would work as a disinfectant in the trachea, in the lungs. So he knew something the scientists above. And the news reversed it to not only did he not know more about that one little thing, but that he was so dumb he thinks you should drink bleach. Now half of the country actually believed all of those things and still does. Half of the country believes all of those things because a Rupar video is really persuasive. It's really persuasive.

So it turns out that this find the 11,780 votes was just another Rupar. And I didn't find that out until today. Is the day I found that out. Can you believe it? Now I'll explain it to you because you might not be aware of it. I know for example Breitbart did report this when it happened, but I think we lost it. If you ever knew it you probably forgot it by now. I did.

Here's his actual full statement. So this is on audio. We know this is his full statement. So look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is more than we have because we won the state. Which part did they take out? Because we won the state. If you take out because we won the state, which is a very clear statement that he believes that they're trying to take an illegitimate result, look at it more closely and come up with a legitimate vote because he thinks he won. What part do they leave out every time? Because we won the state.

What is the entire trial about? His state of mind. Did he really believe he won the state or not? Now this alone would not be evidence of his state of mind because they could just say he was lying. But it is evidence, not conclusive, but it's more evidence of exculpatory. Am I using that word right? It's evidence that we should have been given to the public and certainly the court. But we should have been given this evidence from the beginning because this is the part that gives you context to explain what you're saying.

Imagine you heard only this. I just want you to find 11,780 votes. Does that sound like Mafia talk? Yeah, a little bit. A little bit, doesn't it? Sounds a little bit like Mafia talk. It's not guaranteed it's Mafia talk, but you could easily imagine it, right? You could imagine it. Now you add because we won the state. Is that what the Mafia guy says? Does the Mafia boss say I'd like you to go get that thing that we legally own? Hey, I'd like you to go to the store and get me some products. All right, I'm gonna steal some products for you. No, no. Here's the money. Take the money, go to the store, pay for the products, bring them to me and the change too. Yes, the change too. Go to the store, pay for the products, put them in a bag, get a receipt, bring it to me.

That's what they're accusing him of. They're accusing him of asking for something he is specifically calling out as legal. That's the Mafia talk. He might go to jail because of a Rupar audio which basically has biased the entire world so that by the time you reach the jury pool you're so polluted that it wouldn't matter what you heard at that point. Yeah, it goes to his intention. And his intention is completely different if he says I think I won. Can you find the evidence of that by looking more carefully? Completely different.

Are you using an analogy? No, I'm using several different stories. The Mafia analogy, is that an analogy? Let me tell you the right way to use an analogy and the wrong way. The wrong way to use an analogy is that that's your argument. Right now hold on. People think I'm busted. I'm not. I've always said the same. Analogy is a good way to introduce a concept. It's not how you win an argument. So I think I said very clearly that the argument is that he said he believes he won the state. So that's the argument. So the argument doesn't need the analogy. The analogy is in case you didn't catch the argument. It's like another way to bring you into the argument. It's not the argument, right? So I'm not winning any arguments by an analogy. I'm using them to further clarify a situation. That is a proper use. The improper use is to say it reminds me of something and therefore. That's not a proper use.

All right. But look how much you learned today.

So let me run something by you. Can you imagine Trump giving some kind of a speech or national address or something as he's running for office in which he simply lays out how the gears of the machine work? He simply lays out how the Biden crime family does their work. Even if the end result is there's no criminal liability, j