The other one was lying about something. One is obstructing justice and the other is lying. But I think that they're both based on the same set of acts maybe. Anyway, so the background is, you know, that the prosecutor who was in charge got canned for not doing enough. He seemed like he wasn't sort of on board. Might have been more of a Democrat lover than what Trump needed at the point. The statute of limitations was about to run out. That's why there was some urgency and at least from the Trump side some urgency.

Now of course as you expect the Democrats are going on TV, the talking heads, and they're saying that it's lawfare against Trump's enemies, and that that's a bad thing and should never be done, and it's setting a precedent. Really, really is setting a precedent. So going after somebody with lawfare just to end their political career looking for the crime as opposed to responding to a crime. Are you saying that that's suddenly wrong and as if it's never happened to anybody named Trump? I mean it's the most obvious thing that's happened in the last several years. But the Democrats have no shame and they also know that their Democrat base won't really be able to follow this story. They're only going to get the top line. So if the Democrats go on MSNBC and say, "Well, nothing like this has ever happened before." I mean we've never seen anything like this going after a political person with a bunch of trumped up charges or even real charges that normally would be ignored. What? So that's funny, but it's working.

You know on one hand I'm criticizing the Democrats for such obvious lies. So they're lying about their liar. So Comey is being indicted for lying under oath. And the response to his supporters is to lie about it. So they're literally lying about the liar. Have I ever mentioned that that's all they have? The Democrats only have hoaxes and lies. They did have lawfare but not anymore because they're not in charge.

All right. And a lot of people are saying that Trump is just after his enemies and it's only about revenge. To which I say, if it's revenge against people who did this to you, absolutely fair. I'm all for revenge. If it's specific revenge, I would not like him to be lawfaring somebody who had nothing to do with anything. But lawfaring somebody who was trying to remove him from office and was not a legitimate player in my opinion. Totally fair. Absolutely fair. And I think Trump has a free punch all the way up to and including jail, you know, but it has to pass obviously through some Democrat judge and some Democrat people on a jury and all that. So it would take a lot. It would take a lot to get a conviction.

Some people say, "Oh yeah, the facts are clear. This is an obvious conviction." Democrats say, "Oh no. It's murky. It's murky. I'm not sure. I'm not sure there's anything there." But other people say it's the process that is the punishment. So making Comey go through this expensive, embarrassing thing. You know, might be the real play.

Roger Stone, as you know, he was once the subject of the FBI raiding his house at 6:00 a.m. and giving him no warning. And then apparently the judge in his case gave him a gag order so he couldn't even talk about his situation. And Roger Stone asked the perfectly reasonable question, wait, why isn't Comey being gagged by the federal judge in his case like I was? In fact, why is he being allowed to turn himself in? Why isn't he subjected to a 6 a.m. raid at his home by 29 heavily armed FBI agents? Well, that's a perfectly good question, Roger Stone.

So as long as we see this difference in treatment, it really does give the Republicans a free hand because what has happened to them and Trump in particular, but also his supporters over the last several years is, in my opinion, so bad that I can't even imagine any amount of lawfare against that group of people that I wouldn't be in favor of. But in general I would not be in favor of any lawfaring against anybody. But this group, oh yeah. Yeah, they've got it coming. I'm all on board with that.

Paul Sperry is reporting on X that Brennan might be next. He's hearing that they're getting ready to do something with Brennan. That might happen soon. And Mike Benz had an interesting summary of the whole situation. He said, arresting all your political opponents for non-existent crimes, then committing a bunch of real crimes, then losing the next election to those opponents is just a really bad combination. Yeah, that's good advice. If you're gonna lawfare people over nothing at the same time that you're doing something that's actually super illegal, like super illegal, you don't want to lose the next election so that the people you were trying to punish are in charge. But that's what happened.

So here's a question for you. If the next president is a Democrat and let's say somehow the Congress went Democrat too in 2028. Do you believe that Trump would be lawfared again? Yes, he would. Right. They would lawfare him again just out of pure revenge. They wouldn't be stopping him from doing anything. It would just be pure revenge. Would they do it? Yes, they would.

What would you do if you were Trump and you knew that simply running out your term and leaving, peaceful transfer of power, if you knew that that would be your death or that you would be locked up forever by bad actors, what would you do? Would you leave the job? It would be kind of dangerous, wouldn't it? They've created a situation, which is the only situation I can imagine, where Trump has an overwhelming incentive to never leave the job.

Now I don't believe that he has that intention whatsoever. I believe that he intends to serve his term, do the best job he can, go down in history as one of the great presidents, and that he's on track to do that. But if they start making noise like the minute you're out of office we're going to put you in jail and you know it's going to be trumped up charges. What would you do if you were Trump? Would you say, "Well, I'll just fight it in the courts." Well, the courts are going to be Obama appointed judges and you have no reason to believe he would get a fair hearing in the court. What would you do? You might be tempted to stay in office and stay alive, keep your family alive. Remember, the family is probably in jeopardy too. You know, they would go after Don Jr. or anybody else they could.

