cool life etc. He lasted one week on the job because somebody sent his boss a picture of somebody else who had taken a photo and put it on Snapchat in which he was in a room with some marijuana paraphernalia. And the boss, quite reasonably, I don't disagree with the boss at all, said I don't want any employees who have this kind of a picture on social media and he fired him. There was a great job, lesson one weekend, got fired.

Now imagine if he also knew what was happening with his other employees. What he would have found is he would have had to fire his whole damn staff. Only one of them got caught. Every one of them did something that would be roughly equivalent to this level of bad behavior if you can call it that. And I would say that probably my stepson would have kept his job if your technology was ubiquitous.

I would agree with you. I mean what did the boss do when he was in college and high school? You know what if there is any way because remember the boss did not fire him for his behavior. He fired him for being caught in his behavior. He was very specific. It wasn't a moral, it wasn't anything moral ethical or anything. He just said that's not the reputation I want associated with my company because we deal with the public. He would have soon found out that was pretty standard with all of his employees I think.

All right. So give us some wrap up here. I've got a few more topics I want to share with my peeps. So look I know on your show you talk a lot about America and great and the reason why America is the greatest and the most prosperous is because of our Bill of Rights. And the First Amendment right says we do not have to be hidden to be free. We do not have to be hidden to say what we want, to share ideas, to share information and to be with people. And so if we just embrace that and understand that that's why we're the greatest. We don't need anonymity. We can be free because of those Bill of Rights. And Clearview helps us make a happier, healthier, safer place. I would even go so far as that it might help even race relations because you're going to start seeing people for what they do instead of your first impression. But that's maybe a little too optimistic.

So thank you David Scalzo. Tell us again the name of your investment firm.

Kirenaga Partners. Spelled K I R E N A G A.

All right. And where can they find you on Twitter?

Scalzo underscore David.

All right. Thank you so much for joining us and we're gonna talk about some other topics and I'll talk to you later.

All right that was fun. This topic fascinates the heck out of me because it's going to change everything. But let's talk about some other stuff. Let's talk about impeachment and Adam Schiff and all that stuff.

Scott Jennings wrote an interesting piece for CNN in which he notes that Adam Schiff is essentially doing Putin's work. Because if what we were worried about is that Russia was trying to undermine trust in our system and that's what we're worried about right? We're worried about those pesky Russians interfering with our elections and undermining our faith in our own system. And as Scott Jennings points out is there anybody who's eroding faith in our system faster than Adam Schiff? I mean that's all he's doing. So we can't really care about eroding faith in our system if we're all engaged in doing exactly that. I mean even just watching it you're part of that.

And as Joel Pollak pointed out the Democrats are literally obstructing their own their own election because the Democrats by forcing this impeachment vote have taken several of the people running for president as Democrats off the field and they basically are seeding Iowa to the people who were not already employed. You know Joe Biden and Bernie and Buttigieg. So it turns out that being unemployed just turns into a big advantage for running for president if you're a Democrat.

So I don't think we can claim that there's any kind of moral superiority going on with any of this impeachment stuff because everybody involved is doing nothing but chasing their own political gain. You know in lawsuits how if you sue somebody and I don't know if this works in every case but if you sue somebody and it turns out that you're wrong and the other party wins they can often if not always, I don't know how this works, but they can often recoup their legal fees. So in other words there should be a cost to impeaching and failing. You feel me? If you impeach and win then the side that starts the impeachment wins politically and every other way I guess. But what if they try to impeach and fail? What if they fail? Should there be any blowback, any cost to that? And I think maybe there should be.

Because Tucker Carlson always says this and I swear I probably heard Tucker Carlson say this for a solid year. This is one of those things he says regularly and every time I shook my head and I said to myself Tucker, Tucker that's crazy. You know I agree with a lot of stuff you say but that's crazy. And here's what he says. He says that every time the Democrats accuse the Republicans of doing something it's because they themselves are doing it. And I thought to myself there's no logical reason that's true and I haven't really noticed it and it's sort of a crazy thing to say. And then I started paying attention and I don't know what causes it. I don't know if there's a cause and effect. I don't know if it's a perceptual thing but damn it's consistent. We're watching it again. It is just time after time after time it is exactly that.

