e's not much to say. But I'll just say this: two reality TV stars who both became presidents walked into the White House. What do you think was going to happen? These are two experts at making a spectacle in front of a crowd. Nobody better. I mean, they're the most experienced spectacle makers. Put it on the show.

And it's funny that when it was over, Trump looked at the media and said, "It was good TV." So I think a lot of people are confusing the show with anything that matters in the real world. And I think the show was really fun, and probably in the end none of it will matter in the real world one way or another. It won't really matter.

So here's what we got. It looked a lot like an episode of The Apprentice, didn't it? Where Zelensky was basically getting fired by Trump and kicked out of the White House. It was just like The Apprentice. You're fired. Get out of here.

So anyway, what Bannon was saying and some others have said, I don't know the details, but apparently Zelensky was getting some advice from other senators. Some are calling them RINOs. And I guess he had a breakfast that day with some RINOs, and there's an indication that maybe Susan Rice was advising him, which some would say would be a violation of the Logan Act, where you're not supposed to be negotiating for the United States unless you're in the government, and they're not. So maybe he got bad advice. It sort of looked like he was a little emboldened, like he could push Trump a little bit, but that didn't work out.

So I guess the big problem is that Zelensky agreed to this mineral deal, which seems like it was part of a larger package which we don't know about yet. But then he gets there and he says he doesn't necessarily want a ceasefire. He wants a security deal, and that wasn't part of the deal. So he made the mistake of trying to negotiate with Trump and JD Vance while indicating to them and to the world right in front of them that maybe they didn't understand the risk of Putin. Now, how do you think that went over? It didn't go over well.

So JD Vance goes first and starts dressing him down in public for not being thankful enough and trying to come to the White House and being a little bit of a jerk. He didn't use those words, but once JD Vance lit into him, you knew that Trump would have to double it, which he did. And by the way, Trump is the best talk-over debater I've ever heard. He can talk over somebody as long as it takes until they just give up. And that's what happened. He and Zelensky tried to talk over each other, and Trump just wasn't going to lose that. "Now I'm going to keep talking until you shut up." And he just talked over him, and you didn't hear anything that Zelensky said for like two minutes in a row. And finally Zelensky just gave up because you couldn't even hear what he was saying. And then Trump went on, and that's what happened.

Anyway, when Zelensky said that Trump might feel different or feel differently when Putin crosses the ocean someday and comes for them, and Trump says, "Don't tell me what I'm going to feel. You don't have the right to tell me what I feel. You have no cards. No cards." So basically it looked like Zelensky was criticizing Vance and Trump for either not doing enough or not understanding the real threat with Putin, that you can't appease him, he's just going to come for you eventually.

But so he kicks Zelensky out, and I thought there was some chance he might come back that same day, but it didn't happen. He's already going off to Great Britain. Zelensky has now... I'm going to judge this whole event on at least two dimensions.

Dimension number one: entertainment. Oh my God, it was entertaining. It was wonderful. I felt proud to be an American and have my president not take it in the Oval Office, in the White House. I just like that Vance and Trump weren't putting up with it. That's exactly what I wanted to see. So entertainment, it was a 10. I replayed it multiple times. It was just fun every time.

But here's the thing you need to know. In big deals like this, whether it's a merger or any kind of really big deal, it's pretty common for one of them to walk away. And it's pretty common if they both want the deal and there's a deal to be had and it's a good deal that they'll probably come back. The one thing that people say about Trump that's meant to be an insult is that he's transactional, meaning that he would immediately get over his feelings if there was a deal, because he'd rather have the deal than anything else.

So the funny part, even Lindsey Graham sided with Trump. Now Lindsey Graham is a sort of a famous Ukraine war hawk, has been supporting Ukraine getting weapons and everything. But even Lindsey Graham said that he was a strong advocate for Zelensky in Ukraine, but he said he's devastated by Zelensky's behavior and that it undid all the hard work of recent years. And he suggests that Ukrainian people find a new leader, and he praised Trump for standing up to him. So that's interesting.

But remember I told you, well James Carville told you and then I told you what James Carville said, that the Democrat strategy now is to wait for Trump to make a mistake because they don't have anything to add. So literally they're going to wait for Trump to make mistakes and then they can attack him. So that means that they're going to define everything that Trump does as a mistake. Not really different than the past, but they're not going to put up with anything he does at all. They're going to say, well, there it is. That's chaos. That's the end of the world. Every time he walked across the lawn. Well, look at how he walked across the lawn with that chaos legs and all that.

