Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 2, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:31

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #949

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It is not long now until the most exciting election of my lifetime is going to happen.
	That's right.
	It is the zero-seat election, where we expect the Conservative Party to literally get zero seats.
	And so we're going to be doing an all-night livestream.
	We're going to have loads of great guests.
	We're going to have a prize giveaway.
	We're going to have exclusive merch.
	And if you would like to join us and send us video chats throughout the night, again, we're going to be going all night for this, sign up to goldtieronloadseats.com using promo code Zero seats for three months at 50% off and spread the word it's going to be amazing exclusively on lotuses.com and using Rumble as the video player.
	So remember folks, Thursday the 4th of July, 7pm, lotuses.com.
	You don't want to miss it.
	Hello, beautiful people.
	Today is the 2nd of July.
	It's a Tuesday, and this is episode 949.
	And I'm joined today by Beau and Dan.
	Hello!
	The man.
	And we're going to talk about how Germany is disappointing its ancestors yet again.
	How Trump now has basically license to become a king.
	Based.
	And how we must save Biden at all costs.
	But before we begin we have Dan's announcement about some wonderful things.
	Oh yes, so thank you to a lovely Luna, if she's there in the chat, I can't tell, but a lovely Luna who sent us loads of stuff for the election night stream, so that's That's awesome, thank you very much.
	And also, in some obscure stream, I mentioned that I like snuff.
	So somebody sent me, like, all these tins of snuff.
	So I've got toast and marmalade snuff, and cheese and bacon snuff, and Xmas pudding flavoured snuff.
	So thank you very much.
	Appreciate all of you lovely people who send stuff in.
	I also like mead, wasabi nuts, and 22 year old Swedish twins.
	So, just putting that out there.
	Just in case.
	While we're doing this, can I just say, somebody sent me a nice gift, an Amazon card, called Liz P. I don't know who that is.
	If Liz P sees this, whoever you are, thank you very much.
	That was very, very kind of you.
	I thought, while we're doing that.
	Thank you very much, Luna and Liz.
	And Mystery SC then.
	Excellent, yes.
	So I want to start with a segment and I want to be very clear that this is basically the toughest segment I have ever done and it's a very tough topic and viewer discretion is I would literally ask you to Be not be in front of children when you are listening to this segment because it is absolutely horrific It is so horrific that I couldn't believe what I was reading I do.
	Yeah, so before we begin we have new merch Now, I know that some of you have shirts, probably all of you.
	Also, you may have cups to drink tea and coffee.
	But most probably, they don't have the Zero Seat slogan on top of them.
	You can visit our merch store and you can look at the lovely merch we have.
	Shirts, cups with the zero seats on them.
	And look at this, you have Nigel smoking his cigar and everyone else.
	And that's only going to be in the store for a few days leading up to our election thing.
	That's a completely bespoke image which Rory spent ages making.
	That's not just taken off Google Images somewhere.
	We put that, well Rory put that together.
	I think it's really good.
	There's some actual creativity behind it.
	Right.
	Two days from now, we are going to have a... We're going to have UK General Elections.
	There should have been a... a promo here.
	Oh, we're going to have an election night stream.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so we have the code ZEROSEATS.
	You can use it.
	And for the three, Samson, is it for the three months people have 50%?
	50% off gold tier membership.
	Three months, 50% off gold tier, he says.
	Exactly.
	Now, let's go to our topic.
	So, basically, a woman in Germany has been sentenced to prison.
	She spent eight, nine days to prison for offending a sexual offender.
	And this raises several questions whether countries in the West have their priorities set straight, or if they have, if their list of priorities is actually the correct one.
	So, I am warning you this is going to be a very disturbing case.
	So it says here the woman has now received more jail time than eight of the nine men convicted for the gang rape.
	We have here this article from the Publica and it says woman convicted of offending migrant gang rapists receives longer prison sentence than the rapists.
	That was published in June The 23rd of this year.
	So just to clarify.
	Yep.
	So men committed a rape.
	Yep.
	And almost all of them didn't go to jail.
	Only one of them did.
	The other eight didn't.
	Yes.
	So most of them didn't go to jail, but the woman who insulted the rapists, she does go to jail.
	Yes.
	And she was convicted for spending jail time of eight, nine days on the grounds of a defamation law.
	We will get a bit into this, but what happened?
	So basically, in Hamburg, there is a park called Stadpark.
	And during the COVID lockdown years, many people met in that park.
	It became sort of a hub.
	Now, one night in 2020, there was a terrible incident because there was a 14 to 15 year old girl that was there with her friends.
	And at some point, there was a police raid on the In the context of fighting people who were violating the social distancing rules.
	And when she was alone and trying to flee the police so she wouldn't be fined for breaking social distancing rules or something, she was repeatedly attacked by many men.
	And first there was a group of four predators that attacked her.
	Uh, they took her phone.
	She couldn't call anyone for help.
	Then there were two further men who attacked her and assaulted her.
	And then there were rumors of some videos that were taken and circulated in social media and informing other offenders, potential offenders, of her whereabouts.
	And then there were three more people who took advantage of her.
	At some point, she left that place and she ran and she came across people who recognized that she was in a very traumatized state.
	Just on a meta point, we really shouldn't be importing people from places where if you come across a group of your countrymen doing something like that, that you join in rather than stopping them.
	I mean, it's inconceivable that somebody from Britain or America or Greece or something would come across a group of their countrymen doing something like that and not stop them as opposed to join in.
	Yes.
	And yet this is normal amongst these groups.
	Well, I thought all cultures were equal.
	Are they not?
	Well, not the bad ones, not the, you know.
	So 11 men were charged, but two of those were set free because there was no DNA evidence.
	But with respect to the 9 out of these 11 men, there was DNA evidence.
	And they were basically charged with suspended sentences.
	So, 8 out of 9 didn't do jail time at all.
	So their social media, or that person's social media, was circulated outside, was published, and people were absolutely outraged.
	And as this article says here, the case caused outrage in Germany, both for the brutality of the sexual offense itself and the lenient sentences given to the rapists.
	As a result, one of the men had his identity and phone number circulated on Snapchat, Angered by the news of the case, a 20-year-old woman from Hamburg messaged the number through WhatsApp.
	The unnamed woman called him a, open quote, dishonorable racist pig, close quote.
	Rapist pig.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Dishonorable rapist pig.
	Which he is.
	She also asked him, aren't you ashamed when you look in the mirror?
	The targeted rapist then reported the woman to the police, and she was charged with sending him insulting messages.
	And the woman has now been convicted and sentenced to a weekend in prison for her remarks, meaning that she will have spent more time in jail than eight out of the nine rapists.
	In court, the woman apologized for her remarks, I suspect under duress, saying she acted out of a reflex, a knee-jerk reaction, upon hearing the sickening details of the case.
	I mean, this is sickening on so many levels.
	First of all, Germany imports millions of these people, and then they don't police them when they commit rapes, they don't jail them when they commit rapes, and then they punish the population for getting upset about it.
	I mean, the levels of betrayal going on here.
	You've got to think about all of those millions of German ancestors in heaven looking down, utterly ashamed of what their country has become.
	I just think that any person with just common sense, let's say, and common sense is no doubt under attack these days, would say that the kind of punishment or kind of reaction To the people who committed that sexual offense is just very relaxed, to put it this way.
	And also the kind of reaction against that woman is excessive.
	And this generates several questions whether Germany and other Western nations who act on such principles actually have A good value system.
	I think they don't.
	We have been saying for so long that they do not.
	But I think that cases like these are just absolutely appalling.
	I just can't believe what I'm reading.
	And I will say this, I just started looking at this piece of news and I found other Newspapers talking about this because I couldn't believe that this would actually happen.
	Because I saw this and I reacted to it as well.
	The first time I saw this, I thought, no, that is so absurd.
	It cannot possibly, even Germany cannot do this.
	And then you look into it and it's like, okay, you know, that is actually what they did.
	Germany has said, I mean, I know they're going after those kids for singing Auslander Raus, but the, but I mean, surely the German people just can't take this forever.
	Surely there's going to be one hell of a snapback coming.
	And it's not even really a case of if someone was offended or not.
	What she's done there is a statement of fact called him a dishonourable rapist pig.
	It's terrorising the German population into you must accept this and take more of it.
	But she hasn't said, it's just a statement of fact though.
	Yes.
	So again it goes back to sort of the 1984 thing where a statement of truth becomes a crime.
	To state facts or reality or truth itself is criminal.
	I'll just go back to my point about all of those sort of German ancestors looking down.
	I mean, how would any previous German popular, you know, cohort of generation from years gone past dealt with this?
	They would just kill them.
