Spencer and David Bloomberg dissect the chaotic Democratic Party transition after Joe Biden’s July withdrawal, praising its unity despite $450M fraud fines and $170M bond concerns for Trump. They critique Judge Cannon’s dismissal of Florida indictments as unprecedented, question SCOTUS’s vague immunity ruling, and mock Trump’s exaggerated shooting claims while dismissing RFK Jr.’s potential defection as a conspiracy-laden "maverick." JD Vance’s VP pick raises concerns over moral consistency, and voter suppression tactics cast doubt on poll reliability. The episode suggests Trump’s legal battles and Harris’s shifting demographics could reshape the election’s trajectory. [Automatically generated summary]
And we're back with Truth Unrestricted, the podcast that definitely will not be covering the Olympics.
Sorry about that.
If you wandered into this thinking that this was going to be at about Olympics for reasons I don't understand because nothing about it would indicate that, this is your opportunity to either leave or just stay anyway and learn about something that isn't the Olympics.
So I'm Spencer, your host, and back again today with David Bloomberg.
How you doing, David?
Okay.
And I just wanted to thank you for not making me, you know, step down and replacing me with a younger co-host, guest co-host.
Oh, David, there's still time, man.
You lobbed that joke up for me.
I can't do anything but spike it back down.
As long as we don't go to a brokered podcast.
Yeah, I'm not going to let other people, you know, openly vote on who the other person should be.
No, I'll decide.
I'm the dictator here.
This isn't a democracy.
Okay.
So we are going to talk about another U.S. election update for the month of July.
It's right the end of July.
The Olympics just started, as I noted in my intro.
And we have a lot to cover because it's been a minute and it's been a lot of things that happened in that minute.
It's been a long minute.
So I think we should start with the thing that we last talked about when we last talked about election stuff, which was sort of the thing that happened most recently, but still Biden stepped down and he endorsed Kamala Harris to run in his stead, which makes sense.
This is the most sensible option.
You know, you and I both, we had a whole episode about this.
We very publicly said that we thought this was a foolish decision and we listed our reasons.
One of those reasons was that we thought that having like something like an open primary at the convention was going to cause a huge number of problems.
So I'm happy to say that that doesn't look like it's happening and that I'm happy to be wrong about that.
If it wouldn't even make me wrong necessarily, but it would mean that I'm wrong about it happening and that I'm happy that if he's stepping down, that it's, it's a seems to be a full backing of Kamala Harris.
And that's good as it stands.
It's the best way to have done this is to have Biden voluntarily step down and have Kamala Harris step forward and just be the candidate.
So do you have anything that you need to have penance for, David?
Well, I don't think we need penance.
And that's it.
Where you, you know, said just now something to the effect that, you know, we were against this happening.
And it wasn't this.
Yeah.
We were against this.
Yeah.
What we were against, to clarify for anyone who may not have listened to that episode, or if you have and you've forgotten, what we were against was the whole way it was happening.
Yeah.
I still think it was a terrible way of doing it.
And it worries me for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that now there are some in the media who will think, rightly so, look at the power we have.
We forced the president to decide not to run for re-election by our biased coverage of him.
There are others.
There are wealthy donors, actors who are like, see, we went public and look what we did.
I feel like a lot of this could have been handled more privately.
Maybe they don't feel that way.
Maybe they feel like they needed to whip up the public to show that those polls were dropping.
But, you know, whatever the reason it ended up happening.
I don't, like I said, but the main thing that we were worried about, at least, you know, speaking for myself, was at the time we recorded that, they had not settled on Harris.
No.
There were people out there, some of the same people who were trying to pressure Biden to step down were saying, and we could have an open or we could run a Blitz series of mini primaries.
Right.
There was all kinds of things.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And they were, there were people out there naming other politicians besides Harris to take the spot.
And so the fear, which I think was justified at that point in time, was it would rip the Democratic Party apart.
And so I want to credit.
I think that, you know, I don't know how long Biden had been planning it or, you know, as a just-in-case measure or whatever.
But I do want to credit Biden for and the people who work for him for the way it was handled.
He quickly, like within 20 minutes, endorsed Harris.
And I was reading an article on the Washington about how, even though none of the staff had any heads up, they had just-in-case preparations and they put those into action right away.
And that enabled it to kind of become a done deal before some of the fringe whiners could really do anything about it.
Yeah, there was a lot of talking heads in a lot of places.
I had to unfollow a couple of people who had really bad takes.
I think the worst of them was a fairly prominent left-leaning podcaster that said that Biden should step down and have Kamala Harris run and that she should select RFK Jr. as VP.
I just, I just, I just blasted him.
I just told him that he wasn't a serious person.
That's that's the yeah, I didn't know what else to say.
I just said, yeah, look, you're not, you're, you're obviously just doing this to foreign rage rage farming for clicks.
You're not doing this as a serious commentator.
And even like columnists are doing this.
And I, yeah, I believe it was the Wall Street Journal.
I could be wrong.
So don't quote me on that.
But there was a writer who, before Biden withdrew, he had written something saying Harris is the best bet the Democrats have.
And then after Biden withdrew, he said he wrote a column that was basically like, here are the problems with Harris for the Democrats.
And it's like, no, you can't have it both ways.
You just, again, like you said, it's rage farming.
It's writing the opposite of whatever is going on at the time.
Contrarianism.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it's, it's just ridiculous.
And, you know, again, so I do want to say also, I think that the people who shared our opinions that Biden should stay, some of them took it a little far.
Like a senator, a senator, I believe it was Schiff, came out and said, hey, I think that, you know, Biden should step down.
And they're coming out.
He will never get another vote from us again.
It's like, you got to calm down.
You can't make enemies out of everyone who has a different opinion of you than you.
I mean, I understand.
Yeah, I didn't like that he said it publicly either.
Yeah.
But almost all of the Democrats who were sharing their opinions were doing it because they felt it was the best way to proceed.
And we could disagree on the best way to proceed.
The conversation needs to be had, right?
Right.
Now, did it need to be had in the way it was?
No.
And I think that it fed the media machine in a way that I did not like.
And that's why I specified the Democrats that were talking about it as opposed to those in the media.
Because they were doing it for clicks and other reasons, like the New York Times, just for revenge.
But the Democrats, you know, and that's what was going on was there were these attacks.
There was these internal attacks on one another.
And I didn't like engaging that, even though I recognized that I said on this podcast that the people who believed the certain way were fools at that moment, that's what it appeared to be.
Based on history, they looked like they were fools to believe things could go so smoothly.
It turned out it did.
But immediately in the first few hours, there were a couple people that wanted to be like, oh, yeah, yeah, I'll run.
I'll run.
And I believe RFK Jr. and Marion Williams.
Yeah.
