say "it's reported" because "it's reported" is true. What you don't know is that the thing actually happened. The only thing that's true is it's reported.

But then as Greenwald points out it's a common trick that her father used, which was to leak a story to the press and then talk about the story in the press as if it's public information now and it must be true because it's in the press. So you got to watch out for that trick because you'll see it a lot.

I saw a tweet by an attorney, Matthew DePerno, and he's talking about Michigan counties and there apparently some audit stuff going on about the election. And it seems that there's evidence now in writing that a number of the counties decided to not keep the image of the ballots. So the machines will count the ballots but they also take an image of them to store. And in order to not store the image you have to actively turn it off because the default, the way it's built to work — thank you, Optimus — so Michigan apparently, many of the counties decided to actively turn off the image control. Why would they do that? What would be a legitimate reason for turning off a function which is built into the machine as an audit security safeguard? Why would you turn it off? Give me a legitimate reason. Any legitimate reason.

Now it sounds like they turned it off because maybe they didn't want to go through the bother of an audit or something. But is that a good reason? That doesn't sound like a reason, does it? So the first thing you need to know is that any story about the election has to be judged with a lot of skepticism. So I don't know if it's true that Michigan counties decided to turn off this feature. But if it's true, and there does seem to be evidence of it, the question that Matthew asks is was a crime committed and does RICO apply? Because if these counties organized, in other words they talked to each other and they said, "Hey if you turn it off I'll turn it off and we'll be fine," then they're coordinating a criminal activity which is a RICO problem.

Now am I wrong that there is also some disappearing data in Arizona? So that we've got at least two or three of the trouble places that people have questions about the election. How many of them have to be erased before you say, "Uh-oh"?

And let me ask you this. Let's say the only thing you knew is that there was one state that couldn't be audited. Suppose that's all you knew. And let's say that Democrats and Republicans agreed on the following point, hypothetically. So I'll use my "if" here. If it's true that both Arizona and Michigan and maybe another state — you know there's still some suspicion about some other states — but if there was something that could have been audited and should have been maintained and was deleted before an audit, is the election still valid? Is it? Because it seems to me, and my guess is it's still legally valid, yes. But in your mind would you trust an election in which the ability to audit it was intentionally erased? And "intentionally" is the important part. If data had been, let's say, accidentally destroyed, then I would say well there's nothing to see here. Accidents happen. But if there is an intention and then it appears to be some kind of an intention involved here to delete auditable records, was the election still valid?

I feel as if you could make an argument that the election is not valid if it can't be audited and that the reason it can't be audited is because people made specific decisions to get rid of stuff. If that's true it's not a legitimate election. Now it might be legal. It might be certified. It might be done and done. I'm not saying that anything would be reversed or anything would happen or even that the system didn't work more or less. I'm just saying you couldn't really call it legitimate if it became unauditable by human intention immediately after the election. I mean if I were the Supreme Court I would actually overturn the election if this were true. Now I don't know if there's a legal basis for that but I might look for one. Because if you're the Supreme Court, part of the reason it's human beings is that they do get to look at the big picture like what is really good for the world and also compatible with the Constitution. Ideally you want them only to be compatible with the Constitution but if there's any gray area that's why we have humans. That's why we pick wise educated people to be on the Supreme Court. Because sometimes you need to move into the gray area to get a better outcome.

And I don't know, if I'm the Supreme Court and I look at information being deleted after the election and before an audit, personally I would throw out the election. That's what I would do. But I don't know that they could actually get away with that.

All right, here's my question for you. We're talking about infrastructure all the time and everybody's arguing about what is and what is not infrastructure. I'm on the side of defining it broadly. I don't really have a complaint with Buttigieg or the Democrats calling things infrastructure that are barely infrastructure as long as they also need to get funded. Elections have consequences, right? I mean the Democrats get to throw some stuff in this bag as a process. I'm not too concerned about it even if I might disagree a lot about some of the specifics. I'm not too concerned that they're calling things infrastructure. That's just a way to get there.

