re people are getting the idea it might be both or one of those things?

Now, I'm not sure I care one way or the other. I probably won't be buying a submersible car from anybody, but I just love the fact that he doesn't have a marketing or advertising budget. Elon doesn't, but boy does he do good marketing. Oh my god, the quality of his marketing game is so beyond really anything we've ever seen. Just anything. This is just the next level above the next level that he's got me so excited about this car that doesn't yet exist.

Anyway, we'll see what it has. Maybe some guns. I hope it can shoot gas and protect you too.

I wonder if he made any other news. Oh yeah. If this was the only thing that happened that it would still be the biggest news, but it's just one of many things he did during three hours. So Joe asked Elon about these accusations that the whistleblower, there was a ChatGPT whistleblower and some say, and that some would include the parents of the whistleblower, that he was murdered and did not commit suicide soon after he had said he was a whistleblower and ChatGPT was going to be in a lot of trouble.

Some of the things that Elon mentioned, and I'm not going to say these are true because I don't want to get sued by anybody, but the conversation suggested that the following things were true. That there was blood in more than one room. The deceased had just ordered DoorDash. I wonder if in the history of the world anybody's ordered DoorDash and then decided to kill themselves before the meal. Does anybody understand what a last meal is all about? Or did he just say, "Yeah, I'm not really hungry after all. I'll just kill myself in two separate rooms and put this weird wig in another room." There was some wig that didn't belong to him.

So blood in two rooms, wig. Let's see what else. So this is what Elon said about Altman. Now I will tell you that personally I think there's close to zero chance that Sam Altman authorized or knew there would be a hit. All right. Can I say that as clearly as possible? The thought that specifically Sam Altman, you know, him specifically ordered it or knew that it would happen or had some insight into it, I think that's close to zero.

But if you're asking me, was he murdered? Well, keep in mind that rumor-wise, the CIA has a very important mandate to have control over all the big AI companies. Do you think that the CIA is exerting control over the big companies? Yes. You know, that's what we're being told by people who definitely know. And would it be their job to do it? Yes. You know, I hate to say it. I mean, the CIA is supposed to do all the dirty stuff that you wish people wouldn't do, but sometimes you need the dirty stuff.

Now imagine you're the CIA and you know that OpenAI and ChatGPT would be the primary way that in the future you'll be able to control other countries and find terrorists, find all the bad people. If you thought that ChatGPT was not just one of the important things you were doing, but maybe the most important thing you're doing for years, would you be willing to murder to keep that structure intact? Meaning that there's a ChatGPT, it leads the field, you've got the back door, you have all the access you need. Public doesn't know the details, but they're okay with it because they like to be safe too. Would that be enough reason to murder an American citizen? Maybe. Maybe.

I mean, I don't think they're authorized to kill American citizens on American soil, are they? But they are authorized to do things that people aren't supposed to do. And who knows how far that could go. So I don't think, and then you have to add the rogues to the equation. What if it wasn't the CIA and it wasn't anybody on the board or management of ChatGPT? Is there anyone else who would have a financial incentive or other incentive to murder a guy? Yes, the investors.

If you had invested billions of dollars in this thing and you knew that your billions could turn into a trillion and you knew that there was one whistleblower in the way and the reason that you had billions of dollars in the first place is that you're an unethical bastard and you could just whisper to some special services ex-CIA guy that you know, if that guy disappeared, somebody like you who might have been involved would have a pretty big payday.

So if I had to guess, it does look a little bit more like murder than suicide, but these things can look like something else and not be that thing. So the fact that it does look sort of exactly like a murder doesn't mean it is because in our world things look like things that aren't really the thing. But I don't think it was Altman. Don't think it was ChatGPT's management. Probably wasn't the CIA, but I don't know about all the investors.

Anyway, I guess on CNN a political commentator named Brad Todd mentioned that the 2020 census was rigged and the CNN host challenged that. Wouldn't you? What do you mean rigged the census? The census was rigged. Seriously, how do you rig a census? Easily, it turns out, as Brad Todd explained. He said, quote, "We do know that the Census Bureau's own audit showed that all of their errors were in one direction to the detriment of red states." So apparently the Census Bureau has admitted that coincidentally all of their errors are in one direction. So yes, we actually know that the 2020 census was rigged. How many of you knew that? I feel like I vaguely had heard that or something. But did you know it was official? It's official. The census people said it themselves. Yep. All our mistakes were in one direction.

Okay. Meanwhile, over on MSNBC, if you haven't seen this clip, it's well worth watching. So there's this Democrat Representative Seth Moulton, who's seemingly not a good person based on this story I'm going to tell you. He made an accusation about Trump on MSNBC's Morning Joe that is so inappropriate that I'm not even going to tell you what it was. So let's just say it was Epstein related, but he just made it up. Just made it up.

