ted that to get done.

But there was a group of professional liars and insurrectionists, I would call them, who worked very hard to stop that. Now, if you lawfare those guys, I'm totally okay with that because you absolutely need mutually assured destruction so that the next time the Democrats decide to lawfare the next president, which they will, they'll at least think twice and they're going to say, "All right, the last time we lawfared a president, we didn't see it coming, but he became the president again and then he got all of us back and all the people who lawfared him are in jail or paid a lot of money."

You can't let it go. The things that they did to Trump and by extension to his supporters, you can't let that go. So if you have to lawfare it to get them back, lawfare it. Whatever you have to do, you cannot let that stand. And to imagine that lawfaring this group of people, lawfaring the lawfarers who were the insurrectionist lawfarers, you can't compare that to anything else.

If he were just taking down a critic, I'll tell you where I'd draw the line. If he said Stephen King says bad things about me all the time, I'd like you to lawfare him. Go find a crime. I'm sure you can find a crime. Now, that would be completely unacceptable to me and I would fight against that. How about Rob Reiner? Huge critic of the president. Huge pain in the ass. If the president said, "Hey, lawfare that guy because he says bad things about me." No, no, nope. We don't do that. You can say bad things about people. We allow that. That's free speech.

But if he's going after the people who literally lied about what was in the skiff, ran gigantic hoaxes to try to literally change the government and tried to jail him, if not shoot him, free pass. Mr. President, you have a free pass. Not just to say whatever you want to say. Little cat action going on here. Not only to say what you want to say, but to encourage the Department of Justice to deal with it. So yeah, I'm completely in favor of lawfare against lawfarers, but limited to that and maybe insurrectionists, but that's the same thing in this case.

All right. There's some new news that there's this Washington DC undercover metropolitan police guy, Nicholas Thomasula, who says that he was actually trying to instigate trouble at the January 6th event. I don't know if he says that he did it for Nancy Pelosi, but apparently there is evidence and he's saying it directly that he was encouraging people to trespass and encouraging them to climb up the scaffolding, which was the big weakness in the defense they had there.

And is this real? Do we actually have a real live person now who says, "Oh yeah, I was there to instigate." Do you think there was only one? Would they only send one or would one think that on his own? Did he decide on his own to do that? Are we on the verge of finding out the truth about January 6th? We might be. We might be on the verge of actually finding out that that was more staged than we thought. So keep an eye on that.

I've been watching with interest Marjorie Taylor Greene buck not just the left but often the right. So I guess Marjorie Taylor Greene, who I like by the way, I like having her as part of government and you know she's just a fun personality as well. So I kind of like her as a person and as a politician, but she's not on board with all Republicans.

She said, quote, "As a construction business owner," which she is, "I don't think we should be supporting illegal immigrants that work in that industry." Now, I saw a counterpoint to that, which is if you got rid of all the illegal immigrants, you wouldn't need to build as many houses and therefore you wouldn't need them. And it's funny when I saw that argument because there's no population growth. We don't have population growth. So in theory we shouldn't have to build too many houses, you know, mostly just replacement houses and upgrades and stuff. But so maybe we don't even need a construction business because we're just building houses for the people that we didn't want to come in. I don't I'm not buying that narrative entirely. There's a little bit to it. There's a little bit to it, but that's not a good complete picture.

And Marjorie Taylor Greene also says that prices have not come down and pay has not gone up. Now slightly true that some prices went down and it's slightly true that some pay went up, but not really in a big way. So she's bucking the narratives there a little bit, but I don't mind that at all.

Well, meanwhile, Denmark has committed $4.2 billion to defending Greenland so that they don't have to give it up to the United States. And now they are legitimately worried about Russia's influence in that part of the world. So Greenland buying some defensive stuff. I can't imagine that Denmark plus Greenland if you add them together could defend against Russia without the US. I mean, not that they would have to because they're a NATO country, but wait, how's that work? So if Russia attacked Greenland, and Greenland is owned by Denmark, which is in NATO, but Greenland isn't specifically part of NATO. Would NATO be activated for Greenland? I do not know. Maybe somebody can tell me that.

Anyway, I doubt that their $4.2 billion is going to get them enough to defend against Russia.

The Wall Street Journal had an article about AI not making as much difference in productivity as anybody hoped. A JP Morgan Chase economist didn't find any strong link between productivity and rolling out AI. Now, who's been telling you for a while that AI will not be the job killer that all the smart people say it will be? Me. Because just if you've tried using it yourself, you immediately see that it is so limited. And in my opinion, the current version of AI cannot be better because if they can't make the hallucinations go away, and they can't, what are you going to use it for? All you can use it for is chatting basically and a few other things.

So I've been a skeptic of AI repla