Everybody monitor its time. It's time for a coffee was got Arabs. What a great day this is gas and you're all here for it, which I think is pretty pretty special and here's a philosophy: question for you, which might have some practicality and you re like hypothetically. If somebody invented a button that you could push and it would make your life substantially better, would you push it in the comments? Tell me if it is. If you know this reassure and there's no trick to it right, there's no trick, there's a button if an existed and you pushed it you and make you like better would know downside. Would you push it well, let's find out, because there's a little button and the bottom, your screen called notifications.

you're to push that. But at the same time as you did the simultaneous up, it would make your life better and thus a promise. But I'd like to fully enjoy pushing their button eleven the simultaneous sit. At the same time. You need a couple of hundred thousand thing, you're jealous time again to enjoying class vessel that guy with a favorite liquid like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hidden day, the turbo simultaneous sip, which comes with a button press for some of you subscription button. Do that works go. It was ass, good ass, I thought you was here Right now, let's talk about the news, I guess the Tiger woods cause of his crime it will be revealed today or tomorrow. Do you believe that

So the news says there we will know the result of the the cause of the Tiger Woods crash. I'm going say: that's not gonna happen. And what I mean is there will be a report, but I feel- we're going to look at their report and working to say something like this may be, Maybe not do you really think we're going to find the cause of the crash That tiger will say: oh yeah, that was the cause. You look at it. You say that, like some era, see anything left out seems like all The context is there I'll feel, like that's gonna happen, but we'll see. Apparently there a couple of suspected, rest who are on the list came over the southern border. Well,

I don't know how many suspected terrorists come over the southern border, but too is way too many too many. Now. What I dont know is: if border security can ever stop terrorists I don't know I feel, like I feel like terrorists would just find some other way to do it in the must be a way to get into the country. So I think the board wall has a lot more to do with immigration in general and probably as little limited value from stopping terrorists, but as part of the story, there's a different level of motivation for the terrorists and their fewer of them so seems like they can get across no matter what, but, as part of the story now now years like to talk about things. I've been right about lately. You remember that I predicted the bided would be forced to be up

security at the border, no matter what he wanted to do, no matter what philosophical you thought was right that he was going to kind of have to keep building it and apparently that's been, But they're gonna play down because he's just go to fill in the gaps. No, no, no building a wall of that's crazy, duck we're fill in the gaps. Do you know what the Trump Administration was doing? Fill in the gaps knows what they were doing. because the gaps are exactly where you would put a wall first. when you put a wall where there is already a perfectly good wall Do you put a wall in a part of the border where nobody was crossing any way know you would put the wall where the gaps are the gaps that might actually be used for crossing. So it's sounding suspiciously like exactly the same policy. In effect, not in the deep,

but in effect, as Trump who told you that was going to happen, I did now of one story: there's a noose, the said exhaled aerosols increases with covert nineteen infection, age and obesity. So if you are old and overweight you're more of a super spreader, at least and in this specific sense of exhaling more virus, Now this is just one study. How often does it want to study? It turned out to be right out at all, but I think the best this story is where the study was published. It was published in a publication whose

Those are p m s. That's right! Have you pronounce that acronym? Do you think people try to pronounce it p m a ass when you pronounce that penis says Ip Mass, so gigantic penis study about aerosols, I'm not going to say that our necessarily right about that, but I feel like I'm creeping toward being right, that the super spread errors of the older obese people want in the nice, for a medical experts, tell us that, so we knew especially use daily.

And don't tell me that we were doing social isolating in general, so that covered everything as it doesn't. You don't try exactly as hard in every situation, but if you told me in our kids under twelve totally safe and people over fifty with more weight, Naso Safe, I would definitely act differently. Treat them the same. Well, here's know somebody else. I was sort of write about. I said that in the George Void trial, they should put video evidence on trial in general, not just the video evidence for this case, but they should make the larger point. The video evidence is misleading, commonly commonly misleading

The defence did that put an expert on the stand. Who was looking at where the money was placed on top of George Floyd, where the officers knee was and the I guess the defense Nelson asked. As one of the witnesses, if he had ever heard of a thing, is camera bias or something like that and the weather said now and then he shouted the side by side pictures one one that look like the knee was on the neck and one that looked like. He was on the shoulder blades and at the same time- and I guess we're multiple pictures that make the up. Excuse me, allergies are kick my ass day anyway, So, in a way the defence did

video evidence in general on trial exactly right, because you have to get the jury to the place where they would, at least at least imagine the video evidence. Could be real now, it probably would have been a great distraction to bring in these examples and adventure like the fine people, oaks and the blue. because the people in the jury probably believe those things to be true, so they wouldn't work as examples, even though there not do so either, Elsa did exactly right. He used exact. The camera angle that was relevant to the case, you made the larger point that it's not Is it possible to be fooled by video, but there's a word for it. Have I told you that when there is a word for it carries more weight,

