? Hey we've got some evidence that your ex-president should be arrested. Could you get, oh you're already arresting him? Thank you. Could you turn, he's already on the flight. He's already on the way back. It's like they're a little bit too friendly or something.

Anyway, let's talk about, I will talk about the Hillary Clinton stuff in a minute, but let's talk about Ukraine. So the news is reporting that Russia is withdrawing some troops from the Ukraine border. Is that true? Well it's true that they announced it. It's not true that apparently anybody's noticing any difference in troop strength. Probably just rotating some troops or some normal stuff. Maybe it's a chess move. Some people are suggesting it's all part of Putin's four-dimensional chess where he's trying to keep you guessing. Am I gonna attack? Am I not? And it exhausts you. You become psychologically exhausted. But you get ready for the attack and then it's off and then you get ready and that's off and then he attacks. So it could be that. Could be. Or it could be literally nothing. Or it could be just troops rotating, whatever.

But let's talk about where that's going. What's your current guess on whether Putin will attack? Invasion, yes or no, in the comments. Give me your current opinion. Oh I'm seeing mostly nos. Interesting. On Locals you know the news on social media is mostly yes, right? And how about on, oh my goodness I'm seeing some yeses on YouTube but mostly nos there as well. Oh all right. What's happening here? I'm a little confused about what I'm seeing. Is this a reflection of the uniqueness of my live stream audience or is this actually a general opinion? Does the general public think there's not going to be an attack? Because I would think that the media is telling us there will be. Wow. All right. Take a minute to just drink this in, will you? I'm pretty sure the mainstream media is telling us that an attack is inevitable. Am I wrong? And yet the public, at least as represented by my live stream audience, and I don't know how unique this is, that's the question. None of you are believing this, are you? It's like you just, you're not buying it at all. Did I do that to you partly? How much of this is because what I said versus is it just obvious in some way or you just don't believe the news anymore? Wow. Are you as blown away by the other comments as I am? Are you surprised that people aren't expecting this to be an attack?

All right, here's my current analysis as of today. Putin's calculation depends on the odds of success, right? So he's got the odds of success of actually conquering and holding whatever it is he wants to conquer and hold. But then there's also the unknown. How big will the blowback be and sanctions etc.? How bad will that be? So Putin is dealing with massive unknowns. But one of the unknowns that you and I and the rest of the world have discounted is whether he can succeed. Because we just look at the size of the army and say oh Russia, one of the biggest militaries. And then you look at Ukraine, you say okay not one of the biggest militaries. This should be quick work, right? It should be like the United States just rolling up Iraq and the Iraq war. Should be like that, right? I'm not so sure. Because the biggest wild card is what weapons Ukraine has and I don't think Putin knows. Do you? Do you think that Putin knows what kind of military assets or even strategies will be used if he attacks? Because I keep hearing that he's amassing tanks. Can somebody who knows more about all things military explain something to me? Can you have a tank group move against the modern army? Is that even a thing? Because I would think that modern technology would take out tanks more easily than anything. Could you not? And I'm just, I don't know anything about the technology for tank killing, but is there not already a missile that you can fire in the air that comes down approximately where all the tanks are but before it hits the ground it splits into 25 tank-killing projectiles that just find the biggest metal thing and kill it? Like that doesn't already exist? Couldn't you fire one missile that takes out an entire tank squadron or so? I'm saying no.

But here's the question. Would you know if it existed? Do you think that the public is aware of the weaponry that would actually be employed by Ukraine with the help of the United States advisors, if you know what I mean? Because all you need is the advisors standing nearby and saying okay Ukrainians, push this button now. So then it's Ukrainians using the weapons, not us. We just told them how to do it. You don't think we've got some good stuff that the Russians are afraid of? I don't know either. I'm just speculating. But here's my current thinking, is that one of the reasons that Putin would build up a force and keep it there for a while is to see what the reaction is. Because that might scare up some information about what the response would be. And he might be learning something he doesn't like. In other words Putin might have made sure that Ukraine responded so they could see what the response would be militarily and then they didn't like the response and said oh crap this invasion isn't going to go so well.

