10. That's all you would need to know really. You wouldn't even need to know if it happened. You would only need to know this is a thing. If this is a thing that the adjudicators are getting tons of votes and nobody watches what they changed them to, if that's real the election is just garbage.

But is it real? Is there anything about this story that you find unsettling? So turn on your skeptic mode now, right? I know you want to believe this is true. You do don't you? You want to believe this is the Kraken. You want to believe this forensic analyst nailed it. You want to believe badly if you're a Trump supporter. But just work with me a little bit and turn on your skeptical filter and tell me is there anything wrong with this story?

There we go. Somebody nailed it a little too on the nose, right? A little bit too on the nose. The story is a little bit too good. And by a little bit too good I mean way too good. Way too good to be true. Now that doesn't mean it's not true. But if you had to place a really big bet on this one you should bet against it. Sorry that doesn't mean it's false. I can't tell. I don't really have any independent way to know if it's true or false. I'm just telling you that if you ever hear a story that sounds like this one and you don't know anything yourself, you've just heard this story, if it sounds like this one bet against it.

Like you I join you in saying I would love to know if this is true because if it is there's one other tell here that the analyst says the code is intentional. Do you think that these voting systems would include intentional code that was obvious when you just looked at it for fraud? Or in this case obvious code for creating adjudicated ballots for no reason. Do you believe that that's really there? That you could just look at the code and you could see a cheat code and you could tell their intentions just by looking at the code?

Well maybe. Maybe there's nothing that would rule that out that I'm aware of. But you've got a story that's really a little too perfect. A little too perfect. And you've got somebody who might be doing a little bit of mind reading because you can tell what the code does. You can't tell the intention of the person who wrote it. You think you can but you can't always. No you could be speculating correctly. It could be speculating that that's the reason the code is there and maybe it is. Maybe that's exactly why it's there. But I'll betcha, I'll betcha that when the makers of this software respond they will tell you a story of a reason that that code exists that will be plausible probably. Now that doesn't mean their plausible explanation is true but I'll bet you're gonna hear a plausible explanation. I'll bet you will. So wait for that.

We'd like this to be true because it'd be fun but who knows.

Correct me if I'm wrong but as of this morning Google has not told us what caused the massive outage. Is that true? Still true as of this time of day. It was true when I woke up. So I think if Google does not tell you what caused their outage you have to assume it's probably this hack, this SolarWinds thing.

Here's a question for you. I've read stories that associated the hack with China but those were not credible. And now it sounds like the New York Times is saying that the hack is Russian. Does that feel a little bit convenient that it's a Russian hack? Here's my question. Is Russia the only country that's good at it? Are you telling me that China isn't good at hacking? Because why is it that Russia is the only one who breaks through? It feels a little too neat to me.

So then here's the question. How do we know? How do our intelligence people know? Because that's who we're — telling us. So I guess the U.S. intelligence people are saying they think it's Russia. Keep in mind that 50 U.S. past and present in