rced to think about for a long time. But if I could just sit there and, I don't know, do you pay attention or do you stop paying attention to the road until it tells you to? I don't know. Would it feel different mentally? I guess I'll have to experience it to know. But anyway, I'm leaning toward the Tesla over the gas car at the moment.

Speaking of Elon Musk, he's reiterated that the terms cis and cisgender are considered slurs and you'll get a warning on X if you keep it up. Now I think I played this just right. And what I mean by that is, for how many years have we been hearing this term cis and cisgender? For I don't know, maybe eight years or something. When did it pop into existence? But it's been years now, right? And the first time I heard it I thought, huh, I don't know what that even means. And then also the second time I heard it and the thousandth time I heard it. Every time I said, you know, I should probably Google that. I should go figure out what that means because it kept popping up and I didn't know what it meant. And I managed to ride that all the way until it was banned. Now I don't need to know what it means. I played it just right. I refused to know what it was and that it didn't matter because it turned into some kind of an insult and you're not supposed to say it anyway. So well played, Scott. Well played by ignoring it.

I had a philosophy teacher in college who used to teach the inbox trick, which by the way has influenced so much in my life. And the inbox trick goes like this. If somebody puts something in your inbox, let's say something they want you to deal with, you leave it there for two weeks. That was his method. If somebody asks you to do something, you leave it. You age it for two weeks. And this was his theory. He said if it's important they'll take care of it themselves. Like if you're not dealing with it they'll find some other way to get it done because it's important. If after two weeks they're not clamoring for it, it wasn't important in the first place.

Now I spend so much time thinking about that, about whether, wait, does that really work? I mean it doesn't feel like that makes sense. But when you try it, it does seem to work. I can't tell you how many times somebody has asked me to do something urgent and I just threw it in the mental inbox. I'm like, nope. And then a week later they say, never mind, never mind, I figured out a way to do it. All right. It's a great trick.

All right. There's a new study that says there's a compound in cannabis that might be protective against Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. So it doesn't say that you could get this benefit by smoking it. It's a compound in it. But I'm going to guess that you probably do because I'm trying to figure out why the older I get the smarter I am. It's probably the protective benefits of the cannabis compounds. Not only do I not have Alzheimer's but I think my IQ is at least doubled. Wait, if I think that probably means I do have dementia. Damn it. There's no way out of this. Get out. Get out. All right, I'm back.

All right. Here's my theme for the rest of the show. It's called "Are we still a republic?" Are we still a republic? I'll see if I can make this theme work. First story: nearly 40,000 ballots in Nevada were counted after election day. 40,000. Now that would be illegal. Those should not be counted. 40,000. But the question you ask is, well it's just 40,000 right out of the whole state. How much did Biden win Nevada by? 34,000? There were 40,000 illegal votes that mostly went to Biden and he only won by that amount. Huh. That's weird. That's weird.

Now on one hand you could certainly understand why those votes were counted. Because if they were real votes, even if technically they shouldn't have been counted, it doesn't feel that bad, does it? If you think to yourself, well they intended to vote. Maybe the mail got delayed. You know, you don't have a result yet. Why not at least enfranchise your voters and make sure their vote counted? On the other hand, does anybody believe that this was totally legit? That just coincidentally the exact amount of votes came in after the date? Does anybody think that's legitimate? It might be. Can't rule it out. But yeah. So you're asking the right question. What about the postmark? I think there are two standards but I need a fact check on this. Depending on the state I think that the postmark would matter or the when you received it would matter. I think it depends on the state but I need a fact check on that. Anyway, this is the claim that the votes came in after the fact, should not have been counted but they were, and may have changed the result for at least one state.

Well, the Rasmussen and Poland company asked this question directly to find out if we're still a republic. And here's their lead and I'll just tell you what they said. After the Constitutional Convention in 1787 when Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government the convention had created, he said, and I quote, and by the way I always think these historical quotes are just made up. I never think these are the real quote. But allegedly Ben Franklin said, "A republic if you can keep it." Well, Rasmussen asked the public, are we still a republic and did we keep it? Only 39% of likely U.S. voters believe America has done a good job of keeping the Republic. 39%. 47% think the Republic the founders created has already fallen. 14% are not so sure. 47% think the Republic has already fallen.

