Peak Prosperity - The Real Constitutional Crisis

Episode Date: April 25, 2025

This episode discusses lab origins of COVID, judicial overreach, voter ID issues, electronic voting vulnerabilities, and the need for accountability in democracy.Click Here for Part 2

The following is the audio version of a video released at peakprosperity.com. Visit peakprosperity.com to watch the video and to find other insightful content such as articles, discussion forums, and exclusive subscriber-only content. Hello everyone, I'm Dr. Chris Martens and welcome to this Signal Hour where of course we are trying to find the signal within the signal. Since the election X is kind of in the signal I think it's not too much to say that if Elon Musk had not come along and well bought Twitter and turned it into X and made it into a free speech platform we'd be living in a very very different world today.

I value free speech above almost everything, maybe everything. And it's the only way we get to truth. There's no such thing as truth. What there is is finding out what's not true, what the BS is in the story, and whittling away at that till you get to something that approximates the truth. And that's the world we live in and it's getting to be a really crazy fast-changing world. And that's a model I have in something called the crash course a seminal work I put out in 2008 updated at the 2011 and 14 and I'm updating it again but it basically posits that there's this thing

called exponential growth exponential change which can have both the positive and a negative aspect the positive aspect wow look how crazy good our technology seems to be getting. Negative aspect, things are changing so fast that our human wetware, hardware, software, cultural institutions don't seem to be up to the task of maintaining and even keel in that chaos and the complexity. So that's the world we're in. How do you make sense of that?

How do you make decisions? That's what the Signal Hour is all about. So Evie, good to see you here again today good afternoon good to be here with everybody yeah one of our two favorite times of the week because we do signal hour now twice a week Wednesdays and Fridays so yeah GIF yeah no last time Evie we we talked about this and I just wanted to go over it very, not go over it, very quickly. So I think this is a big bombshell.

A lot of people have been saying, so we're gonna discuss several things today. One of them at least is gonna be the Gulf of nobody has been arrested yet. So the Trump administration puts out this big bombshell which as we reviewed, was actually kind of already known information to those of us who'd been tracking this.

Right. You know, five years late and a dollar short, but it came out. And it's pointed fingers and named names, at least a few of them, right? Yep. And that's good. And I had this fancy thing. So one of the rogues galleries,

so one of the things that I really didn't like in this whole period was when I was out there talking about how, hey, looks like coronavirus had some obviously lab engineered features. Whether it was deliberately released or accidentally released, I don't know. You would need an investigation for that. But to conclude that it came from a lab was relatively easy, scientifically speaking. But as soon as I said that, there was all these virologists in the world came around, you remember? And they, so...

They picked on you. Oh, they did. And they were so unhappy. And, you know, first they tried the shaming angle, and then they tried the appeal to authority. Are you a virologist like well, no, but I'm not making nonsense Come out of my mouth like you guys right and then to prove just how dangerous misinformation was rather than honestly engaging with anybody They went out and blocked Everybody and then made their own little echo chamber on Twitter that I know because I have a sock puppet account You know, I have several accounts. I have my main one through the front door. It's me.

I don't hide. I don't use a pseudonym. You know, for better or worse, it's my name on the line. But I have other accounts because I get blocked by various people. I still want to know what they were up to. And this was back at the time when you couldn't see a blocked account.

Now you can be blocked, but you can still see what they're saying, but you can't comment. But back then, you were excluded. So I didn't know what they were saying. So I go into their little clubs and they're all just congratulating each other. And, oh, we were showing them and they would take little forays out to dunk on people. And I ended up calling them the Mean Girls Virology Club. And I think the top mean girl was Dr. Angela Rasmussen, who I even interviewed at one point.

That's right. I know this name. You guys probably do too. Yeah. It was you guys. She says, actual experts being wrong is not what diminished trust. No, it wasn't that.

It wasn't the experts being wrong that diminished trust. What was it, Evie? It was greedy, self-interested conspiracists with no expertise, like Alina, whoever that is. Alina Chan. Alina Chan lying constantly about the evidence base and facelessly accusing actual experts like Fauci co-authors me of misconduct that destroyed public trust. That's what

it was. That's what it was. It wasn't the fact that they lied, they hid emails, that they spouted scientific nonsense, that they said things that were patently untrue, that they never backed up and said oops are bad, that they acted literally like a bunch of mean girls right and and i'm pretty sure angie here i don't think she has friends because friends don't let friends drunk tweet do you think that's a drunk well she has lots of tweets where she's showing herself like making martinis and things so you know she she plays it up herself that she drinks a bunch but sometimes i'm wondering are we looking at drunk tweets? Because now it could be, you know, you never quite know. All right.

