Bump bump bump bump, but book and everybody wanted money it's time it's time. Yes for coffee was got homes and the simultaneous at which some of you hate some of you love. Some of you need it, and all you need is a copper, bugger glass, a dagger jealousies down again to injure Lascaux vessel of every guy, fellow, the favourite liquid. I like coffee And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the doubling of the day, the thing that makes everything better except the crack, and it's called the simultaneous happen that does not go. I can feel the crack in getting stronger every bit as well,

talk about the crack in the list. Two important things: first, the most important thing on my schedule December sixteenth these sites. If I show the expanse comes out with its next season,. Now, if you're a nerd like, I am pretty exciting, pretty exciting. So look for the expanse of having to watch that there are several seasons already You can catch up, Carly, fury the kick few arena, made some news with us to eat. She said the men in big. jobs are always dangerous. Present tromp cemented his legacy as an inadequate man who lacks the mental faculties and strength of character necessary from the job, how many There will prove by saying and doing nothing that they too are inadequate.

I feel as though curly this first of all a sexist comment, because it does seem like We are focusing on the man part of this amount to much of in order me because it got his head. Inadequate people in big jobs can do bad things. Would that be fair? Somebody could say in adequate people, but if you say inadequate men in big jobs, his feels like a comment about men. Doesn't it does not feel level that- and you know that you could not have said this with the genders reversed. Obviously you could not say inadequate. Women in big jobs mentioned tweeting that imagine using the phrase inadequate women in big jobs that will be the under your career. Would it not have been? Quite logically,

Way that would be the end of your professional career if you ever tweeted something like that, but she can do that, but she doesn't limited to the president. Where are you allow that people are going to be a little bit more hyperbolic, but rather extends to help. The others, others who are the others, Prove by saying and doing nothing that they too are inadequate. I feel as if she's talking about me, because as a term support Would I be in this category of men who are proven themselves inadequate by not doing enough. well, you're Carly fear. Even I dont what is adequate and what is enough, but you are a despicable cunt and I think you should disappear forever,

the public. Now I use that seaward cautiously, she earned it come on women and men. It she earned it. She earned it. All right, I wouldn't use that word for everybody else, but I think she just she moved herself into a special category where I think that were just sort of fits. This case, she's a despicable human being. There is an important news governs coming up, president says at twelve Easter, in which the currency lawyers. We'll be showing: a very clear, inviolable, passed, a victory, very clear and viable path to victory. What do you think? Will it be persuasive? We will talk about some of the things. We'll get to that general grammar and see in these

maize news referring to the two white houses, so As you know, I made the most unusual prediction about this race. Once we get closer to the election itself, I started saying it looks like we're going to have two presidents. Jim grammars making the same observation now that will have to wait. Houses in in the conceptual sense, But then you went further and said that he thinks that if it comes to it and the European Trump decides not to leave, Jim Kramer believes that the? U S army would take Biden side. What do you think. If the? U S army got involved, would they take a bite inside.

Well, I'm going to say they won't get involved at all and I think that they will get involved at all. Somebody says you love yourself, good grief, don't you? I dont understand the comment: should we not be eleven ourselves? Why don't you love yourself? There's something wrong with you. You don't love yourself, never! Wake up and you're feeling a little too aggressive, and you think yourself better watch it today, because I feel like layer. I just woke up feeling aggressive and if I don't take care of that, you don't have to exercise or something I got to take down my take down the temperature in a little bit.

I believe I don't think, there's any chance, the? U S, army military will be involved in the White House decision. Don't think they'll get involved, but if they did, if you'd, if you As I do that it will, I think they would go with the consensus, meaning that if it look like the process, an elected by didn't, they would probably back and browsing to get involved with a gift. To worry about that. Let's talk about some of the pieces Evidence gateway, pondered is talking about something they call the drop in role before I talk about any of these, a legend claims about the election fraud,

Let me remind you that my general framework for this is that there is a ninety five percent chance. Any individual claim of fraud is just bs, so, as I see it as I speak to each of these individual clay, just know that my head, I'm saying that has a ninety five percent chance. That's not true, but I do believe and I'll talk about this later, that the election to had some prod. We don't know how much yet. So the drop in role as a gateway pundit is calling. It goes like this. They drop a big bunch of votes that are present.

