A (0:00)

Sorry, I had to stop everything. A little bit of a coughing attack. I have that about once a day. But the timing was really bad. So we'll see how far we can get. There were some topics I just wanted to talk about so badly. So I'm not going to do this Homilteni, because I did that, the one that I boarded. Let's see how far we can get. Does it seem to you that AI has turned into a race between building data centers and building power plants as fast as they can versus there's probably somebody in some garage somewhere who's inventing a way to do it without all that energy? Does that not seem obviously true to you? Because when we're trying to predict what does the future look like, I cannot imagine that the AI companies are right, that it will just take massive energy and more energy. And if you want to get better, you just need more energy. This seems far more likely that somebody's already inventing a way around that. So that's what I'm going to bet on. But, you know, Ron DeSantis, turns out, is a AI skeptic, and he says some interesting things. And Politico is reporting on this, so he's. He's interested in more, you know, more regulation and doesn't want to. Doesn't want AI to, you know, use up all the energy, etc. So he's a little skeptical about its value. And he put a really interesting slant on this, sort of a religious slant I hadn't heard before. He says we have to reject with every fiber of our being. Well, he said the idea of this transhumanist strain that would be the robots and AI, that somehow this is going to supply humans and this other stuff. We have to reject that with every fiber of our being. Here's the interesting part. He says we as individual human beings are the ones that are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights in Ilbo and blah, blah, blah. They did not endow machines or computers with us. So here's my provocative question. What's going to happen to your view of free will when robots obviously have it? If I said to you define free will, and I've had this conversation a million times, you say, well, it's the ability to make a choice. I would say, well, AI can make a choice, so does that have free will? Then you say, no, no, because if a computer does it, it's just programmed and there's no choice. Only one thing could happen. But what happens when you can't figure out why the AI did what it did, which is actually the current situation, so you won't be able to trace back and any kind of cause and effect. It's going to look like the AI had choices exactly like a human did, and it picked one. So will your belief in free will disappear? Because once the computer can do it, then I would argue AI can already do that. And if you can't predict why it would do it, that's going to look a lot like free choice. So what are you going to do then? Will you call it free will? I don't know. I recommend my book God's Debris if you want to struggle with some of those philosophical things. The new version is called God's Debris, the complete works. So you can get it on Amazon. It's the only place you get it. Speaking of fraud, did you know that James Comey once had conversations with TV director Dick Wolf, which I always thought was a sketchy name, Dick Wolf, To. To put more FBI content in his shows because he was a very successful TV producer and he did so. How many of you are aware that for decades and decades Hollywood has been influenced by the government to say good things about the military, say good things about law enforcement, say good things about the FBI? Television has always been propaganda, always has been. But when you hear it so, you know, plainly laid out, might shock a few people who didn't know that was the case. And I've argued that this is probably the good kind of propaganda if they do it right. For example, if the propaganda on TV is to make people more patriotic, well, is that bad? So some of it's bad, but it might be also a cover for bad FBI behavior to make them look good when in fact they might be doing some stuff you don't like. Well, here's something. Kevin Kiley in California tells us that one third of California community colleges, their applications for the college are fake. The only reason people are applying. One third of them is for financial aid fraud. How many times have I told you that if there's anything that involves a lot of money, financial aid, and there's no audit, or at least no useful audit, eventually it just turns to fraud every time. You could have predicted this so easily. Is money involved? Is the government involved? Are a lot of people involved? As time went by, all those are true. Guaranteed corruption? Sure, it's massive. Meanwhile, did you think the fraud was going to be limited to a few states? No, of course not. Because whatever it is that made Minnesota and California so freaking fraudulent is almost certainly happening in the other states. Now we find out that in Washington state there are 539 child care centers that list Somalia as the primary language and they don't even have a street address. According to Kristen Mag, I saw the synax. How many of those do you think are fraudulent? All of them? Yep. Maybe all of them. Yes, there's a lot of money is involved. A lot of people are involved. There's no, no real audit. Obviously, 100% of the time that will turn into fraud every time. No exceptions. Sure enough, what's happening in Ohio, Wall Street Apes is reporting that fraudulent. Oh, Somalian health care companies are being created where you can get as much as you can get as much as a quarter million dollars for being a fake health care person for your own family. You just have to have several relatives and just say, well, I'm going to sit around this old relative and help. You don't even have to prove it. So apparently you could get 