I just wanted to just want to point. It seems like a feature for for some reason in the scientific community. It's like very smart individuals, but like not necessarily emotionally intelligent. I've noticed a pattern particularly amongst doctors Not all but enough right to say oh, there's a pattern going on here So this is an example of that by the way Justin Hart, you know my favorite saying here is that you know once is an axe is an accident right twice as coincidence But three times is enemy action. So what is this exactly over here, Evie? We don't have to read all of those. We'll just let people sort of read some of those, but.

Unbelievable. It's not just that they got something wrong. They got everything wrong. They got everything wrong. PCR testing, the fatality rate. How can you not read this? Asymptomatic spread, lockdowns, community triggers, business closures, school closures,

quarantining healthy people, impact on youth and young children, hospital overload, plexiglass barriers, social distancing, outdoor spread, which is a joke, masks, variant impact, natural immunity, vaccine efficacy, and vaccine injury. All of those. All of those. Wow. That's quite the list. It is, don't you think? Mm-hmm. Yeah. I do. All right, so I just wanted to sort of put a couple more bows on last week's Wednesday's piece. All right, so Evie, we're on my least

favorite part of the show, which is a day 94 arrest watch. And it's my least favorite part because as you know, I'm convinced that if people who did things bad in the past aren't brought to justice, we'll just get more of it. No consequences. Nothing changes. Now, Trump should know that cash should know that bondi should know that if you don't, and by the way, when you when you're out of power next, because the pendulum does swing, they're coming after you. Full stop. You think so? Oh, absolutely. Like if they're just gonna be so angry, that not even angry, they did it before. It's true. But I mean, they're just gonna be so angry that... Not even angry, they did it before.

That's true. But I mean, they're angry that Trump has been trying to change things, that this administration has made some strides to cut waste and ridiculous spending and to deport people that, you know, don't have citizenship, etc. So I think they're gonna be angry. Like they seem like the kind of people that would do it just to punish you for crossing them kind of thing. All right. Well, probably right. Let's mark it as we go along. So as of April 25th, we've had we'll have to dial our counter. That goes to zero. Nobody arrested for the Jeffery Epstein.

Remember, that was the first thing. Day one. We're gonna see the Epstein files. And then Pam Bondi does this big Kabuki theater and then she releases some documents very embarrassingly, like gives it to a few social influencers, DC Drano and some of the folks who loves TikTok. and they probably thought they were getting some goods. Imagine opening those up and finding out that the Justice Department has redacted files you've already had for a decade with nothing new in them. Like it's less than nothing. New redactions. We already had that, but you redacted it. That's ridiculous. It was so bad.

That's so stupid. It's very frustrating because I think as people we deserve, we deserve some action on this case. Right. This has been sitting around for how many years now? The Jeffrey Epstein case. We've had all this data for a long time, right? How many years? Well, I mean, since he died. Well, since the rumor started, but since he was first charged, which was 06. Has it been that long? I knew it was a while, but wow. Long time ago. Then you got a

little house arrest and then... We have Ghislaine. Isn't she... First person in history to go to prison for running prostitution victims, underage prostitution victims, to nobody. Yeah. We ran a business and nobody utilized our services. Oh, that's ridiculous. Brings us to yes, once again, still the Gulf of no one has been arrested yet. But you know what it is, Evie, you know, we're seeing like, oh, this just came out yesterday. Breaking after several meetings with officials inside the Trump Justice Department,

arrests will soon, will begin soon, says Trump ally Mike Davis. Okay. Hmm. Yeah, soon, manana, any day now. Well, I have to be this person though. 94 days, zero. No, I know, but for anybody that's ever had any kind of a case, a legal case, it does

take quite a long time. It takes way longer than you think for all the parts. And okay, well, by within 60 days, 400 people have been arrested for January 6. That's true. Okay, nevermind. Right. And we have some shovel ready cases here. That's true. Okay. Nevermind. Right. And we have some shovel ready cases here. That's true. John Brennan lying to Congress. You know, CDC losing vaccine injury data, right? Oh, yeah. That's a bad one. Lying to the public. I'm sure if you

just followed the money, the grafting corruption kickbacks from the Ukraine War would just be like instant, like, oh, we want to get it all. Like, no, how about you get enough to just charge these people and just set the tone. But here's the thing. There was a Trump revolution underway, which says, okay, we're going to really try and do some really big things. And I've been talking about them for months, and I'm behind a lot of them. One of them is, and we're going to really get to this in part two, is this idea of a monetary reset

and a global trade reset, and it had to happen. So that's a really big, hairy thing, right? A lot of moving pieces on that. We're gonna renegotiate all of our trade, markets are gonna be disrayed, the dollar, we're gonna have to come up with a new monetary standard, gold is spiking, all this stuff. Well, to pull that off under the best of circumstances

would be challenging, if not very low probability of success, but with a fractured polity, who's actively undermining you, the chance drops as close to zero as you can get. And I'm not saying arrest people who are standing in the way of your trade stuff. I'm just saying people who have objectively committed crimes in seditious traders crimes against the country start there. Right. The whole Russiagate thing? Complete hoax.

