Everybody in its time, diver coffee with Scott Atoms best part of the day. I am every single time. It's the best part of the day, especially when you are prepared. What do you need? A government revise the deck else beside the canteen, jogger flask of vessel of any kind and fill it with your favorite liquid? Allow me to put my microphone. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the doubling of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the. What is it simultaneously as right? Go: silk. Good well, I've been trying to come up with a name for something theirs

Gary of thing happening that doesn't have a name, and it's always fun to be the person who could come up with the name of a thing that nobody is named yep and unlikely come up with a name for the people on Twitter, probably social media in general. Who, I'm into a conversation after it looks like you know, how is gonna go and they they couldn't hang with. The actual debate I don't understand. a law thinking and logic and any of those useful things you need to be part of that debate. But once I think is settled, there's this group that comes in to add sarcasm That's all we do. They don't bring a debate and argument a point. They don't bring information, they bring just sarcasm and so decide

call them the sarcasm guppies because are not they're, not full grown fish. because a full grown fish can have an actual conversation with data reasons and arguments and stuff but they're, not them their lot, their likely the sarcasm guppies and they swim. afterwards and of somebody else? Oh yes, to say yesterday thought the sun would be out, but it turned out to be a cloudy day. Instead, the sarcasm guppies all criminals they. Finally, finally, something I'm qualified to interact with. I couldn't hang with the logic. Couldn't hang with the facts, but now for now they said it was gonna. Be sorry, but it wasn't, it wasn't. Watch this hey. I thought

you said today would be sorry, but not where it must eyeglasses am I I guess I left my sunglasses hole or Zing Z, dizzying owned. So those are the sarcasm guppies using a lot of them today. Did you see the lawsuit? I think this is a petition to the Supreme Court. I might be using the wrong legal words here. but TED crews is barely put together an appeal in width. He's challenging the Pennsylvania part of the Pennsylvania result and here's the thing. If you are waiting for a strong case. Where were you thinking to yourself gosh, I hope someday

there is a stronger case for the Trump side. Well If you dont know this already, ten crews has argued in one cases at the Supreme Court so Cruz is a guy? You don't want to mess with if you're going to be in a legal battle. You know that you imagine yourself and get the legal battle with your thing God, I hope the other side doesn't bring. Somebody good then tell crews, up as the authority for the other side. Did you just say to yourself dammit depth. Dead crews, so here is the argument he's gonna make. I'm gonna butcher this. I'm drafting off of Jack personnel, Acquiesce raided, I live stream on. This are basically going to tell you what Jack Pacific said about his life's dream. I dont understand this field, but he did a good job break it down and it goes like this.

There was a. I don't know if I can get into the details, but that was there prior to the election, there was no standing, meaning that nobody had been injured by anyting. until the election happened and the and the the charge was that some changing the rules that didn't go through the constitutional system. Is an unconstitutional thing, which happened, and the claim is that those votes that were part of this uncovered Additional decision should be thrown out and the argument is really really clever in a legal way, which is why I'm gonna butcher it probably. But the thing is The untold the electorate happens. Nobody, nobody has been harmed, Currently, you can't bring an action to the court and say: hey

This thing that happened where they hasn't happened simply worried that nothing will happen. So the beginning, you have no standing, so you don't have a legal remedy than the election happens, and then the court says too late Could you knew about this thing a long time ago, but you it until now and there's this thing called the doctrine of latches. I heard about one day ago and thus, as you waited too long to bring your case, and that is a disadvantage due ever your brain. Your case against so you can either be too early and have no standing or you be too late, because it's too late And there's no there's, no there's no room in between. TED crews and said you ve done. something that is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional and indeed I don't even think Pennsylvania would argue. The point

Else there is an argument that says it was constitutional. As a very publicly did something non constitutional right, the front of everybody there? I don't think there's any question of fact that it was a non constitutional means. The problem As that, in addition to doing something non constitutional, on top of that, like that. Wasn't already enough reason to reverse it. On top of that, the court When the situation where it couldn't be addressed in the court's, because there was. no time between the? U know ever these standing at its too late, there was no time. So let me ask you this. If you're the Democrats and you here that the the angel of death, TED crews, as has decided to put his name to keep in mind.