We are more persuaded we're more persuaded. Somebody's got to amuse super spread her Air, which is pretty funny you never know, but I've had so little contact with humans that I doubt it I did. You know that the great got felt show is fine. five days a week at night, it's competing in the eleven p M slot in these coastline. Eight p m on Microsoft,. And apparently the first night of ratings for the got felled show? How do you think you did on the first night and the first lady be all the other shows that the eleven? little bit. Apples, oranges, Garfield, runs a two times but apparently is already dominated technically is dominating late night on the first night. Second night was last night

and by the way, if you haven't seen the clip, that's a parody of CNN coverage, it's really good. It was on the first night. So, what's that. Somebody alerted me actually issue people alerted me to the fact that run dissenters as apparently adopted the Trump body language? You know this. You talk like this easy. and when I first heard it I thought: well, it doesn't look, I'm sure it doesn't look exactly like tromp you're probably looks maybe reminds you of it, but then I looked at it. Exactly it looks like I'm united, explained why? But it looks. actually in imitation of drop it, so it's a spot on with a their movements and jobs hand, movements were very distinct. I've never seen. I don't think I've seen it.

they do it before. So I have to ask: is that attention? Is it. And would you even practices stuff? What would you do those emotions like this with it with those be the ones you do I'm actually will confused because I've I thought, It will be a sort of obvious whether he was doing it intentionally or not, and I cannot tell I just can't tell it could do it could literally just be influence and he picked it up and he doesn't know why so keep an eye on that.

Somebody smarter suggested that run the centre should lower his speaking voice tat more authority. What do you think of that idea? What do you think? I know that of dissenters? Lowering his voice was little bed. Do you or more weight if he could be good in my back yard, pull off, and I think the same suggestion was a suggestion that he is speaking from is Diaphragm, which makes them sound a little less literally and they should be speaking from the bottom of his stomach instead of that, the type so

Do you think that he would benefit from voice the little voice technique and there is technique invoice? One I've told you this before. If you like, a really quick technique to two near voice, you harm the first part of happy birthday. You hamlet, and you feel it in your them was called the mask of your is that the from part and if you can harm so it vibrates in the from party here face, then he stopped. coming to the very next thing? You speak, we'll be closest, close dear perfect speaking voice. I shall give you a demonstration goes like this. You would go. And now my voice would be just about my perfect speaking voice because it tunes be relaxes, be puts the voice up in the right mechanism.

So I ve run dissenters could benefit from a five minute voices really policy and by the way like to thank all the people who suddenly suggestions and and stuff because it really helps. and that was a good suggestion. Soap Rasmussen is reporting that the ESA question? Do you trust political moves you are getting now. Here is one of the reasons you can't do polling questions meeting unless your trained at it s really hard to ask a question that doesn't get a mislead. The answer that people interpret differently. I was like this question is a simple question: do you trust the a little news you are getting and if they. Added the you are getting at the under that it would completely change because

Trusting that all the news is accurate is different from trusting that the news you choose to consumers ACT gives us your choice to consumers, So liberals and fifty five percent said they do not trust the political news. They are getting, I'm sorry to an unsafe. Fifty five percent liberals do trust the political news are getting. What do you think that you would have to be asleep for a year earth to trust the news? Wouldn't you even Euro NEWS, even the news that you ve decided, is the best of the best. Wouldn't you have to be asleep for years to think. That's true even if you said the honest mistakes happen, even the oddest mistakes,

Let's say if you believed that the Russia collusion thing was an honest mistake by the news, even if you believe there was honest mistake is still misleading. Why would he trusted how in the world can fifty five percent of liberals development. In my what what reality are they experience. Conservatives were a twenty three percent. And I'm going to ask the same question: what twenty three points. conservatives to notice the fake news or No, they trusted anyway, even knowing that often is fake. How in the world could you be a self identified? Conservative watching presumably at least some conservative coverage and still think you can trust the news.

