David Bloomberg and Spencer G. Watson dissect the 2024 U.S. election’s legal chaos, with Trump facing four indictments—$350M in NY fraud, hush-money delays, and a classified-documents case where Judge Cannon’s rulings may grant him "functional immunity." Georgia’s RICO charges loom, but political pressure risks dismissal, while Lara Trump’s RNC co-chair role signals potential party collapse. RFK Jr.’s anti-vax, conspiracist bid, backed by Shanahan and Ventura, could siphon Democratic votes, exposing ranked-choice voting as a flawed fix. Williamson’s return is dismissed as cult-like fundraising, mirroring Phillips’ exit for personal gain. Prosecutors’ delays and courts’ avoidance of Trump’s immunity suggest elections may override justice, leaving voters to question whether legal battles or political survival will decide November’s outcome. [Automatically generated summary]
And we're back with Truth Unrestricted, the podcast would have a better name if they weren't all taken.
I'm Spencer, your host, and I'm back again today with David Bloomberg.
How are you doing, David?
Good.
How are you?
Pretty good.
We're going to time stamp these ones, David, because they're topical.
They're related to a specific moment in time and they rapidly decline as the thing goes.
So as our predictions become stale and whatever.
But I wanted to make them because it's important to remember how these things develop and how these things change and twist over time.
So today is March 24th of 2024.
And we are talking about the monstrously large U.S. election coming up in November.
And there's a lot of things going on, mostly about the, you know, Trump factor, unfortunately, but he's still there.
So we got to cover it.
So I like to do these election updates because they're more and more.
They're just lawsuit updates, but still.
Yeah.
So let's get right into it here.
Before I start, I want to remind everyone that if they have any questions, comments, or concerns about what they hear on this podcast, you want to correct us about anything you feel we got wrong, you can send that email to truthunrestricted at gmail.com.
And let's get into our post-Super Tuesday U.S. election update.
So first, first, I need to correct a few things I got minor mistakes I made last time.
David, I'm not perfect, but I have to acknowledge my mistakes.
I'm no better than the mainstream media that gets everything wrong, apparently, and has to do corrections.
So first, I made a joke about how only the attractive prosecutors get their names prominently attached to the sets of indictments.
And in that joke, I mentioned Jack Smith and Fannie Willis, which, right, okay.
I think that was a solid joke, David.
What do you think?
Was that a decent joke?
I don't do a lot of jokes in this podcast, but I thought that one was pretty good.
I mean, I was a little at the time, I was like taken by what was going on.
Yeah, I was like, well, I haven't really thought about any of them in terms of that.
So, but it's also true that for anybody, it seems, you know, for any celebrity of note, that that is kind of true.
So first, this apology goes to Letitia James for insinuating that she wasn't attractive enough to be recognized and have her name attached to a prosecutorial lawsuit in this way, which didn't she?
She emailed you.
That's why you're having to say that.
I don't discuss openly the feedback I get on the podcast, but really that sorry, Letitia James, New York Attorney General, for insinuating that was true when clearly the press at least feels that that's not true.
They attach her name prominently to that lawsuit.
Also, I need to correct that I said last time that there was, I said correctly that there were four jurisdictions in which indictments were occurring, but I didn't say specifically that in one of those jurisdictions were two separate sets of indictments involving two separate sets of things.
And one of those was the one I just mentioned about New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has now successfully prosecuted Trump for business fraud.
And there's a second set of indictments that is in regards to hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels and apparently a few other people that were made through former attorney Michael Cohen from Donald Trump to these people to silence them and prevent their real truths from being affecting the election.
Not that I think they would have affected them in any way at all, because apparently it didn't even then.
But now that I have my minor errors out of the way, we can get right into this.
So last time we updated first about Nikki Haley, we should do that first this time.
Nikki Haley has, as we predicted, dropped out of the Republican primary race.
She lost right down the board.
She did not win in South Carolina.
She did not win any of the matchups on Super Tuesday.
So she won Washington, D.C.
Well, okay, Washington, D.C. That's right.
It's two electoral votes, I think it has.
And yeah.
So she has dropped out.
But the interesting part is that she has not, as of now, endorsed Trump to be president.
The only one of the major contenders in the Republican primary process to not endorse Trump.
And notably, Mike Pence has also not endorsed Trump.
And said he will not endorse Trump.
It's not just drawn a line in the sand.
We'll see if he holds up to that.
Yeah.
I have to say on the last podcast and elsewhere, I was very confident that Haley would endorse him.
You did say that.
And I mean, she proved me wrong.
Well, so having a little spine.
She may yet change her mind.
Her spine may yet shrink.
I don't know.
I think she actually won't at this point.
I think she's come out too strongly saying, I will not.
Once people forget that she said that, we don't know.
Well, and in a future election update, we'll track this endorsement versus non-endorsement thing as it goes, because it is important to recognize that of the many people who worked for Donald Trump in his first administration, I think the current count is there are only four who have endorsed him, four of the people who directly worked with him in the previous administration.
So I think that helps her.
She is not on an island.
No, she's not.
She's definitely not on an island.
And there's a lot of dysfunctionality in that Republican national committee.
Yes.
And also, what's her name?
Senator Murkowski from Alaska recently came out and said she would not support Trump and probably would not vote for him, but certainly does not support him.
Now, she's always been a different type of person.
But I mean, the question is, will these people coming out and saying, no, we cannot endorse him?
No, he should not be president.
Here are the problems.
Will they have an impact?
They should for any rational human being.
I just don't think the MAGAs are rational human beings or else they wouldn't be part of the MAGA cult.
And so it should, but the MAGA cult itself cannot get Trump elected.
He needs other people.
And the problem is there are still other people who will vote for him for whatever reason, just ignoring everything else.
You know, they'll, ah, that's not going to happen.
Eh, you know, which by now they should know is going to happen.
Those things are, in fact, going to happen if he gets elected.
Yeah, I don't know how they rationalize that.
That might be for another day to speculate.
But So as Trump's entire situation is encapsulated in large part by the many legal woes that he faces, as we mentioned, five sets of indictments in four jurisdictions.
So here's our rapid fire update.
I laughingly call it rapid fire.
It's probably the longest section here.
Yeah.
So Letitia James fraud indictments have completed with a judgment in excess of $350 million.
The exact amount can be a little different depending on the source.
And this is related to whether the amounts owed by the children are added in or left out because his two sons were part of that lawsuit.
They were intricate parts of running that organization.
There's also about $100 million in interest owing as part of that judgment over the many years where that fraud was occurring as determined by that court.
Last word on this is that they have planned to do an appeal, but there's some problems with trying to do an appeal and that they have to put in a bond for the entire amount before they are allowed to file for an appeal and they have trouble coming up with that.
So one thing worth noting is last time I predicted that the Trump organization would just not really going to worry about this.
They would simply relocate to Florida and then continue as normal.
But it turns out that they have tried that and it was unsuccessful.
The court blocked them.
It's also possible now that the Trump properties in New York State may be auctioned off at some point.
If I know that the legal process and the real estate process at all, that will not happen before sometime two years from now.
Yeah.
Because it will be slow.
Yeah.
And we're recording at an interesting moment because literally that, you know, you already gave the date.
The day after we record is the first day that the state can start taking his assets if he doesn't come up with them.
Yeah.
And, you know, he has claimed publicly that he has all this cash, $500 million in cash.
But his lawyers told the court he doesn't have that money.
And, you know, I personally think he was talking out of his ass with his usual bluster and doesn't have anywhere near that money.
But, you know, one of his lawyers has already made excuses for what he said.
Oh, he didn't really mean he has cash on hand.
He means this.
Yeah, he meant this instead, but misspoke.
Yeah, right.
Right.
As far as the properties being auctioned off, from what I've seen, like you said, that'll take a while, even in New York.
But the first thing they'll probably target are his bank accounts because those are easy.
They walk into the bank with a court order and say, give me all his money.
Yeah.
And they get all his money right then and there.
