will that translate to court? Unknown. We will find out.

Here was one of Rudy's best arguments that really, really threw me because I didn't see this one coming. And maybe you did. You're smarter than me. And it goes like this. We know that the courts don't like to disenfranchise voters. So one of the claims is that there were, I don't know, 600,000, 700,000 votes that were counted without witnesses being allowed to monitor it.

Now normally let's say you took that to the court and said there were hundreds of thousands of votes which were not monitored, but we don't have proof that they're fake. It just wasn't monitored in the way we wish it had been monitored. That's all we know for sure. Would the court then throw out those votes? No, probably not. Because the court would say yeah, technically you made your case. You know, they're supposed to be watched. They were not watched. Technically that's a violation. But it's better to keep the system stable. It's better not to disenfranchise those people who thought they were voting. What about all the people who voted? Don't they have rights to have their vote counted? How do you thr