right? Trump could say if you let me change these covenants I will build you 5,000 low-income dwellings. I won't own them because that doesn't go with my brand but you know I'll fund them or something like that.

So watch your news sources and ask yourself how many of them just described what I did which is what is the normal job of a big-time real estate developer. They probably won't. Probably won't be able to explain it like I did. So I don't think that Trump has any legal jeopardy unless you know at least ultimately. I mean I think the juries might be all rigged with Trump haters so he might get convicted of something but I don't think anything would stand up to an upper court review. That's what it looks like to me. But in any case he would probably still get elected and for those things which are not state charges he'd probably get pardoned.

Imagine this scenario hypothetically. Imagine if Trump got jailed and also won the election but he couldn't pardon himself because the jailable offense was a state issue. What kind of pressure would that put on the governor of that state, Democrat or Republican? How could even a Democrat governor keep him in jail after he'd been elected president? Do you think they could do it? Supremacy clause. I don't know what a Supremacy Clause is but it sounds like there might be some legal precedent here. Move the White House to Georgia. I don't think that works. Doesn't apply. Okay the supremacy clause doesn't apply because there's no two laws. The supremacy clause is if there's a conflict the federal law applies over the state, right? Is that what that is? Yes so there's no federal law that's in the conversation so that's not part of it. Yeah all right. Moving on.

Jonathan Turley had a great article as he often does. He's by far becoming one of my favorite writers of all time. Not just for his writing ability and his communication but he just picks really good topics that other people aren't picking over already. But apparently it's a widespread and completely transparent and public belief that our top news sources, you know the editors and writers, have embraced the idea of advocacy journalism. Meaning that they're putting no attempt at being objective in their news and they believe that that's a better way to report the news.

Have I ever mentioned that it's over 200 years since Karl Marx came out with his Marxist ideas and he was sort of the OG of not understanding how human beings work. Like he was the most wrong person about human motivation in the history of human motivation. Literally no country has followed his lead and prospered in 200 years. Nobody. So here again people on the left have this complete weird inability to understand how a human being is wired. Like how their motivation works, how their incentives work, how cause and effect works. It's like some real basic things about understanding your human condition is just missing. The whole cause and effect thing. It's like wishful thinking has replaced the concept of motivation and incentive and cause and effect.

So if you were writing a college essay and you didn't have to deal with the real world in any way you could write an essay that said you know what technically all news has always been opinion and then you could defend it. Say it's always been opinion. The only thing different is we're saying it out loud, right? If somebody handed that in as their college essay and you were the professor you might say huh that's pretty good writing. You know that's, you've got a point that you don't know it's ever been anything but subjective. So A+. But what would happen in the real world once you're freed from objectivity? Once you're freed from objectivity and you're not even pretending to be objective, which is the real difference. If you were forced to pretend you're objective it would control you a little bit because you'd be like oh that's too obviously not objective. I'm going to still shade it. I'm going to leave out the bad things that I want to leave out but I'll have to g