But the funny part is watching the theater kids on the Democrats because they have to pretend that they don't understand the situation and that they feel really bad. So they all put on their disgust face. You need to look at the compilations of people on MSNBC pretending to be very sad about this event, and they'll have the "oh, oh, oh" face. "Oh, oh, I'm so sad. Oh my, my country got embarrassed." And they're competing to see who could do the most theater kid thing, and it's so unserious. That's ridiculous.

Let's see, was it David Axelrod? He goes in a post on X. He says, "I love my country with all my heart, and I've never been more embarrassed for America than the spectacle I just witnessed in the Oval Office." Really? This is one of the guys who supported Joe Biden through four years of obvious dementia, and then we all found out that they all knew it and they were all covering it up. And that was not more embarrassing? What is it that makes you embarrassed, David Axelrod? It makes you embarrassed when the president of the United States stands up to some pissant in the White House who's challenging him? That's what embarrasses you? But keeping a mentally deficient president in the office where nobody knew who was in charge, lying to the world and then getting caught because he does the debate and it became obvious that he wasn't there? None of that was embarrassing? Nothing but this? Yeah, no. None of this is real. Meaning that the Democrats are pretending to be terribly upset. Are they terribly upset? No, no. Nobody's terribly upset. Nobody's really embarrassed. Nobody's shamed by it. I think we'll survive the shame. I think we'll survive it.

Anyway, in my opinion, Putin probably should not increase his military attacks. He probably doesn't want to do a ceasefire unilaterally. But if Putin is smart, he's already got a little bit of a win, so he should just play it really cool and still look for some way to end the war. I think he will. But as long as this deal ever made sense, and I'm not sure it did because I don't know the deal, but if the deal ever made sense and Zelensky ever liked it, just the mineral part, it'll get done. I mean, it might take a while or whatever, but if they both want it, the fact that they had a little dust-up in the White House, it won't stop anything.

Now let me put this back in the context of the reality TV stars. If this were a reality TV show, how would it end? It would almost certainly end with the two combatants, three if you count JD Vance, doing another public event because you would have to tune in. You'd be like, oh my God, it's going to happen again. It's going to happen again. It would be must-see TV. But this time maybe they just signed the deal. So I don't think you can discount that. You have two individuals who operate at the highest level of understanding the show. The show, it's part of politics. You got to put on a show. And the fact that they put on a tremendous show, everybody was entertained. Even if you were embarrassed, "oh, oh, oh, I'm so embarrassed for my country," even then you probably enjoyed it.

So yeah, if I had to predict, I would say if it was ever a good deal, and that's a big if because I don't know that it was a good deal, but if they both liked it at one point, it'll get done. And it'll be another reality TV biggest ratings for a political event of all time. No real lasting problem, if I had to guess. There's no lasting impact on the real world. The deal will be the deal if they like it. There'll be a deal with Russia or not, but none of this will matter. It's not going to make a difference.

One of the things Trump said was that Trump and Putin went through a lot together with the Russia collusion hoax. So people said, my God, do you love Putin or what? Why are you saying that you went through a lot together? Well, let me explain this. Putin is trying to flatter and let's say pace Trump, and he's doing a good job. Trump is trying to flatter and pace and tell him he's a friend to Putin, and he's doing a good job. Both of them are operating at the highest level of persuasion. Both of them are right on point. And let me say it again: Trump is the best when it comes to this, but Putin's in the same weight class. It's not a completely unfair fight. They both have the skills all the way down.

So what we're watching is that there might be some larger deal that Trump wants to do with Russia. We don't know what that is yet. But it's funny that we talk about Russia as our enemy when China, Mexico, and Canada are poisoning us with fentanyl and Russia isn't. Russia is just trying to sell us energy. Now I get that he has imperial ambitions. He wants to conquer some of those countries and maybe all of Europe for the greater good of I don't know. Who knows what he really wants? We just assume we know what he wants.

How about Ukraine? Who's been a bigger pain in the ass to us lately, Ukraine or Russia? Well, our money is going to Ukraine and it's dividing the country. So it's hard to talk about it without being called a Putin lover because that's what all the dumb people do. You know, Democrats, if you say anything they don't like, they call you a racist and a bigot. It's just automatic. It doesn't matter what you say. If you mention Putin in any context other than we must spend all of our blood and treasure to destroy the evil Russian Empire, if you say anything but that, "oh, oh, I see you. You want to have oral sex with Putin is what you're saying. Oh, you love him. Did you send him a Valentine's card? Well, you seem to be a Putin apologist, some kind of a Putin puppet apologist." So it's just the latest stupid Democrat thing to say. It's so unmoored from any adult anything.

