u see. That would be Google. Now the Harris campaign managed to add a level of fake on top of the two existing levels of fake. So it was fake news, Google decides what you see and what you don't which is another form of brainwashing essentially, and then the Harris campaign modified the real news into fake news. So it was actually three layers of fakeness which Benz called a fake news tiramisu because tiramisu is a layered dessert. Three layers of fakeness. That's where we're at.

Well there's a report that Kim Dotcom might get extradited to the United States from New Zealand. I've always wondered what was happening with that case but if you don't follow Kim as I do you would not know that he is a very vocal and outspoken critic of the American government and I think more so of the Democrats but I'm not positive about that. So to me it just sounds like they're trying to get their hands on a critic who knows too much. He would be in the category of people who seem to know what's happening behind the curtain. Now I don't know if he's always right but he's a dangerous critic to the United States and surprise now the United States has worked on a way to extradite him. Now it seems to me that he got really quiet on social media. I used to see him every day and I haven't seen him for a while now. I don't know if that's because the algorithm changed or something has life changed or it's this legal problem but this is a big red flag.

Now I'm not supporting anything Kim Dotcom did in the legal sense. I'm not aware of what the charges are but when you see somebody who's such a productive, he actually makes a difference in his opinion publicly, and then you see the United States has a reason to pick him up I'm just not comfortable with it. It could be it's just ordinary Department of Justice stuff. He did some things that are illegal. We're going through normal process. Maybe there's some things he needs to answer for. I don't know. I just don't live in a world where I can be comfortable that somebody who is also a really productive critic of the government coincidentally is getting picked up. The coincidences just keep racking up.

All right now we get to my most provocative part of today's presentation. You know how we're all mocking Harris for not doing press interviews and the press is mocking her and the press is pushing her and all the smart people are saying she's going to have to do this and she's avoiding it and blah blah blah. Well here's what I think. What is the point of talking to the press? There's no reason to talk to the press if you're a well-known entity meaning the public has a basic idea who you are and what you're up to. That would be true of both Trump and Harris. We've been watching them both for a while. Talking to the press, how does that benefit either of them? If they want to get a story out that's in their favor they can do an event and then the press covers the event but they don't get to ask any questions.

If either candidate agrees to an interview what's going to happen? Well you know in advance whether the interviewer is a friendly or an unfriendly right? If it's a friendly it's useless because it's basically just the campaign stump speech as translated through a friendly interviewer. So we don't need to see a friendly talk to a politician. It's just basically a free campaign ad. But what if they're not friendly and they're very clearly aligned with the other side? What use is that? You say to yourself but Scott that is useful because then they're going to ask the questions that are like the real probing deep questions. Is that what you observe?

Well let me ask this. Have you ever seen any press, pro or anti, anybody who's at the high level of the Democrats either for Biden or Trump or Harris, have you ever heard them say what are you going to do about the deficit that's going to kill us now? They let Trump say stuff like oh I'm going to grow my way out of it and then change the subject. That's not an answer. You can't grow your way out of it. Or I'm going to maybe we'll look at cutting some expenses but I can't be more specific. No you can't because spending enough to get out of the deficit it's not even possible. So where is the hard-hitting interview that's asking either the left or the right any question that's useful?

Right let me give you another one. There's now some video Eric I think it's Eric Abenanti is posting this on X. So a video of Kamala Harris not too long ago saying that in California they needed to go to paper ballots because it's the only way you could be sure you had a secure election. Let me say that again. Kamala Harris not many years ago in California has said in public as clearly as possible that paper ballots are the only way you can be sure the election is clean. Just think about that. Now ask, now let me ask this question. Who has ever had a major presidential candidate for an interview and said can you explain why the government even uses electronic voting machines? Doesn't seem to be faster, doesn't feel more credible to the public. Both Democrats and Republicans at various times have said it's got to be paper because we don't trust these other machines. It can't be cheaper. So if it's not cheaper, faster or more reliable can you Vice President Harris or can you candidate Trump explain to me why we have them? Because the public doesn't have any idea why we have electronic voting machines because as we observe we don't see evidence that it's faster, more reliable or cheaper. So just tell us why.

