's why Tucker would be a positive. Tucker is one of the I'd say top five best communicators in all of politics. Would you agree with that? He's a top five best communicator in all of politics. So therefore he, some would say, and therefore he would be a good vice presidential running mate. Here's what I say. You get all that for free. Tucker is still going to be talking. You're still going to have a huge platform no matter what and you know he's going to be supportive of Trump because he said so directly. So Trump can get all the benefit of Tucker's communication excellence without any of the reputational harm of saying oh 10 years ago Tucker did a thing, oh 5 years ago Tucker said this thing that could be interpreted two ways. He could just take all the good for free with none of the pain. Because if he could find a VP who didn't have any of the controversy that Tucker brings naturally then he can get all of Tucker's goodness plus a solid you know backup candidate that helps him for his age especially. I think Trump has to go young because the age question will be salient if he gets elected. And I think Vivek is more obvious choice but we'll see.

The competence crisis is real apparently. There's this case going on to see if Trump should be denied being on the ballot in some states. So Colorado is looking at that and the Colorado Supreme Court judge William Hood III said in the process of discussing it and judging it he said quote in some ways January 6 seems like a poster child for insurrection. In other words indicating that the judge believes that insurrection is largely obviously proven. Now is that bad news if he thinks that the insurrection is sort of obvious? Well it's bad news for this judge because it makes him look like an idiot. How exactly is it obvious that an unarmed trespass is anything more than at best delaying a process for a few hours or a few days? You know maybe the Supreme Court has to look at it. That's it. That was the highest level of risk. A short delay. Supreme Court looks at it, rules. How does a judge not understand that? This is an incompetence problem isn't it? Am I wrong? To me this looks like basic competence is just missing. Yeah we'll see.

Now here's what I think about Trump's language lately. So I think Axios was pointing this out as well. So he's used language that his critics are saying hey that's very, well it's not Hitler-like but it's Hitler-adjacent. Well that's not quite dictator talk but you're getting real close. Well that's not exactly what the Nazis say but it reminds me of them. So is he doing the dumbest thing in the world by allowing people to frame him as a dictator? It almost looks like he's doing it intentionally especially when he said that he would only be a dictator for one day. He said quote we're closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that I'm not a dictator. So just one day. I'll just be a dictator for one day. After that not a dictator.

Now when I first heard it my first reaction was oh why are you doing this like this is just the worst idea. His biggest problem is that they're going to call him a dictator. He knows that. So why would he use language that most of us would recognize would make you be labeled a dictator? Why would you do that? Well I have a hypothesis. I don't know that it's true but it goes like this. He might be playing what I call the narrow ravine strategy. Now this is one I have used myself in the past and you might recognize it from some of my past. The narrow ravine means you allow your enemies to bunch up in a place where it's really easy to you know shoot down and kill them. So you're basically herding them into the most vulnerable place for them while they believe they're winning. So the thing that gets them into the narrow ravine in the first place is they say aha we've got you trapped. You're going to be trapped in the narrow ravine. And then they chase you down the narrow ravine but you've got all your people on the top and they shoot down into the narrow ravine and kill them. So it's basically a trap. The narrow ravine trap.

So we see him saying things which are making his critics say oh salivate salivate. He keeps saying things that's going to make it easy for us, easy for us to take him out by labeling him a dictator. And so they're like all right we got our plan. Everybody here's our plan. We're going to go full dictator on Trump. He's making it easy. He keeps saying all these dictator things. And he is. What's another reason he might be doing it? Well I think he may have given you a little wink and a nod when he said he would be a dictator for one day just to get a couple of things done. And here's what I think he's telling you. He's going to milk it. Because there's nothing easier in theory, this doesn't mean he'll do it but in theory there would be nothing easier to persuade than to persuade people that he wasn't a dictator. It could be the easiest thing. And the way you would do it is by mocking it. You just make a joke out of it. Did he make a joke out of it when he said oh I might be a dictator for one day, just one day? Yes. Yes he did. That was literally making light of it. He never gave it weight. If he had said dictator why I'm in favor of free speech and you guys are against free speech and here are my three other reasons why I'm not a dictator and what would the audience hear? Dictator dictator dictator. Well you're very defensive aren't you? You seem very defensive about this dictator thing. Why are you so defensive? You know why does this attack really get under your skin? You know why are you melting down over this? Must be true because the way you're reacting to it. Right? That would be the mistake. It's also the way a classic politician would respond. I'm no dictator. The other side might be acting more like dictators than me. Let me give you these laundry list of reasons. Doesn't work at all.

But what are they reporting about it? They're, they actually Axios literally reported it was a wink and a nod. The news actually picked up that it was a wink and a nod. Now a wink and a nod is not mockery but it's a signal that it's coming. Oh it's coming. I think that he's playing the narrow ravine followed by the mockery cannons. I think the mockery cannons are just on hold. And once he gets the Democrats to fully commit and it might even be months from now. I mean it could be next summer. Just let them just call him a dictator while he's leading in the polls. Because as long as he's leading the polls everything's good. Gets his nomination over the summer and then goes full mockery cannons on the only thing that they've accused him of for a year and they're going to say it's not working and they're going to have to come up with something new at the last minute which is always a tough thing. So I think he's leading them into the narrow ravine on this dictator thing because objectively speaking if he eventually mocks it and then people start looking at you know the opposite evidence that maybe it's the Democrats were the power hungry people, to me it's looking like it might be a really strong play. But there's a lot of assumptions I'm making. My first assumption is that he's fully aware of what he's doing and that it's a narrow ravine play. I think the wink and the nod about dictator for a day does tell you that he's not going to take it seriously and that he's going to keep it in that frame. And if he keeps pushing that frame it's going to be glorious. It's going to be glorious.

All right. Meanwhile I guess there are more voting machine company lawsuits against I guess Smartmatic is going after Mike Lindell for his claims about their machines. They're going after Newsmax and then Dominion is also going after Newsmax. So all that action might happen over the summer which would potentially be embarrassing I guess but the other thing is embarrassing for Trump I suppose. But the other possibility is that there will be a lot of discovery. Why is it that nobody's required the voting machine companies to show us their code? I see this is the part I don't understand. Maybe somebody can explain this if somebody's a lawyer. If I'm a lawyer and I say if I've made an accusation that your voting machines cheated and then they sue me because there's no evidence that they cheated which is the case, you know no convincing evidence that I'm aware of, doesn't Mike Lindell have every right to make them show all of their proprietary software? And if they don't show their proprietary software doesn't he win? Because he makes a claim that they can't disprove without showing their software and they can't do that because it's pro