l people. And also spies like to kill people without leaving a trace. You know, I was talking about that alleged CIA heart attack gun, you know, a gun that would give somebody a heart attack and then the poison would dissolve and then the dart would dissolve. And basically we know there's a market for killing people without leaving a trace. Would you agree that there's a market for that? If it's only the CIA, it's a market, right? If it's only Putin, it's a market. Somebody wants that service.

Have you ever heard of anybody killing somebody without leaving a trace by holding them on their stomach and then having a five foot eight man who weighs 140 pounds use one knee on his back until he's dead? Because apparently, we're told by the legacy media, the legacy media has told us that you can kill, that a five foot eight man who weighs I don't know 150 pounds whatever he was can kill, how big was Floyd? Six foot four. He was a big guy, right? Do you know his actual height? I believe it was like six two or six four, not eight, but he was a big guy.

Now we're told from the coroner that there was no evidence on his neck of damage. I don't believe there was any evidence of a bruise on his back where the knee was. I don't believe his lungs showed any sign of compression. So am I wrong that it's the perfect murder? Is it the perfect murder? Because there would be no drugs in his body. There would be no external trauma. And even if you were like, I don't know, put a pillow over somebody's head, I think it would leave some kind of trace. But you could just hold somebody on the ground. It might take you three people to hold their arms and just lightly put your knee on them. You don't even need to use both knees apparently. You could have one knee on the ground and one knee sort of slightly pushing down and he'll die in nine minutes according to the legacy media.

How many of you believe that? I'll tell you what I saw. What my eyes told me I was seeing was no murder at all and obviously an overdose death. To me it was obvious. And so the legacy media managed to tell me that what I saw didn't happen. What I actually watched with my own eyes never really happened.

Now if the coroner report had come up with some physical damage such as the muscles of the neck were damaged, etc., then I would say, oh okay, well maybe the video is not as clear as it could be. Video can lie, we know that. So therefore maybe I'm wrong. But if the coroner comes up with no physical damage whatsoever and then you see something that looks like nobody killing anybody and just casually talking to the witnesses who are filming it. Do you think a cop killed somebody while people were filming it? Casually, just casually kill them while people were filming? No, that was never even slightly possible.

And we've been asked to believe this complete ridiculousness. At the very least it should have been a benefit of the doubt. Am I right? How they got 12 people to say, oh he definitely killed that guy. I don't know. I don't know how they got 12 people. It had to be peer pressure. It had to be people thinking they would be killed if they voted any other way.

So to me that was the signal that whoever is in charge can literally tell us anything because we won't believe our eyes and we won't even believe our common sense.

So then we get this election that everybody questions. We get an election that a lot of people question. And it was exactly like when Hillary won in 2016 and all the Democrats said, hey that election was rigged. And everybody said, yeah complain, complain. And life went on. But when the reverse happened, it became an insurrection and a revolution.

Now of course the Capitol was protested and there were some dangerous people there. So there was something they could work with, right? There was a factual basis that they could do some hyperbole on and extend it to the rest of the people. But we're in such a dark situation here. All the evidence suggests we're no longer governed by anything like we think. It just appears that the people who have some kind of power over the media are just making us believe anything they want.

All right. According to Rasmussen poll, 59% of people they polled say the media is truly the enemy of the people. 44% of Democrats agree that the media is the enemy of the people. However, if you're saying to yourself, wow they're agreeing with you because you think you're right, so now you're thinking, oh wow they agree with me. No they don't. No they don't. They think Fox News and Breitbart are the problem. They don't think their media is the problem. Do you think there's 44% of Democrats think that MSNBC is lying to them? No they don't. No they don't. They think the media is the enemy of the people but they're talking about Fox News exclusively.

Now I would imagine that when Republicans say it, they're mostly talking about legacy media and they have their complaints with Fox News but they're not really thinking Fox News is the problem, right? They're not thinking Breitbart is a problem. They're thinking it's the legacy media, so-called legacy media.