But here's the question I'm going to test you on. For those of you who are new to this, new to my live streams, you're going to be amazed. Watch this. Watch how they can answer the question before I ask it. Go. Just go. Show off. Go on, show. Show your stuff. There we go. The answers are coming in. I haven't even asked the question yet. But watch this. Look. And you're all right. You're all correct. Okay, here's a question that you've already answered without even knowing the answer, without even knowing the question. What percentage of voters according to Rasmussen believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed? 26%. 26% believe the government is acting with the consent of the governed. And you knew the answer before I asked the question because you're the smartest audience in the history of the entire Republic, which doesn't exist according to most people.

All right. How many of you saw a little news story because Kamala Harris used the F-word when talking to a bunch of, I think they were some kind of Asian-American women's group I think. And she said that sometimes if the door is closed you've got to quote kick the effing door down, except she used the whole word. Now so the story was, hey she used an F-word. Now can we all agree that nobody cares about that, right? Nobody cares that a politician swears. I kind of like it actually. I have to admit I like it if they don't do it all the time and they use it for those moments when they really need to accentuate a point. I think Trump uses cursing better than any politician of all time because he doesn't overuse it. He'll just throw in a you know an s-word or mostly an s-word I think. He doesn't use the F-word. It's well done.

But I think you missed the headline on this story. I want you to go back if you saw the clip or if you haven't seen it, go look at it. I want you to see if you maybe missed the top line of what the story should have been. She was drunk. Really obviously drunk. Now it could have been some other inebriation but she was very inebriated. Now how is that not the story? The story is she used an F-word? No. How about the story is this is the way she did it and you should kick the effing door down. How do you ignore that part? No, the story wasn't about her choice of words. It was about a choice of drinks. That should have been the story.

Just think about the fact that you've got Joe Biden shuffling around, his pants halfway to the helicopter where it looks like it, and that the number two person is appearing drunk in public. Now I'm sorry, I'm going to stop saying maybe drunk. Can we stop saying maybe? That was drunk as all. You can't look at that and think she was sober. You can't. I challenge you. I challenge you to look at that and say, "Oh yeah, that's sober." How is that not the story? And do you not see it? Are there people who can't recognize, you can't recognize a drunk in public? That's about the easiest thing you can spot. But because you used the F-word it diverted everybody like a magic trick. It's like, oh the real magic trick is she used that word. Wow.

All right. CNN's Daniel Dale, the fact checker, is back and he came to fact check Donald Trump's speech. Huh. I feel like he's always on vacation when Trump gives, or when Biden says something. Where's Daniel Dale fact checking Biden? They only pull him out when Trump gives a rally. Now here's the funny part. Remember I told you that you don't understand the news unless you know the players, right? If you don't know what the players have done or who they're connected to, you're kind of flying blind. Everything is about who knows who and who did what and who's connected to what. So even this story. So if you just turned on the TV you would see a fact checker talking to a couple of CNN hosts and doing a bunch of fact checks on Trump. And if that's all you knew you'd say, "Wow that Trump sure tells a lot of whoppers." And that would be your impression.

Now let me tell you a little bit about the players. One of the hosts, Abby Phillip, is a promoter of the fine people hoax. She believes and she has promoted on the air that Trump said the neo-Nazis were fine people. Do you ever remember Daniel Dale fact checking that? I don't think so. I don't believe I've ever seen him take a run at that. So if you didn't know that the fact checker, who seems to be absent when Biden does anything, if you didn't know he was talking to a purveyor of the fine people hoax, it looks really different, doesn't it? But once you know he's talking to a famous, I assume, liar because I don't think anybody's dumb enough to know that that was true, anybody in the news business, it changes everything. It's like, oh a famous hoaxer who has a job as a news host anyway.

Here's something interesting. RFK Jr. said that he doesn't want President Trump to have a second chance in office in part because he says Trump was rolled by his bureaucrats to impose lockdowns and shut down businesses, policies that made things worse. All right. So RFK Jr., let's pull some things together. So RFK Jr. says that President Trump is too influenced by experts. Is that a problem? What if it gone the other way? I'm trying to imagine a world in which mean old orange man Trump overruled the entire scientific consensus of the time. How was that going to go? And I ask you, if we had a President RFK Jr. and the entire scientific community said you should do X but RFK Jr. said no, do Y, would you be comfortable with that?

