Feb. 28, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
28:07
4308 Cohen Testifies! All Over For Trump?
"After months of anticipation, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen is testifying publicly before Congress on hush-money payments, his loyalty to the president and possible Russian collusion into the 2016 presidential election."Cohen's appearance before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday includes fiery accusations against the president and fierce backlash from Republican members of Congress, who have derided Cohen as an unreliable witness."Cohen previously pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and financial crimes, and Trump's circle — including members of Congress — have derided Cohen as an opportunist. Cohen is slated to begin his prison sentence at the end of the spring."Here are some key moments from Cohen's testimony:"Cohen accused Trump of knowing about the Trump Tower meeting between Trump associates and Russian agents."Trump's team has repeatedly changed its story in regards to a meeting with Russians at the Midtown Manhattan Trump Tower, which has become a focal point in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged collusion during the 2016 election. Trump’s defenders have said that while the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump, Jr., attended the meeting, the senior Trump had no knowledge of it."But Cohen recounted a meeting with Trump where Donald, Jr., approached his father and told him in a hushed tone that the "meeting is all set." Cohen deduced that he was talking about the Trump Tower meeting, meaning the president knew of — and had a hand in planning — a meeting with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin ahead of the election."Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) served as chair of the Democratic National Convention during the 2016 election when Russian hackers hacked Democratic emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks. Cohen claimed during his opening statements that Trump knew about a dump of Democratic emails in advance, using his associate Roger Stone as an intermediary with WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange."But when questioned by Wasserman Schultz knew about the Russian hacking efforts in advance, Cohen said he couldn't say for sure."I cannot answer that in a yes or no. He had advanced notice that there was going to be a dump of emails, but at no time did I hear the specificity of what those emails were going to be," Cohen said."But you do testify today that he had advanced knowledge of their imminent release," Wasserman Schultz replied."That is what I had stated in my testimony.""And that he cheered that outcome?""Yes, ma'am."▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneuxSources:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/key-moments-from-michael-cohens-house-testimony/ar-BBUa8JU?ocid=spartandhphttps://www.tvguide.com/news/donald-trump-presidential-campaign-timeline/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/30/timeline-roger-stone-wikileaks-question/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a55b44ce71f8https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/27/watch-live-michael-cohen-testifies-before-house-oversight-committee/https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cohen-threatened-trumps-schools-not-to-share-grades-scores/ar-BBUarSv?ocid=spartandhp
Do you mind if I take you on a journey, a bit of a dark journey, down a twisty lower intestine rabbit mine of paranoia and oversight, because today Trump's ex-lawyer, and now I guess since he's been disbarred, ex-lawyer as a whole, Michael Cohen, testified before the House Oversight Committee.
Now, for those of you who haven't been following the story, let's say that you've been following the story of tensions between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India.
Somewhat important, but not really much to be found in the mainstream media today.
Or maybe you've been following Trump's attempts to bring peace to the region, which has the rather soft and sore spot of North Korea in its gizzards.
But if you've been following this story, I'm sure you know the history of Michael Cohen.
Michael Cohen has pled guilty to violating campaign finance laws and a variety of financial crimes, multiple counts of tax evasion, bank fraud, and so on.
He testified today about two months before he is scheduled to begin his three-year prison sentence.
So yeah, he was convicted of lying under oath, disbarred for perjury, and He's on his way to prison, but I'm sure he's completely reliable.
And so his opening statement saw something he said near the beginning, which is, you know, he said, I've lied, but I'm not a liar.
Now here, you know, you're just getting into Massively complicated, Mobius strip, Gordian knots of dodecahedron Clinton unreality when you've got people saying stuff like that.
Because, no, look, you can lie.
You know, you can look at me straight in the eye and you can say, Steph, that camera does not make your forehead look too big.
It does not make it look like an 8 head or a 12 head.
It's just a forehead.
And that's fine, you know, you're just a little white lie and so on.
