t be completely Russian. Parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would go to Russia. Some additional eastern territories including some in Kyiv would transfer to Russia. All right. So you and I don't know too much about any of those regions, but we knew that Russia would demand some keeping forever some part of it. And maybe these make sense.

And then there's the Odessa region's coastal areas which would become Russian enclaves. Well, I don't know what an enclave is, but it's probably something that they plan to someday become Russian territory. I think enclave might be the word they use for that's right before we say we're going to take it and it will be ours forever. It's an enclave.

Then there would be a demilitarized zone along the new Russia-Ukraine border. Of course, you would have to have a demilitarized zone. And UN peacekeepers would monitor that. We're up to number nine. Ukraine would commit to permanent neutrality forever. I don't know what that means, but probably that's workable. No NATO membership for Ukraine ever.

Ukraine's army gets capped at 100,000 active troops. Well, that's kind of clever because we're already at the point where I tell you too often that all the wars will be robot wars. The number of soldiers will no longer be predictive of who could win a war, but the number of drones might and the number of drone operators might. So this might be workable in a way that it would not have been maybe even three years ago because it could be that Russia will say, "Well, if you only have that many soldiers, you're not a threat." Whereas Ukraine might say, "Well, I don't know if we send you 50,000 trained drone operators who have a million drones at their disposal because one operator would have a swarm." Do you think you'd feel safe from that? So there might be a way that both sides think they got the advantage, which would be a good deal.

There'd be limits on Ukraine's heavy weapons and tanks, but again, those are not robots, so that might work. No offensive missiles over 300 kilometers. I wonder if that includes drones, but no offensive missiles.

The US, EU, and China would guarantee Ukraine's security jointly. Well, that would be good if all three of them were on the same page. The ceasefire would be immediate upon signing. International observers would enforce the ceasefire daily. Russian troops would withdraw from the non-seized areas in six months. Yeah, good luck with that.

Western sanctions on Russia would be lifted in phases. The frozen Russian assets would be unfrozen to rebuild Ukraine with a US lead. So it looks like Trump found a way to make some money for us. So he's going to unfreeze Russia's money if I get this right. But US-led entities will get to do the work. Doesn't mean US entities but US-led. So that would be plenty of opportunity for the US to get its beak wet in some of this economic activity.

Russia would get access to Ukrainian Black Sea ports. Ukraine protects ethnic Russian rights. No foreign military bases in Ukraine except for the UN. Disputed borders. Well, that's a big one. No foreign military bases in Ukraine. Do you think—well this is our proposal, so apparently the US would be okay with this given that it's our proposal. And then disputed borders go to international arbitration. Ukraine gets 50 billion in debt relief from Russia. I guess they have some debt out there.

Joint energy projects until 2040. So that's yet another way that Trump could make some money for the US. EU accession talks paused for 10 years. So Ukraine wouldn't get into the European Union for at least 10 years. And all parties ratify the deal within 30 days.

All right. So obviously that's way too big and complicated for people like you and me to know if that's a good idea or a bad proposal. But what's your general feeling about it? Do you feel like there's something we could work with on this? All right. Is that close enough to a deal?

Well, it really depends if Russia wants a deal. I would say it comes down to this. It really isn't about the specifics of the proposal. If Russia is tired of fighting and they don't think they can win outright and they're just ready for some kind of result then yes this they could make this work. If Russia is doing nothing but stalling, if they're doing nothing but kicking the can down the road and making it look like they care about peace but they don't, well then nothing will work.

So I'm going to say that the details of this plan will not be the defining or predictive element. So you would not be able to look at the plan to know if this could work or not. You would only be able to look into the hearts and souls of the people involved. Zelenskyy, does he have a way to survive this? Does he have an after-war plan? Putin, does Putin really want to wrap this up? Would he get enough out of this? And then Trump, how much does Trump want the Nobel Peace Prize, right?

So I think my take on this is that this plan pushes you in the game. Meaning that if the players were finally ready to make peace, this would get you there. So I'm going to say this would be good enough. You still have to tweak it like crazy. And it might take weeks or months to get there, but this is close enough if, and this is the biggest if, if they've already mentally decided they want to get this done. If they haven't decided, then it's no good at all.

Would you believe that there's another story about a court blocking something that Trump wanted and then the Supreme Court overturned the activist judge? Well, that happened again. This is about Texas's new Republican-friendly congressional map. So Texas draws a new map that would give them a new representative. An activist judge says, "You can't do that." But then it goes immediately to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court says, "Well, we don't have time to decide on that yet, but in the short run, we're going to block you from blocking it." So the Supreme Court has blocked the lower court from blocking it. It just sounds like the same story every few days, doesn't it? Because it is.

In other news, remember you probably remember George Floyd and Derek Chauvin. I'll bet you do. But Derek Chauvin's attorney has filed a new petition to try to get Derek Chauvin released. And this is the approach they're taking according to Alpha News. I saw this on X. Apparently they found more than 50 former and current officers, police officers who have provided sworn declarations stating that the technique used by Derek Chauvin and other Minneapolis police officers involved that day was part of the Minneapolis Police Department training.

Now, you already knew that, right? Just as an observer, you already knew that Derek Chauvin literally used the technique that he was trained to use and that it was in writing and it was an actual official policy. You all knew that, right? But I believe that was prohibited from being presented at the trial. Do I have that right? Give me a fact check on that. Were they prohibited or did they just treat it in a way that wasn't quite the way you'd want it to be treated? Yeah. So I don't know the total details there, but to me that does seem like that should be really, really important because if he was trained to do it that way and everybody else was trained to do it that way and you got 50—50 is a lot. Just ask those former and current intelligence people who signed off on the Hunter laptop. 50 is a lot. The 50 is all you need.

If it were up to you and the only thing you knew is that they had this and nothing else changed. But let's say you believed completely these 50 officers and you said to yourself, "Holy cow, I was part of the decision to put Chauvin in jail, but I didn't know this. I didn't know." What if you're finding out about it for the first time? How would you feel? How would you feel if you were on the jury and you had convicted him to effectively something like life and then you learned that he had been trained to do it exactly that way. How would you feel about yourself? I tell you if that were me I wouldn't feel too good about that at all.

So anyway, we'll see if that goes anywhere but good luck.

Bill Maher's show was last night. Do you know that whenever Bill Maher has a show that we like to talk about his slow transition into a Republican? No, I'm just joking. He's not going to become a Republican. Might be better than that. Might be something better.

So he had Don Brazile on the show and I'm going to tell you about their back and forth, but I'm going to take a direction on this after I tell you that you don't see coming. I think so. The Overton News is reporting that so they were debating education and an issue Democrats used to sort of own and Bill Maher is making the point that Democrats are sort of ceding control of that topic.

So here's what happened. Bill Maher said I really do feel like the Democratic Party—this has been their portfolio meaning education for a long time. So I feel like if they're going to get back into office, they have to own the issue a little. And then he goes on, he says, because a lot of the states that are doing better now are like the southern states, meaning Republican. And Don Brazile said, really? Which ones? And Maher said Mississippi as an example. And Brazile said, Mississippi is getting better than Louisiana. So I guess Louisiana would be a blue state. And Bill Maher said, "And here's the payoff. See, you're in a bubble. You didn't get that story."

Now, that's the stor