New Hampshire probably doesn't have a problem, but you read a story like this and it makes you think, whoa, probably those other states are doing some post-election audits too. Well, if they are, it's probably just as total.

Meanwhile, Newsmax has to go to trial because they said some things that Smartmatic, the company that makes some machines, didn't like. The big problem here, it looks like allegedly, is that Newsmax may have suggested in their reporting through who they talked to more than what they said themselves that some Smartmatic machines were involved in states where there were some irregularities reportedly. But apparently Smartmatic doesn't even have any machines in those places. So Newsmax has to kind of explain why they think the Smartmatic machines were rigged in a place where there are no Smartmatic machines. So that would be Smartmatic's take.

Now I don't know if there's a—I think the defense is that Newsmax was reporting other people's opinions. So I think the defense says, well, but they didn't get the case killed on that, so we don't know if that's going to hold any weight. But it does seem to me that every conservative news site is being bludgeoned to the point where questioning any election in the future would be corporate suicide. So do you think Newsmax and Fox News are going to aggressively question any election results? I don't think so, because they might have gigantic amounts of money on the line because they'll get sued, especially if they mention machines.

Let's see. There's a report from the Gateway Pundit. Now if any of this is true, it's really bad. But I remind you that stories of election irregularities, 95% of them won't pan out. So most of them are fake. Are there 5% real ones? Well, I don't know that. I wouldn't know unless I saw one and it got confirmed, which I haven't seen at least one that's big enough that would have changed everything. So whenever I tell you a story—this is me trying not to get sued—so whenever I tell you a story about a claim of election irregularity, it's someone else's claim and I'm reporting it. So I'm going to try the same defenses Newsmax in case they come after me. Because I do not know of any confirmed cheating that would have changed the election. That's true. I don't know of any.

Anyway, so according to the Gateway Pundit, there are a lot of ballots that come in from overseas. And of course that's legal because if you're an American and you're just happen to be stationed overseas for a number of reasons, you're allowed to vote by mail. So here's the claim. According to a poll watcher, they received lots of ballots from overseas, and they know what a ballot looks like. It's a certain size. It's 11 by 19. And he says when he opened up the box of ballots from overseas and he expected to see all these 11 and a half by 19 ballots because that's the only ones there are, it was a whole bunch of ballots that were 8 and a half by 11 on copy paper and faxes from unknown sources. And the number of them was enough to change the Maricopa result. Just hold that in your head for a moment.

Now I don't know if this is true. Remember, this is somebody else's allegation. I haven't done any independent reporting on it. And the Gateway Pundit's talking about it. But this seems like sort of an easy claim to check, doesn't it? Or at the very least, Laura Trump and her watchers should be watching this. And the question they should be watching is, wait a minute, why do these ballots look like photocopies and faxes? They don't even look like real ballots. And do you think that the watchers could get them maybe challenged or thrown out if they catch it and challenge it at the point of noticing it? Maybe. Maybe.

I still think the third act perfect ending to the Trump movie—not an ending because I'd like to see him in office for a few years—but would be that they cheat right in front of the witnesses hoping to get away with it but they don't. And that the witnesses say this entire election has to be thrown out.

People keep asking me, do I have a vision of who wins? Because in the past I have, right or wrong. Like I have this imagination of somebody winning, and I don't. I just see blackness. But not blackness like it's the end of the world or the end of the country. What I see is no decision. What I see is that between the election and the end of the year we won't know who's going to be president. And I don't know why, but probably something to do with legitimate complaints about the process. Maybe somebody catches something, but it takes the courts a while to sort it out. We might have a president in January if let's say our court system can decode things enough and they try really hard and people cooperate and it's possible. But I feel like there might be months without a president. We might even have to run the election again. We might have to. Congress might have to change all the laws so that the citizens believe that the election is true next time. So and that's impossible. So I don't even see a path. I don't see any path that we're going to choose a president.