All right. And as others have pointed out, and I saw a tweet from somebody who calls himself Exit the Matrix. His tweet said, haven't seen anyone discussing this fact, but just imagine how emboldened they would be, the people we assume are in charge of things. Just imagine how emboldened they are now to cheat in the 2024 election after what they've done to the January 6 people, which was a warning. Do not complain when they win again.

Do you buy that? Do you buy that January 6 was a warning to tell Republicans you better not complain the next time we rig the election? Well I cannot confirm or deny because that would be sort of mind reading. I don't know what other people are thinking. But I do know that the effect of it is a chilling effect on the next potential protest. It does in fact create a situation where the Democrats could cheat right in front of you, get caught, and there would be no consequences. The election would not be reversed. And even if the Supreme Court ruled, I think they just ignore it. I think we've gotten to the point where they have so much control over the narrative and the levers of power that they can do anything they want right in front of you.

Consider Russia. Putin is allegedly killing his enemies in plain sight. Do you think the Russians are aware of that? Do you think they know he's killing his critics? Probably. But he can do it anyway. Do you know why he can do it anyway? Because he doesn't exist in a democratic republic. He can do any crime right in front of you and his public will say, I don't know, they told us this wasn't a crime and I still have a job so I'm happy.

Yeah, so there's something going on in the United States that's very Putin-like and very CCP-like, you know, Chinese government. For some reason we've gotten to the point where the Democrats can do massive crime right in front of the public and there's no repercussions. Only Putin and Xi can do that. I don't think even in America you could do that before. This feels new. So it does feel like there's something going on here that's pretty important.

All right. Vivek Ramaswamy is updating us on his situation where he got banned on LinkedIn for allegedly some fake information. But he asked them, can you give me an example of what I said that would be wrong or non-factual? And they backed up to, oh it was a mistake, just a human error. No, no, we never meant to ban you for that material that we first told you was fake. Just an error. Yeah, you're welcome to come right back on. And yeah, there's Microsoft owns that LinkedIn in case you wondered. So how much do you trust about that story? Nothing.

All right. Can you give me a fact check on this? So this is more to my theme that the Democrats can commit massive crimes right in front of you. I need a fact check on this. Has any high-ranking Republican with security clearance — because there are people with top security clearance in Congress — have any of them seen the documents that are allegedly these sensitive documents that came out of Mar-a-Lago? And if not, why not? Wouldn't it be a simple matter to put them in the SCIF? Can't you put them someplace and have the Republicans come in and look at them and then characterize them? Because we don't, you know, the public doesn't want to know the details but I'd like them characterized. I would like somebody to say, okay we looked at them and to be honest some of these are troubling. Wouldn't you like to know that? Wouldn't you like to know if Trump took something, kept it in a cardboard box at Mar-a-Lago and it was actually a problem? I would definitely like to know that.

And I believe — well I'm going to go out on a limb — there does seem to be a difference between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. And Republicans seem to, you know, they'll exaggerate a little bit and maybe sometimes they'll believe a conspiracy theory that they shouldn't. And yeah, there's a certain quality to how Republicans are wrong that's different than when Democrats are wrong. It appears that they're lying intentionally. It seems very different. Republicans can be wrong and or it can be weasels sometimes. But I feel like the Democrats would be like Schiff. They would walk in and look at something that was innocent and then walk out and tell you you saw something that was terrible. I don't think Republicans do that.

I believe if Republicans went in there, let's just pick any Republican, somebody with lots of security clearance. Rubio, does he still have top clearance? Does Rubio have top clearance? Right, so imagine Rubio goes in there. He sees the actual documents. Do you think that if some of them were actually really sensitive top secret, do you think he'd lie to you because he wants a Republican to win the presidency? I actually don't think he would. I actually don't think he would. I think he would say, you know honestly this is something the courts are going to have to handle because I was hoping they would all look innocent but I'm not sure. So sure they are. It isn't, you know, based on what I looked at I've got a problem with them. And you know I'm not the one to solve it. That might be the courts or whatever. But there is something here. I think Rubio would say that. And I'm not pro or anti Marco Rubio. I'm just saying that.

