Oh wait. According to Grok, it is. So I went to Grok and said, you know, just to make sure, I said is there any situation where ignorance of the law would be a legitimate defense? Because I've always been told that ignorance of the law is no defense at all and that it wouldn't matter what the law was. You can't just pretend you didn't know. I mean that would be its own set of problems.

But there are some cases according to Grok where not knowing it was illegal would actually be a defense. So if the crime requires what Grok calls a willful or knowing violation, let's say a tax evasion which would be sort of what this mortgage thing is. In a tax evasion situation apparently if you said, I'm making up my own example here this is not from Grok but I think this is right, if your accountant makes a mistake on your taxes and all you did is sign it but you know you're not an accountant so you didn't really check the work. I feel like that would be a case where there's no evidence of willful violation because it would just look like your accountant got a little too aggressive but maybe you didn't even know it. You know that makes sense to me. I don't think you should go to jail if your accountant makes a mistake on your taxes or if it looks like that's what happened.

Here's another one. If someone relies on official but incorrect advice, so let's say a government official advises them, oh yeah that's totally legal, and then they do it and they find out it wasn't legal. That's actually a defense that depending what government official told you it would have to be somebody in the right line of work. But that's actually a defense. I didn't know that.

All right. Kamala Harris, as you know, is out there drunken, babbling about her new book and about Trump. And yesterday she had a moment that reminded me of Trump being shot in the ear and jumping up and going fight fight fight. Very inspirational. Except instead of being shot in the ear, she's just drunk. She's just drunk and lying and got up at a recent event and started yelling.

It was the closest, the tightest, closest presidential election in the 21st century. He does not have a mandate. He does not have a mandate. Did you hear me? He does not have a mandate.

So that's Kamala Harris's persuasion. Which one was better? Fight fight fight with a bullet just in his ear or ah give me some more vodka. There's no mandate. No mandate. There's no mandate at all.

Well I'm here to tell you that the answer is it's a tie, unfortunately. Now obviously Trump was more inspirational. There's no doubt about that. But if you're just looking at can you convince somebody of something that they weren't convinced of before. Do you know what it takes? Just repetition. That's it.

If Kamala Harris just keeps