The system is designed to deny us an outcome. Again, if you showed it to me on paper, said all right, here's our situation. We got all these states doing things differently. We got all these people watching. The watchers may see some real things, but even if they see some fake things like they mistake something that's real as a fake, they're going to report it. So you're going to have like 40,000 credible sounding, signed under oath reports of cheating. What are you going to do with that? 40,000 credible sounding, signed under threat of going to jail, saying yeah I saw this and in my opinion this was cheating. What are you going to do? How in the world do you certify it if you've got 40,000 legitimate signed under oath eyewitnesses? Multiple people saw it. It's on camera.

Now remember my assumption is that you'll have 40,000 reports of cheating even if there are none, because confirmation bias is just so heavy in this situation. If you put me there as a watcher, I'm sure my brain would tell me I saw some cheating because I kind of want to be the guy who catches it. You know, like it would be my perfect fantasy that I'm the one who caught the election cheating. It's got to be the same for the other watchers. They don't put all that time in there without thinking, you know, I'd be kind of a star if I found that cheating and changed everything. So that is a setup for confirmation bias of the highest kind. Like guaranteed. There's nowhere around it. And on paper that's the system we have now.

Now I think we need the watchers. That's exactly the right thing to do. But it guarantees we don't have an election result that we can trust. What are we going to do? I don't know. I don't think it's going to turn into any kind of a civil war. It'll just be a messy, messy process, and somehow we'll work our way through it because we work our way through everything. But wow, is it going to be messy.

All right. Here's my best idea of the day. Let's see if everybody stayed for this. Yeah, looks like we got a lot of people watching right now. Here's my strongest strategy. I was challenged the other day—I won't tell you by who—to figure out how to get out of the sort of doldrums of things looking bad and into more of a fighting optimism. Let's call it that. It's not just optimism, but it's optimism driving fight. And I woke up this morning thinking, you know, I got a lot of sleep last night, and I have the optimism that we have not yet begun to fight. That's different than the optimism you're definitely going to win. I think you should have some uncertainty about that because it'll drive your fight a little harder.

But here's my best take on how to win, and it's a reframe. By the way, I have a book called Reframe Your Brain, but this one's not in the book, so it's going to take a little while for me to develop it. So bear with me. I think you're going to like the payoff. So I posted this on X if you want to see it yourself. I said this. I said the Harris campaign's Trump hoax overload strategy has been hugely successful. So they throw so many hoaxes at Trump, including the debate, that it makes him either always on the defensive, which makes people think some of these must be true. It also takes him off of his positive messaging and off of his attacking her for her bad whatever. So as a strategy it's brilliant persuasion-wise. It's unethical as hell, but is it effective? Yeah, it really is. And it's working totally. So it's taking all the energy out of Trump's supporters and it's taking all the energy out of Trump, and they've completely owned the conversation when they do the hoax overload. Because it used to be they'd toss in a hoax here and there, but Harris just one after another. And they were the kind of hoaxes that are so obviously debunked and so universally debunked that you can't believe they do it unless, as others have pointed out, unless they knew they wouldn't get fact-checked by the mainstream media. And sure enough they didn't get fact-checked.

Now that we know that's the case, what you can't depend on is the media helping you out debunking any hoaxes. And there's no reason for them to stop with the hoax overload strategy because it's not just hoaxes. The overload is the key. It's not just hoaxes. Just hoaxes is not good enough. It has to be the overload. It's taking all your energy away. Diversion. So that's totally working.

So what would you do about that? Apparently they know Trump has no effective defense against it. Because your most obvious defense is to say it's not true, and then people want to think it's true. Say, oh you're a liar, because they've already framed him as a liar. Once you've framed Trump as a liar, his denial of a hoax doesn't have any weight to the people who have been convinced that he lies about everything.