But it's quite another thing to, you know, lose your license to practice law and go to jail in part.
That's a bit more than just a white lie.
And so, you know, I have stolen, but I'm not a... I've murdered, but I'm not a murderer.
Like, it's just unreal.
And he started off, Cohen started off by reading a prepared statement.
Always reminds me of that 1984 style, I love big brother Stalin tribunal stuff.
The witnesses are going to just mouth whatever.
statement is given to them uh... doesn't doesn't save them but that's what they do anyway and the republicans actually were fairly spinal and they tore into the guy and they got Cohen to admit, confess, or say that he, Cohen, had consulted with Adam Schiff and Elijah Cummings before preparing his testimony and also that he was being represented for free Now, something else that was interesting came up.
Cohen did say he was going to pay Davis back, but basically he's being represented pro bono by Clinton's super lawyer.
Pro bono just, you know, that means for free in the old sense, not the new sense pro bono, which means annoying vaguely Irish singers' support for mass immigration.
Now, something else that was interesting came up.
So Paul Gosar was cornering Cohen.
And Cohen did admit that a sentence reduction of his three-year sentence from SDNY was, quote, still a possibility.
I mean, just, can we just sidebar for a sec?
Because this is one of the most horrendous aspects of modern Western legal systems, which is that they can bribe you with half a decade of your own life in order to Say that you're guilty, right?
So they'll just throw everything in the kitchen sink at you, and then they'll say, okay, well, you're looking at five to ten, but we could do one to three if you plead guilty.
In other words, they're bribing you with years of your own life.
And that kind of bribery is not how any rational legal system should work.
And it's not even how the current one does work, but it is kind of how it pretends to work.
And it's a horrible, horrible thing.
And so when you've got someone Who is in a political hox hot seat who has something which could weaponize the Democrats and the mainstream media against Trump and a sentence reduction from S.E.N.Y.
is still a possibility?
I don't know.
Seems kind of compromised to me and the other thing too that sort of struck me is that I mean the evidence he gave to me was very flimsy and tenuous and so on for the most part although again I'm no lawyer so this is just my thoughts but If he had real evidence, like, I think the reason that he's going to end up going to jail, whether he gets his sentence reduced or not, the real reason he's going to jail is because he doesn't have anything on Trump.
If he really had something on Trump, I mean, they would just set him free.
They'd give him, I don't know, a couple dozen virgins and so on.
So that's sort of my particular thoughts about that.
But I guess we'll find out as time goes forward.
So then the question is, you know, he worked for Trump, Cohen worked for Trump for like a decade.
Why did you finally turn on Trump, they say?
And the former attorney said, Helsinki, Charlottesville, and quote, the daily destruction of our civility.
I guess that's one possibility.
The other is that he got kind of cornered by the legal system and he's trying to protect himself, maybe his family and so on.
So, okay, so here's the major thing that I can sort of puzzle out from the verbiage complexity of what's going on today.
And this has been going on for a while.
So there's this idea.
It goes something like this.
So Russian hackers stole data from DNC servers.
They then gave that data to Wikileaks and then Wikileaks, as you know, put it out into the world.
Okay, so far only some of it is a conspiracy theory.
There's no evidence.
To my knowledge, 100% evidence that there was Russian actors, Russian hackers, Russian government, Russian intelligence agencies and so on.
The evidence, in terms like the time stamps on the actual files, are so close together That it's indicative of a USB stick in a local computer rather than, what is it, America to Romania to Guccifer 2.0 or something like that.
There's no way that you can sustain that data throughput over that many IP hops from America to Romania.
All of the evidence is that it was a local, probably disgruntled Seth Rich employee, perhaps, and that they plugged in a USB, copied it, and then... So, but the story is the Russian government hacked the DNC and then Roger Stone, who's a confidant of Trump's, was in connection with Julian Assange.
Julian Assange told Roger Stone about the upcoming dump of the DNC data, but mostly the emails is what they focused on.
And then Roger Stone told Trump, and Trump said, sounds great.
