could spot this? Anybody, is there anybody who thinks AI can't spot this? Come on. The pattern could not be more obvious, right? If I can spot it I'm pretty sure AI can spot it. But this is based on, I guess there's some Russian news channel where the Russians said their first choice would be Trump because he wants to end the war and their second choice would be Vivek because he wants to end the war. That even the Russian newscasters are not even saying to win the war. They're not saying we want to win the war. They're saying they want to end the war. These are Russian people saying they want to end the war that their own boss Putin is pressing. Does it sound like anything except they happen to be on the same side? The fact that your mind is somehow connecting that Russia is running Vivek because he doesn't want a useless war, where's the connecting logic to that? As far as I know I'm not influenced by any Russians but I'd like an end to the war. Am I now a Russian asset because I don't like a war that doesn't seem to have an obvious purpose? Yes I am. Apparently yes I am.

All right. So I saw Ben Domenech tweeted that Vivek is a plant and Vivek saw that and he answered back, false, I am an animal. All right, all right. That's good tweeting. That's just good tweeting. It's a dad joke. It's a dad joke but those are not just allowed, those are encouraged. In the context of a national race a dad joke, a good dad joke that lands, that's just the juice you need. Yeah, you don't need to be too clever. You just have to be interesting. You just have to take unserious things unseriously. Good answer.

All right. As you know Trump is being charged with insurrection. Not legally. No, no, there's no legal case charging him with insurrection. But does that stop a Democrat lawyer from trying to get him not to be able to run for election based on an insurrection that no court has found evidence to charge him for? Yes. So yes, they're moving forward to try to take him out of the race for insurrection, something that no court has found to be true.

Now do you know why? You know the big reason? They think it's an insurrection because they found no evidence of fraud that was big enough to change the result in the 2020 election. And yet Trump claimed that existed. And the argument against that was what? Can you remind me what was the argument against Trump's claim that there was fraud? What was the argument that closed that down? Oh yeah, no, that's right. The courts. No court have found it, right? So the way that you know for sure that there was no fraud is that no court found it. That standard doesn't apply to insurrection because although no courts found that insurrection existed, even though they looked pretty hard to make a case as some court would take it, and no court saw anything that they would take. So you've got opposite standards in the same case. In the same case. I'm not saying that one case was different and then now this case is different. Sometimes I can't complete a sentence. You see, right? Am I making my point? That if it's true that if a court didn't find it, it must not be true. But when it comes to insurrection, it's not true. It's the opposite. And they're both part of the same legal action. The same legal action wants you to accept both standards at the same time and they're opposites.

Now do you think that anything like a legitimate process is happening in the United States? No, there's nothing legitimate happening here. This is completely illegitimate.

All right. There's a, I love this. There's a compilation video going around showing in the beginning of the pandemic when the WHO and I think the CDC and basically all the smart people were saying at the beginning that the COVID death rate was 3.4%, which is a scary high number. Trump at the same time said he'd been talking to people, obviously experts, and he was sure that the real rate was a fraction of 1%. And you watch the video and all the people are 3.4, 3.4, 3.4