There are FBI agents who hid the Hunter Biden laptop. They have names and none of them have been faced any consequences. Okay, alright, that's fair. I was just thinking about it from the other perspective of how long it takes to get evidence and all that stuff lined up and there's a chain of custody and you have to, it's just the process can be obnoxiously long. It can be, but we're on day 94 and I'm starting to feel like this. Trust the plan, kids.

I waited and trust the plan for 25 years. Even if I didn't know what it was, it's now time for you to trust the plan and make sure you ask your children to trust the plan before you die. It's becoming a thing you have pass on now. It's a meme. That's funny. Trust the plan. Trust the plan.

It's always manana. Remember all the Q things. It's just about to happen. Something big is going to happen. Sit back, wait. It's coming. I do. There comes a point. So the question is, you say you still have some faith in it that it's only 94 days in, these things take time. Maybe this is accurate. Something's going to happen here. I don't know. But everybody has an answer to this question. At what point

would you admit it never it was just isn't gonna happen is that the day that Trump leaves office because he's this is his last term is it a year into his first term is it two years where would your line be I'd give it a year a year excuse me yeah I think you know how you came when he came in just just gangbusters, like had a bunch of stuff lined up, was ready to go. Sure. I mean, this is like my perfect scenario would be that we find out that he's actually got

all this lined up and he executes it all in one fell swoop on one day, just all the heads roll. That would be amazing. I don't know if that'll happen, but because otherwise they're going to scurry around and hide things and like imagine if he really got a cluster of people all at one time. We're in a battle and here's the rule of a battle. You know, it's like a Braveheart. Okay. And all of a sudden, you know, two armies come together. Once you get the other dudes running, you chase them and you finish them.

You don't just go, oh, okay, well, let me take a couple of months off. And then they build defensive fortification, retrench, and now you have a real problem on your hands. He had the momentum in January. He had the momentum in February. I started to feel it evaporate in March, and now I can really feel it disappearing. The momentum is gone. Yeah. Like, you know, the other side is feeling saucy again and they're doing things. So we got to get to that.

And so, but first I just wanted to very quickly say that I have a lot of respect for Jordan Peterson and what he's done in his lectures on Exodus and things like that. Really good, his lectures on Exodus and things like that really good, but I don't know if you saw, but there was this whole kerfuffle where Douglas Murray gets on Joe Rogan with Dave Smith, the comedian, and they go at it about some Israeli stuff. And objectively, arguably, inarguably, from my standpoint, Douglas Murray lost the debate. So the pro-Zionist, pro-let's kill people, bomb people debate, he lost that. And instead of taking the L and saying, let's figure out how to debate more effectively

or how do we win people over, right? He was smarmy and condescending and talked in circles and use really cheap sort of sophomoric rhetorical tricks or little gotchas. It was not honest inquiry or debate, right? And so that, instead of taking the L, they trotted out Jordan Peterson, who comes up with, see if you can,

see what you think about this, listen to this argument carefully. Here, what are you saying here? Well, I think the most important thing to do first is to draw a distinction between the political and the psychological and not to collapse them together. So imagine this, imagine that there's a group of individuals, about 4% of the population, who have a set of personality characteristics that have been described as dark tetrad.

So they're Machiavellian, they use their language to manipulate, they're narcissistic, they want unearned social status and reputation, they're psychopathic, which makes them free of empathy and parasitical and predatory, and they're sadistic. So they take positive delight

in the unnecessary suffering of others. Now, those people also use false cries of victimization, let's say to manipulate and they're entitled. They seek vengeance when it's unwarranted and they protest loudly and and make very public cries for for reparations that would be self serving. Okay, now the way those people operate is they look for what patterns of belief form groups that they can infiltrate and then capitalize on. And that happens on the right.

We did a report, the same group, on the use of Christ as King as a manipulative strategy by bad actors, hypothetically, on the right. And this report identified the same sort of people on the left, but it's not primarily political. They're wolves in sheep's clothing who look for where there's power and value and then adopt those beliefs as a surface camouflage

so that they can elevate their moral status. Now, and this has become worse in recent years as far as I'm concerned, because the evolved strategies that we have for dealing with these psychopathic types, psychopathic narcissistic types, don't work well online. And so the psychopaths can get away with their terrible manipulations online,

and they can find like-minded people, and they can escape from any reputational consequences. And so there's always been psychopaths, those are the Pharisees, for example, that Christ points to, the religious pretenders. Those are the people who use God's name in vain and claim moral virtue and even religious devotion. Well, all they're doing is feathering their own nests

and furthering their own narrow interests. And the and the web, social media, anonymity enables them to organize and also hides them much more effectively. And this is a problem in religious organizations. It's a problem in political organizations, and it pathologizes the whole culture. No, most people, 80% of Americans agree on virtually everything.

