there are claims and I would say that those claims, you could make a strong argument that they don't become fact in a way that matters until they go through the court and the court says there are facts. So could you say that the facts have not been established? I think that's fair. I think it's fair to say that the facts are alleged but they're not established by a credible entity such as a court.

But that's the fact part. Here's the definition again. Having no basis in reason or fact. Does it have to be fact-based to have a base? In other words, could something have a good reason but you don't have facts? Let me give you an example. Can you prove that there is no air in France today right now? That there's no air. Air doesn't exist in France. Nope. You can't prove that because you don't have any facts. I mean, you could probably get them, but would you do that? Would you go to France with a little bottle and try to capture some air and prove to me that air does exist in France? Would you do that?

Or would you just say, I'm going to use my reason. France is not contained in a sealed bubble and air has this tendency to move wherever there's not enough air to fill a vacuum. So my sense of reason tells me I don't really need to look at the facts. My sense of reason tells me yeah, there's air in France. Okay, don't need to check because the reason is so clear.

Let's take the election. Does my analogy hold? Well, I would say this that 100% of the time you have a gigantic incentive to do a thing. Let's say cheat on an election. So you have a gigantic incentive. The motivation is off the chart. You've got lots of people involved. And so long as you can control who witnesses what, you're not really going to get caught.

So how often do you get crime in a situation where the motivation to do the crime is off the chart? The opportunity is observably easy because I think we could all agree that no matter what else is true, i