ow away a citizen's vote?

So you can imagine that the court would just say yeah, you made your case and we're still going to rule against you because it's just better for the world. And then Rudy adds this little part which is really good. If you don't punish them they'll do it again.

And I thought to myself, that's a pretty good argument. Because if your concern as the court is the well-being of the whole, so you're not going to obsess about the technical infraction if you want to keep the whole healthy, doesn't it keep the whole healthiest if you punish anybody who tries to cheat in a way that could be corrupted? We don't know that the non-observed votes were corrupt. We just know that if next time they don't have to worry about observers it's going to be corrupt, right?

So Rudy makes the point that if you don't reverse the actual outcome of the election and put Trump in office, you will have rewarded cheaters in a way that guarantees we'll never have another fair election. That's a really strong argument. I don't know if that argument will win, but don't you feel that's pretty darn strong? I had not really thought of the deterrent argument. I'd been obsessed on the, well I think the court's going to go for whatever keeps the stability even if it means allowing a little bit of fraud. That's a strong argument.

All right. We watched the whole country learning because of that Pennsylvania hearing that apparently you can bully and chase away Republican observers with no penalty. That's what we all learned. And if we haven't learned it by watching that, you'll probably learn it pretty soon.

So what happens when the entire country learns that Democrats can bully Republicans out of the room where they count the votes? Because if the election is not reversed, if it's not actually reversed, you just taught the country to cheat in the next election. Guaranteed. No way around it. Guaranteed the next election is garbage if you don't reverse the result of this one. Strong argument. It's a strong argument. I didn't see it coming really.

So here's how the mainstream narrative is starting to crack. I'd say the narrative is, dare I say, Kraken. And you can see it in the language and the choice of words. Let me run you through this.

Do you remember immediately after the election the most common phrase you would hear is there is no evidence of fraud. No evidence of fraud. And then lots of affidavits were surfaced. And now it went from there's no evidence of fraud to there's no proof of fraud. Because evidence doesn't turn into proof until it's presented in court and judged to be true. But did that happen? Well I don't know that. Again, once you get to the legal stuff I get a little bit lost in that. But my understanding is that the court cases that have been lost so far never judged the facts of the allegation. Can somebody fact check me on that? That the lawsuits so far have been dismissed for a variety of technical reasons and standing and technical stuff.

But when the Democrats say that nothing has been proven in court, and indeed also as a separate point the Trump people or Trump-leaning people have lost I don't know 26 out of 27 cases, your mind connects those, right? Hasn't been proven in court and they've lost 26 out of 27 cases. Doesn't your mind automatically say well that that's got to be the same thing? The reason that they lost all the cases, logically, duh, is because they couldn't prove the facts. Doesn't your brain do that automatically? Apparently nothing like that happened. Apparently they never have looked at the facts and therefore there was never ever any opportunity for them to say they were true or false.

So the narrative gets to use language cleverly to make you think that that's why the case is lost, a lack of proof. Apparently that's not the case. So then it became baseless claims. They changed no proof into baseless. Is no proof in court the same as baseless? No, those words don't mean the same thing. But the narrative wants you to nudge you from no proof, when in fact there has been no process to decide if proof exists or not. We're too early for that. That turns into baseless, which of course makes you think that no proof could come, which is different.

Then of course they inject the word widespread. They all tried this trick, right? There's no widespread fraud. It's not widespread. And of course the claim was never widespread. The claim was always focused in these key cities. So but now there's so much evidence from Rudy that even if you imagine that each of the individual pieces of allegations, even if they don't add up to something, it still looks kind of widespread, doesn't it? Even if you just say it's in those swing state cities, Rudy has so many examples in different ways, different techniques, that it's kind of widespread now.

I didn't see that coming because I think of widespread in terms of geography. But if you think of it in terms of these targeted cities, it's widespread in terms of thoroughly infiltrating those places. That's pretty widespread.

And so that's now changed to, and this is how Twitter put it in one of their headline bullets where they summarize a hashtag that they use, this sentence: judges have found no evidence of fraud. Judges have found no evidence of fraud. So now you're back to the trick of thinking well they must have looked at the evidence and then they found there was no fraud. But apparently that didn't happen. There was no process by which anybody looked at any evidence.