	I think that the very relaxed reaction towards eight of these nine rapists is just It's insane and it's very maddening and angering and I'm really careful with how I'm putting it.
	Well you talk about generations gone by.
	In Tacitus's Germania, you talk about sex criminals are lashed to a hurdle or a bit of wood and just pressed into a bog.
	Facedown.
	Faced.
	Yes.
	All sex criminals, that's the punishment, according to TASCOS.
	And what happens as a result?
	You get fewer sex criminals.
	You know, it bloody works.
	Well.
	I don't know whether we should go back to these times, but what we can say here is that five of the men were in possession of German passports, while the remainder were not citizens of Germany, and among those charged, none were of German heritage, which means nine out of nine.
	The rapists were identified as a Pole, an Egyptian, a Libyan, a Kuwaiti, an Iranian, an Armenian, an Afghan, a Syrian, and a Montenegrin.
	Yeah, it's very diverse, that.
	Each one of them, more or less, or every single one of them was of a different nationality.
	Yeah.
	Or a different country of origin, let's say.
	If you put them all together, you'd have a toy campaign video.
	Well, diversity is not a strength, necessarily speaking.
	In this case, it is an absolute weakness for For Western nations.
	With the exception of the poll, what do all those countries have in common?
	Is there any pattern?
	Are we allowed to notice any sort of pattern there?
	The other thing she said is, when you look in the mirror, aren't you ashamed of yourself?
	No, almost certainly not, no.
	Because they've been allowed to.
	Their holy book says that she's some sort of whore for not covering up or being out after dark without being accompanied by a man.
	Can you imagine what's going through their head?
	So no, they're not ashamed.
	They must be thinking to themselves, We got away with this?
	I mean, what is their behavior going to be in the future?
	Obviously they're going to do more, and obviously everybody who hears about this case who's of that mindset is going to be like, well, there's literally no reason why we shouldn't behave like this.
	So some of them showed no signs of remorse.
	Basically, according to the article, none of them showed signs of remorse, and at least one of them fell asleep during the proceedings.
	Eight out of the nine men were convicted and worked free with probation and spent no time in prison at all.
	The ninth was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison without parole.
	So the one that went to jail did how long?
	Went to jail for two years and nine months.
	Or at least that is the sentence.
	For violent rape you get two years and nine months?
	Just nuts.
	God!
	But authorities in Hamburg are reportedly investigating 140 people for offences relating to the issue of insult, threats or other detriment towards the Stadpark Predators.
	When Germany snaps back from this, it is going to be something to behold.
	And here we have yet another article that talks about there being no repentance in the proceedings.
	Again, because this is the thing.
	This is what we don't want anyone to actually talk about.
	Why is that though?
	Because that girl in their eyes is a kafir, a non-believer, a non-Muslim, so sub-human on some level, and the fact that she's out after dark, without being modestly covered or without being accompanied by a man in the front, then...
	She's fair game.
	Yeah.
	You're not really... And what this is going to get to, I don't know if you saw that thing on Twitter the other day, but it was from a French girl who lives in Paris, and she was saying that she can't go out after nine anymore, even if she goes out during the day, she's constantly, constantly harassed.
	Basically, women in Western cities, they're going to have to start wearing the headscarf if they want to be safe outdoors.
	Or we can introduce a system of mass re-migration.
	In this case, I think it's just also a case of men taking advantage of a lonely vulnerable woman who was alone in the dark.
	Particular type of man, but yeah.
	So here there's an article by Telegraph talking about this and I want to show you towards the end what they're saying.
	The case has laid bare Germany's harsh defamation laws which criminalize causing offense with even mild slurs like idiot.
	Breaking the law can lead to punishment of up to two years in prison.
	District courts said it had received strong reactions over the rulings in both the defamation case and the rape trial, which prompted it.
	Hamburg authorities are now investigating around 140 more suspects for insulting or threatening the gang rapists, with 100 of the suspects based outside Hamburg.
	A court spokesman told the Hamburger Abendblatt-Logo newspaper last week, we are observing the hostility in connection with the proceedings and the verdict with great concern.
	He said the anger over the case had reached a new worrying level of intensity and described the criticism as a targeted attack on rule of law.
	I mean, words are More harmful to the rule of law.
	than these actions.
	That's the question that everyone is thinking.
	What they mean by rule of law is you cannot question us as we import millions more of these people.
	That's what they mean.
	Apparently so, apparently so.
	And the libtards of Europe wonder why AFD keeps gaining in popularity.
	Yeah.
	Surprise, surprise.
	I'm just mystified that they're not getting like 80% of the votes.
	Yeah, right.
	How's it taking this long?
	Although we, you know, we can't.
	We can't really criticise too much.
	And speaking of AFD, we have here from two months ago, approximately, May the 8th, 2024, an article published by Free Speech Union about a young AFD politician who was convicted after publishing gang rape statistics in connection with Afghan migration that were published by the German police.
	So it's not that she found some statistics somewhere and just made them up.
	Yeah, she didn't make them up.
	She just reposted.
	She reposted and basically analyzed Statistics that the German police circulated, and let me show you some of these statistics that were circulated by the German police.
	They say that in 2023, there were 419,000 Afghans residing in Germany, 380,000 of whom were Afghan citizens.
	At the end of 2013, and seven years prior to the Taliban takeover of the country, the total number of Afghans in Germany stood at just under 67,000.
	Kaiser justified her concern about uncontrolled immigration by referring to a series of newspaper articles that cited official government statistics showing Afghans are disproportionately involved and the perpetration of sexual crimes in Germany.
	Figures released by the Federal Criminal Police Office of Germany, BKA, in 2022 revealed that a total of 677 gang rapes were recorded in 2021, up from 300 in 2018.
	Although non-German citizens comprise just 13.7% of the country's total population, there were suspects in exactly half of those cases.
	What does it take before German men start forming militia to deal with this problem themselves?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	But this shows a clear over-representation of particular groups when it comes to crimes of this sort.
	And this raises questions with respect to how culture informs our actions and whether cultures are compatible and when they are incompatible.
	This is basically what everyone is thinking and asking about.
	No one says that culture doesn't affect who we become.
	No one says this.
	I have yet to find someone who says this.
	Everyone understands that cultures are patterns of actions, reactions, feelings, sentiments, and ways of valuing things.
	They doubtlessly affect who we become.
	Just by changing a location in the Earth's coordinates, just by changing location in a country, doesn't mean that this influence completely gets destroyed or overwritten.
	Just think of how difficult it is to cut some bad habits, for instance.
	Even trying to just lose weight sometimes can be unbelievably difficult because of how people are habituated.
	Imagine how cultural habituation affects us.
	And soon after this, because she was fined, and I think for around 6,000 euros, there was an infamous attack to Michael Sturzenberger in Germany, in Mannheim.
	There was a stabbing, a police officer died, Reuvenel.
	And this is just something that angered everyone, and in some cases, it generated some memes about how Europe is treating the native population of Western countries, and it generated some memes about how Europe is treating the native
	and how the leadership of the EU is acting as if they're not particularly switched on with considerations regarding safety of the native Westerners.
	So I think that this is a very important question that we should be asking because everyone accepts that cultures affect who we become.
	Everyone accepts that cultures affect who we become because they habituate us in particular ways.
	And there are questions that should be asked.
	As to when cultures are compatible and when they are not.
	Because upon this question, upon the answer to this question, we can have a more prudent policy with respect to coexistence.
	And we can have a much more informed judgment when it comes to how we are going to decide who is going to live with who and who is not going to coexist with us.
	I think I disagree with that.
	I don't think it's a question.
	I think we go straight to action.
	I don't want to just clear them out.
	Simple as that.
	I agree with this.
	I'm saying clear out those we understand are acculturated in a way that is fundamentally at odds with our value systems.
	That's what I'm saying.
	So I don't think that it's more an issue of how we go about it.
	So I think that this is the main question.
	And this is a question that isn't asked, particularly when it comes to discussions in mainstream media, because every time someone tries to say that I'm skeptical of unrestricted mass migration, everyone is just trying to demonize that because every time someone tries to say that I'm skeptical of At least everyone.
	Can I just note, you've got this article here about this story and then you look at the side panel, now stay where you were, look at that side panel.
	Number three, far-right national rally tops French election poll results.
	I mean, you know, this, you know, cause reaction.
	I was listening to DW News yesterday where they were talking about Le Pen and literally they said far-right ten out of nine words that came out of their mouth.
	And just give you, I want to end with a final article that is about another case and want to illustrate yet again the issue of cultural continuities and discontinuities.
	This is an article that was published in the end of May this year 2024.