They they find this to remember I told you that any poor question something like twenty five percent of the public will just have a whack response. It just look like they're, not even the human beings. If they can answer, though it here's another, like who are these twenty three percent? I don't love. You too made everybody like that. You spend your whole life. Do you think you'll ever meet somebody who says yeah? conservative, any you know at the news is pretty accurate. The ever you ever met anybody. Twenty three percent is enough that you would have met somebody with that opinion. When you see there's a problem. I think some people just interpret the question differently. if you said to a bunch of conservatives, do you trust the police? news you are getting? I believe that one three percent probably Thursday, I care their minds of course but probably something like twenty three percent. Well,

conservative news that I choose to follow is the good stuff here they could get it wrong, but I trust that in general,. I think, maybe that's just a question interpretation issue. So Sakharov Floyd trial so as of today, there is really no chance he's gonna get convicted of murder. I don't know if there's some lesser charge but based on the testimonies and the trial facts like email yesterday, the odds of a conviction of direct shaven. In my opinion, average zero. actually zero, you could say well everything's possible, but I don't In this case, it just became so clear, running through some of the things now what do you think of sea and unreported when the? Minneapolis, police use of force expert, the actual trading export. This is the guy who trains the police. Are you

the force and how did see then cover their testimony, lay said that this testified that Directive kneeling on George Floyd's neck, is not a trained neck, restrained technique and that's what they reported. They think that covered it. Do you think anything was left, there Do you think CNN got everything you need to know about that situation? Read that re mad lyra. as a kind of sounds. If you read that that doesn't make any sense, when I just told you they're, zero Chaz he's gotta get convicted right and salaries. Somebody in the comments a saying same on ABC News. Maybe probably now, let me tell you what actually happened. Now, the only reason I know what actually happened is that I'm reading the a blog site, coldly

insurrection and Andrew Branca is live blogging this and gets into the details. Now, if you read what actually happened, that the trial is closer to the opposite of what a ceiling reported, because this use of force and training guy absolutely destroy the narrative. Here's how you get two different stories, When the prosecution is is talking to this use of Force Expert a narrow, the question so narrow that they use Taurus guy is answering on a sort of hypothetical technical way.

So one of the questions- and this is a general example right- this might be a little off, but the general example would be this expert. Do you think that is it appropriate to continue applying force when the when the risk has passed? What would the experts say? Is it appropriate to continue applying this hold when the the danger has passed. What how would he s her? Well, I imagined it answer. If there's no danger than you did not use a an aggressive hold right, that's Paraphrasing here, but basically that's what happened Then the defences says paraphrasing lots of stuff into into a little summary. Then the defence, as well as every situation. The same now, can you factory in this the whole situation.

yes, if you factor in the whole situation, did Derek chip do anything against policy nope. No, the guy who trains it the a guy who trains the police says that You consider all the all The variables he followed procedure, that's the end of the case. Oh it's worse, the medical, professional did more so here, let me just run through in this is most of this is cribbed from the legal insurrection blog, which I recommend for the best the thorough look at this. What did I tell you about the drug dealer so Floyd drug dealer who provided in the drugs and appear

the autopsy showed their flight had three times the amount that might be enough for an overdose three times. I told you that that seems like a third degree, murder charge could be applied to the deal and I recommended that the defence will try to get that govern because if somebody else's being tried for the same Sabre scattered, reasonable doubt is that if two people are being tried for, Say: murder for different circumstances at the same time. How in the world can one of them find them guilty. That's the most reasonable doubt you can never have well. It turns out that the law, before the drug dealer desert testified that he's gonna take the fifth and not

Not talk a trial because it might incriminate him in a possible third degree murder, which apparently is a thing in Minneapolis. Yes,. So for all of you, people who said Scots, God, Scott, you seem to know absolutely nothing about. The law because it would be a red technical to charge the drug dealer further death? otherwise all the ideas in the country would be somebody be giving charged with a death to which I said, I don't think you quite know what sentinel is. The sentinel is not comparable to Heroin Heroin, some dangerous stuff, but it's not even close said. those way more dangerous. So if you're a dealer and you get somebody sentinel they die. That's different. Does Canada should have expected it or or loosely the risk of it was high enough that you have.

Legal culpability so the he's got items non lawyer, theory that that the drug dealer should be on trial. For third degree mirrored murder is confirmed in its confirm, does menial, be found guilty or Tried, but has confirmed that is a real thing and that the circumstances completely justified. In my opinion,. As Andrew, Said if you look here too possible causes of death. This is a way elated out. I thought it was a real Goodwin Leno. He said that if I had to choose between two situations. Why? in which I was placed in a prominent position. Why I'm cuff for ten minutes- and I had- I think You'D- have to assume that the others

The as well and another in which I was forced to ingest a threefold fatal dose of sentinel, I know which I pick and quickly There are simply no reasonable comparison between those two risks of life you get there. Putting somebody in a police hold that is approved, police hold according to the personal, teaches verses hey. I could do this to you or I could ask you to voluntarily take three times the lethal. Those sentinel, which would you choose it's not even close, not even close, no reasonable person would think those risks are, in the same universe, really One has a high risk of kill. You like really. I. and the other would be sort of a surprise. Not even clubs. I will go on.

