m to win the presidency. And if you lose a presidency that hard usually has a down-ballot effect, right? Am I right? I mean usually people don't say we like all the Democrats for Congress but we want a Republican president at the same time on the same ballot. They don't usually say that. So it's more likely they're going to say, you know what, let's give the Republicans a shot. Or you know what, let's just not vote this time.

You don't have to shout at me that she's half black and half Indian. I know it. But in the real world she's considered black for political reasons. But I understand there. It's the same as calling Obama black. In my mind he's never been black. Not a single day. Do you agree? In my mind Obama's never been black even once. He's a person who is part white and part black and he's chosen that black is his better branding because you know why? Because claiming you're white is a disadvantage. No better example right now. Obviously if he claimed he's white nobody would believe it but he can claim he's black and people are like oh okay. Like where does that come from? Why can he claim he's black when you're half black? Like who makes those rules? And by the way I don't mind. It's perfectly fair. But where does that come from that we all just accept that that's like a normal thing to do? Like you just ignore half of them. Why does that make sense? Is it because society would treat him as black which is a fair point? It's the same point I make with Kamala. I think that the non-Indian public just treats her as black which is not accurate either.

All right. So President Biden, one of the ways he likes to prove that he's not mentally incompetent is sending other people out to argue that he's not mentally incompetent. Because that's how you do it, right? If you want to prove that you can speak in public in a capable way you send other people to speak for you in public to say that if you were there you could actually make sense but you're not there because that's very persuasive. Oh yeah I guess he could just pick up his phone and point it at his face, prove he's coherent simply by talking into his phone for 15 seconds and then posting it. I mean that would do it. But instead he's going to send out an army of people who are not him to say that behind closed doors he's totally lucid. I don't see how that could be less persuasive.

But something good came from it which is his lawyer saying that the special prosecutor went beyond his remit. I was listening to that in the car and I heard the lawyer say that they think that the special prosecutor went beyond his remit. You know what the first thing I said to myself was? Mental note: keep that word for later. I'm totally going to say something went beyond his remit maybe before the end of this live stream because I like it so much. It sounded so smart. I heard him say and I believe he went past his remit and I was like, what? I'm totally using that. So you can make comments here sure but don't go beyond your remit.

All right. Yeah and the real problem is that he pointed it out not that it's true. The real, we're acting like the real problem is that the special prosecutor pointed out that Biden is mentally degraded. I feel like the reality should be the only conversation here. Didn't he get it wrong? And the thought that if that's what the special prosecutor really thought and believed how in the world is that not relevant? That's pretty relevant. I'm seeing a dad joke which I'm going to repeat that the definition of remit is when Mitt Romney runs for president yet again. You're remitting. Yeah not bad. B minus.

All right. Trump's talking about Biden's classified documents and he says if Biden's not going to be charged then I should not be charged. This is nothing more than selective prosecution. Well now the Democrats would argue it's not about the documents it's about the resisting of the process for giving them back. But is it good persuasion for Trump to ignore that fine point and just say hey it's documents we should be treated the same? It is. It's not honest. It's not honest because if we were being honest he'd say okay a little bit of it is about my resisting giving them back. But he should also say if you're being honest we thought we had a legal process going. You know we were in conversations. Probably could have been resolved. But it's good persuasion because the country doesn't know the difference between those two cases and no matter how many times MSNBC explains no it's not about the documents. Oh yes we were complaining about it was just about the documents before but now it's not about just the documents now it's about the process. Nobody listens. The average voter is just going to look at those two situations and say they look alike to me. They both took documents. One got away with it. One didn't. That's what it's going to look like, right? So yes Trump's instinct on persuasion is exactly right. It's exactly right. It's not fully honest but it's very persuasive.

All right. And Trump said about the border bill that, I think I mentioned this, that if the Senate wants to pass a real border bill they should establish criminal penalties for senior Biden officials who refuse to enforce the existing law. Now I have two thoughts about that. I don't think you want crimes for not doing your job. I feel like that's a bad precedent because everybody accuses everybody of not doing their job. So if you make it a crime to not do your job even if you're a government official it feels like the wrong move. Like that's going to come back and bite your ass later. It seems like the right move for not doing your job should be impeachment and getting fired and all the usual remove from job kind of things. But it's good persuasion. It puts you in the frame of understanding that what they're doing is criminal in its impact. It's not technically illegal to not do your job but it's criminal like in its impact. Has a criminal outcome. So yes good persuasion not totally technically correct.

All right let me finish this off by reading a summary by Uncommon Sense on that's an account on the X platform and it says tyranny is here. And I'll just read it the way it's written. They want to charge Tucker Carlson with espionage for journalism. Now the they is the Democrats. So they want to charge Tucker Carlson with espionage for journalism. Then they already charged the January 6 protesters for protesting. They charged Trump for being a good president and not going along with their plan. They rigged the Democrat primary for Biden. They're charging RFK Jr. for financing issues in quotes. All the Bidens have been implicated in well-documented crimes and not charged. That's not true. Hunter's being charged for the gun stuff. They want to remove the most popular candidate from the ballot and tell you why he's a threat to democracy. Tyranny is not in the future. It is here. The emperor has no clothes. All we have to do is acknowledge it.

See that's one of those emperor has no clothes things that gets a little overused but in this specific c