en? I don't know. I have to put this in the category of tariffs where I hear the idea and I think to myself, I don't know. I don't know. I believed that BlackRock buying houses thing. I mean, I got fooled by that. So I guess anything's possible. Maybe. Maybe.

But some people say that Trump will not succeed in getting rid of mail-in ballots because the states have full control of how they do the elections. But I'm going to ask you a question that's going to make your head go, "Wait a minute. Does that make a lot of sense or am I going crazy?" You ready? So here's another mind bender. If you haven't been exposed because I haven't heard anybody say this. To the best of my knowledge I haven't seen any news report with the suggestion I'm about to make.

Okay, let's accept the assumption that the states have the ability to run their election any way they want. Okay, we all would understand that. And therefore if Trump tried to do an executive order or even if the Congress made some law that they tried to apply to the states, the courts would throw it out because the states definitely have the power to decide how to run the election in their state. So I think we'd all agree on that.

But here's my question. Does the federal government have the ability to reject any state's numbers that they find not credible for any reason whatsoever? Let's say there was a report that was very well sourced that showed that one state had cheated on an election. Would the federal government be required to accept that result? Let's say the state tried to push it on the feds anyway because it's the only result they had. But we knew there was very credible reports that it wasn't a good number. Would the feds have the ability to say we're going to skip your state because you don't have a credible number or say we're not going to give a result, we'll just keep running the country the way it is because the election is not complete. There's a state that hasn't weighed in, which would also be bad for Democrats because that would keep Trump in office.

Or could it be that we don't have to have evidence that there was cheating? Would it be enough for the federal government to say the only sources of numbers that we find credible are the ones that don't involve voting machines if they decide to say that and the ones that don't involve mail-in votes. So the government can say we will accept all of your numbers that do not come from those two sources. And it's not because we have proof that there's any problem with those numbers, but what we do have is we've identified two systems which we have judged not to be credible enough to be acceptable. Could the Trump administration and therefore future administrations too I guess decide what they would accept based on the credibility of the process by which they collected the numbers?

Had anybody floated that idea? Now I'm not a lawyer and even a lawyer would not have necessarily the domain specific knowledge about elections. So I don't know how to test that idea, but I don't think I've heard it before. It does seem like the feds have, doesn't it seem to you that the federal government would have the power to reject numbers that were just not credible? Don't you think that that has some weight? I don't know. Maybe it's time to test it. We'll find out.

Trump says that Chicago might be next for the cities that you would flood in some federal resources like the National Guard and try to conquer the violence and the crime there as he is trying to do in Washington DC. Now if you judge Washington DC by what's happened so far, it all looks good, but we don't know what happens if he inevitably has to reduce the number of forces there, etc. So anything could happen. But hold that in mind. I'm going to tie this all together.

So remember, Trump has federal forces in Washington DC and so far it looks successful. He might do the same thing in Chicago. Now I'm going to switch topics, but I'm going to tie them together, so pay attention.

Bill Maher had his show last night, and of course we watch him to watch this very entertaining arc from a Trump hater to a "damn it, he keeps doing things I like." And I don't believe Maher is ever gonna become a Trump supporter, member of MAGA. But every week it seems like he gets closer by validating that something that Trump did was worthy of compliments. However, just to make sure you know that he would never go all the way to supporting Trump, he has this one ace in the hole that he says is disqualifying for Trump. Oh yeah. There's maybe lots of things you could complain about Trump, but there's this one thing that Bill Maher lets us know almost eve