Episode 1253 Scott Adams: How Do You Know an Election Was Fair? More Interesting Than You Think
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Kim Jong-Un testing Biden
AOC feels the media needs to be controlled?
We need a way to interpret the news
How to determine if an election was fair
Master list of election fraud claims and debunks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
You're going to have one of the most enlightening coffees with Scott Adams of all time.
Maybe since yesterday. And all you need is a cup, a mug, a glass, a tank, a chalice, a tine, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of that dopamine for the day thing makes everything better except election transparency.
Go. A little bit cold, but still amazing.
Well, I'll warm that up later.
I misspelled the title.
Probably did. I do my titles on these live streams by voice to text, and sometimes I don't check them that well.
It could say anything.
I have no idea what it says.
All right, here's some stuff in the news.
Apparently an idea is going around that when Kamala Harris is sworn in as VP, that there's a call for her supporters to, quote, wear pearls.
That's right. So the idea is that the women who are supporting Kamala Harris will wear pearls that day in support.
And I think that's a great idea.
I would add to that Chanel handbags would be good.
A good way to commemorate Kamala Harris's inauguration would be expensive jewelry, maybe a $25,000 Chanel handbag, Possibly a designer gown.
I think that these are all totally appropriate.
And I think that all 81, well, probably 40 million women who voted for Harris-Biden, they should get out all their expensive jewelry, their Chanel handbags, their designer outfits, and show some respect.
Wait, you don't all have pearls?
Really? There are people who don't have Chanel handbags and pearls and Designer clothes?
Maybe this plan is stupid.
Okay, maybe.
Well, moving on.
So North Korea is being provocative and they had a military parade and unveiled what they think is the most powerful weapon in the whole world.
It would be a submarine-launched ballistic missile.
That's right. North Korea has a submarine-launched Ballistic missile.
That's pretty scary.
The only thing they don't have is the submarine part.
Apparently there's no indication they have a submarine that could launch any kind of a missile, but they totally plan to get one.
But they have the missile.
I believe the current plan is if you get enough people lined up just right, you can kind of throw it.
But until we have the actual submarine, Largely, it'll be an Elbonian slingshot situation to launch it.
I don't know. I'm sure they have another plan.
But it's interesting that Kim Jong-un is testing Biden, because this is one of the traps that Biden has as president.
You know Biden can't agree with anything that Trump did.
It's just never going to happen, right?
So whatever Trump did in North Korea, Biden has to do a different thing.
Because otherwise he would be acknowledging Trump did something right.
What's the different thing?
Starting a fight with Kim Jong-un?
What the hell is he going to do?
So Biden will either have to fail, because Kim Jong-un will probably keep testing him, or turn into Trump, or do something that didn't work for 60 years before Trump.
Doesn't have a lot of options.
I have to admit, this story got to me a little bit.
When you and I watched the The Capitol Assault, and we saw the videos and everything.
I have to admit that you watch it a little bit like it's a TV show.
You know, even though you know it's real, it's important, it's a big deal.
But there's something about the medium of, you know, television and broadcast that gives you some distance.
And so you kind of watch it like it's a bad movie.
You know, you're not really in the scene so much.
And then I heard AOC talking about that, and she was in there, and she said she thought she was going to die in the capital assault.
Now, the first thing I thought was, ah, it wasn't that dangerous, you know?
You're not going to die.
And then you think, oh, wait a minute.
If those protesters had seen or gotten a hold of AOC... She would be like the main target, wouldn't she?
Like, if you were a deluded, crazed, violent right-winger, is there anybody who would be more sort of in your mind as a representative of the Democrats?
That is some scary shit.
So when you hear AOC talk about it, she is unique because she is so visible, so she would be more of a target than other people, presumably.
That's really chilling.
I have to admit, it gave me a different...
Feel for the situation because, you know, if your ordinary politicians had said we feared for our lives, I think that would have been true.
But not the way she would fear for her life because she would literally be a target for crazed right-wing people.
So that was pretty chilling.
Just in my mind, anyway, it took it to another level of how horrible it was.
And basically every day we hear more about it, it goes to another level of horribleness.
It's pretty horrible. All right.
But also about AOC, she was also noodling on the idea of, quote, reigning in the media with some kind of unspoken, undesigned, as of yet, government oversight involvement.
The idea is not really formed, nor would she claim that it is.
But she is simply making the The observation that the media has become dangerous.
Now, of course, when she talks about it, she's thinking right-leaning media.
But here again is where my suggestion of agreeing with the left is the best strategy.
And agreeing with them aggressively.
In other words, agreeing with them harder than they agree with themselves.
And here's a perfect example.
If you say, no AOC, freedom of the press and free speech, and we're just going to fight for that, probably nothing's going to happen.
Nothing good, nothing bad, probably just nothing happens.
But suppose you embraced it.
Suppose you went the opposite direction That anybody would expect.
Let's say you're a solid Republican and AOC says, we've got to do something about all this fake news, basically.
What if you said yes?
And said, can I join you?
And put together something that fights the fake news?
Because here's the thing I don't think anybody understands.
There's nobody on the right who wants to be fooled by fake news from their own side.
Nobody does that by choice.
I do think that it's true that people on the left are fooled by their media.
People on the right are sometimes fooled by the media, too.
And how much of it is happening on either side probably depends on who's in office more than anything about the sides.
So instead of fighting her on this, what sounds like government censorship, I would go at it aggressively and agree with it and ask if he can help.
Because the first thing I would service is the fine people hoax.
The president said you should drink bleach hoax.
And I would just go down the line of the hoaxes.
And then when AUC and her side says, yes, but you've got a bunch of hoaxes too, I would say, yeah, let's look into that.