75,000 to $90,000 a year just saying that you're taking care of an elderly parent of your own or somebody else's, I guess. And if you have two parents, you can double it. If you had your in laws, you can get up to a quarter billion dollars a year for claiming that you're helping them, even if you don't do a damn thing. Again, lots of money involved. Let's see, this would be fraudulent for Medicare, right? Yeah, there's Medicare every single time. Well, I heard Owen Gregorian mention that there's this thing called cui tam spelled Q I space T a M. How many of you have ever heard that there is already on the books? A, I guess you call the law, or I'm not sure if law is the right word, but it's, you know, part of a. Some legislation that already passed some time ago called qi tam. Now it turns out that there is an exist. It's Medicaid, not Medicare. I'm being told that was being scammed in that last case. So I'm being told that this has already existed for years. And what it is is a provision in the law in the United States that if you're a whistleblower and you turn in some major fraud against the government, and this is critical, and the government accepts it as a major fraud and then does some, let's say a lawsuit to get it back, that you would get up to 15 to 20% of whatever was recovered. But did you know it existed? No. But now you do. And apparently there's a startup, more than one, I think, but one of them is called Anti Fraud Co. And Alice Shea is one of the founders and he's informing us on X that they've already built a system that uses AI to identify probable fraud so that any citizen can take it to the government. And it would simplify, I think, the lawsuit, the process. So at first identify the fraud, the big ones, and then it would walk you through taking it to the government. And if the government accepts the case. And why wouldn't they? Because they would have pretty good evidence by then. And if they get money back, you get a pretty big chunk of it. So the thinking is that we already have a legal structure to essentially close down the biggest frauds because it would incentivize the public to be fraud hunters and it would give them a legal framework to do that. Now how many of you knew that was possible? You know, because people like me and Chamath Palapita and Bill Ackman and a bunch of other people, we've been talking about the lack of audit that would have caught these frauds. But we also know that auditing doesn't work in its normal form. There would have to be some kind of major incentive for someone that can make so much money by doing it through a proper legal framework that they wouldn't need to take a bribe. This might be the thing. So it wouldn't work for small stuff because the bribe would still be bigger than you can make from, you know, a lawsuit. But for the big stuff, the stuff we care about, we might have actually something that looks like a working procedure because follow the money is going to work every time and this is a. Certainly looks like a possibility. So it's called Qi Tam Qi space T A M. And if you want to know more about that, I'd recommend Grok. It gave a good background on that. That might be the thing that saves us. And sort of on top of that, speaking of Chamath and speaking of Nick Shirley, who is that 22 year old who did an amazing job of uncovering the fraud in Minnesota. Now people have pointed out that he isn't the first one to uncover it. The local news has already covered it and a while ago, but it didn't activate anything. So apparently people knew there were whistleblowers that apparently got punished. There were news coverage that didn't activate anything. There must have been a. One assumes that the, the, the legal process within the state was probably corrupt and did not do anything. But if you have a independent journalist who in this case made a big splash on X, the combination of X + a really aggressive independent journalist. Might get you something. Might get you something. So the way Chamath put it was he said, we may be witnessing the Cambrian Explosion that creates Doge 2.0. Completely decentralized gonzo journalism, exposing fraud all over the country. Again, the monetization is the key. So if. If young people see that Nick Shirley, 22 years old, made a big. A big dent in the universe, and if they see that he monetized it, well, you can do a lot more of it. So that's good news. Anyway. Meanwhile, one of the Californian politicians, Ro Khanna, is still pushing on this idea of a wealth tax where they would confiscate 1 to 5%, I guess, but it would always be 5% when you're done, of the wealth of billionaires in California. And I'm kind of entertained by this because I thought Ro Khanna was one of the smart ones, but he's not acting like it on this topic. And then I do a little research to find out if maybe his buddy Massey had helped him out to tell him how dumb this was. But Massey's kind of sticking with, you know, just lower taxes is better. So I think he's staying with a generic. But some of the billionaires, like Lucky Palmer, are trying to explain to him that there's a reason that people like Larry Page and Peter Thiel are already planning to leave California, reportedly, reportedly. So I was wondering, if there's no way to avoid this, is there a way to turn it into something smarter? And I gave you some suggestions yesterday, but I have a better one. So part of the problem is that the billionaires are not necessarily liquid, and they're a better allocator of funds than the government is. And it feels like theft if you just confiscate their wealth. And there's a line that you can't cross, or at least you can't cross it too quickly, where the people who are giving up their money move from, well, I hate paying high taxes, of course, to. Wait a minute, you're actually