e Court that they're likely to agree and throw out a bunch of votes. So Pennsylvania is looking good. Not only that but a couple dozen state legislators have said that they don't trust the certification of the election. Pretty good source, right? Pretty good.

All right, somebody just reminded me to put my ring back on. Thank you.

Here's the second version of the news. Pennsylvania, they keep trying these lawsuits and they keep getting kicked out. Why? Because there's no evidence. There's no proof. There's no proof. There's no evidence. Pennsylvania lawsuits, no chance. It's over. It's dead and done. It's buried and it's a hundred feet in the ground. It's covered with dirt. It's covered with gravel. It's covered with nuclear waste. That's how far in a hole the legal challenges are. There is no hope. No hope in the world. Cannot be done. The Constitution and in fact physics itself makes it impossible. You can't change time. Reality is set. Nothing can happen. The election is over, over, over, over, over.

And then the other news looks like when it goes to the Supreme Court things are going to go pretty well for Trump.

Both of those news.

Somebody says in the comments, "Why is Dale wearing your wedding ring?" What would you like to know?

And so I'm trying to figure out what is real. What is real?

Let's take the fact that I think 26 state legislators, Republicans from Pennsylvania, now have no confidence in the vote. So is 26 a lot? If 26 GOP legislators say they're not confident, is that a lot?

Because the first time I saw the news it was out of context as in, is 26 a lot? I mean just if you want to know how completely incompetent the news business is, imagine that you as a consumer heard this news: 26 Republicans are questioning the credibility of the election. What did that tell you? Nothing. Because you don't know how many legislators there are, do you?

How many of you knew how many legislators there are? I didn't. How many legislators are there in Pennsylvania? Oh beats me. Don't have an idea.

Now the answer is there are 203 seats. So that would be 26 out of 203. So I think somebody did the math for me here in the comments and said about 11%. So are you done? It's only 11%. You can kind of ignore 11%, can't you? Or can you? Is 11% a lot or is 11% nothing? Because it's not a vote, right? If it were a vote 11% would be nothing. If it were a number of people who are going to die from coronavirus, 11% would be sky high. You'd be like that'd be the end of civilization. I think not quite. But it's 11%.

Oh, it's not really 11%. Let's modify this a little bit because there are only 113 Republicans. Do you expect that there would be any Democrats, no matter the information, no matter the data, no matter the evidence? Do you believe that any Democrats would say the election was not credible once they've won? All right, is it reasonable to think that any of the Democrats could possibly be honest even if they believe the election was fake? No.

So I think if you're going to be reasonable and say, okay how much of a big deal is this — 26 legislators out of 203 — you have to subtract the Democrats because the only group that matters are the group that could change their mind. If you've got a group that you know with a high degree of certainty it doesn't matter what the facts are, they're not going to use the facts to make any kind of decisions here. They're going to use politics. They won.

Now reverse the situation. Let's say Republicans had won and the Democrats were thinking of challenging the credibility of the election. Would you expect even one Republican, if they had won, to question the credibility of an election that they won? No. Quite obviously that would be zero. Is anybody doubting that? Do I need to give you proof that Republicans would act like human beings act every single time human beings are in a certain kind of situation?

Now forget about Republicans. It's the Democrats that are the human beings in this specific situation who have won and defeated Orange Hitler. It's not just winning. It's not like winning a softball game. They defeated Orange Hitler. Is there any reasonable chance that that group, the winners, are going to say yeah maybe we should rethink this? Maybe we should open up the possibility that Orange Hitler would become our leader again? No. No, you don't need any evidence. You don't need any proof. Those Democrats are simply not relevant to the question of whether the election was credible. They don't have any value to the decision. So take them out.

So now it's 26 out of 113 Republicans. Ooh, what's 26 out of 113? Alexa, what is 26 divided by 113? 26 divided by 113 is approximately 0.2301, 23%.

If 23% of the legislators who could change their mind — in other words they're the only ones who have even a possibility of saying yeah I think this election is not so good — 23% is enough. It's way enough. It is completely enough. Because if the game here is to get the House, and you're gonna have to fact check me on some of the constitutional ins and outs here, but I think that if the House looks at these legislators and sees that nearly a quarter of them think the election was thrown, that would give them enough cover to say there's too much doubt, right?

How much reasonable doubt does the House need in order to say, you know, I think we're just going to make our own decision and ignore the election? What is the quantity or percentage or however you want to measure it of how much doubt? If this were a legal case, how much doubt would you need to get somebody off who had been accused? It wouldn't take much. Maybe 10% doubt, 5% doubt. How much doubt would it take to find somebody innocent even if there was a lot of evidence but there was still a 10% doubt? You would let them go, wouldn't you?

Now what if it was a 20% doubt? Well then I think you would definitely let them go. Could you imagine convicting somebody if you felt in your own mind there was a 20% doubt? You wouldn't. You wouldn't even come close to convicting them. You wouldn't even consider it because you're a reasonable person, right?

So I think that Pennsylvania, at least in terms of the Republican goals here, I think they accomplished what they wanted to. And it's probably still not done because I think it goes to the Supreme Court now, at least one of the challenges about a rule change.

Now one of the reasons that I guess is the Pennsylvania court, the high court, said that the legal challenge in which they challenged a 2019 rule change about mail-in ballots — so the challenge was to get rid of those votes that had been the subject of that rule change because the change came from the court and not the legislature, I think that's the nature of it, and therefore the change was unconstitutional. So it got challenged and this is why the court rejected that challenge because of the doctrine of laches.

Have you ever heard that word before? If you're not a lawyer, have you ever even heard that word? Have you ever heard of the doctrine of laches? Or somebody says latches. I don't know how to pronounce it. Oh thank you in the comments. They're saying it's laches. So the doctrine of laches doesn't have a T in it. But laches.

And here's what that means. I have to look it up. And what it means in just ordinary talk, not legal talk, is that you waited too long. And if you wait too long to accuse somebody of something there's an implied disadvantage for the accused. And I think there's also an assumed just a fairne