Fraudulent and then once it changes whose head since the big drop puts Biden in a head and then all of the the allegation is that's the drop and then the raw part is that all the the precincts Avenue have reported come in at the same ratio, in other words, the coincidence that a whole bunch of Different precincts would have exactly the same split is so unlikely that it couldn't happen naturally, now the counter to that is that the gateway pondered is looking at the wrong column, about the column there looking at is the cuban cumulative percentages and after the big drop, which changes the percentages. The little

precincts the common afterwards, even though they might be a little bit different there, not big enough to change the overall cumulative percentage. So if you're looking at the cumulative percentage, not changing. Good say: well, that's the biggest coincidence, an oral. How could the average not change as you are continually adding data would fluctuate what I mean you'd think, but it doesn't. But the counter argument is that is because you will hear the cumulative which doesn't fluctuate that much if you're, only having small amounts do it. Do you, is that the claim is stronger than they do, but this one, I would say I don't have an opinion on, except for my general claim- that ninety five percent of all things will turn out to be false about the election.

so but other up without knowing the source of the data without looking at the individual changes is. Can we have an opinion about whether this drop, unroll thing is true or not, but I'll throw it in the Bin with the things that are ninety five percent likely not to be true could be goody, I'm not debunking it. I'm just saying is in that category of things that you shouldn't automatically trust in a big news waiting county which had at one point said to Republican, said we're not going to certify the voted Wayne County, which would include Detroit, which would be a big big deal for machines overall vote, but they were threatened and insulted in brow, beaming by their by their peers. Until I guess yesterday they had,

say that our aid, our right or right, we will certified and then after there was much public uproar, and probably because of that, I would guess the two people who had agreed to certify rescinded their certification. Now it gets more complicated because I think they re sending after it was submitted, and I don't even think that there are certain occasion, matters

like that, but I bet, I think, is the state certifies. Somebody said so that there are some lawyer complication in this, so the fact that they did not certify or that they reversed their certification doesn't really tell you which way it's gonna go because you needed needs another details. Maybe it ends up in court who knows but here's what I like about the story, these two Republicans who were threatened. They were threatened in public. They decided that they would not live as people who had been cowed,

And threatened in public good for them good for them, and indeed I think they should have. They should have reversed their services just on principle, even if they didn't think they needed to. They should have done it on principle, because, if you're being forced to agree at risk of threat, that's one you ve gotta go hard in the other direction. So you can't let that you can't let that stand. So I think we're happy that that got reversed the actual functional difference that it makes. Maybe none might not make any difference to anything, but maybe it does we'll see all right see at this point already that no matter what happens between now and forever, would you say

You can already predict the following will be true ready. Can you predict. that some large number of Republicans will believe that the election was fraudulent no matter what happens from today on whose with me, would you agree? The Republicans are just not me convinced doesn't matter how much evidence is presented to debunk the claims. The Republicans we can say: ok, there were twenty five claims and you ve allegedly debunked all twenty five, but I'll bet there's another. Fifty things you didn't find right. No Republicans gonna believe it was a legitimate election. Just care happen there there's no there's no way to get there because you can't prove a negative.

Another words: nobody can give you a piece of proof and show it to you say there. It is look at this there. There you go, there's your proof that there was no fraud. Cuz, you can't prove it doesn't exist. You can only know you I find it right and an election with somebody complications increasing some and different systems involved and different people. You can never know if you found it, You can never now, if you looked hard enough to find it, it's unknowable so we don't have a way to get passes. We will have a president. We will have one president venture. but we don't have any system for this, we'll figure it out. You know it's not going to be the end of the republic, we'll figure it out.