Now I get that he was right about things and that the experts were wrong. We all get that. I'm not saying that if you take one approach versus the other you'll always get the right answer. No. But I don't think there was a path where Trump could ignore the experts during the pandemic. That's completely revisionary history. If you put yourself in the context of the time, he couldn't ignore the experts even if he thought Fauci was... he couldn't really ignore him because Fauci was agreeing with the other experts. It wasn't really about Fauci. And by the way, I will tell you from my, I won't call it my own reporting but you know everybody has sources, I'm pretty sure that Trump thought Fauci was... but the entire scientific community was sort of on the same side except for the few notable people who were dissidents and got it right. So how in the world are you supposed to expect him to ignore experts the next time? Would you be comfortable with that?

Now if next time looked exactly like the COVID thing then yes, right? If there was a mysterious new virus, yes, yes I would expect Trump to know it's a second trick. But what if it's a brand new situation? You know, let's say there's a volcano and all the experts say you better wear a mask for two weeks. Do you want Trump to say you don't need a mask? I don't. No. I kind of want to hear what the experts say because I don't think we're at the point where you can ignore them or that you want a non-expert to overrule them right in front of you. How is that better?

But here's the interesting part. How can it be true that Trump is a dictator and he has authoritarian instincts when at the same time he's being criticized for listening to the experts? You have to pick one, right? He's either the person who ignores everybody and does what he wants or he's the person who takes expert advice including generals including military people. Doesn't mean he agrees with them all the time. I get that. But no, you don't want him ignoring experts. So you have to decide. So you've got somebody who's running as a Democrat is saying that Trump is not dictatorial enough and he's letting experts influence him. At the same time another Democrat, now I realize RFK Jr. is not running in the Democrat Party but he's Democrat, and so the other Democrat Biden is saying he's a dictator and he's not going to listen to the experts. So it's all made up. Neither of those images ring true.

Let me tell you what I think Trump is. I think he's a practical person. I think he looks at every situation new. He says all right, what works in this situation? Does following the experts make sense? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. And I think he's done a good job of calling out when to ignore them because he has a few times and I think gotten it right a few times. So I don't know. It's tough to criticize him for bending to the experts because we're looking at it with that 2020 hindsight. Yes, if Trump knew today everything he knows then he should have chosen differently. But he didn't. And how could he? It's ridiculous to imagine that he could have known then what we know now. That's just bad thinking. That's bad analysis.

All right. So we're learning that Democrat Congressman Dan Goldman apparently met a number of times with Michael Cohen, the big star witness in the Stormy trial. And he met to prepare him for the trial. Now you say to yourself, huh, that certainly would support Trump's theory that it's an organized Democrat plot and it's not just the legal system doing its thing but rather it's the Democrats coordinating with the Department of Justice in this case, the star witness. So it looks exactly like the fix was in. But it gets better. It turns out the judge's daughter, so Dan Goldman is a client of the judge's daughter's consulting firm. So the judge's daughter has a consulting firm that consults Dan Goldman. Let's see if you just hold this in your head. The judge's daughter is paying a Democrat congressperson who's a Biden person who is then advising the key witness in the trial that that same judge is in to basically end Trump.

Now is this a case of it's exactly what it looks like? I love this trial. I didn't think I was going to love it so much. But the thing is it's making it so clear what's going on. Even if you're a Democrat you see it by now, don't you? If you're not just batshit crazy you see it, right? You see that all the legal cases were bogus. All of them. You can see it really clearly with the Stormy case. But it's not a coincidence that the other ones are delayed because there's some real problems with the other ones. Real problems. So I feel like this is going to be the Rosetta Stone for at least normal Democrats. Normal meaning somebody who's just not crazy basically. I think that they're looking at this. I think the Fredo Zaracases on CNN are looking at it and saying flat out this is lawfare. This is a political prosecution. How in the world do Democrats win when CNN says they're doing a political prosecution and only fewer than half the people think that the country is not even a republic anymore? How in the world does Biden win without cheating?

All right. Number of supporters. Well I think let's talk about Cohen. I saw MSNBC saying he's doing a great job. I was watching Morning Joe just melt down today arguing with, because there's another New York Times Siena poll that says Trump's up by 11 somewhere I think in Nevada. And they were just melting down. Morning Joe. That is mental illness, right? Because you know I feel like if I'm watching the conservative news and I see somebody say something that to me is clearly more propaganda, just team play, it's being a little unfair, they never look crazy. The people on the right, the Republicans, they always look like they know exactly what they're doing. I'll use Sean Hannity as my example. Does Sean Hannity ever look like he's insane? No. If you think he's saying something that's not true or leaving out some context, it looks like he's doing it intentionally. Now you can have your opinion about that but it doesn't look crazy. It just looks like he's pushing a version of things that his audience wants to hear. Nothing crazy about it.

