o be named after a sitting governor because he's been the steward of so much fraud that they're going to name it after him while he's still governor of a state. Now that's kind of funny.

So Brandon Gill was talking about this. He's pretty funny too. Republican. So he says, quote, "$9 billion in tax money was looted. Congress has a role to ensure our programs aren't abused by left-wing governors like Walz." So he says that Minnesota had basically created what he calls a patronage system of taking our hard-earned tax dollars, giving it to his political allies by essentially turning a blind eye to the fraud and that he knew exactly what was going on the whole time.

What do you think? Do you think that Tim Walz was incompetent and had no idea how much fraud there was in his own state? Or do you believe that he was deeply involved in promoting the lawlessness because some of that money came back to him and his allies? What do you think? I'm a little bit mixed on this. I think it might be some part pure incompetence because he does seem incompetent honestly. He just gives off this incompetent vibe like crazy. But also it seems he must have turned a blind eye to a lot of it because it's hard to imagine he wasn't aware of it because of the scale. So I'm going to say blind eye definitely. But on top of that, if he had wanted to stop it, he probably didn't have the skill. I don't think he had any capability.

On top of that, I guess Trump has directed the Justice Department to investigate ActBlue. Do you know what ActBlue is? So ActBlue is an organization that services Democrats and what they try to do is get lots of small donations from people that would add up to something big for elections. But they're accused of only pretending that the donations are small but actually raising big money from dark sources and then just pretending that it came from individuals. They've also been accused of using people's names without their approval so that they could put a name to all the small donations that were not real.

Now I don't know how much of that is real but I suspect that ActBlue is essentially a criminal organization. I don't know that. But the hints are that it looks like it's just a criminal organization.

So now let me ask you this. Is it going too far if I said that the Democrats are a criminal organization? The entire entity. Now I don't mean every voter. You know voters probably are just going blah blah blah. Everybody's bad. Democrats have some problems. Republicans have some problems. But I prefer the Democrats. So most voters, I think, are blissfully unaware of just how much crime is happening. But if you look at it collectively, here are just some of the things.

So you've got thousands if not millions of NGOs and we know now that the NGOs are essentially money laundering operations. So those would be mostly Democrat criminal organizations or at least involved in something that would be I think you would call them money laundering. We know that the SNAP funds were massively stolen and that that was primarily by Democrats. We might find out that ActBlue is a criminal organization. I think we will. Some people say that our elections were rigged primarily by Democrats. That would be crime. You could argue how proven that is or not, but in my opinion, I think the rigging of elections is just a fact. And I think it leans heavily toward the Democrats. Not that no Republicans ever cheated, but probably there's a pretty big difference in scale.

Then there's everything in California. Basically, it seems like every dime that California gets, it just disappears. You know, the fire recovery money didn't go to the people who were recovering. The bullet train never happened. The money for the homeless didn't help anybody. So pretty much everything in California is even worse in Minnesota. It's all criminal. To me it looks criminal. And then you got this whole operation where the Democrats find ways to fund teachers who are all Democrats and then they donate to Democrat people. So you got some circular money laundering thing. Then you've got the main Democrats who pulled the Russia collusion hoax. You've got the Clinton Foundation that was probably just a money laundering thing.

So pretty much every major story that involves gigantic fraud seems to be Democrats. Now, just to be clear, I'm not giving Republicans a pass. Maybe they're just better at it, right? You know, it's hard to believe that all the crime is just on one side of the political aisle. That would be weird, right? But we don't really. Yeah. The Clinton Foundation. Thank you.

But am I wrong? Am I in a bubble? Am I in some kind of a bubble where I'm only seeing the Democrat bad behavior? You know, I hear lots of accusations about Trump personally, but that stuff tends to be all transparent in public. You know, he's not hiding it. You know, it's in the news. You could tell he did this with crypto. You could tell he did this with whatever. So you could disagree or not like what Trump does. But that's still not Republicans. That would be something you don't like about Trump. So am I wrong that this is so imbalanced toward Democrats that if you said the Democrats are at least as a party not the individual voters but it seems like a criminal organization and I mean that without any hyperbole.