	On Daily Mail, where they're talking about a 20-year-old gypsy who raped a 12-year-old girl and left her pregnant with twins, was acquitted by Spanish court because their relationship is part of the cultural reality of their community.
	And as they have on the bullet points, this is the article from the Daily Mail, I'm reading from it, court ruled that their sexual relations were just a part of gypsy culture.
	And I want to say that I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, then that's a massive cultural discontinuity.
	That's one of the problems, isn't it, in the West now?
	That another culture, their norms, I don't know how you want to say it, take precedent over the laws of the land.
	So for example, you might have a law that having sex in any way, shape or form for a 12 year old is simply statutory rape.
	Yeah.
	So that's it.
	There should be no other... It's not like our laws, their laws.
	It's our laws, their laws.
	It can't work like that.
	That's multiculturalism because multiculturalism says that Groups that are not, within quotation marks, dominant groups, should not have pressures to assimilate.
	That is why every time anyone commits an act of violence against anyone else, we have a whole system that tries to portray That crime as something that originates in the pressure to assimilate into Western culture.
	Whatever happens, it is Western cultures that get to be blamed.
	And I will end with this claim, because we are talking about hideous sexual offenses.
	People in academia, most probably they won't admit it, but they perpetuate the lie that Western culture is supposedly a male rape culture.
	Supposedly a culture that is somehow pro-sexual abuse and that somehow men think this way.
	We do not.
	And also we don't have a culture.
	Also, mind you, increasingly we do have a rape culture because that's what the legal system is supporting.
	Because we've imported it and our legal system is supporting it.
	I really think that this was a horrific story and I literally hope that it's somehow not true.
	Every time we say things like that, sadly, we remind that reality is sometimes far worse than horror movies and fiction.
	So, shall we go to another segment?
	Okay, yeah.
	So, I'm going to talk all about Trump.
	Let me just get the document here.
	So, the Donald.
	Donald Trump and the Supreme Court.
	Oh, I have to also, first of all, show some of our merch.
	We've got some Zero Seats merch for the run-up to our big night-long stream.
	7pm on Thursday.
	Yeah, it could be 10, 11, 12 hour long stream, who knows?
	A marathon stream.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Lots of guests and there's a code, I think it's just zero seats, to get a bunch of money off Gold Tier Membership and yeah, there's some sorts of merch which is very short, only available for a short time.
	Okay.
	The Donald.
	King Donald, the first of his name.
	To be the King-elect.
	Okay, so what it was then, just to, if we play, well before I play this short video, I wanted to play a bit from the BBC, just to give everyone, if anyone doesn't know, just sort of the general mainstream, corporate mainstream... Because I've heard something about this, apparently he's now being ruled by the Supreme Court, that he can basically just whack people whenever he wants.
	Oh, not just him, any president.
	So we'll talk about the nature of presidential immunity from prosecution, we'll talk about that later.
	But of course, Donald's political enemies have alleged that he sort of tried an insurrection, didn't he, on January 6th, at the end of his last term.
	They tried to impeach him for it, do you remember that?
	Nancy and all the Dems tried to impeach him and failed and then they kept sort of talking about an impeachment as though they had impeached him.
	They hadn't.
	They tried to and failed to.
	But nonetheless after that, after he left office, they have tried to bring prosecutions against him.
	They went to the Supreme Court as to whether He could be prosecuted for it or not.
	Right.
	And so that's what is coming up.
	So in the first case, they had hoped that it wouldn't even get before the Supreme Court.
	They would just be able to, the Justice Department just simply would be able to prosecute him for anything they dreamed up.
	So which is the case that went to the Supreme Court that triggered this?
	It is that thing that he... Was it the Jan 6th case?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	And now this... As well as to do with Georgia.
	Do you remember in Georgia there was a telephone call where he said, see if you can find more votes for me.
	Yes.
	And they said, oh, that's election interference.
	That's the state of Georgia.
	That's election fraud.
	Yeah, not the country of Georgia in the Caucasus.
	So am I understanding this correctly, that now that Trump has all these king-like powers, that if he could imprison his main political rival on bullshit charges, is that kind of what it allows him to do?
	No.
	Oh, OK.
	No.
	So what this is, is there's many layers of politicking going on here.
	Right.
	And it's a bit difficult, well it's not actually all that difficult, but you've got to be careful with what's being said.
	So first of all, the first layer, sort of the top layer if you like, I think we should start with, is what the mainstream media are saying, what somebody like the BBC, how they're presenting the story and the narrative.
	Right.
	So it's about three, three and a half minutes long, but if we watch this whole video as a base To begin our discussion.
	The US Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump has some immunity from prosecution for official actions taken while he was in the White House.
	The landmark decision is likely to delay his trial for interfering in the 2020 election.
	The former president described the decision as a big win.
	Our North America editor Sarah Smith reports.
	The powerful Supreme Court has the final say on what presidents can and cannot do.
	Today's historic ruling means a president can never be prosecuted for anything that's part of their official duties, but they do not have immunity for non-official acts.
	So what does this mean for the criminal cases against Donald Trump?
	Fight for Trump!
	Fight for Trump!
	When he spoke to supporters on January the 6th, was he officially acting as the president or as the losing candidate?
	We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
	Donald Trump is facing criminal charges related to the January the 6th riot and attempting to overturn the election results.
	As his supporters stormed the Capitol building they chanted, hang Mike Pence.
	Angry with the Vice President because he refused to block the certification of Joe Biden as President.
	Mr Pence had to be evacuated from his office.
	Donald Trump cannot now be prosecuted for all the conversations in which he had been pressuring Mike Pence to overturn the election results.
	The Supreme Court did not say whether all the charges Donald Trump is facing are covered by presidential immunity.
	So it's going to have to be argued out in a lower court, which of his actions were official presidential acts and have immunity, and which were not, meaning he can still be prosecuted for them.
	Trump is also facing charges in the state of Georgia for trying to overturn the election result there.
	He phoned a local official and asked him to find more votes.
	So, look, all I want to do is this.
	I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state.
	A court will have to rule on whether he was acting as president or not when he made that call.
	Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a more liberal judge, completely disagrees with the ruling, saying, in every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.
	If he orders the Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, immune.
	Organizes a military coup to hold on to power, immune.
	Until now, every president who has served in the United States has understood that he could be prosecuted if he engaged in criminal conduct while president.
	Of course.
	Going forward, presidents know they're free.
	The most immediate effect of this ruling will be to further delay the three court cases Mr Trump is still facing, making it all but certain they will not come to court before November's election.
	Okay, that's the main thing.
	If you can stop playing that then, Simpson.
	There's a bit more there, but it's just fluff.
	This is just reminding me why I haven't watched the BBC for 20 years.
	So almost everything there was spun to be as anti-Trump as possible.
	Almost every tiny bit of it.
	Right?
	The little clips they decided to show and what information they decided to leave out.
	Just the framing of everything.
	Yeah, the framing.
	It's the classic liars by omission.
	What they're not saying, what they're not showing.
	And anyone who knows the story who's been awake for the last few years knows what really happened.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, can I ask you a question before you start?
	Because they said that the ruling is supposed to be about immunity when the president acts officially.
	Yeah.
	It has nothing to do with immunity when the president acts unofficially.
	But if you've seen the very beginning of the video, they asked whether he was acting as a president.
	So perhaps this is going to be the second stage of attack if this doesn't work.
	Because if now the discussion is about presidential immunity, but then they're going to ask, was he president or not at the time?
	So maybe it's the second stage of... And he was.
	I mean, he just was.
	Until the next president is sworn in, he's still the president.
	So it's just nonsense.
	So let's just talk a little bit about presidential immunity.
	So the shills on there were trying to say that there's something massive is new, has changed, that now a president is like a king, is above the law and all that sort of thing.
	Nothing essentially has changed.
	So when you take on the office of the President of the United States, you've got immunity from prosecution, right?
	So if you take for example, and you can only be prosecuted if and when you've been quote-unquote impeached.
	So if you take for example the story of Richard Nixon on my own channel History Bro, check that out, like and subscribe.
	I've got one early series I did, I think a five, six, seven, eight part series all about Watergate, the Watergate scandal and the downfall of Richard Nixon.
	I've read a fair few books about Richard Nixon and it's a very interesting story to me.
	So what happened with Nixon is he committed a few crimes, ordering people to break into places, right?
	So in the scheme of things, not terrible crimes, but nonetheless definitely definitely crimes.
	Breaking and entering and stealing some documents, things like that.
	Planting bugs, things like that.
	Then also perjury, then going on record lying about it.
	So they were Nixon's crimes, right?
	But they can't prosecute him because he's president.
	He's got immunity from prosecution.
	So it's not new, but his political enemies wanted to prosecute him for this.