Sean Davis said, wait till Democrats, wait till they find out who we partnered with in World War II: Stalin. So the dumb people, the people who I don't know, they just don't have good arguments. Their argument is that the only people we should be nice to are other democracies like Europe, and that if somebody's a dictator we shouldn't be nice to them or work with them or do deals with them. But I live in the real world. Dictators exist. If they didn't exist, well that'd be great advice, but they exist and they have access to huge amounts of energy which matters, and they have lots of weapons which matters. And sometimes we have things we disagree with and sometimes we agree. So if you can't work with dictators and democracies, you're just a crippled government. You would be a government that just can't do anything because there's so many dictators.

If you only were nice to democracies, you know, and by the way the democracies we're talking about are the ones trying to censor Americans through the social media networks. I don't know that Putin has ever tried to censor me. What problems has Putin caused for me? But Europe has caused some really damn problems. I'm still blaming the UK for whatever happened with that Russia collusion thing because there were just too many British people involved in that whole deal. So I don't know. I would say maybe our friends are kind of a problem too. Not as big a problem as maybe Russia if you want to rank it, but there's nobody here who's innocent at all.

All right, so here's the thing that I wonder about. If the only way that Ukraine were going to be protected from any further onslaught by Russia, if the only thing that would be protecting them is America's contribution and weapons and stuff and then Europe's, does Trump's idea of just doing a mineral deal with no security guarantees, does that mean that you basically were giving away Ukraine? And it's not ours to give away, although you could argue that we did overthrow Ukraine and install a puppet and maybe it was ours at one point and maybe we do kind of own it. We do kind of own it, which is pretending we don't.

So anyway, how does it work that Putin would not attack Ukraine because we did a mineral deal with Ukraine if we didn't have military assets there? Is it just the risk that we would turn on the flow of money and fund Ukraine with better weapons? See, Trump has made the claim that there wouldn't have been a war if he had been president, but he also makes the claim that if he makes a peace it will hold again because of the force of his personality and whatever relation he's created with Putin. Do you believe that? Do you believe that if Trump is president he could do an adequate risk assessment and threat so that Putin would say, you know what, this is really not the time to get adventurous because we're sort of getting along and I don't really need to own Poland and all?

But what happens when Trump leaves? What if Trump leaves office? Is Putin going to be held in check because he either respects the new president or he fears the consequences? I don't know. So I do think that Trump needs to do a better job of explaining what it looks like and why anything that we're involved in would keep Putin from taking the rest of Ukraine the moment it's underfunded. Now you might say, Scott, it'll never be underfunded because Europe can just step up and if they want it's completely up to them. They can put a massive amount of money in there to replace whatever money we were giving and everybody's good. Now that would be okay with me if Europe wants to be paying nearly all of it and we're just out from the funding perspective. But you know, maybe we sell weapons to Europe to give to them or something. That would be fine. I wouldn't have any problems with that.

Well, a million dead Russians, that is a domestic problem for Putin, but it's not like he's going to be kicked out of office. He's pretty secure.

All right, so Fareed Zakaria on Real Time. So let me just finish that point. I think Trump needs to do a better job of describing what the future of Ukraine looks like if the only security guarantees are no security guarantees. We're just doing a big deal with you and so Russia wouldn't dare attack your country when we have major assets there. Is that the whole game, or is there something we don't know about yet? But that part is the important part.

Now I told you before that the real secret of this negotiation is it can't be just about Ukraine and Russia. It's got to be about more comprehensive: how do we deal with Russia in the future on all levels, militarily, energy-wise, economically? Are we increasing NATO or not? So that stuff hasn't been discussed yet. And I've heard people say, oh, Putin's the big winner, to which I say how do you know that? How do we know anything? We don't know what any kind of deal would look like. Is Putin the big winner? And then I say if two countries are at war and they don't want to be at war and the people who are paying for it don't want to be paying for it, and then somehow Trump can make all that stop, who's not better off? Isn't Ukraine better off not being in a war? Are we better off not paying? Isn't Putin better off consolidating his gains? So a good agreement would be good for everybody relative to the alternatives, which are ugly.