Ted crews has a track record, a reputation of success with the Supreme Court. This body is name understand thing. Do you think. but his name on it. If it were now pretty solid, Now I'm no expert on law- and you know when you hear about stuff likely, Doctrine of laches- and you say to yourself about who I thought- I kind of understood things and tell her that, and I don't know what the hell that's all- so I like to think that I know too much about what will happen in a court case, but. as a lay person. If you tell me the story of the way that TED Cruises laid out, you tell me the ten croons put his name on it. He put his name. I'd be a little bit worried about that. If I were a Democrat, so what do you think you're the odds that is the Pennsylvania we'll be reversed if he had the bad,

Now some of you haven't seen the the the legal documents the claims, but if you have the bat What are the odds are just that one state we'll just talk about that in isolation, what that would be reversed. Based on this pretty good right, pretty good. I think, is closer to a hundred percent and zero. But beyond that you know, I would just be flame so I'll have to see what the counter arguments are it's always easy to be seduced by the initial argument. because lawyers are good at making the initial argument and about what it is sound, pretty good. You have to wait for the other side or you don't know anything Let's talk about how the Democrats may have

allegedly allegedly not proven in any court of law, pulled off perfect alleged crime goes like us, and I gotta tell you. If you're sounds like on the little bit excited by this you're right I absolutely love see the business model. I'm sort of a business bottle geek, but I would include a perfect crime if somebody pulls up pulls off a perfect crime. I don't like it so if I'm a victim of a crime, but I'm still impressed by a really good cry so Similar to the way that I can be totally amused and entertained by press then trumps aggressive personality toward his critics

I can simply appreciate things without without losing sight of the fact that there is a downside to a lot of things so years. Here's the perfect cry As I see it, a legit did you hear me say a legit, so these circles represent the alleged instances of fraud in all the many places in the many different precincts and counting areas. Now, let's just limit these two, these swinging stated cities, the ones that are under a question let's say hypothetically, so this is not a claim of fact. This is a hypothetical, looking like is shaping up this way, hypothetically suppose that these black circles represented real fraud, but. They are all cleverly sized such that if somebody

discovered one of these. Well, when the core and say the corps would say. Yeah. It does look like that happened, but it's so small. compared to the whole election, it's not going to reverse it. So. There's no point in even hearing it because you If it's true, what's the difference now there might be a separate criminal case if there's a person there's something bad, but on charges of reversing the election. for who say yeah you, you ve got a pretty strong is, but we don't care because it's not big enough to reverse the election. which is the whole point, so Packaging ized their crime? So If you found that somebody brought in I'll just usin hypothetical examples of these are not Scott claiming fax is just an example,

tell us about the suppose. One of these was somebody brought in a truck full of fake ballots and there were twenty thousand and they. it's that truck they say were thrown out. Those twenty thousand ballots doesn't matter. Wasn't enough, wasn't Then somebody else was put in and you know a usb stick in the Sunday in changing the votes and somebody This was running the same votes through and somebody else was changing the sensitivity on the signatures. Somebody it was doing a little ballot harvesting and a state where you're not supposed to do some Bela harvesting and on and on and on and on. The second part, is the red circles represent disinformation, intentional disinformation, and on top of the intentional disinformation, which you know exists, you can be pretty sure that the Democrats

did higher disinformation professionals actual people who don't do anything else while they do other things, but their experts at disinformation. I would say that pretty much a guarantee that they were at work and these. You did this with a bunch of fake stuff so that, if is found one of these fakes and then two of these fakes than three these fakes than for these lakes and then twenty five of them. What is the public Going to think because the faint New says well yeah they're, making a lot of claims faked claimed, think came plate faint claim you lost in court, you lost in court, you lost in court, you lost in court, you lost in court. What is the pub. What would the public think who is not following things at the detail that many of you are? What would they think? Well, they would be quite you could forgive them for thinking that this was a completely clear

election and even the people in charge of the election told you is clean. So the experts told you. It was a good election. The new told you every time they met a claim. It got debunked, debug, debunked, bunk,. What the hell are you gonna think you're gonna think the election was clean, The losers are sore. Loser is complaining, but on top of this, you ve got this action timing situation that I alluded to the before the before the alleged improprieties happen is too soon to have a problem with it, because there's no standing in court because nobody is injured yet and that after it's done, The timer starts because the constitution requires you to certify and moved to each step and to be done with it in a specific time How much time did

let's say: Durham take her his investigation Well, he's not done yet how much time did Mahler need for the Mulder report. A long time so we know how how long it takes to do a complicated investigation, especially All this disinformation here imagine if imaginative Mahler and John Durham had to spend a seventy five percent of all of their time chasing disinformation. I'll bet they didn't, because I dont know that anybody was, I don't know, there's a reason to do it to inject disinformation into the Mulder report. I mean Obviously, the things he was investigating were disinformation, but I don't think on top of that people were injecting disinformation to make it harder