You know, I was reading about it.
It's basically they hand over a cashier's check.
It's that simple.
If the money is available, if not, they're there and they make a decision.
Yeah.
Right.
Then next up would be property in New York, like you said, and then outer state properties, which are even more difficult because, like, for example, I cannot imagine the governor of the state of Florida making it easy for that to proceed.
True.
Yeah.
And these weren't federal indictments.
Right.
They were New York State indictments.
So there is jurisdictional issues there.
Yeah.
But of course, the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, you know, he's in that strange space where he might get a boost from seeming to help Trump, but he also might be benefited by seeing Trump sink.
So it's hard to say how much he's going to put into.
I think he will do something that looks good.
But We will talk about certain judges and justices doing in a little while, which is, yes, he will do something that appears to the outside world like I'm fighting for Trump.
I'm working really hard on this.
Even knowing that he's going to lose in court or whatever else, you know.
Now, other things going on with money in Trump is that shareholders have approved taking Trump Media and Truth Social public, which would theoretically gain Trump quite a lot of money since he is the primary shareholder.
But that's also based on the idea that people will actually buy the stock at the massive overvaluation where it's currently sitting.
And the thing is, they might.
I mean, Trump has MAGA cult members digging into their couch cushions to find change, you know, while he claims to be a billionaire who needs their money.
So I could see some of them absolutely ignoring the terrible fundamentals of the company and paying the high price just to support him.
It's basically a meme stock at this point.
You know, it's going to, it's going to be a meme stock.
Then he's going to take all this money and run, much as he has done with so many of his other business enterprises.
And the only good thing is that by the time this happens, it does, it's too late to help him with his immediate cash needs.
Right.
So moving on to the second set of indictments in New York.
These are the hush money indictments involving Stormy Daniels.
To follow the joke up, Stormy Daniels is the most attractive person attached to this set of indictments.
So of course, we're going to talk about how these are the Stormy Daniels indictments, even though she's not indicting anyone.
She's just a witness in this trial.
Be prepared to hear from Michael Cohen complaining that you're saying she's more attractive than him.
Yeah.
Well, I expect that email, Michael Cohen, just like last time when we did this.
That's right.
Didn't mention you specifically.
So this trial has only seen delay tactics up to this point.
The prosecution seems like they are ready.
The defense seems like they are not.
Delay tactics are pretty standard among all the indictments in all the jurisdictions.
It might be worth mentioning at some point through this as a through line that it, you know, five different sets of indictments.
Trump remarkably has trouble hiring lawyers because he very famously doesn't pay them or doesn't pay them the amount that is originally set.
And despite the fact that in New York alone, you could easily get all the lawyers you would ever need for all the jurisdictions you're in.
He can't even hardly find lawyers in New York because he just doesn't pay them.
Well, he doesn't pay them.
And also you have to be willing to work for Trump, which means you have to be willing to sell your soul, which I know you could say a lot of lawyers are willing to sell their souls.
But I mean, this is really like selling your soul on a very public level.
Lawyers have souls.
Well, okay.
Well, sorry.
Sorry.
Nobody go ahead.
Let's get into that.
Nobody has a soul, but you know, you know, sell your morality, sell your public persona.
You know, and when you know that your client isn't going to listen to you and is going to make you look bad and not pay you.
So you at least OJ Simpson listened to his lawyers.
Yes.
Yeah.
And he got away with it.
So the interesting thing, I just heard something about this one.
And I was wondering, why did the state attorneys agree to a 30-day delay?
And it turns out that this one probably makes sense in that apparently they had asked the federal attorney general's office if they had any paperwork, you know, any related to this case.
And they said no at the time.
But then Trump's lawyers subpoenaed the attorney general's office and they went, oh, here are, I think the number I heard was like 70,000 pages.
I could be off by an order of magnitude, but whatever it is, they had a lot of stuff that they handed over to the defense.
So in this one case, I will say, yeah, that does sound like they probably, you know, that's probably why even the prosecutors were like, fine, we'll give you a month.
We'll agree to that.
Because they didn't want to come off looking terrible.
Yeah.
And I think this case was handed off from federal jurisdiction to the local state jurisdiction at the time.
And this, you know, I don't know what those conversations were like then and are like now.
But I don't know that they were.
I don't know.
The way I heard it, it made it sound like at the time the feds were like, no, we don't, you know, when they asked, they were like, no, we don't have any paperwork on it.
Whereas well, yeah, they were asked and they weren't, but that was the reason why they were asked in the first place was because I think that the original search warrants and everything else were obtained and were executed by the FBI and then was handed over.
They were like, we don't have the time or energy to bother with this.
But they, you know, they, and they handed it off to the state and they handed documents over.
And then they were asked later, is there anything else?
And they were like, well, no.
And then the defense asked and they said, well, you know, turns out we have these, you know, back room here with these boxes in there.
Sort it through yourself to see if they're the same as what we sent or whatever.
Who knows?
Yeah.
Could be most of them are the same.
It just, oh, yeah, no one knows what those are about.
You better have them just in case.
Right.
But all that that's the line that has always been, we haven't had time to review any of the documents.
Even before they got this, they were saying that, which to me is a plea to incompetence.
Right.
Their legal team isn't large enough.
It's, you know, Trump should hire more lawyers if he has a case of this size, but he can't hire enough lawyers, can't possibly hire enough lawyers because no large volume of lawyers will work for him.
Well, he's also incentivized not to.
If the courts will listen to his pleas of my poor two lawyers here who work out of a closet in the back of a nail salon, don't have time to go through these documents, you know, then right.
Then why?
I mean, why would you change it at that point?
Yeah, just keep going.
If all you want is delay and that will work, then of course.
So as we mentioned, that the trial date got pushed 30 days and it was pushed to start 30 days from March 15th.
But it's noted, if you look on a calendar, that that will put the 30-day mark on April 14th, which is a Sunday.
It's probably not going to be actually just 30 days.
I would think they're going to start on April 15th, 31 days.
Well, that's hold them to that or whatever.
That's also supposed to be announced tomorrow.
So, you know, we probably Trump's people will be like, but we have to do our taxes that day.
Yeah, yeah.
There's so many personal things that have to happen.
I never get time to see my kids.
Yeah.
Right.
So moving on to the Florida indictments.
These are indictments involving a mishandling of classified documents.
They're federal charges.
Most recently, there were two separate motions to dismiss.
Both were denied.
The crux of these motions seems to be that the actual espionage act is too vague.
Judge Cannon, who is presiding over that case, seems fairly receptive to a lot of Trump's arguments.
And many people believe that case will not go to trial until after the election, despite having an original trial start date of December of 2023.
Also, this case was thrown a curveball in the last few days.
Judge Cannon informed the prosecutors that they cannot use the top secret documents as evidence in court while also maintaining their top secret status.
In other words, they'll have to allow the jury to review the documents so that the juries can deter the jurors can determine whether or not the documents are personal records of Donald Trump as president, as he has claimed.
This presents a formidable problem for the case and could give Trump something that we would call functional immunity.
So I think we should review what functional immunity is.
Functional immunity is when you have a situation where there exists a law, but prosecution nonetheless will not occur.
So this could happen for a couple of reasons.
So law could require the defendants to testify against themselves, which in most, at least Western democracies is not a thing that happens.
This is why a lot of laws against personal behavior have been stricken from a lot of law books due to the fact that the only witnesses were the perpetrators.
We had a prime minister, one of our most famous prime ministers, who once said that the government doesn't belong in the bedrooms of the nation and used that as a reason to strike a lot of these sorts of laws, just write them off, remove them from the books.
Clearly, he wasn't a U.S. Republican.
Yes.
No.
Sometimes the joke is told that instead of saying what I just said, he said, he instead says that what happens in the bedrooms of the nation is only the business of the three people involved.
So that's the kind of prime minister we once had in the 70s and early 80s.
And the second reason that I could come up with anyway, prosecutors might be disinclined to prosecute.