Let's look into that. You make some good points.
Here are all the hoaxes on your side.
It would be kind of dumb to assume there are no hoaxes on the other side, right?
What are the odds that all the hoaxes are on one side?
Nothing, basically.
They're on both sides.
And I think AOC is dead right on this.
I don't think that there's an obvious way to handle it, but let me make some suggestions.
Suppose there was, I feel as if there's another, there's an opening for a need, and I'm going to model it today.
So I'm going to model in a little bit the need that I think the country needs, which is basically interpreting the news for people who aren't as good at it.
Now, if you were young, would you be good at spotting fake news?
Well, not as good as somebody who's been around a while and seen what the pattern looks like.
So just right there, an obvious example, young people need a little bit of help knowing what's real and what's fake in the news.
Also, they need a little context.
They might need a little extra description.
So there's something that's needed on top of news that's not just opinion.
We have too much of that.
We've got plenty of opinion.
And the news tends to just give you the headlines, and they put it within their frame of whoever their audience is.
So none of that's useful.
The news is put in a biased frame, so that's not useful.
And you don't have contacts, so it's not very useful.
What you need is somebody like what I'm going to do when I talk about election security in a little bit.
You need somebody who can just explain the situation...
And is not beholden to either the left or the right news sources.
Let me give you some examples.
Now these are not people I'd say should do this function.
I'm just saying that such people exist.
There are people who exist who are able to criticize the left and the right just as easily.
Take a Glenn Greenwald.
Criticizes the left, criticizes the right, has great context.
He'd be a good one to be an explainer.
Matt Taibbi, no friend to President Trump, but also doesn't seem to fall for fake news too easily.
That's good. What about me?
You've seen me agree with the president, disagree with the president.
I'm left a Bernie, but I like Trump.
I'm exactly the kind of person...
I don't think I should be the person, but I'm the kind of person who could give you a little bit more than the news can give you and the politicians can give you.
Jonathan Turley. There's a great example.
Jonathan Turley is an excellent source of somebody who reliably will disagree with the Republicans when he's got a reason.
He'll disagree with the Democrats when he's got a reason.
And you can't tell Which way he's going to go.
He just follows the facts.
Take Alan Dershowitz.
Alan Dershowitz, a famous Democrat, will take a Republican, you know, leading cause in a heartbeat if the law leads that way.
So you do have a number of people who have a weird quality that they're at least capable of switching sides depending on where the facts go, okay?
So, maybe AOC has something there.
Let me suggest the mildest form that you might call censorship, but I don't think so.
Let's say there was a group of people that have the qualities that I just described.
Let's say that they form a private, independent entity who are independent thinkers who just help you sort through the fake news.
And let's say that they voluntarily limit their own involvement in this entity to, I'll just pick a number, a two-year term.
So you don't want the same people just being in there and taking root and then they get too much power and blah, blah, blah.
So you want it to be a rotating, fairly quickly rotating group.
And let's say that the government simply did this.
Let's say the government said, look, I know you don't trust the news on the left, Some of you don't trust the news on the right.
We recommend, but do not require, just recommend that you check with this independent group of rotating independent voices just to give some context.
We're not saying they're always right.
We're not saying they're always wrong.
But it's not going to be like the news.
Because the news isn't trying to be right, if we're being honest.
The news isn't trying to be right.
I see Mike Sertovich is being recommended for this list.
I would also put him on that list, but he has that pizzagay thing over his head.
So I think even Mike, if you talk to him privately, I'm guessing.
I'm not a mind reader, you know, but just guessing.
If you said, hey, do you think you're the perfect fit for this?
Probably even he would say, no, I got that pizzagay thing over me.
Try somebody else, they'd have more credibility.
I'm guessing that's what he would say.
But, in terms of is he the type of person who has the right kind of mind and independent thought, yeah, absolutely.
So if it were up to me, yes.
But he's got a reputational issue that he would admit, I think.
I mean, he put it in his own, he put it in his movie, Hoax, so it's not like he's running away from it.
Alex Jones, same problem, right?
He's not going to be viewed as an independent voice.
Alright, but that's the idea, is that maybe there is some way to embrace that idea.
Alright, here's another way to know that you live in a propaganda bubble.
If everybody keeps telling you that an election recount is the same as an audit.
Because a recount feels like completely different from an audit.
How do you check the software of your election devices, your counting machines and your voting machines?
How do you check that with a recount?
We're going to talk about that.
So do they just count up the lines of code and say, well, we counted the lines of code.
It looks good to us. Right?
I mean, how do you check it? So here are some questions that I've been asking.
And... I'll run them by you and I would say that I'm short of having an answer yet.
Now right now I'm going to be modeling what I just talked about.
Somebody to describe the context of the news to give you a little better feel for what's true and what isn't.
And here it goes. How do you know, how does anybody know, an election is fair?
It has been suggested that if you do these two things, you can pretty much find any kind of fraud that would be big enough to change a national election.
So this is brand new information from just interacting with people who are smarter than I am for the last several minutes, and this is what I believe I've learned.
Number one, if you do a recount, you can test that the machines doing the counting counted correctly the ballots.
But, as you're just about to yell into the screen at me, but Scott, all you're doing is counting the fake ballots, if they're fake, right?
If the ballots were not real ballots, counting them a second time would just be recounting fake ballots.
That's what you're going to say to me right now, right?
But, here's the second part.
Suppose on top of recounting, just to make sure the physical counting part is done right, Suppose on top of that, in addition, you spot-checked not every vote, but you spot-checked enough to know that there were no, let's say, signature problems or fake ballots or some irregularities with addresses or eligibility to vote.