There was also an independent who's no longer a Democrat that volunteered to join the party again to run for president for them.
Oh, yeah.
Joe Manchin.
Manchin, yes.
Yeah.
Well, and then he said he never did.
You know, and so, but it was, I mean, the point is they should not have been attacking people in the way that they were.
I disagreed with people online.
I disagreed with people here.
Yeah.
But that doesn't mean I was saying I will never.
Well, I mean i'm not going to vote for a senator in California, no matter what but um, empty threat, I will never vote.
I will also never vote for a senator in California um, but the way the attacks were going it was just like, can we at least understand that he's not doing it out of any gain for himself, he's doing it because this is what they believe is the best path.
I believed that they were wrong.
We will never know.
This is not a choose your own adventure novel where at the you know, when we get to November and we get to the end of the story, we can't like turn back to the decision that was made in July and say oh, now let's run it this way and see what happens.
Save the video game at this point before you make this critical decision and then move back to that save point, and it's not possible uh.
So obviously, right now things have taken off.
I will fully admit I kind of felt a sense of relief when he stepped down.
It wasn't that I wanted him to, it was that it had just become like a heavy burden that everyone was carrying.
At this point, this whole argument had become a burden to the whole Democratic Party and to the election.
It became the only thing that anyone talked about with the Democratic Party right was, was how bad their candidate was which yeah, you know okay, and um, and so you know, there has been a new wave of excitement.
Um everybody, or almost everybody has, you know, come back together again.
Uh, the uh obviously, the donations have rolled in, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of donations.
Uh, the polls are showing her ahead, but it's july.
Yeah, you know polls, polls in july.
I don't know how much that shows.
Or rather, polls right after something big happens.
Is this just a bump, because the grass is always greener type of situation?
Um yeah, it's a.
It's still a long race right, it's still longer than most Canadian or Uk elections even starting now.
Yeah, and the thing that annoys me, since i'm talking about what other Democrats have done, one thing that annoys me is the very same people, or at least some of the very same people, who are like ignore the polls, polls don't mean anything, polls don't vote, when Biden was behind, are now saying, look at, look at Harris, she's ahead in the polls and it's like you can't have it both ways, selective evidence.
Yeah yeah, I understand you want to promote promote promote, but come.
Yeah, that's just problems with our level of unreality, right?
But while we're on the topic, I want to stop in on this a little bit at the risk of stepping in front of the Kamala Harris enthusiasm train, David.
I want to review because I think it's useful to consciously move forward knowing all the all the things involved, all the moving pieces as much as possible.
I want to stop and take a little bit of a look at a couple of the reasons why Biden did well against Trump and therefore what maybe some people have to think about when it comes to Kamala instead of Biden.
So usually on the Democratic side of the ticket, people don't vote for the person as much as they vote for the principles or what's going to happen there.
The cult of personality stuff is usually more of a Republican thing.
However, there are still people who will change their vote based on this change.
So Biden did well with two particular groups that are important that we don't know yet how well Kamala Harris will do.
So the first of these groups is older white people.
So, you know, the pollsters track a lot of different categories of people based on a lot of things.
Older white people generally have two things that they do a lot.
First is that they vote a lot, nearly right down the line, like all of them vote.
And also they tend to also listen to a lot, watch a lot of Fox News.
So this tends to be a demographic that goes heavily Republican.
But Biden did much better in this demographic than Democrats usually do.
And this made a difference in 2020.
And right away, we're not sure how well Kamala Harris is going to do with older white people.
So right off the bat, we have this.
There's another demographic that's also very important.
I don't know the history of this demographic necessarily, but I know that Joe Biden has a long history of support of unions and working closely with unions.
And in 2020, he got the union vote.
Now, the union vote, it's not like it's a huge number of people the way like you'll see like older white people is a huge number of people, but they're very organized.
And it's a large block of votes you can get for very little effort if you get them.
So like during the campaign, if you can get the union vote, then the union kind of more or less all goes your way.
They help to organize other people to get out the vote also for you.
And you can focus on campaigning in other places and that sort of thing.
And so we don't know exactly how well Kamala Harris is going to do in these demographics based on the fact that she's just not specifically Joe Biden himself.
Maybe she does get a shine from that.
Maybe he, I'm sure he will try to do whatever he can to, as a private citizen, can to help her, you know, campaign for her and whatever.
But it remains to be seen.
So what are your thoughts on this as a person who actually lives there and how this might turn out?
I mean, I think most of the unions, if not all of the unions who had endorsed Biden, immediately came out and endorsed Harris.
Okay, well, that's a good sign.
Now, does that mean every member will?
No, because some of them.
You can never tell that.
Well, right.
I mean, you know, some of these are, shall we say, very blue-collar white unions, and they sometimes members stupidly vote against their own interests because they fall for Republican BS.
And so, you know, who knows how many will, you know, would have voted for Biden, but are switching to Trump because of that.
I wouldn't think there would be very many.
But I can hope.
Yeah.
So, yeah, other than that, I mean, the, you know, when you told me that the older white demographic that Biden did better in that, I didn't, I didn't know that.
He didn't beat Trump in that demographic.
No, but he did better than most other Democrats were expected to do.
Okay.
So it's not like it, you know, it swings, but it's the, you know, some number of votes above a bar and that helps, right?
Yeah.
So, yeah, I mean, again, there's no way to really predict.
Yeah.
You know, is are those numbers going to be made up for by some other numbers that have been energized by the campaign now, whereas they were not very energized to vote for Biden?
Will there be other numbers that aren't?
Like you've got Bernie out there saying, well, I'm not going to give my endorsement unless she promises to make me an integral part of her.
I don't remember if it was campaign or administration.
And like he's trying to blackmail.
And then there are the other, you know, the other leftists that want to bring the Middle East situation in and are saying, if she doesn't come out firmly of a certain way, then we're not going to support her, which I think we've discussed before, you know, cutting off your nose despite your face.
Because in none of those cases is Trump going to be better for them.
Trump is literally out there using the word Palestinian as an insult.
Literally, again, he's doing it repeatedly.
And you think he's going to be better than Harris?
Yeah.
Come on.
So, so yeah, it remains to be seen whether, you know, everybody does unify and realize that, no, we have to stop Trump.
And then we can negotiate, you know, the best way to handle these situations.
Yeah.
So we let off with the big news.
So if people were only coming here for that, they don't need to listen to the rest, I guess.
But I want to talk about it because I think it'll be fun, you know, in a year or two down the road to just listen to all these election updates all in a series to remember back just how much this changed as it went.
Sort of like a series of snapshots of a situation as it goes closer to what I think is car crash territory, right?
Yeah, it'll only be fun if Biden wins, or if Harris wins.
If Trump wins, looking back at none of this will be fun.
Well, I live in Canada, David.
So it won't be quite as terrible for me.