I mean look what happened when the Soviet Union tried to attack Afghanistan. As long as Afghanistan had modern weaponry and the willingness to die they did well. So I think Putin has a big unknown on what weaponry would be used against him. And can you imagine if he attacked and lost? Imagine that. Just imagine a scenario where Putin either got in there and couldn't get out and couldn't win, like just got a few miles in or whatever, got part of the country and then got bogged down. What would that do for the credibility of Russia's military strength? It would be a disaster. Because right now people are afraid of the Russian military but what if they were shown to be ineffective in an actual war? It would be different, right?

So I guess the argument would be that they've got some experience in Georgia I guess. Scott fell for another hoax says Chen which is the hoax. All right. And I also wonder how expensive it is for Putin to keep his army there idling. I wonder if part of our strategy is to just break the bank, sort of Ronald Reagan-like. Because Reagan did the Star Wars thing which caused Soviet Union to overspend on defense which led to their demise in part. Could it be we're doing the same strategy of just trying to starve Putin? But maybe energy prices are so high that he's doing fine. I don't know.

Imagine if Trump had been president. All right so this is our favorite speculation. Imagine if Trump had been president. Well number one Trump would have been keeping the United States the number one producer of energy or at least way more than we are now. And if Trump had done that what would be the price of energy around the world? It'd be lower, wouldn't it? And if the price of energy were lower wouldn't that come out of Putin's pocket and into ours? I think it would. So was the real strategic error when Biden started crippling our own domestic energy? Because when he crippled our own energy stuff what he did was he basically transferred assets to Russia and other places. So I think from a military perspective Trump was 100. That the thing we had to get right is to have the biggest domestic energy program we have. Pump oil like crazy. Keep all of the prices for oil low and basically degrade our enemies while we built up the capability to replace oil ourselves. Yeah I feel like we're not talking enough about the military benefit of a domestic energy program. And I feel like Trump knew that in every way. Am I wrong? I don't think Trump was simply operating on the hey energy is good for the country. I think he was operating also on a strategic global kind of a basis. Yeah that was probably the biggest thing that Biden got wrong.

Speaking of the left, apparently there are conservative Democrats which exist that are fighting the more liberal Democrats in San Francisco. And three members of the San Francisco school board are up for re-election and they're being challenged. So the progressives on the school board are being challenged by the Democrats. So it might not even be the Republicans who make any kind of headway against the super progressive part of the country. It might be the Democrats themselves having to shut it down so the Democrats can still have power. And so there'll be a civil war there happening.

New information on long COVID. David Boxenhorn tweeted today. So there's a new study out. And when I talk about studies what level of credibility should you put on any study that I talk about? And I say hey there's a new study. What should be your first impression of the credibility of the study? Low. 50 would be the top. The top. If you put the odds of a new study being both accurate and telling you what you need to know it's not more than 50 percent. So that should be your skeptical informed citizen starting point. Who would disagree with that? Any pushback on that? That if you don't know anything else about it the day you hear it never give it more than 50 percent credibility. No you're saying 50 is too high for what it really is but I'm saying 50 is a cap. If you found yourself thinking it's more likely true than not you should check your thinking. You should stop at could be true. That that's the highest you should go. Not probably true. Not more likely to be true. That's a little too far. But possibly true. That's as far as you should take it.

All right so here's the news. There's some suggestion that we know or that we have a good idea what causes long COVID if long COVID is real. I know you have to play that skepticism in your head about everything, right? Is long COVID even real? It's a good question. But apparently the evidence is mounting that it is. And there's a constellation of symptoms that finally may have revealed what's going on which is this thing called a vagus, I hope I'm pronouncing that right. Is it vagus nerve? So there's a nerve that starts in the back of your head and goes all the way down to your ass. Some would say it goes all the way down to your taint but in medical terms you don't talk about your taint. You talk about the vagus nerve. And the thinking is that the virus damages that, at least potentially for a few months and maybe longer, who knows. But the damage to that would give you all of the range of symptoms that people are having because it affects everything from breathing to swallowing to talking, dizziness, heartbeat, persistent voice problems. Did you know that? I never heard that there was a persistent voice problem to long COVID. That's the first time I've heard that. I'm not even sure I believe it. But if that's true then it would be interesting and maybe tell us how we could treat it. Might also give us some insight about why it affects some people more than others sort of thing. So I think that's just a watch and see.

All right here's the big story of the day. How many of you were watching as the Durham filing recently showed on Friday? The Durham filing suggested that the Hillary Clinton campaign had funded some spying into the phone records of Trump both before he was in office and after. And that the purpose of it was to gin up a phony narrative that Trump was communicating wit