scape from ICE after a court case unsuccessfully. So I would say if they broke the law and it's an important law and they're going to make an example out of them so that other people don't think they can just protect illegal aliens, I would say that's not exactly too dictator-like because it's very narrowly aimed at people who broke actual laws. And it wasn't long ago that the Democrats were trying to put a candidate for president in jail, actually even a president in jail for all kinds of lawfare. So all that lawfare against Trump apparently had nothing to do with dictator anything. But the moment the Department of Justice under Trump arrests two judges who clearly broke the law, well, dictator. Dictator.

Then there's the case of the Maryland dad who was accused of being MS-13 who was shipped to El Salvador without what they call due process. Now we could argue all day whether there was due process or not, but how many think that that one case of that one Maryland dad is an indication that Trump's a dictator? To me it's just he's a guy who said he would get rid of the criminals and he meant it. Apparently he is.

Then what about the negotiations with Ukraine and Russia? I will admit that Trump apparently is negotiating in a way that would give Putin everything Putin wants. I don't think there's anything that Putin wants, you know, unless you think he wants the rest of Ukraine, but he probably doesn't because he got the good stuff. It does look like Trump is negotiating on the side of the dictator. Now his purpose is not necessarily to help Putin. His purpose is to end the war. And I think it's just common sense that if you know Putin's not going to give back Crimea, he's not going to give back any of those occupied areas, why would you even waste your time negotiating something that's not going to happen?

But the weird thing is that Trump is simultaneously being accused of being a Neville Chamberlain — you know, the guy who is negotiating peace with a Nazi but trusts Hitler to keep his word, and then he turns out to be the biggest dumb guy in all of history because who would have trusted Hitler to keep his word? But at the same time that Trump is being accused of the guy who's letting Hitler get away with too much, he's actually being accused of being Hitler. So he's the first person in history who's ever been accused of being Neville Chamberlain and Hitler at the same time. So I can't take any of that too seriously.

He did try to fire Jerome Powell from the Fed, which most people would say is an overreach of his position, but he gave up on that. So that was sort of a shot across the bow, but nothing too dictatorial that happened. And then there's a new story here from Axios that Attorney General Pam Bondi is going to resume the practice of seizing reporters' phone records in the narrow situation that there's a leak and there's a leak to specific reporters. And that would be a reversal of a Biden rule that said they wouldn't take, you know, they wouldn't investigate reporters. I kind of like Biden's take on this. I think you have to leave the reporters alone even if there's a leak. But Pam Bondi is saying it would be a very narrow search. So if they took the phones or the devices of the reporters, they wouldn't look at everything. They'd just be looking for something related to the leak that they were investigating. But that's not good enough. So to me that's a little bit of an overreach. I don't like going after the press.

So those are the dictatorial things. Did I miss anything? Did I miss any other dictator stuff? You know, even the part where Trump is trolling the world saying that he wants to take over Canada and Greenland and he wants to run again in 2028. I think the 2028 thing is mostly a troll, and I think he said so today. But the other stuff just makes sense. You know, having more military security with Greenland. And the candidate part I feel like is more troll than not. Although he swears that he's serious about it, but that just makes it funnier. I don't think he's serious about it, but he might be. He might be serious about it.

Jamie Raskin, a Democrat, he was on the Rachel Maddow show and he said that the Trump administration officials could be arrested for quote interfering with a legal proceeding or kidnapping. I think that has to do with the judges that were arrested. And I saw Joel Pollak commenting on it that Jamie Raskin just really wants to arrest people. He's been after trying to arrest Republicans or Trump or anybody close to him for the longest time. So he's arrest him. Arrest him.

All right, let's look at Trump's first 100 days. So depending who you talk to, it's either the worst 100 days of any president ever or it went pretty well. Now I'm going to make reference here to two bubble people. There's bubble boy Bill Maher who says that MAGA voters won't admit how disappointed they are in Trump's first 100 days. Really? That doesn't look like any reality I'm aware of. I do see Republicans say he didn't get enough done or this didn't work or I'm disappointed with that. But they say it publicly. They don't hold back a bit. But more often I'll hear people say that they like what he did in the first 100 days. And the jury's out on some of it because it's too early.