So let's say you didn't check everyone, but you checked enough of them that if there had been a problem, you would have picked it up.
So now you've checked enough of the ballots individually to know that statistically you would have found some problems if they were there, but you didn't.
And then you've also checked the count.
Is there anything that you could do as a potential fraudster that could defeat those two kinds of checks?
The claim is that there's nothing you could do.
That wouldn't be obviously detectable.
So everybody who says a recount doesn't work, you're absolutely right that by itself it doesn't work.
Everybody who says that if you just check some ballots to make sure that those signatures matched and they're real people and it's not dead people, if you're just doing a random but statistically valid check, that doesn't tell you that you counted right.
But what if you do both?
You've checked enough of the individual ballots to know there's not a problem with them, and you've checked the counting to know the counting was right, have you now checked everything you'd need to check to find large fraud?
Now, this would not uncover somebody who signed up their neighbor who didn't know about it, right?
So the onesies and twosies, of course, could slide right through.
Alright, so somebody's saying, what about the software code?
What would the software code do besides make the count incorrect?
And if you've got the final tally, and you've got the original ballots, and you recount the original ballots, and then you look at the count that came out of the machine, and they match, you know, within one or two votes or whatever, but they match, doesn't matter what happened in the internals of the software.
What could you do with the software that would do anything wrong or bad if you know that the ballots that went into it and got counted are the same as the final tally?
Does that not prove to your satisfaction that even if there was some mischief in there, it didn't do anything?
Because if it did, they wouldn't match.
Am I wrong? What about the dead voters?
Somebody says. What about these alleged zillions of dead voters?
In every case, it is my understanding that that has been looked into and found that those were onesies and twosies, in other words, small numbers, and that there is no indication that there are a large number of dead voters.
That has not been detected anywhere.
There are lists of people who look like they might have been dead or Incorrect, who have maybe not checked every single one, but since we know that lots of people have the same name, there's another explanation, which is lots of people have the same name.
Now, you go right down the list.
What about the people who don't really, they use the same address or whatever, blah, blah.
Everything, I believe most of these things have at least been randomly spot checked to know that they're not checking out.
So, let me get to point two.
So here's the first thing that I want to know.
And by the way, an election expert did contact me just this morning and offered to answer some questions about election system integrity.
Because the question I have is, Is there any way to cheat?
Suppose it was true, and I'm not saying this is true, suppose it's true, that our system doesn't have any way you can cheat so long as you've done those two things.
You do a recount in the places that you have questions, and you do a statistically valid check of any allegations about dead people voting or wrong addresses or signatures not matching, and you don't find any.
Is that it? Are you done?
100% okay?
I don't know. I don't know.
But I do know this.
If that were true, if it were true that those two kinds of checkings get all the problems that could be found, why hasn't anybody told us that?
Does that seem like there's something missing?
Where is the expert who says, look, look, look, The biggest question in the country is election integrity.
Let me explain to you why it couldn't have been a problem.
And then that expert, hypothetically, would say, as long as you're doing these two things, recounting and checking it to the total, and also randomly checking enough of them, the claims of dead people, the claims of signatures not matching, if you check enough of them, you can determine statistically that there was no problem.
Where is my expert, who actually understands the whole system from beginning to end, who sits in front of the camera on CNN and says, look, you got all these claims, but I'm telling you there's no physical possible way there could be massive fraud when you've checked these two things and we have.
Where's that person?
Is the problem that...
What I just said is true, but people are terrible communicators.
They don't know that that's the biggest question and that it could be easily described, because I just easily described it.
In fact, I only got this description from a tweet from a stranger.
Somebody just tweeted at me, oh, if you do this and this, you're fine.
I don't know. I'm no expert.
Where's my expert? I'll try to get you an expert.
Now, I told you I got the master list of all the election claims or something close to all of them and the debunks of them.
Now, it's a very long document.
It's 42 pages of background and claims and what happened about them.
So I've looked through them, and I was offered this document by, as I told you, somebody you would recognize in the government.
And I'm going to try to leave names out of it just because I don't want to bias the audience.
But just assume that somebody you know in the government said, hey, Scott, you're talking about this.
You should see this document that shows all of the claims.
And then shows how they've been debunked, either by the courts, I think mostly by the courts, or at least logically debunked.
So I look through it. What do you think I found?
Do you think that I looked at a document that claims to debunk all the claims, and that I read it and I said to myself, huh, pretty good.
These are pretty good debunks.
No. Okay. Of course not.
If you live in the real world, you should have known before I even touched the document that what it wasn't going to do is answer all my questions.
Right? If you live in the real world, there wasn't any chance that a 42-page document was going to answer all of my questions.
But it is really useful.
Let me tell you some of the things I found.
So this is a document that Its intention was to make you stop doubting the election outcomes.
Let me say here, for the benefit of my censors who are watching this, I'm not personally aware of any proof of election fraud.
Just me personally, I haven't seen any.
And if somebody told me they'd seen it, why would I believe them?
We're not in a world where you could believe any allegations.
I'm the guy who told you that at least 95% of all the election fraud allegations at the very beginning, I told you this, would be BS. Even if there's some real stuff there, 95% of it would be BS. So, which is not to say there's no fraud, just that the specific claims would mostly be BS. So here are some of the things I found as counters.
Of course, a lot of the counters were that the argument did not have standing.
So a lot of things were rejected because it was too late to bring the thing, or the people bringing it were not the right people bringing it.
So a number of things were rejected for technical reasons.
But the other question was, were there any actual claims...
That we're evaluated by a court.
And the answer is, yes, ish.
