sound familiar because I talked about this in a different context. If anybody in that data analysis world who's got a claim can boil that down to one thing that can be checked, that's going to be powerful. Because you've got a whole bunch of claims that are hard to check. If you could take even one important thing, let's say something that affected 400,000 votes, if you could boil that one claim of 400,000 votes down to one verifiable objective fact, you just look at it and if you're not looking at it you can't tell but if you are looking at it you know. And apparently this group did that. They boiled it down to one simple data fact that you could just observe.

Now they make a claim that in my opinion is probably false and I'm saying probably just because the way the world works, right? It's not based on anything about the Data Integrity Group. It's not based on the reporting of the Epoch Times. It's not based on anything. It's just if you live in the world long enough there are some things you just expect not to be true in the end and this sort of fits in that category. But here's the genius part of it. All you have to do is check. And I'm going to tell you what their claim is and when you see how simple it is you're actually going to feel it. I tell you this sometimes. Every once in a while there will be a little piece of knowledge, your understanding of the world you live in just goes up a little bit like you reach a little higher level of awareness. And sometimes you can feel it like you'll get a little goosebumps or something. I'm going to do that to some of you now. Most of you won't feel it but some of you are going to feel it. Here's your goosebumps.

Here's the claim that is so simple. Just check. It goes like this, quote, there were vote movements across all candidates. Of course you know the vote is changing in real time as the candidates are getting their votes counted. And they say however we did not see the same type of negative decrements, meaning votes decreasing in real time from a total that was higher to lower, to any of the other candidates that we saw with President Trump's tallies. And they happened repeatedly, the Trump ones, with no explanation, said Linda McLaughlin, a member of the group.

Now that is a very specific, simple claim which the data that they have available to them apparently shows. Now here's my problem. I'm not telling you to believe this, okay? So if it sounds like I'm saying hey this is a credible one, believe this one, I'm not there. I'm not there at all. But what I love about it is that it's a claim you don't have to believe or disbelieve. You can just check it.

All right. Now if it's true that only President Trump's vote counts showed several times when they went down and nobody else ever experienced even one issue of where any other vote count, either Biden's or anybody else on the ticket, Republican or Democrat, anybody else, if no other vote count all night ever showed one decrease but the Trump votes did a number of times, easy to check, right? Because apparently they have the data. They can just look at it, say okay here it was, it decreased, and the other ones didn't.

Now do you think if that claim is checked then it would stand up? Oh and somebody's saying in the comments that it was true across multiple states. I believe that's true, that it was not in one place, it was multiple counties. Now how do you like the fact that this is boiled down to something that you could just check? You don't have to wonder. Now based on the claim you should not believe it if all you've read is the claim. Zero credibility, just like every other claim about the election. No credibility.

But if the other side doesn't weigh in and say you idiots there's a perfectly good reason why it looked like that was happening but it really wasn't, I'd wait to hear that. But what if you never hear that? Because as Linda McLaughlin says that no explanation has been offered. Don't you think that would be something they'd want to explain? And don't you think it wouldn't be hard to explain it if there were an explanation? For example, and I'll just brainstorm what it might be. It could be that they've got different sources reporting and that every once in a while there's an artifact where there's a slight timing problem and it looks like something was decreased but it really wasn't. It was just decreased before it increased or something, right? You could imagine they'd say look this is normal. We'll show you that it happened in other elections. We'll show you that it happened to Biden too. We'll show you that it happened to other candidates. A defense would be easy. It would be easy to defend it. Just tell us why it happened or tell us it didn't happen. Easy.

So do you think that this exclusive story in the Epoch Times will be picked up by all the major media? Because now we know a way to find out for sure if the election was stolen. Isn't that good news? We don't have to wonder. In fact we could probably be sure of it in 24 hours. All you need is somebody who's got the opposite opinion about what this data means. Have somebody qualified have them look at the same data and then tell us what they think. If they look at the data and they have a good explanation I'm open to that. Indeed I'm not only open to it, I'm far more likely to believe the explanation because most of these things are going to be explained away like 95 percent minimum will be explained away. Why would this be different? So I would expect it's not real.

But every day we go in which the explanation, the alternate explanation, doesn't exist, it's a little harder to believe it's not real, isn't it? Now do we live in a world where the news can just disappear something this important? Well let's talk about the Trump phone call.

So you all saw the news. Trump made a phone call with I guess it was the Georgia attorney general and other people in that office and in which he was listing his grievances and evidence for why the election was stolen. And he had a pretty long list of things like dead people voting and people whose addresses don't check out and there were places where he claimed that there were more votes than registered voters, etc.

Now I listened to the entire hour because I think you need to, because if you're just a clip coming out you won't know what to believe. But I listened to the whole hour and I have a few thoughts. Number one, the president is very poorly advised at the moment. I mean shockingly poorly advised. Now do I blame the president for thinking that there are all these irregularities which have been in my opinion mostly debunked? In my opinion, right, there's some room for opinion on this. But I feel as if he's mixing claims that have not been debunked and are definitely worth looking into and look pretty strong, like this Epoch Times one. I don't know if that's true but it looks pretty strong and hasn't been debunked as far as I know. So wouldn't you like to look into that a little bit? Of course you would.