Andrew Branca, called the the prosecutions case. Basically, a train wreck of a disaster which has a very strong statement from somebody who knows what you're talking about So the trading guy was asked if he himself had ever disbelieved suspects claim of a medical emergency, because that's a big part of the case that. Floyd himself was a medical emergency. Essentially, The expert answers that he personally had done so disbelieved somebody. what is a routine thing to disbelieve. I'm saying that they have medical problems winner when their being held by place is routine or at least common enough that this guy see that as well. so that tears apart that part in that?

I'm not even getting to the good stuff yet like I've, how bad the cases at this point services. And also the the police procedures demonstrated that shows putting his knee on the person was. The reason that is allowed is that is the least, is the least dangerous thing to do in other words, given the totality of the situation which included. I guess shaven. They called in at one point and said that there might be this delirium tremens or wherever there is. some medical situation they suspected that Lloyd was in, which is A large body, Muscles combined with the fact that he had some, mental thing going on the may have been drug related. If you have that much strength.

And you're on some drugs and having a reaction that makes you unpredictable. You can't even control yourself. It turns out that the safest thing to do is what daring shaven did. It was the safest linked to do according to the procedures. Teeth excited delirium. Thank you excited delirium. The the phrase now do you get convicted for murder by being reckless when the police who train this technique say that he used the right procedure and it was the least dangerous thing he could have done under the circumstances. The cases over the cases, lately, I don't know, there's a precedent for this, but it feels like the jury. She just said everybody on, look. We don't need a trial because there's no evidence been presented as they waited all now. Don't think that's a thing but should be.

I'd. Let's see and then the other factor which you and I and common sense who already new, is that the experts said that, if a says, if a suspect head forcibly resisting the offer. There's only one, only more minutes before it Matter so mostly look even unconscious because, specifically the export was even if he is unconscious, should you remove the restraint and it was now cause there's enough of cases where people pop awake fighting somebody is biggest Floyd and with whatever was happening to mentally with drugs and whenever, if he were to pop back to consciousness, which is it

Apparently it happens often enough that the police are trained to what to do about it, because he could have popped back awake. It was proper to keep him keep him down in the in that position, I mean what's left of the of the prosecution at this point, all right And if these aspect is believed to be on drugs, you have more more flexibility for keeping them under control and I say when asked explicitly that the experts here when asked explicitly if any of the video of the event, showed Chauvelin placing Floyd in a chokehold quote chuckled, which in this case ex means a respiratory choke and the guy said no, So the experts had it was not a chokehold.

Then it was asked if it was as other thing. What is it a blood. or was it was it? Was he being subject to a carotid choke Which would abandon pressure on the lives of the arteries arteries right on both sides of the neck?. you know what the problem is, that he was. Putting pressure on both sides of the back, so it couldn't have been a blood joke. Yes, thank you, The blood blood choke is, I guess, the common aim for this carotid joker when it and the experts said no, it couldn't have been because it was, the pressure on one side and you can't make somebody pass out with pressure on one side, two sides would do it and even then they might power back after tens So, apparently, the amount of time you would be unconscious, even if that had happened, which clearly did not the video doesn't show any, but it shows only pressure on one side

that you probably would pop pop back in ten seconds. So all the experts talking about their their blood jokes, so apparently basin. The video there's no evidence that Hughes fixated by closing off the air and there's no evidence that he is that that that carotid, that whatever think that other thing happened the blood joke, but then there's more interesting, poor, poor. Apparently, according to police procedures, the police, officers are not supposed to medically help the suspect when. There is a situation in which the police are not expected to medically assisted the person who, as a medical problem right in their custody,.

What would that be? What would be the situation in which police would not be allowed to have medical attention given to this aspect? it turns out that the situation is exactly the one he was in, which is if the crowd is looking, Andrews, apparently there was an end may fighter who somebody was physically holding back from getting involved. What do you say that again and actual trade a man may fighter was yelling things at the police. Belligerently was making moves towards the. Place. I was physically held back by somebody else. Under that exact situation, the correct police procedure is: do not give medical help their instructed to take care of their own safety first, as the

