not really an argument on the other side that you know there was no way to vote without mail-in ballots. So mail-in ballots are a signal of an intention to cheat.

What about the use of voting machines which we've been told are totally secure? Well, have you heard of the Secure It Act? So that's a proposed legislation that would close the election machine vulnerabilities. What? The election machine vulnerabilities? What? Well now I'm all confused. So the elections were secure and we know it, but there are so many vulnerabilities in the machines that we need legislation and major work and a huge budget to fix the vulnerabilities that we've been told don't exist or at least have not been exploited. How would anybody know that it wasn't exploited?

Here's my second question that the news will never answer. You ready for this? I'll make you a bet the news will never answer this question. It's a very simple question. Are all of the vulnerabilities that we're talking about, and it's stuff like shared passwords across states, some password credentials are in the code so anybody who knew what to look for could have found it. Some of them you could connect to the internet when you shouldn't. Some of them have old software and they think the new software would fix some bugs in the old software that could have caused a vulnerability. So there are a whole host of things. But are those things the types of things that you could always catch it if it happened? There's the key question.

Are these vulnerabilities, which I think there's general agreement there's lots of them because even if you think the machines are great, you're probably still looking to upgrade them because software gets upgraded. So how do we know? Do you ever remember the news telling you, well it is true that there are potential vulnerabilities in the voting machines, but even if somebody tried to exploit them they would get caught. Now we don't want to be in that situation. Of course we'd rather they don't even have anything to exploit. But if they did exploit them in any prior year, well we caught them because we've got a check and a balance. To which I say wait a minute. If you could catch a problem on a voting machine, what are you looking at to catch it? Does that mean there's some parallel system where you can look at it and say well your voting machine total didn't match this total? Because if there's an alternate system that's more reliable and you can use it to test whether the voting machines have the right total, shouldn't you just use that other thing as your source? If there's some other thing that tells you that the vote was right, use the other thing. Otherwise I would be assuming that there's no way to know if the machine got the right answer or not.

So there's the key question. If we all know, and I believe this is now established, it's now established that the voting machines have vulnerabilities that at least potentially could be used by bad people, are they the type that if they existed in past elections and they got exploited that we definitely would have caught them? And what does that look like? How exactly would you catch them? I guess it depends on the type of exploit. But they're really telling us two opposites. One, there are lots of things that need to be fixed in terms of current vulnerabilities. Two, the election was secure and we know it. Can those both be true? To me those seem like opposites. If these vulnerabilities are the kind that you have to fix, it's sort of suggesting by nobody saying it that somebody could have exploited them and gotten away with it.

So this again is the news saying well we haven't looked behind the closed door but we can guarantee there's nothing back there. How? Well nobody said there's anything back there. I know, but you never looked. Right? Do you see how obvious this is? Just think about the fact that you've been watching shows and news and reports about this topic, election integrity, for years. And today is the first time anybody said the only question that mattered. If somebody had already used any of these vulnerabilities, did you definitely catch it because the system catches that kind of stuff? If you've never heard the answer to that question, let me tell you the answer to that question. We would have no idea if they were exploited. That is the answer. It's the most important question and most important answer, and the news on the left and the right doesn't even ask it. What's up with that? Why is this the first time you've even heard the question? Am I right? How many of you, your brains are exploding right now when you say my God, that is the only important question. Since we've confirmed lots of vulnerabilities in lots of different ways, if somebody had used those vulnerabilities which we've confirmed to exist, would they definitely have been caught? How? It's not much of a vulnerability if you get caught every time you use it. Now I suppose there'd be a different kind of vulnerability where it just takes the machine down and you know let's say they take the machine down in Trump territory. So that would be maybe harder to spot.

All right, so we got that. So we got the lawfare against Trump. We've got Google who is rigged. We've got mail-in voting which only has one purpose for rigging. We've got the use of voting machines that have lots of vulnerabilities. We know that and we wouldn't know if they had ever been used before for rigging and we won't know in the future because that's how they're designed. Let's see, what else we got? We've got the media, total media control. The Democrats rigged the primary, replacing Biden and keeping Kamala Harris from our view. And then of course the immigrants shipped in. So that's the bad news.

Let me get to the good news. The reason I was wearing my swaddling blanket today is because you guys need some good news. Here's some good news. Voter enthusiasm is probably all that makes a difference in this race. So the smart people, the ones I agree with, say that getting your base, more of them to show up, is going to be way more likely to work than getting people to change their minds because there's not so much mind changing going on. But you might be able to get more people to show up.

Now I don't think it's hard to get people to show up in person because it's hard to get somebody's ass off the couch if they don't want to do it. But it might not be impossible to get people to vote by mail. So here's what I'd do from this day on. Every time there's another Trump meme, I would put a QR code on it. And the QR code should take you to the Pennsylvania page where you can request a mail-in ballot. And you should know that's what the QR code is for. And it should