ease the audio when they've willingly and already and publicly and everybody's seeing the transcript? What reason could there be other than it sounds really terrible? Like really bad. It must be awful. Just guessing.

But listen to one of the arguments that they just proffered. They say that the audio tape must be withheld due to the risk that it could be altered by artificial intelligence and passed off as an authentic in a deepfake release. Quote, the passage of time and advancements in audio artificial intelligence and deepfake technologies only amplify concerns about malicious manipulation of audio files. Wouldn't that apply to everything that anybody has on audio? I feel like that is such a stretch, such a stretch that it's almost just laughable. But I'm going to surprise you. It's not a terrible argument. It strikes you as immediately absurd. I mean that's how it struck me. But let me support it as best I can. It's somewhat rare that you would have a situation where there's an audio only because that's easier to deepfake. If it had been something he'd said in public it'd be easy to debunk it because you'd say okay, here's the real one. He said this in public. Now you can see how the deepfake changed it. But since the only public thing we'd have is an audio that nobody listens to, if somebody were to take a clip out of it and do a 10-second clip where it sounds like he said the N-word or something ridiculous, then I think people would believe it. I do, because if the headline story said the audio tape is out and then you saw a clip and then you played it and you heard what you thought was Biden's voice and he sounded really dementia-ridden and crazy and saying racist stuff and whatever, you might believe it. And we're close enough to the election where a fake audio tape could actually change things. Remember the audio tape of Trump saying grab them by the, people thought that was going to change the election. It turns out it didn't. But is it a realistic risk that when you're this close to an election and it's the president who's running for reelection and it's audio only, it is actually an unusually big risk, wouldn't you agree? Because I think somebody would alter it immediately. That it's not even a risk. It would happen. It would happen. I think you could say with complete confidence that there would be at least a parody version which people would think was real. At the very least it would be a parody version where he's just saying crazy stuff.

So I don't think this should be upheld because if you generalize this it would be devastating to the normal operation of the world. But it's not crazy. It's not crazy that it opens the door to a bad thing happening. But let me suggest this, and I think the people asking for it will say the same thing. We already have the transcript and we already have a zillion hours of Biden talking on audio and other places. AI doesn't need the specific audio from the event. All you have to do is run the transcript through it on a voice that's trained as Biden and then if that works you go back in and you edit the transcript and feed back into AI again. So instead of saying the real transcript in Biden's voice, it adds the N-word or some crazy thing. So I feel as if maybe the lawyers making this ask don't understand how AI works. Did they not understand that whether we have the transcript or not or whether we have the audio or not, it actually doesn't have any effect on whether somebody would make a deepfake? Yeah, the defect that they're worried about could be made tomorrow based on what's already publicly available with no research whatsoever. You know, just Google transcript. And yeah, actually you don't even have to have the transcript because if you're going to do a fake one you can make up the transcript. Nobody's going to check. See, the trouble with fakes is that they do their damage before they're debunked and the debunk never gets the attention of the original. So there's nothing that you couldn't do right now to fake that.

Okay, so Trump went to the UFC yesterday, got a standing ovation. It was crazy. Do you know what that standing ovation at the UFC sounded like to me? Well, if you just heard it on the surface it sounded like yay Trump yay. But here's what I heard. We'll take the outlaw. Did you see the crowd? Almost all men. Well, I mean dominant male audience. The men there were very clearly by their reaction saying outlaw. You just made him better. There's almost nothing you could have done to Trump that would have been as good for his brand than becoming an outlaw to the crooked government. Honestly, I love it. My honest opinion without the spin. You know it's the spin season so even I, as much as I try to avoid spinning, everybody's going to do it this season. But honestly, in my body and my real mind, no spin, I just love that he's an outlaw because the way he got there. You know if he'd robbed a bank I'd say no. But the way he got there, oh yeah, yeah, I want the outlaw. Absolutely, positively, no qualms about it. Give me the outlaw. And that's what the UFC audience basically said in their own way.

But it gets better. After UFC fighter Kevin Holland won, he jumped over the ring and went right to President Trump, former President Trump, and shook his hand and said some private words to him in support. Obviously Trump slapped him on the shoulders and obviously they're now friends. You should know that UFC fighter Kevin Holland is black. Does it matter? Yes, yep, because it's public and people are very affected by social forces. So if you see a black superstar going right to President Trump and congratulating him, that's powerful. Yeah, a lot of clips on it. Likewise UFC fighter Sean Strickland said on the microphone to the crowd, President Trump, you're the man. It is a damn travesty what they're doing to you. I'll be donating to you. I'll be donating to you is the key phrase.

By the way, I don't know if you have the current data, but in the 48 hours after the felony conviction verdict Trump had already earned 1.6 million per felony. Per felony. Yeah. And if you do the math, people say he's not really a good business person, but by my calculations he invested 130,000 and he got a return of 53 million. That's some good investing. You know he doesn't get credit for that. So yeah, it's 1.6 million per felony. His per-indictment numbers are not as good, but I think they'll be improving as well. So I think we should be measuring Trump's donation gathering by felonies. So if he could get, I feel like he's only maybe 12 to 17 felonies away from having all the money he needs for the rest of the campaign. So I think we're like three or four felonies away from being really rich with cash. So there's that.

Trump also at the UFC announced that he's getting on TikTok now. You might know that I think that TikTok needs to be cancelled or divested into the US. But as long as it's there I guess I gotta agree with Vivek and with Trump. If it's there and it matters and it's a big way to reach voters, sure, why not?

All right. David Sacks and others are pointing out the lawfare double standard here that Hillary Clinton did similar things without penalty. So h