Statistically, best way to help everybody right the same way when you're on the plane and the they say put you're mask on first and then help the child as next you statistically that's just the best way to play it. Adult puts the mask on that. You ve got time to help the child right same thing with the police procedure. First, the police have to get safe, that's at first the police have to make sure that their safe and then they can help this aspect. The mall, Murdered Floyd because the mobs actions created danger which made medical. intervention in what maybe would abandon time we don't now I mean that's, that's a big, if could be the mob, kill them because they prevented the police from doing their job and that's now and evidence, that's in evidence. That's not me, say you that's as ever, Sworn under oath from

expert who would know the most. In fact this x from the forum for the prosecution was damning that the defence in a clever persuasion move said they were called the prosecutions own star, witness as a defence, witness. that is what you don't wanna hear if you're the prosecution that you, STAR witness did so poorly that the defences gonna call him next ouch, Because there's nothing left, I mean the case is already destroyed. So I guess the defense is just going to walk on a little bit. So, let's see what else is amazing about this. then the defence ass, the expert, I think the medical experts, if getting old breathing could be misinterpreted by.

officers as just breathing. Now this agony, breathing. I guess it's some special kind of identifiable last gasp for breath before you die And apparently, if your law, enforcement or medical world, this is something you might be able to recognise and if the officers had recognized it. They would have more of an obligation to do something about right. But the question was: what would they be able to recognise that, given the crowd noise? And the answer was no- that given the crowd, Shaven probably could not recognise a change in breathing, there would have to would have alerted him that it might be this agonal breathe. Again the looks like I think this is a prosecution. Witness basal do said the crowd kill them. They said the crowd killed them, basically, because if it does too far.

Let me take that back a little bit if the agonal breathing had been detected, but it couldn't because of crowd you, or at least, is reasonable to assume it couldn't because of the ground that that could have been a contributing factor in his death. If, if there was some way to save him, we don't know that, The fact that shaven mentioned was this all this up, a polite, bow, still excited delirium, and should it on a call to get. I guess the headquarters is something so we Shaven was thinking there Floyd had. Maybe this super strength problem where, if you have this excited delay. And you're already really strong. It just makes us stronger and then you like you're, like the hawk suddenly, So we know that he was worried about that which puts everything in in the right context for the defence. So here's what

I wonder about this, are we in these super ironic situation where a day Derek shaven has a wrongful prosecution lawsuit after he gets cleared in which you will take so much money from the city, then it will effectively wait for it to see. If you can finish the sentence, I'll try it again, but you have to finish the sentence for me: is it possible that Derek Shaven will be cleared and so cleared? That is obvious, then it was a wrong for prosecution because remember the people who were involved in prosecuting em, if you say it's, the city's legal legal system and the police gotta- threw him under the bus to. While their own experts said- and there is no evidence of a crime, their own export, the police expert says: there's no evidence of a crime.

Does he have a lawsuit. Now. I don't know enough about this area of law to now, but I feel like he does. I feel like he has. The world's biggest lawsuit doesn't mean I'm looking at you comments, Jeffrey says now is able y know. I know there are lots of attorneys on here. I always had lots of iter, Sunday is are an attorney on here who can tell me if he'll have a lawsuit after this is done for wrongful prosecution here's the definition. Wrongful prosecution occurs when someone who is accused of committing a crime is tried based on false information. any guilty judgment that is based on false prosecution can be a field. Now I

is that the prosecution would have to know that the information was false. I think that's the key right. It can't be that they're just bad at their job. They would have to know in advance that they were presenting fake information. Do you think that the prosecution ever talk to the main their own main? When this do you think that the prosecution Ever interviewed their main witness before he went on trial, Do you think they ever set themselves? I think we'll just find out what he has to say when he is on trial. Do you think that's out when ordered the prosecutions, we're gonna put you on trial. These The evidence of a crime here, because that's where we need to prove there is evidence of crime. Do you.

we have that the guy who who testified under oath, told them a different story, and if he did, I guess you'd have some problems, but it seems to me that the press Fusion must have known that their star witness was going to be a witness for the defence. If you know that and they had to know it I mean you doubt: you'd have to establish this of course, but do you think there's any chance they didn t their own star witness before they put him under oath in public mouth ages. Any chance of that, as I mean, if your lawyer tell me, did I miss something. It's not just common sense, so I think we have in evidence, broad merrily strong evidence that this is a wrong for prosecution and I believe you can sue for that.

so are we in the ironic situation in which Derek Shaven will be the primary person who fill in the blanks who defends the police? That could actually happen, Derek shave and could be the guy who defends the police. Because the place just screwed him- and let me say if he'd bankrupts, the police they have in common. Because somehow the police, let this go all the way to trial. Well, maybe maybe that was smart right. It was probably better to let it go to trial because then all the all the evidence gets out, but it sure seems to me like a wrongful prosecution by for political reasons. They probably had to do it. I think they had to prosecute them for political reasons, right for the public.