So this could occur for itself, several reasons, including politics, popular opinion regarding the degree of wrongness perceived in the public eye, the threat of violence against people who would do the prosecution, which I think is more true in some other countries than in the States, but still is present in the States.
There's been a lot of threats of violence to prosecutors and judges in these cases.
And some people would call that violence politics by other means.
So that seems like a topic we should go through at some point in this podcast.
But at the end of the day, I was going to say, no matter the laws that are written, if you're not willing to step forward and declare that someone's broken them, those laws may as well not exist, which is the case.
And that's part of the thing.
Some laws they just don't bother with.
You know, I mean, and that's one thing that's come up with the Hunter Biden stuff is if he were not Hunter Biden, they probably never would have prosecuted him for the gun charge or the tax charges.
I mean, they'd have hit him with fines for the tax charges and they'd have slapped him on the wrist for the gun charge and said, bad boy, you shouldn't have done that.
But because he's Hunter Biden, they had to prosecute him.
And so I think a lot of these cases, you know, even when I worked for state government, yeah, people would, you know, companies might break the law and we might say, okay, we're not coming after you this time.
Just don't do it again.
It was our choice who got prosecuted is perhaps not the right.
Well, it wasn't criminal prosecution.
It was a civil prosecution.
And it could have taken place in a courtroom, uh, sometimes, but but your goal was compliance to the law, and it was your discretion as to how best to obtain that compliance, especially given the number of resources you had, exactly.
It was prosecutorial discretion, is what it was, you know, and we got to choose like, okay, who is going to, you know, who was bad enough that we're going after and who's not.
And sometimes it depended on who the governor was.
And there was a lot more discretion when the governor was Republican than when the governor was a Democrat.
You know, it's something that happens.
Now, that's different than obviously the type you're talking about.
You were just obviously listening, listing all the different types.
And, but the one that's interesting here is how could there ever be a case with top secret documents according to her stupid ruling?
Yeah.
Right.
You know, because according to that, it's literally impossible because the jurors would always have to see them.
They'd have, yeah, you'd have, or you'd have to take the government's word that they're really top secret documents, the nature of them, which is hearsay by definition.
Well, I mean, I would think unless the government structure itself is rigid enough that you can trust that.
Right.
Or you can just maybe hire a third party to investigate.
Of course, if Judge Cannon were to hire a third party, it would probably be like, you know, Trump's nephew or something like that.
You know, cyber ninjas would come in and investigate.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know, like she, you know, you said she is fairly receptive to his arguments.
That seems to be the agreement.
That is a very nice way of saying that she is handling the case terribly.
And it's many people think it's not a coincidence because it appears to me and many other people like she is trying to appear like she's not incompetent or in Trump's pocket while also giving Trump every opportunity and every delay possible.
I mean, even she couldn't bring herself to rule that, no, I can't dismiss the case, but I can come up with these other bizarre readings on things.
And, you know, plus, as I was, I was reading in an article just today, she is a fairly new judge, and she's apparently had some turnover.
Some of her clerks left at the end of last year.
Reasons unknown.
But, you know, that's going to, you know, throw a wrench into things.
And I think she's perfectly happy throwing a wrench into things.
I think she wants to delay until after the election.
She does not want to be seen as the one that determined the election.
Right.
The FBI director from the James Comey.
Yeah.
You really aren't cubed with names, aren't you?
No, I'm not.
It's funny.
She doesn't want to be seen with him.
Or not with him.
Well, with him either, but as the James Comey of this election, yeah.
Right.
Of, ah, Trump would have won if only it weren't for Judge Cannon.
But if your job is like, if you're playing football and of the people on the field, there's two teams, and then there's also two referees.
Is that right?
Two referees.
And then there's a couple linemen.
Is that there's a lot of, well, there's a lot of referees line judges.
But if your job is as one of the referees, why aren't you just calling the plays as they are?
Doing your best to ignore who's in the uniform as you're supposed to.
And just, yeah, because there's a set of rules, right?
One, one basketball referee from the NCAA tournament was just pulled out of a game.
I didn't read the whole story.
I saw the headline mostly.
He was pulled either out of a game or ahead of time out of a game because he apparently had gotten his degree at one of the schools in there.
And the way this was written, I was like, apparently, isn't that something they should know?
Like where his degree came from.
If that was going to be a factor, yeah.
Yeah.
And so, I mean, now, if you ask him, he probably could say, yes, I can referee this game just fine.
I'm not going to throw away my career based on helping, you know, my old school win.
But she was appointed by him.
And she was appointed by him because she at least appeared to believe in the same things he believed in.
Well, I don't know why she was appointed.
I mean, I know that there was a lot of questionable appointments during his time, but until I get any kind of confirmation on the reasoning and all the rest of it, it's been pointed out a lot of times that she was appointed by Trump.
I don't know how much that affects it.
There's been a lot of other judges who have been appointed by Trump that ruled against him.
So it's not that he was only looking for his cronies to be in that spot.
I mean, maybe he was looking for his cronies to be in that spot, but they didn't act as cronies when they got to that spot.
That's also possible.
Right.
But he rolled the dice many times.
And I think more times it came up in his favor than it didn't there, right?
Right.
Right.
And, you know, it'll be the same thing when we get to discussing the Supreme Court in a few minutes.
Oh, yeah.
You know, I mean, I would, and it would be interesting because I think that, you know, the prosecutors could have tried to say, no, she should not rule on this case because she was appointed by him, which would be a logical thing to do, except there's no doubt he would appeal and it would eventually end up at the Supreme Court with a bunch of justices that he appointed.
And so how do you deal with that situation?
You know, we're really in an uncharted territory here because you have to rely on them to determine if they can be objective when we don't know if they could be objective.
And we know for a fact that at least one of them can't because one of their wives helped with the attempted insurrection, you know, helped lead the ongoing.
Right.
So how do you rely on that?
I don't know.
I mean, you would hope, like you said, you talk about football teams.
You know, I remember, you know, when my son played high school baseball, it was always interesting because in certain towns around here, because we have to travel a little bit to some of the towns and the umps, being that they were the umps in that town, were a lot friendlier with the coaches from that town.
And like in between innings, they'd go over and chat to the coach there.
And then they come back and call the game and you'd be like, huh, are they really calling the game in the right way?
And I mean, I can remember a very specific instance where, you know, just to continue with the baseball example, the kids on this team were literally leaning over the plate and sticking their arm in front of the ball.
And he was calling them hit by pitch when that is clearly illegal.
That is against the rules.
That is not hit by pitch.
Throw your body into the pitch.
But he kept allowing it.
And he disallowed a play by my son's team and made up some excuse about why he disallowed it.
And so that's bad enough at a high school baseball game.
But when you get to federal court and the same types of shenanigans are happening, that's really bad.
Right.
So moving on, tricking on here, we got number four on my list is the one I call the DC slash Jack Smith indictments.
So though the trial start dates had previously been set, these have gone away as the bigger gamut of deciding what Trump may or may not have legal immunity for needs to be decided.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in late April and they may not get a decision out until June or July, depending on how urgently they work.
One would hope this would be at the top of the pile, but we don't get to decide what they do.
In previous SCOTUS ruling regarding Trump, the court avoided even the appearance of any responsibility and ruled not that Trump was innocent, but merely that the Colorado Supreme Court didn't have the jurisdiction to leave Trump off the federal ballot.
Not holding out a lot of hope that the Supreme Court of the United States will work up a lot of sweat to uphold the Constitution in the name of the people in this case.
What's your take, David?
Yeah, I mean, look, as much as I might despise some of the justices on that court, they're not dummies completely.
And they realize they can't side with Trump and agree that he has full immunity.
I think we've talked about this before.
It's an idiotic argument to make while Biden is in office, because then Biden could just call off the election and say, I have immunity.
I did a rant about this last time.
Yeah, right.
Biden could walk in with his Secret Service to the Supreme Court offices, shoot the justices and say, I have immunity.
I'm going to appoint my own now.
