it. So of course it's always stolen under those conditions. But any specific claim you hear, probably BS.

Now I'm going to give you a specific claim after telling you that every specific claim is probably BS. I will. I'm going to apply the same standard to this one. Now this one sounds really good. Okay, so I'm going to give you an argument here that on paper, you know on paper it's really really strong. But is it true? I don't know. I would just apply my standard to it. Ninety-five percent chance it's not. But here it is.

So there is a working professional statistician, somebody who is very capable and experienced and in the sweet spot of his career. So somebody who really really really understands statistics. So this is the source and there's a video from the statistician explaining what he did. So the first thing you need to know is that the person making the claim is very qualified. Right now that doesn't mean it's true, right, because we'll talk about experts and when you should trust them. But just know that he's very qualified.

And what he did was he was just sort of messing around with a lot of the data. You know he explained it as almost a hobby, something that the statisticians liked. It was like, oh I wonder if there's a correlation between this thing and that thing. And he discovered, somewhat just by poking around, a correlation that almost is impossible to be natural, meaning it's a signal for fraud with something like a greater than 99 percent chance that it is really fraud and not some fake signal.

Now does that mean it's true? No. Remember we're only dealing with claims that you and I can't check. I don't have the skill to check it. I don't know where the data was. I can't really check it. So no matter how credible this sounds, just keep this little tape playing in the back of your head. No matter how credible it sounds there's a 95 percent chance it's not real. Okay, just keep that playing in the back of your head.

Here's what he found. If you took the 3,000 U.S. counties, I always wondered how many counties there were, which is weird. I was wondering that exact question. There are over 3,000 counties. Now counties have a lot in common, right? There could be a lot of diversity within a county but you can make some claims about their consistency over time. And the statistician started out by predicting who would win each county based on a number of demographic variables. So he would say how many Democrats are in the county, what's their age, a bunch of stuff. And he found that he could predict with 90 percent accuracy who the county would go for based on their demographics. And you could apply it retrospectively to other elections and I guess it works. So it's about 90 good. And knowing in advance who would win.

And then he looked at who actually won and he found, eventually he poked around and found this strange data oddity. That there were lots of counties that did better than his model would predict and there were lots of counties that did worse than his model would predict. And that's quite natural. So if you've got 3,000 data points they're going to be spread around. But his point was you could draw a line through the middle and that would be his prediction. And the differences would just be sort of equally on both sides of the line. So if he was off it was just as likely he was off in one way versus the other. So it'd be just as much below the line as above the line.

And then he found that in those counties that used Dominion voting systems and one other kind, I think Hart or something, there was another company, Hart, H-A-R-T. So there I guess there are maybe six or so different machines and different counties and different ways to count. But in those counties they had Dominion or Hart systems, they were consistently over five percent more votes than would be expected for Biden.

Now here's the interesting part. The correlation holds in Trump counties. So counties that Trump won, Biden did five percent better. In counties that you knew that Biden was going to win because they always go Democrat, also a little bit more than five percent better. So the amount that the Dominion and Hart machine counting counties were off was consistent. Meaning that there was a gigantic difference. Let me see if I can say this simply because I'm watching this. If you looked at what you expected these counties to do based on their demographics and past behavior etc., the ones that had Dominion and Hart machines were way, I think 73 percent of them had a Biden advantage that was very similar.

Now the odds of only those two machines having 73 percent of the oddities going in the same direction, but in the other counties those oddities went in both directions equally. But only where you had the Dominion or Hart machines you didn't have an even distribution. It's the only time and it's very consistent. And according to the statistician, not according to me, that the odds of any of that being anything but fraud are vanishingly small. You know you could say it might be something else in the extreme. You know it was alien invasion or something. But not really. Not really.

Now this is very different from the quadrillion argument. The quadrillion argument was debunked, right? So the quadrillion argument is that if there's let's say a bellwether place that always went to Republicans and this is the only time it didn't, you know that's a signal. And then there's this other signal and this other signal. That is not good analysis because all it would take is one big effect that could affect all of those things, right? So that's not a guaranteed signal of fraud. But this is really specific because you can trace it all the way down to this specific vendor. And if you can trace the difference down to specific vendors that's a really stronger case I think.

Now I don't know if Andreas Bachhaus is watching this video but if you are, he'd be the best debunker of things that I say. So debunk me on Twitter if I've missed anything obvious.

So I took this and I sent the link to my Democrat friend that I always mention. That my anti-Trump Democrat friend who has the qualities of being very smart and well informed and yet appears to act crazy. He's completely rational. In fact one of the most rational people I know in all other domains. He's just like this really rational guy. It practically defines who he is. He's so rational. And I sent him this statistical analysis. And as luck would have it he's also good at statistics. So one of his talent stacks is statistics. So I send him a statistical argument to a guy who really knows statistics. Now it's not the same Harris. It's a personal friend. Nobody you know.

And here's why I did it. My friend says and has been saying that there's no evidence that there is anything fraudulent. So that's his view. No evidence. So I sent him this evidence. But the evidence has a special quality to it that no matter how much you know about statistics you can't really just look at it and know if it's right. You can't tell. So this expert is making an argument that unless you probably unless you really dug into his work you can't tell if it's real. So I did this intentionally not as here I've proven my case because I don't think anything like that's happened. Remember 95 percent of all evidence is fake. This is no different. So I didn't think it was a kill shot.