I know it's not much, it's really not much, but that is the whole story.
So with regards to this, just to recap real briefly, Russian government, Russian intelligence steals stuff from the DNC, hands it to WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange tells Roger Stone, who tells Donald Trump a little bit ahead of when the Emails are released, and bingo bango bongo, Trump wins the election.
I know there's a little fuzzy spot in the middle there, which should be somewhat explicated, but also remember that the DNC never turned over their server.
I think it was the FBI who was investigating all of this.
They never turned over their server for analysis, which to me, well, I mean, it's like Jussie Smollett not handing over his cell phone, kind of tells you, to me at least, all you need to know.
Michael Cohen describes a phone call between Roger Stone and Donald Trump.
Stone, he said, told Trump he'd just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.
And Mueller, of course, has indicted, and in the indictment there's no evidence showing any direct contact between Stone and Assange.
And so, because Mueller's been investigating whether Roger Stone was aware of WikiLeaks' plans to publish all of these hacked emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC, and all of that during the 2016 election.
And Assange has actually denied that he had any contact with Stone.
Assange in a quote is, Roger Stone is a rather canny spin master and we have not had any communications with him whatsoever.
So that's kind of important.
So from that standpoint, that is where the big question is around WikiLeaks, right?
So then what happens is the theory is that according to campaign finance law, you as a candidate can't take material value from foreign governments.
And somehow if it was a Russian government who hacked and then got the word through to Trump a couple of days ahead of the WikiLeaks dump of the DNC emails, somehow that is taking value from a foreign government.
And so this is the testimony that Michael Cohen has.
Quote, I was in Mr. Trump's office when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone.
Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone, Mr. Cohen said.
Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that within a couple of days there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Mr. Cohen added, Mr. Trump responded by stating, to the effect of, wouldn't that be great?
And that's it.
Maybe a couple... I don't believe that this happened, just for the record.
I don't believe that it happened.
I don't believe there was any contact.
I believe Assange.
But, let's say it did happen.
Yeah!
It's going to be a dump of your opponent's emails.
It's going to be bad for their campaign.
Sounds great!
Wouldn't that be great?
Collusion with Russian government of the highest order!
So, Now even if, right, so even if Trump knew about the WikiLeaks dump ahead of time doesn't mean that he's guilty of any kind of conspiracy.
And here's a quote from an article.
Prosecutors would have to prove that Mr. Trump and the campaign actively engaged in coordinating with Russians to distribute the documents or took other actions to affect the outcome of the election.
So that's part of the big Conspiracy theory and Russian government involvement has not been proven.
Russian intelligence involvement has not been proven.
And I guess they're working on trying to figure out whether or not Stone and Assange had contact.
But even if they did, and even if Trump knew, it's not necessarily collusion.
And I don't know.
I mean, this is all so it's a witch hunt.
It is.
It is a dastardly witch hunt and a terrible blow against the legitimacy of elections and just terrible.
So, the next thing that Colin was talking about was he accused Trump, he accused Trump and he said Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting, right, between, I think it's like eight Trump associates, Manafort and Donald Trump Jr.
and Kushner and so on, a bunch of other people, and this woman, Veronica who, I mean the story's a little muddled so, Originally, it was around adopting Russian babies or adopting American babies into Russia or some of the Russian babies in America, something like that.
And then it's like, oh, she's got some dirt on Hillary Clinton, the meeting was taken, it was a big waste of time and so on.
But because she was Russian, it's collusion, right?
So that's important as well.
So Trump's defenders have said, That, of course, Donald Trump Jr., Trump's eldest son, did attend the meeting.
Trump himself, Donald Trump, had no knowledge of it.
And here's a quote.
But Cohen recounted a meeting with Trump where Donald Jr.
approached his father and told him in a hushed tone that the meeting is all set.
See?
That's the evidence.
The evidence is a disgraced lawyer, ex-lawyer, saying that Donald Junior approached Trump and said in a hushed tone that the meeting is all set.