But there's no way we can get to the end of this without people thinking that tromp was really elected president. It just can't be done at this point. The here's another rumour that Spain debunked, I guess, officials in our government or debunking. The claim that the U S army, seized some election related servers in Germany you're that story. Allegedly, the CIA and the army seized some german servers that had our election data on it and that is being denied now the fact that is being denied. Does that mean it didn't happen? Nope it doesn't mean that, but we do have a debunk from an official source. If I had to bet on, if you said Scott, we can't know

sure know if it's really debunked? But what would you bet on it? And I would say our pull a pretty large that they had not been true, that there was no server, the Gatt captured by the? U S, military s, just that's just my field about that. What about the hammer and scorecard software? What's your current feeling about whether those claims are true, There is built into built into the dominion and maybe other systems which is designed for the purpose of throwing and election and changing the votes. Deeply. That's true! I'm going go with my ninety five percent likelihood. It's not true.

Ninety five percent likely just because it still in that category of all of these claims. Ninety five percent of them are just not going to be true, so this is just another one. There is no direct proof of it, meaning that I can't look at it myself I have examined the code, but we do have individuals who say is true, so there there is some witness. the money, but they don't actually show you something there just talking. Are they credible, not really now really doesn't mean they're lying but they're, not in that category of people. You'd say that person says it. If you hear from this person s true, we don't have that.

What does we have? The kind of witness you'd say to yourself could be true, but I'm not going to believe it just because I'm hearing it from this one or two people, so let me see, the question of whether a hammer and scorecard are real from the related, but different question of whether the system could have been game door hacked in general. My belief is that the odds of the system being games or hacked or somehow fraudulently manipulated in general is very high.

Closer to one hundred percent, the odds of these specific claims and those specific piece of software, probably LAO here's my feeling if he were smart enough to pull off this kind of fraud. What do you do it better? Would it be so obvious.

and it seems to me that senses, hammer and scorecard thing we're already out. There is as a thing that you'd find some different more clever way to do it writing different software resemblance does that's what they would be looking for is the hammering scorecard. So I don't put too much trust in those specific claims, but I do believe that the election is fraudulent to some degree. I dont know if it's enough to change the election result, but I would say with complete. Certainly there is fraudulent and fraud in the system somewhere Russell James.

I don't know who he is exactly, but he seems to be technically capable- and I said by basins is analysis that at least in one portion of the reported voting there were more ballots processed within the timeframe. Then the ECB, is, is designed to handle. So you saying we know these are fraudulent because you couldn't even process this many votes and the short time is that, generally speaking, the kind of claim that the class of things that, if you were to Fort fast forward into the future, you would find out it had been debunk or you would find out. It had been true not based on the specifics of this, but that general kind of claim that it was physically impossible to do something technology

really, how reliable is a claim that something was technologically not possible in terms of timing and specifically in terms of I would say that is a very low credibility. My guess is that this falls into the category of things, That later you find out, they had upgraded the system or they didn't really proud. them all in the hour they only reported some of the things had been planned. Earlier or we have more processing equipment than was report or the timing of when it was actually done, is different or ten thousand different explanations. So if I had to put an odd

one again again without say it's necessarily falls. How would I know I'm gonna says in the category of things that are ninety five percent likely to be false. and probably thought there's probably fraud, but the specific claims, probably not. How about the Minnesota spike. for I am Minnesota Spike- is that proof of fraud, or has it been debunked, while the president's tweeted out that clean I think yesterday, so a lot of credible people are. That is how do you get this gigantic dump of votes?

calling for foreign morning and their mostly very, very much mostly for Biden Suspicious, does well. U S. Usa today attempted to debunk that basis, things that we expected that spike and all it was as they counted the votes in a Biden territory, and once you have the votes from the biggest city that you know is going to go strongly for Biden. What was that's all it was. You were waiting for a big population centre and that it came in and you already knew that their big population centre would. Vote quite overwhelmingly for buying and they did so so where's the fraud, the the bump was just what they expected and the outcome was what they expect to do. Where is the fraud well

There's a problem: the claim is not demonstrated at least not proven by the data that we have so far other where's. The fact that there's a big bump at four a dot m doesn't prove anything. Would you agree simply the fact that I met you? what an area got counted and reported at foreign morning by itself, doesn't mean anything. I think you'd agree also by itself the fact that most more bite in votes? That alone also doesn't prove anything. Does you already knew that city was? Can we go by, but here's what you don't know how many were their supposed today. So there's this year, if you see another charge, you see these little little bumps coming end for the smaller areas, reporting and then