So anybody who would want to find a real fraud and prove it in and get the level of evidence you would need would have the most compressed time frame to do it and on top of a compressed frame, would have the entire media against them and would have. have so those are the timely problem in the new have the the disinformation that they have to wade through, which would take them even longer, so the perfect crime, it's the perfect, cried. Because I think that after this is all said and done, the history will the cord. Ok, it took us a long time might take you five years. Five years later you get away blowers as says year. You know I drove that truck and then maybe it's

Six years later and somebody comes out and says, I got to admit- I did mess with those machines a little bit got in that time. On my deathbed, I'm just going to tell you So you can imagine that history will piece together. Eventually, let's talk about. The security on these machines dizzy. Brad on Twitter, Twitter, twenty user, tweeted Jesse, Talking about the security of the voting machines, which have a usb drive and dizzy, Brad says for our pipeline operations control system. Obviously will be pretty important to have good control on a pipeline, because if the pipeline goes nuts that's problems, so the pipeline operations control system they well. The? U S be poor closed to prevent Unauthorized access need

update call is limitation to implore the match up to you ass. You would have actually call engineers, engineer a brand new usb port. If you wanted to change their software now, that is, computer secured if you think computer security is hey, don't put anything. usb drive. That's not computer security! If you take a tour, and well that usb. a whole shot, that's computer security. Likewise. Likewise, another point that I'll get back to it. Yours is an example of what a bank would do. So this is also from the tweet. somebody said I've sold integrated software to large banks three times now, so this.

Banks buying software. What do they do when they buy software? He says each time there was an extended and rigorous code review where Every line of my code was looked at by their technical experts. If I, have refused to cooperate. They would have refused by basic security policy. Thus, was that's what computer security, So these are two examples of what you should look for. Do our voting systems? Have this level of security doesn't look like it doesn't look like So here something I learned today that is interesting. Apparently all of our election devices, the voting machines, have to be certified by an accredited lab, so any anything that will be part of the federal,

action has to go through an accredited laboratory. Wouldn't you like to hear from the employees of the voting machine accreditation laboratory? Does it doesn't that feel like a jack antics thing that we should have been hearing about by now. So I tweeted this at Tucker Carlson's account cause? I would love to see talker Karlsson, nor somebody somebody. smart enough to ask the right questions. Bring the lab on and say you ve had these machines in here and you ve credited to them. What are your standards for accreditation? Is it That you looked at it and you ran some. You ran some tests and it worked on the wall. machine. You have access to or do you every machine, or do you check and determine that if the one of them is fine,

that there is no way that the other ones could have been altered because the one you checked was ok. What does it mean to yell what kind of standard they use? What do you like it? now. I am not sure that chocolate, girls, who would be the right personality, they asked these questions because, ideally you'd want to you'd want somebody who knew computer security and technology to ask those questions. I don't know who do the best person in the comments? Yes, and he says no one Tucker cause you don't trust him because he's being too honest, the reason Mad at Tucker, this cause he's being honest with you. I can find reasons to disagree with talker on various things. if you're mad at him, for being honest with you, that the evidence has not yet been proven.

By that he as a legitimate voice on television. Talking about the news could repeat without being embarrassed. Don't be mad at Tucker? For being honest cause, that's all that's happening. That is all this happened. Show me show me one thing that Tucker has said: that's not true. If you can do that then I will have some sympathy for your argument that something happened. Tucker and these he's gone back. But if you can show me one thing he's had on this election question that isn't true I'd like to see it. Maybe you can make your case, but I kind of found it so give me the give me some suggestions. would be. The best person to interview a technical expert from aid. Voting machine accreditation lab I mean I can do it.

I can ask eighty percent of the right questions probably, but I feel like we can come up with somebody a lot better than me to pool. I don't know what is technology background is. Doktor Shiva might be too smart. You know that the sort of the middle ground here, because if you ve got a technical expert and then the person s question NOS even more than the technical expert, you man, Confusion and confusion need somebody who is capable of. The right question- and there are too many people who were in the news business, who are also capable of doing that right. Somebody suggested John Mcafee. But he's dying in a spanish jail if there were away to get John Mcafee his spanish jail due to do this interview, he would be in fact.

perfect person. I hear you say: yeah, I'm seeing Robber, Barnes and Map Reynard being suggested, but we're looking for technical experts, not legal Andorra, dead data, analysis, expert. Peter TEAL, while looking for somebody was actually a news person would be ideal. anyway, I put that there may be. The news can sell lapse. We talk about what are the strong arguments against the election being fair, A strong argument, number one is the Pennsylvania case now That's not an allegation of fraud per se, because everything Pennsylvania did? Was public We are a kind of fraud because they did it right in front of you here is our continent. now. Watch us ignore it and just make up some laws. So would you call that fraud if the government?