That's it.
That's it.
Crazy.
And I'll put links to all of this below.
And that is, that's kind of it.
As far as all of this Stuff goes.
Is there a link between Trump and Stone and Assange and Wikileaks and the DNC and blah blah blah blah blah?
Well, who knows?
So, again, even if it's all true, what value from foreign entities has been proven that Trump took?
So if you have advanced knowledge that emails are going to be put into the public sphere, but you don't know what they are, have the content or Does it?
Oh, yeah, great, you know, I'm looking forward to seeing what's in them, I guess you'd say.
But what does that mean?
So, I mean, even if there was a conversation that was described, even if the conversation described by Cohen did happen between Stone and Trump, so what?
A lot of steps you got to go through, and I guess that's what the whole investigation is supposedly about, but okay.
So the other thing is the Stormy Daniels payoff, right?
So this is back to October 2016.
It's right before the election.
So Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's personal lawyer, paid Stormy Daniels $130,000.
Why?
To deny that she'd had an affair with Trump a decade earlier.
And you can look into all of the details and the lawsuits and the non-disclosure agreements and so on, but that is the big issue that's been talked about.
I don't know.
I mean, these laws are very, very complicated and very confusing.
So here's a quote from an article regarding, because he was waving these checks around, like $35,000 and so on, right?
I mean, to me, again, just an outsider, not a legal expert, I mean, so someone says, I don't know, I'm going to go public with an affair or something like that, it's right before an election, and then they take money to stay quiet.
Strikes me not totally dissimilar to a potential shakedown, but You write a personal check for a private settlement for this kind of like stay quiet kind of stuff?
I don't know.
Is it a campaign contribution?
I don't know.
So here's a quote from an article.
The experts cautioned that nothing Mr. Cohen said in his prepared remarks drastically altered What is known about any legal case against the President?
The relevant laws are complex, and the President's lawyers have repeatedly argued that he did not violate them.
And perhaps most important, they note, there is a Justice Department policy that asserts that a President may not be indicted while in office.
So who knows?
I mean, campaign finance laws, again, ridiculously complex.
They require proof that a person was willfully violating the laws.
Such proof is, you know, you don't sit there and if you want to willfully violate laws, you rarely sit down there or sky write or tell people with their cell phone jammed up your nose that you willfully want to violate the laws.
So, anyway, that's a mess.
So, Trump Tower, Moscow.
So there was a report from BuzzFeed that said Mr. Trump explicitly directed Mr. Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
Now Mr. Cohen said, Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress.
That's not how he operates.
Mr. Cohen added, this is from an article, Mr. Cohen added that the president implicitly instructed him to lie about the Moscow deal by repeatedly lying about it himself.
Mr Cohen said, in conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there's no business in Russia, and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing.
In his way, he was telling me to lie.
Yeah, that's uh... That's not how... That's not how ethics work.
You know, a friend of mine went to go and rob a bank.
He was telling me to rob a bank with him.
I don't know.
A friend of mine played the lottery.
A friend of mine was a gambling addict.
I had no choice but to be a gambling addict as well.
So let's say Trump is lying about all this stuff.
Or was lying about it.
I don't know.
Does that mean that you then end up having to lie to Congress?
That's a little bit of a different set of stakes there, you know, so to speak.
But that's... Okay.
So here's one that I actually find kind of delightful.
And I'm not sure why.
Chutzpah is something that I find quite admirable in people.
So, Mr. Cohen, the ex-lawyer, said Trump directed him to use Trump Foundation funds to bid up a portrait of Mr. Trump.
It's kind of funny.
I really do.
I mean, Trump is... Trump is a fan of Trump.
I mean, I think you kind of have to be in this, you know, I am the storm kind of way.
And I just think there's something kind of delightful about fake bidding up a portrait of yourself to make sure it's the most expensive thing sold that day.
So Mr. Cohen said, the portrait was purchased by the fake bidder for $60,000.
