Watergate? Until in your mind it's true but it's not true at all. It's the same play. If it turned out that this was the one time that the affidavit was actually valid and legitimate that would be a break with pattern. You get that, right? I can't tell you what's in the affidavit. I don't know. But if it turns out that the affidavit had actual solid evidence of some kind of a criminality, let's say intentional criminality, if that were true that would be a break with pattern for Trump-related stuff. So the most likely is that it's, all right.

You know I'll tell you what. So Kyle Becker tweeted he's sort of on the same page with all this stuff. He said it would be the ultimate irony if the search warrant affidavit that is so sensitive that it has to remain secret is actually a few New York Times, Washington Post reports stitched together with some speculation thrown in about nuclear weapons codes being in Melania's walk-in closet. And Jack Posobiec who must have some insider information about what's to come tweeted this is very close to the truth. That's just complete. We'll see.

So I guess the FBI is raising the alert about white supremacists and extremists and there even some chatter about dirty bomb attacking the headquarters of the FBI. And that's pretty alarming. But here's the question that I could ask that the rest of you can't because you have jobs and you need money, stuff like that. This is why you need me. There are just some things I can say that other people just can't say in public. Here comes another one.

I tweeted this too. If your actions cause American citizens, the people who are on your side, to openly discuss bombing your headquarters, self-reflection is in order. And I recommend this sample question: was it something we did? Now you know why you can't say that. Tell me why you can't say that but I can. Because it will obviously be misinterpreted as I'm encouraging violence against the FBI. Of course I'm not. I don't encourage violence against U.S. citizens. I don't do that, right? Yeah. So I can say it because I can take the heat but you can't. So freedom of speech is really sort of spotty, isn't it? In this case I have it sort of. You know I'm gonna pay for it but I didn't mind the price. So I get to say it but you can't say that. You can't say that if somebody's talking about bombing your headquarters you should first of all try to stop them and treat it as a crime, right? You should treat it as a crime if anybody has a legitimate threat against anybody in the United States. So first of all it's a crime. But if you don't ask the question was it something we did that caused somebody on my team, remember it's somebody on your own team. If somebody on your own team wants to kill you, you should at least ask the question is this something I did? Am I wrong? I'm not saying that they should have done anything differently but you should at least ask the question could I have done something differently such as handled the Mar-a-Lago raid in a different way maybe.

Well here's something that we're all waiting for. A judge has ruled on the Twitter versus Elon Musk situation that Twitter must turn over its hidden documents that have something to do with how many bots there are or how they calculate it. So I don't know exactly what they're going to get or what Musk's team is going to get. I don't know exactly what they're hiding but they got to give it up now. So it could be that Musk is going to get information that would tell us something that we have not heard about Twitter's bot activity.

In other news the Trump company longtime CFO, I think right he was the chief financial guy or CFO, Mr. Weisselberg, he's gonna give five months in prison with no cooperation because he received benefits while working, pretty big benefits, 1.7 million over years without paying taxes. Though now if an employee gets lots of employee benefits such as a free car or any kind of perks those are in theory taxable. But here's, and then the Trump organization would be separately in trouble for paying him in a way that was untaxable, right? So both of them are in trouble but not Trump himself. So there's no legal jeopardy for Trump himself, just the company and the CFO.

But here's the question I ask. In a normal situation where you've got a tax-paying person and a tax-paying corporation, if the tax-paying corporation decides to give you something and not write it off on their taxes I think it's roughly tax equal, right? So in other words even though the CFO who received these benefits didn't pay taxes the Trump organization presumably couldn't have written them off. But if they did write them off then that's a crime. Yeah it's a crime somewhere. I don't know whose crime but it would be a crime if you actually were avoiding taxes with that method. The only question I have is were any taxes actually avoided? In other words did somebody lose a write-off that was roughly equal to how much wasn't paid? Or what? Yeah. So I'm just wondering if it was neutral. All right, probably not or they wouldn't be so up in arms about it.

So remember I told you that I was going to destroy ESG before the end of the year. My comics on that theme have not even come out yet. You know it's going to be a while before they come out.