Hey guys, we have a bunch of laws, just won't, let you know we're going to be ignoring the laws? We think it's good for you? We have an argument were in others, reason we're doing it. But we're doing a right in front of you and we think we're doing what's right. Another. As our allowing a kind of mail id ballot that the constitution did not allow, but they thought that Miller others would be good, so they did right in front of the public. Does that make it a fraud? Technically I'd say no. I don't know the sort of illegal question right: I don't want to just use the word and make an argument is based on a word. But if you do it right in front of people, and you tell people while you're doing it? What's that called I might be unconstitutional. Is it a crime, if

Your stated intention is to do what's good for your people and I am sure that they said it in those terms right. That was the whole point. hey? Are people want to vote mail in ballots? There's a coronavirus? Why wouldn't we want to give this to her public? You know it's an emergency situation, so we're going to we're going to. Cousin corners on the whole legal thing, but we're doing it for the benefit of the people. Why is this? Is it a crime actually dont know does this. fraud because there's nothing hidden its fraud. If nothing's hidden right and it's not- Actually, a crime which just unconstitutional for a good purpose. I think the Supreme Court is still rule in favour of TED Cruises claims. because I don't think the constitution.

And say I'm sorry, I don't think there is a case where the Supreme Court wants to start a precedent that, if you think the constitution isn't what you want you can ignore it. because that's what happened right, Pennsylvania saying I, with our good intentions, we think are state constitution- is flawed for this situation, so we're just gonna ignore it. I dont know that the Supreme Court can Let us stand, but I will warn you that the Supreme Court- and I think I think Ellen Dershowitz, told somebody recently I heard anyway thirty, and that he agrees with the general notion that the Supreme Court will favour stability of the country over, maybe that the technicalities of the law and the Petition so the result of there's a very

real possibility that the Supreme Court will say yeah. You made your case, but that's worse than if he had so we're we're gonna. Just sort of act like you didn't and denying so that's why all right, so the Pennsylvania case, I think it was strong argument number one strong argument number to. I would need a fact check on this, but the news has made this claim that the the dominion software people have denied an audit of their system because of proprietary information. Now the first have to say to yourself: is that true? Did they really just say? No, we can't look at our software because the sort of thing where you look into it and is probably a little new wants there. So it might be something along the lines of the just use that is stalling motion or so there's plenty more to the story. But.

here's my claim! If we can't all our nations vote counting software, because the company claims its proprietary information, I'm totally call with that, because I think you can have proprietary information if there's, if there's an entity that wants to claim their technologies, proprietary, I think they have every right. Your short of a court cases. but they would have a right to keep that secret. Wouldn't you say: do you think the the people will vote make voting machines have every right to keep their technology proprietor, they did. You say no, but they have that right. Oh, I left them apart, I'm not done with my point. They have the right to not. Let us look at the machines. We have the right to throw out the election. as they wouldn't look at our machines. So they're right, I'm ok with

I feel I feel like they can keep that right to not. Let us look at the proprietary information. but they don't have any control over our rights. Our right is it. We can throw out their ship, all of it, and I would say that that one fact. throw out all of the votes from the voting machines. If I were the benevolent Supreme Court. A ruler of the universe. I don't You need to know anything else. I thank you. You have to know that these these, just on the counting of votes, we can't look at that's the end of the story. Let me let me present my entire case to the Supreme Court Supreme Court, there's a voting system that we used in a lot of swing, places and. They have proprietors software and were not allowed to look at it. So.

should throw out all those votes. What's a supreme Court say by Scott that that would be bad because if we disenfranchised people that would be bad for the system. well, they might vote against me because they want to protect the system. But do you think they would disagree with this point? that you don't really know who one so long as you can't look at the code run, you wouldn't know who won we, we wouldn't be able to certify an election meeting, the the elected officials who have deserted election? They can't really certify election if they can't look at the most basic information that would tell them an election happened. I would if I would argue that, because we can't wanted it the software if it turns out that this is true. There we can't what did we do Often election actually happened.