When we invade Canada because of a specified reason, then, you know.
Oh, I know the reason.
I know what the reason is going to be.
The reason is going to be 5440 or bust.
That's what it's going to be.
Okay.
That joke will take some explanation.
Someone else will have to explain it.
So we're going to move on.
Google it.
Yeah, Google it.
So we're going to start with the Trump crime pages.
This is my favorite part of these election updates is the fact that there's just a ream of them.
I pull them up and I update them as I go.
So I have five of them and they were numbered one to five.
So I had to add a point zero to it so it would occur first, which is, of course, we were tracking indictments in different areas and we would mention separately that there were some the Supreme Court was involved in making some decisions, but point zero has to come first because it affects all the others.
So the Supreme Court of the United States did make a ruling on whether Trump has immunity from prosecution against things that he did while in office.
So they they I believe they did mention specifically Donald Trump, but the ruling is is more general, of course, because that's how their rulings are supposed to be.
But there's a lot of problems with this ruling.
It's deliberately vague in a bunch of areas that it should be specific.
Like you're going to the highest court in the land to make the definitive word and then they become deliberately vague.
So there's a dividing line here.
They pretty much said that official acts that a person does as president of the United States are just blanket immunity for official acts.
You can never be prosecuted or even considered for prosecution for any of those things.
There's other gray areas which are, and I, you know, maybe sometime if we feel a need for some kind of deep dive, I'll try to get a more legal expert on this.
But it appears like they're trying to provide cover for conversations that happen around the president so that other people can say things to the president that they don't get in trouble for, like in the way that a person can become, you know, like an accessory to a crime just by being in the vicinity, knowing about it.
So if the president has that immunity, it sort of extends to the people that are around him in those conversations where he's making those plans and doing the things.
And that's a little vague, that language, or at least it was to me when I kind of read it.
But the much more vague and probably, in my opinion, more dangerous and deliberately dangerous thing was that they didn't specifically define what was and what was not an official act.
And it wasn't like an omission.
They listed it in there that the decision for what is and what is not an official act will need to be interpreted by the lower courts that make other decisions, which leaves it open for a candidate,
a former president, to have a decision not go their way about what is and what is not an official act and then have it be kicked up again to the Supreme Court so the Supreme Court can again reinterpret as needed if they feel that's necessary to provide immunity for someone.
And this is not great.
It's how many ways can we say that presidents shouldn't break laws?
And that I think this is sort of a Generally speaking, it's a loophole in that the framers of the Constitution didn't really think that anyone who was going to kind of openly break laws would ever become president.
They felt that they didn't, you know, maybe it didn't come up in conversation because they just, you know, didn't think of that possibility.
But it's not written anywhere that they have immunity or not immunity.
But this is a bad decision because, again, as I said in a previous podcast, what if Biden just walks up to Trump right now and just shoots him and says, this is for the good of the country?
This is an official act.
And then just whatever, drops the gun and storms off and continues being president.
What's to stop him from doing that?
Yeah.
And that was literally, yeah.
Literally, the, you know, the attorney general's office gave that as an example.
I mean, you know, they said, what's to stop him from ordering SEAL Team 6 to do that?
Yeah.
And yeah, the Supreme Court, you know, who are a bunch of conservatives and constitutional originalists.
So obviously this was in the Constitution, you know, because they would never think to add something that was not in the Constitution.
Yeah, that's sarcasm.
That's fine.
Sarcasm.
No, I didn't catch that.
Thank you.
For anyone else.
But although we only have intelligent listeners, so they would have gotten that anyway.
Sure, of course.
So, I mean, yeah, it's they're being even more blatant than most people thought.
Like when this went to the Supreme Court, everyone was like, well, there's no way they're going to do this.
Even this Supreme Court won't do this.
And even I thought that Roberts would switch sides for this one.
And, you know, maybe one other.
But no.
He has before.
Yeah.
No, not this time.
They just all bought into it.
And I don't know what more there is to say about it.
I will say this.
And this is another, you should have a segment for this podcast of David complaining about people on Twitter.
Okay.
There's a lot of people after this came out who were like, well, Biden can just expand the Supreme Court.
They said they can't, you know, anything he does is legal.
Or Biden can just issue an executive order.
Anything he does is legal.
And it's like, that's not what they said either.
Right.
You people are misconstruing and misunderstanding what it said.
He can't be prosecuted for it.
But that doesn't mean it magically happens.
If he makes an executive order saying there are now four more justices on the Supreme Court, you still have to get those justices on the Supreme Court.
There are still processes for that.
They're not just Congress still has a say in that.
Yeah.
If he says, you know, here's another executive order, people don't have to enact it.
It's not the same.
Saying that you can't be prosecuted, that you have immunity is not the same as saying you can do anything and it will be done.
Yeah.
And people, you know, some of them were trying to be flippant, but some of them were serious.
And it's like, come on, people, you're not helping our cause here by being stupid.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Educated, have a have an educated opinion, have an informed opinion.
That's the best way.
Shooting from the head.
That's not something.
Yeah, your example is something he could do yeah, you know.
Or the one that the Attorney General's office gave of he could order SEAL team SIX.
Now, SEAL team SIX could say no yeah, they could um, you know, that's not a lawful order.
Yeah um, and they're supposed to, and we have to hope that they.
Yeah right exactly, we have to hope that they continue to follow the constitution in all military matters.
But if, in your situation, like if Biden walked up, grabbed a gun out of a uh, you know Secret Service uh, person orders the Secret Service to give him his gun, why wouldn't it?
Yeah um, and then he does that, well then yeah, there's not.
According to the Supreme Court yeah, you know.
Well, I mean, i'm sure that a court would say that wasn't official because he's a Democrat.
And when it got to the Supreme Court, they would say no um right, but what if Trump did it?
Yeah, if Trump did it.
Trump becomes president again and then does that.
Yeah, just starts shooting people because he likes to watch them dance, or whatever.
Yeah, he officially likes to watch them dance.
Yes yes, adds new official Acts too yes, so anyway, this affects all of the other cases in some way or other, for with the possible exception of this one that comes first, which is the Letitia James oh no no, the one that comes last sorry, the Letitia James fraud indictments were, as people remember, these were um indictments that he was convicted for.
He owes fines based on business fraud.
He's not allowed to operate any businesses within the state of New York and uh his, his fines came to about 450 million dollars, but he negotiated that down to 170 million.
So you see some, you see a lot of different numbers getting thrown around here because the situation is a little complex.
It's not necessarily true that that any of them are wrong.
450 million dollars or so, that wasn't wrong.
Uh, also keep in mind that that was a 350 million dollar judgment with a hundred million dollars of of uh interest based on how many years that he's done it.
So that's two numbers.
It's negotiated down to about 170 million.