So they know he can't act.
They can't rule this way.
All they can do, well, they could do two things.
They could find a couple things he has supposed immunity for.
Like, oh, well, this was part of his duty, but this wasn't.
So you're going to have to go back and parse through each particular item.
And, you know, then you prosecutors are going to have to run that by the lower court.
And then every single decision can be appealed back up to us again.
Unless they make it, unless they lay it out very clearly.
This is what is and this is what isn't.
If they just want to delay, they won't lay that out.
They'll send it back to the lower court and say, you figure it out.
Right.
So that'll be an interesting way of, you know, seeing what they're doing.
Will they lay it out or will they just send it back and say, yes, it's true.
Some of these were presidential.
Judge, you figure it out.
And then, of course, it'll be appealed back up again.
And then, of course, they are, as you mentioned, delaying as long as possible, much like Judge Cannon.
Yeah.
They don't want to get in the middle of this.
They're probably sitting there like, oh, will you just shut up, Donald?
And they're just trying to push it away in the hopes that either he wins and pardons himself, which of course would end up back at the Supreme Court anyway, the question of whether he can pardon himself, or he loses, and then it doesn't matter anymore.
They can do whatever they want, as long as it's after the election.
And so a lot of this really comes down to the thing that people are criticizing prosecutors for is you shouldn't have taken this long because you should have known delays were going to happen.
It's hard to say.
Sometimes cases take a lot of time to put together.
Yeah.
I mean, there's a lot of paperwork in these cases to put together.
In hindsight, they should have moved quicker.
You know, they should have within a year or two.
They should have got a little more effort, a little more putting their backs into it, a little more.
I am a blue-collar guy.
I always complain that office workers aren't working hard enough.
They'll claim they are.
I think in this case, my criticism is probably more true than in some other cases.
I feel pretty strongly about that.
I think they should have moved more quickly.
I don't like there, there is a jeopardy that if they move too quickly, there was a thought that if they move too quickly, they could be seen as forming a judgment before they had seen the evidence.
Okay.
I say very hesitantly, because I think you erred on the side of caution and that cost you time that was valuable.
And I think that that's being able to have determined and adjudicated these cases before the next election would have been very valuable.
And I think the idea that we might not get any of them, maybe not even any of them really started until after the election is going to make a lot of them just be a big woof.
Yeah.
Because, you know, these are real legal questions that should be sorted out.
Trump, I mean, almost none of the arguments that I've heard about this involve the words that Trump is actually innocent of any of the things that go on.
They are all arguments that we shouldn't really decide these things until after the election, which is, again, it's an appeal to incompetence.
It's an appeal to delay.
It's an appeal to dragging feet.
It's an appeal to reluctance.
You know, I will say why.
Well, I will say from a defense point of view, it's not time for them to make the argument that he's innocent yet.
Okay.
You know, his lawyers aren't the ones I'm looking to at this.
Well, right.
The other talking heads in the world are also not trying to make a case of his innocence.
Right.
Right.
Fox News is not trying to say he's innocent of any of these things.
Right.
Which is surprising, but shocking as well.
Yeah.
But from his defense attorney's point of view, this is where you make all of the other arguments first.
Yeah.
And then when you actually, if you lose all of those, then you get to the nitty-gritty of guilt or innocence.
Because the first thing you do is you argue these other stupid things.
Yeah.
Fruit of the poisonous tree and they don't have a case.
Right.
Yeah.
I mean, I've been there myself in my legal pretrial stuff.
In my own previous job, I had some people arguing against something that I was saying.
And in order to attack that, you know, I said, well, I got this information from the federal government.
And they're like, well, where did you get this from the federal government?
And I said, well, I, you know, spoke to them and they sent an email to me.
Oh, you haven't put that email into evidence.
So it shouldn't count.
Okay, I'll get the email.
So I get the email at the next hearing and we submit it.
Our lawyers submit it into evidence.
And they're like, well, who is this guy?
And I say, well, he's this level person and he's entitled to make these decisions.
Well, we only have your word for it.
We only have your word that this is even the real email because you just printed it out.
You could have just created this.
You know, they're these ridiculous attacks that all of you have.
You have to bring in the IT guy that's got all the metadata that shows an email was sent to that guy.
Right.
Right.
And it's like, now you're getting back to the, you know, talking to this guy who doesn't even work for me, you know, works for the federal government.
Are you going to bring him in to testify?
No, we've never had to do that before.
But these were the levels that they kept going to to avoid dealing with the substance of the information that was in there.
Because the substance said, what you're doing, David, is fine.
They didn't like that the federal government said what David was doing was fine.
Right.
And so they wanted to attack and attack and attack.
Define it out of existence.
Yeah.
Yes, exactly.
Right.
So number five on the list of indictments, sets of indictments, is the Georgia slash Fannie Willis indictments.
So this trial had a slight delay.
We were talking about it last time while a separate court worked out whether or not Fannie Willis and the special prosecutor did anything inappropriate.
I don't think it was a separate court.
I think it was the same.
Wasn't it the same judge?
I think it was a separate court.
It was to be determined by.
Yeah.
I think the Bar Association was involved.
I mean, there was a Bar Association was not involved.
That much of it.
Okay, well, all right.
There were other people involved and it had to be decided separately.
So that court ruled that though nothing actually inappropriate occurred, that the prosecutorial team should avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
And therefore, the special prosecutor would have to leave the case.
So were it only that a presidential candidate were moved to avoid even the appearance of participating in the subversion of the will of the people, we might not even be in this situation.
Or like if there could be a hearing to see if a Supreme Court justice has a conflict of interest because his wife is the leader of the insurrection movement.
Were it only that he was moved to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?
Wow, what a world we will live in.
But so lopsided is this that one side gets held to an order of magnitude more discreet more scrutiny than the other.
So currently no trial date has been set.
I checked on this is Sunday.
I checked on the Friday afternoon.
No actual trial date set, although they are discussing a trial date, a start date in August.
Who knows whether that will hold up or that will get pushed by something else again.
So as mentioned last time, this case of all the cases has potentially the greatest legal jeopardy for Trump.
It's a state level charge.
So he can't just whisk it away by granting immunity under presidential powers.
And it's a RICO charge, meaning that he has a long list of co-conspirators and a couple have already flipped.
And I checked their testimony is put to paper.
They could try to strike that if they like.
There's legal maneuvers for that, but it is on paper now.
And there's, I think, still 18 or 19 others who haven't flipped yet who may yet.
And once this is going and moving towards the end zone, most of those cannot be saved by a Donald Trump presidency directly.
It's still possible that there are political maneuvers that could kibosh this case.
So a Georgia governor could grant immunity to these cases and could be pressured by other people that that Georgia governor knows, including a president of the United States or a Republican National Committee.
Those things could still just wash this away entirely without any resistance.
But so far, that hasn't happened.
And that would still take, there would still be some evidence of that occurring.
And, you know, people are actively watching for that now.
So, yeah, we'll see how that occurs.
But you were right that the Fannie Willis thing, you said last time that there was some level of problem here.
And looks like that the court that was looking into this saw that, okay, all right, we're going to split this thing down one side and you two can't work together anymore.
Well, and also I heard that the judge's order had some strong language in it, suggesting that although we're not taking you off this case, the Bar Association or the voters may have something to say about it at a later date about the propriety or impropriety of this situation and the honesty or dishonesty that you have exhibited.
So it's an unfortunate situation.
And it's one that I see happen.
I mean, I'm going to say I see it happen too often.
If you ask me to pinpoint examples of it, sometimes it's hard.
But I know there are these cases where it's like something bad is happening and someone is trying to stop it.
But then inevitably it will get distracted by, I mean, Bill Clinton was a very good example of that because he couldn't keep his pants on.
Yeah.
You know, and there's been previous, what's his name?
Hart.
Is it heart?
Or am I thinking so?
Anyway, there was a previous Democratic candidate who was in the lead and he was going to do great things.
And then he got caught with a mistress.