And then there's these fringe people and they're not political. They're psychopathological narcissists who cloak themselves in political guise. And we all have to learn to distinguish between the political and the psychological. All right, so. Wow.

So he's not wrong in general, right? One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. Sure. You get yourself a psychopath, a narcissist, like it's a problem. Yeah, I can agree with that. All right. And he says, okay, they're on the right and the left. But what he's reacting to was Dave Smith coming on and saying it's a moral abomination for

us to be bombing innocent people. Right? It used to be off limits to bomb civilians. It happened collateral damage. We weren't all that careful about it, but we at least had a moral tissue paper over that practice that got ripped off with the whole Gaza thing. Now, and we just saw it. The United States just did this.

Hey, thumbs up heart emoji said, you know Tulsi Gabbard because we sent a missile into a residential apartment building because a Hamas sorry a Huthi right Military person went into that residential apartment building like oh, yeah So the gloves are off now and this is what he's actually responding to is Dave Smith came forward said no This is a moral abomination. We shouldn't do this to is Dave Smith came forward and said, no, this is a moral abomination. We shouldn't do this. And then of course, Douglas Murray tried to say, oh, are you an expert? Like, like you have to go to Oxford to have an immoral opinion. You do not. You just have to have a moral character. You have to have some morality. That's all. That's all that's required.

Exactly. Or you haven't, you don't care about it because you've never visited. That was the other argument. Well, he's sure those are all the little rhetorical tricks, right? That didn't work. He had several more because he's a good debater that way. But they're just, you learn them in second year of debate school at Oxford, right? It's just a thing. Right.

But anyway, so he's coming out and so he's basically saying this and here's how Mike Cernovich captured it. Jordan Peterson is accusing people who disagree with him on foreign wars of being mentally ill. This is Stasi level stuff. He also wants to tie Christ as King to sociopathy and terrorism. This man is working for the demons. That cannot be doubted now. I think so. So here's my rule. Jordan Peterson's brand is I'm an intellectual powerhouse and I think things through carefully and from all sides. It's one of his great debate tactics.

He gets to the other side with the other person and understands it and comes back. But then on this one subject, he's just gone completely irrational. And that's like, that's like saying I'm a car manufacturer who mostly builds really fine cars, but every so often I build one that blows up. It's not good for the brand. Oh, it's not good for the brand. I'm really disappointed in him. He used to be somebody that I know myself and a lot of people that we know respected and appreciated, you know, some of his writing and his the way he spoke. And like you said, he was a great critical thinker it's disappointing isn't it when you find out that somebody's fallen off

the wagon and you're like oh man I guess I can't trust you this just like everybody has a price I think some house price got hit right you remember he was a Jordan was it was a professor and then he came under some legal trouble because he lived in a communist country Canada you know and they charged him with like thought crimes and he had to go to reeducation camp and he said no. And it was difficult. But then he gets picked up by daily wire. And all of a sudden, his economic circumstances have turned to the point that if you've noticed

every so often, he's like, well, now that I have a pile of money, right. So he's got his money. And I think he has a price. And that's I got an odor off of this. That's not good. Yeah, for me. Yep. Cause I need, I need my, um, people, if your brand is intellectual.

Integrity integrity. You can't be out of integrity in one zone. I mean, this just, this smelled so off to me right here. So, yeah, I couldn't really tell whose side he was on. It was confusing. Hey, I want to take a quick peek at this week a peek You're using yourself Another fat pipe came out this week April 21st. We talked about gold ran a vacator ran attack averted for now

Trump's oil mistake in the making this is gonna be a big big big theme up this year. You can see we had very active conversation around that. Paul and I, Paul Kiker and I, I also have a thing called Peak Financial Investing, and we had a really good interview this week, discussion. We talked about Trump's Federal Reserve drama, it was big, China's trade stance, gold surge, all that. So if you have money, wealth, anything you care about, please go to peakfinancialinvesting.com and we can help you talk to somebody who will not look at you like a dog listening to white noise when you say, should I buy gold? You don't want that from your financial advisor. And then last,

this Wednesday's signal hour got really meaty. Wouldn't you agree Evie I think it did we we really dove into some interesting topics including Renard Renee Gerard's theories on mimetic desire and scapegoating in the interest of what's the big theory of everything like why are people being why are they acting like this you got Matthias Desmet giving his mass formation in the psychosis angle we've got fifth generation warfare. Is that it? And then there's these theories of mimetic desire, scapegoating.