There's this gigantic surge, which is what many at I forget, Milwaukee or someplace but how big was that big surge supposed to be there? but now was as surge. Twenty percent bigger than the number of voters. How do you know if our going to fix this election I wouldn't necessarily doing do it by faking. A gigantic surge of oats at four. A dot m is that'll, be a little bit obvious, but suppose I thought to myself. There's this big batch, that's going to come in at four a dot m, it's legitimate! twenty percent in the same ratio as the rest, what everybody notice,

See hears what you wouldn't want to do it you wouldn't want to add so many Biden votes that is so far different than the pole numbers. That is obvious we think so- you wouldn't want to have ninety nine percent by votes right to others. Less so votes there were natural, were seventy five? Twenty five, I don't know what they were wolesi that seventy five, if you're going to add some fake votes, you just me, SAM also also seventy five twenty five. It would be invisible because nobody knows. How many votes there were supposed to be because we did it differently this year, there's no baseline, no history to look at because we didn't do this. Many melon votes before so the perfect crime is to go for the best Yes, batch of votes, there were already going to go to widen and just make it bigger right now

What evidence do I have that? That's what happened? None I don't have any evidence that that happened. I'm just tell you. If you are going to do a crime, you would do with smart way, and it's pretty obvious what the smart way is. Don't make it a hundred percent Biden, votes. Go where there is already a lot of votes, and you don't know what the number is supposed to be at twenty percent. That's how I do it. How would you do it. Right. Somebody says it was obvious and I I don't think you're right on that. I don't think it was obvious. I think it feels obvious, but there was gonna, be a big bunch of binding As soon as those votes came out and it was gonna happen, you just don't know a big. It was conveyed. Let's talk about

Ben first law- some of you know about this Ben furs. Law has to do with the fact that certain digits will naturally occur more often than others, for example the digit one. If you look here lots of random numbers, there should be more of the did. You want Then there would be of other digits. Now I don't know, I don't know exactly why they make sense, but apparently there's something to it. So when you do the Bedford analysis on the votes it looks like, there's violates benefits law, so it looks like their unnatural, which would suggest that somebody Ray

But experts data analysis have waited in and said that Ben for law doesn't work all the time and one of the cases in which it wouldn't work is exactly this one where you have a cap on the number of votes and the roughly even we divided between two parties, Democrats and Republicans under that specific situation, say some number of experts- I don't know if it's all of them or some of them say some experts. Benford's law does not apply because you have this artificial situation with a cap on the number of votes and the fact that you already know it's about fifty slash. Fifty ish. I don't know I'm no expert in this area, so I will just tell you there is a deep being offered the sound To me as strong as the original claim.

I would say. I can't tell if the original claim sounds good, but I also cannot tell us the bunk sounds good. I call it a tie, so I wouldn't put too much weight and that ban for thing. Pfizer says that their vaccination is ninety five percent effective. This comes soon after was it, but there are no said that their their vaccination was. Ninety four point: five percent of active and Pfizer head before said they think is better than ninety percent and coincidence.

This is just a wonderful coincidence when Pfizer looked a little more closely at their claim that their explanations were over ninety percent effective. What a coincidence they found out that it was just a little bit better than their competition. So you can trust that cancer spear coincidental numbers, but let's, let's be positive and say that's probably true issues and that their category and now now that it looks like a binding, has more votes. But you see the news is willing to say that if you ve had the virus once you probably do have long,

Irma merely so now that the young people think that Trump will not be re, elected, nether willing to say you are probably right about that- that long term immunity, Don lemon is up to his old tricks. Mind reading the present I watched a clip of him. Save the trump quote knows he lost. Does Don lemon? No, does he now the Trump Nosey asked. I guess I don't think you do nosey lost now. I also can't read his mind. But I would say that the claim that he knows he lost his just crazy doc. Risk is crazy. Tar

He certainly not acting like you lost and there are certainly tons of claims. If you had to say based on what you know of this president does he believe he lost. I think he believes as possible, but there are so many claims of fraud. I think he believes he one if I had to put money on it, but again since I'm not insane, I'm not gonna. Try to imagine. what is does somebody things? Cnn is doing this clever trick so Nick Robertson at peace unseen- and I got this- is a sentence from his is. He says, while Trump wages illegal fight at home over what you falsely alleges is election fraud, blah blah blah blah blah. Now this is a new site news sites. They deal facts right now.

