artificial, at least in terms of how you feel about it. So the things you feel about the strongest are not necessarily the important things that happen. So the news no longer reports what is important per se. They report what is going to get the best audience.

Well, there is a publication called RealClear Investigations. They are reporting about this little county in Montana, Missoula. Only 120,000 people in the whole area. And they did a full audit of the mail-in ballots. Now, apparently other audits have been sample audits. I was not aware of that. So when larger places are audited, they cannot count them all because there would be too many. So they pick a sample and just count those.

Now I have questions. Did you know that, first of all, that the other mail-in ballot audits were samples and not actually just counting all the ballots? I did not know that. So that is interesting.

But here is my second question. What do we know about how they picked the sample? Who exactly gave them the sample? Did the auditors go into a big room full of ballots and say, all right, we are just going to randomly... And how would you do it? How would you randomly select ballots? Because even if you went and said I will just randomly pick them from this pile and this pile, probably it would not be random, would it? Because that is not even close to random, right? I mean, mathematically, statistically, even if you were not trying to take them from the same place, you could not guarantee it was random. It would not be possible.

So I ask you this question: Were the people who audited the ballots the same ones who decided which ones to audit? In other words, did they do the randomness? I am just going to put that out there because I do not know the answer.

And let me tell you that no court has found any widespread fraud. No court has a ruling of any widespread fraud in the election, right? It is a big lie. It is a big lie. I am saying that so I can stay on social media. Now on with the story.

So the question is, for the people who have done sample representative audits of big places, was the sample given to them by the same people who organized the election, or did they somehow get to pick it? And if they picked it, how in the world did they know it was representative? And do you want a representative sample? Because I do not think you want a representative sample, do you? Do you not assume that if there is a problem, it is probably not going to be evenly spread? So would not a representative sample of ballots eliminate the possibility of finding fraud? Because you could find some, but you say it is hardly anything. This one sample that we got from this one town had a problem, but it is just one. But it is also the only one you checked in that town because it was a representative sample. So if you do a representative sample, does that not guarantee or almost guarantee, just math-wise and statistically, that you would not find any fraud? Am I wrong about that?

It sort of calls into question whether any audits have been done at all in any way that would matter. So I will just put it as a question. It is not an accusation, because that would get me kicked off of social media. So I have no reason to believe that any audits were insufficient. I simply have a gap in my understanding of how they could possibly pick some representative sample that actually meant something.

But anyway, back to this little Missoula place. So they did an audit in which, because it was a smaller place and there were volunteers and they got approval to do it, they could look at every single one. So I believe this might be the only place that every ballot was checked. Maybe. Fact-check me on that.

And here is what they found. There were enough irregularities that could have changed the election, like easily. There were so many in a place where elections were often close that it was way beyond the point of mattering. Some people are addressing the sample size question. Again I put that out there as a question, not an accusation. I do not know how it could be representative, but maybe it is.

So what they found is that out of 72,000 mail-in votes, 4,600 of them were without envelopes. Six point three percent of all the mail-in votes did not have envelopes, which means that legally they should not have been counted, but they were. And what is more, according to this — this is from the article — according to auditors, county employees claimed that during the post-election audit some of the envelopes may have been double counted. So it might even be a higher number of missing envelopes, but they do not know that for sure. And apparently there were some postmark issues as well.

So fact-check me on this, will you? Just fact-check me. Number one, is the story even true? All right, like I do not trust anything. Like maybe this story did not even happen. Maybe there is no place called Missoula. I mean anything is possible in 2021.

So first of all, is the story even true? I do not know. I do not know. I do not even know how to know. But if it were true, is it the only place they have ever checked, and it is also completely problematic? I hate using that word. I am going to erase that word and back up like I never used it before. The only place you checked, there was a problem. Is that true?

So there is a Missoula in Montana. At least that part I was pretty confident about. But was there really an election? Somebody says yeah. You know, I gotta say, this certainly raises some questions. But like I said, the courts have shown no proof of widespread fraud.

Jack Posobiec had a great prank tweet this morning. And here is the setup. As you know, there are a bunch of Antifa people who are counter-protesting some, I guess some Republican types, some conservative types who were protesting something. Anyway, the Antifa people were throwing rocks through the cars of anything that had a flag on it or the trucks usually. And so there was some of that kind of violence and destruction. And Jack tweeted, tongue-in-cheek, armed Antifa insurrectionists attempted to overthrow the Oregon state capitol today. Now of course that is a joke on the Capitol riots, where anything that looks like a protest could be construed by the fake media as an insurrection. Mike Baker, correspondent to the New York Times, not understanding that this was a joke, tweets about it. The tweet below is getting a lot of traction, but is it even close to being true? Yeah, which is often the case with jokes. They are not that close to being true. The crowd of anti-fascist activists gathering in front of the Capitol to protest a planned right-wing event. There was no attempted overthrow. Yes, there was no attempted overthrow. Good to know. So we have that clarification of a prank.

Breaking news. I do not know if he knew this, but 25 percent of people polled on any topic are idiots. Have you ever noticed that? It does not matter what the question is. If it is on politics anyway, any question on politics, 25 percent of the country is going to be on the dumb side. It does not even matter what the question is. And I wonder, is it the same people every time, or is it just always a coincidence that about 25 percent of the people will disagree on things no matter what they are? Or is it always the same 25 percent who just do not understand anything? Makes you wonder. I imagine it is different people, but it is a funny question.

So here is a case in point. Rasmussen is reporting about the support for voter ID laws. So apparently back in 2018, so not that long ago, the support for voter ID laws among white people was 67 to 74 percent, among Blacks it was 55 to 69, and other non-whites, well that is interesting, it is much higher, 76 to 82. And so among all voters the range was 67 to 75, but the current average is 75. So in other words the support for voter ID laws has climbed substantially. A lot more people are in favor of it. But I go back to my question. Twenty-five percent of the country is not in favor of knowing who voted. What is wrong with them? What is wrong with them?

So I see somebody saying Scott believes polls again. Well I am reading the Rasmussen polls. The Rasmussen polls, at least on the presidential stuff that I follow — I do not know about anything else, but on the presidential stuff — they have been one of the closest pollsters consistently. So following a pollster that is consistently one of the best is not exactly being too stupid. Following the polls that come out prior to an election which you know are fake polls would be sort of dumb. All right, so you cannot say polls are polls. Some of them are just obvi