So if you haven't done the process, let me give you an example. I'll use my tenting your house for termites example. Tenting doesn't work because my house still has termites. And then the termite eradicator guy says, oh well we haven't put the tent on your house yet. You understand that there are termites in your house until you put the termite tent on and then you fumigate and then if we do it right it's only afterwards that your house could have no termites. You understand that, right? That we're now with termites, then in the future there's the tenting and then possibly if you do it right you get to a no termite situation.

And then I say, nice try, my house is full of termites. Okay, what are you not understanding about the fact that the process hasn't even begun? And I say, look, my house has probably had termites for what, six months at least, maybe a year. Are you telling me that in six months to a year your company can't put up a tent and get rid of the termites in my house? And the termite guy goes, I don't know what's happening here. You only called me yesterday. How could I have put up a tent six months ago when I didn't even know you existed? You called me yesterday. And I'll say, nice try, but my house is full of termites, you grifter. What's happening? The tenting is tomorrow. It hasn't already happened. What's happening? And I say, yeah, six months and you couldn't put up a tent on my house. Pathetic.

All right. So that's happening. I would say that Rudy destroyed three narratives from the other team yesterday. Now when I say he destroyed their narratives, what I'm not saying is proved his case. So can we be all smart enough to know that when I'm saying he destroyed several narratives that's not in any way saying he proved his case. All he did was subtract a few attacks against him. That's all. But he did it really well. Okay, really well.

Here are the three things that you might have believed a few weeks ago but now maybe you don't. Number one, the claim that there were not enough fraud charges, that even if they were fraud and even if it were proven it could change the outcome of the race. That's now destroyed because Rudy has given us the numbers. And we don't know if the case will go his way but the numbers are absolutely, unambiguously, allegedly, and that's all we're dealing with is the allegation, big enough. So can we stop saying forever that if Rudy prevails in his case it would not change the election? Because clearly it would. He has now made the case that it's big enough. Doesn't mean he wins but it's big enough. So can we get rid of that narrative forever? Probably not, but we should.

Number two, a lot of smart people told me that there's no real opportunity for anybody to cheat on a scale big enough that it could change the election. Well if you listen to that three-hour hearing you heard nothing but opportunity for cheating. Apparently it's not only possible to cheat in an election but the number of ways to do it are so many that you don't have enough time to hear them all.

Now did Rudy make the case that there were so many allegations that at the very least it was possible, meaning that even if each of these individual allegations we found out nobody used those loopholes, nobody used those opportunities, he still proved the opportunities were there. For example, he might be able to prove that observers were kept out of the room with the ballots. Probably very provable with witnesses etc. If he proves that people were kept out of that room it doesn't mean there was fraud inside the room. It just means he's proven that. I think I had some other point but I already forgot it.

Oh, the point is that he would have proven there was opportunity to cheat behind that closed door but he would not have proven that the cheating actually happened, hypothetically. So the argument that there wasn't an opportunity, I think he slayed. There is nothing left of that argument. And that is why I say this might be one of the best things that's ever happened to the country because I think Rudy will at the very least be the agent that causes our election system to be improved and hardened. If that's all that comes out of it, it would be great.

Number three, the thought that if there was so much cheating, Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott, if there was that much cheating there would be witnesses. You know, because you would need probably multiple people to be in on it. You're going to have lots of witnesses. So where are all your witnesses, Scott? Well I think that question's been asked and answered. Turns out there are hundreds of them. And there are only hundreds of them because if you had another thousand of them they would be saying the same observations. In other words there were multiple witnesses to each alleged fraud or imperfection. And so now you can never say that again if you're being honest. You can never say that if there was that much cheating you'd have tons of witnesses because there are tons of witnesses. That's now a fact, I think. I mean he says he has these sworn statements. If he doesn't show them to us I'd be pretty disappointed. But we assume that that's probably not something he's lying about, right, that they exist.

So that doesn't mean he's proven his case. But I don't want to hear anybody say the allegations are not large enough to change the result. I don't want anybody to say there's no opportunity to cheat in our elections. There are tons of them. And I don't want to hear anybody say that there are no witnesses. And of course if there was that much cheating there'd be witnesses. There are tons of them.