By evaluated by the court, I mean that the document debunking it has reasons like this.
The guy making the claim is not credible.
To which I say, uh, that would be true of every politician.
That would be true of a lot of people who are not credible, but the claim is something you could check.
Suppose somebody who's not credible, somebody whose past might have included being a ghost hunter, because that's one of the examples.
So one of the experts had some history of being a ghost hunter.
And so that was used to dismiss his claim.
To which I say, his claim had evidence.
It wasn't like something he claims he saw.
It's something he says he can show you.
Like on a document.
He can show it to you.
So everything that he saw, he can just hand it to you and is willing to.
But it was dismissed because he was once a ghost hunter.
You feel okay about that?
Do you feel okay that his evidence, and apparently he has at least some expertise that would allow him to evaluate that kind of evidence, are you okay that he was dismissed for having once been a ghost hunter?
Because if he's willing to show you the evidence, wouldn't it feel a little bit more credible to say, and we looked at the evidence, and here's why the evidence is not real?
I feel like that was a little bit brushed off.
Now, do I personally think that that's, you know, whichever one was the ghost hunter expert, do I personally think his evidence was credible?
No. No.
I don't. But I'm just saying if it was rejected without being looked at, let's not claim it was being looked at.
Because that just didn't happen.
Or, at least their response in this document doesn't mention that they looked at the details.
But again, 95% of the claims are going to be bogus, and so I don't believe that expert, because I don't believe any of them.
Just automatically, I don't believe them.
They've got a pretty big high barrier, or let's see, a high bar for proof, in my mind, and nobody's met it yet.
Here's another allegation.
There was an allegation that the vote count stopped in some places, mysteriously stopped, and then when it restarted, there were massive votes for Biden.
That's one of the major things that many of the people watching this...
Would say is really strong evidence that there's something up.
But you would be happy to know that it has been thoroughly debunked by this document I saw.
So what would be the other reason that the vote counting would stop, and then when it restarts, it's massively Biden votes?
And the answer is that those are the mail-in ballots.
So they saved the mail-in ballots to count them at the end, and everybody knew that the mail-in ballots would favor the Democrat, because it always does.
So the answer to that is that the reason that the voting stopped, and then when it restarted it was massively Biden, is perfectly explainable by the fact that mail-in votes we knew would go to Biden.
Are you good with that? You're way ahead of me.
But why the stop?
Why the stop? The debunk for the claim that it was stopped, and then when it restarted, it was massively Biden, was that mail-in votes are at the end and they're massively going to be Democrat.
We already knew that. But where did they explain the stopping part?
The stopping part was not addressed.
So the document that debunks the claim that there was mysterious stops in the places where there are questions, followed by the Biden ballots that are mail-in, the mail-in ballot part, that sounds okay.
Do you have any problem with understanding that mail-in ballots would favor Biden?
You probably don't question that, right?
Everybody knew that. But why the stop?
It was the stops that were common to the problem areas that are the question.
And the debunk doesn't mention them.
Now, could there be a perfectly good reason?
And the answer is yes. The perfectly good reason could be, and I'm just speculating, pure speculation, it could be that there's some kind of a There's a process set up that's a little different when you go to count the mail-ins that came from some source.
There might be a reason where they physically need to move them into the building, let's say for example, and that it takes a little while to physically move them in so they weren't really stopping counting.
Maybe it was just the process.
But that needs to be explained, doesn't it?
Doesn't that need to be explained?
Don't we need to hear that?
Somebody say, oh yeah, it looks like it's stopped, but that's just part of the process.
You should expect that.
And then also explain to us why other cities didn't have the stop, if that's the case.
It could be that every city had some kind of a stop.
Some are longer than others.
Maybe it doesn't mean anything. But wouldn't you at least like to know Was it limited to these problem, at least alleged problem cities?
They're the only ones that have a stop with a restart?
So, if you think that the courts have judged this and smart people have looked at it and they've addressed all the claims, I'm not seeing it.
Alright, here's another one.
Suppose you go to a court and you say, I've got all this statistical evidence that a crime happened.
But... There is a 10% chance that it was perfectly legal whatever happened.
So my statistical evidence is a 90% chance that there was a crime.
Can't tell exactly.
90% chance. But there is a 10% chance that something normal happened and it just looks anomalous.
What does the court do with that?
Toss it out. They toss it out.
Because if there's any explanation for the thing that isn't crazy, that's your benefit of the doubt.
Right? So, let me give you an example.
If you had an anomalous result in a, let's say, a precinct, where, let's say, it had always gone to Republicans for 30 years in a row, it went strongly to Trump last year, But this time it went to Biden strong.
Now, if you're just a human, you say, whoa, there's something we need to look into.
This 30-year trend just went to Trump.
By the way, I'm making this one up.
I don't think this is an actual allegation.
Just went to Trump. Statistically, the odds of that, 90% chance there's something fishy going on.
But there's a 10% chance That somebody was just good at getting out the vote, right?
They could have just been really good in that precinct at getting out the vote.
So the court looks at it and said, it sounds like you have two explanations.
One, 90% chance that this is fishy.
And the other, it was completely normal and somebody was good at getting out the vote.
What does the court do with that?
They don't take the case.
Because if you know from the start there is an explanation that can just explain it away, you don't look at it.
So there are a whole bunch of cases in which there's something like an enormous statistical question that the court just looks at and says, but is there any other way this could be explained?
And if the answer is yes, the court doesn't look at it.
Because they're dealing with high likelihood things.
Now suppose you had lots of individual cases that if you looked at any one of them, it would not add up to changing the election.
But it's a bunch of different precincts with, you know, 2% shaving here or there.
Would that be enough to change the election?