But at any rate, it's important. Well, it was interesting. It was really important. It was, I think, reorienting for a lot of people just because we're trying to put together the frame. And this is part of what Chris is very talented at and what we do at Peak Prosperity with our tribe, with the members there, is we just chew on this and we try to find with reason and logic our best understanding of

what's actually happening in the world and looking at current events and trying to make sense of them and understanding ourselves through the process, I think. Yeah. Evolving as people, which is the most important part. This one was good. Like I think we're honing in. Yeah. Evolving as people, which is the most important part. This one was good. Like, I think we're honing in. Yeah. We're starting to get a sense about this thing. But it's a process of wrestling these very complex ideas out of the ether until they finally sort of gel.

And that's the process. So it's been gelling for me. It's starting to get there. By the way, it leads me to a conclusion, Evie. What's that? Plant a garden. Yay. I'm not kidding. Plant a garden.

I wish I was. You're going to need it. So we're going to talk very quickly just as a setup. This is a single slide about the Chevron deference. And Vivek or Rameswamy, I'll take this one. He did a good job. So what was that? The Supreme Court overturned something, the so- this one. He did a good job. So what was that? The Supreme Court overturned something, the so-called Chevron deference, not defense.

So deference meaning to be in, to defer to something, right? And so it turned out this is a seismic blow, he says here to the federal bureaucracy under the old doctrine, federal courts deferred to agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes like what is clean air? We want clean air. And then the EPA says, oh, well, we're going to define a particulate limit and fines and all that and all. So basically, it's when agencies take a vague law and turn it into a bunch of rules that act like laws. So the way the process works in our country is supposed to be that only the legislature

has the power to make laws. Courts interpret them, because sometimes that needs a little interpretation. They're complicated. But anyway, that's the thing. Well, as of 2024, no longer the case. Lower federal courts have relied on the Chevron Deferent somewhere between 17,000 and 19,000 judicial opinions. So

then they found federal appellate courts applied Chevron in 85% of cases involving federal agency interpretations of law. And guess what? They owe us, as agencies do, overinterpret, interpret in ways that make them more powerful and they're gonna need a bigger budget Welcome to humans, right? So that's the chevron deference gets overturned. Okay And I like once federal courts of appeals reached that point framework based all they sided with the agency 77% of the time it was a big thing which brings us to our judicial crisis This is pretty bad right now

so to our judicial crisis. This is pretty bad right now. So, Ada Luch asks, Ada Luch, I'm from Spain so maybe I don't understand it but can someone explain how a president can receive a huge amount of votes and then have his entire agenda blown up by judges who never received a single one? President Trump said DEI must be taken out of schools. A judge said no. Excuse me. President Trump said no more money to sanctuary cities. A judge said they keep getting money. President Trump said criminal illegals must be deported. I'm so sorry. No, I'm okay. A judge said they have to actually stay. They teach us all that America is a democracy, but that doesn't sound like democracy at all.

So this is a big deal. So judges are now actually setting law and overinterpreting things even after the Chevron deference, judges need to stick to the law because if they don't, they become activists. And then the whole rule of law breaks down. Law has to have both the appearance if not the reality of being impartial. That's right. That's why on every court builder when you walk in there's a lady of justice she has a blindfold on in a set of scales that are evenly balanced, blind. Mm-hmm. Right? Mm-hmm. So this is a very interesting exchange here in the Senate. Sorry for the pixelation. It'll clear up in just a second. And so this is Senator Kennedy, not Secretary Kennedy, talking in a

Senate hearing here. Senator, a universal injunction is what we call an order from a court enjoining the government in a way that goes beyond the parties to the case, but applies nationwide or in some cases universally to enjoin the government. Is it sometimes referred to as a nationwide injunction? Yes, it is, Senator. What's the statutory basis for a federal judge issuing an order that affects people other than the parties before the court? I'm not aware of a statutory basis, Senator. There is no statutory basis, is there? No statutory basis means there's no law. There's no

law that allows them. There's no statutory basis to say I have some people before me in my courtroom with a certain narrow jurisdiction but I'm gonna apply it to the whole country. Right this is gonna affect everybody everywhere. And so he just asked him flat up to this expert. He's like, tell me what statutory authority? Because you would normally be able to say, oh, that's, you know, Title 13, Section 5, subparagraph D. Right. Here's the language.

And we can argue if that language actually says that. But there's apparently no statutory authority for that. No, Senator. What's the United States Supreme Court opinion which interprets the Constitution in a way that allows a federal district court judge to do this? Can you name me that case? I'm not aware of one, Senator. There isn't one, is there?