All right. Here's how CNN confused me about the Pennsylvania situation. I'm going to read their exact statement and see if you can figure out what the hell this means. All right. On Wednesday the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a temporary injunction prohibiting state officials from taking further action in certifying the 2020 election pending a hearing on mail-in ballots scheduled Friday.

All right. So that sentence I interpret as the court ordered a temporary injunction prohibiting state officials from taking actions to certify the election. So I think this told me that it's not certified because the court prevented them from taking further actions to certify. Okay, so the first part of this says it's not certified yet and they're pausing it. And then the second part of the same paragraph says Pennsylvania state officials filed an appeal blah blah blah and said that the injunction will not impact the certification process. But wasn't it already certified? So I'm a little, I'm completely confused about the certifying situation. So I don't know if Pennsylvania's in play or not. We'll see.

So Twitter suspended Pennsylvania Senator and Colonel Doug Mastriano because he was leading the Pennsylvania Senate hearings. I don't know what he tweeted but he got suspended for I don't know 12 hours or something. He's back now. And I would just add this to that story. If Twitter suspends you they owe you a reason, don't you think? Don't you think they owe you a reason? Because you would like to know. I mean it's not a law. There's no constitutional right that Twitter will tell you why they're suspending you. But it seems good form, you know. They should say oh you promoted violence or you said something that wasn't true too many times, something like that.

But on top of that if an elected official gets suspended from Twitter, Twitter's obligation, again not legal, not constitutional obligation, but I think an obligation of members of society let's say, a social obligation, a civilization obligation, if a senator gets suspended for something he said on Twitter, Twitter needs to explain that to us, right? That's not just between Twitter and that one senator or other elected official. It's not just between them. Like we're part of this fight, right? Like if you suspend somebody I voted for you're with me, right? You owe me an explanation. I didn't see one.

So this would be my recommendation to Jack and to Twitter is that you know I don't think that there are no reasons to suspend people and I feel that they're experimenting their way to maybe a better situation. So as long as they're A/B testing I'm not going to be too hard on Twitter. They're testing stuff. They're seeing what the response is. They're seeing what works. So some of that's fine. But you need to explain to the public if you're banning somebody we voted for. That's on us, right? That's personal. You, I'm not even a citizen of Pennsylvania, right? I didn't vote for the senator. But it's still personal because this is a senator that one of my country's states elected. They elected him to speak for them and Twitter decided that he couldn't. Why does Twitter decide that an elected senator, at least in this one limited way, can't speak for us, can't speak for the people?

All right, enough on that.

The Daily Wire and Hank Berrien did a story about apparently there was a study to find out how much Biden supporters know about the news. It went just about the way you think it would go. Turns out that a survey of 1,750 Biden supporters in seven swing states, so they're looking at the swing states, that's what mattered, found that the news media's suppression of stories, now that part is opinion, you know I know you agree with the opinion as do I but that's opinion, have hurt former Vice President Joe Biden's electoral chances.

So they go on to talk about the stories that Democrats didn't hear. I'm not talking about they disagree with the stories. They didn't hear them. Complete blackout.

All right, so listen to this. 82 percent of Biden voters were unaware of at least one of the following issues. The Tara Reade sexual assault allegations, 35 percent were unaware. So think about that. 35 percent of the people who voted for Biden probably thought they didn't want to support the guy who was an accused sexual molester so they voted for Biden instead. But 35 percent of them had never heard that he's an accused rapist. I feel sorry for the Democrats. And 8.9 percent said they would have voted for Trump if they had known about that. These numbers are so big they would completely change the election if the news had allowed and social media had allowed people to know about these stories.

The Hunter Biden scandal, 45 percent of Biden voters were unaware. 45 percent of Biden voters had never heard the Hunter Biden scandal. That is so bad it's just funny. I really feel sorry for these people. And 9.4 percent said they would have switched their vote.

All right. 25 percent didn't know Kamala Harris is really, really left. Come on, how do you not know that? Now some of it is just people don't watch the news but these are probably a lot of them are people who did watch the news and still didn't know the news.

