sident to make any difference. It feels like that would be just the Larry Elder is a certain age. He's over 70. I don't think you want your vice president to be over 70. That would be a bad choice.

Then you get to Vivek. Here's what I think. To me it seems obvious that Kellyanne Conway is testing Vivek. What do you think? I don't think she's even really testing the other names. I think this is literally just a test of Vivek. If you put him in a group of other is that Wesley Hunt? I feel like I may have seen him before. So does it feel like and I think specifically she's testing Vivek against the Black choices. What do you think? Because the real question would be if Trump picked a Black running mate I think that would everybody would say okay that's you know to get some extra votes and it might actually be a strong play. I could definitely see that that would be a strong play but you need somebody who's credible. I think Byron Donalds just needs a little more seasoning. You know we just need to see him accomplish a few more things. He could be great in the future. He might be terrific. And the others are a little light.

But when I see the boldness with which Vivek talks about what he would do, when I see that he went from nowhere to make such a big dent in the election I mean for somebody who was an unknown and when you look at his success business success you look at his Renaissance man ability to understand lots of topics I feel like this is an easy choice. What do you think? Does it seem to you like it just jumps out as the obvious choice or am I just too I mean I am very pro so I can't pretend I'm unbiased but it looks like an obvious choice because the others are just going to give Trump either a nothing or a little bit. I think Vivek would have the potential to give him more than any vice president ever gave a candidate. I think it would be a legendary combination and it would be the most confident thing that Trump could ever do. You know some of you said that Trump wouldn't handle the fact that Vivek is a strong personality and he's so smart. I say opposite. I think you're reading Trump completely wrong. I say that Trump loves brilliance like he runs toward it all the time. He wants to work with it. He wants to compliment it. He wants to be around it. He loves brilliance. There's no way he doesn't like Vivek and Vivek likes him so that's the other requirement right?

So to me it's like a perfect combination really. I doubt it could be better in my view. And it wouldn't have worked the first election because Trump wasn't already an experienced president but now that Trump is an experienced president Vivek's perfect. It just fits in every way.

Senator Massie was talking about Mayorkas destroying some records. So apparently this whole pipe bomb situation you know the pipe bomb situation there was a fake it turns out fake pipe bomb near where Kamala Harris was at the DNC headquarters on January 6 and there's lots of mystery about why we didn't know things and there's text messages that were magically destroyed that would have told us more. And Massie is making the case that Mayorkas was the top boss when all this happened and it's a records retention violation and that maybe it should be researched. Now I'm not one who thinks that records retention is the biggest crime and that we need to get really tough on that whichever side it is. It just doesn't excite me. But I have this question. How many times have Democrats destroyed records and got away with it? Is anybody keeping a record? Like yeah we know Hillary's emails and Hillary's phones she bleached bits and destroyed the phones but correct me if I'm wrong aren't there now several stories like that and they're all Democrats and it was all people who were caught red-handed and then they deleted the only thing that would get them in trouble? Yeah all of the January 6 testimony deleted. The pipe bomb text messages deleted. Yeah the FBI deleting stuff. Yeah I don't know it's sort of telling me that as a legal strategy you should destroy any records no matter how legally they've been requested. It feels like destroying records is just a smart play at this point because it keeps working anyway.

Tucker Carlson's in Moscow. The word is that he's already talked to Putin. Now of course The Hill is quoting The Guardian saying that Tucker said why can't I root for Russia? I'm rooting for them. Do you think Tucker said that? Do you think that The Hill that quotes The Guardian that quotes Tucker said why can't I root for Russia? I doubt it but here's how you should analyze this. So The Hill makes the claim but they don't support the claim. They point to The Guardian. So I follow the link and The Guardian makes the claim and then I look for the source so I can see it for myself. Because obviously if you make a claim like Tucker Carlson said he supports Russia and there's a video right? It wasn't there. So the source that makes the claim doesn't have a video to show you where it came from. It's the news. It's the news. That's a pretty big claim to not have a little bit of evidence for. Now I'm not saying that he didn't say those words. I just don't know the context. Now I think at one point he said he was joking or something I don't know. But it also raises an interesting question. Why can't he root for Russia? It's actually a pretty good question. Now that part he may have. Why can't he? I asked that of myself. I said all right think of all the things that Russia has done that hurt me. Now think of all the things that Ukraine has done that hurt me. I feel like they're very expensive and I feel like they're the reason that Russia might be a risk to me because of Ukraine. So do I think that the Ukrainian population would be worse off under Russian rule? I don't know. How would I even know that?

Now obviously if Russia took over Ukraine they'd kill all the leaders on day one but have those leaders done a good job and would the people in Ukraine find that their economy started improving right away? Because I don't see the Russians complaining about their economy. Am I wrong? Is there a big uprising in Russia of people who say our economy is bad? I don't think there is. I think Putin has like weirdly high approval. So if the guy with high approval that nobody's complaining internally about his economy wants to do the same for Ukraine which was a corrupt basket case what is worse for Ukraine? Letting Russia win? I actually don't know. I actually can't tell if Ukraine is better off letting their corrupt government steal other money and drive them into poverty and create wars for no reason or would they be better off if they just said peace. They