Well, in theory, it could be enough to change the election, but if a court is just looking at one part of it, the court is going to say, this wouldn't change the outcome, the part I'm looking at, so therefore I won't take it.
So there are all these reasons why the court is the wrong tool to even look into stuff.
Because as soon as you say, well, there might be another explanation, the court says, that's all we need to hear.
If you don't have a direct witness to the crime, and it's just statistical, and there's another reason that it could have happened, that's it.
That's the end of the question. What about all those eyewitnesses that you heard about?
You heard about a whole bunch of eyewitnesses that had signed affidavits and stuff saying they had witnessed crime?
Well, turns out a lot of that's fake.
There are a lot of people who say they witnessed something, but a number of those allegations sound like, we don't know what happened behind that door, or I think they were changing things, but I can't be sure, or they had a pile of ballots that looked suspicious, but I don't know for sure.
If you add all of that up, it doesn't add to anything.
Nothing. It's just people who saw something that they didn't know what they were seeing and are calling out something that looks suspicious.
But that's not evidence.
The fact that somebody doesn't know why something happened isn't going to convict anybody.
So the other problem is that, and the first time I heard this was reading this document, and I'll bet you have never heard this.
And ask yourself how well you're being served by the news that the next thing I tell you, you've probably never heard before.
A lot of those witnesses signed statements, but not under oath and not with any kind of legal binding anything.
And so the courts looked at it and said, yeah, it's a signed statement, not under oath.
And they tossed it out.
So you can go to the court and say, here are 100 signed statements from witnesses who say that they directly saw some fraud.
What does the court do with 100 signed statements from people who say they directly looked at fraud?
The court says that's not evidence because they're not legally binding.
There's nobody who signed under threat Or penalty of lying under oath.
So the court says that's no evidence.
Now I have to ask myself, I have to ask myself, why did these so many people not want to sign something that was legally binding on them?
Well, I don't know.
But if I were them, I would not sign something that was libelous and legally binding on me just to solve somebody else's problem.
I think that from a legal perspective, I would not want to sign something that bound me to what I said in a way that I could be sued later.
Suppose I said I'm a direct witness to some person or company, let's say Dominion or something, doing something wrong.
and that I've signed that under penalty of lying under oath, I don't think I signed that.
Because even in my own mind, I'm going to think, maybe I'm not 100% sure.
People ask me what I saw.
I saw an irregularity.
I'm reporting it. I'm just doing what people asked.
I witnessed. I reported.
But if you're asking me to do it under oath, then you're also putting me at risk.
Personal risk. Maybe I don't want that.
Maybe I'll sign what I saw, but I won't sign it under oath.
So what are the courts going to do?
Courts say that's not evidence.
You didn't sign it under oath.
Right? Perjury is the word I'm looking for.
Thank you. So we've got that.
Let's see. And so there are a number of claims that don't have any direct evidence, claims that are not under oath, you know, under penalty of perjury.
No addressing the stopping of counting, just addressing that there's a reason that Biden came from behind.
Oh and then here's the one that just made me laugh out loud.
You've also heard the claims that the Number of rejected ballots went from a larger number to an infinitesimally smaller number.
Now, when I say a larger number, I mean, you know, we're only talking about one or two percent or some small number.
In the past, historically, it had been rejected because the person who filled out the ballot made some kind of error.
And it would be some kind of an error that, you know, might be hard to correct, etc.
Now, I think the process allows for correction, if you didn't know that.
So even if a ballot has some problem and they can't count it the way it is, there is a process where the voter is contacted and they're given a chance to fix their ballot.
I don't know how many people actually do that.
It seems to me they have the option to cure the ballot, it's called.
But I don't know how many people actually take the option.
And how many they can actually contact?
Seems like it'd be a lot of people.
But the claim was that because the standard for rejection went from an historical level to way, way lower, and almost nothing was rejected, and that difference in rejection rate could have actually tipped the election, you know, because, you know, things were close.
Actually, I don't know that it could have tipped the election, but it would be a biggish kind of an impact.
So here's the thing.
The explanation in the document was that there's another reason why that difference could have happened.
And as long as there's another reasonable reason, then you're not going to get any kind of a court action on it, because the court will just say, well, you haven't disproven the other explanation.
There could just be a logical explanation for it.
And here's the logical other explanation.
People were more careful this time.
That's it. That's the explanation about why the number that were rejected for being wrong were so much lower this time.
And it's a big difference. Because people were so much better trained at filling them out.
Because they had been taught by the news and by everybody else that you have to fill it out correctly or else it won't count.
So unlike every year in the past, where people tried hard to do it correctly, but they had a certain error rate, this time, because they knew it was more important, and they'd been trained a little bit better, they really got that error rate down.
So that's the other possible explanation.
So as long as you have another possible explanation, the court says, Well, we're not going to look into it, because as soon as the defense says, well, it could just be natural, that's the end of the case.
Because you can't prove why it happened.
You just have this suspicion.
So, that explanation is laughable.
Anybody who's met human beings knows that they're not going to be suddenly more accurate because you told them to.
They're not going to suddenly be more accurate because Orange Man is extra bad.
People don't act like that.
The error rate that you've had every year before is going to be pretty similar.
Because people just don't...
We don't respond that way.
Oh, it's important? Okay, I'll drop my error rate to zero.
You should have told me that the election of the United States president was important.
I didn't know before, so I guess I'll pay attention now.
I mean, just ridiculous explanations.
But maybe good enough for the court.
So here's my point about this.
Anybody who tells you that the election fraud has been looked into and debunked by the right entities, speaking of the courts, they're using the wrong tool for the job.
