even be more afraid? Here it goes. Twenty percent of all people — politicians, smart people, dumb people, educated people, uneducated people, people in all countries — about 20 percent can be convinced of anything. They can be convinced there's something in the room that isn't even there. They can be convinced that it's cold when it's hot. They can be convinced of anything by a trained hypnotist. Now could China detect who are in the 20? I don't know but probably. I don't know but probably. In other words there's probably some signal that even hypnotists haven't figured out. By the way even a trained hypnotist can't reliably know who's going to be in that 20 short of actually trying it out. It's very misleading. You think you would because your common sense says well it's going to be the people that you imagine have weak minds, but it isn't. There's no correlation with intelligence, education, gullibility. There's just no correlation with anything. And hypnotists know that. They know there's no correlation.

But suppose you had massive amounts of data and you could study what influenced some people and then you could find out what signals they give off in advance that would tell you that they're the type of people who could be signaled. For example suppose you did a mass Chinese experiment on your own public and you tried to influence people to believe something ridiculous but not harmful because you're just testing. It's ridiculous but not harmful. Then you find out who believed it and you figure out what is it about these people who believe the most ridiculous stories. What signal do they give off in other realms? The way they talk, some experience they've had. If China has looked for that they may have found it. I'd love to know what they found. Because if a hypnotist ever learned that you'd be in real trouble. Because if they found some signal or some tell where I could just learn it and learn who the 20 are just by observing the public, I would rule the world. I don't even think that's an exaggeration. As long as I imagine I'm the only one who knew the secret. If I could tell who the 20 percent were I could form an army. I could rule the world. That's how powerful this stuff is.

Now if Swalwell was in the 80 percent and Fang Fang did not have any special training, it's still super dangerous. There is a possibility that she had some serious training and it is a possibility he's in the 20 percent. And if he's not, they've got a lot of agents in a lot of places. Do you know how many times they got the 20 by luck? Twenty percent of all of those Chinese agents are with somebody who can be convinced of anything. And then they will be running our government completely unaware that they did not make up their own opinions.

And did the news cover this story, which I would consider one of the biggest potential holes in security I've ever seen in my life? And there have been some big ones. CBS gave it zero minutes. NBC zero minutes. ABC two minutes. MSNBC zero minutes. CNN three minutes. So there you go.

Joe Biden back in 2007, there's a clip of him on the internet. This is like one of the great historical clip finds of all time. You know you love going back and finding that hypocritical statement. But this one goes way beyond hypocritical. There are some things that are just hypocritical, but listen to this and tell me if hypocritical captures it, because I think it's hypocritical plus there's a little extra going on here. I'll tell you about it. And this is a direct quote from Joe Biden on camera talking to the public in 2007. Quote, he's talking about electronic voting machines which he was not in favor of at the time unless they had paper backup. And he said quote, "How are you going to keep it from us being able to be in the position where you can manipulate the machines, manipulate the records? I think we should pass a federal law mandating that the same machines have paper trails that are mandatory." Blah blah. Let me read this first part again. "How are you" — who's you? How are you? He's talking to the public. So how are you the public going to keep it, meaning the voting machine situation, from us — us who the hell is us? He's talking to the public and the public he has just referred to as you. But when he says us that's a subset of the public that includes him. Does that include Democrats or does it include politicians? I think it at least includes politicians. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was not limiting that to Democrats when he says us. But at least politicians being able to be in a position where you can manipulate the machines.

So in 2007 he knew that these were at great risk to be manipulated by politicians and thought it was a tremendous risk. Nothing happened apparently, so his warning was not heeded. And so allegedly he used the loophole that people refused to close on his request. He used that loophole to become president of the United States. Now that's of course only under the assumption that there was some fraud here. And as you know we do not have proof of such a thing. Proof, I say, as opposed to evidence. We don't have court proof of fraud at a level that would reverse the election. We might. It might be on the way. But we do not have it as of this speaking.

So this is one of the most jaw-dropping shocking things. And I have to say if it were true that Biden knew this was a way to rig an election and if it were true that let's say his operatives rigged it for him — we'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he never gave an order to rig any machines, I think that's fair — but if the irony is that he was not heeded in his warning and he became the president of the United States because he was not heeded in his direct warning, it's kind of cool. This is sort of like my appreciation for serial killers who are also industrious. You can hate the killing part but still they're very industrious, quite creative. And if Joe Biden pulled this off you got to give him a little bit of credit for using the loophole that he warned you. Hey, he warned you.

Here's the funniest thing in the news. CNN's trying to mock Trump about his shower water standard. So I guess this finally got put into law or whatever, some kind of rule that your shower head will now — if you wanted to I guess you can get one that has more volume of water. But here's the funny part. CNN reports things that Trump says at his rallies without adding the context that when he's giving a rally talk he's there for entertainment. When he gives a tweet he tweets like people tweet. So right, and he just does a better job of it than anybody else. When he talks to a head of state he talks to them like a head of state and he does that well too. So he adjusts his communication and his style for each of these forms of communication better than anybody's ever done in my opinion. Far better than anybody's ever done. If you look at all the different realms you could pick any one realm and say somebody does a better speech or something, but there's nobody who communicates as well across multiple realms of communication.

But what CNN does is they will act as though they're all just one. If you don't understand that the things he says at a rally are meant for