Rachel Maddow said that quote "it's all bad for Trump. I don't know that we have ever seen another first 100 days from any president this roundly rejected and hated by the American people." Really? What bubble is that happening in? Where's the bubble where Trump's supporters are rejecting everything he's done? So I think if you ask people they would say something like if you asked Republicans they'd say that Trump did a great job on the border and continues to do a great job on the border and that was an existential threat. The border problem was an end-of-America problem and he solved that. That's a really big deal.

He took a real strong swipe at DEI and maybe he got rid of it in the government. Now as I said before, I think every private organization is just pretending to get rid of it. So I don't think he had a big success there, but at least he put down the flag. I don't know what's the right analogy. He kind of drew the line and said this is illegal. If you do this we will not fund you. If you do this you're breaking or at least you're violating the Constitution by being racist. That part I love. I mean maybe you didn't get the big win and eliminate it all at once, but it's certainly working in the right direction compared to where it was.

And Trump's negotiating with Iran for a better deal. What if he gets it? I'm not going to predict it'll happen, but what if he does? It's too early to know. He's negotiating with Ukraine and with Russia to end that war. Doesn't look like it's necessarily going to work, but what if it does? It's too early to say it worked or it didn't work. So the first 100 days is a sort of a sketchy, stupid way to judge anything.

What about the tariffs? How many of you are sure that you can judge the beginning and the end of the tariffs? How many of you would say oh it's clear that the tariffs were a gigantic mistake? It's way too early. It's way too early. He's using it as a negotiating tool and you've got I don't know 160 countries who said yes we do want to negotiate, which almost certainly means better trade deals. So what happens if he gets better trade deals? So any sense that the first 100 days are telling you anything is a real propaganda gaslighting kind of situation. You can't tell how he's doing in 100 days.

And if you're looking at his popularity with the public, well they're getting their cues from the media. So if you turn on the TV, the media is pretty much saying that the tariffs are the biggest dumbest thing anybody ever did. Are they right? What does the media know about any of this? They don't know what's going to happen. They don't know what China is going to do. They don't know if the negotiations are really happening behind the scenes. They don't know any of that. So this whole 100 day thing is just stupid.

But the polls are looking not so great for Trump. According to Just the News, there's a new poll from Economist YouGov that Trump's approval is down to 41 percent. And that would be a pretty big drop from the last time at 48 percent. And then there's the — I talked about this yesterday — but there's a Fox News poll that says that Democrats are favorite to win the midterms, which is new and almost certainly because of the news coverage about Trump and a lot of it about the tariffs I would think. But that's 2026, the midterms.

Now does that necessarily signal that he's failed if the midterms go to the Democrats? I don't know because the midterms almost always go to the party that's not in control. I don't know how many times there's been an exception to that. So if it's the most common thing in the world that the midterms go to the other party, it's kind of hard to say that it's because of what Trump's doing. But timing is really important.

So here are just a few of the things that might happen. I'm not going to predict they will happen, but they could happen before the midterms. You might have a peace deal in Ukraine. How would that look on his resume before the midterms? Pretty damn good. Of course there would be problems with the peace deal holding and there'd be cheating and stuff, but if there was anything that looked like a peace deal and we didn't have to send them money and protect them anymore and maybe we had a mineral deal too, well it's going to look pretty good. Could he get that done before the midterms? Possibly.

What about a nuclear deal with Iran? I think Iran is just dragging them along. I don't think that Iran is necessarily committed to making a deal, but they could. I would say it's not completely out of the question because the alternative is Trump said very clearly that he wouldn't have to be dragged into a war with Iran if they don't make a deal. He says he would very willingly be leading that war. And that's pretty scary. So maybe he's threatening Iran enough they could get an actual good deal. Maybe before the midterms.

What if he negotiates a better deal with China and our other major trading partners before the midterms? It's not going to be worse than the current deals, right? It seems unlikely that he would negotiate worse trade deals. So wouldn't it look like the tariffs worked if he — let's say in four months or something — we've got a little disruption, we've got some shortages over the summer but manageable, you know we figure out a way around it, and then when we're done we've got much better trade deals. Isn't that going to look like the biggest win ever?

And all of this could happen before midterms. Now as I said before, I think the Democrat strategy is completely just stalling. They want to stall until the midterms and make sure that he doesn't have any successes that the public knows about so they can jus