The court has a certain role, but it is nothing like whatever it would take to determine whether fraud existed or did not in an election.
Because the things that they can look at are so limited, and the rules that they operate on are so defined that it just doesn't fit.
So the election claims just didn't fit in a court.
And the court basically was saying, stop trying to bring them here.
We're the wrong tool for that.
And they are. But there is no other tool.
The court's the only tool, but it's a completely wrong tool.
So if you were trying to find out if there was radioactivity in your house, and you decided to use your smartphone to do it, let me do that now.
Let me check for radioactivity in my house.
Checking, checking. Oh, it turns out I don't have an app for that.
It turns out that my phone is the wrong tool.
To determine if there's radioactivity in my house.
But I'm going to use it anyway.
And when I don't find any radioactivity, I'll say there isn't any.
Because my tool didn't find any.
That is exactly what's happening.
Not really. Not exactly.
But by analogy, using the court to figure out whether the election was fraudulent is just the wrong tool.
The court can't do that.
It could do it in some special cases.
But it's really not designed for that.
And given the speed of things, the allegations which were made to the court were empty and ridiculous and crazy.
Here's a thing that makes me suspicious.
And let me say again, I'll bookend this by saying, I've never seen any proof that the election was fraudulent.
Proof that I personally could look at and see it with my own eyes and that sort of thing.
Just lots of allegations.
But here's what bothers me.
If any kind of major fraud happened, my personal belief is that it would more likely happen with some kind of a software hack.
If, and this is a big if, that could happen without being detected in a recount.
Because the recounts would have presumably found it.
I guess I need an expert to tell me if that's true.
But let's say to be big enough to change the election, it would have had to be software.
Now, I'm not saying that happened.
I'm just saying it would have to be something of scale that could affect a lot of different places in small ways so you could get away with it.
Now, If there was some entity, let's say Russia or China or the Democrats or bad actors or whatever, some entity that had that capability, how would they cover their tracks when the election was questioned?
What would be the way to do that?
Well, if they're the highest level operators, they would take the place where the real election fraud happened.
Again, no evidence of this.
I'm just walking you through a speculative scenario here.
So I'm not making a claim of election fraud.
I have no proof of that personally.
But imagine a scenario in which you knew that the software hack was the thing that could be detected, whereas all this other ballot counting and mail-in stuff would be a great diversion.
The first thing you do is make sure that people got really worked up about the physical ballots and the mail-in stuff, because you want them to be looking in the wrong place.
Just hypothetically, I'm not making an actual accusation.
So you would probably stir up as much fake news as you could on social media, show a bunch of fake claims about physical ballots and stuff to make everybody focus on that stuff.
And even in the comments you can see people saying, but what about ballot harvesting and dead people?
And those are all the things you'd want them to be looking at.
Because once those are all debunked, because the people who, again, this is just a hypothetical, If the hypothetical group who had hacked the election wanted the election skeptics to lose all their credibility, they would send them to look at things where there's not going to be a problem, and then when no problem is found, the people claiming problems are debunked, basically.
They look like crazy.
So that's what you do. First, you get their attention on the physical balance.
But the other thing you do, and this is the important part, is you would drop a gigantic piece of disinformation about the software part.
And it would be something like, oh, Hugo Chavez and Venezuela own these machines, and they're really...
Something like that.
Something so crazy...
That when you debunked the big lie, that Hugo Chavez, blah, blah, blah, blah, that you would never be able to penetrate beyond that into forcing a recount, because you would have discredited your own legal team so badly that people wouldn't take you seriously after that.
And that's exactly what happened.
So, if you look at Linwood and Sidney Powell, if people who, hypothetically, Not claiming it happened.
Don't have any evidence for it.
I'm just walking through a speculative scenario.
The way to shut those people down would have been to feed them Ridiculous conspiracy theories about military PSYOP operation in Venezuela and maybe send some Italian satellite conspiracy stuff.
And when that stuff is debunked, it just removes your ability to go deeper because you've been so thoroughly debunked.
So, I'm not saying that happened.
No direct evidence of that whatsoever.
I'm just saying it looks exactly like What would have happened if this scenario were to happen?
So you can't rule out either scenario.
Usually the fantastical ones are less likely, but it just makes me scratch my head when I see that it looks exactly like a disinformation campaign would look.
Doesn't mean there is one.
Just means it looks exactly like one.
That's how it would play out.
CNN is reporting on its own fake news, which is weird.
So they say the evidence uncovered so far is that there was weapons and tactics and plans for the assault on the Capitol well ahead of the president's closest comments about it.
And so that maybe it was just a planned event as opposed to something that spiraled out of control because of anything Trump might have said.
So CNN is actually basically debunking their own news.
Interesting. Apparently the FBI, according to Fox News, visited some of the extremists prior to the pro-Trump rally to try to talk them out of going.
So the FBI was so concerned about violence in the Capitol That it was proactively visiting people to ask them not to go.
So, given these two facts, CNN saying it looks like there was advanced planning, and Fox News reporting that the FBI had visited people ahead of time because they knew there was advanced planning, and still the president is being impeached for being the thing that incited the riot.
That's right. He incited the riot that was planned weeks before he incited them.
And he actually got impeached for that.
You live in that country.
You feel proud about that?
Are you proud to live in the country that impeached him for something that was going to happen no matter what he did?
Well, I think he could have stopped it, and so I'm still...
I'm not going to give the president a pass on that.
Because I think one tweet would have stopped the occupation of the Capitol.
The evidence suggests that if he had simply said, you went too far, get the hell out of the Capitol building, they would have left immediately.
I think the evidence suggests that they were sort of thinking that he was behind them, waiting for a sign.