So it looks completely different over on the other side when you watch MSNBC. I only see mental illness now. By the way I don't see that in CNN so it's not just about whether they like or don't like Trump. When I watch CNN I look at people who look to me like they know what they're doing. In other words I get the Sean Hannity effect from CNN. I think, I can't read your mind but I'm looking at your eyes and your mannerisms. It doesn't look crazy. It just looks like you're pushing a view of things that's different than the other view of things somebody else is pushing. But on MSNBC they do legitimately, no joke, no exaggeration, no hyperbole, they almost all look mentally ill. Do you see it too?

Now if I thought that CNN was also just as mentally ill then I think you could say, okay Scott you're just being a team player. You're just saying everybody on the left is mentally ill. No I'm not saying that at all. There are plenty of people on the left who don't come across that way at all. Not even a little bit. But MSNBC consistently looked mentally ill. I would guarantee if you look at the percentage of those hosts who are in therapy it would be higher than any other network. Would anybody take the other side of that bet? Would you take the bet that if you looked at all the on-air hosts of all the different networks that the highest percentage in therapy would be MSNBC? Would anybody take that bet? I wouldn't bet against it. To me it looks obvious. Same thing with it's basically a whole bunch of commas. There's just something going on there that's different than having a different opinion.

Well anyway. So the way MSNBC was treating all of Trump's supporters who were showing up in court is that they're all supplicants and they're all sucking up to him and maybe they want the VP job and all that. Is that a good frame? The people are the Speaker of the House, John, Vivek Ramaswamy, Byron Donalds, a few others I think. Now when you see those names do you say to yourself, oh obviously these are the suck-ups. These are the ones who just want to ingratiate themselves with Trump at the maximum amount. Is that your take on it? Now it doesn't hurt to make the presumptive candidate happy so you can't say that's a nothing, right? It does matter what Trump wants and it does matter that some people want to work with him or be productive parts of the administration. So yeah, yeah there's going to be a little bit of sucking up going on. But I don't think that's exactly what's happening.

Let me put the frame on it that makes more sense. And Byron Donalds did this for us. He's beating the gag order. It's just a way to beat the gag order. All he's doing is bringing in his proxies. And by the way MSNBC said he was editing their comments before they made them. I don't know about that and I think if he did that would be potentially a gag order issue. So I don't know that that's true. That was just reported by somebody who wasn't under oath and MSNBC so you know use your judgment on that. But my take is what do these people have in common? Johnson, Vivek, and Byron Donalds. Let's just take the last two, Vivek and Byron Donalds. What do they have in common besides the fact that somebody would say they would like to be VP or have a role in the administration? What else do they have in common besides being Trump supporters? It's not obvious, is it?

Is it a coincidence that Trump brought the two best communicators in the Republican Party? No, three best. JD Vance. JD Vance is there. I forgot about him. The three best communicators in the entire Republican Party plus the Speaker of the House. That's what he did. He brought the three best communicators in the Republican Party. Vivek Ramaswamy, Byron Donalds, JD Vance. They're not just good. They're good at a whole other level. They're good at a level where the Democrats don't even have anybody at that level. Their best person is below all three of them. Their best person doesn't communicate as well as any of those three.

Now what about Johnson? He's a very capable communicator. He's not on the level of a Ramaswamy, Vance, Donalds. He's not on that level. But I'd also like to point out that in Trump, Trump will never say this because he doesn't need to, two of the three people that I've called out as the best communicators in the Republican Party are not white men. I love the fact that if I didn't bring it up because I'm provocative it doesn't need to be brought up. The Republicans simply show you their hand. Here's my cards. Here's what I got. I got a Vivek. I got a Byron Donalds. What do you got? AOC? Come on really. What do you got? Adam Schiff? Eric Swalwell? Show us your cards. Right. And then you throw in JD Vance and it's crazy. I mean those are by far the best communicators. You'd agree, right? All that's missing is maybe Ted Cruz. You know Ted Cruz should be on that list as the great communicators. But Johnson is there because he's the most important Republican I suppose you'd say who's elected at the moment.