Let's see, that how many knew there was a huge jump in economic growth. So how many people knew that we're coming out of the pandemic at least the economic part really strongly? 49 percent of Democrats didn't know about that. They didn't know the economy. How do you not know about the economy? I mean how do you not pay attention to that? And 5.6 percent said they would have changed their vote if maybe if they knew about that.

How about the historic peace agreements with Israel and their Arab neighbors? Now you can't miss that, right? It's like what probably one of the biggest stories of the year is that the Middle East is finding peace and that Trump is a big part of that with Jared Kushner. And how many people in the Democrats, how many do you think hadn't heard about that? Let's see, I lost that number. It's a big number. All right, so they hadn't heard that. 43, almost 44 percent had never heard about any of the Middle East peace deals. 44 percent. Oh my God, poor Democrats.

How about a number of Democrats who are aware the president was behind Operation Warp Speed and that it's a huge success. How many didn't know that who voted for Biden? 36 percent. 36 percent.

All right. Now of course some of these people might not have necessarily voted for Trump but they might have not voted. You know if you could have gotten six percent of them to not vote that would have been a pretty big deal.

Now here's the kicker on this. Because we're spending all our attention talking about fraud or no fraud, the social media and the news is getting a pass. There's nothing like the will of the people or democracy that happened. So this vote wasn't even close to a democratic process within the context of a republic. Not even close. The only thing that happened, and you can see it really clearly in this survey, what happened is the public was brainwashed by social media and the news. And that's it. Every other part of the story is way less important.

Is the fraud important? Well it's important for fixing the elections in the future perhaps. But even the fraud is smaller than what the social media and the fake news did for the past year. Way smaller. So because the fraud is the fun glowing object and it's the thing we're watching and we're sort of bored about talking about media bias, they got a total pass.

For all practical purposes this was the year we formed a Chinese form of government. You know the Chinese form of government is you've got your supreme leader, your President Xi, but really he has to be backed by the Communist Party top officials. If President Xi lost the support hypothetically of all the top officials in the Communist Party he probably would lose power. So the president, even though he's sort of dictator-like, he's not really because he kind of has to have that lower level agreeing with him. Similar to Iran. Iran has a process where there's the supreme leader but he's a supreme leader but he needs his religious counsel to support him or he probably couldn't stay in power.

What we have just created accidentally is a process by which the social media CEOs, given that they control what happens in their companies, that they've become effectively like the Communist Party of China. Now this is an analogy, all right, so don't get too hung up and hey they're not exact, there's a slight difference, they're not exact, right? I'm just making the point that our government is now clearly, I mean this survey shows it as clearly as possible, that the decision of who is president has been taken out of the hands of the public.

That statement is very strong. Let me say it again. These social media companies and the heads of the big networks have taken out of the hands of the public the decision of who their government will be. That happened. There's no story that's bigger than that.

Do you know why that's not a story? Because we're a communist country now. And the Communist Party, you know, and again I'm taking the analogy too far, but the heads of the social media platforms and the heads of the news networks, they get to decide who's president. If you don't think that's true, well I got a survey to show you because it was just shown pretty conclusively. If the news can simply disappear stories, and you can see that very clearly they did, they get to decide who's president. It's not you. It's not you at all. You're not even a little bit involved in picking the president. Not even you. You are simply being assigned an opinion and then like a good little hypnotized zombie you go, I have my opinion. I'm using my good judgment, my free will. I will go vote now according to my smart thinking and free will. And none of that happened.

The public is assigned their opinions and then that's it. That's the process. You wait for the oligarchs to tell you what your opinion will be. They assign it. It doesn't affect everybody, granted. Maybe you are invulnerable. Maybe their brainwashing doesn't work on you. But it works enough on enough people that your vote is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it works on you.

So people still believe that they look at the information and form relevant opinions. That is one of the big reality-bending things that you're going to learn, that you don't look at data and form opinions. It doesn't happen. It is purely an illusion. You look at the data that the oligarchs show you and you don't see anything else. And then you form the opinion that they wanted you to form, which they created by deciding what information you see. You are not part of the