where she tells the lie. And the lie is that Joe Biden is fine. There's nothing wrong. Right? So watch her face until the moment she gets to the lie. Look for the eyes widen, chin goes up, and the smile that doesn't match the face. Watch for it. I want you to indicate when you see the lie. There's no sound. Let's see. See if I can get it so you can both see it at the same time. Watch for the eyes to get big in a minute. Hope I didn't miss it. Did I miss it yet? Oh I think I missed it. Let's do it again. All right. Eyes normal, head normal, eyes and face match. There it is. There it is. Did you catch it? See if I can fast forward it. It's hard to catch the moment but did you catch it? You play it back yourself and catch it. Yeah. But it's funny. Once you see it it's so obvious it just jumps right out.

So here are the defenses that the people are giving. One is that Trump confuses names too. Trump confuses names too. And then they show some video of him. Now is that fair? Is that fair to say Trump confuses his names too? I think it is. Yeah, I think it's fair. Because in my opinion when Biden confuses names, in his case it probably is because of dementia. But it's also true that people confuse names routinely. It's a very normal thing to do.

All right. Now in fact this is a sort of a confession of mine. I've always fantasized like what would it be like to be president. And I thought, I wonder could I ever be a president? And I realized that I probably couldn't because of all the names of foreign leaders I would get wrong. I mean I have a real problem with it. Let me give you an example. If I were being visited by, let's say, the leader of Afghanistan, I'm not sure I would know that Hibatullah Akhundzada. I wouldn't know him from Mohammed bin Salman or Khalifa. I mean I wouldn't even know the difference at all. So yeah, I'd be all, which one is that? Is that Hibatullah or is that Alifa? I can't even tell them apart, you know. So that's one of the reasons I can't be president, because I can't tell all the leaders apart. I used to think. But apparently not being able to tell the leaders apart will not hurt you for being president. So we got a Biden. We got a Trump. Barely.

That's not. Now the other thing that I thought would prevent me from someday being president is all of my grabbing. But now I have evidence to suggest that I could grab a bunch, confuse the names of Hibatullah Akhundzada and Alifa, and I still be able to be a president. And that I find motivating.

So here are some other things that people are saying to defend Biden. Stenhammar was funny. He posted today, "Show me a video, a recent video of Joe Biden stuttering." Because they're saying don't make fun of him for his stuttering. I mean but do we have any video of him, let's say from 10 years ago when he was perfectly fine? Was he stuttering 10 years ago? I don't remember it. I have no memory of him ever stuttering 10 years ago. But now suddenly he stutters like he did when he was a kid. Huh.

And then Rachel Maddow points out that he rides a bike. Yeah, she says he rides a bike. Now are we at the point where there's literally no difference between reality and parody? If I had told you that a comedian had told you that Joe Biden is perfectly fine because, hey, look at how he rides a bike, wouldn't you think that that comedian said that as a joke? But that's actually what Rachel Maddow said in the real world. In the actual real world outside of humor she said that he's probably fine because he can ride a bike. Apparently he can ride it right into the ground. She didn't say where he rides it to. He rides it right to the ground. But at least he's riding it.

And then there's the argument that Kamala makes that Joe Biden is actually totally mentally capable, which certainly raises an interesting question, doesn't it? Which others have raised. Wait a minute. If the reason he's not being prosecuted seems to be largely around his mental incapacity, if you're arguing that he does have good mental capacity, aren't you also arguing he should be in jail now?

You're going to say to me, wait a minute, you're going to say there's a complete difference between what Trump did and what Biden did because Biden simply said that he couldn't remember and he's incapable and he didn't willfully do anything with those documents. But they believe that Trump is mentally capable and he also resisted giving those documents back. So therefore it's his resistance that's the real crime. Are you hearing the Democrats say that? Well here's the funny part. Do you know what they could say that would be terribly persuasive but they can't form sentences and get the sound out of their mouth? Like literally they can't say it. But it would be so persuasive if they could. Here's what they can't say because of TDS. Yes, if Trump had not resisted, we think that he should not be charged with anything regarding the possession of the documents.

Now if they said that I would say, oh well that's very consistent. Yeah, Biden wasn't charged because not just because he's mentally incapable but because he didn't resist when they asked him back and he accepted the process, which apparently is not that unusual to have a process to get back documents from an official. Whereas Trump, he resisted. But here's the better way to say it. If you really wanted to persuade me you'd say, you know what, if you're a Democrat you'd say, yes Biden did not get charged because he obeyed the system. We also believe that if Trump had obeyed the system the same way, we also think he should not be charged the same way.

