of 10 or so — and an analysis using AI to try to find out what they had in common, which would maybe help you figure out who was after them but also to maybe predict who would be next.

Here are some of the things that she found in common. So a lot of the people who got swatted engaged with Elon Musk on X. Their real-life identities were known, so they weren't pseudonyms or anything. They used their real names or at least their real names were easy to find, like Cat Turd. They had a good number of followers, usually over 50,000 but actually most of the time over 150,000. There were often guests who were employees for InfoWars, War Room, or similar alt-media kind of shows on the right. Then there's this one: expressed pro-Israel or at least anti-Hamas sentiments. Okay. Frequently amplified others' swatting victims in the past, so it seems like a network of people who boosted each other. And many of them were amplified by based Mike Lee. And the targets were all male. The targets were all male. That's interesting.

So Data Republican said that her current leading theory is that it's a terrorist campaign targeting X and influencers connected to Elon Musk. And then somebody said, but what about the fact that they might be anti-Ukraine? And Data Republican — this is why she's so good — she says that the anti-Ukraine doesn't add much signal, meaning that since most of the conservative world is anti-Ukraine at the moment, you can't really say these ones got swatted because they're anti-Ukraine because sort of everybody was. So I don't know. So I guess the theory that it's anti-Elon Musk, I would say that's a possibility. Could be just anti-Trump. I don't know. But it could be stochastic terrorism, which is just making it easier to attack a certain group of people who speak out. But we'll see. We'll see. That's a good analysis. I don't think it gives us an answer, but maybe it defines the things a little bit better so we know what to look for, and maybe it will have an effect. Could have, you know. If the analysis got anywhere near the truth, it might slow it down because now we would be looking for these signals. We'd say, okay, did you interact with Elon Musk, etc.

Now even the interacting with Elon Musk thing, to me that's not much of a signal because Musk does interact with a whole bunch of people and multiple times sometimes. So he's interacted with me a number of times. And so I don't know. He's interacted with so many people. I'm not sure that that's the signal it looks like anyway.

President Trump says he's going to talk to Putin tomorrow, and doesn't it seem to you like that's way too long to wait? I mean, just think about the fact that there are people in ditches shooting at each other and dying in Ukraine all around the front lines because I assume the fighting is just going crazy even though they're talking peace. So it's just so weird that you'd say, hey, can I call you tomorrow? Is there really no reason they can talk today? Are they not prepared? Do they have something more important? There are people literally just getting torn to pieces on the front lines for no reason because it looks like things are going to wind up. So anybody who gets killed or wounded today, that's a complete waste of humanity. So I just don't know how you say, hey, you available tomorrow? Is tomorrow good? Today is good. Like right now is good. That's how I feel.

Now if we got something done tomorrow that was important, you know, I'd be pretty happy about it, but this whole thing about if you're serious about ending the killing, tomorrow is really too long. But on the other hand, you don't want to act too eager because that might hurt your negotiating position. But really, how about today? That's my take anyway.

According to the New York Post, Trump said we want to see if we can bring that war to an end. He says maybe we can, maybe we can't. I think we have a very good chance. Now I think he's talking about his conversation tomorrow, that maybe they're far enough along that he might be able to close a deal. That seems like a stretch. And he said a lot of work's been done over the weekend. Now a lot of work's been done means that they're close to a deal, and I don't think he'd make the call, even though there's urgency, I don't think he'd make the call tomorrow unless he felt like there was some chance that whatever remaining issues there are, you could close on.

Now remember how I always tell you that you should expect at least one walk away in a big negotiation. There's usually this point where one side says all right, nope, nope, we're done, and they walk away and they pretend, or sometimes it's real, that nope, I'm done dealing with you, I cannot make a deal. Now what that can do is cause the one who got walked away on to say all right, all right, I'll offer you a little bit more. But I'm not sure there'll be a walk away on this one, and the reason is they're both too smart. If Trump did a walk away, Putin would say that's not real, he'll come back. If Putin did a walk away, Trump would say that's not real, he'll come back. So I think they both know each other well enough that a walk away would just look sort of stupid because you're dealing with two people who are way above the line. They both understand how everything works, right? There's no dumb one and no smart one. There are just two brilliant people who know how to do this exactly. If you know how to do this, which is negotiate the hard stuff, and they do, then the walk away is a little bit unnecessary. The walk away is sort of what you do if you're dealing with somebody who's just not good at it or somebody who's at least not world class at it. So I'm going to predict this would be one of those negotiations with no walk away. Which is a bold, that's a pretty big prediction because