Yeah, Rand Paul. Rand Paul, does Rand Paul have top security clearance? Actually what I love, I'd love to pick our champion. That's what I'd like to do. I'd like to pick the champion, so to speak. The Republican that you would believe no matter what they say. If you're going to pick somebody that you knew would tell you the truth, Rand Paul would be a good choice. I would believe him. Thomas Massie. Do you believe there's any chance that Thomas Massie would lie to you after he went in the SCIF? I don't know if he has the clearance but do you think there's any chance he would lie to you about what he found? I think zero. Absolutely zero. He absolutely would not lie on that or anything else as far as I know. I mean yes he's got a really clean record of telling the truth.

Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz, same thing. We assume that Ted Cruz wants Trump or at least a Republican to win. Yeah he would tell the truth. Jim Jordan is a little bit more political. He wouldn't be my first. Mitt Romney. There you go. Mitt Romney. That's a very good choice because you know Mitt Romney is not going to be in the pocket for Trump but he's also not going to lie about this. He would not lie for Trump about this because this would be a lie that everybody would someday find out is true or not, right? You'd probably get caught for lying in that.

I think that the Republicans are in an interesting situation that you could pick several Republicans that no matter what they said you would actually believe them. And I don't know if there are any. Can you name a Democrat that if they saw something and said so you would believe them? They probably are. I bet there are. Yeah, Tom Cotton. Tulsi. Yeah, Robert Kennedy. Yes, RFK Jr. Yeah, RFK Jr. for sure. But he's not in the government. Manchin's a tough one because I do feel like he's influenced by the coal business. So you can feel the influence of industry on him, you know what I mean? Whereas if you look at something like Thomas Massie, you don't see any influence of industry. It looks like his own opinions.

All right. Moving on. Truly, Jonathan Turley has an interesting article I think was in The Hill on reparations. So California went first with the reparations committee and came up with some absurd number that will never happen. And then Governor Newsom said, well go back to the drawing board or we'll think about it or delay them somehow. But other states are doing the same thing. So this whole reparations thing, because it looked like it might actually happen in California, so it's starting to pop up in other states.

And Turley has I think exactly the same opinion on this as I do. They're never going to get reparations. The Democrats actually got the black American supporters all worked up for something that they can't possibly deliver. And I think the Republicans could totally take advantage of that. The fact that the Democrats lied to the black Americans about reparations. And you know it was a lie. Of course it was a lie. They never planned to do that.

All right. Well, DeSantis is running to the right of Trump. But here's how you need to understand that. DeSantis is running for the nomination and Trump is running to win the presidency. So that makes sense. So Trump's acting a little bit more middle of the road because he feels he's already got the nomination. He's already in the general election and that would be the right place to be because he doesn't want to later have to change his views. So Trump's finding a reasonable, not too extreme position. And DeSantis is trying to find a little bit of space to the right of him, which is sort of a hard job.

But one of the things DeSantis wants to do is get rid of that jail reform thing that Jared did where people could get out early if they learned a skill or they do something like that. He just wants to get rid of it and keep them in jail. Now I think that's too early. To me it seems you've got to let that experiment run a few years and see if the people who got out of jail recommitted crimes at a rate that would be alarming. So I'm not sure that that's, I don't think he's basing this on data. This one seems purely political to me just because it's different from what Trump did and it's a way to show that he's on the right.

And I'll go further and say that if he won the presidency I don't think he would change it because it would be too unpopular. So that looks like a primary kind of thing to say, not a general election kind of thing to say.

Is that conflating the criminals released? No he's not conflating the jail reform thing with the DA's releasing people. But has anybody heard any updates on whether that early release stuff that Jared and Trump did, is it working? Has anybody heard whether that's a disaster or are people getting out early and then recommitting crimes? Says it's not working but do we have an actual study or just some anecdotes? Actually it wouldn't take that many anecdotes to tell you