s close. This is the most "dad's coming home" thing you've ever seen in your life. It's like kids, you better settle down because dad's coming home in 10 minutes. It's like he's coming home in 10 minutes solved 20% of the nation's problems. Like what the hell is he going to do when he gets in office if 20% of our problems just solve themselves? He's got Bernie joining his side.

Meanwhile Stephen King says he's quitting X. Some people said he didn't quit yet but he claims the atmosphere has just become too toxic. Breitbart News is reporting this. Now do you think that Stephen King had anything to do with the toxic nature of the conversations he was in? He might literally be in the dictionary under toxic. You like toxic? Let's see, to tox—oh there's Stephen King. But don't you wonder if he was ever organic? Do you wonder if Stephen King just made his own decisions about wading into politics or didn't it feel like he was just working for a paycheck? Now I'm not saying he was working for a paycheck. It's just that if you observed, he was somebody who was creating nothing good of value. He was just making himself less popular by making half the country hate his books because of his politics. Why was he even involved in the first place? Doesn't it feel like there was some external force that might have been behind it? Like I don't know what, but it just doesn't feel organic.

And what about some of the other prominent voices? I think you're going to see disappear too.

Meanwhile according to the Daily Wire, Virginia Kruta is writing that Ana Navarro on The View called on Biden to give pardons preemptively to people like Hunter Biden. And let's see who else. She wants to preemptive pardon for Vice President Harris. Why does she need a preemptive pardon? So she's worried about lawfare, right? Did Kamala Harris break a law that I don't know about? Has anybody alleged that Kamala Harris broke a law? Did I miss a story? Why does Ana Navarro think that she would need a pardon? Did she do something we don't know about? Sort of raises a question, doesn't it?

Now I know what she's trying to do to say that she thinks that Trump's going to go after all of his adversaries. But Kamala Harris is not an adversary. She is a thoroughly beaten, irrelevant figure that the longer she's around the better it makes Trump look. Kamala Harris has less to worry about from Trump than she does from I don't know, a mosquito bite or something. The last thing Trump's going to do is double down on dunking on the most defeated candidate in the history of defeated candidates. So no, he's safe.

She also thinks the January 6 committee members—oh here we go—like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and maybe even the special prosecutor Jack Smith should get preemptive pardons. Well I would tell you as others have said that that would make all of these people look super guilty. If you give a preemptive pardon to anybody I'm going to assume they're guilty because otherwise why'd you need that?

And I do think the January 6 committee have done enough that the public can see looks sketchy and frankly illegal. That to me that's the edge case. I don't want Trump to do anything that's just pure lawfare. If he went after Kamala Harris and I've not heard of anything even an alleged crime, but if he like started digging into some, I wouldn't be in favor of that. But if you talk about the J6 committee, I think they destroyed the whole country for four years and I think they knew they did it. I think they knew they were lying and I think that what they did was one of the greatest crimes I've ever seen committed in public. And I think they need to answer for it. I think there needs to be accountability. Now did they break a law? I don't know. If they didn't then I certainly don't want them to go to jail or even be charged if there's no law that's even allegedly broken. But yes, there is something very, very bad that was done by some very specific people right in front of us and I don't think we can overlook that. But again if there's no crime there's no crime