. One ridiculous thing is that anybody could know if an election was rigged or not rigged successfully because if something is rigged successfully by definition you wouldn't know. That's what makes it successful. And the other ridiculous assumption is that the people who protested and including Trump knew that the election was won by Biden and were simply pretending it didn't happen. Pretending they were simply pretending that it was an illegitimate election so that they could take over the country by what? Wandering around in a building and trespassing. Is that how you take over a country?

So the January 6 hoax has the two most ridiculous assumptions at its core that anybody could know if an election was rigged and that the people on January 6 believed that it was totally fairly went to Biden and that they were there to try to change it to Trump because of his authoritarian blah blah blah brainwashing propaganda. It's a cult. Oh my goodness. It's the weakest hoax of all time because you don't even need to do any research to know that those two problems exist, the ones I mentioned, but it's all they have.

So the Democrats are a hoax-based machine. They need at least one tentpole hoax. Tentpole hoax means it's the main one that makes all the other hoaxes look like they're reasonable. Because all the other stuff that they say about Trump, just like the fine people hoax, where if they could sell that as being true, then any other accusation of being racist sounded like it was true because you say to yourself, well, if the main thing that would make him a racist, the fine people hoax, if that main thing is true, it's really easy to believe all the other accusations because you've already established who he is. So now they've taken that technique over to the insurrection and they'll say if you buy the fact that he was part of a knowing he had not been elected but trying to take the job anyway, then all of the other accusations about authoritarianism, they all sound true because you say to yourself, well, he tried to conquer the country and stay in office once. So then they can sell you that he doesn't plan to leave after a second term, which you would never believe unless you had fallen for the tentpole hoax, which is that he had already tried once to conquer the country by telling his followers to trespass and wander around in a building without any guns.

So anyway, beware the fine people hoax. We'll take care of that one. I'll work on that one.

The University of California system, so that's the system that binds together all the various California universities, has announced that boycotts of Israel will be banned and that's because of pressure from Trump on funding. So now they're banning protests against Israel or boycotts of Israel. To which Glenn Greenwald might ask, are they now allowed to boycott everybody but Israel? What if the University of California system didn't say no if they decided to boycott some other country? Or do we really have laws now that are Israel specific and it's the one place you can't boycott? I don't know.

So while I'm certainly in favor of tamping down any signs of anti-Semitism, I'm not sure if boycotting a country quite satisfies the anti-Semitism claim. Because I would wonder, you know, it would make more sense if they said you can't boycott anybody. You know, maybe universally should not be involved in boycotting. Or if we said you can't boycott anybody who's an ally of the United States, that wouldn't be bad, would it? Because then it's not Israel specific, but it would include anybody who's an ally of the United States. So what happens if somebody wants to boycott Russia? Still legal, still okay? Or boycott China? Don't we always talk about not buying China stuff? Effectively, you know, a boycott. So I guess we have laws now that apply to one country.

Let's see. What else is happening? Yeah, CNN is announcing that they're saying that CEOs are now admitting that there's going to be a lot of layoffs with AI. Oh no. I'm sorry. There's two opposite stories. I'm confusing them. The positive story is that CNN is admitting that the number of layoffs under Trump have declined tremendously. So apparently they went out of their way to say a story that was just unambiguously positive for Trump. Again, I've been telling you CNN's making a legitimate attempt to include a little bit of both sides, which I had not seen before. So it is a change, but this is a good example of that, admitting that the number of layoffs under Trump are way down, down 49%.

But not all good news. Meanwhile, a federal judge, let's see if you understand this better than I do because the legal stuff is just so far out of my domain. But a federal judge in Washington DC just ruled that Trump does not have the power to declare that he's going to close the asylum process because it's turned into an invasion. So the word invasion is the active word. So Trump was saying that if it's an invasion the federal government has responsibility of repelling it on behalf of the states and that's all he was doing. The executive order closed the asylum process as his response to the quote invasion.

Now, the federal judge says that invasion language doesn't give Trump any new powers that he didn't have before. So he doesn't really have that power. And the part I don't understand is that the Supreme Court just ruled that a federal judge can't overrule something that applies to the entire country. They can only do things that apply to their domain. So how did this judge do the very thing that the Supreme Court just made illegal? Well, it has something to do with declaring future asylum seekers a protected class. And here's where I'm going to bow out. Because if you understand the law well enough to know why that is an appropriate workaround to just simply declare them a class. How exactly does that give him the power to do what the Supreme Court just said you guys can't do? You can't block something nationwide if you're just a federal judge. Oh no. We'll just declare that these people who might come in in the future are a protected class. Somehow that works around it. How's that work?

All right. So I'm a little bit confused by it. I assume it'll go to the Supreme Court. I assume the Supreme Court would say you can't do this trick to get around our ruling. I don't know. Maybe it would go the other way. So listen to the people who know something about the law if you want to know more about that.

Meanwhile, James Carville, he says that he thinks that Trump's going to try to rig the midterm election. And he says that Trump can't possibly win fair and square in the midterms because the big beautiful bill is about 25 points underwater in terms of popularity in the country in general. And that's he's that Trump will have a massive defeat and he's not going to be able to handle that. So that Trump will declare martial law or declare that there's some other national emergency so that he can throw out the results of the m