But here's my question to you. If you were to list our most important infrastructure for national security, what would be on the list? So here's my list. I would have 5G really close to the top of infrastructure priorities, especially make sure there's no Huawei in there and also making sure that we have enough of a 5G industry that we can help our allies not have Huawei technology. I'd also say that NASA and militarizing space is a top infrastructure because it doesn't matter so much today but in 20 years it might be the only thing that matters who controls space. So Space Force and working with NASA or whoever else they need to work with, I think space infrastructure has got to be a really high priority for the future. I would say nuclear energy right at the top of the list, both for powering our space exploration and control and also for climate change and also for just having enough electricity that's clean. So I would say nuclear energy would be right in the top five. I'd say our energy grid and controlling it, and I would include an energy grid, pipelines, and cybersecurity. You know I worry that our cybersecurity is really just nothing more than mutually assured destruction which isn't good enough if they're private hackers because we can't find them. So those are the ones that just jump to the top of my list. Manage our forests. Yeah, I mean in California managing our forests is way up there because the fires. Yeah, the government's priority is to find all the white supremacists that don't exist. All right, so those would be my priorities.

So Joe Biden's climate czar John Kerry was asked about slave labor in China, specifically the Uyghurs being part of making solar panels that apparently we'd have to buy a lot of or at least components of if we wanted to go big on climate, you know, green energy. And John Kerry amazingly said he couldn't guarantee that we wouldn't be buying products of slave labor and genocide. And I feel like he made an argument that we might have to live with that. That in order to deal with an existential crisis, as he would say, of climate change, that you might have to deal with a genocidal group and allow their slave labor and their genocide to make the products that keeps us safe from running out of energy and polluting the world. How is that moral argument sitting with you? Pretty good, huh?

Why is it that we're building infrastructure and we're trying to solve climate change and we're buying shit from China? Doesn't it seem like infrastructure should include making our own stuff?

Now if you look at the other issue, of course, is that the solar panels and solar energy takes gigantic amounts of land which nuclear does not and other things do not as much. And the waste created by it is amazing and it's made by slaves. So it might be that solar energy, and then it also is not consistently powering anything because the sun is not consistent. So it could be that we're coming around to the thought that solar energy, at least the way we can do it now, is the worst thing we can do. And I feel like there's a good argument that is literally the worst thing you can do. Now we might have to do some things in the short term just because it takes a while to do nuclear energy. But yeah, solar has turned into bad on every level. Bad on land use, bad on pollution in the sense that the panels have to go somewhere, bad on ethics because slave labor is making it, bad on economics because we're giving money to China, bad on national security because we're giving money to China. So I guess we're finally wising up to the real costs and benefits of solar.

And there's also a big question about apparently Biden approved the first major offshore wind farm that will power 400,000 homes. So it's a really massively big project about 12 miles off the coast in Massachusetts. Now you might imagine that lots of people oppose this but once again the parts for these windmills are mostly made in Europe. Mostly made in Europe. Shouldn't our infrastructure include funding or something to make this stuff in the United States? There's no way we can make this stuff competitively. Apple can't make a windmill, probably don't want to because it kills a lot of birds. But I don't know how many jobs that's going to create if the parts are made in Europe. So we'll see. And made in China too, people are saying in the comments.

All right, how many birds will it take out? Yeah, exactly. You know it's amazing to me that we can't figure out how to keep birds away from windmills. Doesn't it seem like that's doable? I mean what would it take to scare a bird away? I feel like the bar is not that high, right? I feel like there's something you could do with infrared or something fluttering or some big scary owls or something. You know if you made the windmills at the top look like a predator with like a beak and big predator eyes and stuff, would birds see the big predator head and still fly directly into it? Yeah, giant owl statue, right? I feel like there's a way to handle this problem. Maybe it doesn't work at night or something. Well you can light it. Send the UFOs after them.

Yeah, the other problem is that these windmills have apparently destroyed hundreds of UFOs. Just hundreds of UFOs have been just chopped up in these windmills. Yeah, what about hurricanes? It's a good question. I assume that they're built to withstand hurricanes although I don't know how. How would a windmill ever survive a hurricane? And do you have any hurricane risk 12 miles outside of Massachusetts? Maybe a little bit.

Even firecrackers. He keeps coming back. I don't know who you're talking about. Oh you're talking about a bird. So you've got a bird that just keeps coming back.

Nuclear means nationalization of the power grid. I don't know that point. So somebody's saying that if we go more nuclear we have to nationalize the power grid. I don't understand that point at all. What's the connecting tissue?

All right, let me tell you in advance I'm planning a trip in June so I might miss a few days of this. I want to give you some warning about that but that's a Jew and I'll tell you about it when we get there.

And oh yes, Juan reminds me that chip manufacturing should be in the top five. It turns out the United States doesn't do much making chips anymore and I don't know when that changed. I thought there was one point when the United States made most of the c