	So they needed to impeach him and then be put on trial by the Senate.
	And so after he's impeached, put on trial by the Senate, found guilty, then he will face problems.
	So what happened in the case of Richard Nixon was it looked like that he would be impeached.
	He didn't have enough political support to prevent himself from being impeached.
	If that happened and it went to the Senate, again the numbers were they would find him guilty.
	And then he's looking at prison time and stuff.
	Right?
	So before he was impeached, he cut a deal with the special prosecutors to resign from office.
	That's what happened to Nixon.
	So Nixon actually was never impeached and was never put on trial.
	So that's Nixon.
	Okay.
	But there's a new...
	Wasn't he given then some sort of blanket pardon by...
	Gerald Ford then pardoned him.
	Pardoned him, yeah.
	Yeah.
	But he couldn't have been pardoning him for an actual crime.
	It was just...
	Well, yeah, there was crimes, yeah.
	The breaking and entering stuff.
	Oh, but nothing that he'd been found guilty of, I think.
	That's the question, though.
	Why pardon someone if they haven't broken the law?
	So, a quick word then about that.
	The presidential pardon.
	Presidential pardons are some of the most sweeping pardons it's possible.
	We don't really have any equivalent in Britain.
	And if you get a presidential pardon, it's just a complete blanket You're completely free.
	Your record is completely clean.
	We kind of do.
	I think the monarch can do whatever the hell they want and they're just outside the law.
	I don't think so.
	Not since the 17th century, I'm afraid, no.
	Parliament is supreme.
	I remember there was a bit on the Queen's website.
	We cut off a king's head for such things.
	Well, yeah, I mean, yeah, okay, apart from that.
	So another example is Bill Clinton.
	William Clinton did crimes.
	Again, perjury.
	He said, I did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky when he did.
	And then there was proof on her dress which she kept.
	You can infer what that's all about.
	And he was impeached and found guilty and his punishment for that was to be disbarred.
	Because Bill, like a lot of politicians, was a lawyer originally.
	He's not allowed to practice law in Arkansas anymore.
	Oh, that'll get him.
	Yeah, that'll show him.
	So Bill, I mean in the olden days, in the mid 20th century or before, that's so disgraceful that you probably would have thought he'd do a Nixon and resign out of disgrace.
	But of course Bill has got no shame and just carried on.
	Well and also he's a Democrat so held to a different standard.
	Yeah the media didn't pummel him day after day after day afterwards, after that yeah, and still run interference for him to this day.
	So, OK, so, but Bill, again, would have had immunity and he had to go through the impeachment, all that sort of thing.
	So, alright, I don't want to labour the point too much.
	Presidents have got immunity from a lot of, from almost anything.
	You know, like, someone like LBJ can just bomb civilians in North Vietnam or Cambodia or something, killing millions of people.
	Or Obama can drone kill American civilians, that kind of stuff.
	There's no murder trials because they're immune.
	So it's the Office of the President acting as the Office of the President.
	But then you can also, as the Supreme Court now has decided, make a distinction between that and acting in a private capacity.
	So say any president, not just Donald Trump, say any president just did sort of out of hours if you like, they did some sort of minor crime that's obviously got nothing to do with the office of president.
	Right.
	Like say just on a Washington DC alley they committed a sex crime or something.
	They could still be, should still be prosecuted for that.
	It's not complete blanket immunity.
	So what that Justice Sotomayor said, it's just extreme hyperbole.
	Oh we can sense any president now can, I mean Trump's not even the president.
	They're blaming him for it already but he could send two Team Six to kill his enemies and he'd be immune.
	I don't think so.
	I think there would be impeachment and a trial and all sorts of things.
	And actually it's far more likely that a Democrat would do that.
	Right, yeah.
	Probably, yeah.
	Way more likely.
	Again, this is going down the road of what I've talked about, the parallels with the Marian and Sullan civil war in ancient Rome, where there's a tit-for-tat, back and forth, of destroying the rule of law and norms, and keep upping each other in terms of how far they're pushing the limits of what a republic can stand before the whole thing falls to bits.
	No, no, I'm just listening.
	Okay.
	So I wanted to ask something about the official and the non-official, because there's a question, if there are official actions and the president acts according to, let's say, what the constitution decrees as being the range of what the constitution decrees as being the range of official actions, why do they need to have immunity?
	But an answer that someone gave me was that it has to do with litigiousness, because the reason they need this immunity is because the amount of people who just constantly disagree with each president and saying that they are because the reason they need this immunity is because the amount of people who just constantly disagree with each president and And that makes governance basically impossible.
	No, exactly.
	I mean, that's what I'm talking about with the parallels with Marius and Sulla in Ancient Rome.
	Yeah, just increasingly using lawfare to try and undercut each other.
	And then it spills over into the real world and actually having mobs, partisan mobs, on the streets.
	I mean, January 6th is one example.
	Or the BLM Summer of Fire, Summer of Love, whatever that was, on the other side of the equation.
	A mob warfare until the actual rule of law has been broken and no one's really paying attention to it anymore and then you have to get the army involved and then then you're into some sort of military leadership.
	You might still have presidents but We know the person who controls the bottom line, who controls the force, will be the real leader, i.e.
	some general.
	Anyway, we'll see if it goes that far.
	So, to carry on with the story, MSNBC For example, doesn't like what the Supreme Court said because it means that his trial for these trumped-up charges will be after November and if he wins then he can just get the State Department to just drop them entirely because they are pun intended trumped-up charges against Trump aren't they?
	So in other words, it is sort of a fairly significant win for the Donald.
	It does mean there's a few less headaches, quite a few less headaches for him between now and November.
	And the left side of the equation here will obviously butt hurt about that quite badly.
	And they spin it and they're like, so take this.
	Take this piece of work, for example.
	I've seen this guy, Neil Katyal.
	I've seen him doing the rounds on more than one thing.
	I've seen him on Channel 4 News and here he is on MSNBC.
	Let's not even bother playing it, but he's just saying, oh, it's terrible.
	So we'll actually play a bit of it.
	We'll play a bit of it, Samson.
	Let's bring in Neil Katyal.
	Neil.
	Yeah, I want to return to this point from the dissents about the impact of this decision today on our democracy.
	And, you know, in response to Chuck, and Chuck's absolutely right, the majority says there'll be case-by-case hearings to determine whether something is an official act or not.
	I just don't think, and I agree here with the dissent, that that's any sort of protection here.
	We've never needed those kinds of case-by-case hearings before.
	We've always just assumed a president is not above the law.
	And in these hearings, these case-by-case hearings, as Lisa points out, you can't even introduce any evidence of a President's motive, why he was trying to do something, like pressure the Justice Department, or do whatever.
	And it would be a presumption in favour of... Let's remember what happened January 6th.
	There was an augmented election, or what do they say, what's the word they use?
	Fortified.
	A fortified election.
	Yes.
	And there was some sort of backlash from the people.
	Well they basically said we want the process to play out properly and not be cut short.
	It wasn't an insurrection, it was just let's just do the process properly.
	Yeah.
	And Trump where they played a sound clip of him there saying you've got to fight for your country.
	Don't play the clip where he explicitly says don't cause any trouble.
	Yeah.
	And it's okay for AOC to go up on stage and say repeatedly we've got a fight and it sounds like she's really meaning it, the double standard again.
	But anyway, just the gaslighting that it's like Trump is criminally negligible for something.
	I constantly listen to them talking about Trump being somehow above the law.
	Whereas there is also the distinction between the official and the unofficial acts.
	Yeah, it's just nonsense.
	The idea that, I mean, he's not even the president.
	They're already making out like he can do anything he wants.
	Of course he can't.
	I had a bit teed up from Rachel Maddow, but you can imagine what she says, of course.
	It's just spinning the entire narrative.
	So the orange man bad.
	It's just the same old, tired old thing.
	Assuming that the audience know nothing about the nature of presidential immunity.
	Well, her audience probably doesn't.
	Assuming the audience know nothing about the actual sequence of events.
	Assuming the audience knows nothing about the nature of what is or isn't just.
	All these things.
	It's just the most disgusting stuff.
	So actually, can we play the link with Biden there?
	This is what Biden had to say about it.
	This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America.
	Each, each of us is equal before the law.
	Apart from Hunter Biden.
	No one is above the law.
	Not even the President of the United States.
	Apart from the Burisma deal.
	Today's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed.
	For all practical purposes, today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what the President can do.
	This is a fundamentally new principle.
	And it's a dangerous precedent.
	Because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States.
	The only limits will be self-imposed by the President alone.
	Nearly four years ago, my predecessor, Send a violent mob to the US Capitol.
	No, he did not.
	To stop the peaceful transfer of power.