I remember that guy.
I don't remember his name, but I remember who you're talking about.
Yeah.
And it just keeps happening where these people's personal lives interfere with what they're trying to do.
And it's just like, oh my God, people, can't you keep your pants on for just a little while to get this done?
Right.
As I understand the situation, the relationship between the special prosecutor and Fannie Willis occurred before any of this case ever came up.
And mostly this revolved around a trip they took somewhere as like a vacation kind of thing, get away.
The special prosecutor paid for the entire thing.
A whole lot of smoke here and not a lot of fire.
Right.
But still, whether or not it's true.
I mean, there is some, I think, doubt as to whether that was 100% honest in terms of when it started and everything.
But the other thing is, whether they were still sleeping together or not isn't so much the issue to me.
If I had a job to do and I was like, you know what?
I'm going to hire my friend Spencer to do it.
Why?
Is he the most qualified?
Is he the closest?
Is he the, you know, aren't there other people you could give it to?
Yeah, I want to.
That's why.
Because he's my friend.
Well, that still shouldn't be happening.
You know, and so, you know, she even said at one point, I think that even if they, although they weren't having a relationship anymore, she was still extremely close to him.
Well, okay, then you shouldn't have hired him.
Well, you know?
Yeah, that's probably right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Overall, this is a fairly minor thing.
It is, except it can be used as a distraction.
Right.
Right.
And this, the level of scrutiny being completely lopsided here that because she had this previous relationship and he paid for a trip that they took,
that we shouldn't acknowledge that the president and something like 23 other people colluded on paper to replace the slate of electors from Georgia with a completely different slate of electors to just nullify the vote from that state.
Right.
And yeah, that's, you know, we have to have some common sense here at some point.
Yeah, but the thing, I mean, you say that, but the defense is going to do certain things.
I guarantee once this, if it gets to court, once it gets to court, the defense will at some point say, was there really 23 or however many defendants?
Or did you add a few on so you could pay the hourly salary of your boyfriend's special prosecutor?
And they'll say that in front of the jury and the judge will say, strike that, forget about that.
Yeah, the jury member.
Right.
And they're going to keep it.
And the jury is supposed to go over the evidence and the things that are said that related to the evidence.
And they don't always do that.
Right.
And so, I mean, again, it's, is it a bit ridiculous to think that she was feeding him money by adding defendants or by adding his to his workload?
Yeah, it's a little silly.
Did she probably think, I just know I can work closely with him?
Yes.
But you've got to be better than that.
You've got to think better than that.
And that's true.
I agree with that.
You know, and too many times it just seems unfair that one side has to be far more professional and law-abiding than the other side.
But in some ways, that's just part of how it works.
Right.
In order to be seen as honorable, you have to work way harder than the person who doesn't care about being seen as honorable.
And that's just the nature of honor.
Yeah.
And if you're already in a position of power that is incredibly difficult to get you out of, like Clarence Thomas, what does he care?
Yeah, well, yeah.
You know, what's going to happen to him?
He's got his big donors that are.
And he's already had that job for a lifetime.
So even if he's removed now, it's not going to matter.
Right.
He's already done as much damage as he'd ever reasonably hoped to do.
Yeah.
So moving on to SCOTUS.
We did kind of touch on this earlier.
The Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, rejected Colorado's ruling that Trump could not be on the ballot in that state by declaring that they, as in the Colorado Supreme Court, are the wrong referee to make that call.
What would a football game be like if whenever one referee made a call, the other referee ran over and reprimanded them for saying, that's not your job to make that call?
Why are you blowing that whistle?
I mean, technically, that is the head ref's job.
And technically, like one of my sons is a soccer ref.
And there's a head ref and there are two assistant refs.
And on his very first day, his very first day doing it at this new location, he had done it before at this new location, a head ref overruled him three times on an out of bounds call, who it was off of.
Okay.
And then later said, perhaps not realizing what she was admitting to, said, well, sometimes when you meet new people, you know, as experienced as I am, I just have to assert myself so they know who's in charge.
And it's like, okay, but yeah, you know, I establish your dominance as the head ref.
Right.
And so, yes, but the point is, yes, there are cases where the head ref does overrule.
Okay.
Okay, David, but I'll counter.
What if the head ref comes in and instead of overruling, just says, you don't get allowed, you're not allowed to say that, and then ignores the rest of the game and the play that was just made and doesn't really make any call about guilt or innocence or foul or fair about the play that's that's happening and then just turns their back and pretends that the game isn't happening at all.
Yeah.
What would happen then?
Well, then you wouldn't have many games anymore.
Well, that's where we're headed.
If the Supreme Court is willing to just strike and say, you don't get to make that call, and we're also not going to talk about the call that's being made and what the judgment should be one way or the other.
We're going to ignore that entirely and just pretend like it's not a question.
And we're going to toss it to Congress to say they had to make a law to institute this part of the Constitution, despite the fact that it's their job to just judge based on the Constitution.
Right.
Like it's their job to overrule laws that don't follow the Constitution.
It's not their job to try to demand more laws.
I mean, this is a thing that I remember distinctly.
The George W. Bush administration used to say about the Supreme Court a lot was that they had a Supreme Court that was attempting to, what was the words they used?
They were attempting to make laws from the bench.
Yeah.
And that's essentially what this Supreme Court is doing now.
They were like, hey, you should make a law about this so that we can judge on it.
Well, what I want to know, and maybe someone will write in and tell me, where is the law that enforces that anyone can have a gun according to the Second Amendment?
Yeah.
Why does that, why does that, why do gun laws keep getting overturned just by because judges say Second Amendment, even though the Second Amendment is incredibly confusingly written.
But why do they not send it back to Congress and say, Congress, you need to make a law that restates what the Second Amendment says.
You need to make a law that restates what the First Amendment says.
You need to make a law.
Yeah.
Do we need a law?
Do we need a law out, you know, outlawing everything that's in or allowing each individual thing that is already allowed by the Constitution?
Why would you need that?
That would be overly confusing.
Yeah.
Do you need a law that says they have to be 35 years old to be president?
Because that's also in the Constitution.
It's a way of kicking the can further down the street so that you don't have to pick it up right now.
That's what it is.
Yeah.
And it's an, as I said before, an abdication of responsibility.
Yes.
And that's what they wanted.
They didn't want to.
They don't want the responsibility of this particular thing.
And that's going to, if they keep that up, that's going to give Trump at least functional immunity to anything that comes before them.
Yeah.
And that's what people need to remember when they look at this, is that if the Supreme Court is unwilling to make a call that counters Trump, then he does have immunity.
Whether they say it or not, he has it.
So we need to get to the next bit, which is also interesting.
They're all interesting, but this bit is, yeah, okay.
So the other bit of Republican news, news from the Republican National Committee regarding the presidential race is that Lara Trump, that's Eric Trump's wife, is now the co-chair of the Republican National Committee.
The move that put her in this spot is also saw the removal or voluntary vacation of many of the long-standing members of the RNC.
This is seen by many as a sort of passing of the guard from old to new, but it's also kind of like a blatant power grab to grab the wheel from where sort of the old school Republicans were to where the Trump machine is now.
So, and some people fear that Trump will just empty the coffers of the Republican Party to pay for his various legal defenses.
And others fear that this will give Trumpism as a set of ideas, dangerous ideas, a seat at the power table for much longer than what will last for the next election.
Even if you vote him out, his set of ideas will still have a say in Republican spaces long after this.
So, and another potential outcome is a complete collapse of the Republican Party as a viable contender in federal politics.
So, hand over the conch, go.
He is a man who managed to bankrupt, go bankrupt at running casinos where the House always wins.
You know, so I could see him bankrupting, you know, the whole RNC.
And I don't even think it's a quote fear that Trump will empty the coffers.
I think it's a guarantee.
You know, I mean, they've said we are making electing Trump our number one priority.
They're going to use all the RNC money towards that goal.
Sure.
And, you know, I expect that in every election, right?
