should have destroyed itself in a few years and that's what we observe. It was very predictable. And furthermore I predict that they can't recover at a national level. They'll still win all their local races. Just identity politics is all you need. But at the federal level don't see them becoming competitive for a long time unless the Republicans ran a complete loser and somehow the Democrats got some new superstar you know kind of talent with a lot of charisma.

I'm stuck in Boomer truth regime. Well you're kind of an. So let me tell you what makes you look like an in the comments when you make a comment about my identity when I'm telling you that that's a loser way to look at the world. So there's that anyway.

Here's a story you've heard before but it blows my mind every time. Every time I hear this it came up again. So sometime back in 2011 when Josh Shapiro who's now the governor of Pennsylvania was the Attorney General he refused to prosecute a case in which there was a woman who had 20 stab wounds which was assessed to be suicide and not her, was it a boyfriend or fiance? I can't remember but there was a guy in her life and he was of course always the first suspect as whoever the guy in your life is if a woman gets killed you know in a home the first thing they look for is the spouse or the boyfriend.

But decided that it was suicide. Now if I told you that somebody was stabbed 20 times to death would you think that was suicide? I mean you're no experts right? But now part of the story was they said she had mental problems which may or may not be true. But if you were insane could you stab yourself to death? I feel like maybe you could. Maybe you could. I mean if you could commit hara-kiri where you take a sword and stick it in and remove your organs. Didn't the ancient Romans fall on their sword and stuff like that? So in theory you could stab yourself to death couldn't you? I mean if you really worked at it.

But here's the part of the story that I was saving. Half of the stab marks are on her back and then the back of her head. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say nobody has ever ever attempted or succeeded as suicide by stabbing themselves in the back. Never. If you were really really crazy and wanted to kill yourself even then you wouldn't stab yourself in the back would you?

So it's very clearly a murder and for reasons that we don't understand then Attorney General decided to not treat it that way. Oh he was a fiance. So it was a fiance. So what do you make of that? Do you think that that's evidence that the Attorney General is crooked or incompetent or had some connection to the alleged potential murderer? What do you think's going on there? It's kind of a puzzler.

So I'm going to say that the most likely explanation of this inexplicable situation is that the news is wrong. The news is wrong. So if you're saying to yourself well if these facts are all true I can't understand this situation, remember we live in a world where the news is almost always wrong. The news is almost always wrong about anything complicated.

So do you think that if you had a private conversation with Josh Shapiro do you think he'd say yeah you know half the stab marks were in the back but I was pretty sure that that sounded like suicide to me? Do you think he'd say that? I don't think there's any chance of that. I think he would say oh the thing the news didn't tell you is X. I think. And then you'd say oh huh that does change it a little bit. But I don't know. I can't even imagine what he would say that would make it make sense that somebody stabbed themselves in the back multiple times. But I feel like the most likely explanation is that the news or the story about it is missing something because it doesn't make sense otherwise. I don't know. It's a mystery.

Scott Presler, you all know him from his great work in Pennsylvania making that more red, says he now wants to take on New Jersey. He wants to flip New Jersey into a red state and it's not there yet but he thinks it's close enough that he could push it over the edge. So that's amazing. I guess I have nothing to say about that except good for you Scott Presler. I like it when all the Scotts are doing well. Scott Jennings, Scott Presler.

All right some judge according to Slay News, a federal judge has ordered the FDA to release the COVID vaccine trial data documents from Pfizer that wanted to hide them for 75 years. All right so let's see if you can predict what happens next. So Pfizer wanted to protect for 75 years the data about the trial. Their story was it just takes that long to vet it and make it available. Now nobody believes that and so of course we all believed oh there's something there you don't want us to see.

Now it doesn't mean there's something illegal or unethical or unscientific. It could mean that they know that people will assume there is and find it in other words they'll think they see it in the data because people are terrible at data. So it could be that Pfizer has done nothing wrong but they know that if like Trump releasing his tax returns, if Trump did nothing wrong on his tax returns it still wouldn't make sense to release them because people would look at them and not knowing how to analyze tax returns they say oh look here's this problem in his tax return but they wouldn't be accountants and maybe there wasn't a problem.

So it would just be a problem for Trump to put all that red meat out there that people will misinterpret. Pfizer must be in exactly the same situation. So even if Pfizer legitimately believes there's nothing wrong with the trial data and it completely supports everything they did they'd still not want it to be released. That would be a perfectly smart thing for a corporation to do. It's not good for us because we'd like to know the answer but from the corporation's point of view yeah protect everything you can protect. Why create problems for yourself?

But now it's been reversed. So now let's say if there's no more legal process going on suppose you think you're going to see that now. Make your prediction what happens next. So the company has possession of all these documents. Maybe the FDA does too. Would the FDA have it or only the company? Because that would make a difference here. Here's why I ask. If only the company owns the documents and maybe other people have seen them but don't have a copy, don't you think those documents are going to suddenly get lost?

Do you think that maybe