	Nope.
	We all saw it with our own eyes.
	We sat there and watched it happen that day.
	Attack on the police.
	Watched innocent women get shot in the chest at Point Blank Range by a police department.
	A mob, literally hunting down the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.
	Gallows erected to hang the Vice President, Mike Pence.
	Was it?
	I think it's fair to say it was one of the darkest days in the history of America.
	Now the man who sent that mob to the U.S.
	Capitol is facing potential criminal conviction for what happened that day.
	The American people deserve to have an answer in the courts before the upcoming election.
	The public has a right to know the answer about what happened on January 6th before they asked to vote again this year.
	Now, because of today's decision, That is highly, highly unlikely.
	It's a terrible disservice to the people of this nation.
	I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers I have for three and a half years.
	But any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law.
	I concur with Justice Sotomayor's dissent today.
	She hears what she said.
	She said, in every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.
	With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
	End of quote.
	Associate the American people dissent.
	I dissent.
	May God bless you all, and may God help preserve our democracy.
	All right, so just complete nonsense there from a geriatric.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, absolutely, just spin it.
	Now, one thing I would say is that what is dangerous, because we didn't watch Rachel Maddow and that Neil Katjali enough.
	I think we know what they're going to say.
	And lots of other left-leaning commentators are saying, is that not only is this a blow to the rule of law or to America, but it's the nature of the Supreme Court itself.
	Let's blame the Supreme Court itself.
	The Supreme Justices have done something bad and wrong here.
	Now that's dangerous.
	That's dangerous to call into question the very nature of the Supreme Court.
	That's something that needs to be reformed or done away with.
	So that's much, much more dangerous than six out of the nine Supreme Court justices deciding that Trump shouldn't necessarily or should have immunity from some of the things he is alleged to have done in January that year.
	So I've got a quote here that I want to read out.
	It's quite long.
	It's a full paragraph long.
	I want to read it out.
	It's from A great man, Alistair Cooke.
	There's a picture of Alistair Cooke.
	Now, he's an Englishman and he wrote a great deal, many many books, all about America.
	He lived in America, I think he went to Cambridge, and after Cambridge he went to America in the 20s or the 30s.
	There he is as a fairly old man in the 1970s.
	I think he actually lived into extreme old age.
	Anyway, He knows American history inside out.
	He wrote lots and lots and lots of books about all aspects of America, from sort of the blues that you can find down in New Orleans, through to the nature of the Constitution and the Supreme Court and all sorts of things.
	He famously did a long series called Letters from America, which anyone who's old enough to remember, it's a tiny bit before my time, but when I found out about Alistair Cooke when I was a bit younger, I gauged myself on his material.
	He's great.
	Very, very, very learned, interesting person.
	There's also a TV series, I think just called Alistair Cook's America, which is a rehash of his letters from America.
	And anyway, there's a great passage in that where he talks about the nature of the Supreme Court.
	So if I can read that out, hopefully I'll put this in context, that what's the dangerous thing here is not Trump, it's not the nature of presidential immunity that's suddenly been changed and now they've got kings.
	Nothing particularly has changed.
	If anything, some sort of justice has been done so that Trump doesn't have to go through the rigmarole of kangaroo prosecutions.
	So Alastair Cook says this, You see, the Constitution set up the President to keep an eye on the Congress, and the Congress to keep an eye on the President.
	And to keep an eye on both of them was something else.
	A Supreme Court of Judges, appointed for life, above the political battle.
	And yet, this is vital.
	They are able to decide the outcome of all the battles, political and social, of American life, that engage the best and worst passions of the people.
	It is the watchdog of the ordinary American citizen, and there's nothing like it, i.e.
	the rest of the world.
	I've been a working correspondent in this country for over 35 years, he was talking in the 1970s, and I only now realise how often I look back down the years at some really dangerous crisis that has happened and said, thank God for the Supreme Court.
	For these nine men, because they were nearly always men, at least back then, for these nine men who guard the rights of the ordinary citizen, and the ordinary citizen could be a president or a pimp, a banker or a bum, and the judge's brief and their Bible is the Constitution of the United States, They sit most days of the year and they look into the Constitution and they decide if something that somebody has done, anybody, is legal.
	Whether you can, for instance, run an Undertaker's and also own stock in an insurance company.
	You cannot.
	Or whether a stage play of naked men and women running around shouting four letters words is constitutional.
	The nine judges are never bound by precedent, even their own.
	They have defended the right, some right, of children to work in factories throughout the night, and then absolutely forbidden them to do just that.
	They have proclaimed the right to keep blacks and whites apart on trains, and then 60, 70 years later, proclaimed the right to put blacks and whites together on trains in schools, theatres, everywhere.
	So you see, in the Constitution, like the Old Testament, can be cited to forgive one's enemies or gouge an eye for an eye.
	But make no mistake, this chamber, and he was talking from the chamber of the Supreme Court, make no mistake, this chamber is haunted by memorable faces and single sentences that have transformed the life of the American people.
	Chief Justice Marshall, quote, it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department and nobody else to say what the law is.
	Mr Justice Sutherland, the liberty of the individual to do as he pleases, even in innocent matters, is not absolute.
	Again, these are all things that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say, one way or the other.
	It's the Supreme Court that has to decide.
	Mr Justice Harland said 80 years ago, against all eight of his colleagues, the Constitution is colourblind.
	Mr Justice Holmes, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said, a constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views.
	Chief Justice Hughes, the constitution is what the judges say it is.
	I mean, wow.
	Imagine that.
	The constitution is what we say it is.
	So the buck stops with them in all sorts of ways.
	And he goes, Alistair Cook goes on to say, and so it is.
	Meaning the Constitution is what the judges say it is.
	And so it is.
	And since a majority of the nine decide everything, the Constitution is what five judges say it is.
	Now this sounds very alarming, but these nine men are human and of various character, and there's nothing rigid about the authority of the Constitution.
	It bends to the moral winds of the time.
	But if the judges are behind the times, and if their integrity as honourable men is seriously questioned, then the court and the country are in trouble.
	But I've noticed that an odd and impressive thing happens, can happen, when a man is appointed to the Court.
	The President may think that he has installed a ventriloquist's doll, but suddenly the man is paid for life and can become himself, a quite different character from the one the President ordered up.
	And so remarkably often, the Court has kept the country on an even keel in the stormiest of times.
	Believe me, It will be a bad day for America if ever the mass of them come to see, come to lose faith in this cult as their fair and final protector." End quote.
	Now that's, that's a profound thing there.
	That presidents come and go.
	Congresses come and go, get swapped out for new people.
	The Supreme Court is more important than that.
	It is almost like a sacred thing.
	Well the sacred thing is the Constitution which they defend.
	Right, which they interpret.
	The Constitution is what they say it is, quite literally.
	So to call into question, as the Dems do quite often, well they say things like, why do we have to have nine?
	Why don't we have more than nine and we'll pack it out with our guys and stuff.
	Again, this is how republics fracture and die.
	And that's what they're doing.
	Someone like Rachel Maddow doesn't seem to pause for a moment before just saying, oh, it's the Supreme Court.
	They're the problem.
	They're the issue.
	We need to take issue with them.
	Well, America will be in trouble if they do.
	I think people forget what was the reaction by U.S.
	Democrats to the election of Trump in 2016 when they were talking about the system with the electors.
	They were against it, because they were saying Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, and Trump is president because he won due to the electors, and that is what the Constitution says.
	Yeah, it's the way it's always been.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, you can win the quote-unquote popular vote, i.e.
	literally more people voted for you, but it's not about that.
	It's about the electoral college.
	Yeah, and that's the way it's always been.
	But yeah, they're just butthurt that they lost.
	But it's interesting... Saying anything, doing anything, throwing the Republic itself under the bus so that they can win.
	But there's a deeper thing that is interesting here because the system of the electors of the electorates or the districts is based on the idea that just because you live somewhere doesn't mean that you're about to vote for some other place.
	There has to be a sort of local representation.
	Yeah, right.
	That's why they have the seats within each state.
	Yeah.
	And this is something that possibly Democrats really don't like.
	The U.S.
	Democrats.
	Yeah.
	Who, by the way I see it, they are much more in favor of a very paternalistic democracy than I think is an oxymoron.
	There's always been a struggle politically for the heart and soul of America.
	Going back to Washington and Adams and Hamilton and Jefferson and all these guys.
	The balance between the federal government and the states.
	And America as we have it today is really... Jefferson won that battle.
	I've done some interesting content with Benjamin Boyce talking about this.
	Again, go to History Bro, my channel on YouTube.
