ourt itself, independent of what the actual decision is? Because I feel like that is the priority.

Meaning that if I heard that was their priority, I would say, oh yeah, when you think about it, it probably does need to be the priority. Because the way that the court can maintain its credibility is of course going with the majority. That's probably better than going with the minority, right? If the court sided with the minority of the public, I don't know if it can last. It's got to be with the public at least often enough on the big stuff that the public says, oh, I don't like all of your decisions, but usually you're with the public.

Now that's not how the public should think, right? The public should not judge the credibility of the court by whether it agrees with what they would have done. That's the worst way to judge them. But what do we do? Because we're not very sophisticated overall. And so we look at the court and we say, well, it disagreed with me three out of four times. I guess they're not credible. That's exactly what you would think. You would think that they had no value at all if they did their job perfectly, followed the Constitution, followed the law, and just interpreted that law. If it didn't agree with your opinion, you'd say they weren't credible.

So I've got a feeling that the court is always balancing these two competing and very, very important issues. Because if the Supreme Court lost its credibility below, let's say, some hypothetical support level, beyond which the institution's in trouble, I think they've got to stay above the line. And every now and then they might have to nudge a decision toward keeping their own credibility if it's at all close.

Now I'm not suggesting that they do that consciously, but I would if I were on the Supreme Court. I would say, quite reasonably, I don't think there's anything unreasonable about this, I would say the worst thing that could happen is to lose the trust of the public in the Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court, they end up being the tiebreaker for a lot of stuff. If you lose all your credibility, you know there's always criticism, but if you lose all of your credibility and you're the tiebreaker, that's pretty dangerous. It's dangerous because what do you do? I mean if you don't have that ultimate credible tiebreaker.

So if I were on the Supreme Court, I would sometimes do things just to remain credible even if it wasn't exactly where I think law is pointing, because it is a greater good. I think there's a case to be made for that.

All right, I provocatively tweeted the other day that in this election, the upcoming election, your votes won't matter. Now here's what I mean by that. These are some things we can predict with complete certainty. We know with complete certainty that there will be allegations of vote rigging on both the left and the right. Do you agree so far? So far are we all on the same page?

There's a hundred percent chance that both the left and the right, no matter what the hell happens, independent of the outcome, both the left and the right will have examples or at least allegations of election tampering. Election suppressing the votes of black voters, for example. Now whether or not these are good examples, whether or not they really happen, whether or not they're true or not doesn't matter. They will be believed. Are you with me so far?

That when the Republicans have whatever allegations they're gonna have, that Republicans will think, well that's probably true, and it might be true because it'll be based on anecdotes and specific stories. Could well be true. The left will have their anecdotes and stories and they'll be able to point to things, and the left will completely believe it just like the right completely believes their side and pretty much everything.

So we're gonna have this situation where there's a guaranteed question about the result. Probably we've had this sort of complaining in every election from the beginning of time. Probably there's never an election or national election in which there isn't at least somebody saying it was rigged or at least somebody is pointing to a problem. Pretty much universal. And we always get by it, right? It seems like it doesn't stop the system. It's a little bit of complaining but we'll live with the result anyway because overall the system is credible. Americans do pretty much trust the voting system even though it's got all these irregularities. That's what it used to be. I don't think that's the case anymore.

Here's what changed. The ability of the press, the media, the manipulators behind the curtains, the ability to ramp up people's emotions is at a super weaponized level, even way beyond where it was in 2016. I would say that we've advanced a lot, really a lot, in our ability to set people's brains on fire and make them mad or excited or afraid or anxious or greedy or something.

And so what we're gonna go into is a situation where there's a hundred percent chance that the left will feel, let's say that they lose. Let's say Trump gets elected hypothetically. What will the left say? They'll say the vote was rigged, of course, because the polls will say it couldn't have happened. You see where this is going. The polls will say it's not possible. So if Trump wins and there's widespread allegations, there always will be, of election tampering, what will the left do? They'll stage a coup.

Now this is again a safe prediction. Why? Because they have staged several. In fact it's nonstop. The impeachment was a coup. The Russia collusion stuff was a coup attempt. The 25th Amendment stuff is a coup. All of these anonymous alleged books about what really happened in the room with Trump, they're all coup attempts. They're all coup attempts. They're just in many cases completely legal. Just because I call it a coup don't assume it's illegal. They're just using every lever, every button, every mechanism. They're throwing the kitchen sink at it to take him out of office without the benefit of a vote.

Now I'm going to use the word coup to mean removing a president by any mechanism other than just a normal vote. So will there be a coup, or at least a coup attempt, if Trump wins the election? And I would say the answer is a hundred percent. There's really no chance it wouldn't happen. Does anybody even disagree with that? I don't see any. I can't imagine anybody would disagree with that statement.

Now we don't know what it would look like. It could be another massive fake news story. It could be like Russia collusion where the British government runs an operation against the United States an