ay you can prove three of them. You feel pretty confident the others are real but you can prove three of them out of seven. What will the court say? You've got seven claims. Three of them look pretty darn solid. Four of them may be true but you can't prove it. The court will say those three, if you add them together, do not change the result of the election because you needed all seven. And the court will say it's not enough because the whole point you're bringing it up is to change the result. If you're bringing us something to court that even if we ruled on it wouldn't change the outcome of the election we're not even going to rule on it. We're going to say go home. That's a waste of time.

So the genius of this alleged election fraud is that it was packetized. I'll use an analogy from telecommunications where your data is put in little packets so that if something happens to one of the packets you haven't lost everything and you can autocorrect. You can correct and resend it.

So what they've done is they've diversified their fraud so that if any of the individual frauds get found it won't matter because they're too small. You needed all seven or maybe you needed five out of seven or you needed the right ones out of the seven. You have the big ones. Finding three out of seven, which is I think what we're heading toward, you know in conceptual terms not real numbers, but I think we're heading toward finding some but not all, at least in terms of proving it, of the fraud. And it won't be enough. So it would be enough to put Biden in office.

All right, that is what I had to talk about today. You know I think that there's a good chance that Pennsylvania will go the way that the Republicans want. There is a good chance that the Supreme Court, because I think they've already signaled it, that they're not going to go with this doctrine of laches business. I feel as though that was just too obviously political BS that I don't know that the Supreme Court is going to buy into that but I'm no legal scholar so I could be surprised.

Now suppose, help me with this right because it gets complicated obviously, if Pennsylvania got reversed and either was taken out of the mix — no let's just say it got reversed. Let's say it was reversed and I don't think this is likely but let's say it gets reversed and Trump becomes the winner. What is the next state that he would need to win to flip the entire result? What is the next state that has the best argument? Is it Georgia or Wisconsin? I think Michigan's got a lot of issues but I don't know if that's the most reversible one. Where's your head at? What's your plan post-election? We'll talk about that.

I'm seeing a lot of people say Georgia. Somebody says Arizona. Yeah I guess I don't know enough to dig into those too much. California? Yeah I don't think it'd be California.

All right, so we have opinions all over the place here. We do not know.

Let's see, got some new news coming in. All right so let me look at some questions here before I go.

Somebody says if he gets Pennsylvania he needs two more of the disputed states. That's what I was looking for. So that's a fact right? He would need two more not one more. So people are saying Georgia and Wisconsin. Well maybe. We'll see.

Somebody says it seems you're so cleverly trying to soften us up for a Biden presidency. Does anybody think that I'm coddling you to get you mentally prepare for a Biden presidency? I think that's the effect of it. That is I think that's the result of what I'm doing. It's not my intention exactly because I'm not afraid of Republicans staging a violent rebellion so I didn't feel I needed to do that. I do think it would be accurate to say that that's what I am doing but that's not the point of it. The point is just to talk about it as objectively as possible and that's just what comes out of it.

But most of you think that I'm cleverly persuading you to accept a Biden presidency. Well let me tell you this. If there are