stealing. And this is. This crosses that line. So even if Roane is right that people like Peter Thiel and Larry Page, maybe they can easily afford it, maybe it wouldn't change their financial decisions, but psychologically, they're going to say, you're stealing from me. And if I were in that situation, I wish I were. Actually, if I were in that situation, I would say, I don't care that you think it won't change my decisions. You're stealing from me, and I'm going to stop you from stealing. It would be sort of like if a pickpocker. If a pickpocket stuck his hand in your pants, you wouldn't argue that the pickpocket has a good use for the money. Right. You would argue, get your hand out of my pants. So they're in the hands of the pants phase now, and it's a slippery slope. Right? All right, I might have to pause a little bit. Yeah. Still, let me slow down a little bit. There was an opinion that I had on the Somalian theft that I had not seen before yesterday. And I never spoken it because it would have sounded racist. But time goes by and we now have a little more free speech than we used to. And I saw posts by cynical Publius that matches what I thought to be the case. And this is not racist. This is about culture. All right, but, you know, 10 minutes ago, before we had free speech, you would have been accused of being racist, even though this has nothing to do with race. And the opinion is this, as cynical Publius points out. So he spent a lot of time in his life in Africa and the Middle East. And what he tells us is this. And I already knew this, but I wouldn't have said it out loud, that there are some cultures, particularly African cultures and Somalia in particular, in which the concept of fraud is not even a concept. How many of you knew that? Now, remember, this is about their culture, nothing about race. The. Some African cultures, and the only ones I'm sure about are Somalia. The tribe comes first, and there's not really even a question of fraud. So, for example, the way I heard it was if you hired a Somalian to work at your convenience store, and a, you know, let's say some white American comes in and says, hey, can you give me this stuff for free? The Somalian would say, no, you have to buy it. But if someone from the Somalian tribe, like, literally same tribe, walked in and said, hey, I'm gonna. I'm gonna take this food here, the Somalian behind the counter would say, have a good day, and would not think, this is the weird part, would not think any crime had happened, because they don't have a concept that if you're helping your tribe, how could that be wrong? Now, that's sort of mind blowing the first time you hear. But I'd heard this a while ago, and you see why I wouldn't bring it up. But at the moment, you can actually say that out loud. And I think it's useful to understand that if you import as cynical Publius says in his post, I think it's useful to note that if you import a philosophy or a point of view that's that different from the one we have and, and you get enough of them, there's just no way that's going to work out. Right. So you could argue whether their, their philosophy is better than ours, but you can't argue that they work together. You can't argue that. You can just say, well, you know, you guys can work together. There's no conflict here. You can't that those, you would have to work as hard as you can to make sure that you, you know, shift them back to wherever that would be appropriate in their minds, then they can do whatever they want and it wouldn't affect you. But as long as we have a concept of fraud in this country, you don't want to water that down with people who don't even think it's a concept. And then I remind you, this has nothing to do with race. Everything to do with some pockets of culture. Well, you've been hearing in social media that the cuts to USAID are killing people. Have you heard that? So a lot of people on the left, presumably people who are benefiting from this money laundering operation, I would call it either all going to die if they have their funding cut. Well, Mike Stonevich points out that anyone believing those USAID constellates to death stories is too stupid to function. Okay, that gets right to it. Although the obvious question, if it were true, why didn't the left wing billionaires fill the shortfall? Why is it the moral duty of working Americans to fund Africa's population growth? Well, thank you, Spread. Yeah, that would be a perfectly reasonable thing. I do not believe the stories of people dying because the aid got cut. Elon Musk weighed in agreeing with Cerno and he said that the stories of the people die. He said it was completely false. He goes out and says Bill Gates is pushing this lie despite having over $80 billion in his NGO that he could easily spend to save these alleged lives that are being lost. Why doesn't he? Bill Gase is a liar. Always has been. Well, that bad blood between Musk and Gates appears to not be getting any better. So I saw New York Post is reporting that George Soros's family has donated a whole bunch of money to Letitia James. You know, Letitia James of law firing against Trump and now getting lawfare to sell. And this made me wonder since we've watched that every time there's money involved, big money, and every Time. It's not well, audited. And every time you have lots of people involved, what happens? Well, you've already heard me say it three times today. It guarantees that there's fraud. So here's the interesting thing. Don't you think that George Soros is being massively defrauded or frauded, that he's being massively frauded of his own money, which is kind of interesting. We. We have some evidence of that, really strong evidence, because Soros funded Black Lives Matter, and some large amount of that funding ended up