Here's what Fareed Zakaria said on Real Time last night. He basically jokingly said that Zelensky's mistake is that he should have gone in there and said, "Mr. President Trump, you've been such a godsend to Ukraine. You're the greatest. We want to give you the highest Ukrainian civil award and maybe build a statue to..." I'm paraphrasing a little bit, but the idea was Fareed said he didn't play to Trump's ego and that's what went wrong. To which I say, what kind of an analysis is that? The deal was already done. All Zelensky had to do was sign it. That's it. He didn't need to do any flattering. There was no flattering requested, no flattering given, and they had the deal. So I would say that maybe he didn't have to offer anything because they already had a deal. So that's sort of a dumb analysis.

Speaking of dumb analysis, The Wall Street Journal editorial board, I swear that their editorial board, it read like a high school essay. I just read it and I thought, what is wrong with you? So they headlined for their editorial on this "Putin Wins the Trump-Zelensky Oval Office Spectacle." Is that really the way to frame this, that Putin won? Now we know that Putin liked it and the Russians thought it was great entertainment, but so did I. Why don't they say and the MAGA people won because they really enjoyed it? So Putin enjoyed it and we enjoyed it. What will be different? I can't think of anything. I don't think it'll really affect the real world. I don't think it'll change what would have been their funding because Trump wanted to get out of that anyway, and I don't think it'll affect anything.

But that they think somebody won, that's just the worst way to look at a three-way negotiation, four-way if you count Europe, and I guess you should. And they said that Vance, JD Vance, started the public fight. Okay, how many times do I have to read some dumbass in the news not understanding who starts a fight? If I hear one more person tell me that Russia started the war in Ukraine without any reference to the things that happened before he crossed the border, as in the NATO expansion and blah blah blah, if none of that's mentioned, you're not really a serious person. And the Wall Street Journal editorial does the same thing with JD Vance.

Do you think JD Vance should have just sat there and let that little punk in the White House, while they're trying to help, do you think they should let him lecture them on how they don't understand negotiations and they don't understand Putin and he's going to come for them over the ocean and that this deal isn't really good and you haven't really done much for us, you've just weakened us in fact? So who started the fight? I don't think JD Vance started the fight. I think he was quick to enter it, but then once he entered it Trump had to double it. So then Trump did his thing because there's no way that Trump is going to let JD Vance be the baddest mofo in the room. That just isn't going to happen.

So JD Vance goes in as a really bad mofo, like quite impressive I must say. He took him on directly and even from a position of number two, well maybe number three if you count Secretary of State, but he wasn't the one in power. But he just defended America, defended the White House, defended his president, defended everything. So that was quite baller, I have to say. I really, that was a look from JD Vance that will probably go a long way to making him the top candidate after Trump. But like I said, there's no way in any world that Trump is going to let somebody else be the baddest mofo in the room. So he had to take it up a level, as he does, and it was brilliant. It was brilliant in the showman way. And that's all it was. It was just a show.

All right, so and then also the whole "Putin wins" just ignores the fact that we have a much bigger set of interests with Russia, and until we know what that looks like, you know what kind of a deal we would have with Russia, until we know what that looks like you can't really say anybody won because we don't know what that looks like. But did they imagine that Trump was just going to give Russia everything he wanted? Doesn't sound like Trump.

Joy Behar accused Elon Musk of supporting apartheid when Musk grew up in South Africa. Now he did not. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. But here's what she said. Joy Behar on The View: "The guy was not born in this country." Oh my God. She abandons the most core Democrat principle that if you decide to live in this country, you call yourself an American, you act like an American, you're an American citizen and you're doing more for America than just about any other citizen. And she has to start with you're not an American or you're not born in this country. That's basically throwing away their most basic principle just to get a dig at Elon Musk.

Then she goes on, so he has this mentality going on, does he? Because she's reading his mind, right? He was pro-apartheid. Now there's no evidence that, as I understand it. He told her then after there was a break and I guess she got her ass kicked by the management because there's no evidence that he's ever been pro-apartheid. And if you call somebody pro-apartheid like it's a fact and you do it on television in our current environment, that's a $25 million mistake. So they were probably 10 seconds away from losing $25 million to dumb old Joy Behar for just making up, just making up.

And then here's how she responded to it once she'd been corrected and they came back. "I'm getting some flak because I said that Musk was pro-apartheid. I don't really know for sure if he was." Imagine saying that when you didn't know for sure. God. And then she goes, he grew up at that time when apartheid was in full bloom before the great Nelson Mandela fixed that. He was around at that time. What, like she's trying to still be right even though there's no evidence whatsoever. And she's trying to make, well he was around during that time so QED. Oh my God.