Not only can we not certify that the election was fair, we actually can't certify that it occurred. right, because an election would be people vote, those votes are counted and then something happened because the vote we don't have evidence, that is, that is solid. that that actually happened we have evidence of people are pushed buttons on machines. We have evidence that we have a president elect. We don't have as all that stuff in between which is called the voting process. We did, it just doesn't exist. so, if I'm the Supreme Court, I say

Are you out a vote and you can't prove that you even had the vote. I would think that the minimum requirement to say of vote occurred does that you can tell right that you can identify it. You can detect it, it's not detectable. You can't find the vote. can't look at software? So there's this whole black hole. You know your votes went into the black hole, but you don't know what happened after that. So Can you certify that a vote happened when you can't tell us very strong argument? Isn't it I haven't heard anybody make that except me on Twitter, but this argument not make So now you got, the Pennsylvania argument, looks pretty strong. You ve got the you get. That argument will express wrong that you can't wondered if you can't confirm it and

Had one other arguments of the organised bullying, if you heard the witnesses in Michigan, and I think Pennsylvania too, but the Michigan one was especially strong and the one you have to, If you want to go, look at it on Youtube and see what I'm talking about there was a blonde woman in Michigan the call her a super Karen in in a complementary way. I saw everything I say after this is a compliment, even though I started it with Super Karen, this sounds like I'm gonna go the other way. So the super Karen who was complaining about management, if you will complaining of she, was one of the witnesses for the year. the election now, here's the interesting part, I believe you strange Andorra paid by dominion, so she was paid by

people who are in charge of having a good election? I believe fact check beyond that. I think she said that and she witnessed a whole bunch of stuff that, if The other stuff is true. This was a very bad luck, But part of what we heard from the witnesses is the bullying. Now the bullying has sort of a special place in american hearts. Wouldn't you say, let me, let me ask you this there too bad things that happen to you today. Just hypothetically one of them is just some bad thing happened, and the other thing is that you got bullied which one takes over your brain, the bullying one right, the other stuff is just bad news, but when you get bullied, thats really That that's where all the controls come off my brain.

in my world bullies are the ultimate crime, because I leave you damaged forever, but you ve got nothing you can do about it. Cause your damage mentally and so bullies I, I hold as my greatest civilians and life in short of mass murderers. I suppose. But bullies for me you're, just like the worst of the worst of the worst, and it appears according to these witnesses,. The bullying was, it looks like it was trained and organised. In other words, that the bullying the bullies were using actual techniques that they had been trained to use. Allegedly, this is the allegation train to use to bully the republican Witness out of the witness area and there are lots reports, little work, they found tricks One of them was hey, why don't you go get a snack and then they locked the door and let him back in,

One of them was complaining that somebody was playing with her mask too much, and so it was not healthy that are in the same way so it looks like they are the sort of aid a list of things ok try that, if this doesn't work. Try this as this doesn't work, try this, but the bully included fist. intimidation and included the words about your mother sexual assaults really bad bad stuff. So here's my take. If it can be demonstrated that the bullying was widespread in the end, the keys, the keys swing cities only if it can be demonstrated- and clearly there are multiple witnesses to it. I would say that any any voting

precinct in which their accounting votes under the under the pressure of bullying they should all be thrown out now. This is my strongest point, not legally so I don't know the odds of getting any any legal action for this are probably love, but in terms of just two a person on this world, you know a citizen, they patriot somebody, you just wants to get a good result. So let's not talk about the legality of the per se. If you put me on the Supreme Court and you parade several witnesses in front of me who are credible- and you tell me that those witnesses were physically intimidated during the process of an american election, I thought while every one of those fucking votes everyone, because you know what my tolerance for bullies is fucking zero, not one percent.

not a little bits? Ok, fucking, zero! Now with the big are you? against picking out any one of these little little bubbles. and saying a you know. This little bubble looks like fraud, but is too small. Kind of agree with the the court system. Not throwing the country into our civil war as they can avoid it and that my mean shading their opinions a little bit to ignore the technicalities of the law to just keeps society together. Let me tell you where my limit is I'm very much about agreeing that the Supreme Court, especially if their intention is to keep society together? I'm kind of ok with that, even if that, even if the case doesn't go my way, but here's my exception, bullying-

bullying my exception. If you give me a choice of accepting that this election had bullying and the bullying worked, and I have to live with that to avoid a civil war. Fuck you, civil war,. Civil war. First. Bullying is after that, in terms of my preference, Now, if you want to civil war with actual violence, allow bullying to continue in her and prove it's true and then allow it to continue. If you allow this bullying to go untreated and unclear, word ass to happen next, There isn't any chance, it won't happen next time and nobody thinks otherwise. There's nobody in the world who believed that the bullying happened and worked, who wouldn't also believe in the lab, and next time

is worse than a civil war. It's worse suppose. You said Scott Civil WAR, a million people are gonna, get killed. You can't have a system that allows bullying as the main process of how elections happen The reason we fought a revolution is cuz. We had that kind of a system right that the bully is in in the in England were bullying the bullying. The The people in America and the people of America, you know I would rather have a civil war than to be treated this way, because if you about it. The entire civil war was about how they were being traded even about wasn't somebody trying to build an empire? It wasn't religious based exactly. It was people who didn't like bull