I'm not aware of one, Senator. Explain to me how this works. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everybody else other than those in front of him or her. How is that possible? It shouldn't be possible, Senator, but district courts do it all the time. I think on the theory that the courts need to enjoin a federal policy from going into effect, and they often will enjoin it as nationwide. So all nonparties are protected by that injunction.

I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren't in court, you had to file a class action. That's correct here, Senator. So why don't the federal judges, instead of issuing a universal injunction with no legal basis, tell the plaintiff, look, you gotta go file a class action if you wanna impact parties who aren't subject to my court

Well, that would be the process. Yeah, it seems it that's interesting. That's that's a process So if I went before a court a district court here, you know And and I said, you know, I think my car is defective and they rule for me and I say but I want this to apply to Everybody in the country. They would just laugh me out of the courtroom Because you would that's what a class action is for. I couldn't sue a tobacco company and give everybody a settlement. That's called a class action.

There's a mechanism. They're just not following the mechanism. They're not following, they have no statutory basis. They're not following the normal process and they're issuing these nationwide injunctions on things. Okay? Senator, the Department of Justice makes that argument all the time in our briefs. I think in many cases class actions would be inappropriate. They wouldn't, the plaintiffs couldn't satisfy Rule 23 to establish a class. So they couldn't? Correct. So they prefer to ask for a universal

injunction? Yes. Does this encourage forum shopping? Yes, Senator, not only does it encourage form shopping, but also district shopping and filing multiple strategic lawsuits to find one judge that will enjoin a single policy nationwide. If you have five lawsuits, only one of those five cases needs to be successful. Okay, we've...

All right, so you can't do a class action because they know it wouldn't even fly They would have no standing for that. They could it would be too hard. It wouldn't work So then they file a bunch of suits But they put it into they start to shop for the right district because you need a friendly district for this thing, right? Mm-hmm. So you notice these things aren't being filed and say the Mississippi district this is in DC where they know they have a favorable power apparatus for you know making sure that um you know all the

power structure isn't isn't upended and then they know that it's way overrepresented with activists, Democrat judges, and then even within that they throw a bunch of spaghetti against the wall so they can oh Those other four we don't care because this one went to judge Boasberg, right? Right, right So they're judge shopping and we trust he'll do what we want him to do. So this is why I say look Trump has to understand what he's up against Okay, you can fight all of this stuff off and we'll win because we're better people and you know all that he can have that frame Of mind, but this is how they play this is not they're playing illegally not by the rules and doing whatever it takes to win. Yeah. And so that's going to be what he's up against

here. That really stinks. I feel bad for him and I don't understand how it's possible to do this like it just seems absolutely wrong. Doesn't it. I mean it's possible to do this. Like, it just seems absolutely wrong, doesn't it? I mean, it's frustrating to listen to. That was that there's no basis in statute and no basis in Supreme Court precedent for universal injunction. How about a common law? I mean, this is universal injunction is basically an equitable remedy. Did this exist in common law courts in England on which our laws are based? I don't believe so, Senator. I think we've, the government has cited cases from the Supreme Court that says, you know, courts are really bound by the scope of relief that a court in equity would

have granted back in England before the founding, and the courts at that time would grant relief to the parties in the case, not far beyond the... A universal injunction as a remedy is unknown in English common law, is it not? I haven't done the research that far back, but I'm not aware... I have. It's unknown. It wasn't part of equity. Only about 27 universal injunctions were issued in the 20th century. Does that sound about right? That sounds about right Senator. But 86 of them were issued against President Trump

in his first term. Is that? What? This is what we're up against here. In the entire 20th century, there were 20 sort of universal injunctions. 87 in his first term. Correct.

I don't know the specific number, but there were a high number. So far in president Trump's second term, 30 universal injunctions have been issued against him. Have they not? Senator, I don't have a specific. 30 so far. And we're all 94 days in. Big number, but that sounds about right.

Universal injunction has become a weapon against the Trump administration, has it not? Yes. And tell me again in my last 10 seconds, tell me the basis for universal injunction in Article 3. I read Article 3, which defines judicial power. Where does it mention universal injunction? It does not, Senator. It says courts are to decide the case or controversy before them, which is based on the parties

to the case. So the Congress could act and say, look, federal judges, you render a decision to a plaintiff or a defendant, but you can't impact people outside of your courtroom other than through a class action. That's why God created class actions, isn't it? Yes, Senator. That's great. So pretty good framing there, right?

I mean, it just sets up where we're at and what this all means. So yeah, district judges. District judges now have about 80 at the time of this, I think, putting together a single district judge putting a universal injunction out that affects the whole country the whole everything. What's an example of one of those that has affected us? Do you have any?