So to me this looks like a curated group. I want to bring in the best communicators and the most important Republican. And what did the news do? They could not ignore it. They could not ignore it. Oh yeah. Matt Gaetz is now, Matt Gaetz is more of a firebrand kind of communicator so he might, I don't know if he's the number one choice that I would bring in for this because he brings his own set of complaints about him. But yeah he's a great communicator that's true. So to me this is just a huge display of not just support for the president. It's a clear indication that it's lawfare. Do you think that you would get this group of cats to show up at court to support Trump if there was any doubt about whether he was guilty or innocent? No. The fact that they show up is really strong evidence that the question of whether there's any guilt has already been removed before the trial is even over. I don't know anyone who thinks any crime has been even demonstrated or even listed. That's what Vivek said. Say, can you tell me the crime? We've been watching this court situation for days and days and days, almost over now. List the crime. Tell me the crime. MSNBC, can you list it? Can you describe it in a way that's even coherent? Because no crime was demonstrated and no crime was even called out.

Now under those conditions is it safe for the top Republicans, you know the ones who want to make sure that their reputations are not destroyed, is it safe for them to sit in the court and back the defendant? Absolutely. So the message that it's so safe that even these other Republicans are not worried about being tarnished by being in a criminal case for Trump, you know being in the audience, they're so safe because it's so obvious even CNN is calling it lawfare that it does nothing but add to the gravitas of Trump's complaint that this is so bogus that the most respectable Republicans can show up and sit there and they don't have to. Did the Republicans who supported him have to tell any lies? No. They simply had to describe what they saw. That's it. Very safe.

So the fact that Trump has once again figured out how to beat the media by bringing in his strongest players, making them get time because the fact that they're there at all is a show. They got to cover the show. Yeah. And this is one of the things I always say about Trump is if you don't understand the show and the show is the whole show, it's like everything he does, if you don't understand the show you don't understand anything. And this was a brilliant scene within the larger show, the Trump show. A brilliant scene. Everything about this was right.

Now I'm going to say it again because every time I say it I think it's interesting. The biggest story about Trump's campaign so far is that it's flawless. How are we not talking about that? Right? Because that wasn't true the first campaign. You know he was a little too edgy maybe although probably got him elected. You know the more provocative he was it probably added energy. But at the moment he doesn't need that. He doesn't need any scary energy. He's killing it. I mean I've never seen performance at this level. And I would guess that whoever he's taking his advice from, and I could only speculate about that, but keep doing it. Whoever is advising Trump, and again is Trump a dictator? I doubt it because this looks very much like he's taking good advice, doesn't it? In your opinion doesn't this look like Trump is really well advised and taking the advice? It looks like that to me. And that's the president I want, right? I want the president who if the experts are acting crazy maybe ignores but if they're nailing it you know he's going to surf it. I think he's surfing. I think he's surfing the Vivek wave and probably the other folks as well. Good advice. Keep it up.

And then MSNBC is trying to put down some suppressive fire by saying that everybody who works with Trump ends up like Cohen or like Pence. Imagine MSNBC seeing these three cats show up, four of them, Johnson, Vivek, Donalds and Vance, and they've got to make them act like they're clowns or something. They couldn't. It's their strongest people. And so instead they say, well you know if all these strong people keep defending Trump and they work for the administration maybe they don't know they'll end up like Cohen or they'll end up like Pence. Do you know how you end up like Cohen? There's only one way. It's acting like Cohen. Trump didn't turn Cohen into Cohen. He was already Cohen, right? You're not going to see Byron Donalds turn into Michael Cohen. And the Pence thing was a once in ever, one and done. I mean really the only problem that Pence had was how he handled January 6. And I'm not even sure who's wrong. I know you don't like it but I've always appreciated that Pence was trying to figure out what was the right thing to do. Now maybe you think he got it wrong that time but I've never disrespected Pence for taking a stand. Maybe he got it wrong. Maybe he got it right. But I respect that he took the hard stand. I'll always give him that credit even if you don't like it.

Well Biden's out there again after getting fact checked hard by the media for claiming that inflation was 9% when he came in. Well it was more like 1.3 or something and so it actually went up to nine in his administration and now it's down to three something but it's above where it was. So he goes out and after getting fact checked hard he says the very same thing the next day. What would cause that? Why would it be that knowing he would get slapped down he would go out and just say the same damn thing that everybody just called a giant lie? Well I have two possible explanations. Number one it works because the fact checking is only on the right-leaning networks. It's not getting fact checked probably anywhere else. Do you think MSNBC is fact checking that? No I don't think so. It would be news itself if they fact checked it. So he probably knows that because of the media bubble that everybody's in he could just keep saying it. Just keep claiming it until it sounds true. Now as you know Trump uses that technique as well so sometimes it's just hyperbole and directionally true and if you repeat it enough people think it's true. So it could be that he just knows that lying works.

