t is true that the witnesses didn't witness very much. Even the people who say the election was fair, I think they would agree with that statement. For example, has anybody witnessed the software working? Has anybody audited the lines of code? Is there anybody who has a chain of custody all the way from the vote to the vote counting and beyond? No. No, we don't have that.

So if you were to look at what could be witnessed, a little bit. Would you say 10%? I feel as though based on the reporting, it would be fair to say that maybe 10% of the election process was witnessed. Now the intention of course is to witness 100% of it but we saw that the witnesses were bullied and had to stand too far back and all that. So no, maybe 10% was witnessed.

So if you've got 90% opportunity, just for conceptual purposes, I'm not measuring it, but 90% opportunity, motivation through the roof, because you want to stop Orange Hitler at all costs, right? How often will there be massive cheating? Not a little bit, but massive cheating under those conditions? 100% of the time. You will never not have massive cheating when these conditions exist. And these are the conditions we all observe exist. There's nobody who would say, "Well, there aren't many people involved." There's nobody who would say, "Well, they don't have the motivation." Nobody would say that. Nobody would say they don't have the opportunity as of this week. Last week I was hearing that there was no opportunity. You couldn't do it and get away with it. Well, we've got hundreds of witnesses that says they did it and they didn't get away with it, at least in terms of being observed or claims that they couldn't observe, which I think should be treated the same.

So I think any decent respect to what reason is would say that the claims of the election being fraudulent have a base. That base, I agree, is not yet based on court certified, if you will, validated or verified facts. But that's not the only definition of the word baseless. If you have reasons such as reasoning that air exists in France, you don't need the facts because the reason is all you need. And this is one of those cases. So when they say baseless, that is propaganda.

If they had said that there are allegations that have not been proven in court, what would you say to that? Would you say that that was propaganda? Nope. You'd say, "Oh, that's an accurate statement. There are allegations which have not been proven in court to the extent that it would overturn the election." At the same time that you would also have to say there are hundreds of witnesses that if you look at their claims, they are big enough to overturn the election if true. They can all be true.

And so that is what I got for you today. Somebody says, "The natural man, Scott, does not receive the things of the spirit, which is very limiting. I am a spirit-free individual," says the commenter.

Okay. But Scott, was Rudy's fake hearing propaganda? Yeah. Yeah. So one of the things that my bad critics often say is, "Ho, I got you, Scott. If you think that's true, what about this? Can you be consistent?" Yeah, I can. So the fact that you would even think that I wouldn't be cons