And then he has also the civil suit that was levied against him by Egene Carroll for 83.3 million dollars in a judgment.
So people kind of add these two numbers together regularly and say that he owes a quarter million dollars in judgments um, and that's not a wrong number either, based on which things you add in or keep out, or or at what point you look at the number um, and that seems to be already fairly complex.
But those, that's the the state of those fines as of now.
So those are decided.
I don't know, there's Much to go over there, but yeah, yeah.
Well, the 170 million that you said he negotiated down to, that's just the amount he has to put up in order to appeal.
That's also true, yeah, yeah.
If he loses that appeal, it goes it reverts back to the original number.
Yeah, that's the size of the bond he has to put up, which the last time I checked, he still has not done.
Well, I think he put it up, but else paid it, yeah.
But there's been, but yeah, I think that they have questioned and the source and whether that's a right, right?
Do they actually have this a campaign contribution?
Well, or like, do they have 170 million dollars?
You know, you're putting up this bond, but do you actually have that amount of money in case something goes wrong?
You know, you have to put up actual solid financial backing.
Yeah, it can't be property.
Yeah, so that's the least of the worries at this time.
I think the hush money indictment since last we talked, the trial completed.
Well, actually, the last time we talked, it had completed and he was found guilty of 34 counts, right?
So, since that time, the Supreme Court of the United States has made their ruling and they granted Trump some limited immunity.
And they also said that some conversations that surround him when he's in the overall office are considered privileged or maybe they shouldn't be used or whatever.
And it turns out that during the trial, wouldn't you know it, some of the people who testified testified about conversations they had with Trump while he was president.
So, this casts some shadow on some of the testimony.
And so, he was originally meant to be meant to be sentenced on June 11 or July 11th, which would have affected a bunch of other stuff.
But because of the Supreme Court ruling, which came out earlier than expected, the sentencing was moved to, let me find the date.
I wrote it September 18th.
September 18th.
Right.
Here it is.
So, yeah, we're going to, that's kicked.
They're going to reconsider some things, I guess.
I don't know what the status of that's going to be, if they're going to have to do the whole thing over again because some of it, you can't just take some things out.
I'm not sure.
What's your take on this, David?
Well, basically, what I have, you know, what I have heard is that in trial, sometimes, yes, sometimes you get a situation where it's like, oh, they should not have done that.
And sometimes the judge will be like, okay, be that as it may, the outcome would not have been any different.
And therefore, we're going to proceed.
Right.
Other times they say, okay, that changes everything.
I mean, just look at the Alec Baldwin trial where one of the prosecutors didn't share certain evidence.
And the judge was like, that's it.
We're done.
I'm sick of you.
We're canceling this whole thing and you can't refile it.
If you're not going to play by the rules, then in this case, they wouldn't do that, but it is possible that this judge or an appeals court or the Supreme Court could say, no, we don't know that he would have been convicted if you hadn't had those people testifying.
Therefore, it's time for a retrial.
If I were placing my money, I would bet that the judge in the case says doesn't matter, doesn't apply.
The New York State Appeals Court says the same thing, and it ends up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which will happen after the election.
And go to the New York Supreme Court.
Well, state charges?
The court New York is weird.
The New York court that it's in right now is called the Supreme Court.
Oh, neat.
Their first level court is called the Supreme Court.
Okay.
I don't know what happens.
Yes.
Yes.
So maybe there is another court after the Court of Appeals in New York.
Maybe it's the super Supreme Court.
I don't know.
Ultra Supreme Court.
Yes.
Yes.
But either way, I still think that that court would, however many state courts it goes to, I think they will rule against Trump.
And I think it'll get to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And if the election, well, the election will be over by then.
Yeah, it won't happen before the election.
The sentencing may happen before the election, but right.
If he has been elected, then they will say, no, you have to do a retrial.
And by the way, you can't do the retrial while he's president.
So you have to postpone it.
And if he's not been elected, then they may not care.
Then they may just be like, okay, we don't care.
Just go with it.
Hinges on the election.
Yeah.
Sounds right to me.
So item number three on the Trump crime pages is the, what's called the Florida indictments.
These, so the floor, there were two items here that we listed as separate because they had separate jurisdictions.
There's the Florida indictments and then there's the Washington, D.C. indictments.
And they were both, I didn't mention this before previous times when I listed these, but these, both sets of indictments have been run by Jack Smith.
So the Florida indictments that have been presided over by Judge Cannon have been entirely dismissed wholesale, all of them.
Wildly.
This is nuts.
So there's, she lists a bunch of things in her ruling.
And I want to get a really good link for this in the in the show notes.
I've, I've listened to a few now that were, they're each about 15, 20 minutes, so I can't just play them as a clip.
But the crux of this seems to be that she claims that Jack Smith cannot be a special prosecutor.
And not only that he can't be because he's disqualified because he holds some property that prevents him specifically from being a special prosecutor.
She appears to not recognize any authority from any special prosecutors.
This seems to be the crux of her argument that there's despite all legal precedent for all other special prosecutors, including the very famous Ken Starr, who prosecuted Bill Clinton, that she just says, no, it turns out that everyone else in the history of U.S. legal system has been wrong.
And I'm right.
And I say it's this way, that Jack Smith is not a prosecutor.
And there is no such thing as a special prosecutor.
No one can do this.
You can't even replace him with someone else.
While that she waited till this long in the process, like a year later, to suddenly now dismiss this.
Seems like a last ditch effort to try to kick this before the election.
It does, but I also don't know.
I mean, can judge, I mean, I guess they can.
Would judges normally make a ruling like this on their own?
Like, would they just come out of the blue and say, hey, you're a special prosecutor.
I don't believe in special prosecutors.
You're gone.
Or does it have to be something that is brought up by one side or the other so that it can be briefed?
Well, it appears that the opposing side, the opposing counsel didn't file a brief that said that Jack Smith's status as a special prosecutor is in doubt or that the authority of special prosecutors are in doubt.
This appears to be something she came up with on her own, which is also.
She's not smart enough to come up with anything on her own.
Well, yeah, but she didn't come up with it from an ultra-conservative.
Right.
But she didn't come up with it based on a brief from the defense counsel.
Right.
Right.
It's not that the defense counsel questioned it and then she said, you know what?
You're right, Mr. Defense Counselman.
You know, this, this guy doesn't have any standing and now it's dismissed.
She didn't come to it from that.
She, you know, she comes from this from somewhere else.
I thought that they did question the legality of his appointment.
I thought that they and everybody was like, I can't believe she's having hearings on this.
This is the dumbest thing ever.
Everybody knows that they're legal.
This is just a stalling tactic, which made it even more surprising when she ruled this way because everybody was pissed off that she even had a hearing about it.
Yeah.
Well, every legal expert I talked to or talked to that I listened to express an opinion on this has essentially said this is wild.
