ry time.

So Mueller has made a case that on the details, if you were just to ignore everything you felt about what's right, if you were to ignore everything you felt about what's just, if you were to ignore everything about what's good for the country, if you could ignore all of those things, on some technical level there might be enough stuff that you could indict. Could you ever get a conviction? Probably no, I would think so. Can you imagine finding 12 jurors who would convict the president for doing his job and allegedly obstructing the investigation into the biggest witch hunt in history about a crime that the president alone knew he did not commit? I mean he's the only one who knew for sure that there was no crime. So there's no way this ever in any real world could have turned into a court case with a conviction. You could not find in any circumstance 12 jurors who would agree, oh yeah let's convict the president who has the best economy in the world and is keeping us out of wars. Let's convict him for a technical violation when he was trying to avoid a witch hunt into something that wasn't a crime. No way. No frickin' way.

But having said that, was it enough with what Mueller found to get an indictment? And if you don't know, the old saying is you could indict a ham sandwich. So it's really easy to get an indictment. You just have to have a pretty strong suggestion that there's something worthy of talking about. That's my legal explanation.

So when if Mueller is complaining that the public and the politicians are over-interpreting his finding, that's probably true. I think that's true. Because if you're just talking about could he get indicted if you were not a president just doing his normal job, I'd say probably yes, don't you think? If he were not the president, if he were guilty which he wasn't, you know that matters in terms of how people feel about it, not so much the law. And if he could be indicted and all those things that were true, probably Mueller has a case. So on a very technical Boy Scout according to the law, I don't want my work to be misinterpreted, I can say Mueller would have a point. It's a trivial point. It's an unimportant point. It's completely irrelevant to anything that will ever be the ultimate outcome of all this stuff. But it's a point.

Now let me give you another Gell-Mann look on this. So Gell-Mann was a physicist who famously noticed that when there was a story about physics, my topic that he understood better than most people in the world, he could tell that the story was usually wrong. But if he looked at a story on some other topic in which he was not an expert, Gell-Mann, that's his last name, two words I think, he couldn't tell but he believed the other stories even though a hundred percent of the stories that he understood their topic better than the news understood it, he knew that they were wrong. So he was saying, okay what are the chances that these other stories are all right when the only thing I understand is always wrong? So that observation should tell you what to believe.

All right. So in this case if somebody writes a summary about something this is very similar to when there are news stories about me. So I have read maybe, if I had to put an estimate, I would say I've read maybe a thousand news stories about myself over 30 years of being a cartoonist. Of those thousand-ish stories I've read about myself they're all summaries because you can't write an article about a person that captures all of the complexity of their life. That's not a thing. It's always a summary. How often are the summaries wrong? Pretty much all the time. Pretty much all the time. Now they're not wrong like necessarily a lie. They're not always wrong because a fact got wrong although that's very common. It's very common to have basic facts wrong maybe two-thirds of the time. But the fact is that when I see summaries of me I know they're all inaccurate in the way that I would want that story to be told.

So of course Mueller thinks that a summary doesn't capture everything and of course he thinks the public and the press are taking it too far or taking it out of context. There was no other option. It was a summary. There is no other option. Of course it doesn't capture the flavor of the original.

All right, enough about that. And as always I always caution you to wait for Alan Dershowitz's opinion on this whole thing. If Alan Dershowitz says that everything I just told you is a bunch of BS you should immediately change your opinion to whatever Alan Dershowitz says. So wait for him to weigh in and that'll tell us if this is something or nothing. But it feels like desperation. We've got to find something. We've been so embarrassed. We've gotta find some claim.

Now let's talk about some other things. Let's talk about Venezuela. You know it seems to me that the Monroe Doctrine is going to rule the day in that you know we can watch Venezuela as long as we need to until we don't need to. But I'm pretty sure that the Monroe Doctrine, meaning that the United States is going to take care of business in its own hemisphere, you know whatever it takes we're gonna take care of business. I think the Russians know that. I think the Cubans know that. I think Venezuela knows that. But we're not going to do it prematurely. We probably won't do it just for humanitarian reasons because there's already a humanitarian crisis obviously. And as Tucker Carlson pointed out on his show I think it was last time, when has the United States ever militarily intervened in another country to fix things and it all worked out well? And I'm not a historian and I thought to myself it's a really no example of that. Now I'm willing to believe that's true because I can't think of an example. Can any of you think of an example?

And it could be you know some South American country we messed with in the fifties. Somebody's saying South Korea. No. Well you know you can't count conquered countries. Germany and Japan. Kosovo. Grenada. Special cases. Panama. Panama is probably, I don't know what's the situation in Panama right now? What's the situation in Grenada right now? Yeah so I wouldn't include Japan and Germany because we went to war with them because it was a war. So I would not include countries where we went to war for war reasons and then we figured out what to do after the war was over. That's a different situation. But Grenada we actually invaded. That was like what an eight h