Do you know why they can't say that? TDS. It would be perfectly persuasive if you said that to me. I'd say, you know what, that's actually a solid argument. That one resisted and one didn't. So maybe it is the resistance that's the problem. But they've got to say it directly. If Trump had not resisted he should also not be charged for having the documents. But you know why they can't say that? The reason they can't say that is it would give imaginary mental cover to Trump. Imaginary, because in the real world he did resist. Everybody agrees he resisted. So they can't even do a hypothetical mental experiment which allowed Trump to go free in their mind. And I mean this. I mean they can't say the persuasive thing because in doing so they would have to imagine Trump innocent of something and they actually can't go there. Literally can't go there because their brains won't allow it.

So instead they're closed off from their best argument for Biden, which is, you know what, if Trump had given all the documents back I don't think the possession of the documents should have been charged. And you remember they made such a big deal about the contents of Trump's documents. Do you remember that? It was all about the contents and that they must have the nuclear secrets in there. And then when Biden's documents were discovered, do you recall anybody characterizing the contents? I don't recall that ever being done. So we suddenly don't care about the contents after months and months of the Democrats saying the contents are probably, well we don't know, but I'm just speculating that it's Iranian nuclear secrets. The dumbest speculation you could ever have. Like I don't think, do you think that a staffer or even Trump himself packed up some sensitive nuclear secrets and just took them with them? I mean I suppose anything's possible but that seems unlikely to me. It seems that both Biden and Trump probably had documents that were technically inappropriate to take home but maybe not that dangerous. Like in the final analysis, probably not too dangerous. So suddenly we just stopped talking about the contents. We just stop talking about it. And that's why it's embarrassing if you're a Democrat. If you made a big deal about the contents being the important part, now you've lost that argument.

So is Biden fit to stand trial, in which case he should, or is he unfit?

Let's talk about Tucker and Putin. Remember you mostly disagreed with me when I said that Putin's history lesson about why Russia thinks it should have some control over parts of Ukraine or all of it, I said that he looked unhinged and it didn't look very capable to me because the history lesson is not persuasive to Americans. I'm going to revise that. All right, I'm going to completely reverse it actually but not for the reason you think. I still say that the history lesson had no value to Americans. In other words, the details of his history lesson had zero persuasive effect on any American, probably any European. But I'm not going to say it had no value. And I'm going to fool you here because you don't see this coming. Just wait for it.

But I saw that Tucker also regarded the history lesson as incoherent. He actually used that word. So Tucker agreed with me that the history part just didn't seem connected really to the answer in a tight enough way that it looked like he was coherent. Now, but wait for the end. I'm going to support Putin's play. You know, so don't criticize me yet. I'm going to support Putin's play on the history lesson but not for the reason you think. Right, different reason.

And then I saw some people think that Putin was personally hurt by being rebuffed by the West. You know, every time he wanted to be friends. I don't know if any of that's true. We can't read his mind so I wouldn't. But maybe. Maybe he's personally hurt. I don't know if that affected anything. But here's my defense of Putin. It took me a while to figure this out because the thing I was having trouble reconciling is that Putin is so capable and would know so much about persuasion, especially given his background, that to do something that is so wrong persuasion-wise it made me question his sanity. Until I realized what the real play was. And now I don't question the sanity. It was a really good play. You don't realize why but I'm going to tell you.

Those of you who are my longtime listeners can confirm that this is something I've talked about before and actually in some detail. And I've said I've used the technique myself. Let's say you're negotiating with somebody and it's just a business negotiation and you want a good price and they want to get a good price and it's just business. If it's just business you almost know before you start where it's going to end up, don't you? Like even before you start you're going to ask for something too much. I'm going to say too little. We're going to meet in the middle and in the end it's going to look like similar business deals. Because everybody in business knows that if you started with a first offer that was so far out of the normal business realm nobody would even negotiate with you. So you start by saying what do we assume is possible and then you're within that realm and you can always get to a meeting of minds. If it's just financial you can almost always make it work.

Now what would be an argument in which that doesn't work where you're just both being rational, you're both being within the rational domain? It's when something's irrational. This is an actual persuasion negotiating technique which I have used. It goes like this. If you can convince the other side that your reasoning is irrational, at least in any individual point of it, not the whole thing. If you're just totally irrational they won't deal with you. But if