ought a Biden-related sweetheart plea deal to the courts and it was so bad that it was thrown out. So how do you explain that? Why would he, as a professional and even possibly not too lefty, why would he do something that so obviously was imperfect? I don't know the answer to this, but I would tell you what I would do in his situation just to give you some context.

All right, let's say you put me in Weiss's situation and my boss Garland says you have full approval to prosecute in any state you want and you have all the resources you want and nobody will bother you. And then you find out none of that's true. Hypothetically, you find out that you can't actually do whatever you want. You don't have the power and they lied to you and they did not help you the entire time. How would you play it? Would you resign? Some people would. It's not what I would have done.

Do you know what I would do? It's a little thing called embrace and amplify. Once you see it, you put me in his job and you know what I do? I would put together the most absurd, ridiculous plea agreement. I'd make sure that all the idiots who were trying to block me and stop me and influence me thought it was the best plea deal they'd ever seen. And then I would go public with it and I would let it blow up in my face just the way it happened.

I would put together a deal so absurd that the public would be signaled that there's no justice going on. And that's what happened. And so absurd he couldn't guarantee that a judge would throw it out, but he had to know it was an option. And what would happen if the judge threw it out? Well, there would be a lot of conversation and wonder about what was going on. And then the that I think he was probably subjected to would come to light. And what was the net result? He got more power. He got more power.

Now I understand the argument that, oh, isn't this convenient? Just when Congress wanted to look into things, it becomes a special counsel so that they can't. Yes, that is very convenient and it might be the whole reason. Could be. Wouldn't rule it out. So maybe the whole thing is just to keep Congress from finding out what's going on.

But the other possibility is if you put me in Weiss's job and then I found out I couldn't do my job and yet it was my job to go embarrass myself in public like I really had, I wouldn't do it. I would not play along, but I wouldn't necessarily resign. I would stay to destroy the system. That's what I'd do. I mean, I think that's just a personality thing. But if you put me in that situation, what I would do would look exactly like what he did. But my intentions would be to blow it up and just show how corrupt it is.

Now if that's what happened and then the result of that is he got the power he always needed in the first place, you might see something like an interesting outcome.

However, today we find out that the so-called diversion agreement, where I think they take the classic case for a diversion agreement as I understand it, is that if somebody's an addict but non-violent, sometimes you'll divert them into some treatment and not treat the crime like you might have because it's a non-violent situation. So to me this is a perfect situation for a diversion agreement. Like he is non-violent. There's not much chance he's going to do that exact same gun crime of lying on a federal form. What is he going to repeat that crime? I don't think so.

So you need some kind of, the justice system needs to be involved. He wouldn't like a diversion either, but it seems like the right application. And now there's