ded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election. You know that there is literally no evidence of that, right? Like none at all. Nobody suggested anything like it. There's nobody who claims it and was in the room. There's no document. Absolutely nothing.

60% of Democrats think that Russia helped get Trump elected. What percentage of people do you think believe it's very likely that Russia got Trump elected? Very likely. What do you think? 24%. 24% are really sure that Russia got Trump elected.

And there you go. If you're not in on the inside joke there, I often say that 25% of every poll is idiots who get everything wrong. You can guarantee that there'll be a solid 25% of poll respondents who just have the worst possible take. And there it was.

Well, Andrew Cuomo, who is now running as an independent for New York City mayor because he lost the primary, so he's trying to make a deal with Eric Adams, who's running for mayor, and Curtis Sliwa, who is running as Republican. And he wants to make a deal with them that whoever of that group—whoever's got the best polling in mid-September—the others will drop out and back whoever is in first place.

Now I don't know if that would be Cuomo, but doesn't that seem like a perfectly good plan? If you were Curtis Sliwa or Eric Adams or Cuomo and the thing you cared most about besides getting the job is that the socialist doesn't get the job, wouldn't it make sense, even though they're running as independents and Republicans are not even the same party, wouldn't it make sense for them to collude and say, "All right, the biggest problem would be if Mamdani gets elected and puts his socialist fingerprints all over the city and ruins it. That's the biggest problem. So if it gets to September, which is pretty close to the election, and one of the three of us who's winning in the polls should get the endorsement of the other two and it might put you over the top."

That's not a bad idea. It's sort of a Hail Mary attempt by Cuomo to maybe win when he's already lost. But is there anything wrong with that idea? *The Post Millennial* is writing about this today. I feel like is there something obvious about that idea that doesn't work? Because to me it looks like just a good idea. So we'll see.

Well, according to Newsmax, Iran says it would resume nuclear talks with the US if the US guaranteed no further attacks. And they also say that it is non-negotiable that Iran will be able to enrich their own uranium in Iran. To which I say, what does it mean to say you would be willing to negotiate under the condition that before you start negotiating, you win everything you want?

So Iran does this thing all the time where we're open to negotiating. You just have to give us the things we want in advance. So guarantee that there'll be no war and that we can enrich uranium which was the whole problem in the first place and then we'll have negotiations. No, you can't have a negotiation by entering the negotiation before