The other possibility that I find more tantalizing is that his staff has given up. And I think that's the case. I believe his advisers have literally given up on him because I think that behind the scenes they're getting dementia tear downs. Here's what I think is happening. "Mr. President, about the thing you said yesterday, I just want to give you a little fact check that the media is treating that unkindly and the facts don't really support what you said so maybe you could soften that a little bit or kind of find a different way to do it. What do you think?" He says to that, I think he starts dementia screaming, "Oh get out of here. What are you trying to... it really did go up." And then after that happens about three times and you look at the polls and you see he's losing anyway and there's probably no way to reverse it, do you say I'm going to go do that again or do you say well screw him let him go out and just kill himself? I mean not literally but let him go out and just sink in the media.

Look at the face of Tony Blinken. I'll talk about him in a moment. Look at the face of Karine Jean-Pierre. They have the capitulation face. Like there's something happening they don't like and there's nothing they can do about it. It is all over their faces and they both look like they gave up. So the other story is about Tony Blinken over in Kyiv and he announces that Ukraine is not going to have elections until the war is over which basically means no elections. And then he goes and he plays with the band. He's playing guitar and singing. And people said that's a terrible look to say there's going to be no democracy and you're up there playing your thing and it was just a terrible, terrible look. And I said to myself, do you think that Tony Blinken would not be aware that that would be a bad play? He would obviously know it would be filmed. He would obviously know it would be a story. He would obviously know it was the wrong choice to look like he's having a good time in the war zone. It looks like capitulation to me. To me it looks like he knows the game is over and maybe even the entire illegal operation in Ukraine will be revealed under a different administration. He had the eyes of a person who looks like he thinks he's going to jail. Now I can't read his mind but look at his eyes in the last couple days and look at Karine Jean-Pierre's eyes and her demeanor. She looks like she already was told she's leaving.

Because I have this theory. I don't remember if I said this. Stop me if I said this on the live stream yesterday. I may have said it on the man cave separately. That if you're the campaign for Biden and you know that your candidate can't talk in public, what are you going to do? Well you'd better have great surrogates. So Trump can't talk in public because he's gagged. So he brings in the best communicators of all time who happen to be Republican. Joe Biden can't talk in public but he's got a problem. His spokesperson can't either. So you've got a spokesperson who can't talk in public without embarrassing the party, talking for somebody who can't talk in public because he's just too gone. Don't you think that the campaign has been trying hard to replace Karine Jean-Pierre? If they haven't been trying to replace her they are not doing their job because their only hope is to get rid of her right away and bring in a strong player who can actually support Biden's point of view without Biden doing it. And they got nobody to do that now. They got nothing. So I think Karine Jean-Pierre's problem is from the Biden campaign. That's my guess.

All right. Let's see what else. So Biden has agreed to debate. He's agreed to two debates. So Biden says he was talking tough in his little video saying he wants two debates. One at the end of June and one in September. End of June would get Trump past his legal case that he's in and the other ones are delayed so he wouldn't have that trouble. And here's what you have to say. Take a look at the video of Biden saying he agrees to two debates and sort of challenging Trump and watch how many edits there are in the video. So I think he talks for 30 seconds. Somebody said there are five video edits. I caught at least one. Do you know what that means? It means they couldn't trust him to read a teleprompter that was only 30 seconds long. That they had to edit out so many mistakes that it looked like they're only like a week away from doing one of these blackmail notes where you cut out the letters from the newspaper and paste them on the page. I think they're going to start taking individual words that he's ever spoken and just put them together with clips until he's not wearing the same outfit. Like look for his clothes to change while he's talking. That's coming up. It'll be like "the inflation is" and then his necktie will change to another one. It'll be like "and Biden" "oh Trump" "oh." It's going to look like that. So watch for his necktie to change while he talks.