A huge part of this comes from a difference in the meanings of the words officer and official, which there is precedent to say that they're considered to be the same thing for the purposes of these things.
And so because one document says he's an officer of the court and another document says we recognize officials of the court, that she's, this is one of the many things she points to as indicating that he's not rightfully placed.
This is why when I was writing rules and laws, I always said you've got to use the right words.
Oh, yeah.
You got to use the right, you know, and one would imagine that in the legal profession, they would try to use the right words.
I don't know.
Well, you would imagine that, but it also seems like they've recognized they've had times where they looked at this and said, yeah, you know what?
They're the same thing for all intents and purposes, the same thing.
But she just ignores that part and just says, you know what?
They're not.
Right.
Wild.
Yeah.
I mean, I've, like I said, I have I have reviewed proposed laws where they just put in incorrect terms and I had to go through and say, this terminology is incorrect.
You have to use this word.
And then it comes back and they haven't fixed it or they fixed it wrong.
Like, no, you have to use these words.
Yes.
And lawyers should be pedantic.
That's generally what we pay them to be.
Well, I'm not talking about lawyers.
I'm talking about politicians.
Well, sure, also politicians.
Yeah.
Right.
Because, yeah, you have, you know, courts that rule in this way.
I mean, the Supreme Court has ruled crazy things on other stuff recently based on, oh, well, the law didn't specifically say XYZ.
It's like, well, but it clearly meant it.
Some kindergarten logic there.
Yeah.
You didn't say that I couldn't throw the sand upwind and have it drift down into Susie's face.
You didn't say I couldn't do that.
You just said I couldn't throw the sand at Susie.
So obviously I'm okay now, right?
I just throw it in the air and it drifts down onto Susie.
It's totally different.
Right.
So, so yeah, she has yeah, I mean, she's nuts, you know, she's oh, yeah.
Yeah, and obviously, you know, Jack Smith has filed an appeal.
I'm sure that appeal, I mean, the appeal may be decided, but then it'll be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Even, yeah.
Even the Supreme Court.
Well, first of all, it'll never be decided by the Supreme Court before the election.
But besides that, even this Supreme Court, I can't see saying all special prosecutors are invalid because think of the power that gives to Democrats, too.
Yeah.
Like, because who are you going to get to investigate these individual offenses by politicians and whatnot?
Well, and not only that, like, so you're saying that Joe Biden should have overseen the prosecution of Hunter Biden?
Yeah.
That he shouldn't have been able to hire a special prosecutor for that?
Yeah.
It just makes no sense.
And so again, it may come down to the outcome of the election, you know.
Well, I think that's another one that's going to, yeah, you're exactly right.
Which, you know, is kind of the whole point of having an independent, allegedly independent court system that it shouldn't come down to elections.
And yet, here we are.
Right.
So as you mentioned, Jack Smith is appealing that to the higher court, the court just above that.
I don't know what it is.
Some number of appeals court.
Yeah.
Right.
Um, so, So next on the list, the DC indictments, also run by Jack Smith.
These are the ones involving dealing with Trump's involvement in the January 6th insurrection.
So the SCOTUS immunity ruling throws this entirely into disarray because a bunch of things he does as president are now based on whether they were done as official acts.
One would imagine that this sort of thing that he does as a candidate is not an official act, but it has to be like there's things that have to be refiled with different wording to avoid certain things.
And some charges might have to go away because of their, you know, inability to extricate them from official acts, that sort of thing.
And he, well, I probably don't have to start from like full scratch, but he does have to refile all of his indictments.
Zero chance this is going to happen before the election.
He might get them filed before the election, but there's no way this is going to get in front of a into a real trial before the election occurs.
So yet another one that will be determined by whether this, which way this election goes, because these are federal indictments and Trump will absolutely grant himself immunity if he feels he needs it based on this and just tell this and then pardon himself just for and everyone involved.
Yeah.
For real this time, not like last time where he kind of waffled on it.
Yeah.
You know, which he now tries to make hay from based on all of the January 6th indictments.
The Republicans regularly refer to them as political prisoners, which they are not.
Okay.
Or hostages, the January 6th hostages.
Yeah, yeah, right.
The hostages.
Yeah, yeah.
Like, like he, like anyone in the Republican Party cares about the fate of these people such that you could hold them in order to change decisions that the Republicans are making.
Right.
That's right.
No one is doing that.
And even if they did, it wouldn't work because Trump doesn't care about their fate.
Yeah.
So moving on to the fifth item on the great grand list of Trump indictments, which is the Georgia indictments run by Fannie Willis, at least for now.
So there is an appeal to remove Fannie Willis from this case.
The grounds for the appeal are seem to be mostly based on the fact they just don't like her.
I don't know what these arguments are.
She's the prosecutor for this jurisdiction.
Well, they're still claiming conflict of interest that the original decision with her and her special prosecutor boyfriend.
Okay.
You know, that that should have done more than just make the boyfriend leave the case, that she should have been conflicted out.
Yeah.
Well, they already got him conflicted out.
So, and they had a whole hearing on that.
And the hearing made a decision.
The decision was that one of them has to go.
You decide.
And then she decided that the special guy went and she stayed.
Right.
Well, that's what they're appealing and saying, no, that's not enough.
Yeah.
Well, she should say, would you like to switch?
You like him to tap in?
I'll leave or like, I don't know.
But at any rate, this will not see light before the election.
The hearing with which they were going to discuss whether she can be the prosecutor was going to be in October, but now will be in December.
So they won't even be able to decide whether or not she can be the prosecutor until after the election is over.
So yet another of these cases that got successfully had the clock run out and is not going to have any level of trial before the election, which is on November 5th, by the way.
Anyone who's in the U.S. listening to this plans to vote.
Voting day is November 5th.
Register to vote now, please.
Make a plan to registration.
Check your registration, especially if you're residing in the red state.
Yes, they are purging voter rolls in many red states, and you might show up and find that you're not on the voter roll anymore.
Terrible.
If you didn't register to vote, you should still go.
If you find you're not on the voter roll, you should still show up.
You can sign the affidavit.
You can get your vote counted later.
And I'm very sure we're going to be counting these ones many times over.
It's not going to be decided in one day.
Sorry.
Stop the count.
Yeah, yeah.
Stop the count in the places where we're ahead and continue the count.
Right.
Places where we're behind.
Yeah.
Yes.
Of course.
So now that that's out of the way, we can talk about the real stuff, David.
The real stuff.
Okay.
So July 13th, Trump is having a rally in Pennsylvania.
And he's, I didn't catch this live.
I got a ding on Twitter for an alert and I caught it just a few minutes after it occurred, but it was live on, I think, a couple different networks and a couple of live streams and everything else.