We are an entire country built on, don't fucking bully us. We will leave your goddamn, I'm sorry. I know you don't like when I swear that way. We will. If your entire continent, we will get our boat go across the whole frickin ocean. Who territories to get away from people, telling us how to live our lives. No bullies bullet these are the limit, no Bali's in our system. So if this gets to the Supreme Court and bullying can be The stated as not only something that happened in one of these key places, but it look similar and other places that establish at least these suggestion that it was organized now. Imagine if you take these allegations that are in individual places,

and you can establish that they used similar techniques or worse you can. You can actually find the flow of communications in which they were trained to do it you're the Supreme Court. I pathetically and you seen witnesses, and you are convinced that says the systemic bullying was a planned operation. What do you do with those votes? We have here the Supreme Court and you learn that the voting outcome is tainted by bullying. Even if don't know how much it changed the votes, if you'd all throw out all of those votes, you're not doing your job, because that is far more important, even at the risk of civil war.

Even at the risk of civil war real, also more and more important bullying cannot survive if you have to die to get rid of bullying. Do it gives you not gonna live under bullies. that's the limit, there's no negotiating there's no compromise. There's no, let's put up with a little bit bullies. That's that's a yes! Now boom, there's! No there's! No for bullies bullies got to lose or you got to leave you either have to beat them early. If you don't live with them right so beat them or you leave the country, but don't live with bullies, dont. Do it I'd like to compliment super guarantee Michigan Witness in here's the compliment, but she was really

very ever listened to somebody who there's just the way they talk? It's not like there trained persuaded necessarily, but the way she talked you with her carried, carried some intelligence and credibility that you can't really fake. If any of that wasn't real, I mean she could be mistaken about observations, of course, but Well, look pretty honest to me and she looked super credible and she wasn't the only credible person. Some of them were less credible, but there were plenty Terrible ones where the dominion employees, on television being You didn't ask you to address the many claims about security, etc. well. Apparently they decided to go quiet for legal reasons, probably smart in a legal sense, but how How good do you feel about the fact that the people who really could tell us you the counter argument?

the ones who can say yeah, we know those usb port or open, but here's the reason it doesn't matter. Would you like to hear that are the ones who say well, okay, we were actually a network to the internet. We said we weren't, but yes, now that you mention it, we were, but it doesn't matter and here's our reason why you're mistaken? Don't you want to hear that? Why is that? Shouldn't dominion be all over the news saying these are crazy claims lemon Let me show you the machine. Here are hold it up. He can see for yourself look, there's no usb thing. Look, there's no connection or whatever

Should they not be trying to defend against these claims in public? Obviously they have a legal strategy, but I feel, like you know, maybe it's a good legal strategy, but it certainly makes the public to have less trust. Not more. Alright, So did you see ever since, the project Berytus they're, starting to drop little audio tapes for Apparently they got the phone numbers to listen in on CNN executives. Do their planning call once weaker whenever it is and is James O Keefe was personally listening in all the CNN, like executive calls which is Larry's by itself and one of the things they caught answered. A big question for me. Don't you ever wonder if the CNN executives believe their own news? Have you ever wondered that

Because if you look at it, you said yourself, I'm not even sure they believe that do. they tell you something they want you to believe, but privately they don't believe it. Because I was always a mystery to me. You know how much do they really believe in on the call be here one of their executives saying that the fox as a white supremacy, our that it is the Tucker Karlsson, the talking, curls and show, and then it is quote naked raises: now, given that this was a phone call among people who knew each other and was not meant to be public. I think this is confirmation that they believe the rod, fake news. I'm thinking I don't know, I don't know if that's good or bad. like on what had, I guess,

happy that they're not intentionally telling us one level of news while at the same time thinking it's not true, but maybe it's just as bad that they believe it, because you can spend too much time watching Tucker Karlsson without hearing him, over and over again the race should never be part of any of our problem. Our country or our decisions, Karlsson, objectively speaking, is the most anti racist person on television because most people only go half way. They said we don't wanna, be racist against this group of people, talker Karlsson, complete the picture and says I dont believe the constitute on paraphrasing, of course, I believe the constitution, that only some people are special. I believe the constitution says very much the opposite. That.