And then she goes on, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Is that how you treat an American citizen? That, well you know I don't know if he's a Nazi. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I don't know. It's sort of ambiguous. Seems like he hung around with people who had bad opinions even, you know, maybe not personally but he was in the same country with people who had bad opinions. So you can't ignore the fact that he was in the same country with people who had bad opinions. Yeah, you can. So this is just terrible. I can't believe she still has a job.

Then Elon Musk went on Joe Rogan, you may have seen it, and he was talking about that they were doing to him, meaning the Democrats doing to Elon Musk what they did to Trump, which is the Hitler play. And he says directly they're basically trying to get me killed by comparing me to Hitler. And that's exactly what they're trying to do. That's exactly what they're trying to do. So unbelievable. It's we're so lucky that Musk is still willing to help the United States when the United States is acting like it doesn't deserve it. That takes a lot of character to still be all in on the United States when half of the United States is calling him a Nazi. That takes character.

Well, the Wall Street Journal has an article by Joanne Lipman: "Can White Men Finally Stop Complaining?" And the subtitle of the article, this is the Wall Street Journal, "For 50 years we've been hearing from white men who feel threatened by the gains of women and minorities." No, you stupid. We're not complaining because we feel threatened. We're complaining because for 50 years we've been overtly discriminated against for being straight white men. You can't get a job, you can't get a contract for 50 years. And the reason that you didn't know how bad it was is because white men are not allowed to talk. Like you saying "can white men finally stop complaining," that's right. We were trained that if we even complained for a minute it meant we were bigots. That's over. People like me gave up everything so that we could say what we were feeling. I gave up everything. I'm going to say what I'm feeling. You're a piece of shit and you're the problem. And this is pure racial discrimination and bigotry against white men and I won't have it. And I think that we've grown this. I think that we can just say you don't care, move on, get rid of your stupid DEI, get rid of your stupid ESG, and let's try to compete on merit for once. How about that, piece of shit?

Anyway, speaking of, so The Hill says that Kamala Harris hasn't decided to run for governor of California. Here's the funny thing. So because she hasn't decided, the other candidates can't really weigh in and they can't really get any money because everybody thinks she would be the front-runner if she gets in. So she's really frozen the entire California Democrat Party. They can't kind of do anything. They're just frozen.

Now here's the funny part. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kamala Harris destroyed the entire national Democratic Party, didn't she? Don't you think it was mostly Kamala Harris that just destroyed Democrats because she was the ultimate DEI candidate and they just took DEI to the ultimate conclusion and everything broke just like you would imagine it would on paper? And now she's taking that same toxic destructive thing and she's taking it to California. Now she's going to ruin Democrats' chance of winning maybe forever by running for governor. Now she might actually even win, which is the weird part because you know we're such a blue state. But the fact that she's destroying the Democrat Party nationally and then started destroying it in the biggest state, boy she's got something to put on her Wikipedia page right there. Anyway, good for you, Kamala. You're almost done destroying everything about the Democrats.

Well, Secretary of Defense Hegseth has confirmed that Trump has lifted restrictions on military raids and air strikes. Now that doesn't mean all restrictions, but they won't have to get approval so much. So I think this is just taking it back to where it was in the first administration. And I do believe the reporting is that the military became a lot more effective because they didn't have to ask so much for permission, and that makes a big difference. So that's a good move probably.

Speaking of Democrats in New York City, former Governor Andrew Cuomo is getting ready, people think, to run for mayor of New York City. Now how bad is the pool of Democrats that Andrew Cuomo, who had scandals involving sexual harassment which he resigned rather than go through, I suppose it could have gotten worse if he didn't resign, and then he also had the scandal of the unreported deaths in the COVID nursing homes. Can he overcome with sexual harassment claims if you're a Democrat? If you're a Democrat male, can you get elected if you've got these credible-sounding claims? I'll say sounding because I'm not the one who believes claims are real just automatically. They might be. Anything's possible. But I don't know. I wasn't there. So I'm just going to say there are claims. That's the only thing I know.

But do you think that the Democrats can get the white guy, straight white guy who's got claims of sexual harassment, can they really elect him in today's environment? I don't know. But it's hilarious to me that he might be their best shot. I will say that Cuomo probably is the best talker they have. We'll talk about Fetterman in a minute. But Andrew Cuomo, he just has that leadership charisma voice thing going on. So he can act like he's a leader and he can pull that off. So he does have the chops. I mean he was governor, right? So we know he has the chops. I don't know if he can get over these scandals.

