m to be on disability. I mean it's not about money. It's about what's right. It's about what works. It's about common sense. So yes, a longer sentence, all things being equal, for that kind of thing makes sense.

But the next part is, are all things equal? Is this just an ordinary, we've got evidence you hurt somebody, it's a police officer or somebody acting in that capacity? No. Here's the extra context that I think makes it make sense for Trump. I said that blame for the violence is not limited to the offenders. And here I'm going to give the offenders one-third of the blame. I said it is one-third because our election systems by design, and that's important, by design, signaled to half the country that an election was stolen. I agree they might be wrong. So I'm not aware of proof that the election was stolen. I'm not aware of proof. But the election design flaw, the lack of transparency, combined with an odd come-from-behind everywhere that mattered that we watched in real time, and the violation of past bellwether patterns, meaning that in the past if you lost in these particular areas you definitely lost the whole country. But if you won in these very, what it's called a bellwether kind of area, it would be almost impossible to win all the bellwethers, say nine out of 10, and then lose the election. Trump did. He won most of the bellwethers and somehow lost an election but not until the last-minute count.

Now again, I have no proof, no proof that the election was stolen. But I don't think anybody reasonable would argue that it was signaling it was stolen. I think all of you will agree. Would you agree that it signaled it was stolen even if it wasn't? Now whoever built and designed a system that you could very much predict in advance would eventually signal that it had been stolen and we wouldn't be able to know for sure because it's designed with not enough transparency that nobody can really know who won. If you design something that guarantees you're going to have this exact problem where people are going to get worked up to the point of violence, if your system design guarantees it predictably, you take a little bit of the responsibility. Not all of it, not all of it, because some of the blame, a lot of it, is on the person who actually swung the bat, used the bear spray and all these terrible things. But they're not alone in the responsibility if you built a system that guarantees it happens.

So you got that. And I said if the protesters were right about the election being stolen, and here's my opinion, and I bet that they were, given that every other American institution has been confirmed to be crooked, that means the protesters acted in, watch the careful wording, the American tradition. Here's what I started to say and backed off. I started to say that's how the American Revolution started. Somebody saw something that looked unfair and they acted. It's how Americans do everything. We look for trouble. If we think we see it, we act. If the trouble is really big, there's no limit to how we act. Right? That's an American tradition. You could talk about violence and nobody's going to say I like violence. I don't like violence. But if you put Americans in a specific situation where they think they're recognizing great evil and great risk, it is an American tradition that they act. And the protesters were in that position where they thought they saw something obviously that looked like a rigged election, and they acted in American tradition. That doesn't make it legal. Remember the Revolutionary War wasn't legal. It wasn't legal, and people got hurt. And now we celebrate it. Why do we celebrate it? Because when things were bad, Americans rose up and they acted, and they didn't put a restriction on what those actions would be because the risk was big enough that they decided that that risk was worth it.

So if Americans act like Americans in