play which would look exactly like it? Now, I don't have any confirmation or special information that would say that the Washington Post story is literally just made up to convince people that there's a big risk of illegal orders. I don't have any proof of that. What I do have is some pattern recognition. And when it's the Washington Post and it's a story that the anti-Trump world would like you to see and it fits perfectly with the narrative and it's based on whistleblowers. That's a lot of pattern recognition going into that that looks like it's just part of a persuasion op from anti-Trump forces. But I hasten to remind you I don't have any proof of that. It just the pattern is a little hard to ignore. So keep an eye on that.

Now let's look at the front page of a publication called The Hill. So keep in mind the context I just gave you. The seditious six. Then coincidentally fitting perfectly in their narrative, there's a story about allegedly Hegseth gave the order to what would be illegal orders. At the same time, The Hill had a number of stories on the front page, and I wanted to see what that looked like. And here are some of the things that were on their headlines. All right, so this is from The Hill today. One of the stories is titled "Five Ways Republicans Are Breaking With Trump." Now, I didn't read the article. This is about looking at the bigger picture, right? So five ways Republicans are breaking with Trump. So that would be a story to suggest that Trump's popularity is falling within his base. Even though the numbers suggest he's the most popular president within his party of maybe all time, he has like 87% support within Republicans. But five ways Republicans are breaking.

Another headline also on The Hill same day: "Reagan Judges Surface as Unfiltered Assessors of Trump." Oh, so there are Republicans who are even more Republican than Trump because they're Reagan-appointed judges and they have unfiltered assessments of Trump. Oh, so in other words, there are some very credible Republican types, these judges who are trying to block Trump. So that would suggest that Republicans are not all exactly on the same side. So that headline is at the same time as the headline, five ways Republicans are breaking with Trump.

Let's see. There's another headline: "Trump Approval Rating Drops to New Low According to a Poll." Okay, that is three headlines just on The Hill just today suggesting that Trump is losing his popularity. Now put it all together. Washington Post, whistleblowers, seditious six. Don't follow illegal orders if you're in the military. And then, oh look at all the ways the Republicans are abandoning Trump. In other words, making it easy to abandon Trump because you feel that other people are doing it. What would be persuasion in this case? Repetition. Repetition. Repetition. So the more they say Trump is becoming less popular, Republicans are breaking with him, you better not agree with him if he gives illegal orders. They're creating a narrative, and there's that narrative word again, a framework in which you can imagine that Trump is becoming less popular. Once that narrative is established, then anything in the news that's anti-Trump or shows somebody disagreeing with him or anything that they could stretch to make it look like it's an illegal military order. Now they all fit in that same narrative that he might give an illegal order and his popularity is shrinking within his own base, even if that's not necessarily true.

All right. Now let's look at Politico. One of the headlines is "How Trump's Base Could Break." Okay. So you can start to see that if it's true, and I don't know that it is, but if it's true that our publications, our mainstream media is at least partly just propaganda by deep state intelligence assets. If that's true, what would it look like? Wouldn't it look exactly like this? And I remind you, if you don't know what a color revolution is, you need to study up on that because I'm not sure we're in one, but I know that if you were doing pattern recognition and you were saying what would it look like? A color revolution is how the US intelligence and our other assets have overthrown some number, I don't know what the number is but multiple other countries and the accusation is that the same technique is being used internally by some presumably anti-Trump forces to destabilize the Trump administration and put back I suppose a Democrat-led thing.

So a color revolution would include suspiciously funded street protests. Do we have that? Do we have recently suspiciously funded street protests that look sort of dangerous? Yes. Yeah. They're not all dangerous looking. The no kings stuff is not especially dangerous, but we do have we're looking at the funding for Antifa, etc. So it does look like there's some kind of sketchy funding for protests. That's what you would expect we would do to another country if we were trying to get rid of them. There would also be if you were suffering from an externally imposed color revolution, there would also be the press would have a pretty unified attack on the leader. Do we see the press going after the leader, Trump? Yes. More than we've ever seen the press go after anything. So we got the sketchy street protests. We've got the media maybe influenced by intelligence sources. We don't know, but it looks like it. And attacking the leader and yeah, so those would be some of the hallmarks of it. So it looks like it, but we wouldn't know.