Well, meanwhile Bill Maher on his show said that the best candidate for president who was a Democrat would be Fetterman. And his argument was that Fetterman talks like a normal guy and even Trump said he's a common sense guy and he has authenticity and charisma and balls. I was trying to imagine a President Fetterman having a meeting with Zelensky on a casual Friday. That would be the sloppiest-looking meeting you ever saw in your life. Zelensky would be the well-dressed one in that case.

Well, I'm going to agree with Bill Maher that Fetterman is the only one I see on their party who in my opinion could make a serious play for the presidency. Now you know he may have other problems that we don't know about. Maybe if you run for president they bring out the big guns and the reports of things that we haven't heard before. So anything could happen. But I have to completely agree with Maher on this, that if you're just looking at the vibe he puts off and how he connects with ordinary people, on top of having an Ivy League degree and some government experience, he would be one to beat. I think he would be one to beat.

There's a public interest law firm, I didn't get the name of it, that's filing a civil rights complaint against New York and Wisconsin on behalf of contractors. So I guess if you're contracting with the government in those two places, New York and Wisconsin, if you don't hit the just right approval of diversity, so if your firm doesn't have just the ideal diversity, you can't get the job. And one of the contractors said this multiple times a day we lose orders because we're not a minority business. The source who supplies contractors for the government infrastructure projects requested anonymity because of fear of reprisals. So there's a white man who can't even talk in public with his own name, can't even talk in public with his own name when he's complaining about being discriminated against. And the case for him being discriminated against is not even controversial. Well it's controversial but it's not in question. There's nobody who says, oh yes you must be bad at what you do. You can get as many contracts as you want. Why are you white men complaining? Now everybody knows that you can't get contracts unless you have some golden ratio of diversity and male and female. So there's lawsuits coming. Good. I hope the lawsuits are successful.

Meanwhile the White House said that 29 Mexican cartel members, and one of them is described as the most evil cartel boss, one of the evil ones, are being extradited to the United States. 29, that's a lot if they're really bosses. I mean if they're just people it's not a lot, but if they're all kind of bosses, no I guess some of them are just members and there's at least one who's a boss. But here's my question. We all suspect that the Mexican government has some kind of arrangement with the cartels, but at the same time they have to pretend that they don't. So do you think that these 29 Mexican cartel members just went through the legal system in Mexico and it's all perfectly copacetic? Or is it slightly more possible that a competing cartel said you know you could get rid of 29 people for us. You know they're in our territory and we'd like to get our territory back. So why don't you pretend you're working with the United States productively but really just get rid of our competition and we'll bribe you to do that? How would we know if that were happening?

See every time there's a cartel person that Mexico gives up, you know they capture them and give up, I always wonder if they're just working for the other cartel. You know they got better bribed by the other cartel. I have a real problem thinking that what's happening is that Mexico is doing its level best to battle the cartels with the United States' help. It doesn't feel like I live in the world where things are that clean. So I guess I'll be skeptical about these cartel members.

Meanwhile all the boxes from Mar-a-Lago, remember box gate and the accusations that Trump had taken with him nuclear secrets and just stored them in the bathroom at Mar-a-Lago? Well apparently they weren't that sensitive because they've all been returned. So the charges dropped and 100 percent of what he had is being returned. Now to be fair Trump could have just declassified them because he's the president again so he certainly would have the ability to declassify them. But do you think he would have declassified nuclear secrets? No, no. Do you think he said I'm president so I'm going to declassify this how to make a nuclear bomb and I'm just going to keep it in the bathroom at Mar-a-Lago in a box? No. So do you feel that we can confirm at this point that that was all fake? I think we can, right? That was pure lawfare, pure fake. Because otherwise they wouldn't give it all back. If they give 90 percent of it back then I would have said yeah maybe there was something to it, maybe they did have some secrets in those boxes. But if they give it all back I have a real tough time believing it was ever a problem.

Anyway, according to New Atlas, two beers a day shrinks your brain as much as a decade of aging. So if you have four beers a day you be at age 20 years. Alcohol is poison. I've got lots of stories about this. I don't need to go any deeper.

According to the National Pulse, the Trump administration has removed 50,000 migrants so far, most of them ones who had legal troubles. Does that sound like a good number? Do you feel like you're getting your money's worth fro