The freedom from racism should apply to all people, not to some, so he is indeed the least In terms of what he says on television, the most anti racist person on television period, there's nobody close name, anybody who is willing to call out racism on both sides, the just him he's the only one everybody else just picks aside so there. We believe there fact. Nurses was kind of interesting to know that currently a lot of people have now I tweeted this. So I know a lot of people are agreeing with me that the fraud.

eventually be proven and proven to the point where it would have changed the election, but probably won't matter probably by then will be, will take the job anyway. But here's was interesting about this and I am going to say I think it's unprecedented or on President. It which is ever had a president who got whose leaving office after one term who realistically might run again in four years have we have rather somebody who was in the job got replaced and then ran again for years or you thought they might Think of any other time it happened, but here's the bad situation or good, depending on your point of view that creates- tromp is now going hard at the tech companies. So he's saying he's not gonna hit

Vito. Some defence builders of National Defence authorization bill that unless they put into it getting rid of these section, two thirty protections for the social media please, which would make them subject being sued for doing bad things now trump? It looks like. He's, gonna lay waste to all of his enemies. Who would be enemies when he runs again and for years. This is a really kind of a daisy situation. Isn't it now I'm clearly programme, But even I am uncomfortable having us president who's, gonna oh the long before he leaves, and the law It's gonna be everybody who was on the other side and might give them problems from four years. so the lawn includes the social media companies. It looks like he's trying to take them out before he leaves office now

I believe his case solid. In other words, I don't think you just flailing round at its enemies. The section two thirty thing is widely. Widely popular by lots of smart people whose aid we just need to do, this change. So it's not as some kind of a crazy unfair attack. You can argue it either direction, but it's not an unfair attack in. I dont know how good this is the he has the power of the presidency and he can even really change things to set the table for him and for years, for example, he could take out the other fake media, the social media companies. can they can do a lot of damage to setting himself up for twenty twenty four. Now, if we only take this one example, that's a perfectly fair thing to do, but it would certainly help women twenty twenty four. If he wins on that.

So the other news, John Durham, apparently bar- turned into a special counsel and now that he is a special counsel, is less likely. That Biden will fire him, although Biden could, but it's less likely, he would do it cuz the political blowback, so I don't have a comment on that is just what happened here is a disturbing Theory that I sorry recently it was re dahlia, I think, was saying this, that civilizations follow a or least world powers following predictive cycle of growth and then decline and I've got to summarize it. So it's a little less accurate, but you so GNP, society must say America that becomes prosperous, but the prospect, Returns into inequality, and that turns into

all's for solving the inequality which could which turns into debt, because you get a print money to give everybody no money. Printing money, you creating that, basically, you have civil war and decline. so that's the cycle, prosperity, inequality, printing money that civil war decline. Now, why is it that you think the United States is the biggest power? The world today is because every other power declined right. A hundred per cent of all the other powers before the United States became the dominant power percent of them, who were once dominant powers declined, lay that none of them last released two hundred years, they don't. Last, so is the United States trapped in this inevitable,

cycle of growth and then decline and are an arm. Are we on the backside of this? Where were into the printing money and revolution, somebody's galling that the fourth turning thereby be related to this is well well, Here's what I think I feel as though history doesnt work anymore, meaning there Everything that used to work used to also be predicted If things always want this way before, that's a pretty good indication, it's gonna go that way again. Does there's just something about But you know the world isn't the same place it ever has been. We are connected by communication. We have, we have abilities to adjust and ways we couldn't do before even gigantic problems we can handle it Go off now? If you are a major power in the past and you had a gigantic problem, probably took you out,

But today a major power can have a gigantic problem and just handle it. So I just don't know that the site. also made complete sense in a pre internet world still make sense, for example, economic loss, Economic upheavals that just destroyer economy and in the old days we didn't have good communication and we didn't have good economists and we didn't know good data. We didn't have all the mechanisms we ve developed to address those shocks. So the shock you just take out your civilization but today same shock. I think we would just get our experts together and we just sort of work it out so. I would present to you the probably the most famous last words of everybody. You thought they were smart, but they weren't is that its different this time?