But the reason I showed it to him is because I knew he wouldn't know it wasn't and he wouldn't know if it was because it can't be known. It's just too hard to know it based on what we have available to us. And I wondered if he would reject it or would he say okay this does not prove fraud and I would agree with that but it certainly tells us we should look into it. So that's what I was looking for. I was looking for a rational response that says you know Scott I know a lot about statistics too but I don't have access to all the data he has. If he did this analysis right it would be very meaningful and it does look like he's capable of doing the analysis. If it's right this is something that would be important and should be looked into. So that's what a reasonable person would say, right?

Do you think he said that? Nope. Perfectly reasonable to say it didn't prove anything and I agree. Here's what he said. You can find any correlation in lots of data. Now this is what I would call the Bible Code theory. The Bible Code is a debunked, it was an idea that if you looked in the Bible and you did various schemes to find secret messages you would find all these messages such as, I'll just pick one, this is random not a real one. If you took the second letter of the first sentence but you took the third letter of the next sentence and then the fourth letter of the next sentence. So there's all these little algorithms that would run against the Bible and it would spit out things that you didn't think could possibly be natural. So it'd be like little predictions and you'd say yes look it's like a full sentence prediction and it actually happened. So there was a time when people thought the Bible had these secret codes. That was debunked by some scientists who took their same algorithms and ran it against any big book like War and Peace. Turns out War and Peace is full of secret messages and predictions that actually came true because it turns out that if you've got something as complicated as a big book filled with letters you can find some algorithm that will produce full sentences just by trial and error and they will look like predictions that happened. So it can work with any book. It's obviously not the Bible Code.

So his argument was that this statistician had basically fallen for the Bible Code error. Does that sound like a good response to here's a video by a hugely qualified statistician? Are there any hugely qualified statisticians who don't know about the Bible Code? There are none. There are none. That's not a thing. There's no such thing as a professional statistician who's never heard of this problem with the Bible Code. That's not a thing. Obviously the statistician was aware that that's one of the risks that you have to guard against.

So I feel as if this is a pretty clean example of cognitive dissonance. The reasonable reaction would have been I can't evaluate this but if it's right it's meaningful, right? Is that not the only reasonable response to something you can't analyze but looks important and an expert did it?

All right, so or the other thing my Democrat friend said as a response is that the courts have rejected all of the evidence that was presented. It's just mind-boggling. So my Democrat friend, because the news is so fake, he believes that courts have looked at evidence of fraud that never happened. He actually thinks that happened. It didn't happen. Apparently he was unaware that the cases are being thrown out for technicalities without actually looking at the claims. You know it's about standing and doctrinal latches and you know whether or not you can bring the case and who's got jurisdiction. It's all that stuff. But as far as I know the claims per se have not been judged in any court of law. I haven't, I don't know that the witnesses who make direct claims of observing fraud, have they had their day in court? No, right?

So here's a well-informed, really well-informed guy but his information comes from the left and actually thinks an alternate history of the United States is happening right now. He believes there's an alternate history happening in parallel with the one you're experiencing in which those claims are being debunked by courts. Nothing like that's happened. Nothing even close to that has happened. They've never even looked at it.

Beyond that, would it make any difference that other claims were debunked? Does it matter how many people are found innocent of a crime? Let's say three people were accused of a crime and you found out they didn't do it. Does that tell you the fourth person who is accused of an unrelated crime, does that tell you the fourth person didn't do it? It doesn't really work that way, right?

Anyway, Trump signed some legislation that would kick Chinese companies off of the U.S. stock exchanges unless those companies allow financial audits that are required for American companies that are on those exchanges. To which I say why did this take so long? Are you telling me that there are Chinese companies on American exchanges who simply decide not to abide by the very very very important rules of transparency that all American companies abide by or else they get penalized greatly? Are you telling me that China can just be on our stock exchange and ignore all the rules that were required? The important ones, not even the trivia ones. Like the most important one is you've got to have some transparency. That's like right at the top. That's not a detail, right?

And so Trump signs this legislation that will kick them off if they don't allow these audits. And I'm thinking why did that take so long? You know, and do you think this would have happened under Biden? Do you? Because I feel like probably it wouldn't. It's going to be fun watching Trump try to get things done, you know, between now and inauguration day. We'll see how much trouble he can cause.

All right, let me teach you when to disagree with the experts. Because of course we all do it but there's a good way to do it and a bad way to do it. And this will be your important lesson of the day. You ready? Okay, here's what you should not do. Do not disagree with experts and then cite as your reason for disagreeing with the experts a fact which all the experts know. Okay, I just gave you an example that all the experts in statistics know about the Bible Code. So stating that as the reason for your argument doesn't make any sense because the expert knows that, right?

Here's some more examples of that. I've heard the argument that CO2 can't be causing a climate crisis because CO2 used to be much higher in the past. You've heard this argument, right? People say climate change isn't real because CO2 used to be way way higher in the past and there were, there was no civilization back then. If there were no humans and CO2 was way higher in the past