in mansions and luxury cars. So what percent of all the money that George Soros has given to not just prosecutors, but to various entities turned out to be money laundered and stolen from him? You remember, I brought this up maybe two years ago, and I was speculating that there's no possible way that George Soros knows where his money is going because, you know, and then. And then later, even after I speculated that he didn't know where his money was going, we found out that Black Lives Matter was basically a fake organization, and it massively stolen money, but not just other donated money, but George Soros's money. And I speculated that Alex Soros might have been not capable of auditing where his money was going. Now, that turns out to be somewhat of an unfair opinion on my part, because it's not limited to Alex Soros not being able to watch where his money goes. All of these frauds in all of these states suggest that nobody can ever tell where the money goes. The military can't tell you where the money went. Nobody can. So what were the odds that the Soros organization was the only thing that could tell where his money was going and that it was going to the right place? None. There was no chance that Soros was not being ripped off by his own team? No chance. Now, I do think that the smaller amounts that he was giving to prosecutors probably was well spent. Because it's smaller amounts, you could tell whether they got elected or not. Maybe the audit is less important in that case, but I'll bet you even the prosecutors were stealing his money. Do you think that letitia James used 100% of the Soros money for legitimate election reasons? Nope, probably not. I don't know what she used it for, but if you look at the totality of her body of work, if she could steal it, I bet she was now under that filter, which every one of you agrees with. I know. What do you think Uma Abedin is doing married to Alex Soros? Is it possible that The Clinton camp was well aware the Soros money was basically being stolen. And could it be that the addition of UMA was to add some fiscal discipline so that the Democrats could either make sure it was going to the right place for the first time, or to make sure more of it went to Clinton related stuff? So it changes everything, doesn't it? Once you realize that 100% of big money activities are fraudulent, then you could put that filter on Soros and you could see him as not just the bad guy. If you don't like what he's funding, he's a bad guy. But he absolutely has to be a victim. He has to be a victim because there's no way that these same bunch of criminals are going to let all that money go to where it was meant to go when nobody's watching. So that might give you a laugh. All right, so historian wired that the dollar is ending its dominance. And an example of that is that the dollar used to make up 72% of global reserves in 1999, but now it's down to 58%. And other currencies are used as part of the reserves. But I ask you this. Who would want to have a currency of some other country? Which country would you trust their currency more than the United States? Now, I totally understand why you wouldn't trust the dollar as it's getting inflated, blah, blah, blah. But in order for the dollar not to become a global reserve, you'd have to have an alternative. What would that be? But would you trust any other one country to be strong enough to protect your money? So here's what I think. I think that the other currencies are being held strictly as a diversification play because the US Dollar, as bad as it is, and, and it's definitely getting worse, there's not really any one currency you'd ever want to own, you know, to, to make up for that risk. So if, unless you move to crypto or money becomes worthless because of AI, which is possible, seems to me that they will always need a healthy percentage of US Dollar for the reserve global reserves, and that if they own anything else, such as the bricks, et cetera, they would do it strictly for diversification. That's just my thought about that. Well, Putin, we'll talk about Ukraine. So Trump met with Zelensky and discussed some ideas about ending the war. I'll tell you how to end it in a minute, but there's a report that Putin, the same day that Trump and Zelensky were meeting, he was doing some public stuff dressed in his military uniform. Now, the speculation is, given that Putin typically wears a suit, that if he's appearing in public in a military uniform, he's signaling to Trump and to everybody else that he's not done militarily, which presumably is part of the leverage for any negotiations. And so we show that Russia doesn't have incentive to settle as an incentive to keep going because it's making, you know, slow but, you know, definite gains. And it can do it as long as it wants. And that and the Putin's in war war mode and he's not necessarily peacebound. So maybe that's probably a good. That would be a smart persuasion play. But speaking of persuasion, let's talk about what might be happening there with Ukraine. So here's something that Trump said I thought was interestingly persuasive. When asked if they're making progress, he always claims yes, even. Even when it's no, which is good persuasion. So even if he believed they were not making progress, it would be smarter if you wanted progress someday to say that they are, because he could actually talk people into thinking he might be making progress, even if they're involved in the progress. Even if they're involved and they don't see it. So if he just keeps repeating we're making progress, then even if they had not made progress, people are going to start to think, well, he thinks we're making progress, maybe we're making progress. And if people start thinking that progress is happening, it makes it much