You know, there's actually reporting that they were actively, they had cell phone problems.
So they were trying to get somebody who had a cell phone to see what Trump was saying at the moment they were in the Capitol.
One tweet, get the hell out of the Capitol.
This is not part of the deal.
One tweet, they walk out, I think.
Somebody says he did, but I don't think that he was as timely as I'm saying.
Now we know that there were some, at least one BML activist and maybe one Democrat, registered Democrat, Who were active parts of the Capitol assault.
So some guy with a video crew, his own video shows him actively encouraging the protesters and actively being part of it and yelling stuff like, it's our house and we get to We got to get this shit burned down.
That's the guy who claims he was just taking video of it.
He's not guilty. So we do know that at least on some scale that there were non-Republicans there for troublemaking purposes.
So that's confirmed now.
When I say it's confirmed, I mean that CNN will never say that this has happened.
But I don't know at one scale.
There are some people who are confirmed to be on the other team.
So it's at least a partial false flag.
It's definitely not a full false flag, because lots of people are just Trump supporters.
But it's at least a partial fake flag, false flag, and I don't know if that's even a thing.
Because if it's partial, it doesn't make much difference.
Alright. Have you seen the video of the leftists destroying Washington, D.C. during Trump's inauguration?
How quickly we forget that Trump's inauguration incited a riot.
But not because of Trump necessarily, but because of the Democrats.
Don't you think that that riot was sort of incited by the Democrats, what they've been saying about Trump during the entire election?
I'd say so. So we just act like it didn't happen.
But there's video of a riot and windows being broken during Trump's inauguration.
There's still stories about San Francisco shrinking.
Rents are going down.
Home prices are going down in San Francisco.
The tech companies moving out.
Here's an interesting factoid.
I live an hour from San Francisco, and home prices here went up.
Because part of moving out of San Francisco is also moving an hour away, still being in California but not being in San Francisco.
So my property values actually went up, weirdly, because San Francisco went to hell.
So Biden's recommending $1.9 trillion in COVID relief and blah, blah, blah.
And an incoming administration official said that the vaccine rollout was, quote, worse than we could have imagined.
And, you know, I don't have a fact check on whether the vaccine rollout is worse than we imagined it or not.
The thing I would have assumed would happen is if you do something on a very large scale for the first time ever, and I would say that describes the situation, what should you expect?
Well, you should expect that the first month is a total failure.
Followed by the second month improving, and then maybe by the third month, you're better than you could have ever imagined it could have been.
Because that's just the learning curve.
So judging the rollout of the vaccine on the first month is fair, because we did want to get that right.
But I don't think it's unexpected that it was terrible for the first month.
I feel like that was sort of baked into the process.
Because the reason you test things...
Is that you don't roll out a major thing and then the first month is terrible.
Take Obamacare.
Obamacare rolled out all kinds of problems with the servers and the website and everything, but eventually it got to the point where it's so sticky it's not going away apparently.
So perfectly normal, but still I think Trump administration has to take the blame for that.
And certainly his distraction about the election and impeachment and all that stuff.
That stuff matters.
I think we're paying for it.
Biden knows that his inauguration will attract violence.
Wouldn't you say? Wouldn't you say that Biden knows for sure that the odds of violence at his inauguration are close to 100%?
Why does he have it?
Why is he going to have the inauguration if he knows there's going to be violence?
Would he not have blood on his hands?
Because the inauguration doesn't have a constitutional purpose, apparently.
I mean, you could do...
I think you don't need the inauguration, but if you do need it, it doesn't have to be in front of a crowd.
So it's a completely unnecessary ceremony guaranteed to hurt or kill Americans, and he's going to do it.
Shouldn't he be impeached during the inauguration?
I would think that Congress should initiate impeachment during the inauguration because he's doing something that absolutely isn't going to invite or incite.
It's going to invite violence and doesn't have a purpose.
There's no purpose. So I would say he should be impeached during his inauguration.
That's not going to happen. So Don Lemon continues to be the worst human being in the history of human beings, and he's gone full Nazi accusation to all Trump supporters.
So his thinking, if you can call it that, is that because the Klan supports Trump, he says, therefore if you also support Trump, you're supporting the Klan.
Good thinking, Don Lemon.
There's an idea that will destroy the whole country.
Now, Don Lemon, of course, is an accused sex offender.
I don't know the truth of it, but he's accused of molesting some young man.
And I would guess that, given that there are plenty of pedophiles in the world, wouldn't you assume that a lot of them watch Don Lemon's show?
Would you say it's a true statement that lots of pedophiles watch the news?
Probably. I mean, they watch everything else, so why wouldn't they?
So, does that make Don Lemon, by his own preferred way of looking at the world, does that make him a pedophile because he's supported by them?
Now, he's not claiming that every single racist supports Trump.
He's saying that members of the Klan do.
Lots of racists support Trump.
I think that's true. But he's not saying that there aren't also racists who support other people.
Likewise, I'm not making any claim that pedophiles only like Don Lemon.
That would be crazy.
But a lot of them do.
Wouldn't you say that would be true?
So I feel as though his own logic...
Puts him in the pedophile camp.
And I'm not saying he is.
Certainly I'm not going to accuse him of anything like that.
I'm just saying that by his own preferred way of looking at the world, he's associated with pedophiles, and I guess he's happy with that.
It's his own philosophy.
So here's something scary.
The guy who brought the zip ties, or he claims he found them and he was going to give them to authorities, The zip tie guy at the Capitol assault, he was photographed with some zip ties, the type you would use to constrain somebody like cheap handcuffs.
So they found him and then they removed his firearms.
