that's not going to happen. Suppose and I don't know this to be true but suppose it looks like there's no time in the future you'll be able to get your money out. What's the point of investing if you can never get your money out? How does that work? Like getting your money out is really important to the whole investment process right? If you never can get your money it's not really an investment.

So we've got an American investor who's got some say $35 billion worth of ownership of the TikTok company ByteDance. Now is it possible that again this is just fun conspiracy stuff I have no evidence for this whatsoever. I just live in the real world and I've seen lots of clever things happened that were not obvious on the surface. If I were a billionaire and I could not get my money out of TikTok because the Chinese government said no you're not going to do an IPO and I don't know one will ever let you, what I would do is I would get my friends in Congress both the Democrats and the Republicans. I would make them sit down and say make me a fake bill that looks like it could get passed but make sure it doesn't. Give me a fake bill that the media will say is like a real ban but I don't want it banned. The only thing I want is for the Chinese government to say oh crap we better let them sell the American business because otherwise TikTok's in trouble so we can get some money out of it by letting them sell. But if the American market goes away that's really going to be a problem.

Could it be that an investor or investors are using the ban only as leverage to get China to agree to let ByteDance divest the American market? Could it be that the biggest investor I think his name is yes, could it be that the real play is for him to own his own American social media company that is the piece of ByteDance's market that had been theirs. Take it with them in return for let's say China keeping his $35 billion. So could he for let's say $35 billion own the entire part of ByteDance that ran in America? Would that make him an Elon Musk kind of a billionaire? So he would not only have other business but like Jeff Bezos and like other rich people, Carlos Slim, Rupert Murdoch, it's always good to own a big media company if you can.

So if you start with the assumption that if you're smart enough to own $35 billion dollar worth of ByteDance you're also smart enough to figure out all the different ways you can capitalize on that. And if the possibility of monetizing it was completely impossible because he would never be able to get in a liquidity event well he might have found a workaround.

So the perfect situation would be that we pretend that there's going to be a ban. Every and you get 50 people to act like it's a sure thing and then it gets carved off and then there's a billionaire who leans Republican because he's known to be funding Republicans in a big way. You would have in this country instead of a left-leaning social media company you would have a not necessarily right leaning but certainly closer to the middle. And it would completely neuter the political impact of TikTok and give one person one of the most valuable properties in the world.

Now could he do that with the help of let's say the Rumble network? Well if you've got Oracle that can already handle some hosting stuff you've got the Rumble network that would give you the capacity. All you need then is approval. All you need is approval because I think you can handle the money. Doesn't look like money is going to be a problem. All you need is the approval.

So I'm not going to say that that's likely or that anybody had that plan but every single bit of evidence suggests it would. Would you agree? Would you agree that all evidence suggests that the ban is not real and it must be part of a bigger plan? That's what it looks like anyway.

So looks like Haiti is going to have some mass migration coming our way. And here's my question. You know that we've heard reports that there are cannibals in Haiti which by the way I'm not sure is real and if it is real I'm not sure it's more than you know one or two people. So I don't think Haiti is a big old cannibal country but I'm going to use this story just as a mental experiment.

Suppose you knew that 3% of the migrants were going to be cannibals. You don't know what 3% but you're pretty sure that you know there's enough cannibals over there that 3% might be. Would you say that mass migration would be a good idea if you didn't know which ones but 3% of them probably cannibals? And if 3% is okay and you say to yourself well honestly 3% is a low number you know 3% of any population is going to be bad people in one way or another so why would you discriminate against the Haitians who really need a hand they're in a bad way when their ratio of cannibals is no worse than anybody's ratio of murders and whatever. And I would say okay that's reasonable. You're trying not to be racist and I like your argument. It's good of you to not be racist.

But suppose I up that percentage. Now I tell you it's 10% cannibals. It's not 10% cannibals we're just doing a mental experiment. What if it's 10% cannibals? Now do you say well you know what 10% of people who are in America are not so good either so it'd be kind of racist to say this one group is worse because their 10% kills people and we got a bunch of people who do bad things to rapists and killers. So you know then people start disagreeing at that.