And then there's the part about following illegal orders. And there's a part about trying to jail the current administration because you always need some excuse to jail the person who's in charge so you can install your own person. That's how we would do it if we're overthrowing another country. And that's exactly what was happening to Trump. The lawfare was not trying to beat him electorally. It was trying to put him in jail. And there was also, it looked like to me, a huge effort to put his supporters in jail, and anybody who supported him, anybody who tried to be his lawyer, anybody who was a close confidant. So all the elements are in place for what would be a color revolution that was aimed by our country at our own country. But the part that is missing I think is who's in charge? Who's in charge? I think I've seen speculation that Obama is still in charge and he's running the things from behind. I haven't seen the proof of that or that John Brennan is still in charge. Haven't seen the proof of that. So I think one thing that's missing from the narrative is a sense of who's in charge. Like if we are undergoing a color revolution, is it just a bunch of people who knew what to do but they didn't need any central coordinating or is it actually centrally coordinated by who? The CIA, all of the CIA, some corner of the CIA, some other intelligence assets. Don't know.

So I think I would say we're short of proof that there is an organized color revolution, but all the elements are there. The part missing would be who the hell is doing it? You know, we could speculate about that, but I don't think there's any smoking gun that I'm aware of. Now certainly if you looked at the Russia collusion hoax and if you said hey whoever was behind that Russia collusion hoax unless they're in jail they'd be just doing that same stuff more of it and that would suggest Obama and it would suggest Brennan and Clapper and all the guys and gals that we know were involved in that hoax because they're still operating. I mean, nothing would stop them from doing more of it if they were doing it.

On another topic, I am quite intrigued by what Alan Dershowitz has said. I don't think this is new. I think he said this for a while, that he knows exactly who's being protected by the non-release of the Epstein files. And he promises us that it's not Trump, but that there are some number and I don't know the number of important people who are being protected by the non-release of the Epstein files. Now, Dershowitz says he's not guessing because of court cases he was involved in, he actually knows who the people are. But what he doesn't tell us is how many of them there are. Is it three people who are being protected? Because the way he talks about it, it sounds like it's a lot. I don't know what a lot would be. Like any one would be a lot in this particular context. But how many people do you think are being protected and what type of people? I think he also suggested it's all manner of important people. They're all important, but they're not necessarily elected leaders. They're not necessarily any specific kind of rich person. There are just a variety of important people who are being protected.

Does that sound right to you? I have to say that sounds completely right to me. Can't be sure, but it does feel like there's more than one person being protected. It's probably several countries involved. And I'll bet you that the US's relationship with those several countries is kind of dependent on us keeping our damn mouths shut about what their leaders were up to. So you could do your own speculation about what countries are involved, but I think Great Britain is at the top of my list. Don't have any proof, but if I had to guess who we would try so hard to protect, it feels like Great Britain, doesn't it?

Now, I know some of you are going to say Israel because that just gets thrown into every conversation. But I don't have any specific reason to think that Israel's being protected. You know, that they may or may not have been involved in some Epstein blackmail intel thing. That would be separate. So separate from whether Israel had any Epstein involvement is a question of whether any prominent Israelis are being protected. And that I don't have any specific reason to think that would be the case. But I love the fact that all of us are wondering who is being protected. But Dershowitz actually knows. Can you imagine being him? Can you imagine being one of the few people on earth who don't have to wonder? He actually knows. He knows the actual names of the people being protected. And I think he's telling the truth. So I think he does know the names. It's kind of weird.

Anyway, Ukraine had some military success, I guess you'd call it, with their sea drones. So that would be water-based drones. Blew up two empty oil tankers that were apparently part of what they call Russia's ghost fleet. So if you read the news as I did and you found out that two tankers, now there are oil tankers involved in avoiding sanctions. So Russia is under sanctions, but there are all these sketchy, usually rusty old tankers that have been getting around the sanctions. Now, if I told you, as I just did, that Ukraine had blown up two of them in one day in the Black Sea, would you think that that would make a difference? What's missing in the story? Well, what's missing is how many tankers are there? If they blew up two and there were only five, that's a pretty big story. But if you had to guess, how many ghost tankers do you think Russia is using every day? Not over time, but just every day. How many tankers are either carrying an illegal load of Russian oil or returning empty to get a load?

If you had to guess, so I'm looking at your numbers. 18. Well if Ukraine took out two of 18, that would be a lot for one day of work, right? Somebody's saying 200. So I went to Grok, which by the way, I don't understand any stories in the news anymore