who are giving me a hard time online because they're quite sure that with this many indictments — oh my God, so many indictments. I think there's ten thousand now, right? Ten thousand indictments or something. Ten or 13 or 72 or some number. So therefore he's clearly a criminal. That's been proven by the indictments. But of course indictments are easy to get. Doesn't mean anybody is guilty.

And Dershowitz basically thinks the charges are political and ridiculous and will, no matter what happens in the lower courts, the Supreme Court will laugh at them and toss them out. And that's his prediction. Now if you're a Democrat and you're not one of the top lawyers of all time, don't you feel a little silly saying that the walls are closing in, they got him this time? As long as Dershowitz is over here saying no, I'm predicting this will all go away. It would affect the elections of course, but in the end it's all transparently obviously weak and political and the Supreme Court will just wipe it away like what's from their eye. Terrible analogy.

So he also points out that RICO — and of course Dershowitz has been everywhere that's important in the law, so he's like personal friends with the one who invented the RICO statutes. He knows everything about RICO, right? And he says it wasn't meant for political people doing political stuff. I mean it was meant for other purposes. It's been repurposed from Mafia to some other things, but it made sense when they repurposed it. He doesn't think this application of RICO is going to stand the full test to the Supreme Court.

Dershowitz points out — and I haven't heard this anywhere else — that the D.A. in this case lied in public. No, she lied and everybody else knows she lied. It's basically going to be a test or a trial about somebody lying. But anyway, the D.A. said they're trying to wrap it up in six months. And Dershowitz just laughs at that because the other thing she said is that she's going to try all the many defendants sort of simultaneously. And Dershowitz points out with that many defendants you could have 50 lawyers in the room just for the defendants. Let's say they have two apiece. And 50 lawyers dealing with every motion. So somebody could say something like I'd like to move the venue, and then somebody else could say I like this venue, and all 50 of them would have to hammer it out. So that you have a process that not only can't be done in six months but it's really, really, really obvious that the D.A. was lying because nothing could be done. Nothing of that complexity could be done in six months under those conditions. It just can't happen. It's undoable.

And our — is it the prosecutor? It was the judge? I think it was the judge. No, the D.A. Oh, I'm being a manufactured. It was the D.A., not the judge. Thank you. Thank you. D.A., not the judge. That's an important correction. So the D.A. who said it would be six months, not the judge. All right, thank you for that. That's the beauty of the live format. I love being fact-checked in real time. I think that really helps.

All right. So the biggest one of the biggest keys to the Trump charges are that perfect phone call, as he says. Do you remember how many times you've seen that we need to find 11,780 votes? You've seen that in the headlines. You've seen it from pundits. You've seen it on the news, right? So that's all true because it's on the news. It's quoted. And you've probably even seen or you've probably even heard audio of him saying it. Have you not?

Well, I found out today that this was always a Rupar. And I didn't know it. Now if you're new to me, a Rupar — Rupar refers to a video, but it could apply to audio as well, in which you delete part of it. And here's the weird characteristic of a Rupar. Deleting part of it reverses its meaning. Reverses it. It doesn't just take a nuance away. It actually reverses it, right?

So for example, some Rupars were the fine people hoax. If you take away the part where he says immediately after he said fine people, he said I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis, they should be condemned completely. If we remove that, which they did, it reverses the meaning from disavowing Nazis, which he said explicitly, to complementing them and supporting Nazis. It's a complete reversal by removing one part.

Likewise with the drinking bleach hoax. When they remove the part before he talks about it and immediately after. Those are the two clarifications. The clarifications were that he was talking about light being brought into the lungs, literally putting a stent down there or something and shining light on the lungs as a possible disinfectant. The news removed the reference of light on both ends. And he made sure he put it on both ends so you wouldn't be confused. So they removed it and reported it, and that changed it to he wants you to drink bleach. Now drinking bleach is not even similar in any way to shining light down your lungs.

Now I'm watching some people who are finding this out for the first time. Imagine you're watching this live stream right now and you're hearing this for the first time. And I just saw somebody go LOL. Sorry, this is really mind-bending if you haven't heard it before.

Here's another one. The overfeeding the koi, the fish in Japan. So the real video showed Trump with President Abe, and the two of them were feeding koi fish by throwing some bread or whatever in. And then when they were done, Abe went first by dumping the rest of his fish food in because he was done. And then Trump also dumped his in because he was following the leader. Literally when you cut out the part where Abe went first, the news showed that Trump was a big old dope. Instead of feeding the fish like a little at a time, he just dumped his fish food. And that's a Rupar.

You remember the Covington kids video. It looked like the teenager was getting in the face of some Native American. Oh my God, that kid fooled me. Fooled me for 24 hours. But it's because they clipped out the part where it was the Native American guy who was actually getting in the face of the kid. It looked opposite if you take that out. So the Rupar — remember that the Rupar doesn't just change a detail. It completely changes the story to an opposite or something that's horrible in the opposite direction, right?

So in the drinking bleach hoax, Trump was actually ahead of the scientists because he was aware of a trial that was actually being trialed at that time to see if light