Moyn, a lawyer. He said it wasn't bad luck. They did not put Trump in jail. Well, I'm paraphrasing that part. He said, quote, the more uncomfortable truth is that our search for political salvation primarily through the law has backfired. Let me read that again. The more uncomfortable truth is that our search for political salvation primarily through the law has backfired. Is that admitting that they were using lawfare because they didn't have another way to stop Trump? That's how I read it, and others are reading it the same way. And so I appreciate that. I appreciate the complete sincerity of that.

Now Mike Davis, you might know him as a Republican with some legal background, he says even the liberal New York Times is admitting the Democrats ran lawfare and election interference against President Trump, because I guess it would be election interference, wouldn't it? And he says now the Trump Justice Department should open a criminal probe under, and he gives the law, and apparently there's some law that would be a conspiracy against rights. A conspiracy against rights. That sounds exactly like the right law, doesn't it? Does it seem like there was a conspiracy of various elements in the government to prevent Trump from having the right to, first of all, be a free citizen and second of all to run for office?

I mean, without being a lawyer, if you tell me that there is a law that says you can't have a conspiracy to deny somebody their rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the first thing I'd say is, okay, that seems like that should be a law, shouldn't it? I mean it should be a law. So if it is a law, how could you possibly imagine it doesn't apply here? It would clearly apply. And here's a Democrat lawyer who's saying, well, looks like the lawfare didn't work. I feel like what happens after that has to be criminal indictments, because if everybody can see it as plainly as we can, you got to at least dig around there and see if there's a case. I think there might be. But again, I don't want to see any lawfare and revenge. It better be a good case, because we don't want to lawfare the lawfarers. I know some of you want to, but I don't think that's a good place to go.

Apparently there's a study that says 86% of US asylum seekers are not legitimate. So I guess the federal government did a review of that. Now does that surprise you? I thought it was higher, actually. I would have guessed 90 to 95%. But it's interesting that we know about it and we just still keep this program open the way it is. I mean, I think this gets back to that earlier comment that it's super obvious that the government wants to just let in as many people as they can. Like to imagine that this is a mistake, that would be imagining a lot. It's not a mistake. They're using a technical loophole to open the border. That's all that is.

Did you know that California is still counting the votes for 18 days? We're still counting the votes. And believe it or not, Nancy Pelosi's daughter is involved in that, and it's called curing ballots. Now I think that what that means is if you have a ballot that looks like it's filled out wrong or something's missing, you have the option of calling the person and saying, you know, did you mean this? Is this a real vote? Etc. And then you can count it if you can confirm it's a