Now those are what I call good questions. Have you ever heard a reporter ask those questions? Have you ever heard a reporter ask smart questions about tariffs? Here's the reporter talking about tariffs. Well some people say tariffs will just raise prices on people. What do you say Mr. Trump? Well I collected 20 billion in tariffs. Nobody's ever collected that much. I got so much in tariffs nobody's ever seen that much money. Let's change the subject. Nobody asks Trump about tariffs in a way that when you're done you the viewer would have any idea if it was a good idea or a bad idea. Trump just throws his persuasion in there and changes the subject because you can't spend the whole day in one question. So we don't have a press on the left or the right that seems either willing or able to ask any question that a citizen would actually be interested in.

Do you know what they ask? If you give a really good interview to one of the campaign here's what they're going to ask. What do you think about JD Vance's couch? That'll be what you get. So given that the entire news industry has shown themselves to be completely useless clowns with a few exceptions, right a few exceptions, I mean you know I always think of the time that Breitbart's Joel Pollak challenged Biden when he was a candidate, maybe he'd already been elected I can't remember, but challenged him on the fine people hoax but of course since it wasn't a sit-down he couldn't really get into the details and Biden just lied and said his lie and then changed the subject and went on. So we do know that there are some people who are willing to ask the question that the public is interested in. It's just there's no, I mean do you think Joel's going to get a sit-down with Harris? Not a chance. If it's George Stephanopoulos is he going to ask the right question about why did you run on a hoax? No not a chance. There's not a chance.

So here's what I think we need. And by the way Ann Coulter added on to it in a sense, sort of a related point. She said that political debates are stupid if the questions are asked by partisans and it doesn't really matter if the partisan is on the right or the left. Why do you have partisans at all? And her point is shouldn't the candidates ask each other questions? And I thought you know what that's actually better. I would love to see the candidates say you each have six questions. You can't do more than that but you're each going to come with six questions and you will ask your six questions but then you'll be able to respond and then respond to the response. You know some kind of technique that makes sense. So the question comes from somebody who's not a partisan but well they are ultimate partisan because they're running against them but it would be the far more penetrating question.

Now I'm going to try to top that. I think that that's also not ideal because the questions that a candidate would bring would be so biased that the question would be the kind of the answer itself. Here's what I'd love to see. I would love to see some kind of an entity or website that can capture the public's questions and somehow rank them because the public has questions that the press just doesn't ask. So I want to know Joel's question right. I want to know why are you running on a debunked hoax and I want to spend some time on it. I want you to give your answer and then I want somebody to say but you know that's not true. I want a real discussion based on real questions. I want somebody ask why do we have voting machines? Can you just explain it? And again I'm open to the fact that there's some obvious reason to have them that I'm not aware of. That could easily be the case but don't we need to know? Doesn't the public need to have a little bit of education on this question?

So yes we need some way for citizens to be asking the questions. And now I'm going to triple down on my suggestion for Trump. You may have seen a video that went around where he was interacting with some voters somewhere in some kind of commercial business and he was signing hats and signing baseballs and patting people on the back and just making conversation with people and it was amazing. It was amazing from the perspective of just watching his persona and watching his charisma. Now I'd like to take that to another level where instead of talking to his supporters all the time which doesn't give you any new information I'd love to see, and this is the third time I think I've said it, I'd love to see Trump go to lunch with four or five Democrats who are definitely not on his team and have them ask the hardest questions. See how he does. I have no interest in seeing him answer a question for the press. Not really. I'm mildly interested in watching the candidates answer questions they ask each other but I think the questions would be so gamed that it would turn useless pretty quickly. But I would never be tired of watching a real citizen ask the potential president of the United States what the fuck is this all about and then just look him in the eye and say that doesn't even sound real to me. That's the best you got?

Now I think that nobody would really act that way to somebody who has been the president. Trump's presence would be kind of suppressing the worst behavior but probably in a good way meaning that I think people would still, because we're Americans right, Americans are willing to push. Your typical Americans are going to still push him but they might do it politely but they just wouldn't let go. They just wouldn't let go. Hey we're going to be here for lunch so you better tell me what you're going to do about the national debt. Well I'm going to do it with growth. Really? Because I don't think growth would get you there. Well how much of the debt do you think you're going to pay off with growth? And if you got a 10% GDP it would drive inflation crazy so how do you get there? You can't get there from here.

Now you might need an economist sitting at the, you might need like a fact checker sitting at lunch. So maybe I'll add a fact checker to it. Somebody who could add a little nuance so that if Trump tries to answer the question but it's an answer that the citizen wouldn't know is not a real answer that the fact checker would say excuse me I understand the question I understand the answer but the answer doesn't seem quite addressing the question and here's why. I would love that all day long. All day long I could watch that and i