no, no, it doesn't have anything there. There's nothing in there about sacrificing toddlers. That'd be crazy. Yeah, we know, but nobody's going to read it. What? Yeah, we're just going to say you like sacrificing toddlers and it's right in the document. But it's not. Well, nobody's going to know. Good luck, suckers.

Do not make a gigantic document before an election.

Joel Pollak has a new book whose title I can't remember at the moment, which does it right. Which is a bunch of recommended executive orders or things that Trump could do immediately upon taking office. But it's genius because you can see every idea in five seconds. Literally it's like one sentence. You know, it's like do this. Oh, I know what that means. So you could absorb the entire book, know exactly what it means. I don't think any of it is especially controversial or you would have heard about it. You know, if Joel's book was creating the same problems as the Heritage 2025, the Democrats would already be using it. But it doesn't. It's just all smart stuff. So I recommend it. So just look for his name. It's on Amazon, I think. Joel Pollak. You'll find it.

All right. JD Vance is reportedly moving toward Trump on abortion. So JD Vance had been a no-abortion-anytime kind of guy, but he's softening to Trump's approach that there might be some exceptions and maybe the states can work it out and maybe that's the best place for it and maybe that abortion pill isn't so bad. And you know, so he's still being considered as a top pick.

I saw somebody else say this and I'm going to echo it. I think that Trump's pick for vice president will not be any of the top five that we're talking about. And it doesn't matter who you put in the top five. I think it won't be any of them. And also I always have to add this: there is no category of thing I'm worse at predicting than a vice presidential pick. So if I could ask you not to include this one in my permanent record, I'm just guessing like the rest of you. But I'm getting a hint that it might be somebody you just didn't see coming. Now, I don't think it's going to be Tucker Carlson, but it could be somebody as interesting as that. It could be somebody as interesting as, my God, I didn't see that coming, but that's interesting. Might be. We'll see. It's not me.

Well, AT&T announced that they had a little hack. I guess hackers got in it just a little bit of a hack. Let's see what they got. They stole records, got some records of calls and texts. Let's see how many records did they get. They got the records of calls and texts from nearly all of 109 million AT&T wireless customers. Oh, that's bad. So AT&T, a big tech company, got hacked and nearly all of their calls and text messages got hacked. All of them. Nearly all of them. Huh. Well, that's a pretty bad situation.

But sometimes when you see bad situations, aren't you glad that there's not more of it? I mean, for example, AT&T with their big Fortune 500 cybersecurity, which is basically just—I don't think they put much attention into cybersecurity. You know, the big Fortune 500 companies whose entire multi-billion-dollar operation depends on protecting their IP and their databases and stuff. I don't think they really put much effort into it. You can see they got hacked. How much effort could they have been putting? Probably they don't even have a cybersecurity team.

Now, unlike our election systems—the election systems are kind of by state, so they're all over the place. But luckily, even though Fortune 500 companies are vulnerable to hackers despite all the money and resources and, you know, sometimes you think, oh, AT&T would have really good technical people, but no, they really don't care that much about cybersecurity. They just let it be wide open. Unlike our election systems, which have never been hacked in any meaningful way. They are perfectly secure. And although they're managed by different states in different ways, and although you might say—and this would be unkind of you to say this, so I mean I'm disavowing you for even thinking it, but I know what you're thinking. You're thinking to me, well, Scott, if I were a cybersecurity expert and I could work at a Fortune 500 company with all those benefits and pay, would I ever choose instead to work for the local election officials? Because that feels like a low-pay job with low status and not much room for advancement compared to a corporate job.

So there's part of me that thinks that on paper the election security people would be the weakest technological people, and the Fortune 500 companies—let's say a phone company—would be among the very best in security. You would think, wouldn't you? Well, of course I'm being sarcastic. You know that AT&T I guarantee has one of the best cybersecurity departments in the world, and they got hacked. How badly? Really badly. But thank God our government told us that the elections are secure and we don't have to worry about them.

Meanwhile, the *Gateway Pundit* is reporting that several experts just gave some testimony about the Georgia 2020 election. What do those several experts say? Well, a few problems with the votes. Just a few. When I say a few, I mean only a million. Only a million votes are questionable. No, that's not bad. It's only a million votes. Why are they questionable? Let's see. About 18,000 had no ballot images. About 21,000 had no source tabulator. 3,000 were double-scanned, double-counted ballots. 177,000 unsourced ballots. Unsourced. My God. Yeah. So that was from the Center for Technology and Civic Life, funded. All right, anyway. So Joe Hoft is reporting that in the *Gateway Pundit*.

Well, there was the Save Act that failed. The Save Act was going to be the congressional law that said that you couldn't vote unless you're a citizen of the United States. And that did not pass because some Republicans crossed over to the other side and said nope, we don't want that. Do you know what the dog not barking on this one is? Watch the press not ask anybody why they voted against it. Nobody. You won't see a single person in the press ask anybody, why did you think it was a bad idea to require people to prove they're citizens? Now, they're going to say stuff like blah blah. It's going to be suppressing the vote of minorities. And it's going to sound really stupid because you're going to say, have you ever heard of anybody who couldn't figure out how to get an ID and vote? Have you ever heard of that? Well, we know they exist. Really? And you feel that the system would be better if somebody who can't figure out how to get an ID in America can also be in charge of our big decisions? I feel like that's exactly the group you want to suppress.

Now, I'm not in favor of vote suppression, but if it's going to happen, you know, because of just the design of the system, the very best situation is you don't let the people who can't figure out how to get an ID have any other decisions either. They shouldn't make any decisions. And this again has nothing to do with anybody's race or gender or anything like that. If you can't figure out how to get an ID, how interested in voting are you in the first place? How well informed are you in the first place? If you can't get an ID in America, not too well informed.

Now, I suppose the federal government could have said something like, if you can't afford an ID, the federal government will subsidize you. And then you could say, no, there's no money problem. The federal government said they'll pay for your ID. So they could have maybe added that enhancer. But watch how nobody asks why they voted against it. Especially nobody's going to ask the Republicans why they voted against it because there were some Republicans. Ask them. Ask those Republicans. You'll never see it. That's going to be a big no comment.

*Wall Street Journal* is reporting that Republicans are having too much fun enjoying the whole Biden decomposing story. But here's a quote from Senator