But what if it's 20%? What if 20% of them were known cannibals? Yeah we keep talking about yes or no. These all these questions should be percentage. It shouldn't be yes no. Keep the southern border open. It's not a yes no question. How about we say if we can't certify that the number of people coming in are as safe as the people already here you don't do it. I don't know if we could do that. Is the crime rate of the people coming in better or worse than the ones who are already here? If we can't certify that it keeps us at least as safe seems like that'd be a good reason not to do it.

All right the Hur testimony was fun and funny and I watched it way too much yesterday. The Republicans and the Democrats saw two different movies on one screen. The Republicans saw this, that Biden was proven guilty and for many decades having all kinds of locations with classified documents. He clearly knew it was wrong and he even said it on an audio recording. So it's a slam dunk case. He's proven guilty and the only reason he wasn't prosecuted is because the prosecutor, special prosecutor, special counsel, whatever he is, Hur, determined that he was, that they that he couldn't necessarily convince a jury that Biden had intent because Biden's too senile. Now I'm using the word senile. Hur didn't use that but there that's the Republican version. That the crime is there and the only reason he's not being prosecuted is that his brain doesn't work.

And I believe every Republican heard that. Would you agree? Do you think every Republican has that interpretation? I think so.

But what did the Democrats hear? They heard that Biden was exonerated by the report. So they're on television saying he's exonerated.

So what does something like CNN do when they know that Biden is just toast but they can't agree with the Republicans? They know they can't agree with the Republicans. What they did was they would bring on people who were willing to lie and just didn't challenge it. I was watching poor Anderson Cooper. He brings on some Democrat who just said the most outrageously obviously untrue stuff about it and he didn't challenge it. He just let it stand.

So the funny part is that the hosts are completely aware of the whole story right? It's their job and they know that Biden broke the law at least in terms of the having the classified information. He broke it way more than Trump did. Trump's got the extra obstructing justice problem that Biden doesn't have. But the actual testimony and the evidence that Hur did and even the Democrats are saying Hur looked pretty credible.

So by the way let me give a compliment to the special counsel. You know I spent so much time just insulting people who are doing bad jobs that I feel like I should stop and say he did a great job. Am I wrong that Hur really made, I think he made the country proud. I don't think that was biased. I think that both sides have people who are saying yeah this was a serious good job. Good job. You don't get to say that too often. Good job.

All right so really appreciate it. As a citizen of the country I personally appreciate the good work that Hur did.

Now he does, Hur did say very clearly we did not exonerate anybody. We don't use that word in the report. But the difference of was he exonerated or was he proven guilty seems to hinge on the reason he was not charged. And the Democrats are trying to tell you, gaslighting you basically, that the reason he wasn't charged is they didn't find any evidence of crimes. And the real reason he wasn't charged is that not only is he guilty of the crimes but he's also guilty of being so he's basically guilty of two things.

So Hur found him guilty of having a defective brain and doing a crime. And the Democrats are telling their audience that that's exonerated. No that's two problems. One is you did the crime and you knew it and you knew it. Everybody agrees he knew it. That's not the issue. The problem is that the jury would see him as so feeble that they wouldn't get a conviction and there's no point in wasting everybody's time.

So that's the insufficient evidence that Hur refers to is there's insufficient evidence that Biden knew what he was doing. Not insufficient evidence that it happened and that it was illegal. Only insufficient evidence that a jury would believe he understood what he was doing. That to me that's guilty twice. Am I counting wrong? To me that's guilty twice. Once guilty of having a bad brain just like we suspected and once guilty of doing a whole bunch of crimes involving classified stuff.

Now there was one little point that was fascinating in how two sides see it. So apparently there exists an audio recording of Biden talking to his biographer and telling the biographer that he went and got some classified documents and he was showing them to him. But apparently if the only evidence you have is the audio you can't really know if the document he showed him was classified. It might have been sitting next to some classified documents but it could have been in the box. They had some classified and some not. So when he said it was classified did he know that they were classified or did he just take him out of a box of classified documents but the one he had maybe not so classified.

Now that's the sort of distinction that Hur is making when he anticipates what a defense would be if it went to court. And the defense would be well technically yo