Mr. Trump directed the Trump Foundation, which is supposed to be a charitable organization, to repay the fake bidder despite keeping the art for himself.
Now, I don't know, can charities buy stuff and keep it as an asset?
I have no idea, right?
But it's pretty funny.
So here's an article.
I just think that's kind of funny.
Anecdote, Cohen describes how Trump instructed him to set up a straw bidder to ensure that a portrait of him, Trump, sold at a charity auction and would fetch the highest price.
That piece of art, according to Cohen, and again, widely acknowledged media reports, was purchased with money from Trump's charitable foundation.
I just think that's kind of funny.
Now, I mean, what's not funny, of course, is if you're concerned about charitable foundations doing ethically problematic things and you're not talking about the Clinton Foundation, boy, are you for barking up the wrong gallows because, I mean, I've done interviews on the Clinton Foundation.
You can find them on the channel.
It's astonishing Just what was going on in the Clinton Foundation and of course everyone knows like the moment that Hillary Clinton Lost her bid for presidency all the donations of the Clinton Foundation dried up Which tells you everything you need to know about the Clinton Foundation.
But this kind of charming, I don't know, megalomania of, or just, it's kind of a joke, right?
It's like the, it's like the little hands joke.
It's just, oh yeah, I'm going to make sure that my portrait is the one bid on the most.
I just think that's kind of, I really do think it's kind of funny.
So that seems important.
Now, another one is, Cohen was saying that Donald Trump told him to threaten legal action against the various colleges and high schools that Trump attended.
Those colleges and high schools publicly released Donald Trump's marks or standardized test scores or whatever.
Now I'm a little confused about this one in general, just because it's against federal law to release student records, right?
Like it's illegal, as far as I understand it, to release student records.
There may be a couple of circumstances where you can, but this wasn't one of them.
So I find that quite curious.
So he wrote a letter, warns that media outlets had requested Trump's records, but were denied by his legal team.
This is from an article.
Cohen reminded the school that Trump's student records were protected by federal law and he threatened to hold the school liable, quote, to the fullest extent of the law, end quote, if the university released them.
Yes.
Now Trump is considered hypocritical because he was saying, well, whereas the student records from Obama's time, I was like, oh, they were really scrubbed.
Like, I mean, his thesis, his papers, I mean, just everything was scrubbed.
That's a little bit different from Don't Release My Mind.
Because here's the thing, right, so you get some reporter who calls up someone, turns out that they are a megaphobic never-Trumper or whatever, they hate Trump, someone in school administration, and they, oops, they released the wrong forms, and oh, wouldn't you know, like, oh, Trump didn't do that well, and then by the time you figure it out and get it corrected, it's stuck, you know, the lie can go twice around the world while the truth is still getting its boots on.
So I can understand why you wouldn't want this kind of stuff released.
I mean, Trump had no reason to believe that the media was going to deal with him, honestly, or anything like that.
So, yeah.
He co-insent letters telling people to obey the law.
You bastard!
I don't think that's kind of odd, right?
Now, this one is completely crazy.
I'll just tell you this straight up front.
I'm going to poison the well right here, right now.
Here's another quote from an article.
In what appears to be another bid to shore up his credibility, Cohen took another widely accepted observation about the Trump campaign and tried to spin it to something new.
The notion that Trump never expected to win the election and only ran, quote, to make his brand great.
And to add another dollop of truthiness, Cohen inserted a line that Trump would allegedly repeat from time to time that his campaign would be, quote, the greatest infomercial in political history.
I mean, I don't even know.
This is so stupid an argument.
I don't even know what to say.
First of all, how low an IQ would you have to have to think that running against the Clintons and against the mainstream media would somehow make your brand great?
I mean, Trump is worth, what, like $10 billion?
One of the most famous men in the world.