Both, but can you get a wrong for prosecution if the reason they are putting them on trial is their own safety from the public like they're, trying to prevent a riot. And so they decide to put him on trial for murder. So it will solve some other problem that there might be violence because it looks like that's what's happening it looks like the city was tried to save its own ass by throwing this guy under the boss, and I should I should throw into this there. I'm not I'm not sure that Shaven did everything right, I'm not saying that I'm just say that, in terms of what's technically illegal, I don't think there's any chance of being prosecuted for murder. Specifically, So now you ve got CNN who

awfully reported this trial, the opposite of what happened? That's true right because they reported this witness as though he had the goods and in fact it was the opposite that he was so far from having the goods that he will be used as a defence witness next Souci had em is miss reporting. This wildly Miss reporting to the point of this, just the opposite of what happened. Isn't CNN. Guilty of crimes a riot and if somebody dies Sure there will be be least injury if somebody dies Isn't see then guilty of third degree murder? Now there may be some legal protection for the press. I don't know how that works. but in a functional sense. Is it

that CNN knows there they're lying? I would say yes, I feel we can say safely that they know their misinterpreting. The news intentionally, that's very clear, and I think there any doubt about it. Baseline was obviously Right in front of us, so if their misrepresenting intentionally the obvious outcome of that, will be riots, the obvious. of riots as people get hurt. Let's say somebody dies. Should they have known that was gonna happen. While I know what's gonna happen, don't if I know what's gonna, happen months before. Happens. I'm it in public, hey. Going to cause arise, somebody's going killed in this because of the way weather handling. If I know it you know it do you think CNN can claim they didn't know it, because they know I don't have to be a mind reader to know that they

the obvious, so that's happening rain from you. at the same time,. The chairman or president, she of China has been set sentinel to us for years, probably killed. George Floyd, my steps in I'm guessing of quarter million Americans by now intentionally intentionally. That's right, president. She chairman, whatever the fuck you is allowing the sentinel trade to happen because we we know even who is doing it if she wanted them to stop. You just go pick him up. We know it. Probably nobody lives is a public record, States is already fingered, the guy was the dealer over there, the main source anyway, so she has more

A quarter million people in the same standard, which is the third degree or in words, did things which he knew it cause cause death. That's happening right in front of us is not a story right. Is it the front page of anything nope nope, should they so big story? So now we know that the crowd may have been guilty of which contributed to the death of Lloyd. We know that sea, and the news that has not covering this probably will be contributing to the death of the coming riots that their sparking probably will be charged, and we know that China's she is guilty of third degree: murder, mass murder, actually, probably a quarter of a million people, and that's all

Like we know that there is no single thing, I said that is in question is a right. have I said one thing so far about this case, that of which there is any real doubt not at this point. Let's talk about the imaginary news, most of our news is imaginary. As you know, let me The few that are in the headlines right now. So right now headlines near times are saying that MAC Gates asked Trump before April you have to pardon. When did? many justice were questioning is associates about sex trafficking, allegations. Let me read the sentence again and see how you interpret it. Matt Gaze, so this is their centres right, not licences, that gates trouble for a pre emptive pardon when the Department of Justice were questioning his associates about sex trafficking. Allegations.

but what they go on to say, as they dont know. If he was aware of those charges, do you think he was aware. We don't know. This is news. Because he might have been aware according to them, though, he might have anywhere. Why do we made news about things that might have been true? Do you know? might have been true anything. This is a new This is something that might have been true so well, Become a headline the somebody might be true just about everything might be true there's literally no evidence of this thing, which might be true now I have to ask yourself: why would anybody s for a pre, emptive pardon that would just sort of cover everything? Can you think of arisen? can you think of any other reason there. A prominent Republican would think that the edge,

general legal danger. Even without this specific charges there that are being discussed now, yes, a reasonable person. Reasonably conclude that they would be targeted for false claims of stuff right or maybe he broke? Some long doesn't even know it because that's the world we live in is sometimes you can break the law and not, even though it example When Trump gave his speech on January six, some people said he broke the law because he incited insurrection. Do you think Trump knew that. Do you think what he was just talking to people the way he always talks? He thought it was breaking the law. I don't think so. But others a minor, so World, in which you can just be living your life in doing what you always do in public

People say that you broke a law, just sort of doing your job and the answer is yes, it just happened to drop. The exact thing just happened to He was blamed for a crime of something that you probably thought was just being dropped. Talking about the stuffing talks about right. So, yes, it was completely reasonable for somebody with his and the Republican Party, especially knowing that the Department of Justice would become binding Department of Justice complete it reasonable to say it out as long as well, forget about pardons it wouldn't be the first idea just have one. Now we also don't know how hard he pushed or anybody pushed, if it was just something you brought up just to fill out the room that was just smart if you're, if you're in his position.

and your your buddy, the president, because apparently they're pretty close and Europe. The president was handing out pardons, you thought, maybe maybe somebody's gonna come out. It was something I don't even know what it is. Wouldn't you wouldn't have floated when she just sort of you know while you're at it. would be the worst idea to protect your body. Is, I don't know, what's come about me, but probably something probably will targeted by enemies. so is this news, or is this just speculation? Well, then, Sport is a yes for the pardon qualifies as what smart. So is the news that Matt Gas is smart. Anything sad, cuz, that's what they reported. That's what I would have done in the same situation. If I thought maybe you could be useful and maybe I can get it on floated see what happened.