What's an opinion peace if you run an opinion piece on a new site, the news. editors, we're going to weigh in if you say something, that's just not true. Alright, so you can be Opinioni, but it's a new site. They don't want you putting stuff in there. That's not real and the robbers and was allowed to publishers. Even the says that he is that the present is falsely alleging election fraud. How does anybody know that How does anybody know its false? Nobody knows that you can have an opinion. You could think. I think when it's all done. There won't be that much from the change elections they'll be reasonable, might be right might be wrong, but his reason

but let me tell you what is just flat out not reasonable, to say that the president's claims of fraud are false. You can say that you can say it might out? There way right, but how the hell did Nick Robertson know what the election software says as Nick Robertson than a line by line code check to find out. There's nothing in this offer. Has he counted the balance absolve how in the world does it come to this conclusion that that is false? Well, here's! What would have been fair, it would have been fair to say he may these allegations, the legal system, is looking into it.

Cnn cannot confirm that these allegations to be true that would be fair right. Just flat Elsie their falls. While this the process is ongoing and nobody really I was the answer of weathers halls. You really are responsible for a news organization, even as an opinion as soon possible, Alright, here's the best brainwashing trick. The Democrats are using on you right now, and it's basically that so the best brainwashing trick is that because the courts have not confirmed any fraud in the election, it is therefore proven not to exist. That's what they're trying to convince you that while the process is ongoing- and we don't know- I was gonna end because the court has not yet ruled that there is definitely fraud. That's proof is not there

Now that is some pretty devious brainwashing does is not rational; they can only prove they haven't founded, but they also are looking for it are. There is, then during a code review of the software, I don't think so. where would you hide any mischief if you were gonna riggin election? Where would obey be. Where would you hide the signs of that in the code would be in the software that being one of the places you can also do with paper balance, so if CNN isn't looking into it and there's nobody else, looking at the code, as far as I know, right. Can anybody do a fact check on me? Is there anybody doing a line by line software review of all the software? There was involved in this election? No I'll think so. I feel like we'd know about that. So no

just looking for it. So to say that we haven't looked for it and we didn't find it. Therefore it doesn't exist. actually sell you that and people are buying it. A lot of people are buying it. Amazingly, And there are also pretending, with this word widespread. We ve talked about this before they're, trying to make the claim that there is no widespread fraud, meaning it's not under every rock and everywhere, but nobody's May. He lay claim the claim is its in strategically selected cities, because that's where you can make the difference is only a few places. You could make a difference, so the claim is that's the place is happening. The claim is not widespread. Nobody makes I claim so their debunking a non claim. So here's my opinion for a normal crime say a burglary or a murder. If

saw nothing. Nothing from your house. Probably eventually conclude, you had not been robbed if you did not find any dead bodies or any signs that anybody is missing. Could you conclude that a murder had not been committed while unique, every hundred percent sure by you can be pretty sure? There's nobody, And there is not even the claim of a body, so a lack of evidence in those cases would be not prove, but pretty. sense of certainty that there's no actual crime, but those different those crimes, burglary and murder- are very different from this big complicated election situation for the election situation. I think, Look at the situation and this situation is one

in which it will always go in one direction, because that's the situation that you don't have to fine proof that it went in that direction because there's only one way could go. Let me give you an example: If you live in a bad part of town where there's a lot of crime and you leave your front door open and then you go on vacation for two weeks, do you have to check to find out if a crime happened and your apartment was robbed? Remember you, hi crime neighborhood. You left your door open all day and all night and nobody was home. Do you have to check to find out? If you were robbed? No, oh, you don't have to check you rob because the situation, is one in which it can only go one way. there's only one way that can go right now, nothing's impossible, so maybe you could imagine or something.