Like, I expected them to spend the money to get John McCain elected and Mitt Romney.
And they need to, one of the biggest functions of those organizations is to help the down ballot candidates too.
And to help, especially in competitive districts, you know, they're in danger of losing the House and they're in danger of losing more seats in the Senate.
Although the way it's forecast, that's less likely, but it's a danger, especially if there's no money from the RNC.
If they believe Trump's claims that his endorsement alone is enough to win, to tip the scale in those battles, then they might take that gamble, right?
And that's if they believe that.
I'm not sure I believe it.
He probably has some not the silver bullet, right?
I mean, they only care about getting him elected because that's what matters is him.
It is a cult of personality, a personality of one.
Well, once he has declared that he will have full authoritarian power on day one, they won't need any of those down ballots.
Right.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Who cares?
They won't need any of those other state races.
They won't need any of the House, the Senate.
They won't need those.
They'll just have their guy if he's willing to do all those things and grab that much power and no one's willing to stand up to him.
Right.
Yeah.
Now, I do agree that it could give Trumpism a seat at the table for longer.
I would hope that if he loses again this time, there finally might be a revolt by other Republicans to take back the party.
And as we mentioned before, the Republicans that didn't endorse him will get a leg up in that.
Yeah.
Probably, right?
So that'll be a question, especially if he does cost them House and Senate seats as well.
Well, yeah.
And so it's, yeah.
And the interesting thing also was that Lara Trump said something like she acknowledged she was not.
I wish I had written down what she said, but she basically said she doesn't have experience, but like God picked her because she will gain the necessary expertise or something like that.
So I guess that could be explained for next time anyone has a job interview, just say, well, I don't actually have any experience, but God, God wants you to pick me so that I will do what's necessary.
Okay, I might have the quote here.
Hold on.
Okay.
In a world where qualifications are not measured by titles and years of experience, we're reminded of a truth.
God does not call the qualified.
He qualifies the called.
Lara Trump is the embodiment of this truth.
That's a great excuse for having no qualification.
Right.
This wasn't a quote from Lara Trump.
This was someone at the RNC who nominated Larry Trump as a co-chair.
Okay.
But related to Lara Trump all the same.
Yes.
Yeah.
Well, and she, let's face it, she or one of their writers may have given it to that person.
Oh, I'm sure there was backroom deals and frontroom deals.
And yeah, all levels of House of Cards was at play here, I'm sure.
So, yeah, I mean, it's just another money grab by the Trumps.
Yeah, I don't, I'm not the least bit surprised that there's some level of grifting happening at this level.
I don't recommend anyone give their money to Trump or to the now to the RNC to, I mean, I don't personally know anyone who's doing that anyway, but if anyone who's in that position is listening, not recommended, save your money.
He's supposedly a billionaire.
He shouldn't need it.
Yeah, yeah.
He's supposed to be running his own stuff.
He's, yeah.
Yeah.
So moving past Trump a little bit, we have a couple things to mention.
So it is apparently Trump isn't the only one running for election, unlike the Russian election in which there was only one person running for election.
Well, the other ones were allegedly running, mostly running for their lives so that they didn't fall out a high window.
But yeah.
Yeah, yeah, running to the first floor.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So Joe Biden running for president.
He is the they haven't had the convention yet, but he is the going to be the Democratic candidate.
Of course, he's the incumbent.
He's on the campaign trail.
He is still, I checked his age, 81 years old.
So far, his health seems to not have declined since the last time we talked or even since about this time last year.
Seems to be holding steady as old white man.
So I'll point out that Trump's ramblings are becoming increasingly incoherent, whereas Bidens are holding at the same level of incoherence, not declining as Trump seemed to be.
Trump is becoming more incoherent as weeks go by.
Yeah, I need to take a little issue with you associating the two there using the word ramblings.
Okay.
Well, I mean, for Trump, they really are.
No, Trumps are definitely ramblings.
I mean, you're right.
There you go.
Biden, I wouldn't consider it rambling.
He's more together than his tongue.
Yeah, he has these little gaffes for sure.
Right.
But I think we discussed this last time.
We did.
Yeah.
The nature of Trump's problems are of a different nature than Biden's.
Right.
I mean, you couldn't remember James Comey's name.
I remembered his name.
Right.
That's the sort of thing that happens with Biden and he's had happen for a very, very long time.
Yeah.
It's not age.
You're right.
You're right.
You're right to call me on that.
When I look at Biden speaking, he's not meandering across different sets of ideas that shouldn't even be in the same sentence.
He's not meandering from one thing to another in a way that's completely incoherent the way Trump is.
So you're right.
Rambling isn't the right word.
Yeah.
He can respond to questions with actual, like incisive comments and jokes off script.
Right.
You know, like, you know, like, I don't remember the exact joke, but like a Fox News reporter said, do you have any, do you have any New Year's resolutions?
And he said, not to call you anymore.
You know, you know, stuff like that.
Yeah.
And so, whereas if you ask Trump that, God knows what you're going to get, you know, you're going to end up.
You'll get a ramble about how he it's terrible the way they're stealing all his money by the courts and whatever.
Whatever the latest talking point is, related to the question or not, that's what he'll divert straight into.
Right.
Yeah.
And, you know, and then I also do want to note that, you know, since the last time we were on, Congress called the special prosecutor to testify.
And it turns out, like so many things that they do, they shot themselves in the foot because when the full transcript came out, it showed that many of the accusations of the special prosecutor were simply untrue.
Like he said, oh, he couldn't even remember when his son died.
And the transcript showed, no, that was not true at all.
Yeah, right.
And so it reinforced that the special prosecutor's report was simply a partisan hit job.
It was nothing that was said there, pretty much, was accurate in terms of the allegations related to his memory, which shouldn't have been part of the report anyway.
Yeah.
Yeah, I agree.
But I will say, I think I said before, and I'll say again, that I still hate betting on the oldest horse in the race.
Oh, me too.
I mean, I, you know, if you had asked me like what would have been a problem with Biden saying that he's not going to run, he's going to retire at the end of this term and another Democrat just that he was going to do that.
I truly did.
I don't understand.
Yeah.
I thought that.
But the other problem was what other Democrat?
Who else was going to do it?
Who else could do it?
He has demonstrated he can beat Trump once.
Yeah.
No way.
He also has shown that.
Other Democrats have problems.
I mean, there's a reason that he won the primary.
I know that some leftists would say, well, the reason is because the DNC, you know, put its thumb on the scale and gave him the primary so that Bernie or whoever else it wasn't wouldn't do it.
Whatever.
We're not going to go into that now.
But the point is he won.
He won the primary.
No one else has come up as a big challenger in terms of who could take over from this point.
There are some in the wings.
It'll be interesting next time because you've got Governor Newsom in California.
You've got Governor Pritzker in Illinois.
Both of them are taking on big roles in the Democratic Party to argue on Biden's behalf.
And you know, next election, both of them are going to run for president.
Pete Buttigieg is working for Joe Biden now.
He's ran before.
I know he was.
He was a prominent figure.
He was.
I don't see when you're comparing to Pritzker the billionaire and Newsom, the governor of the most populous state, I think it's going to come down to a battle of those two probably.
I know where, you know, I've never actually seen Newsome talk.
Well, he did.
Or Pritzker.
I never heard of him, but yeah.
I mean, Newsom, didn't he do those, like a debate with DeSantis where he just absolutely, I know they talked about it for a while.
I believe it happened and he like buried DeSantis, but that could be a false memory.
Pritzker would be difficult to do that, but yeah.
Yeah.
Right.
Pritzker is my governor here in Illinois.
And so obviously, you know, I see a lot of him, but he is very good at, he has, he has slammed Trump on multiple occasions.
He has, you know, been used by the Biden campaign to attack Trump and others.
And like I said, he's a billionaire.
So that gives him a leg up on the next, you know, on running for election.
So he's been very good with Illinois in terms of making it socially where it should be going in terms of ensuring access to abortion, ensuring LGBTQ plus rights, ensuring women's rights, moving towards a non-fossil fuel future.