	Find the conversation or two I've had with Benjamin Boyce talking about how Hamilton and Jefferson, their view of what America should be, how it's set up, whether it's the central government in Washington D.C., the federal government should be sort of all-dominant, or whether the states should To what extent the states have autonomy over their own state.
	And so, yeah, it's still a thing to this day where people are of different minds about it.
	I said electors, it's electorates, I think.
	Sorry.
	OK, so I've maybe run a touch over time there, but Trump did nothing wrong, and fingers crossed for him in November, and the Dems can suck it.
	Right, well guys, if you think that was important, saving the Constitution, I've got something far more important for you.
	We have got to save the President.
	We have got to save Joe.
	Oh, right.
	Oh, okay.
	Hang on.
	Technical issues.
	Technical issues.
	Stelios' hairspray sometimes interacts with the monitor in a way that just causes it to blitz out.
	I don't use hairspray.
	You don't?
	No.
	Well, what are you putting on then that does that?
	I'm sure it has something to do with my hair.
	Is that a perm?
	Like the Johnny Bravo one.
	Yeah.
	Right, here we go.
	Let's tag on a few extra minutes at the end, Samson, because we can't let the poor people go without their comments.
	We will take some extra minutes to... Shall we shill?
	We should do some shilling in this time and the back office guys will be annoyed with us if we don't shill.
	I'll shill, I'll shill.
	I'll work it in seamlessly, you know.
	Watch me go.
	Right, are we good, shall I?
	We look good.
	Hairspray applied, good.
	Right, so I've got something really important to talk about in this one.
	We have to save the President.
	Because, I don't know if you've heard, guys, but there are dark forces at work in America trying to depose the most popular President of all time.
	They're trying to get Joe out.
	He is the most popular President of all time.
	He is.
	That's a matter of record, isn't it?
	Yes.
	That's a matter of fact.
	81 million votes.
	That cannot be disputed.
	This guy cannot get... We need him to be the Democratic nominee come November and I will not have it.
	I will not have it, sir.
	Before we come to that, I just want to point out that we're doing an election stream on Thursday.
	We're all plugging zero seats for the Conservatives So, um, anyway, go to our store.
	Unfortunately, we can only do this for the UK store because of, you know, complications, shipping, blah blah blah.
	Anyway, so go to our store and you can get some Zero Seats merch.
	That's a t-shirt I like, but there's some other ones on there as well.
	Um, and yeah, go to the election night stream.
	Thursday, uh, 7pm if you're here, or, you know, watch it from- watch that from anywhere.
	Uh, stick the seats, uh, the promo code ZEROSEATS into the merch store and you'll get some money off and all that stuff.
	Right, so.
	The debate.
	About a week ago, wasn't it?
	A bit less than a week ago?
	Yep.
	Right, quick vox pop here.
	What bits do you actually remember a week later?
	Tell me which bits you remember.
	I remember Trump taking the mickey out of Biden's swing.
	Golf swing.
	Yeah, so there's the golf bit.
	He couldn't get, he can't hit 50 yards.
	What do you remember, Stelios?
	The other scene where he's calling him a loser.
	Right, okay.
	I don't even remember that one.
	Remember Jill Biden afterwards screaming at the audience that Trump's a liar?
	I don't know if I can allow that one.
	Does that really count?
	I can't.
	Moments from the debate.
	One where Biden was supposed to be talking about abortion, I think, and then talked about illegal immigrants.
	Yes, that was a good one.
	It's like Biden teed it up perfectly for Trump.
	Okay, we're talking about my strongest issue, which is abortion, and now I'm going to pivot seamlessly to your strongest issue, which is migrant crime.
	But of course the top bit was probably the bit where Trump said I don't know what he just said and I don't think he did either.
	And the reason I vox pop you like that is because you know we can all do these big brain analyses like the day after when we just watched it but it is important to just stop and think okay a week later what do I actually remember because that's the bit that has cut through that's the bit that sort of resonates with people and I've got to tell you I completely misjudged that debate because I watched it and I thought, OK, yeah, pretty standard Joe, pretty standard Trump.
	Trump was a bit subdued.
	I was then fully expecting to go to the after show reactions to see the CNNs and all the rest of them saying, oh, Joe's never been better.
	Joe's brilliant, because it's part of our lived experience for the last four years.
	And you see every other candidate is trying to just show as much strength and vigor as possible.
	You have AOC resembling some figures of the past, you know what I mean?
	Jumping on top of stage and making speeches that are really impassioned.
	You have also this absolutely cringe video with Jack Black.
	I haven't seen that one.
	Yeah, it's absolutely cringe.
	You also have very cringe videos with Kamala Harris.
	Yes.
	That seem a bit scripted.
	But the thing is, we've known that Joe was like this for four years, so I watched that debate just fully expecting him to just carry on as usual.
	But they didn't do that?
	A pivot is going on somewhere.
	Yeah.
	They're pivoting.
	Something happened.
	Because they were all uniformly, I mean apart from, I think Rachel Maddow, she didn't get the memo, and so she came out saying, oh, Joe's never been stronger, all that kind of stuff.
	But like CNN, uniformly, and to be fair, even the guests on Rachel Maddow's show, they then quickly sort of brought her up to speed on this.
	They all pivoted against him.
	Which kind of surprised me because they've been saying that he's sharp as a tack for quite a while.
	In fact, for those of you listening at home, I'm going to play a video which I find very amusing.
	It's commentary from the media from the past few years overlaid with Joe's face from the debate.
	So if you're listening rather than watching, you're not going to get the full effect from this.
	Let's play this.
	This version of Biden, intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever.
	He is sharp, intensely probing, and detail-oriented and focused.
	For example, we've got a thousand trillionaires in America.
	This is a man who is sharp, who is on top of his game, who knows what's going on.
	He's smart, he's on his game.
	His mental acuity is great.
	This is a very sharp president.
	Um, and the people that I've talked to say he's- he's as sharp as a tack.
	He- he's fine.
	They say he's sharp.
	There's- there's not a problem.
	He was sharp.
	He was sharper than anyone I've spoken to.
	The president, uh, is sharp and he is tireless.
	He is sharp.
	He is sharp as ever.
	And, um, he's- he's- he's fine.
	All this right-wing propaganda that his mental acuity has declined is wrong.
	His brain is good.
	He's still great.
	He's sharp in meetings.
	I believe the people who say that behind closed doors, Joe Biden remains sharp.
	In meetings, Joe Biden is sharp.
	He's sharp, he's fit.
	There is nothing to these challenges, these suggestions that somehow he's not sharp.
	He's sharp as a tack.
	Making sure that we're able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I've been able to do with the COVID, excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with, look, if... look, if...
	That was how I was presenting in the beginning.
	when I started rapier like rapier like down to a razor sharp sorry I find that particularly sorry what were you saying he reminds me of myself when I started presenting on the podcast we did a bit on this the other week I think I did a bit actually and it was very telling his face when Trump's speaking he Yeah, just, um, gormless really.
	So that I think was the point that I was sort of belatedly making there while I was chuckling to myself was that It's the face that's what that's the kind of the key thing you remember from it you know that and the the gaffes and the mental slowness but it was just that slack face that sort of dementia face that you get.
	I mean, that's a key takeaway.
	So anyway, the Dems have disgracefully decided that he's no longer sharp as a tact, despite the fact they've been saying it for years.
	And there were obviously no clues whatsoever that Joe wasn't, you know, a thousand percent on it for the last few years.
	Let me disprove that by showing this video.
	And it get hot, I got a lot of, I got hairy legs that turn, that turn blonde in the sun.
	And the kids used to come up and reach in the pool and rub my leg down so it was straight and then watch the hair come back up again.
	They'd look at it.
	So I learned about roaches.
	I learned about kids jumping on my lap.
	And I've loved kids jumping on my lap.
	Right, okay.
	So, um, yes.
	That's horrible, isn't it?
	So there's one thing to be, uh, suffer from dementia.
	Oh, and then there's another thing to have sort of no energy as well.
	So now, obviously he's got dementia and no energy.
	Yeah.
	Whereas at least then he still had a bit of a wind in the sails there, so he could really... Yeah.
	And look, my key point on all of this is how can we let this man go?
	He's the most popular president ever.
	Exactly.
	He's the most popular president ever.
	He has to be the Democrat nominee in November.
	It's the strongest mandate the American people have ever given to a president.
	I mean, exactly.
	I mean, it turns out that we used to think that Obama was popular.
	It turns out that the only reason Obama won is because he had him as his VP.