Okay, how about this one? Okay. This is frustrating. This just sets up this Judge Boasberg person who, by the way, not the judge of book buyer, it's cover, but he's got crazy eyes. Yeah. Yeah. He looks like that. He does the dad at the at the Little League game. You're just like, Oh, no, this is not this guy. Judge Boesberg is the same judge who claimed Jay Sixers deserved harsher charges. He's also the judge who granted Comey FISA warrants to spy on Trump's campaign. Jim Jordan

is going to have hearings on Boasberg's political bias on Trump next week. Trump should not, should just ignore this judge. So you could ignore the judge, but of course you're going to scream loudly. But you asked, like, here's one. Here's one of these nationwide injunctions. So you could ignore the judge, but of course, they're going to scream loudly. But you asked, like, here's one. Here's one of these nationwide injunctions. Here you go. The Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to allow it to bar transgender people from serving in the military.

A Washington federal judge halted the ban nationwide in March, and the Ninth Circuit has refused to undo that court order. There you go. Nationwide injunction. This one judge in a district knows better than the entirety of the Trump administration and the 77 million people who voted for Trump. This one judge has a different idea about how things should go. But doesn't seem to have a clear

understanding of how the law works or how the processes work or what their actual job is. Their job is not to interpret and intervene in an activist way. Their job is to administer the law. That's the job. They might not like the job. They might wish that they had more power. They don't actually have that power, but it's been given to them and nobody's really fought it. But this is the kind of stuff that I think if you don't remove these judges from power and they'll say, oh no, he's an autocrat. Like no, no.

When you have judges who are lagerantly violating, like if you had ATC, you know, FTC people, the air traffic control folks are purposely flying planes into mountains, you remove them from positions of power. Right. That's what you do. Yes. That makes a lot of sense. How about, oh, Signalgate, you remember the signal, the use of signal? Yes. It turns out that NGO has sued the Trump administration. You won't believe this. So an NGO has sued Trump admin officials over

Signalgate. The judge? Why? Boasberg again of course how does that happen that is weird judge shopping is a fact of life and the only reasons it has done all relate to corruption hmm wow judge shopping so they're just judge shopping at this point it's terrible it's it's not a good thing it's it's actually very destructive to the rule of law shouldn't it be illegal illegal? Like, isn't there a way to kind of, like, how do we stop this though? What do people do? I don't know, it's extra legal.

Well, so. It's frustrating. So I need to see retroactive arrests for people who've done bad things in the past. There is, we have one example now of a prospective. Somebody did something and they got in trouble. So welcome to this edition of Fafo time. Check this out. How about this one?

A Democrat judge had to resign because Ice came in and arrested a trend, a ragwa gang member in his home. And and let me get my little laser. Oh, really? Look at him. He's so cool. He's flashing gang signs. He's like, dude, yeah. The judge. Oh, no. One of these judges. That's insane. Oh, there he is having a drink with him.

Yep. Having a drink. Hey, he seems to like sort of like, checkerboard pattern shirts, which is kind of not surprising that that's what he's wearing when he's arrested. You just got used to it. Bye. A Democrat baby boomer judge in handcuffs. Happy Friday.

Hey, how about that? That's nice. But you know, as we say here, it's completely random, random that Judge Boesber got five high value, extremely political cases in a row, and that 100% of them are ruled against Trump. Totally random. This we have to understand what we're... This is terrible. It's not good. This is bad. Wow. This one gets me big time. This bothers you. Yes. A DC judge has blocked an order by president Trump requiring proof of citizenship to vote.

Because of course they did. It's all part of the Democrat plan to continue to allow illegals they imported to vote. I really hope we can rely on the Supreme court to actually put an end to this. Yes. There's the judge down there. I'm not terribly surprised again judging a book by its cover. It kind of looks like how I'd expect somebody. But no, this idea that it seems so axiomatically like unequivocally true that you should be a citizen to vote.

That's just objectively just like a no duh kind of a civics moment there for all of us, right? It would be like saying, oh, well, Chris, a federal judge, district judge has just ruled that your neighbors get to vote on what your kids eat for dinner. And they've decided that you're feeding them all wrong. Like, no, that's not a thing. My neighbors have a say in. Because they are not citizens of my household, right? It's just a very obvious thing. You would not want people from the neighboring town voting on how your town spent money.