All of these things he has been doing.
And so I think that makes him a very likely candidate.
I know we're already looking in advance, you know.
But as far as like for this particular election, I just, nobody was really there to jump in for Biden, I feel like.
And he's the oldest, but he's also had a great record.
Right.
The Democratic National Party said that they wanted to support the incumbent.
Joe Biden said he wanted to run again.
And I think automatically, there was a reluctance from most Democrats to step forward because they felt the need to support their incumbent candidate.
Right.
Yeah.
I mean, there was only a couple that stood up.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It was in Biden's hands.
You know, if yeah, it was mostly Biden's decision whether he's going to go again.
Yeah.
And, you know, I mean, there are, you know, I think we discussed this last time.
There are some people who stay very clear-minded into their late 90s or later.
There are others, you know, who don't.
And we're seeing that.
We're seeing that now.
People are like, oh, he's three.
He's older than Trump.
And it's like, yeah.
And Trump is less intelligible than yeah.
I know.
I don't know if the, yeah, whatever combination of stress and everything else on Trump, I think that's going to work out as terrible for his health.
And I think that's going to show on the campaign trail.
But I also think that that won't matter to his most ardent supporters.
No, they make excuses.
They always make excuses.
Justifications.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Every time that he says he's running against or ran against Obama, they're all like, oh, he's just saying that because he, you know, they'll say, oh, it's basically is Obama because Biden was a VP then.
Right.
And Obama is really secretly controlling Biden.
You know, that's why he still lives in D.C. and things of that nature.
And it's like, no, he just can't remember things and he says things that are wrong and he's losing it mentally.
Whatever he had, he's losing it.
Yeah, well, whatever he had.
Indeed.
So he's losing it.
Quick note here.
There is a woman named Marianne Williamson who had suspended her account.
We reported that last time we did this update.
Her campaign.
Her campaign and has now unsuspended her campaign, whatever that means.
We don't have any word of how that will pan out for her, but it's felt by many people that as long as the donations keep coming in, she will keep that campaign up.
So I looked up the Democratic primaries that have occurred so far.
And there were two other candidates.
You mentioned Dean Phillips.
There was also a Jason Palmer, but both have dropped out of the race as of Super Tuesday.
Dean Phillips had a slightly larger number of total votes across all the primaries than Marianne Williamson.
And really that's only because the Democratic Party is suppressing her.
You know that.
That's what her supporters will tell you.
Yeah, right.
But yeah, I agree.
I mean, there's only one reason for her to have unsuspended her candidacy when he was already when Biden was on the verge of winning already.
Well, he already has enough support.
Yeah, when she unsuspended it, he technically hadn't yet.
But I mean, the only reason is money.
You know, he's locked up the nomination.
Even if let's say something were to happen that he couldn't run, we hope not, but let's say it did.
There's no way the party is picking her anyway.
Just, well, I'm the only one left standing, so you have to pick me.
No, we're not picking you.
Go away.
They would go to Kamala Harris.
Yeah.
VP.
Or Pritzker or, you know, that's what you're talking about.
I mean, they could go.
Think they'd pick someone in the administration, but that's just me.
That's just my first thought, right?
I mean, even if you weren't in an election and something happened to the president, you go to the vice president.
That's what the vice president's for.
You would think that, but I think they might be worried about her electability.
Um, I mean, we hopefully we'll never have to worry about it.
But I mean, that's but if they're worried about electability, why did they get her to the VP anyway?
Well, lots of lots of VPs are not electable on their own, I guess.
But that's, I mean, Pence was never maybe that's a problem with the U.S. system then.
Well, that's why you would, you know, that's a level of meta-thinking you're trying to employ there in the idea that you're hoping that the VP never takes charge.
But why did you want the guy there or the person there that you were hoping would never be in charge anyway?
Like, isn't that their role?
Like, why wouldn't you want a strong second?
Like, well, you would, which I think is why Star Trek Next Generation has Captain Picard and then it has Will Riker.
Yes.
And Will Riker is a clear, obvious second choice, and his very, very good, nearly as good as Captain Picard.
And that's who you want.
You want someone who should be able to just step in that chair and do it day one right away.
I think Harris could do it.
I think she could be the president.
I do not know that at the last minute.
Electorate agrees.
I do not know at the last minute that the electorate would agree.
Well, you know, which is what we would be talking about that kind of situation.
But I don't know who they would agree in the last minute for anyone.
Yeah.
You know, I mean, so again, hopefully we never have to worry about that.
But with Williamson, I, I, yeah, it's for to get her name out there more, to sell more books and to get more money.
And, you know, let me just say, and maybe there are a few listening here.
Hopefully, if they are, they will listen, but I doubt it.
Uh, because Williamson's supporters are some of the most cult-like people on the internet.
Yep.
Sure.
Um, you know, you and I have had discussions with some of them, though.
They're not really discussions anymore than talking to a wall is a discussion.
Uh, they follow the same script literally every time they follow the same exact script.
Oh, we have to, she stands for this.
Well, what about when she said those things?
No, she didn't say those things.
She didn't mean those things, or that was a long time ago, or whatever.
Yeah, right, right.
That's the steps that you go down, as you pointed out.
The justifications for ignoring that stuff, yeah.
Yes, the rationalizations, yeah.
And even though you point out she said them and that she's never apologized or taken them back, yeah, it's literally, you know, I know that you had a debate, again, a nice word to use for it, uh, with someone that, you know, on Twitter until they blocked you.
And I've seen other people, uh, mutual follows of ours, who had the same exact discussion.
And I could predict exactly how it would go every step of the way.
And it's just, it's pathetic.
It really is.
And so a lot of her beliefs are cult-like.
So I guess it's not surprising that her supporters are cult-like too.
That's that's true.
Um, now, as far as Dean Phillips, I will say I was surprised at the grace shown when he dropped out.
First, because he actually said on Twitter, if I do not get X number of votes by Super Tuesday, I will drop out.
And then he did.
He actually followed through.
What the heck?
I mean, that was shocking to me.
And second, because he had such kind words for Biden when he did so.
Despite the fact that he attacked Biden when he was running against him, he had extremely kind words for him when he bowed out.
I still don't understand why he ran.
I truly do not understand.
Well, I mean, some people, I have an adage that people only succeed at things when they first make an attempt and they only make an attempt at things when they think there's some chance of success.
So sometimes we look at situations like this where we see a person run for president and we think there was no chance of them ever having success.
So this adage must be wrong because they clearly knew they were never going to win.
But it could be that they had other goals in mind when they did it.
So for example, a person could be doing such a thing to increase their national standing, right?
To increase the number of eyeballs looking at them, number of people talking about them, to run for governor, run for Senate, run for somebody's seat, a future presidential run, right?
He did such a good job of that that you didn't even know he was running at this time.
He didn't succeed in that either, but he might have thought that he might get a much larger number right.
And I mean, we are talking about him right now.
So there is that.
Yeah, there's that.
But, you know, that's what I think some people do when they run for president.
They know that they won't win, but they're doing it just to increase their level of fame in that regard.
And I think, I mean, Reverend Al Sharpton ran for president once upon a time.
I think that's exactly why he did it.
He knew he wouldn't become president, but he wanted to increase his level of fame.
And whatever you think of Al Sharpton, I think that's exactly why he did it.
Whether it was good or bad to do, I don't know.
Up to whether, whatever you think of him.
But I think that's exactly why he did what he did.
And I think that's why Dean Phillips was doing what he was doing in this, because he's looking to increase his level of exposure.
And he probably succeeded at that to some degree.
Probably not to the degree he wanted, but we don't always get what we want.
I think if six months from now you ask, you take a poll and ask them if they know who Dean Phillips is, you will get everything from, you know, a player on a football team to, you know, a country singer and almost nobody will remember that he ran for president.
That's up to his PR team to find a way to keep him in the spotlight.
Yeah.