But by mixing stuff that at least again just in my opinion sounds transparently and obviously not true, somebody's not telling the president the truth. There is nobody in his circle at the moment who apparently feels safe that they can say you got some strong things you can say and you got some weak things and maybe just leave the weak things alone because if the strong ones work that's all you need. Why would you throw weak ones in there and ruin the whole thing? So I would say that for those of you who have been following the claims they seemed almost embarrassingly uninformed. So that was my take.

Now you know from if you've watched me I could not be a bigger booster of Trump, right to the point of a flaw. I'm a booster to the point of flaw. But even I didn't think the stuff he was saying about the election was too credible in whole. There were parts of it that I didn't know and I'd like to know more about them, definitely stuff to look into. But the way it was interpreted by the news is in the form of a hoax.

Oh here's the other thing I noticed. He's the president of the United States, I'll be at lame duck it looks like at this point, and he could not get the people on that phone call to be even a little bit cooperative. Not at all. So watching the president of the United States trying to make a basically a Karen phone call and complain about the service and he couldn't get the supervisor to say anything helpful, it was shocking to see how little power he had. How did it get reported? When we saw how little power the president has, the president couldn't even get the other people to be polite basically. I mean he couldn't get anything out of them and they're his own party. How is that reported? Obviously a dictator. Obviously trying to force things through. If you listen to it, man that was no dictator. That was whatever you are when you're complaining to the DMV and they're not hearing it. That's what was happening there. That wasn't Hitler. That was Karen complaining and nobody cared. That was it.

Now it was characterized of course as that he was pressuring and it was illegal and all the bad people say it's illegal, he's pressuring. But if you listen to the whole call there are a few things that are very clear. Number one I would say with complete confidence, and I believed this before but the phone call removes all doubt, and it's this. I'm not a mind reader but that call makes it really, really clear that Trump believes it was stolen. So if you're thinking to yourself he doesn't really believe it was stolen, it was some kind of a trick to stay in power, in my mind there's no chance of that. You hear the phone call, he absolutely thinks he got screwed. He's got lots of evidence that he believes. A lot of it I don't. But he's convinced. I mean he sounds like a true believer and he sells that completely.

So if you're worried about you know he's a dictator that should dispel that because you didn't see much dictator stuff going on. But the fake news CNN has turned it into a scandal because they need Trump for their ratings. And here's the pattern of how they turn real news to fake news. You see it in this example and you've seen it a number of other times. Once you see the pattern it's just kind of funny. They use the same trick.

First they'll take an audio or a video tape that's longish and they'll cut out a quote that's out of context. Where have you seen that done? You saw that with the Covington kids. You saw it with the fine people hoax. And you saw it with the drinking bleach or injecting disinfectant hoaxes. In each case if you had heard the entire piece you would have said to yourself that's the opposite of what the news said. For example in the fine people hoax, before the quote that was taken Trump talked about the people who were there who are not racist, just there for the statues. And then after that he made sure that you knew that he was condemning totally the neo-Nazis and the racists who were there. But if you take out the clarification and also the context they started and just show the clip, it looks like he called Nazis fine people.

If you look at the Covington kids clip all they do is clip out the parts before and after and it looks like the kid is the bad person. But if you see the whole clip it's obvious that the person he was with, or the guy who claimed to be a native American, or he was, I don't remember the story, you could tell that he was the aggressor. Likewise with the drinking bleach hoax. If you hear it in all of its context, you're the first part where the president sets it up as talking about light as a disinfectant then he talks about it and then he clarifies about light. So if you don't hear that he set it up as light and then he wrapped it up as light and all they take out is injecting a disinfectant, that's how they create the hoax.

Now the fake edit is not enough by itself. All right that's not bad enough by itself. You need the other steps and I'll get to them all. So in the case of this phone call what they took in a quote, they took little pieces and a quote where he's saying stuff that makes it sound as if he's pressuring him to cheat. Now the opposite is happening. Trump is pressuring him to look into allegations to make sure that nobody cheated. That is literally the opposite of asking him to, as CNN reports it, find votes.

So the second part of this is that the fake news will use persuasion primers. These are words and phrases which if you hear them at the same time you've heard the story for the first time they prime you to see the story a certain way. These are brainwashing persuasion primers. None of this is an accident. They know how to do this. It's the fourth time in a row you've seen it. Same pattern every time.

So the primer words that they use in this case are pressured to find votes. Here's another way to describe exactly what you heard on the audio. The president forcefully was promoting his idea that the people in charge should look into the allegations of fraud so that the public can understand that the election was either clean, which would be good, or they'd find that it wasn't, which would be good in another way. So did that sound like pressuring to find votes meaning manufacture about nothing? Did that sound the same? Because what I said was just objectively true. You listen to it. He's making his case. He's presenting his claims for fraud. He says we just want a fair vote. We just want to know. I just want you to look into it. That's all.

But if you hear pressured and find votes and you pair it with a clip which doesn't have the rest of the context it looks like what a mob boss. They like to use the things that you've believed before. Now because the whole he's a mob boss was already a meme they just take a meme that is already active in your mind and they just attach a new thing to it. It's much easier to attach fake news to an existing meme. Oh he's like a mob boss. Yeah whenever he makes a private phone call or thinks it's private he talks like a mob boss. And here he is making a phone call like a mob boss.

Now if you listen to it there wasn't anything even close to talking like a mob boss. I mean not even close to anything like that. The tone was not that. It was just asking for something to be looked into. That was it. And the boldness with which they try this is amazing.

Here's some more phrases from CNN. The president w