nd they replaced 338 words with 29 words that came from a completely different answer.

Now, the completely different answer was not different from the 338-word answer, meaning that in both cases she said, you know, that's unacceptable or you know that's wrong. So she was basically just saying Trump was wrong to say whatever he did or do whatever he did. Now, here is the context. Do you think that 60 Minutes changed that answer to help her chances of winning the election? The answer is no. They changed her answer because it was unwatchable TV. They changed it for their own benefit to make the show watchable. It didn't really change what her opinion was. Her opinion was Trump said a bad thing, and that's what they put in there. Trump said a bad thing. But they didn't need a 338-word rambling eat-up-all-the-time so they can't ask another question. They had to get rid of that. But the question was so important they needed to keep the question.

So here's what I know that you don't know. The way 60 Minutes treated this is normal, completely normal. That is normal. And you say to yourself, but it's like making a quote. That's normal. If they think they're not changing the basic thrust of what you said and they can tighten it up so it's good for TV, they will do that for their own purposes. So here's the problem with the lawsuit. If CBS says we do this all the time, it's a common thing, and we don't do it just for the benefit of the person in the chair, we do it because our watchers or viewers would not be able to watch a train wreck, so we just make sure that they understand what the candidate means and there is clarity and that we move to the next question in a quick enough way. So I don't think that he can win a case. It could be that they'll settle because they don't want to take a chance. They don't want to do the discovery and all that. So they might settle. But I don't think he could win because, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if CBS was doing what everybody in that business does and their reason was for their own benefit and the benefit of the audience just to make it shorter and quicker, I don't know, I think their argument would be if it helped her it was only accidental. It wasn't anything we planned. So they would have definitely some reasonable doubt there that's a mile wide. Now this would be a civil case, so reasonable doubt isn't quite exactly the right standard, but you get the point.

All right, here's a complicated one. Let's see if I can possibly summarize this. So Michael Shellenberger has been looking into the whole USAID and DOGE's penetration of it and everything we're learning about who's getting the money and how dirty that organization is. The quick answer, if you're new to this, is that the DOGE, Elon Musk's DOGE people, have completely opened the kimono on this part of the government that had a very big budget and was doing only creepy things. Now, creepy meaning overthrowing other countries and maybe overthrowing ours, maybe allegedly. And so even though on the surface it looked like they were funding AIDS programs in Africa and all kinds of things, so you'd say, well, you know, we could discuss whether we should be giving charity to other countries, but you can't argue that this would be a good charity, helping AIDS in another country. But it turns out that 100% of what it does is essentially a front. Let's say it's a front for some bigger effort. That's the CIA effort. So allegedly, no matter what they're funding, whether it's AIDS or cleaning up the water and some, that really that's just a trick to get our assets in place so that we can overthrow the country or control it. And that's all it is. Everything else is fake. Which doesn't mean that they don't do good things, because in order to stay in the country they would probably have to show that they helped with some AIDS and cleaned up some water, did something they said they were going to do. But re