Another fact news well, of course, the the murder trial is mostly based on fake news, we have some report Nancy in CNN, apparently theirs, they ve got a documentary unseen and cold. I think, isn't sealant called Q into the storm and the guy who made this believes that he is found to the actual person who is q, any basis on the reaction of this person. He thinks Sq somebody named run Watkins. You might know him from Twitter as code monk.

How many of you know code muggy from Twitter. I don't love, you start where ever see them in a long time may have been bourbon booted off. So somebody says it's HBO show that right, HBO sure, ok, thank you. Correction is an HBO special. Hugh into the storm and but Anderson Cooper was interviewing the maker of the documentary and showed a clip in which real. Thirdly, this fellow run Wilkins answered a question in which the way reacted or laughed suggested that he was really Q. no, I watched it and I know it. talking about. He did did react. But he also said unambiguously you not you now, of course people could lie about. That's let us mean anything

I don't feel that you could, quite you say his cue because he laughed at the wrong time. Let me ask you husbands, this is it. This is the question just for the husbands. Ok,. Have you ever gotten in trouble with your spouse,. Were laughing, is something that they thought the spouse was laughing at, maybe them worse. something different. Have you ever gotten in trouble? Husbands only. for laughing is something when somebody thought you were laughing at the wrong thing in the comments how many husbands had been busted by their spouse for laughing at the wrong thing? Look of comments? Yes, of course, all the time yes yup. Yes, here

Today somebody said today is the most universal. The thing is that people laugh at the wrong thing. Because what the laughing at US something in their head right, there not less laughing at you laughing at some distance, disconnected ahead. and so, when When I saw the club I saw somebody laughing, but to me I could have easily interpret this way now not saying this is true, because we're not mine. So it would remind reading to say he had so someone accidentally identity was Q. I think that's migrating, but Also being mind: reading the next interpretation, I'm gonna give you, MR speculation. When I saw him like break into a smile, I thought he was laughing at the notion that he would be fingered Sq. Because let me ask you this: I put myself in the same interview.

Somebody asked a question which, if I answered a certain way, makes it sound, like I'm q, and I just a minute. What would be my reaction to realize unlike would not live, but recorded video. What would be my reaction if I thought I had accidentally out and myself as Q, and I wasn't you? What would you do? You laugh? I would to me. That would be hilarious, could be funnier they make. The media think I'm q when I'm not, would be pretty funny? If you don't laugh at that, you're dead inside now, I dont know what time about the person involved run: Watkins went by the name, monkey on Twitter. I don't know a lot about, but. feel as if he's got a little bit of a joker in him when she say

Even if he really work you, it would suggest, is a bit of a prank stir right it's sort: it out to be a little bit of a prank stir to beat you so whether he was or not. I feel as if he's a prank store by pronouncing wrong, Watkins and think components Alright, more fake news, the story about dissenters on sixty minutes and the public's store the story is boring, but just know that it's just fake news We got a fake news about aunt is May or may not be fake news about Q. Fake news about Floyd, basically is often this new national survey, Corey De Angelus report, says that,

Seventy one percent of voters support funding students instead of systems. Let me ask you this: do you remember. Do you remember, I was telling you there's is weird thing happening where, whenever I'm persuading things go my way, Now, there's no way to know that I'm having any influence- and I wouldn't claim any influence in this particular But why is it every time I am persuading things do go my way and I fairly quickly. So? This is one of my main topics is that students should be funded instead of schools, because the teachers unions are our source of systemic, And an hour, a solid majority of Americans agree now I think if I to explain myself, my track record is just crazy, so good, but I what's happening is I'm just gonna pick human rights issue.

I think it said I'm changing it so much or at all. I think that I'm just good at knowing well, this has to happen because the logic you know that the argument is just too strong, so I think I'm just going to. Identifying strong arguments. Likewise, the binding administration now open day, though, The agenda for test nuclear reactor In the United States, which is big, big big news is really big news and, of course, I didn't persuading for that forever that we should be getting into the ardor, but again the argument for it was so strong that I think maybe wishes can happen anyway keep that in mind. So, let's see if I covered everything I want to cover. Oh it s more things happening here,. I you to challenge the voter idea challenge that goes like this.