He'd been in the public eye.
for forty-plus years highly paid t.v.
executive and and star i mean guy was cruising you know he was doing all i've really got to do better you know what i'm going to do is i'm going to run against the clinton's academia the mainstream media and every leftist hysteric in the known universe because that's really gonna make my brand shine i mean you have to be insane you'd literally have to be insane to think that somebody would do that it's uh... and what does it mean to say the greatest infomercial in political history who knows I mean, Trump has been, and this is a deep con, right?
If this is true, it's not, right?
So Trump has been talking about politics for decades.
He ran for office once before.
He considered a run for president as far back as 1987 to 88.
But he had massive debts from purchasing the Taj Mahal, the casino, not the Indian monument.
But in 2000, he did enter the presidential race as a Reform Party candidate.
He got more than 15,000 votes in the California primary for the party.
2003-2004 was when he began hosting that reality show, The Apprentice, but he's also executive producer.
He again, eh, should I run, should I not, decides not to, and so on.
So, the idea that he's just in it, and the other thing too, you know, it's hard to win, it's pretty easy to lose, you know, I can guarantee you 100% loss in every single running race I enter if I just trip over my laces at the beginning and don't get anywhere.
It's really, really easy to lose, hard to win the lottery, pretty easy to lose the lottery.
And the idea that Trump didn't really want to win, but then beat 17 candidates in Republicans and then beat Hillary Clinton and her well-oiled, well-funded
somewhat greasy victory machine but he just he didn't want to win he just oops accidentally won I don't know like how stupid do you think people are don't answer that I don't I don't I don't want to know the answer to that and then there's all this oh it's racist stuff and private racist stuff and that you know you can't have a smear job without racism I mean coming from the left it's just they can't they can't do it anymore they can't right
And then, uh, about the Vietnam stuff, uh, you know, there's this bone spur that he had and so on.
Uh, Cohen says to Trump said, you think I'm stupid?
I wasn't going to Vietnam.
I find it ironic, president Trump, that you are in Vietnam right now.
It's like, I don't, I don't think that's ironic.
Cause he's not in there getting shot at by the Vietnam.
Anyway.
And the left hated the Vietnam war.
They had no problem with people who didn't get drafted like, uh, Bill Clinton and so on.
So look, To people who like Donald Trump, this stuff is fairly funny-slash-sad-slash-silly-slash-corrupt.
To people who hate Donald Trump, it's all got the ring of truth, and it confirms everything that they know, and this is the tragic reality, this slice-and-dice fruit ninja divvying up of not just ideas, but of reality itself.
is really tragic.
And to me, there's been a real soft coup going on since 2016, a refusal to accept a legitimate election that Trump legitimately won and say, "Oh, well, he lost the popular vote." It's like, "So?
That's not how the game is played.
He aims to win what wins you, not what gives you better numbers in a democratic sense." And this constant harassing people with these procedural crimes, where they throw everything at you, They interview you a bunch of times.
And then if any statement you make could be perceived as contradicting any other statement you've ever made, then it's a hot, you've contradicted yourself.
You're one of these is a lie and boom, you're toast, right?
This is why you always see people when they're asked about something, they say, I refer you back to my earlier statement, right?
Because they don't want to say anything new.
You don't, uh, what is it?
There's an old from the, from the West wing.
There was an old, that was a lawyer played by the guy with the giant head.
He said, here's how you talk to lawyers, talking to CJ.
He says, here's how you talk to lawyers.
Do you have the time?
She says, yes, it's noon.
He says, that's not how you talk to lawyers.
Do you have the time?
Yes.
Don't give them any more information, right?
That's sadly the system that we live in, right?
And of course, this constant dinging people with these procedural crimes is just a way of making sure that nobody can or wants to or is willing to work for Trump.
If you get a giant crater of Nobody wants to work with him.
It's really tough for him to get anything done.
It's just, it's terrible.
It's terrible.
And so where does this go?
Where does this go?
I mean, if you can't even get people to agree on the same reality, how on earth are they supposed to live in the same country?
Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest Free Domain Show on Philosophy.
And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
to help out the show, to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world.