And so I guess he's under home confinement without his firearms.
But here's the scary part.
And his internet access will be limited.
What? His internet access will be limited?
To what? And when did that become a law?
Do you remember a law about your internet access being limited?
Because that's too far.
That's too far.
Let me say that again.
I know some of you are going to argue he shouldn't have his firearms removed, if you're absolutist in that.
But at least there's an argument for that.
If somebody has been accused of some violent crime, might go to jail for it, has weapons, might have been involved in an insurrection, you don't know, you could see the argument for taking away their firearms temporarily until the legal system does its thing.
And you could argue against it.
I think you could make an argument against it as well.
But what is the argument for limiting his internet access?
Really? Limiting his internet access feels completely wrong to me.
Now I suppose they're doing it so he doesn't, I don't know, talk to other bad people and raise trouble.
But isn't that sort of just a free speech sort of situation and he hasn't been convicted of anything?
To me this is super alarming.
That the government can use your internet access as a penalty without the benefit of any law that suggests they can.
Maybe there is a law, I just don't know about it.
So I'm just going to put that out there as a gigantic red flag that's about the scariest thing I've seen this week.
And that includes Kim Jong-un's, you know, intercontinental missile.
All right. That is probably all I wanted to talk about, I think.
I think I did. Somebody says, you told us we no longer have free speech.
Well, we don't. We don't have free speech in a practical sense.
We have it in a legal sense, most of the time.
Apparently this person can say anything he wants, just not on the internet.
Alright, so, having now modeled for you the example of somebody who's not taking a left or a right side, I hope that you saw that.
When I talked about the election, did it feel like I was biased right or biased left?
Everybody's biased, so I'm not going to claim that I'm free from bias.
That's not a thing. But I think I got close.
I think that when I talked about the election claims as well as the debunks, I feel like I treated that fairly.
Now, wouldn't you like to see more people do that kind of thing?
And I think AOC is on to something, without having designed the particulars of it.
There is a need for this.
Would you not agree that there's a need for this, whether you like the way I did it or not?
That's separate. But there's a need for this.
Just an explainer.
Somebody to explain what is likely and what is not, etc.
Alright, so I'll put that out there.
Oh, somebody wanted me to mention the Jack Dorsey video.
So there's, I guess, Project Veritas has a video of Jack Dorsey talking to 5,000 Twitter employees in which he's saying that they're focusing on Trump's Twitter account and what to do with that.
But also they were getting rid of QAnon and that there would be lots more of this later and that it's the beginning of a process, not the end, etc.
Now that was held up by people as evidence that Jack Dorsey is saying he's going after conservatives.
I guess that's the way it was interpreted.
But Twitter's response to it was kind of perfect.
Again, if you're just judging the quality of the communication, I'm not talking about the issue, just the quality of the communication, Twitter officially said, yeah, he said on that hidden video exactly what he said in a tweet thread yesterday.
And he did. Basically, Basically, what he said on the undercover video is exactly what he said in public.
I didn't see any difference.
Now, the thing we'd be looking for that Jack has not mentioned, and is really glaring in not being mentioned, and it's a big problem.
In both the Veritas video and his tweet, what he didn't mention is that anybody on the left would ever be censored, if you want to use that word, in the same way.
Now, how would you feel if you heard that, in addition to QAnon, that accounts associated with the left but with different, you know, rumors or disinformation or violent ideas, suppose they had also been taken down.
How would you feel about that?
Well, you'd feel different.
You'd feel different.
But when, you know, Jack Dorsey's talking to Twitter, And the only words that, at least are on this video, have to do with folks on the right, it is totally legitimate that the folks on the right say, I think I need a little more context.
And if I don't have it, I'm going to assume that this is all about just going after the right.
Would that be a fair assumption, based on everything you've seen, Would it be fair for you to assume that Twitter and Jack are only going after accounts on the right?
I would say yes.
I would say yes. That would be a fair assumption based on the evidence we have.
So if that's not true, I would ask Jack and Twitter to clarify, because that would be an important clarification.
So if there are examples of groups on the left, maybe some Antifa accounts, etc., That are being blocked for the same standard that they promote disinformation and or violence.
Disinformation being of election kind, I think, is the specific kind that they care about.
So, wouldn't you say it's a fair request to at least get Twitter and Jack Dorsey's opinion About whether this is going to be really a right-leaning effort or a violence-leaning effort and a terms-of-service effort.
I'd like to hear that, just as a clarification.
But I don't think we heard new information on the Veritas, Project Veritas video.
Sounded just like the tweet.
But both of them have that missing element that we'd like to see.
All right. Somebody said, Trump was an idiot for not denouncing the Proud Boys at that debate.
Well, Trump has a pattern of not denouncing anybody who's on his side.
And you could argue that that helped him get elected the first time.
So strategically, it's hard to know if that's a plus or a minus.
Alright, I see some questions about Dr.
Shiva and his software discussion, and I would get back to my original question, which I'm still waiting for an answer, is could you do anything to the software that would cheat the election and not be caught in a recount plus an audit?
An audit of the signatures and stuff like that.
So we don't know. Alright, that's all we have for now, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Alright, YouTubers.
Let's see. There were bad people on both sides.
Just print more ballots.
Packetized crime. Yeah, the idea of packetized...
Election fraud would be that there's lots of it, but if you find any bit of it, it's not enough to change the election.
So the way you would do that most reliably would be with software.
But if anything like that could be detected with a recount, well, it wasn't.
All right.
Barnes says Powell was set up.
Yeah, that's the information that I'm getting as well.
Early on, I heard that from people who know this world.
Early on, people said, oh, that's obvious disinformation campaign.
