he conservatives on the court from saying we only want to make a ruling that helps us politically?

Suppose the conservatives said, you know, the only thing that would stop Republicans from sweeping is a Supreme Court ruling killing Roe and then making everybody go to the elections. Think about that. If the conservatives on the court are really, I'll say corrupt, I think corrupt would be a fair enough word in this case. If they're really just conservatives and they're not even real justices, all they're doing is saying conservatives this is what you get and we're going to rationalize it somehow but we're on your team. We're just going to vote your way every time. So there are some real interesting questions about this. I could easily imagine that the court would pursue their own credibility or even a Republican victory and then hold off the decision until after 2024.

What about that? What if the court said we're going to delay this until after the political season? Oh, here's my prediction. Oh yeah, here's my prediction. The court has, correct me if I'm wrong, they have the flexibility to take any case or not take any case and they have the flexibility to wait as long as they want. Is that true? That they do have the flexibility to wait on any decision as long as they want? Nobody's going to tell them they have to make a decision. Is that true? There's no pressure to do it or lose it, right?

Suppose the Supreme Court says there has to be a response to the leak. There has to be. And because the leak was obviously released for political purposes to influence the midterms and maybe even the presidential election, we at the Supreme Court are going to take away that win and we're going to delay the decision. Actually they don't even have to announce it. They could just not do it. And maybe it would leak that that's a reason. Because that would give them their, are you agreeing with this? Because that would give the Supreme Court everything they want. If you imagine that that is the decision they want, the majority of them, they would still get their decision but they would wait until there was a Republican scenario. Because that would also guarantee that the conservatives get the next nomination in the courts, etc., assuming everybody can survive until 2024.

What do you think of that prediction? Okay, that's what I would do if I were Justice Roberts. So if I were the Supreme Court and even if I wanted that ruling, even if I were a conservative, I would say since the reason for the leak was political, we're going to take that win away from them. But we'll still reserve the right to do it immediately after the election when it has the least political impact. I feel like I would do that. But that would also be the Supreme Court meddling in the election, wouldn't it? So I'm not sure if that would be fixing a meddling or that would be its own meddling. So I guess that would be a problem either way.

Well, speaking of Republicans being hunted, there's a list on the internet now of the people who were the most responsible for sowing doubt about the 2020 election. So researchers combed through 45 million tweets to find the people who are most responsible for doubt about the election. And I'm number 28 on the list. So I'm on a list of people who sowed the most doubt in the whole world about the election.

Now as someone else asked, how did they determine that? Because I accepted the election on the day the results were announced. I congratulated Biden for the win on the day the election was official and I never changed. And I've said every time since then he's the president. So that didn't change. But I've also said that since our election can't be audited and not fully, then you can't know if anything was rigged. But you could know for certain that if it doesn't get, plug those holes, that it will be. We don't know when. Might be this election, might be next, 20 years from now. But if you don't plug the holes, it's a guarantee somebody's going to walk through that open gate. So yeah, of course until we have a fully auditable system, one assumes that you can't fully trust any result.

But I value, just like the Supreme Court conversation, I do value the system over the imperfections and even over the choice. Because when an election is close, you know it's like 48-50 sort of situation. I don't really think the public loses when the 48 wins over the 50 because it's not that much of a difference. It's not like the public is so smart that we can fine-tune those decisions. If it's sort of a half and half, then at least half the country got what they wanted and that's not too bad compared to the other half getting what they wanted, right? It's not the worst thing in the world. And so I still support the system because I don't want this system to fall apart even though you could never know for sure if it gave you 100% accurate results.

But I would say that every day that goes by that we don't have further evidence of the 2000 Mules accusations, the less likely you're ever going to see them. So to me that feels like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and 2000 Mules. I put them all in the same category in just one thin way, not in general but just one specific way, which is every day that goes by that they're not proven to work, well it's probably less likely that they will ever be proven to work.

So the challenge against the 2000 Mules thing is that the cell phone data location stuff wasn't specific enough. You need some photographic evidence of the same person going to the same box has not been produced. Or you need a whistleblower. The allegations of all of these mules is kind of interesting. When if a mule existed, you don't think that mule would find a way to monetize their whistleblowing? Because you could go to a major news platform and say look, disguise my voice, pay me $50,000 and I'll tell you that I was a mule and I dropped off multiple things. But that hasn't happened, has it? There's not one mule who would take $50,000 and a disguised identity to tell that story. Now maybe they'd be afraid of being killed or something. But I don't know how much you get paid to be a mule but it can't be that much. I would think that I'd take the $50,000 if I were a mule and I thought I could get away with it. Because remember these are people who think they can get away with stuff. If you're a mule you've already bought into the idea of breaking the law, right? So if you could have another way to maybe not break the law and make $50,000, that doesn't seem like a big risk.

So every day that you don't see somebody take the $50,000, because easily somebody would give them $50,000, right? You're telling me that there's no conservative who would pay $50,000 to get somebody to hide their identity and say yeah I was a mule, here's how I did it? I don't know. That many mules. So the same argument that says if you don't have a totally secure election system and there have been reports of vulnerabilities, eventually it will be hacked. But for the same sort of math logic, if you have so many alleged mules and you'd have to have a lot of them, right, not one of those people who are a group of people who engage in illegal activity by definition because it's illegal, at least the muelling we're talking about is illegal, not one of those people would accept $50,000 to tell their story because of their own legal jeopardy. Maybe. I don't know. I feel like that's a group that would take the $50,000. I feel like you could get dozens of them to take it because that's good money for a little bit of criminal activity.

Suppose you had a mule who went to the press and said I'll make you a deal. If you the press hire me a lawyer and you go to law enforcement and you ask them to give me a pardon or some kind of dispensation, I will tell my story to you. You'll give me $50,000 and I'll have no legal jeopardy because you help me clear that with your lawyer. There's no mule smart enough to make that deal? Really? I don't know. I feel like that would be just such an obvious deal that they could make that deal. So every day that goes by that we don't have proof there was anything wrong with that election, I say the odds of it are much smaller. Much smaller, right?

All right, so what do you make of the fact that I'm on a list of election doubters? Doesn't that sound like I've been hunted? Literally somebody paid some rich people paid for an entity to pour through my tweets and other people's tweets hunting, hunting for certain people who are associated with opinions that they say are associated with the right. Now I'm not Republican and I'm not conservative but I got on the list. Now have I been hunted? Did they not literally hunt for me? By the data that looks like a hunt to me. What is hunting other than going and looking for your target? Like actually what is the definition of hunting? Let me ask that. There's a definition of hunting and see if it fits. Do you find hunting? All right, the activity of hunting wild animals or game especially for food. Okay, it's not that. Well that's a rather limited definition. So they're not using the, oh it's similar to stalking. All right, well we can do better than that.

So remember I told you that it seems likely that especially before the 2024 election that I will be the subject of a hit piece. I feel like this list is sort of activating the activists. Say okay here's your hit list. And it even included how many people retweeted us so you could know how big our influence was. It was literally a list of who was influential on a topic they don't like. A list of who is most influential on a topic they don't like. Think about that. Suppose conservatives created a list of who on the left was the most influential on a topic they didn't like. How would that feel? How would that feel? Because if you saw that list what would you do? Well if you're a nice person you'd probably just read it and it'd be interesting. But if you're a troll or a terrible person w