	It's got to be.
	there's no other exploration because the moment you got obama out the way the vote share just went way up well the yeah i mean the moment you got obama out the way and it went past 3 a.m and a whole bunch of key counts were shut down yeah yeah i mean i mean all that aside i mean this the man's an absolute champion and and to be fair to him to be fair he does have a sort of insane track record of winning i mean if you look back from like his first the first thing that he ran for through the senate um as vp and then i mean he
	he basically just wins everything he His whole career has been election win, election win, election win.
	So you know, why on earth would the Democrats abandon him now?
	It's the charisma isn't it?
	Just the liquid charisma of the man.
	Yes.
	It's undeniable.
	It shines out of him doesn't it?
	That and the being sharp as a tack.
	The razor sharp intellect.
	I mean, yeah, you just can't.
	Anyway, so, um, joking aside, this man should clearly be tucked up in a nursing home with a blanket over his legs.
	Um, you know, that's what he wants to be.
	He wants to be sat in a nursing home watching reruns of Clint Easton movies from the 70s and having kids rub his legs.
	And eating ice cream.
	He obviously loves to eat ice cream.
	So just let him do that.
	But I mean this I noticed this is so obviously there was this discussion after the debate about getting rid of him and apparently his family are the strong voice because I heard the family were meeting at the weekend following this and I thought obviously I thought okay because I'm a normal person and I have a normal family I thought to myself okay the family are going to be thinking this is cruel You know, this old man needs to step aside.
	So obviously they're going to do the right thing for their family member.
	No, no.
	The exact opposite.
	What they did is... So they're milking his career for all it's worth?
	Yes.
	So apparently the two strongest proponents are Jill, who is presumably the acting president.
	Dr. Jill.
	Yeah.
	And Biden.
	Sorry, Hunter Biden.
	Convicted felon, Hunter Biden.
	Which, if I can recall, is the exact opposite of what happened four years ago, because I remember that she was saying that he should be a one-term president.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	I think she was saying that.
	But she's got used to it now.
	Being First Lady is a strong drug, I imagine.
	Yeah.
	And also, the other thing, of course, is A lot of people in the audience won't understand the point I'm about to make, but some of you really, really will.
	Trying to convince an old person to leave their house, to give up their house and move into somewhere that can really take care of them.
	It is the monster of all discussions to have with old people.
	So I can understand why Jill and Biden are like, yeah, no, we're good.
	What were you going to say?
	And Hunter, obviously, because, I mean, yeah, you say convicted felon, but tip-of-the-iceberg stuff.
	I mean, the thing he was convicted of, wasn't it a gun charge or something?
	Yeah, yeah, he said he wasn't a drug addict when he pulled the gun.
	But that is tip-of-the-iceberg compared to, like, all the... But there's another Hunter trial.
	There's another Hunter trial in a few months.
	Right, yeah.
	For much more serious fraud allegations.
	And thus why he is obviously better off with his dad being the president.
	The power of immunity and all that kind of stuff.
	So, you know, his family wants to keep him in.
	And, you know, here's the other thing.
	So the Democrat National Committee, so the DNC, apparently want to stamp out calls to replace Joe Biden by formally nominating him in just a couple of weeks.
	So they're trying to put the lid on this and say, no, no, no, he is the candidate.
	I mean, God bless the DNC.
	God bless them.
	They're great people.
	For all their fine work.
	I mean, they're trying to put...
	Because there's a lot of conspiracy isn't there?
	It's like okay did they put him up on an early debate so that they could then swap him out?
	They probably just put him on an early debate because they can see the rate of cognitive decline and they didn't want to risk an extra few months so they thought we'd do it now.
	And let's hope he's going to be on a good form.
	He'll get through it and then we can just like put him in a basement like we did last time.
	I'm not sure, I'm not sure they've got sort of a great grand plan, an overarching sort of master plan or anything.
	I think their, I would have thought their calculation at the beginning when they was running against Trump the first time was that he's just a pliable puppy So even though it's embarrassing, we can control him and that's all that really matters.
	And that's the calculation they've gone with up until very recently.
	And now they realise that actually he's dying or something.
	Um, so we've got, we've got to call an audible here.
	We've got to change up the plan, like, on the fly now.
	It's definitely breaking into camps all over the place.
	And even people on our side, they're undecided.
	So, I mean, here's David Sachs.
	Who's pointing out that, you know, there are three categories of president.
	The two-term presidents, the one-term president, and the president who resigns or steps aside in failure or disgrace.
	Why would Biden choose Category 3 when Category 2 is better and still has a one in three chance of Category 1?
	That's also the question I'm asking, because he could leave, he could just say, okay, that's my term, I did what I did, someone else take place, because he seems a bit exhausted, let me put it this way.
	But the people who have access to him is obviously Jill and his staff, and they're obviously the people who are really being the president, who are really discharging the duties of president.
	Why would you give up that power?
	I mean, what better job do his staff have to go to than exercising the duties of the Office of the President in his absence?
	And Jill obviously doesn't understand all the politics stuff, so as long as she gets all the, you know, the goodies that goes with it, she's happy.
	Gets to redecorate the West Wing.
	Yeah.
	Or whatever.
	Go to state dinners.
	Yeah, right, yeah.
	And Kamala, you know, her career, or her...
	Tenure as VP is directly tied to his mask.
	If he's removed, there will be an entirely new ticket.
	She almost certainly won't be picked as VP on that new ticket.
	So she wants to keep wheeling him out until the day he dies.
	Well, she might like the day he dies to come sooner rather than later at this point.
	Well, she's one heartbeat away from the big job herself.
	And it's probably not a desperately strong heartbeat.
	But anyway, opinions are divided on this.
	Tucker Carlson is saying, Biden is done, bet on it.
	Too many prominent Democrats have suggested he's brain damaged, they can't walk that back.
	And this is the interesting question, and I'll pick right-wingers for this viewpoint, but you get this on the left as well.
	People are arguing back and forth as to whether he's definitely done or he's definitely staying.
	I've got to say, let's get on the record here.
	If I had to, if it was a binary bet, even odds, I would go with him staying.
	Really?
	Yeah, what would you go with?
	I don't know, it's close at the moment.
	Yeah.
	Because I know a couple of things, you know, I'm only in my early 40s but I've been around long enough to know the way that things go and when you hear certain things, when you hear the mainstream media saying certain things, your ears prick up.
	Yeah.
	So, for example, if the Pentagon or the State Department say, um, chemical weapons have been used here or there, you know they're gearing up the war machine.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Um, when the mainstream media suddenly start saying, um, something like, I saw this, literally saw this on my phone, popped up, it said, who is Gavin Newsom?
	What do you need to know about Gavin Newsom?
	They're grooming that person for potentially for at least a run at the top job.
	So if you had to bet, you'd say go.
	Yeah, I wouldn't want to put much money on it, but yeah.
	Okay.
	Which way are you going to go still, Yos?
	I think that he is probably going to stay.
	Yeah.
	But what Tucker says there is true, isn't it?
	When you get enough sort of very prominent people in the DNC and senators and congressmen and they say Joe is suffering from brain damage or something or cognitive decline... There is that.
	It's like... Yeah.
	There's a critical mess.
	That was kind of the narrative at first, but what I'm hearing now is they're all pivoting to one bad night.
	And actually, one bad night.
	The narrative is now he had one bad night.
	Okay, right.
	The reason why I think he will stay is because I think they know really well that the other candidates don't have the brand that Biden has.
	It's not funny you mention that, because that is exactly what the Biden campaign have put out here.
	Basically they've been putting out these polls saying that Biden does better against Trump than all of the alternatives.
	I mean, it's not news.
	They have been saying this for years.
	But that's a harsh indictment of the Democrats, isn't it?
	The leading lights, the big beasts in the Democratic establishment, that Biden's still the best they've got.
	I'm not even sure if that's true.
	Gavin Newsom has got... I hate Gavin Newsom.
	I hate his politics.
	Yeah, he's an American psycho.
	But surely he's a better bet.
	Well, Biden's a dying old man, how is Newsom not better?
	I've been fascinated with the logistics of this, because a lot of people started talking about the 25th Amendment and removing the President.
	Right.
	But the problem with that is that you need the Vice President and the Cabinet to agree to it, and Camilla would obviously agree to it, but only if she gets the job.
	Camilla, pass or both?
	Yeah.
	Oh, um... Kamala.
	Kamala.
	You're supposed to say it like that.
	That awful woman.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, she would be in favour of it if she gets to be President, you know, at least until the end of this term, so that she's got that.
	But if Joe contests it, if he doesn't go along with it, then you then need to take it to Congress where it needs a two-thirds vote.
	So basically you need the GOP to be in favour of it, and they're obviously not going to do that.
	So the 25th is out.
	I mean, you can forget that.
	That's not going to happen.
	Either Joe steps down voluntarily or not at all.
	He does follow orders, though, doesn't he?