I don't know, but that's Dean Phillips' problem, not mine.
Right.
So last on our list of things to talk about, unfortunately, we still have to mention that there is an RFK Jr.
He's still running for president as an independent candidate.
He's still looking for cultural relevance beyond being just very deep into reality denial.
He is failing at that.
Every conversation I've seen about RFK Jr. is about how he's an anti-vaxxer, how he has other disturbing conspiracist beliefs and uninformed opinions.
But the latest news about him is that he has a short list of potential vice presidents for his ticket.
So in order, I don't know which order they're in, but this is the order they're listed in the article that I read about it.
Yeah.
Nicole Shanahan, who is a relative nobody, but I believe she's a multi-millionaire.
She's the ex-wife of one of the Google co-founders, I believe.
Yeah, okay.
So she's probably therefore worth lots and lots of money.
Sure.
She was the one who put most of the money for his Super Bowl ad.
Yeah, that's right.
She was a big funder for that.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, she is one of the very top of the list frontrunners.
Jesse Ventura is in the running.
He also ran as an independent in the past.
Telsey Gabbard is also.
He was the governor of Minnesota.
Well, yeah, he was a governor.
And I think he was an independent when he was governor.
Wasn't that right.
Yeah, that's right.
And please pronounce his name correctly.
It's Jesse the Body Ventura.
I'm sorry.
Yeah.
I don't watch wrestling because it's not a sport.
Tulsi Gabbard is on the list.
Please pronounce her name right.
That's Tulsi, the Russian asset Gabbard.
Okay.
Aaron Rodgers is on the list.
That's Aaron the idiot Rogers.
Yeah, I got nothing else for you.
The man who shouldn't have a mic in front of him nearly as often as he does.
Yes.
Really, you should interview football players after the game about the game.
And that's what, you know, their political opinions aren't, you know, terribly relevant.
Yeah.
Wow.
Football does not determine the state of the country.
Rand Paul is on the list.
Rand Paul is a name I've heard several times before.
I believe he's a Republican, right?
Yes, he's a Republican senator who, despite being an ophthalmologist, is also an anti-vaxxer.
Yeah.
Oh, right.
Yeah.
But ophthalmology doesn't give you any expertise in immunology.
So just in case anyone needed to be reminded of that.
And the last name on the list was interesting to me, Andrew Yang, a Democrat, but he's never held office.
He ran for mayor of New York.
And the biggest part of his ticket was his advocacy for rank choice voting.
So I don't know if we have time to get into that much today.
No, probably not.
I believe he did run for president, too, but he was out early in the primary.
Yeah, okay.
That was where he was first.
Yeah, that was where his name first got there.
I mean, I think of the names listed, Yang has said the least number of completely insane things in public spaces.
I think you're right.
If we're going to keep a scoreboard on it, that's probably true.
Yeah.
Other than that, I think all in all, they're a collection of, you know, just odd people here.
I don't know.
I hadn't heard Yang's name before.
He just seems the least likely.
I'm surprised he's even allowing his name.
He's the least recognizable name after Nicole Shanahan.
Right.
Who is nationally?
Everyone has heard the other names before, generally speaking.
Yes.
Apparently, according to an article I read literally just before we hopped on here.
10 minutes ago.
Yeah.
Yeah.
RFK Jr. has picked someone according to his hot take.
Oh my God.
According to his campaign manager.
They just wouldn't say who, but they said they were very excited by them.
Yeah, he's looking to drag this news out for a long time because it may be the last time he gets in the headlines.
And that's what the article was basically about was he's using this to draw more eyeballs and therefore more money.
I'm not going to tell you the name.
Right.
I've picked someone.
It's definitely a very good candidate.
Very, very good candidate.
And when they do pick someone, they said they think that will get him more money and attention, which is bad.
I believe he's going with Shanahan in part because automatic money right there.
Yeah, well, plus, you know, he could say, I've got a woman running with me.
You know, Aaron Rodgers pretty much fell out of the contention, especially when he came out as a denier of the he showed himself to be a conspiracist in other ways when he denied Sandy Hook and then tried to back out of denying Sandy Hook.
Yeah, well, and I just think, you know, Shanahan, I think, fills the role the best in that she apparently has the same weird beliefs enough to give millions and millions of dollars.
And, you know, plus like Rand Paul, I haven't heard that before.
I just don't think he'd do it because while he is that conspiracy crank in his own right, he does hold a position of some power in the Republican Party and he'd basically be giving that away and potentially drawing some votes from Trump, which he doesn't want to do.
So I just think he's not going to do it.
And I put my official prediction as Shanahan.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, that's probably where I would put it too.
I think most of this run for RFK Jr. is not about becoming president so much as it's about, as we said, about some of the Democratic potentials, increasing his level of exposure to his ideas, his voice, getting the spotlight on him more, getting more money to him and his causes.
I think he is a zealot who truly believes a lot of dangerous things.
And yeah, having Telsey Gabbard on the list is also very interesting, having her being heavily involved in cult activity for probably still involved in that and really her entire life, grew up in a cult and probably still is in a cult.
So yeah, that would be interesting if, you know, curveball, if that were the choice, that would be the most curveball choice of all the choices there, which considering Jesse Ventura and Aaron Rodgers and Rand Paul are in the running there.
Yes.
Yeah, that's not great.
Not great that she was even considered.
I don't know.
Why couldn't you have just had five people on the list?
I don't know.
Yeah.
Who knows?
I don't know where that list even came from.
So, well, I could link the article where it came from.
I have it here.
But like I'm just saying, like, who, who, who leads?
Where they got their information from.
Yeah.
So anyway, I think there have been some people who talk about RFK Jr.'s chances.
He's not catching up in the polls.
And there's a lot of rumors from people that there's going to be some kind of magical reversal happening in the future.
But this is a thing we call copium, in which you're trying to cope with the fact that your ideas aren't coming true.
And it's like a drug like opium.
It's very clever.
That's online slang.
Well, that's what I would call a lot of that article that I read just before coming on here to record.
I think it was from MSNBC.
I could be wrong, but it was a lot of that.
Like, oh, when we announce this, we're going to get lots of money and lots of attention.
And then we'll get on the ballot in more states.
And then that'll show them.
And yeah, I don't know.
And I also still don't know if him being on the ballot is worse for Democrats or Republicans.
A lot of people think, and I'm starting to go this way.
At first, I was thinking he would draw from Republicans.
Yeah.
The question is, is he, even if he's technically drawing from Republicans, is he drawing from people who would have otherwise voted Biden?
So for example, these people who are saying, I cannot vote for Trump.
I will not vote for Trump.
If there was only Biden as another possibility, would they then vote for Biden?
And now will they instead vote for RFK such that they are, he is stealing Biden votes?
I don't know.
I really don't know what is going to happen in that regard.
I would think, I mean, he's not going to steal Democrat votes, you know, other than, I say that, other than the people who are like, I hate Biden's stance on X and therefore I won't vote for him, even though Trump's stance is immeasurably worse.
So I will vote.
I will show my protest vote, which you'd think these people would learn after the first time when they threw their protest votes instead of voting for Hillary and we ended up with Trump.
Yeah.
Some people never learn.
I think we should probably wrap it up there because, I mean, technically the solution to that is ranked choice voting, right?
Yeah.
But, but anyway, that's a much longer conversation than maybe we'll never get to have.
We'll see if things calm down in the actual world of unreality that this podcast more or less reports on.
So, yeah.
Any thoughts on, should we list where people can find you, David?
Sure.
People can find me.
I mean, my link tree is linktree slash David Bloomberg with a dot before the EE in the linktree URL.
Or you can just more easily and directly find me on Twitter at David Bloomberg, on Blue Sky at David Bloomberg, on Threads at David Bloomberg TV.
And, you know, I'm having political and reality TV conversations both in both places.
And so, or all three places.
Yeah.
So I mentioned the email address at the start of the podcast, but you can find me on Twitter arguing with people who are declaring unreal things as real.