e a strong feeling about this. But none of it's about Crenshaw.

And Marjorie Taylor Greene asked him, "Did you just say you want to kill my friend Tucker Carlson?" And he replied on X, you know, "LOL no. Correct. No, he does not actually literally want to kill Tucker Carlson. That would be crazy."

Anyway, the US Post Office workers decided to protest any coming changes from Trump. So there's some talk about rolling the Post Office into the federal government, because right now it operates somewhat independently. But if they roll it into the regular government, it might be in, let's say, the Commerce Department.

Oh, I told my pre-show listeners this, but it's worth repeating. I've incorporated AI into my morning process when I get ready for the show and I'm putting my notes together. There's always something that I need a little more context, and I don't want to bother Googling it or something. So I keep my AI on, and it's in voice mode. Usually I just push it into voice mode when I've got a question. And then I said, if the Post Office got absorbed by the federal government, you know what department would it be in? And it said, well, one of them might be the Commerce Department. So it's just a great tool. Every day I use it that way, and it's really, really helpful.

Yesterday it told me that Apple was going to invest $500 million in the United States. And I said to myself, that doesn't really sound like enough. And then I checked, and it was 500 billion. And then I went back to ChatGPT and I said, is it 500 million, which you just said, or is it 500 billion? And it says, oh, it's billion. So yeah, you have to watch it. It's definitely not 100%. Sometimes it's still hallucinating. That's a pretty big hallucination, you know, the difference between millions and billions. Pretty big. Pretty big.

Anyway, so here's my question. I saw, I think it was Insurrection Barbie asked this question on X, or a version of it. So I'll just put this in my own words, so don't blame Insurrection Barbie for my wording of this. But hypothetically, if the federal government absorbed the Post Office so that they were just federal workers like everybody else in the federal government, would it be possible for Trump to order them to not deliver mail-in ballots and make it impossible to vote with mail-in ballots, even if the states find it legal and have approved it? Could he find that as like a shortcut to say, yeah, you states can say you want mail-in ballots, but I control the Post Office and I just told them that they're not in the business of mailing ballots?

Now, I'm guessing there's probably some kind of rule or legislation that says the Post Office has to deliver kind of anything that isn't dangerous. So I'm just guessing. I would imagine there to be some kind of rule that says you have to deliver whatever somebody wants you to deliver. But I feel like you could game that. It feels gameable. You could do something like, well, yes, you can do it, but people would have to pay $100 per ballot, and that would be the postage would be $100. Or yes, you can do it, but you have to show your ID when you mail or something like that. These are the bad ideas. Those are not meant to be serious ideas. But it just makes me wonder, is the change, the potential change in the Post Office leadership, meaning putting it in the federal government as opposed to operating independently, could it take care of mail-in voting?

So I'll just leave that for somebody who wants to research that and get back to me.

You know, I know we talk too much about the Democrats. They're almost reasonable, you know, like James Carville when he's not crazy, and Jon Stewart when he sometimes says something that's not 100% pro-Democrat and not 100% anti-MAGA. But a funny thing has happened with this DOGE stuff. If you haven't noticed, the Democrats have given up on saying DOGE is a bad idea, because the country loves it. You know, by a pretty good majority, the country likes cutting that waste, fraud, and abuse. So you can't really be a political party and say, yeah, we want to preserve the waste, fraud, and abuse. And they finally figured that out, that they couldn't possibly be against that. So they've changed their approach to talk about the method. Well, okay, but the method, you know, the way they're doing it, we'll talk about that.

But Jon Stewart takes it even further. So he does a pretty funny bit where he's saying that, what about, you know, it's great to stop the condoms for terrorists, which was never really a real story, but it makes a good anecdote. But what about the subsidies to Big Oil, he says, and what about the subsidies or something like that for Big Pharma? And I don't know if he thought that this was a Republican thing versus a Democrat thing and that maybe the MAGA people would be in favor of subsidies for Big Oil. I don't think we are, right? Is there any pro-Trump person who says, you know, we should give more of our tax dollars to big, profitable companies? I don't think anybody says that.

So not only is Stewart acknowledging that, you know, waste has to be addressed — he's very clear on that — but he's competing. He's competing. He's saying this is where the big money is. I don't know how big it is or how easy it is to find or if it's even real. But I love the fact that the Democrats now have to compete for fighting the most waste, fraud, and abuse.

All right, all right. Let's enter that frame. Let's enter the frame of we're competing to see who could do the best job of cutting things that we shouldn't be paying for. Love it.

Now that is a valuable contribution in my opinion.

Thomas Massie points out that the budget still has some kind of subsidies for using corn to make fuel, which everybody knows, as he points out, increases the price of food. Now, did you know that? Were you aware that even still there are Republicans who are in favor of using corn to make fuel, this ethanol? Now, I've never even heard of anybody using ethanol for anything. Have you? Do any of you have an ethanol-driven car or an ethanol tractor? I don't use ethanol for anything. So isn't ethanol well known to be just basically a scam? That might be going too far, but I don't know any voter who's in favor of this. So it's got to be one of those. Republicans want to protect their farmers, and you know, they get free money if they grow corn for fuel, I guess. So I like the fact that Massie's on that.

Now, I would add that to the DOGE process. Say, hmm, I don't know. I don't see why we're doing that. Doesn't seem to be necessary for climate change or anything else. It's not like ethanol is making a big run to take over for other fossil fuels. There's so much news going on that there are stories that in a normal time would be the number one headline. But in today's news environment, it's like the 10th most important thing that would otherwise just be huge.

Here's one of those. According to Michael Shellenberger, there's an FBI whistleblower who has a source within the FBI who said that the FBI employees were destroying evidence on servers, and that he informed Kash Patel of that. Now, if that's true — and keep in mind it's a whistleblower who talked to another person who said it's true. So it's not the... The whistleblower apparently is known. So one person is known, but the person he talked to... Do we accept that? Do we accept that's true with one anonymous source? I'm going to say Shellenberger is really good on checking sources, so I'm leaning toward this is probably true. It also just makes sense.

But isn't it also just so, you're warned about it, isn't it also a little bit