easier for progress to happen. If people believe that nobody believed there was progress, then they would have all the freedom in the world to say, well, I don't see any progress, where's the progress? But if somebody that prominent says, oh, yeah, we're making progress, look at that progress. I don't have the details yet, but progress all over the place. So persuasion wise, he's right on point. And then he said his exact words were that the war is either going to end or it's going to go on for a long time. Which I laughed. Nobody would say it that way. Right. That is such a Trumpian sentence. It'll either end or it's going to go on for a long time. So what he's done there is he's shown that the alternative is what nobody wants. And he turned it into a binary, well, two possibilities. We either get something done kind of quickly or it just goes on for a long time, which nobody wants. Again, good persuasion, because nobody wants the long time option. Trump actually said the negotiations are reaching their final Stages. But that could mean one of two things. Final, as in we're going to stop trying and then it goes on for a long time. Or finally they get a deal, but it's open ended. All right, let's talk about where it is. So apparently the US has offered a 15 year security guarantee and Zelensky wants more, up to as much as 50 years. Here is the first way to talk about the 50 years. We cannot predict anything in 15 years, much less 50. There's no such thing as a 50 year guarantee. So Zelensky can ask for it, but even if we wanted to give it, it's not possible because it doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a 50 year guarantee when people can just change their mind in the next 50 years. So I would first of all say that even the 15 year 15 guarantee is kind of meaningless, which means that Trump is giving up something of no value to get something of value, which would be a peace deal. That is so Trumpian. So, so Trump is creating this psychological asset called a security guarantee for 15 years that can't exist because all it takes is one of the people to change their mind. There's not really anything that would change, you know, that from happening. So, so what do you do? Well, I Wonder if the 15 years is really designed to get past Putin's lifestyle. I'm sorry, lifespan. So how old is Putin? 70ish. So if you add 15 years to Putin's lifespan, what are the odds he's still going to be here and still in charge? So it might be that privately they could say, all right, it's not really about Russia versus the U.S. it's about Putin versus the U.S. we don't know what follows Putin, but if we could weigh him out, we have a whole different world then on top of that, point out that we've entered the AI age. So it used to be that if you made a 15 year prediction, well, you, you really didn't have a chance of being accurate because nobody's, nobody could do that. But in the age of AI, it is absurd to imagine you could say what's going to happen after 15 years. So somebody said that if you put a 15 year timer on it, you're really just putting a deadline on it. And then Russia will attack after the 15 years. You don't know what 15 years looks like. You have no way to know what the world looks like in five years. So to make a 15 year plan, or to make your plan based on what might happen in 15 years, is complete nonsense. It's nonsense. So how in the world can they get to a security guarantee when you can't predict anything? And it would be absurd to even try. Well, here's where the reframe comes in. And although this would be applying to the disputed zones, not the entire Ukraine, this looks to me like Jared Kushner idea, because I don't know if you know this, but Jared Kushner has read my book Win Bigley, which teaches persuasion. And you know that he did the. The Abrams Accords, Abraham Accords, which essentially reframed the Middle east into an economic opportunity. And so we see him. I'm sure this is him more than Wyckoff, although Wyckoff is very good. So Wyckoff may have easily agreed with this, but I'll bet you that Jared is behind the idea of reframing the situation and calling. This is our proposal. Well, US Proposal, I guess, to designate the disputed areas on the border as free economic zones. So again, you would reframe it from a war zone to a free economic zone. And then if you can get that reframe, you can make people think past the sale. The sale is stop fighting. But if you say it's going to be a free economic zone, then people start asking, well, but who's going to administer it? How would that work? Who would get what? So that would make you think past the war. As long as people are putting their time, both sides, you would need Russia to at least engage in the conversation. If you can get them to engage in the conversation of what that would look like, then the reframe starts working. And I think Jerry's the only one smart enough who would have that sensibility that that would be the. Really the only way you can. It really is the only way that this could work. So let's do that. Let's do a little speculation about what that would look like if they did. So again, here I'm helping out by thinking past the sale, the sale being stop fighting and think about how you could both make money. So I guess Zelensky said that Kiev, Ukraine would be the ones to administer those areas and forces would be withdrawn. So it'd be a non military area, but that. That Ukraine would administer. Now, what are the odds that Russia would agree that it would be administered by Ukraine? None. There's no chance of that. So let's. Let's call that a starting position. So what would it look like if someone who's not Ukraine administered it? Oops. Well, I don't know that you'd want the United States to administer it, but that would start looking