There was at least five dozen people who were taking some kind of picture or video.
Not all of them had Trump in the frame.
Some were taking video of other things at the time.
But this flooded social media huge.
This immediately, everyone who had anything even related to this put it online and everyone just said, figure it out.
Tell us what happened or decide for yourselves or whatever.
It's hard to express how terrible an idea this is because no one even then can get all the information and collate it properly and line it up and everything else.
For anyone who was the least bit conspiratorial minded, even if they hadn't shifted and publicly said anything along these lines before, a lot of people immediately said, oh, I don't know if I buy it.
I don't know if this was a real thing.
I don't know if it's real.
I don't know.
And how they thought it wasn't real inevitably lined up to what the outcome was that they wanted.
So, you know, Democrats, because maybe we should step through just a little bit of the basic events that we're going to talk about.
So, yeah.
And I think it's important to point out as of now, we plan to do a more deep dive.
Yes.
Yes.
This is going to be fairly superficial.
There'll be a lot more deep dive on this.
Much like detailed Trump's wound.
Right.
Superficial.
Very superficial.
Yes.
Yes.
So the basic details that were available to everyone with which to make a decision at the time were that Trump was speaking in Pennsylvania a few minutes into his rally.
He was shot at.
There was a sound that when I listened to it at first, it kind of sounded like firecrackers, fireworks of some kind.
There's a lot of reasons why this occurs.
And we'll go through that when we do our deeper dive.
But to me, that was the first thing I thought of: fireworks.
And then I saw him grab his ear very, very quickly.
And I thought, oh, this isn't good.
And then the Secret Service ran in and tumbled into the ground, which I wasn't surprised about because I think even if you brought fireworks to a Trump rally, the Secret Service are going to cover the president because that's not planned.
That's not cool.
You shouldn't do that.
But the way he grabbed his ear so quickly, like he got stung by something, I thought, okay, well, you know, and then someone said there's a shooter.
And immediately we got a couple details right away.
There was someone who was shot and killed on site.
There were two other people who were badly wounded.
I believe they have both made it.
I'll have to double check that, but I'm pretty sure that they both got rushed to hospital and they both made it past their initial injury anyway.
And Trump was carried off stage.
Some video showed him losing a boot and calling for it.
But what he definitely did after they, before they got him off stage, was after they picked him up, he saw a moment and he reached for the mic and raised his fist and yelled fight.
Yeah.
So this seems to be the thing that most threw off the people on the left because they just immediately thought this image is going to become some version of iconic.
They probably pictured it on the cover of Time magazine for the end of the year.
And they just thought, well, that's it.
If we let him have this moment, this sort of heroic moment with the blood smeared across his face and him raising his fist to yell fight, that it's over already.
And granted that Biden was still running at the time.
He hadn't stepped out yet.
Yeah.
And, you know, they said, I don't believe it.
It's not real.
He staged this so that he could have this picture.
This picture is too perfect.
Yeah.
This is just how things turn out sometimes.
Yeah.
I mean, it's like I saw on Twitter, you know, someone posted other pictures that were, quote, too perfect, like the iconic picture of Michael Jordan coming in for a dunk that everyone knows.
You know, oh, that picture's too perfect.
Well, you take a million pictures and you have all those, you know, cameras on you.
Now, did he purposely do that?
Yeah, he did because that's what goes through his mind at all the time.
He's an opportunist.
He saw an opportunity and he took it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, I mean, I know, like I said, we will be going into a deeper dive.
Yeah, we're going to go through.
We're going to collect all the things.
Yeah.
It super pissed me off on Twitter to see all these people who make fun of or attack the Alex Joneses and the other MAGA conspiracies immediately go into conspiracy mode.
And there are some who are even like doctors, I know, who are like, well, if a bullet had hit him in the ear, it would have torn it up.
If it had hit him, yes.
If it had skimmed it, people seem to misunderstand physics.
Yeah.
There is always a point where something just skims.
Yeah.
It may not be likely.
It may not, you know, seem like it, you know, could happen, but it does.
You know?
Yeah.
And there's some proximity as you step away one thousandth of an inch at a time.
You know, there's a difference between blowing an ear apart and just nicking it.
Yeah.
And what's what's the, you know, if we're going to get really into the physics, David, you know, the little gap of air that's around a bullet will compress as a bullet rushes into the air.
Right.
And it will, it'll heat up a little bit and it'll this and this get as it compresses, it gets kind of hard.
So you get sort of this little gap of air that's around a bullet that also gets not as hard as the bullet, but also very, very hard.
So you can miss by a hair and still draw blood.
Yeah.
Like that's possible.
So, and this is probably very close to what happened here.
It was so close that it just grazed barely.
And it's a part of the ear that at the very top, you have blood rushing through there.
Yeah, he bled.
Yeah.
Cause the bullet grazed him.
But what definitely didn't happen is that there's no way that he put himself in the actual line of fire.
Right.
Yeah.
You and I were both fake bullets.
Yeah.
You and I were both on Twitter saying the same thing, which is that this man cares for one person and one person only, and that is himself.
Right.
And there's no way he is trusting any shooter, let alone some random 20-year-old.
Yeah.
To get within, you know, a hair's breadth of his head.
Even in the same direction.
Like even if the, you know, even imagining that the plan was to just shoot toward him just to cause a thing, there's no way he would agree to be even getting shot toward.
There's no way.
This is just not possible.
One person, and they, you know, they might listen to this.
I won't mention who it is, but they one person tried to compare this to the burning of the Reichstag in Germany.
A lot more than one person, a lot more than one person.
And I pointed out immediately that this might be comparable if the Nazi party was inside the Reichstag when it caught fire, which wasn't true.
And so immediately you see the difference here is that when the when the Reichstag burned, the Nazis themselves, especially Hitler, was not in any way personally in danger.
But in this situation, Trump actually personally in danger.
Huge difference between these two things.
Yeah.
And let's just say also.
Yeah.
The history, U.S. history, world history was changed by a fraction of an inch or would have been changed by a fraction of an inch if he had not turned his head to look at the chart that was there.
Yeah.
If this were a book, if this were like a CIA spy movie, you know, Mission Impossible or whatever, you'd be like, come on.
Really?
He happened to turn at exactly the right moment.
Boy, that is, boy, that is a plot device you've got going there.
And I think that's why a lot of people who are primed on those movies are like, no, there's no way.
But it happens.
It happens all the time.
Things are decided by fractions all the time.
Now, they're not usually big things.
Maybe it's a baseball game where because the wind happened to gust at the exact wrong moment, the ball stays inside the park instead of being the winning home run.
Maybe it's a World Series game seven where the Cubs are down and they're depressed, down and out, and there happens to be a rain delay and one of the teammates goes in and talks to them and pumps them up and they come in and win their first World Series in 108 years.