Fine one, Georgia citizen who wants to vote. its thwarted by having no idea just one because it's a national story that these people exist, but, curiously national story about what hundreds of thousands of people how many tens of thousands who would be in this category just in Georgia, and we haven't seen one. So where do you believe the news of you haven't even see one. What is the most common thing that the news business? Does they find a human to represent the story Is the number one thing that the news does? In fact they hate telling stories of the no have a person involved. They need a person, so you don't think they could find. One person in the world clarified this one person now the

be fair. It might be hard because if such people exist, they probably don't have cell phones. When you find him, I guess you'd have to find somebody who could find them. Somebody who knows a relative or something, but then do you think you put that person on camera and said: ok, you want to vote, but the only thing stopping use it. You don't have idea how fast would they get Idee once they became publicly known? In fact, don't you think that Republicans would pay for his idea. Who is this person? Is this? The day you saw somebody go on television, say yeah, I'm one of those people I'd like to vote, but I I have the thirty dollars or whatever it is in. Georgia, are thirty three dollars to get. I d or I don't know how.

how long would it take one Republican to say really? That's why you're not voting? Here's fifty bucks go vote. Get yourself an idea. I would by some idea, if I could, if I knew it, was not going to the wrong thing: If somebody a city this country. I must say that our black citizen, because that's the the group or talking about with the knives and ideas. If a black citizen, a real person, had this real problem, and really wanted to solve. It Was standing right next to us? I seriously your whole, problem would be solved for override and and thirty three There is not even that you just have to send in a letter in the Czech. That's it. You just need thirty three dollars. I'll just reach in my pocket. I had them thirty three dollars so problem solved

and I'm pretty sure most Republicans would mean not necessarily just like that, but you can find plenty of republicans who would seriously that's your problem. I will fix that, like everybody, to have an idea Taiwan is being surrounded by chinese fleet, so China's flexing its muscles and showing That they can surround Taiwan whither fleeting stuff. Here is the question. I ask your: we keep talking about China. Dominating the South China Sea, which they are, They are their building aircraft carriers. Here's my question, How long does an aircraft carrier last. A modern war with a superpower. Five minutes. It doesn't matter whose country this, whether some american vessel?

Laura chinese vessel. Would it take more than five minutes for us to remove all of the battleships and aircraft carriers? Would it because we have lots of missiles. Now I know I know they all have defence. You Brennan Hers, Libya, other ships that are putting up anti anything missiles and Radar they ve got, they got all kinds of things. What is really just a volume question right, one missile is going toward an aircraft carrier. Well, you're gonna shoot. You got a pretty good shot of knocking down but America has more than one missile we would show our submarines would be sitting right under those things. The the Chinese Aircraft carrier is up here on the surface.

nuclear sob is gonna, be right address. I am exaggerating. You wouldn't want to be right under it, but the point is, it would be sort of fast work and I think that would work in the way I can imagine, and american fleet would last more than a day in the South, South China Sea. Am I wrong about Somebody said that somebody is a military experts at the next war would be nothing both submarines and targets. That's more insightful than I wish it were, Taiwan is a big problem. I've said that there is in any way that they can stay independent in the long run, and China has a long run. Mentality I just don't think we're in a world where you can defend in neighbouring. piece of land. That is Superpower has surrounded. I just don't think it's a thing.

And I also wonder about the rightness of us being there now at this point- were committed to an ally to spy once an ally so we're in a situation where, where we sort have to do what we can but I dont know that a superpower should have a presence or any kind of a strong influence that close to another superpower. Feel, as if the superpowers I am a little buffer between them and I China has a completely legitimate interests and not having the United States have an ally, that's that close to them. But of course I support Taiwan's completely Two, why did they want Taiwan? Well? they wanted? First of all for defence, because you don't want, broken ally with a big economy, and who knows what kind of weapons right right there

So I think, there's a illegitimate defence need this way. If Russia had put missiles in Cuba, we don't have any missiles in Taiwan, but if that, if they militarized in a little more, you could see how could become bad pretty quickly. Uneasiness. so admiral, our written, our said world war. Three would sink all the carriers in an hour. Here, I think, can be lessen our It would take an hour for them to actually sick. It would take fifty minutes for them to be thinking. I think

Ok, that's off now I will talk to you tomorrow and if you forgot to hit the subscription button and the notification button, all you have to do is touch them in your life will be better. It will be because you'll get more simultaneous and I'll talk to you tomorrow.