But what could you do? How could you reframe this so it's not just a bunch of hoaxes and somebody trying to say they're not true? Because that ain't working. So here's my idea. And also I should note that Trump's most capable supporters, the ones who really are good at persuasion and stuff like that, don't have any hope of changing this because we're all siloed, as Marianne Williamson points out. The press, including X by the way—I have almost no exposure to anybody who's a Democrat because X's algorithm gives you more of what you want. If you're a Democrat, you want Democrat stuff, so you'll never see my stuff. And that's the free speech platform. The free speech platform is useless as long as the algorithm gives you more of what you want. It's useless. It doesn't have any free speech power at all. So I'm not sure if Elon Musk has completely grasped that he doesn't have a free speech platform. He has a silo where people can talk to themselves. And I hate to say it because I'm a giant fan of Elon Musk and what he's done with X, but as long as the algorithm gives you more of what you want—which by the way doesn't sound crazy, sounds pretty sane, give people more of what they want—but as long as that's the case, there's no free speech going on. It's people just talking to themselves. The ability to talk to people who already agree with you is not any kind of free speech I'd recognize. It's talking to the people in the other silo and getting them all worked up and vice versa. Now that's some free speech, but we don't have it. Don't have it anywhere.

The debates were stupid and fake and controlled. That was nothing like any information at all for voters. So given all that, the helpers can't help. Vance can go in public and do something freaking awesome every day, and he almost does. If you're following Vance, his public appearances are almost jaw-droppingly smart, and you think, wow, that could move the needle. No Democrat will see it. They just don't see it. It makes no difference. And I would argue that there are a number of people in that category. They just can't break through the silo.

So what do you do? Well, only Trump can break the silo, meaning that if he says something interesting, Democrats have to hear it. But he's the only one. He's also the only one who seems incapable of doing the thing I'm going to suggest. So something would have to change.

Here's what I'm going to suggest. And it's based on a trick I learned years ago in my media training. That there is a weakness that the media has which I exploit every chance I get, which is why you're listening to me by the way. If I had not been exploiting this flaw in the media for 30 years, you wouldn't even know who I was. It's the primary trick I use. It goes like this. Nobody in the press cares that you did something better than somebody else. You know, unless it's the Olympics, some special case. But they don't care you're really good at something and somebody's a little bit not as good. That's not a story, and they won't care about it and they won't write about it.

But here's what they will write about. If you're a public figure and you're doing something in a whole new way, they'll write about that. Do you know why? Because when they write about a whole new way, it's fascinating. It interests the writers, but more importantly it interests the readers. So readers like, whoa, you're doing this a whole new way. So a story about Trump not spending as much on elections but using this social network strength that he had, that was a story. Everybody told it, right? Both sides told that story. It's a process story. If somebody uses a new process and is so good it wins them the election of the United States president, you cannot not tell that story. Every journalist wants to tell that story. And they will if you do a new way of doing something. That's guaranteed to cut across both silos.

So what he needs to do with the hoaxes is stop saying this is a hoax because that gets him nothing. Instead he needs to do the following. Number one, build a hoax debunk website. I know they exist. I know the fans have built them. He needs his own. He needs a Trump campaign hoax debunking site. But here's the key part, and if you leave this out it's nothing. So I don't think I can emphasize this enough because I don't want you to hear, well if he had a website debunking the hoaxes he's in good shape. No, it would be useless. That would be useless. It has to describe how they made the hoaxes. That's the magic sauce. The magic sauce is showing the technique.

So let me give you an example. Let's say the fine people hoax comes up. If Trump says that's a hoax, everybody goes, it's been debunked. Yeah, nothing. But if he says, you know what you really need to know, you voters, about how the system works is that it's almost entirely hoax-based at this point. And I'd love to teach you how the hoaxes are created so that you can spot them on your own. For example, the fine people hoax is created just by a simple edit. If you don't believe that—and I wouldn't believe it if I'd been watching the mainstream news either—you can go to our hoax debunking website. Here's the URL. And you can see for yourself the method they used. The method. That's the secret sauce.

