don't know? Does that even make sense? What would it mean if he said okay, obviously all of these boxes I'm shipping right in front of everybody, you all see it like we're not hiding it. Look at all these boxes. They're being loaded on the truck. No secrets here. So I would agree with him so far. So here's where I agree. I do agree that if there's no formal process that his actions are clear. If you take it out of a secure place and everybody's watching it and then you move it to an unsecured place that's de facto declassification. I think that argument actually works. What I don't know is can you declassify something that you don't know you declassified? That's more of a problem isn't it? If he just said well if it's in those boxes consider it declassified. Now if he has complete power, which I believe the Constitution gives him, complete power of declassifying, so with that complete power include saying I don't know what's in that box but it's all declassified. I think I would argue that he does have that power. Wouldn't you? I mean it'd be weird but probably true. I don't know. It feels like a Dershowitz argument to this. I haven't heard Dershowitz weigh in on this but I feel like Trump's take on this is probably a Dershowitz argument. Would be that if your actions have caused an obvious declassification then you should consider them declassified. And here's the thing. What if it's a gray area? Suppose it's a gray area. You know I just described it. Maybe some of you said yeah that sounds, I'll buy that. Then others of you said no, no I'm not going to buy that. Then Trump wins, right? Because there's no process. If a reasonable person, me, I'm a reasonable person, some of you are reasonable, if reasonable people, not all of them but if some reasonable people would say yeah that argument works, if it was obvious you were taking them that's declassified, then I think that's all he needs because there was no process.

All right. I thought Trump was again lacking a forward vision. It's a weird situation because the forward vision is explicitly to go back to where we were. So maybe he doesn't need to say it because he's saying you know it's pretty obvious what he would do. You know what Trump would do, right? It's a strange situation isn't it? Because if it were anybody else I would say you better be telling us what you're going to do. Don't just tell us what's bad about the current situation. But in his specific case you do know exactly what he would do. You kind of do. Now he claims that the Ukraine situation would never have happened if he were in charge. Now the first time I heard that I said to myself well you never know that, right? That would be hard to know. And he says that he directly threatened Putin to not do military action when he was in office. But here's the part you can't argue with. With Trump in charge America would be producing more energy. True, right? If America were producing lots more energy would Europe be as threatened by the gas turnoffs? I think not. Now I don't exactly know how fungible gas is. Do you have enough tankers? Could you move our excess over there or would there be logistics problems? You couldn't do it. But I think there's an argument. I'm seeing some no's. Okay I don't know if they know what the no refers to but I think the argument holds that Trump would have kept energy prices modest and fuel more available and that therefore Russia's biggest weapon wouldn't have been available to them. What do you think? I think that's actually a pretty good opinion. I think that Trump's view that it wouldn't have happened if he had been president is supportable. It's not guaranteed. You can't really do a what if. What if? Nobody knows. It's impossible to know. But his argument does hold water. It does. Yeah. So we'll never know.

Russia has called up its reservists, those 300,000 people who probably are poorly trained and too old and don't want to go back to war or at least don't want to go to the military. And all of the coverage, can you give me a fact check on this? The news of all type in the United States is reporting that Russia is losing and it doesn't look like that's going to change. Now I'm not, that's not my opinion. I'm saying that the reporting is now consistently across all media saying that Russia is losing. It doesn't look like there's a way to change that because their manpower thing looks pretty dire and the Ukraine looks like nothing's going to stop them because they've got support, they've got morale and everything else. Now will you please acknowledge that I had the best prediction about Ukraine in the entire United States? Anybody? Are you ready to do that yet? Anybody? No. I see some no's. You're going to hold tight aren't you? You're gonna hold tight. All right. Remember my prediction was that Ukraine would outperform the military experts' predictions. Will you give me that? Would you give me that Ukraine has outperformed the experts' predictions but they did not outperform my prediction? Would you give me that? And would you give me that the reasons given have mostly to do with advanced weaponry provided to Ukraine which was specifically what I said would be the key? Would you give me that?

Now here's the thing that might drive you crazy about me. This sort of thing drives a lot of you crazy because I do insist that you recognize that that was correct. I do insist. And the reason is not because I made one prediction. I make predictions regularly and if you don't track them to see when I'm right and when I'm wrong you lose half the value of watching me. You should have some sense of how often I'm right. Now I want to give you some examples o