That they probably wishful thinking there, David.
That's some real wishful thinking there.
Yeah, I know.
Ridiculous.
It would never happen that way.
Yeah.
But Cubs in the World Series.
I know.
Come on.
Obviously, it was planned.
But all these things happen.
Unlikely things happen.
Yes.
And here's the other thing to note that turning his head is not an unlikely thing.
Right.
And he had no way of knowing there was a bullet coming at him when he turned his head.
It's just people move.
People, you know, life continues to occur.
He had a thing that he was working on and it required him to turn his head right then.
And this, yeah, it's not like he did a very specific, you know, head bob or duck or something that's, that's not like him to have done.
Yeah.
There's nothing about this that says, that shows us that it's a fake.
And there's a bunch of stuff that show us that it's real.
And deviating toward it being fake because it gives you a better sense, you know, that the election will go your way or whatever isn't how we decide how things are real.
It's just not.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I had to literally start threatening people on Twitter.
Like, if you do not stop spreading this shit, I will be blocking you.
I will be unfollowing you and blocking you.
And, you know, because, You know, and there were some people I don't follow who just get retweeted into my timeline who kept doing it too.
And it's like, no, I'm never going to take you seriously again now.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, and I'm a little less hardcore on that issue.
I was blocking the people that were advocating that the bullet was a little too far to the one side, if you know what I mean.
Because I was also trying to tell people that that's not the way you should want this to go either.
Assassinating political people is not how elections should be decided.
I've long said on this podcast that Trump's ideas are the thing that need to go away.
Having Trump, merely Trump, go away and have his ideas remain will be the worst outcome.
And having him become a martyr would make the removal of his ideas much, much harder.
Yes.
And let's just not assassinate people.
Let's just not decide things with violence that way.
But yeah, I had to remove some people because they wouldn't stop this madness in this way.
And I couldn't be part of that.
Sad, sad.
So, and there's still people, you know, as we're recording this, there's still arguments going on about it.
You know, Trump, as you know, just a little while before we sat down to record, Trump agreed to sit down and give a victim statement to the FBI.
And I have to say, things were not helped by Trump and his son and some others exaggerating things.
Trump saying, I felt the bullet ripping through my ear.
And I think it was Eric Trump said something like he lost two inches of his ear, something like that.
Right.
Yeah.
And then, of course, him wearing that comically oversized bandage at the convention.
Yeah.
That he wasn't wearing while playing golf the next day after the shooting.
Okay, David.
I just have to stop down on that point because I can't prove that he was golfing on the Sunday.
There was a picture floating around saying that he was golfing, but that picture came from 2022.
No, but he said he was out golfing.
Well, maybe.
Right.
Okay.
Okay.
Well, if he said it, then that's different.
But I couldn't confirm that he was or wasn't.
I just want to be a little careful because there was a lot of people who would just show the picture and say, look what look what Trump was doing the next day.
But I thought that he had said, look, I'm out, you know.
Yeah, yeah, I think.
But I want to be a little careful on that point because that's, yeah, the reality, even if you want, you know, like I want to, you know, I'd love to say Trump was golfing, except that I can't prove that he was.
So I just want to be a little careful on that point.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But the point is still the comically oversized bandage.
Oh, yeah.
And now you see, and you know, there was a picture that was posted by a well-known news photographer that shows like nothing.
You can't even see a scratch on his ear now.
Right.
The ear heals fairly quickly because it's got almost nothing there but cartilage.
So, yeah.
So, I mean, the point is, they didn't help the cause.
You know, by making things sound worse, it makes the people who believe it's a conspiracy that he wasn't hit with anything.
You know, like I heard right away, one of the ridiculous things was someone say, ah, I've seen enough wrestling to know a self-inflicted cut when I know it.
When I see like that he had a razor blade hidden in his hand and cut his own ear or something like that.
Right.
Okay.
But yeah.
So anyway, I guess Trump didn't actually do the wrestling on WWE.
Let's also make that clear.
He was involved with the WWE, but he didn't actually do the wrestling himself.
Yeah.
So, so anyway, like I said, we'll, you know, we'll address this.
All the conspiracy, well, all the conspiracy nonsense later.
But yeah, I, I, I don't know.
I think we can move on from that.
Yeah.
Other than to say the polls did not like jump tremendously in his favor.
No, like everyone thought they did.
No, they didn't.
They were unfazed.
So I want to float the notion, ask it right here: does the electorate even care if he lives or dies?
If you have an assassination attempt against you and your poll numbers do not move at all, what does that say?
I think it says he survived.
I mean, I don't know.
I would like to think people aren't going to say they're going to vote for someone just because someone else tried to kill him.
Yeah.
I mean, I'm sure there are a few.
And of course, there are always those people on Twitter who are probably bogus, you know, racial controlled pot accounts or something saying, well, I wasn't going to vote, but now I am, you know, and plus the fact that it turned out to be some random 20-year-old registered Republican.
You know, if he had been, you know, 40-year-old expaign manager for Biden or something like that, then things might have been different.
Well, the ideal, the ideal shooter from the Republican perspective would have been a trans person who was, you know, felt an illegal immigrant.
Well, yeah, yeah, right.
Also, an illegal immigrant who was a trans person who, what age would they have been?
Probably mid-20s, still young.
But yeah, I mean, and obviously that wasn't it either.
So yeah, sold fentanyl on the side.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Then the stories stack up.
Yeah.
Right.
Right.
So, yeah, probably right.
We should move on.
This is segment's getting a little long.
So we do have one more thing to cover.
RNC, the RNC occurred starting two days after Trump was shot at at a rally.
And there's not really a lot to report here, except for the fact that he did pick a vice president, a man named JD Vance.
A man currently named JD Vance.
Right.
He has changed his name a few times.
Yeah.
And the internet has made much of many of these things.
He's most well known for having written a memoir called Hillbilly Elegy that was made into a Netflix movie in 2020, I believe.
Used to not like Trump, but now sort of obviously likes Trump.
And the most important thing about him is that he is essentially does whatever Peter Thiel tells him to do.
So whatever people want to make of that, they can.
No one is in any way trying to downplay the Peter Thiel connection, which is an interesting part of the Counter narrative that the Republicans are doing here.
They seem to like and embrace the fact that they have sort of a tech bro in their camp.
There are people who are having a problem with JD Vance, most particularly the fact that JD Vance married a woman, an Asian woman, and he has children with this Asian woman, which is not a problem for most people, except if your name is Nick Fuentes, who has made a really big stink about this.
And I say, let them fight.
Yeah, because even Vance trying to defend.
Well, I used the word, someone else used the word defend, and I said it didn't look like defense to me, where he said something in an interview, like, well, obviously she isn't white, but I still love her.
Was not those exact words, and maybe the word still wasn't in there, but right.
