se.

Let's take DEI for example. How do you defend DEI? It's literally unconstitutional because it's racist, and it guarantees that you end up like the Biden campaign with a forced fit of diversity, picking from a limited pool of people with less experience than David Axelrod and James Carville, and destroying yourself. Because on paper, DEI was going to cause exactly that.

Now give me an example of a Republican policy that's like that, where if you understood it well, you could clearly see it would destroy the country. Name one. There's just—you don't like their opinion on abortion, but does anybody have any disagreement about how it would look if it went one way versus the other? There's no disagreement on facts. I mean, we argue about definitions but not about facts. So there's nothing comparable.

The reason the Republicans are not trying to suppress free speech is they don't have a reason. They would rather suggest things that make sense and can be defended. Let me give you another example. Here's one I'm not on the same page. I'm not even on this page. So they'll say the family unit has been successful and great. We should encourage more family stuff. I think that's overstated because I think the family arrangement is going to work for 25% of the population. But for a variety of reasons I don't need to get into, it probably doesn't work for 75%. But there's nothing crazy about it. You can talk about every part of that. I just did. I didn't lose my audience, did I? I just said, hmm, I think it would be the greatest system for some people in some situations. But society has changed in how we are and how we operate and what our economic incentives are and all that, plus dating apps, plus the internet. It's a different world. So I simply state, yeah, I think you know you've got a good point about that family unit being the best, but not for everybody. Maybe everybody else needs some other better system.

Now, you tell me any Republican that would want to suppress what I just said. None. It totally disagrees with their preferred point of view that the family should be the primary unit. Not a single person would argue with whether I should be able to say that and be heard because they feel their argument is strong. And therefore they just put it out into the marketplace of ideas and they say our idea is strong. Look at it. Go. We don't need to hide anything.

And I think every example looks like that. Take Ukraine. Well, Ukraine has some bipartisan support. That's a bad example. But it's a little hard to defend honestly. Although I would say there's not a lot of—I don't think there's been much censorship on Ukraine. So I think I'll take that back. I think Ukraine actually is honestly discussed in the press. You know, the two sides have a different emphasis, but I think that one is the closest to being honestly discussed. I don't know.

Anyway, if you look at the hoax-ocracy, Democrats obviously need to suppress free speech or you can't keep the hoax mesh network running.

Meanwhile, Trump and his lawyers are trying to reverse that Stormy Daniels case that turned him into a potential felon. But he's not one yet because the verdict has not been registered by the judge or however they do that. So there's still time to appeal. And the argument is this: that the Supreme Court's recent immunity decision that a president is immune from most—but not all—acts of official business. When it crosses the legal boundary, there's still some immunity there. And so part of that is that you can't even use evidence that comes from the official time the person's in office. Meaning that if you're going to charge them for something out of office, you're not allowed to use even evidence of something that happened while he was in office.

Now, I think that there may be some nuance to that that could get challenged. But the lawyers are using it to go back to Judge Merchan and say you've got to throw out the verdict because you used evidence that came about when Trump was in office. Now, here's the fun part. How can the judge know whether the jury was influenced by just that part of the evidence? Because nobody is claiming that just the small bit of evidence that came from Trump's time in office—I don't think anybody's claiming it was the smoking gun per se. It was just extra. So does the judge use his own judgment and read the minds of the jury, which would be absurd? How could you possibly read the minds?

I'm not on X. Oh, interesting. Why is that? Huh. Looks like there's some kind of problem. Somebody says locals is not working. Is that true? Because I'm seeing the comments come through on locals and nobody's complaining. They're only complaining about X. All right, I'll look into that. Let me just finish the point.

So the lawyers are putting the judge in a bad situation because the judge would either have to read the minds of the jury or use his own legal judgment to say those pieces of evidence weren't important so it couldn't have influenced them. Can you really do that? There's no video on locals? Huh. Well, you're doing a job of not complaining about it. See, this is why you shouldn't tell me. Just stopped the whole show. I try to train you, but all right. Huh. Well, moving on.

My guess is that Judge Merchan will reject that request. And not because there's a good legal reason for it. So some people are saying the X isn't working and some people say they went from locals to X because it's working. Well, now I've got to check. Let me just check to see if X has my feed, if I can see it myself. We'll tell you in a moment. There I am. Yeah, the feed is working fine on X. So what's really bad is when you lie to me. It's bad enough when you tell me it's not working. But when you tell me it's not working when it is working, that's really bad. Yeah, that's pretty messed up. I don't know if that was just a troll who did that. That's messed up.

All right. About Project 2025. So that seems to be the preferred half-hoax of the Democrats for this season. They always have like a major hoax and then some minor hoaxes. So I think the major hoax might be Trump's going to steal your democracy. But that's not working out because Biden's stealing your democracy. So I think they're going to put more emphasis on—I'll call it the half-hoax. So Project 2025 is a real thing, and it's made by real people who support Trump. So at least that much is real. It is not real that Trump authorized it or knows exactly what's in it or would support everything in it. So it's a half-hoax.

So if the Democrats say, hey, the real plan is in this document even if he says not, that's a pretty strong persuasion play. Because you know what? Imagine this the other way around. Imagine the other way around. All right, good. Closing the comments from locals. Imagine it's the other way around, and imagine Democrats had a big old document created by people who were definitely Biden supporters. And that big old document said a who