	When the Clintons and the Obamas and the Podestas tell him to do something, he does do it usually, doesn't he?
	Maybe, but it comes back to my point about Jill and his staff, who are exercising the duties of the Office of the President, and they're the ones he listens to.
	They're the ones that control access to him.
	And they're going to cling on for dear life.
	Exactly.
	Which is where I think it gets difficult.
	And actually it's more complicated than that because this is an interesting tweet from Charlie Kirk.
	He points out that actually it's already probably too late to remove Joe Biden from the ballot.
	So Wisconsin, it's too late to take him off the ballot.
	Nevada, it's now too late to take him off the ballot.
	And Georgia, you've only got about another week from here before it's too late to take him off the ballot.
	So if you're not already on the ballot, Well, you've got a problem.
	So that brings me on to... Actually, I'll do a quick Stelios tweet here.
	Yeah, I know this man.
	Great account.
	Yeah, follow Stelios.
	He's responding here to the, you know, the Piers Morgan tweet about, you know, Newsom will be the candidate.
	I'm gonna come back to that shortly in a moment.
	But the other issue is campaign money.
	So, Joe obviously won't raise a lot more money from here because the donors are abandoning him.
	However, he has already raised a lot of money, right?
	And that money isn't in a big pot that says Democrat.
	It's tied to the campaign, so the ticket of Biden and Kamala.
	So, if it's not Kamala, that money gets released and they have to raise all the money again.
	Right, so that's another interesting thing.
	Interestingly, Nixon, there's a similar thing, yeah, there'll be a committee for re-election.
	Right, committee to re-elect the President, yeah.
	Yeah, and it will have its own leadership team and its own bank account and all that sort of thing, which is, yeah, separate from, yeah, it's its own ring-fenced thing, so yeah, that's an interesting point actually.
	So let's finish off on this, because I do like a little bit of political betting.
	I might have dabbled in this once or twice.
	Joe is still the overwhelming favourite, thank goodness, to remain as the Democratic nominee going into November.
	Gavin Newsom is close behind.
	You two like Gavin Newsom for this, don't you?
	We don't like him, but you like his odds.
	If I were a Democrat, I would say that he would be the one.
	I don't think it can be him.
	I feel like if it isn't Biden, for whatever reason, it will be Newsom.
	But you said you don't necessarily think that.
	I don't think it will be... What, are we going to go with Buttigieg?
	No, I don't think it'll be Gavin Newsom because the whole mantra of the Democrat Party is basically a coalition of the fringes.
	So diversities, whatever, and they try and include women in that, but whatever, it's a coalition of the fringes against the white man.
	So you're gonna leapfrog a white man over Kamala, and they're from the same state, they're both from California, so they can't both go on the ticket.
	So if Newsom goes in, that necessarily means that Kamala is out.
	I see the angle you're making, but Kamala is extremely unpopular across the board, right?
	I think even within the democratic establishment.
	Yeah, but if you ditch her, you ditch the money that they've raised so far.
	Right.
	And also you've got the optics of replacing a black woman with a white man.
	Yeah.
	You know, you've got issues with that.
	The one I actually think, I mean, there's a couple that make sense.
	I mean, I don't like Michelle Obama for this either, because her only qualification is that she was married to a president.
	Well, in that case, why not just have Jill Biden?
	Because not only was she married to a president, but she actually discharged the duties of the offices of the president.
	So she's actually been doing the job.
	So she's got experience.
	Hillary Clinton, obviously not.
	Kamala Harris, Despite, I mean, she is by far the easiest play to make here in terms of the logistics of it and the campaign money and the nominations.
	Right.
	She's just utterly unelectable.
	I think she might have the top seat and maybe she has Gavin Newsom as her VP.
	I don't know.
	I think the Michelle Obama thing... No, she can't, because they're both Californian.
	Oh, right, yeah.
	Good point, too.
	I'll also mention Robert F. Kennedy.
	You know my point about how he's... If you're not already on the ballot, it's too late.
	In three states already, RFK is already on the ballot.
	So if the Democrats could find it within themselves to swallow their pride massively and probably fire a lot of people in the DNC and take RFK back and he could actually beat Trump Potentially, he could.
	Seems like it.
	All those things.
	That's a long shot for all sorts of reasons.
	Yeah, but again, it works.
	I'm not talking about... All I'm talking about is the logistics, because this is actually quite a hard logistical task to replace Biden at this point.
	So Kamala and RFK are actually viable on that.
	And then we've got everybody else on the list.
	I don't think there's anyone else worth mentioning.
	I've actually got a bet on Mark Cuban.
	I think Mark Cuban could do it.
	He's a sort of billionaire candidate.
	He's got the sort of moxie to take on somebody like Trump and the main thing I like about it is I've got a thousand to one so I make like 50 grand if he becomes the Democrat nominee so I quite like that one.
	So anyway that's the That's the round-up of it.
	Stick in the comments who you think might be, you know, whether you think Biden's going to stay or go, and if he does go, who's going to replace him.
	But, you know, get those betting odds on Mark Cuban down for me.
	Right.
	Let's go to the comments.
	We will take a few extra minutes to talk about, to view the...
	We can't overrun really today because we've got an interview coming up.
	So if you just read some...
	Okay.
	Okay, okay.
	Okay.
	I'll...
	We are told that we can't go over time.
	Surely we can have a couple of minutes.
	We had a bunch of video comments today as well.
	Maybe we'll do them tomorrow.
	Okay, so Lance Yulin.
	Any civilization that is unable to protect its young girls and defend their women is doomed to fail.
	Any civilization that is unwilling to do so, let alone encourage it, deserves to fail.
	I think that's true, but I would really introduce the qualification that the state isn't necessarily the civilization.
	So when states are repeatedly acting against their people, it doesn't mean that it's the people's fault.
	Lord Nereva, I usually try to leave a comment on each segment in the pod, but the segment on Germany has left me utterly speechless.
	Barbarians.
	Someone online.
	The government isn't threatened by unspeakable things happening to young girls.
	It is threatened by speech.
	Should we go to some comments of your... Could you read them for me?
	I haven't got the thing here.
	So we have OPHUK.
	A quote by Cicero.
	Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto.
	Nice.
	We go to Threadnought, who gave a donation on your segment.
	Debate moderator.
	Former president convicted felon Hitler.
	Why did you mock a disabled person?
	Trump.
	Because he's running against me for president.
	Next question.
	Last, Peter Simonson.
	Donald Trump and Jimmy Carter are the only living former presidents who haven't committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.
	None of the others have been held responsible.
	Arizona Desert, right?
	Ah, it was not a violent mob.
	And stop calling it the darkest day in America.
	With as long as you have lived, you know that there have been darker days.
	I mean, it kind of was the darkest day because it didn't succeed.
	Do you want to read some comments?
	Kamala said it was as bad or I think she said worse than 9-11 and Pearl Harbour, January 6th.
	What a thing to say.
	What a truly morally disgusting thing to say.
	Yeah, extraordinary.
	Josie's Angel says, Biden resigns, Camilla chokes on a hot dog and Hakem Jeffries takes the presidency.
	I don't even know who Hakem Jeffries is, maybe I should.
	Andrew Narog says Tucker and several other conservative commentators are rather on point when they state how disastrous these comments will be for Biden.
	They can't take these back.
	Public comments on Biden's state both before and after the debate.
	Let's say that it is Josie Angels who made the donation and we thank you.
	Oh, was it?
	Oh, right, OK, yes.
	And Andrew Narrogg is saying now that... Did I not say that?
	Yeah, Andrew Narrogg says what you said about Tucker and the other conservative commentators.
	Yes, yes.
	AZDesertRares says, Biden didn't win his first presidential run.
	Well... Yeah, but I mean, the system includes cheating now, doesn't it?
	So if you're a Republican, you need to win by greater than the margin of cheating.
	I mean, it's just how it works now, isn't it?
	I heard someone say that when Trump beat Hillary, they didn't cheat enough.
	And when Biden beat Trump, they cheated too much.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And so they've got to try and get this exactly right for, you know, the next... In fact, it's bloody hard, isn't it, to get it right for the next one, because the amount of cheating you're going to have to do is going to be enormous.
	I mean, Biden's going to need to go to, what, 106 million votes or something like that?
	What else have we got?
	So Baron Von Warhawk says, Sharp has attacked the President.
	Dear God, the copium is off the charts.
	Someone call 911.
	These people are going to overdose.
	No, no.
	Biden all the way.
	Right.
	And on that note, our podcast has come to an end.
	Thank you very much, Dan, for the catharsis of your segment, because our segments were a bit dark.
	Thank you all for being here, and I hope I see you tomorrow.

▲