like a security guarantee if we did. Right, because the US Would be counted on to protect its own interests more than it would be counted on to protect some other country's interests, even an ally. So if we could say the US Will administer this, but we would also take a cut maybe of resources or something like that, so that. So we'd have some reason to administer it and we'd have something to lose if things started going sideways. I would also wonder if you could, if you could propose making it the first AI administered country or area. Suppose you went to Russia and you said, we're going to get some independent entity to build us the first AI administered economic zone. Again, you're making people think past the sale of fighting to. Wait a minute. Could AI do that? And I think it could. So in other words, you want to take as many humans out of it because the humans are all the problem. Right. And you say the United States will. Will help you, maybe with the help of, I don't know, Switzerland or United nations or something. So you put together some kind of coalition of humans who primarily would make sure that the AI administered. So the reframe here is we're not administering it. The AI is. You know, you'd be lucky if you had an AI administering you because it gets rid of the fraud. Oh, what's the biggest problem in Ukraine? Fraud. What's the biggest problem in Russia? Fraud. What's the one thing that you might be able to tamp down with AI fraud? So the way you get in is you say the biggest problem with a new economic zone is it'll just become a criminal organization. But we will help you administer the AI So we're not administering the zone. We would be managing the AI and then the AI would be continuously checking with citizens, finding out, yeah, doing audits. The AI would do the audits. The AI would keep everything organized. The AI would collect taxes. Or maybe it's a no tax zone. It seems like it'd be easy to get a referendum to do this with the. The people live there. If you said, how about no taxes? Maybe they have no taxes now. I don't know. Who controls the AI that is the right question. Control is not the word you want to use. You want to say that something like manage. So you get the US and maybe a few other countries to manage. And it would include Ukraine, it would include Russia. So you'd have, you know, the Russian blah, blah, blah. And so the US Would, let's say, manage the technology, but it would do it with, you know, open, it would have to have pretty open access technology so that anybody could audit it. But if you're asking those questions, you're close to a deal. All right? So nothing normal is going to solve this. So if you say we're going to have an AI administered free economic zone, and we're going to do that to get rid of the fraud, and we're going to use that as our, let's say we're going to use that as our economic, no, as our security guarantee. So the security guarantee would be we would remove the reasons for war. We'd remove the reasons, but we'd have enough of a investment that we would try pretty hard to make sure that nothing went wrong. So, and then the other weasel thing that would work is that you could let Russia say we won and we were getting everything we want because the people are protected. We'll call it part of Russia. But Ukraine could say we won because it's not part of Russia, it's part of Ukraine. But it would really be something that's, neither would be this sort of special economic Zone anyway. You could also, you could also offer to Russia that the success of the special economic zone is the only path toward normalizing relations with both Europe and the US So if you said to Russia, here's the deal, the one only way we're going to look at going back to buying your energy, Europe, and the only way we're going to go back to more of a normal relationship is that if the special economic zone works, that would be a pretty good security guarantee, because like I said, you could never make a 15 year security guarantees. It's absurd. All right, what do you think? Well, so the point is, when Trump says we're getting close to a deal, I think it has everything to do with how they reframe it. In other news, Iranian hackers allegedly got, got into Netanyahu's chief of staff's phone and dropped a video. And they published a video from his phone of some kind of private meeting. And it made me wonder, if Iran had access to his chief of staff's phone, why would they drop that video? And the smart people say that that's a sort of a classic thing you would do to show that they have worse stuff than the stuff they present. So it'd be sort of a, sort of a blackmail situation where they say, well, if we have this video from the chief of staff's phone, imagine what we haven't shown you. So I don't know. I have some question how much you know, whether they have more than that. Yeah, it would embarrass them, but I don't know if it's a big deal or not. Anyway, let me look at my notes. I've got some healthcare worker coming to do some stuff in a few minutes. All right, I made it through, so I apologize for the earlier attempt, but I thought you might miss me, so I came back. If you missed my explanation earlier, I had to bail out on my first podcast because I had a coughing attack and there's nothing you can do about it but wait it out. So I weighted it down as much as I could and took another shot at it. All right, you did miss me. All right, I'm going to go and grab some breakfast before my arrival of my healthcare nurse. When you're in my situation, you get a lot of people who come to the house for healthcare reasons. Always a lot of action. All right, everybody, thanks for understanding. Thanks for coming back a second time, and I will see you tomorrow. I hope my timing is better. Bye for now.