that good enough? I don't think it's going to gain him any votes. The best he can do is reduce how many votes he loses. And that would probably give him a little boost, you know, because it wouldn't be a hard commitment. But yeah, there's no right answer.

Let's do a Trump lawfare update. We've got a judge who's doing some mind reading. Let's see. The judge has rejected Trump's bid to delay the hush money, that Stormy Daniels hush money criminal trial until the Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity. So in other words there's the possibility that the president would have all kinds of immunity and if that were the case then this and other things would be irrelevant. They would just go away. Or would they be delayed until after he's president? No, that would go away because he did it under the cover of presidency. But the judge, Merchan, decided that he would not wait to find out if the whole case would just go away because he was president and he had that immunity.

And the reason he says that he's not going to wait for that decision is he goes, the timing of the defense filing quote raises real questions about the sincerity and actual purpose of the motion. What? Why does the sincerity of the request change the law? Is that a thing? I'm sure it is a thing but it doesn't sound right to me. Shouldn't the law just be the law? Now I get that, you know, if you kill somebody in self-defense your intentions are different than if you just murdered them. So yeah, what you're thinking matters. But if you are lawyers and you're doing everything you can for your client and the law allows you to do this, where does sincerity come into it? How much more sincere do you have to be to think maybe this whole thing should go away and we should at least find out if he has immunity? That's the most sincere thing I could even imagine.

All right, I'm Trump's lawyer and I know that there could be this future thing that's going to happen anyway and it's going to decide whether this case makes any difference at all. How am I not sincere when I ask you to wait for that decision? How in the world is that not sincere? It's strategically correct. It's legally correct. It's logical. It's exactly what they should be doing for their client. And they didn't make up any of it. It's real stuff. Like there really is an immunity decision and it's not very far away. How does a judge look into their minds and see that they're insincere when every indication is that they are? There's not a single indication that there's anything but good lawyering with a strong argument. I don't see anything. I don't see anything else except a strong argument. Oh no, I'm looking into their brain. I'm seeing a lack of sincerity in the world. Is this allowed?

Anyway, and but part of it is they missed some deadlines to do it earlier. But again I say it's either legal to do it now or it's not legal. The fact that they missed an earlier deadline, how's that relevant? How's that relevant? It should be just it's legal or it's not legal. And if it's legal they're just doing good lawyering. Maybe they didn't in the past but that would be not a reason to penalize them now.

Well how about this box gate trial, the Mar-a-Lago secret boxes. I guess Jack Smith is going after the judge and threatening the judge with professional repercussions as well as, you know, the Biden people are going after any lawyer who ever worked for Trump. So this seems to be more the non-democratic process using lawfare. Yeah. So when you see it all as a group of actions, there never has been a president more against the Constitution than Biden. Can we say that for sure? There's no president who's ever been more anti-Constitution because he's completely taken out the First Amendment by workaround, you know using these NGOs and Soros-funded things and fake fact checkers and the social media pressure and everything. So the First Amendment's gone. He's chipping away at the Second Amendment, doing the best he can. And now they're using lawfare, weaponizing the justice system, trying to keep people off the ballot. We've never seen anything like this. This is not even in the domain of anything we've ever seen before unless there's some old presidential story I don't know about. I've never seen anything like this. This is so right in your face. We're just going to get rid of this whole Constitution thing.

And of course DEI is all just racist. So that's happening.

Politico has an article from somebody named Rory Daniels who is a Democrat donor, we're told by people who don't like his story. And he says that he's some kind of China expert. I say laughingly because he says that China prefers Trump. All right, so a Democrat who actually funds Democrats writes in Politico that in his opinion China really wants Trump. Do you think that's real? That China wants Trump? That seems ridiculous. This seems ridiculous anyway, but people will believe anything.

Did you know that there's a new development. Apparently we can now predict prime numbers, which is the thing that the experts thought could never be done. When I say predict them I mean predict the next one that we'll discover, you know which could be 20 digits long or some gigantic number. But allegedly it was supposed to be impossible to predict. But now there's some mathematicians who think they can and have. So they've actually tried it out, made a prediction. I think it worked. So there are some researchers in Hong Kong and North Carolina. I don't know what good that is but I put that in the category of everything you thought was true is not true. If you just picked anything that you thought was true and wait 20 years, it's probably not. You could almost throw a dart at any guaranteed true thing. How about the Big Bang? Throw a dart at that. Do you think the Big Bang is proven? No, it's kind of largely been debunked. The most basic thing I ever learned in science. How about evolution? Now that's pretty guaranteed, right? There's just so much proof for evolution. Well unless we're a simulation. And unless you believe physics and you believe the double slit experiment. Do you believe Schrodinger's cat? Do you believe that there's such thing as the cat is both living and dead in the box? Let me say it a different way. The cat is not both alive and dead in the box.

Do you all know the Schrodinger's cat example? You put the cat in a box that nobody can see anything that's happening inside, but there's a randomized poison so you don't know if the poison has been randomly activated or not. So for you on the outside of the box you don't know if the cat is alive or dead.