It didn't happen, but you should assume happened now. The election has a huge upside potential. If you can read it and get away with it, so it's like the biggest the biggest gain you could make would be fixing an election. So it's a big pay off. That's one requirement sex Lee is feasible. We ve heard how many like fifty in different ways the rigging election, certainly feasible. At the very least, you could get an insider working at one of these elections, software companies, you could bribed the more threatened them until they put in some code, so it's feasible. We just Heaven

seen it in a way that court proven but definitely feasible huge upside gain, lots of complication and lots of people involved, and we have, when you have lots of people involved, that support the guarantees. You can find somebody willing to take a chance, because if you have enough people, you can guess somebody who is who's willing to do absolutely anything. You just need enough people and the election system is lots of people, so you gonna have crooks because you got lots of people. You got opportunity to fix it and is the biggest gain you could ever imagine fixing an election. In my view, it had happened whether or not you can find. The specific proof is somewhat immaterial

had to happen and when you add on at the fact that half the country thought they were, they were looking at a second term of Hitler. Of course it happened. It couldn't not happen. We just don't know how much that's the only question. The only question is wasn't enough. I did a little mask survey. on my twitter account. So this is very unscientific and ask people if they think masks work. I was interested what that the net effect of all this conflicting oozes, here's what you said keeping in mind that most of my twitter followers are trumpet supporting people, but sixty three percent said Mass: do not work now. This is just people, not science right, just people, fifteen percent say they do, and twenty two percent said so

for most. Maybe maybe they do I'm in the maybe category, meaning that I can't know, but maybe maybe so, here's my question. We ve seen lots of studies about masks right, or at least you know they exist. If you haven't read them, there are studies, the same asks my work, their studies, a mask, don't work. So let's say you want to be a pro science person and you want to oh the science. What do you do? What. No, because their science says they work and their sciences says they door. Sadly follow the science what's side even mean. So the Democrats who liked to say follow the Science and Joe Biden says that it's some of the dumbest things that anybody can ever say Follow the science.

Assumes, first of all, you can determine which science to follow and he can't you just sort of guessing, and secondly, it assumes that the scientists and the people putting together the studies are credible and do not have a dog in the fight, but they usually do. Half of studies and not being valid. So anybody says: follow the science there either very young or stupid, because A mantra follow the science feels like really bad advice. They really bad advice. Why you should do is be really really careful about following the science. Would that be. instead of following desires for the silence followed this items? They don't follow the science we follow those islands, They don't follow the science. That's all

they now and it's just flat out stupid. Smarter, is be very careful, be very careful about fall. the science you want to look at it you definitely want to look at it and you want to make me keep working toward refining it and getting it as credible as it can be But follow science is for suckers and idiots. It really is consider it important to look at and make sure you understand it in and all that very important, but follow it blindly. That would be for stupid people, not you, You're all you're, all smart, there's a New York Times up ad by crystal was his first name Christoph, not.

Christoph. I don't think he's been a big trump supporting the best, but he says this quote, things are true, even though President Tromp says them a great way to start an article quota, Trample Nicholas Christoph, I think, as a person. A court Trop Trump has been demanding for months. The schools reopen in that he seems to have been largely right. Schools, especially elementary above all, do not appear to have been wager sources of transmission. And remote learning has been a catastrophe. I'm summarizing the rest of the statement. Now. How big a deal is that it's a pretty big deal, because, if you're going to if you're going to be tromp for the United States having a high corona virus infection rate and people do

You're gonna have to also give them credit for getting this thing right when remind me hold on remind me the people who said to close the schools. Were they following the science they were? They were, they thought they are that's the problem. They thought they were following the science. But where they now there was a little bit of science and then people use their subjective opinion and they followed their object. There subjective opinion, that's what they followed. they never followed the science. Apparently, the science was pointing in the other direction so was

they were following was either wrong or incomplete, or not credible or out of context or something. So here is a perfect example. Joe Biden followed the science and he would have said, keep these schools closed, follow the science. What who would have been right. Tromp or binding trump would have been right because the science caught up the job. That's what Christopher say: the science caught up with Trump. Now drop, of course, was not making a per se. A scientific claim he was saying the kids don't have the symptoms as much. Buddy was making the larger claim that, on balance, it is better to take this risk.