itimate gray, you really don't know if it's legal or not, what do you do? Do you do the thing that you think is the right thing and then try to make the legal part work? Or do you say it's a gray area, so even though I think one thing is the right thing to do, I'm not going to do it because I don't want to take a chance in this gray area situation? What would a leader do in that situation? Well, it depends on the leader probably.

If you have a low appetite for risk, you'd probably say all right, I'll just accept it and move on because you have a low appetite for risk. Suppose you have a high appetite for risk and you spent your entire career in ambiguous legal situations. Can you think of anybody who has spent more time in ambiguous legal jeopardy than Trump over his entire career? How much ambiguous legal jeopardy has that man endured in his entire life? More than anybody in the world maybe. Maybe if there was some kind of competition of who has endured and survived the most ambiguous legal jeopardy situations, I think it would be Trump all the way. I think he has decades of doing this consistently and at least not being taken down by it.

What would you do if you spent your entire career not being defeated by ambiguous legal situations? You do what you know he's done. You'd use your gut and you just go for it. That seems to be his method. He uses his gut and then he just goes for it. And it probably has worked more than it's not worked his whole career, which is why he's Trump and you're not. So it's hard to get in anybody's head. But it's not irrational if you have disagreeing lawyers and an entire background of your hunches, or let's say your instinct as he might call it. If you've had good luck with your instinct forever in these ambiguous situations and you feel strongly, you'd probably just go for it. And that doesn't to me sound like evil. You know, you could spin it as he was doing anything to keep him in power. But let me ask you this. Do the Democrats believe that if it had been Trump's second term and he just ran two terms, well, or let me ask you a different way. Do Democrats believe that if Trump got reelected for another four years and it was constitutionally impossible for him to run for another term, does anybody believe he would try to stay? And I think the answer is yes. I think Democrats believe he would try to work some kind of dictator trick to stay in office after a second term. I don't think there's one Republican that would support that. I mean, okay, there's always one. You can get a crazy person to support anything. But it's not like there are many people in the MAGA who would say let's get rid of that two-term thing. No matter how much you like Trump, you still say there are people with Trump's policy preferences who are not a thousand years old. So I think people would just naturally gravitate to a younger Republican anyway.

We don't know what Trump was thinking. But the way they write it was in indirect sentences. So something, somebody was told something. We don't know who did it and we don't say somebody told him. We say somebody was told. When I see indirect writing like that, the "was told," that feels like somebody's in weasel mode while they're writing the sentence. Because direct sentences help you with clarity and indirect sentences, which is one of the most obvious things that a good editor would change, you know, it's kind of a tell that somebody's trying to not be clear.

USA Today deleted a bunch of articles by one of their writers and I guess fired her because apparently some of the quotes were fabricated. The existence of some individuals quoted could not be independently verified. In addition, some stories had quotes in them that had been credited to others. So basically they fired their own reporter for having lots of stories that were partially made up.

Now Mike Cernovich, who's one of the highest value Twitter followers you can have, if you're not following Cernovich, why not? You need to. He points out that USA Today is a fact-check partner for Facebook and maybe even Twitter. So the fact-check partner for Facebook and maybe even Twitter, I'm not sure, we don't know if it's Twitter, but we don't. Had to fire one of their own reporters for making up news, like a lot of it, a lot of it apparently. And Elon Musk, who apparently follows Cernovich's account, just replied with one word: "Wow."

Now why is Elon Musk in the news four times a day? So here's the first one. So you know as he's trying to buy Twitter and he's watching the quality of their fact-checkers disintegrate, at least their reputation disintegrate in the public, and he's just "wow." So you know he's watching that, which is interesting to me. Now if you believed you lived in a simulation like Elon Musk did, wouldn't you be surprised if he were not the richest person in the world? Or let me say it another way. Shouldn't we expect that at some point, if we live in a simulation, that all of the richest people in the world are people who believe in the simulation? Because they would be the ones who played the game the best and knew how to win. Maybe. So there's Musk, richest guy, and also coincidentally believes we live in the simulation. Huh.

Jack Posobiec is foreshadowing something interesting. He's tweeting today, what if Roe will not be overturned? And if it came from someone else you'd say okay, there's somebody just speculating some stuff on Twitter, means nothing. But Jack Posobiec has a long history of having good sources. And so when someone who has good sources says maybe the Supreme Court won't overturn Roe, or maybe not in the way that has been reported. So somebody asked him what he knows that other people don't know. And I think he responded, nothing good. Now it's a little bit cryptic, isn't it? So I don't know if there could be yet another leak from the Supreme Court. Wouldn't that indicate there are two leaks from the Supreme Court?

Now here's the interesting play here. Number one, may I ask, was I the first person who said you know I wouldn't trust that first draft? Now other people have said it of course, but I think you heard me first say don't necessarily assume that the first draft is what anything that you're going to see. They could be just testing the argument out. What if that's true?

Now the other thing is this. If you're the Supreme Court, what is more important to you, the integrity of the Supreme Court or this decision? What is more important to you if you're the Supreme Court, the integrity of the Supreme Court or this decision? I think it's the integrity of the Supreme Court. And if they went in that direction, I wouldn't say it's crazy. And I could imagine them pulling back the ruling and not ruling at all because there was a leak. Would that upend everything? Imagine it. Imagine how baller that would be. Imagine if the Supreme Court said, because, and maybe they would never say this out loud, which I would also agree would be a good idea, never comment on it, never comment on it, never go to their graves, take it to their graves with no comment. Imagine the Supreme Court getting together and saying here's the deal. This abortion thing, very important, very important issue, but not even close to the importance of what happened with that leak. And so here's what I would ask of you on both sides of the issue. Let us once and for all make it impossible for anybody to benefit from a leak from the Supreme Court. Let's make it impossible to benefit from a leak and don't release the ruling and just say if there's a leak, there's no ruling.

Now would that give people the ability to stop any ruling by leaking? Maybe. Maybe. But it would certainly be a baller thing to do. Because if the court wanted, let's say the court knew they had a majority for this ruling, if they pulled back because of the leak that would say a lot about the power of the leak and how much of a problem that is. Why would it be baller? Because they would be ignoring the opinion in favor of the integrity of the S