Bernoulli effect in order to get lift and you built that plane, it would fly. Years later you'd find out that the Bernoulli effect had nothing to do with it. So you can test something and engineer it and find out it works. But then you have to fly the plane upside down to find out what was true. If you fly the plane upside down, which you can do, and it flies, then you know the Bernoulli effect wasn't at least wasn't necessary. It might have helped, but it wasn't necessary.

All right. Let's talk about this Georgia grand jury because the walls are closing in on Trump. And this time, well this time they got him. Let me tell you, all those other times, no, no, those were just play. But this time, this time they got him. And do you know what he did? He used the word "find" for votes. Yeah, just to find this many votes. As Alan Dershowitz explains last night on, I think, Hannity. As Alan Dershowitz explains, the word "find" implies they already exist. Had he used the word "invent" or possibly "concoct" or possibly "lie" or possibly "pretend" or possibly "cheat" or possibly do something illegal, then I would say he committed a crime. But if you ask somebody to find something that you honestly believe might be there, either through a recount or potentially there's a barrel of ballots that didn't get counted somewhere, you don't go to jail for that. You don't go to jail because you use the word "find" and other people thought you meant cheat. You don't go to jail for what other people thought you meant. That's not a crime. It doesn't matter how many people think you meant something. It still matters what you said. It doesn't matter what they think you meant. Nobody goes to jail for that. Nobody.

The odds of Trump going to jail for that. And now I heard that the Georgia or Atlanta, whoever it is, the prosecutor wants to use RICO because there were a whole bunch of people talking about what to do to have the election changed. Basically, is it illegal for a bunch of people to talk about how to get a political outcome? It's not illegal unless you break the law.

Now there is a troubling element to this, which is the so-called fake electors. But even the fake electors were operating under a legal theory. Am I wrong about that? I believe there were lawyers who said, and they were minority lawyers in the sense that other people disagreed, but I believe there were a few lawyers who said, yeah, I think we could do this and it would maybe pass constitutional muster. I don't think anybody thought it was like an insurrection. I think they thought they were trying to get the right result. So you'd have to find somebody who admits that they knew they lost and they did it anyway. If you can't find anybody in this whole RICO conspiracy who didn't honestly believe that Trump won, there's nothing. Am I wrong? Wouldn't you need at least one person in this conspiracy to say, yeah, we knew it wasn't real but we're trying to steal the election anyway? Have you heard of one person, even one? Because usually you have whistleblowers by now. But has even one person said, you know, we really didn't believe he won. We were just sort of acting like it.

Now the RICO thing is so ridiculous and the "find" thing is so ridiculous. And once again, who believes that Trump broke the law? It's obvious it's been demonstrated. It's part of the public record and he's going down. Should I give you an impression of the people who believe that? How could you believe that? I mean seriously, how could you believe that he's in legal trouble over this?

Here's another one. CNN is still talking about how the Dominion lawsuit surfaced all these internal Fox memos. Oh, I'm not done. I'm sorry, I'm not done talking about the grand jury. I forgot the best part. So apparently this grand jury only recommends to another grand jury. I didn't know that was a thing. Am I getting that right? That the grand jury is only making a recommendation to another grand jury and that other grand jury would have to indict? Is that right? Two grand juries for one case? Oh, there's an investigative grand jury and then a regular one, the indictment grand jury, I guess. I didn't know how that worked, which is good because it means I haven't been in that much legal jeopardy.

So here's what I think we saw. The foreperson who apparently identifies as a witch. Now as I said on Twitter, if I were writing the simulation, you know, this thing you think is your reality but it couldn't possibly be real, it's just too weird. If I were writing it and I saw that there was a witch hunt to get Trump, who would I make the foreperson of that effort to get Trump? The witch hunt. I'd make it an actual witch or at least somebody who identifies with witchcraft. Yeah, an actual witch. And then I would have that actual witc