Not great, man.
Not great.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it's like, if you can't even stand up to the white supremacists to defend your own wife and kids, yeah.
I mean, you know, it really reminds me of Ted Cruz when Trump called his wife ugly.
And now Ted Cruz still bows down at the altar of Trump.
Yeah.
It's like, and, you know, like you said, Vance was a never Trumper until he determined it was better for his career to become a Trumper.
Yeah.
So he has no morals.
He has no conscience.
He is doing whatever he wants for whatever he can for power.
And those are the most dangerous people of all.
Yeah.
Right.
Because how do you sway them on any issue?
Well, you can't sway him.
Well, you can only do it by giving them more power.
Money and power.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I do think it's important, by the way, to note Peter, you called it, I don't know how to pronounce his name.
You said Teal.
So the TH is a T. Nate Silver now works for him.
Oh, yeah.
So anything you see from Nate Silver purporting to be an independent analysis or polling or anything, keep that in mind.
Right.
Yeah.
Someday I might even do a whole episode on Peter Thiel because he's fascinating.
And he's done enough things now that it might be worth it.
So, but it might probably be after the election, after all that's finally settled, because he'll still be there.
He'll still be, no matter how the thing comes out, he'll still be there.
Important to note that usually the RNC functions as a pep rally.
But again, just like the shooting at the rally, this doesn't appear to have affected Trump's poll numbers even a little.
One wonders if the gauge is even connected to the device that it's trying to measure.
I don't know what to make of that.
There's always a convention bump.
Always.
Except not now.
Well, I think this is an indication that either they're completely making up the poll numbers or there is just whatever's happening in this election cycle is just so different that you can't rely on the normal set of rules.
Yeah, I think that's it.
I mean, I think that he, you know, certain votes are locked on either side.
And there's a small percentage at play.
And there's always a small percentage error bar.
And, you know, does the percentage in play even exceed the error bar?
I don't know.
Like there was one poll done recently, and I think it was in a specific state um, where there was literally zero percent uh, black support for Trump.
Now, do I think there is zero percent support for no?
Black support for Trump?
No.
Should there be zero percent?
Yes.
Should there be zero percent across the board?
All races yes, but clearly the, you know, probably somewhere close to 10 to 15.
Yeah, however many people they polled, they didn't happen to catch the one or two out of the you know, thousand fifteen hundred.
That would small sample pool yeah, and so um, so yeah, and that's why another reason I talked about polls earlier.
They're like, oh, the polls are up.
You know, she's up two percent.
Two percent is within the error bar yeah I, and she's not over 50 yet yeah, so so the rfk factor becomes a much bigger factor until your candidate gets over 50 yeah, at which point it's a non-factor yeah, and so it's.
Well, it's not even that, because it's got to be within each state.
Well, also true is that you, you can't just use national polls to to predict this, because state by state, it goes this way.
But if you're going to look even at a, at one state, unless Kamala Harris is over 50 in that state you're, it's definitely not any kind of sure thing, even being ahead, because of the Rfk Jr factor, right and so so yeah, I mean, basically I think that there's yeah they're, you know they're fighting over that small percent.
Yeah, and it'll it's, it'll be that small percent plus turnout and yeah, you know who can get a better, do a better job at getting people to the polls, or if the Republicans can do a better job of keeping people from the polls, because you know that seems to be more their.
That's down dive, yeah.
So uh, that's the the main and consequential things.
I do have a couple of other little footnotes here.
Uh first, it's it's my pleasure to announce that Marianne Williamson is still not going to be president in 2024 but, but she said she was going to be the perfect candidate when Biden dropped out.
Yeah yeah well, that's uh yeah, not going to happen.
Uh, so I also am very pleased to announce that I have definitive proof David, that Rfk Jr listens to this podcast.
What do you think of that?
I i'm sure he does.
Yes, so there have been some reports that Rfk Jr reached out to the Trump campaign to discuss uh um, giving Trump support to drop out of the race, to to support Trump in the race in exchange for a cabinet position.
And then, at the end of the RNC, There was a leaked video.
I'm highly suspicious of what went on there.
I think this was something that RFK Jr. did purposely because I don't see him being stupid enough to allow them to just have recorded him with himself on speakerphone like that.
But anyway, there was a leaked video in which Trump is calling him to talk about the possibility of getting his support and giving him something, which was very non-committal and not specific, which is probably why RFK Jr. leaked it so he could get something else from it, which is whatever he thought he was going to get, being the Maverick candidate, probably.
But it should be noted that I stated on this podcast that everyone said that I was foolish for saying that RFK Jr. might drop out for this.
And clearly he's thought about it.
So since no one else had thought about it except for me, obviously, he must have got the idea from me.
Yeah, I mean, I wanted him to do that, but he did.
If he thought that Trump would appoint him like head of the FDA or Surgeon General or, you know, who knows what, then I could see him doing it.
I had said to you, no, he won't do it because he's doing this for the Grift.
He's doing this to put forth his views.
But if he could find a way to better Grift and push his erroneous views, then yeah, I could see it.
I don't know.
I still don't know who would be hurt or helped more if he withdraws.
Yeah, I don't know either.
Because who would be hurt or helped more by him staying in the race?
Right.
I mean, that's exactly it.
We don't know.
He claims to be a Democrat, but he's clearly not.
And he shares all the conspiracies of the MAGA Republicans.
So, I mean, there are still a few, there are still a few Democrats, even leftists, whatever you want to call them, who believe his bullshit.
Yeah.
I don't know that they'd vote for Harris anyway.
Hard to say.
Hard to say.
But I just want to say I have at least one listener.
His name is RFK Jr.
Thank you.
If you're listening, RFK Jr., do you have anything to say to RFK Jr.?
David.
It would get you an explicit tag on this podcast.
So it's okay.
I can bleep it.
Go ahead.
This will be fun.
Excellent.
Okay.
I will have fun bleeping you for that.
Okay.
All right.
Well, that's it for now.
Anyone who has any questions, comments, concerns about this podcast can send an email to truthunrestricted at gmail.com.
You can also find me on Twitter, Spencer G. Watson.
And I'm also on Threads and Blue Sky, though I don't check them as often as I should.
Yeah, Spencer Watson39 on Threads.
And I think I'm just Spencer Watson on Blue Sky.
So, yeah, where can people find you, David?
So I am at David Bloomberg on Twitter and Blue Sky.
I am at David Bloomberg TV on Threads because that's connected to Instagram.
And on Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok, I post mostly about reality.
Well, all about reality TV.
So I'm at David Bloomberg TV on all of those.
If you want my political takes and other things that we talk about here, you'll find them mostly still on Twitter, some on Threads and Blue Sky.
If you want reality TV and somehow just stumbled on us, me here, then you can check out those other sites as well.