So the Democrats are creating the situation very much like they created the situation demonizing ICE and demonizing Trump. They created a situation where an assassin was almost guaranteed. They created that. They are now if they were to get elected they would be creating a situation where it wouldn't make sense for Trump to leave the office if he had any way to stay. I don't know that that's even possible in our system. You know, the military would have to be on board and I doubt they would be. So why are they creating the situation that they fear the most?

I do think, however, that if JD Vance is looking good and he wins the election, Trump just retires, no problem at all, because JD Vance is not going to go after him. But it's going to be pretty important. I think if JD Vance doesn't win, I don't know what's going to happen. Yeah. All bets are off at that point because you can expect people to try to stay alive and to do whatever they can to stay out of jail. If you put Trump in that situation, don't expect him to roll over. He should fight as hard as he can. I hate to say it.

Well, okay. So there's that. Cass Patel is telling us that the people who are doing the research on Comey, the investigation, are FBI agents and intel analysts and staff who are career people. So they're not some political people. He's saying that they're the dependable career people who are doing it. Now that's so you don't think it's just a political hit. But honestly I can't tell if Kash Patel is just mocking the Democrats by saying that because it's sort of just a thing you say. Is he serious? Oh, don't worry. This is legitimate because these are career professionals. Wasn't something like that what they said about Trump when they had all the fake lawfare and the fake Russia collusion thing? Wasn't any part of the defense, well yeah, these are career FBI people. I mean they're not political. They're career people. So Kash is saying the same thing. And it makes me wonder if it's the same reason that they say nobody's above the law. They don't say nobody's above the law because it's the first thing that comes to mind. They say it because the other side said it. It's sort of mocking but you can't tell. So is this more of that? Is this more mocking but you can't tell? Because it might be serious. I can't tell. I honestly can't tell. But it looks like trolling.

Ken Dilanian of NBC, who is often identified allegedly as a CIA asset whose job it is to make sure the NBC News does whatever the CIA wants. That's what they allege about Dilanian. But he's saying that Trump's actions against his critics and enemies never happened before. He's ended the tradition of not doing that. That tradition is so ended. The Democrats completely removed all the guard rails and now they have to live with it. They're living in the world they created but yeah, don't expect them to love it.

All right. So Trump yesterday signed a memorandum directing the federal agencies to go against, to look for the people funding the domestic terrorists and going after them, you know, Antifa etc. And he said that would include going after some wealthy people including he named George Soros and Reid Hoffman as possible targets of investigation. Now they would be targets specifically because some of their money might have made it into the hands of some of the domestic terrorists, Antifa types, but we don't know that for sure. That would be alleged at this point. But the New York Times confirms, PJ Media is writing about this, that the DOJ is investigating George Soros.

So what do you think they're going to find when they investigate Soros? Are they going to find just a ton of things that look dirty that are actually illegal? I don't know. But here's what I'd expect. They might have the goods and they might say, "All right, we got you. You did this and that and that. We're going to put you in court." And then magically as if on schedule George Soros senior would have a bad health outcome and he would be way too out of it to actually be in trial. You want to make a bet? I'm going to make the bet that they do find the goods on Soros but that they can't really hold a trial because he's just going to be like, "Oh I'm so old." He's going to do the Biden defense. Okay, if we took you to court we probably would convict you but you're only going to be alive six months anyway and you couldn't really defend yourself because you'd just be like, "Wha I'm so old." So I don't think there's any chance that Soros senior will go to jail. I don't think there's any chance of that. He's too old. But maybe Alexander would be, you know, his son may be in a little bit of trouble. I don't know. We'll find out.

Well, so yesterday there was a little clip of Hillary Clinton being a terrible person and I reposted it with just one comment. I said, "Worst human being in the world." Now if you're on X, do you feel like that would be a big post, you know, lots of attention? All I said was worst human being in the world. Like it's not really clever. It's not new. It's not breaking news. It's not a meme. It's just an opinion. Worst human being in the world. It got a million views. A million views. That's how many people immediately embrace the idea that she's the worst human being in the world. Can you imagine that somebody says you're the worst human being in the world and a million people immediately say, "Oh yeah. Yep. Yep. You're not second. You're the worst in the world."

So here's a question that I do ask every now and then but this is another time to ask it. Is it my imagination and my tremendous bias that Republicans look like ordinary people and the top Democrats, the ones you see the most on TV, I usually call them the designated liars, they look evil. Am I wrong? If you watch the video of Hillary she doesn't seem like just somebody who disagrees. Take Hillary. Take Kamala. In my opinion Kamala may be incompetent or whatever but I don't think she's evil per se. Like she doesn't project evil. But Hillary does. I mean I just see evil when I look at her. And again it's not a woman thing or even a Democrat thing. I don't see evil when I see Nancy Pelosi. I don't see evil. I think she's a liar and she's partisan etc. but she's just sort of doing her job. But with Hillary she actually just seems actually evil, you know,