And when he put it out there and said, you know, it's sort of a fact, even Morning Joe said, "There's no evidence of that." And he said, "Oh yes there is. I mean, it's obvious." And Morning Joe seeing his entire life on the line. Can you imagine if Morning Joe had not vigorously challenged the claim that was being claimed by a government official, an elected official, completely making up something that's the worst thing you've ever heard in your life, right? Just the worst.

And Morning Joe knowing that he would get his ass sued if he just let that go without a challenge. And so to his credit, but also to save his own neck, Morning Joe pushed back hard. He pushed back hard. No evidence of that. And again, I say no evidence of that. And by the way, now that you're done talking, can I remind the audience there's no evidence of that. So I'm going to give Morning Joe 100% A+ for fact-checking that in real time. But of course, he was covering his own ass because the Trump world lawsuits are flying and he doesn't need that kind of trouble. So I appreciate that he pushed back on that.

So Seth Moulton, in case you want to know, total piece of shit. Terrible person. I mean, really a bad person.

Well, I guess the end of the year the Obamacare premiums are going to double. And one of the things that might happen is that Trump might have some success. I don't know if he will, but now he's pushing for what's called the nuclear option, which has nothing to do with nuclear in any way. It's just a name of a thing. And the thing is that if Congress votes by some majority, I guess they can get rid of the filibuster.

Now, the filibuster was invented so if the minority side felt so strongly about a topic, they could say, "We're just going to talk forever and the process will never go forward because we're still in the act of talking and that would be the filibuster." And they would just have people go up there and read the phone book and take turns and just use up the time. But in the modern world, and I checked, a filibuster is a memo. So the minority team just sends a memo. You know, if we wanted to, we would filibuster this. So let's just treat it like a filibuster because if you make us do it, we'll do it. But we don't need to. So just accept this memo as our warning that the only way you're going to get anything passed in this domain is 60 votes instead of a bare majority, 51%.

So they would have to first change the rules that you can do a filibuster and then if the filibuster went away, the second thing they could do is vote to fund the government with a bare majority. Now, of course, the risk is insane. The size of the risk is just insane because it works both ways. If the Democrats get in control, the Republicans will no longer have the comfort of the filibuster themselves to protect against the things they care about the most.

But the argument on the other side is that the Democrats are going to do absolutely anything that they can do, including the Russia collusion hoax, the 51 people who said that the Hunter laptop was not real. You can go down the line. I don't have to list everything. But the counterargument is that the Republicans have every reason strategically and ethically to do just everything. Just do everything. If you can get more power, get something done, just do it. Because the Democrats would do it. Is that a good argument? It might be.

It didn't used to be a good argument because there was a world in which there would be a little bit more cooperation and a little bit observance of history but we may be out of that world permanently and if you're out of that world permanently the smartest thing you can do is recognize that as soon as possible and then start consolidating your power because the alternative is the other side consolidates their power. Their authoritarianism versus your authoritarianism. You prefer yours if it's only going to go one of two ways. One side will be authoritarian or the other one.

So I don't yet have an opinion about whether this should be nuked, the thing that would give them the ability to change it. It could be just a negotiating thing. Could be. So I think I'm going to wait on that one. No opinion on that yet.

All right. Would you be amazed to learn that a judge is stopping something that Trump wanted? Yes. Believe it or not, there's a judge once again. A federal judge has blocked, this is according to Axios, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson? No, wait, the name is Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle or something? The text has "judge Khalen Ker Catali." Anyway, she has got an injunction against Trump's order that the states do check IDs for voting. So apparently this judge says that you cannot force the states to force the voters to show ID.

And the reason is not that it's a good idea or a bad idea. So it has nothing to do with the quality of the idea and nothing to do with whether it would work and nothing to do with what is ethical or what we should do. It's none of that. It's just a straight up court ruling of what power the executive has versus the states. And so her ruling is you've got no power on the states running elections. Get out of here. So specifically the problem is that he doesn't have authority to do this rule.

So I asked Grok, "Grok, if you were on the Supreme Court, do you think you would uphold the judge and say that Trump does not have the authority to require ID for voting, or would you uphold Trump and say he's got an argument, assuming that they had some argument?" And Grok said, no, it's basically a simple one. He doesn't have that authority. The only way he could have that authority is if Congress passed a law such as a voting rights law or some equal rights law. So if Congress passes a law and how would they do that unless they nuke the filibuster? What if the filibuster got nuked? Then the Supreme Court doesn't even have to get involved because he can just use Congress, get his bare majority people to say nuclear option on the filibuster and then the next thing you do, they say one of our most important t