All right. Breitbart is reporting and lots of other people reporting that the GDP grew at a robust 4.3% when even the smartest people thought it would be 3.3 and if you went back a few months the smartest people were saying we're going to have a recession because of all these damn tariffs. So it turns out that all the smartest economists were wrong and the people who were right were Trump and Bessent and anybody who agreed with them. Do you believe that?

Now if this is true that the people who got it right were the few but that the main economic experts all got it wrong just thousands and thousands of economists completely wrong. What does that tell you about the science of economics? Now I'm an economics major and it seems to me that economics is mostly guessing. You know, you can learn how things fit together if you learn economics, but if you think you can use that to predict, you really can't. And I would argue that the inability to predict is kind of a big knock on your profession, right? If you were a scientist and you couldn't predict what was going to happen with your scientific theory, you would think, well, that's no good. But economists could just make up all day long. They can be completely wrong and then just come back tomorrow and make up some more. Economics is barely a respectable profession. Just barely, maybe not at all.

But getting back to my prior thought, do you think this number is real? Because I already told you that all data that matters is fake. Well, this matters. This will be important data. Would I change my opinion that this is the rare accurate data? What do you think? I'm going to stick with my earlier statements. I do not believe yet. I could be convinced, but I do not believe this is a stable predictive number. It could be a blip because if all the economists were wrong up till now, what are the odds that they could calculate the GDP accurately? If they didn't get anything else right. So do you believe they got everything wrong? But boy, they're good at calculating that GDP.

If you put the Dilbert filter on it, I would say there's a healthy chance that this will be revised or won't be a consistent number or we'll find out that there was some special case about it that gave it a little bump. So do not be too enthusiastic. But I got to say, if it's even directionally true, and it might be, that would be pretty impressive. It would certainly put Trump investments looking good just before the end of the year.

But how about Canada? If Canada also got a big bump, maybe that would tell us something. Well, according to Statistics Canada, their GDP for October showed their economy shrank by three-tenths of 1%. It's the biggest decline in almost three years. Their manufacturing base decreased by 1.5%. Blah blah blah. So how do you think Trump feels that he's got this amazing GDP, which we hope is real, at the same time that Canada is decreasing its GDP? I'll tell you, you can't win much harder than that.

But he's not winning everything because the Supreme Court has ruled that Trump cannot use the National Guard in Illinois to reduce crime. And I guess the Supreme Court said the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. That was what one of the high court majority people wrote. So I don't know if that's the biggest problem in the world. But there may be more to it. There may be another angle that the feds can use. We'll see. But not the biggest story in the world.

So Trump is once again being Trump and instead of saying Merry Christmas and settling into the Christmas week on Truth Social, he ran a poll to see who was the worst late night host because that's important. So instead of Merry Christmas, it's a poll on who's the worst late night host. And he's got listed Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel or Jimmy Fallon. And then he furthermore he said that Stephen Colbert was quote a dead man walking and he urged CBS to put late night host to sleep. That is so Trump. The beauty of it is that what makes this extra provocative is that he's doing Christmas week. So it's sort of a slow week even. So he's got all these successes like the GDP and then he uses that time to slam on his opponents.

So at the same time, Polymarket, that's the online place where people bet on stuff. Polymarket says the number one suspect in the Epstein files is Stephen Colbert and that they estimate there's a 97% chance that Colbert is in the Epstein files. Now I don't think that's true. I do not think he's in the Epstein files, but it's funny to watch that be distorted. So I'm not sure I would use Polymarket to make my predictions if it's anything political. All right. But it's funny.

So speaking of funny, apparently the latest dump of the Epstein files with lots of redactions, the way they redacted it was with Adobe Acrobat, which is a two-step process. So first you black out the line using Adobe Acrobat and then you run some other process to make sure that it flattens the file and that the thing that's covering up the sentence really covers it up. But it looks like somebody forgot to do that second part at least with some of the files. So people could just take it reverse the redactions. So people have been reversing the redactions. They just take them off.

But here's the big story. They didn't find anything. Apparently, there wasn't anything provocative. Maybe there was something that the victims didn't like, but they didn't find any smoking guns when they removed the removal of the content. So a lot of people were chattering online saying, "Ha, somebody in the FBI or Department of Justice, whoever was in charge of redacting, wanted us to know the truth, and so they pretended to redact knowing tha