ng any violence or anything like that. I'm saying that if you were to rate the seriousness of it, they are taking down a president right in front of you or trying to. They're trying to alter the course of the Republic by doing something that apparently doesn't have a legal or country benefit and they're doing it right in front of you. And they're not even claiming there's a crime in there right in front of you. They're not doing it to Trump. They're doing it to you.

Because when this standard falls then anybody's taxes are fair game for anybody. Why wouldn't they release mine? They say hey this guy keeps saying things we don't like, let's release his taxes. We'll always stop them. Is it because Trump's president and I'm not? That's not a law, is it? Is there some law that says presidents have to release their taxes? No, it's the opposite. There's no law. There's no law.

So if they do it anyway it was, he's just a citizen whose taxes got released because they thought it was politically useful, of interest to the public. Is that good enough? The public would be interested. So I guess they could show the public my tax returns too, right? Because the public would be interested, wouldn't they? They say oh he talks about politics. I'd like to see his taxes. Where does that stop?

Now I don't believe in the slippery slope, you know, predicting everything because it doesn't. But in terms of how bad this is, you know again without any specific claim of illegality, this is a 10 out of 10. You're watching them, you know, let's say digitally crucify somebody just so he won't run for president. That's all it is. And we're sitting here accepting that like well I guess they followed the rules. Unfucking believable.

Yeah, and what about the whole revelation of the Twitter files? So Michael Shellenberger did another great Twitter thread yesterday and at this point it's very clear. All the evidence suggests that Jim Baker is the key figure who went from top legal position at the FBI to Twitter. And it's obvious that Twitter was trying to control, they did a good job of influencing Twitter. They were even paying Twitter three million dollars for Twitter answering their questions. Now that's not like a big profit center so I don't think Twitter was influenced by the money. Like everybody's influenced by money but that was actually a small amount and it kind of just covered their expenses. So I don't think that was the motivation. It's true they got money but I don't think that it was too small to motivate them.

Now we know at this point that the FBI was totally corrupt. I'm going to use corrupt in an expansive sense, not necessarily legal sense because I don't know if they violated any laws. But what they did was a form of corruption that as Jordan Peterson tweeted I think yesterday is way worse than Watergate. And you hate to say that, right, because it's such a punch line. It's worse than Watergate. The walls are closing in. But it would be hard to argue this one. It would be hard to debate. You know what we know for sure, like the things that are not in question at all, just the things we know for sure are way worse than Watergate. It's not even in the same planet. Am I wrong? Well it's way worse.

And what will happen from all of it? Probably nothing. Probably nobody will be punished for anything is my guess.

All right, so the former FBI general counsel, I think this was, was this Greenwald or Shellenberger who said this? Now do you think it's a total lie that Baker believed it was still a question about whether the laptop was real or not? Because Baker was saying well you know we can't tell for sure whether the laptop is real so I'm not saying it's not real but we can't tell for sure. Is that a lie? Is it a lie that he couldn't tell for sure? How would he know? Because at that point the FBI had not validated it. Only the New York Post had. So as far as he knew, although it was, it could have been validated like the assets and the time t