how many times a people been wrong, saying. Well, it's different this time. it s sort of the biggest trap you have to watch out for, but I do think that a world with internet is not the same as the world pre internet. And now, when you take those pre internet patterns and imagined they will repeat, post internet things, ass to be tested has to be tested, so I dont think we're in decline. I think, were probably closer to the golden age than decline. That's My show for today. I hope you enjoyed it, and I will remind you again that if you like to see my extra stuff, I'm going to start putting more things in December on the locals platform, locals dot com Subscription platform, where I put my my life advice lessons MIKE

lessons little too many lessons and other content. That's not the only thing on how do you live your life better? so that's on locals and I'll see you again in tomorrow. Re back here! Are you? U tubers? You know I'm going to hang around after I turn off periscope, oh good, somebody's somebody there saying you love locals you're. One of the things I didn't I didn't see coming about locals is if it attracted people who think like me and you, which is sort of why they wanted to be part of that community in the first place, and so a lot of the contents that the other people that were part of the community or brain is really good stuff, and I don't have all the troubles over there. tromp martial law now I'd like to be any Trump martial law.

Odds of a revolt close to zero somebody saying something: Anti Semitic is Supreme Court hostage to the threat. If riots- yes, yes and they should be- I don't. I don't think you want that to be different. Necessarily, I think they do need to look at the big picture and you'd kind of want them to. How does the bully issued a result that are now I feel as though the Supreme Court might be able to do something with it, but

Turn it into a Supreme Court case the outcome, because bullying isn't exactly a crime right or maybe it is maybe it's assault. Is this the best time to be a political pounded? Absolutely the type of trap is the best time to be a political pundit discuss all the energy is there, but the number of people like me who have gone into this realm of podcasting is really interesting, and I would argue that the balance of power is changing because it you know that the people who used to be the gatekeepers of truth, where the news and your politicians and stuff- but I would say the gatekeepers of Truth- that's that's my.

waiting over to the part Gasters, and the reason is that the pod castors, typically not all of them but technically have more independence, and so the broadcasters can say whatever they think is true and thus their business model. If you are a tv news company What can you say about pharmaceutical companies when they're your entire, very their entire support, and basically most of the news networks are beholden to pharmaceutical companies? Is that's the Reverend I don't have that problem who might be holding to anybody. I can't think of everybody so, if you look at the pod gasters, you know that the political pundits were growing up in this new media you ve got the ones who take advertising as their business model. Joe Rogan would be an example of that now. Do you think that Joe Rogan has complete freedom,

In a way, maybe he did at the beginning, I would say no, I dont know the limit, this product, any worse, probably doesn't because he has more freedom than ninety nine percent of the world to say what he wants. He is built he's built a brand around that, so he can get away with stuff. You can get away with such as smoking a joint on tv. He can do that. I can do that when I was on a show, but not many people are in a position where it wouldn't hurt them to do that, but I would argue that anybody who is taking advertisements has a little less free speech, not now not in a technical sense, but certainly in a practical sense. Can you just have this by us the says I dont want to say something that causes me all. My advertisers reasonably.

Now, how often would Joe Rogan even want to say anything that was so bad? He would lose his advertisers. Probably not often I mean probably doesn't come up a lot, but it says it's his horse. No, you can't say it's nothing and I think he would agree if you ask them. How do you feel the pressure of having tyres. Does that the ugly feel the pressure of spotify- and, I would say, he's doing an amazing job of pushing back against that pressure, especially when he had an alley stones on his show the spot? If I people rebelled against some of his content, including Alex Jones. So what is your Rogan do when Spotify rebelled against his content? He picks the boast provocative thing he could do and he puts it up now. That's that is exactly how. If you

we're a fan of Mme fighting and strategy. You would go at them, you wouldn't say. Oh I'm, sorry. Let me take them. My old content, you go right at them, because a good offence is a good deal. So that's what your Rogan us, I think I think he's going directly on office at his critics and it's a really good strategy. So we will have more free speech that most people, because of his brand of who he is, and the fact that he understands the orphans, makes more sense. The defence of these situations, but what about somebody who has a similar kind of a job and they don't take any advertise? Well, I take Advertising indirectly, because on Youtube, yeah there's an advertising model, but people can be subscribers to Youtube and never adds and then I started locals as a subscription service specific.

clear. So I wouldn't be so beholden on Youtube. Tomorrow, if you tube says we ve decided you content is all going to be banned, I'll just go over to locals and just carry on. I'll be fine, so I don't have to worry so much about the the economics of advertisers So I feel, like you know, in terms of whose