The Democrats are complaining that Trump has put our system at risk by degrading its trust and integrity but it's what they're doing. They're spending 12 hours a day eroding our trust in our system. They've actually just destroyed part of the Constitution while we were watching. You know that part of the Constitution that said impeachment was a real solemn thing. They just took a real solemn tool, probably one of the most important, maybe the most important, it could be the most important part of the Constitution that there's a way to remove the top person and they've degraded it. They've turned it into a joke. You can't make a cleaner argument that they're doing actively at this moment the thing they're accusing somebody of doing. You've never seen a cleaner example.

That I wish I could tell why. Yeah when Tucker says it makes me think that it's actually a strategy. He doesn't say that but it feels like a strategy even if it isn't just the way it plays out.

All right. And so I ask you this. If Schiff's claim is that the only reason that Trump did what he did with Ukraine, asking them for the investigation, the claim is that the only reason it was done was for his personal political benefit. The only reason. Now that borders on crazy because there's obviously something to be worried about if your next president might have some blackmail material or some corruption entanglement. Anything that's a problem over in Ukraine. So obviously there's a little bit of interest or should be. But what is the standard for how much a decision by a government official, how much of it is politically motivated? In other words personally beneficial versus good for the country.

What if it's 90-10? What if it's 90 percent for their own good and 10 percent for the public? Can they be impeached? What if it's 99 and 1? What if one percent of it is for the public? Yeah it's good for the public too and in some trivial way but 99 percent of it is just for me personally. Is that the standard? 50/50? What if it's 49-51? The point is there is no rational logical way to make a standard for how much you know what percentage of the reason is personal versus what percentage of the reason is good for the public.

And certainly with this Biden and Burisma situation it is trivially easy to show that there's some national interest. I mean you could argue how big that national interest is but I don't think you can argue it exists. It clearly exists. Let me prove it to you. Let me prove that there's some national interest in the Burisma Biden thing here. This is an absolute proof right here. I'm a citizen of the United States. I have an interest in knowing what happened with Burisma and Biden. I'm not lying. Absolutely honestly I'm interested in knowing that because I think it could be important. If I had to guess probably not that much but I'm interested. I would like to eliminate that as a risk.

Now can it be said that there's a national interest? Yes. I just proved it. I proved that one in 360 million Americans is legitimately interested in that question. Would it matter if there are two of me? Does it make a difference if there are a million people like me? At what point can you say you've satisfied the question of national interests? Because I'm part of the nation. I just said I had an interest. So there's some percentage this certainly has an interest.

So my point is you could not create a standard where you're trying to parse out what percentage is national interest and what percentage is personal. And that's the entire case. Their entire case is that that's a standard which they can recognize and act on and it can't be done. It is rationally logically impossible to parse those out.

Now did our founders know that to be the case? Yes they did. They designed a system in which those decisions of what percentage was personal and what percentage was for the nation, they designed a system where that doesn't matter. It does not matter because you can vote and you can change it. The lawyers she said mind-reading. Is there somebody but I would love this to be true. So I'm just so in the comments and I assume that that means that the impeachment defense has started. Have, are you talking about officially as part of the defense, did they bring up mind-reading on their side? Is that what happened? I'll have to check on that but it looks like somebody's saying that. I will look for confirmation there anyway.

So it's a standard that can't be enforced which is what percentage was for your own good.

Let me ask you this. There are two things that people say just like it's certainly true and it could be but I'm gonna push back on both. One is that Russia wants to undermine the trust in our system. So that's one claim. Another claim is that China has this strategy of something called total war in which it's not just military but they're in a current war with the United States. It goes this line of thinking in which they are trying every possible avenue to damage the United States and lessen us for their own benefit. And that total war would include everything from spying and stealing intellectual property, sending us fentanyl, you name it. It's like everything. Messing with our elections. Just everything. It's all on the table.

So the two claims are that Russia and China, our two biggest rivals in terms of military prowess, that they're engaged in a current war with us. And I say I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced. Now I do believe that all the things we talked about are probably relatively true. Russia probably hacks us. China does all the things that it's been said. But do they have some kind of a comprehensive plan or strategy that starts at the top? It only counts if it's the leaders of the country who want to do this. Yet are the leaders of the country saying to themselves uh-huh if I can degrade the trust in the United States by 20 percent Russia's GDP will go up? What? How do they connect the dots? Can somebody explain to me what a rational