All right. In the meantime. Well so here's my prediction. My prediction is he will not debate and that he will cancel the June debate. Why will he cancel the June debate? Two possibilities. Number one, oh look there's a fake pandemic. There's an emergency. I'm so busy. I'm so busy with my emergency that I couldn't possibly debate because I've got to run this country. It looks like Russia has upped its attack on Ukraine. Well it wouldn't be right for me to be debating when I've got to be managing this war situation. So it's either going to be I can't do it. The other possibility is he's going to claim that Trump is asking for something unreasonable. So let's say Trump says, Biden also said he only wants to do it if it's moderated by lefty entities. Now he didn't say lefty entities. He named the ones that have done it recently. He said it has to be one of those and they were all left-leaning entities. So what if Trump says how about we do the June one with at least one right-leaning entity and maybe the September one was something else. Something like that. That gives Biden the opportunity to say well I guess you turned down the debate didn't you? I offered. Hey but you asked for those conditions and oh no that's unreasonable. Why don't you do it the way we always did it? They were the same entities that were in the primaries. Nobody complained then. So I guess you just, you're afraid to debate aren't you? Or yeah. So there'll either be reasons or it might be that he doesn't want to give oxygen to Trump because he's such a bad person. Like something new will happen. A new hoax. Oh but based on the new hoax I can't even give this dictator white supremacist any air. So I'm going to cancel because the public shouldn't even hear him talk.

Let's see in the comments how many of you think there will be a June debate given that he couldn't do a 30-second video about the debate. I think it's a trick. I think he's just buying time and he could be buying time until they replace him and he knows it's going to happen. Could be. It could be capitulation. It could be that Biden kept saying oh I can do it I can do it and his staff knows he can't. But it could be that the staff said if we can get him to do the debate in June and he falls apart we still have time to replace him because it's before their convention isn't it? It's before the convention right? Give me a fact check on that. When is the DNC convention? Is it after that right? Is it before or after? It's after. Yeah. So it could be a Hail Mary by the staff. So the campaign staff might know full well that he can't survive a debate and it might make the polling 20 point difference or something and that would give them the juice to finally replace him. July and August are their conventions. Okay yeah. End of June is suspicious because it's perfectly timed to replace him if he fails. So maybe that's the play because that would look like capitulation as well.

All right. Meanwhile the Trump campaign has a new ad in which they're saying that Biden is denying reality about the economy acting like it's fine. And here's their framing. They say is it dishonesty or dementia? Oh that's so good. Is it dishonesty or dementia? Because the Trumpers know that the public doesn't think the economy is great. You know inflation is high. They know that. So if Trump gives them two options, well if you agree with us that the economy is not as good as it looks, how do you explain Biden saying it looks great? Two options: dishonesty or dementia. He either doesn't know the difference or he's being dishonest.

Do you know what would have been a worse way to go? To say lying or dementia. Lying wouldn't have landed as well. But dishonesty. Dishonesty is wider isn't it? Dishonesty gets all the way to Hunter Biden and Ukraine. Dishonesty is a much more clever word in this context. Because if he just said he lied what would people say? They'd say well Trump lies too. If you say he's dishonest, well now it's not as clean as everybody lies because it might be true that all the politicians lie except for Thomas Massie and Rand Paul maybe. But it's not necessarily true that we think of them as thoroughly dishonest. Because Trump will have been so vetted that if you have 91 indictments and none of them land it's going to look like oh maybe he does tell some whoppers but all the politicians do. But dishonest, dishonest is a different level. That's a very good choice of words for the ad.

All right. Mike Benz reports that apparently the government of the United States did some grants to some groups to study how to censor target groups without triggering the martyr effect. How to censor Americans. Americans. The government funded grants to study how to censor Americans without the person being censored knowing about it. Just think about that. Now their claim was that they were trying to get rid of the hate speech, you know the bad stuff, but of course you know it goes deeper than that. So the way they did it was they discovered that if you simply cancel the person at the top, the person who's making all the trouble, they become a martyr and they get stronger. Hello? Does that sound like something that happened to me? They made me a martyr and I got stronger. Yeah. Does it look like it happened to Tucker? They made him a martyr and he got stronger. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know about Alex Jones. I thought I heard that Alex Jones is going to have to close InfoWars because the lawfare against them. Is that true? He's going to close it and reconstitute it as something else because it has to go bankrupt? Yeah. Well there are some people who definitely became less strong when they got canceled. But the idea was to go after the people who boost them so that they wouldn't know. So they would just censor the lieutenants as Mike Benz calls them. The people below the influencers. Because if there are people with a million people in their account who keep retweeting these same influencers you can just stop the million people retweets and then it just looks like people don't care when all it is is you got rid of the lieut