If you want a journalist to cover it on both sides, you talk about the method. The method, not the reality. The method. The method was to take off the end of it, and then the media that's fake would keep repeating it as a real thing. And then you say here's another one: the Covington kids, the overfeeding the koi. I would argue that you find the drinking bleach one, but I know that's more complicated. It was about light. They cut out the light part, etc. It's a little harder sell. But for each of the hoaxes you could say, okay, this one was done by mind reading. They pretend they know what I'm thinking, and they've pretended that when I said I would be a dictator for a day—which was clearly just a hyperbole to make a case about closing the border—they read my mind and acted like that was a real thing. So you do the mind reading ones, the fake edit ones. And instead of organizing the hoax list by hoaxes—wait for it, wait for it—you organize the hoax list by method. Here are the ones that are fake edits. Here are the ones that are mind reading. Here are the ones that are quotes taken out of context or whatever the categories are.

If you turn it into a how-to-do-it and how-they-did-it, both sides are going to report it. And if you can get a Democrat to look at even one of them—and somebody said to me that debunking the fine people hoax wouldn't change any votes. What most of the Democrats who have changed sides have said is that figuring out that the fine people hoax was fake was a deciding factor. You've heard it, right? I mean this is anecdotal, but have you all heard public figures say once I found out about the fine people hoax I was done with Democrats? You've heard that, haven't you? Some high-profile people have said that recently. So no, that one is the Rosetta Stone. The fine people hoax more than all the other hoaxes is the one that's so simple to explain because they just clipped off the part where he clarified. If you can get people to realize that they've been that duped by their own people, they will be pissed. And that causes action. Anger causes action. And they will. And the people who have switched sides, they say I was angry when I found out what they did to me, and I'd been out there repeating this hoax forever.

Next, all the supporters of Trump need to refer to the same page. Now there are some hoax debunk sites, but they're not organized the way I just described, and therefore they have no value. Right? And let me say it again. A list of hoaxes has no value. It has to be a page that tells you how they did it. How they did it is inescapable. Everybody wants to know how.

So let me give you the talk that would do it. The wrong answer is, well the fine people hoax has been debunked. It's been widely debunked. That's wrong. Doesn't work. Here's the right one. If you want to lose all remaining faith in the media, now you have my attention, right? If the first thing I say is if you want to lose all remaining faith in the media, that's so interesting that you're going to listen to whatever comes next. That's a writing trick. Make your first sentence too interesting to skip. The second sentence. So you say if you want to lose all remaining faith in the media, go to the hoax site. Give the URL to see how that hoax was created with a fake edit. You can see the unedited video to see for yourself. And when you're there, look at how the other hoaxes were created too. It's appalling that we have to live like this. We need honest media to have a great country.

That would have ended the debate, by the way. If Trump had done that when the fine people hoax came up, he would have been the winner of the debate, and you wouldn't have remembered anything else.

And then further I would say that we need a QR code that goes to the debunk page, and it could be included very easily on any other messaging that has an image. You know, so just in the corner of anything else you say, just put the QR code and you know, hoax debunk site, something like that. And then supporters could take the QR code. We just take a picture of it ourselves. And every time somebody in the comments or on X or anywhere on social media says blah blah blah hoax, you just say, check this out. You either put the URL for a click or put the QR code.

And then I would also preemptively predict how the Democrats are going to respond with more hoaxes and fake fact-checking. So you might say, you know, if you go check this, the press is going to respond with just more new hoaxes. But now you know how they're made. When you see the new one, check this page and you'll see which category it fits in. It's either a mind reading or fake edit or something out of context. And you just teach people to be experts at spotting it.

And what's that called? Does anybody understand the technique I'm teaching you? It has another name. You've heard it before. Oh come on, you know this one. Tell me what technique I'm using. The persuasion technique. It's one Trump uses all the time. He just hasn't used it in this context. All right, I think the comments are a little delayed. I think you know this one. It's called thinking past the sale. The sale is that these are hoaxes. Thinking past is let me show you how they were done. If you