ody in the public sphere was making that prediction that early. And then what happened? Republicans got hunted. Some of us got cancelled, which you might say, well, that's different. You know, you had that coming. No, we didn't. No, we didn't. There were no Republicans that canceled me. I didn't get cancelled by one Republican. Not even one. No, that was part of getting hunted. The January 6ers hunted. How about Trump himself? Hunted and literally shot. Hunted and then literally shot. And that's after all the lawfare.

So generally speaking, I would not be in favor of a politician doing revengey kinds of stuff once in office cuz I feel like, well, that's a bad precedent to do revengey stuff because then maybe the other side will do some revengey stuff. To which I now say to myself, Scott, shut the fuck up. The things that the Democrats did to you, the things they did to other Republicans, and the things they did to the preferred leader of your political movement, Trump, are so bad that Trump absolutely should hunt them down and that a large number of them belong in jail. And you would not have to make up charges. You would not have to pretend something happened that didn't. You could just use the public record and start locking up people and maybe that's going to happen. So I'm completely flipped on the question of presidential revenge. If the other side had done a little bit of something bad and then Trump was going to do something a little worse, I wouldn't be in favor of that. But what the Democrats did was so freaking bad that you can't get worse than that. You have to go to jail for that. You have to go to jail. And I think maybe there's some possibility we'll see some of that. But yeah, he's the hunter now.

Apparently I didn't even know this was happening but there's some big success in getting some 10 US citizens who were detained in Venezuela. I didn't even know that was happening have been released and credit is being given to Secretary Rubio and El Salvador's leader Bukele. So apparently he was helpful in making that happen. Now, I got to say, Reuters is reporting on this. I got to say, Trump is really good at releasing American prisoners. Nobody's ever been better at that. Would you agree? Can you even think of any president who was this good at getting American prisoners released overseas? I feel like he's alone in this capability. But I will give a shout out to El Salvador's Bukele because he plays everything so smart that it's kind of hard to even understand why he's so good at what he does. But with all these countries who want to push back on the US and they don't want to be pushed around and they don't want Trump to be running roughshod over them. Well, Bukele goes the other direction and he basically, you know, this is my interpretation, says, "Wouldn't it make more sense if I have this really productive relationship with Trump and with the US, and wouldn't El Salvador really benefit from really being a tight ally with the US?" And the answer is yes. Yes. I feel like it's such a smart and obvious play to be our best friend that when you see the other countries are playing it the opposite way. We cannot be humiliated by the United States, we will try to stop them at every turn. How is that working out? I mean really, how's that working out? Whereas Bukele just says, "All right, I'm going to lock up all my criminals. I'm going to embrace Bitcoin, which turned out to be looking pretty smart at the moment. And I'm going to work very productively with the United States and be their best friend. And if they ever need a favor, oh, I'll totally do it. I'll do them a favor." How smart is that? I mean, I don't know if he's being advised or he's just that smart, but I love watching an ally of the United States just kill it. He's just killing it.

Laura Loomer has a scoop. She's talking to a whistleblower who says and I'm going to wait for a fact check on this because I do think that Laura Loomer has good sources and she's making sure that she's crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's. Most boring thing anybody ever said. But the claim is that under Barack Obama the systems that the computer systems that the government use was delegated to Chinese foreign nationals located in China as the tech support which means that the Chinese, I'm having trouble believing this is real because the implications of it are so big that although I think Laura Loomer has earned some credibility with her scoops, you know, they seem to work out. How could this possibly be true? Let me finish what it is. So the claim is that under Obama a backdoor was given to Chinese tech people in China who of course would be beholden to the Chinese government for anything they can steal. So in theory the Chinese government has had full access to all of our government systems. Full access to all of our government systems for like 10 years now. Is that possible? How many of you think that's real? I don't know. I'm sure there will be some nuances to this like, oh, we had this wall up so they couldn't do any mischief or something. But at the moment, the Laura Loomer scoop is that the Chinese government had full access to all of our government technology and that Obama must have known it because he, you know, his administration approved it. So this one doesn't make sense to me. There's probably something else we don't know about it, but that's happening.

All right, I'm going to ruin your fun a little bit. You all know the big story of the day that Tulsi Gabbard came out with some new information they found which let's say so the claim is she did a long thread on X that for months before the 2016 election the intelligence community had a consensus view that Russia lacked the intent and capability to hack US elections. Now, the claim, if I could summarize it, is that they have new documentation to show that the Obama administration, including Obama and including Brennan, Clapper, were fully aware that Russia did not hack the election. Yet they claimed that Russia did interfere with the election. So the claim is that it's a big conspiracy. No, that's the wrong word. It's a conspiracy like RICO that people were all in on this hoax and the hoax was that Russia was helping Trump get elected, but they knew that it wasn't true.

There's something wrong with this story, and you're not going to like it when I tell you. I believe it's conflating things and what it looks like is conflating is the question of whether Russia could impact with cyber attacks the election infrastructure. So the thing that the intelligence community knew is that Russia, there was no evidence that Russia could get into our election infrastructure. In other words, they did not believe that Russia was getting into voting machines or databases and changing the result. And so, because we knew that they weren't getting into the infrastructure of the elections, it means that Obama and his team were lying weasels when they said, "Oh, yeah, Russia, you know, may have been behind trying to help Trump." But here's where I'm going to disagree with how it's been treated so far, this story. I feel like it conflates the thing that I'm sure did not happen because there's no evidence, which is that Russia indeed did not directly hack the voting machines or the databases. But I don't remember that even being a claim. Do you? I remember hearing, sorry I've got allergies. I remember hearing that Russia may have hacked Hillary's email and Podesta's email and maybe something else, but would you call those election infrastructure? They're not, right? I remember hearing that Russia ran a bunch of memes, some advertisement. Some of it was anti-Trump. Some of it was anti-Hillary. Yeah. The meme farm. So the meme farm had nothing to do with hacking anything. It was just memes. And then there was a claim that so there was a meme farm, there was a hacking of the emails, and then of course you always throw in the Manafort was scamming some Russian billionaire and he was scamming him saying he would give him some secret stuff and the only thing he ever gave him was some dated internal polling. So Manafort went to jail for that and there was no evidence that Trump knew anything about it.

So when Tulsi Gabbard says that we have documents that show that the intelligence community knew that the Russians did not hack the election infrastructure that that fact disproves their other claims that Russia tried to influence the election. Those are just different topics, right? Because when I see the way the news is treating them, the news is trying to treat it