We wouldn't allow that at the town level or city level. So it just, duh. Here, obviously, some part of their framework's like, oh no, no, no, no, no no no we're gonna have to allow people to vote even if they can't prove citizenship right so this is ridiculous ps do you think the supreme court is going to be able to be relied on to no clear that up no i've called them the subcrime court for a long time now. Yeah, they gave us Citizens United. They gave us the hanging Chad weird

interpretation of the 14th Amendment to throw the election to Bush the lesser that time way back when they gave us I mean, just like bad decision after bad decision that it's always oh, five, four so close, better luck next time, you know, and every single time it's been they five four so close better luck next time you know and every single time it's been they hand more power to the state and they take it away from citizens and freedom goes down right and federal consolidated power goes up every single time corporations more power government more power people less yeah so that that's been the thing. So we have to talk about this voter ID thing real quick. And so voter ID is

You know 98% of Democrats voted against the House of Voter ID bill 84% of Americans support voter ID What? Here are the arguments against voter ID. 84%! What? Here are the arguments against voter ID and why they are weak. So I really like Kaizen. SCAG here, if I'm pronouncing that right under that's Kaizen.

I love how this guy thinks. Y'all remember when Trump said that the 2020 election was stolen and then came January 6th? Does anyone left or right want to go through that again? Yeah, me neither. So doesn't it make sense to close any loopholes in the system before we're back in that chaos? Doesn't it make sense to make the system as trustworthy as possible? So why isn't every congressperson supporting voter ID requirements?

On April 10th, the House passed the SAVE Act, which requires proof of citizenship for voter registration. It barely passed. Every Republican voted for it. Four Democrats voted for it. 208 Democrats voted against it. That means 98% of Democrats voted against the bill. And yet, 84% of Americans support voter ID. So why did these Congress people vote against it? Well, here's an argument.

The reason Democrats don't want voter ID is because they make it much more difficult for elderly people, people that don't travel, don't have a passport, poor people, don't have cars, don't have driver's licenses. So it's sort of a vestige of, I think, post-slavery laws where black people had to prove their right to vote. It also affects women, women that are married. Maybe one, your passport reflects something that's different on your birth certificate or on your driver's license.

So really the bottom line is voter suppression. Okay, but consider this. It costs $10 to $30 to get a valid ID. If it's that much of a problem, can't we just subsidize IDs for low income people like Georgia and North Carolina do? Married women needing to update their documents? Yep, that is inconvenient. Senior citizens needing to go to the DMV because their driver's license expired and they no longer drive. Yep, that's inconvenient too. Over 1.2 million black people and half a million Hispanic eligible voters living more than 10 miles from an ID office. Yeah, that's inconvenient too. And you know what's more inconvenient than all of this? Half the country claiming that the election is stolen every four to eight

years. The other half of the country insisting it wasn't stolen, but refusing to close the loophole through which it theoretically could be stolen. It doesn't help that just last week, Doge revealed that there was an unknown number of social security numbers tied to illegal immigrants that voted in 2024. You know, we were in social security looking for to illegal immigrants that voted in 2024. We were in social security looking for fraud, waste and abuse. And to do that, we actually looked at the enumeration system, the system by which people

get numbers in America. And we found that there were just about five plus million of them that came to the country as illegals. We're giving various forms of parole or allowing the country. And they got through an automatic system, social security numbers, so they get into our benefit systems. And we tracked that through and found that they were on the benefit programs. And just because we were curious,

we then looked to see if they were on the voter rolls. And we found in a handful of cooperative states that there were thousands on the voter rolls and that many of them had voted. Look, every decision has trade-offs. Of course there are cons to voter ID, but the pros massively outweigh the cons. If the democratic leaders are so concerned about these cons, just make it easier to get an ID and how about we just be real and acknowledge that every citizen has

the right to vote and exercising that right is a little inconvenient for everyone. Yeah. Like why is it on Tuesday? I know. Why can't I vote online? All of that stuff, you know? No, I get his point.

I think it's relevant. You know, we need to be able to, or be willing to pay a certain price. All of us to have a safe and secure election, to live in this country, to have the things that we do. I mean, it's infuriating just hearing about all the people that have gotten into our benefit system that we are carrying, you know, paying for. Particularly with so many people struggling. Yes, like, oh, we're going to need you to struggle. Where was our due process when 22 million illegal people were allowed to flood into this country by the defective last president? No border, no wall. Right.

Where was my due process? Because I believe that deprives me of. Tax dollars of a better infrastructure, overcrowded schools, overburdened systems like health care, all those things that happen. Because those people come in and need things, I get it. Nobody asked me, there was no due process on the way in and now they're all like, oh, well we need a proper due process on the way out because that would only be right.

Like right for them, but not right for me. That's right. Inherently, always what's right for somebody other than American citizens who, as far as I can tell, a lot of people in DC and many of them on the Democrat side hate Yeah, I think they hate us. I think the Democrats do hate people. I think they hate people they hate

People they govern abstract groups of people like migrants, but they hate individuals and they hate Americans mm-hmm as a group And they seem to like people that are in a victim position. They do. Because then they can exploit them. Yeah. So check this out. We're all alone.

Countries that do require voter ID is all of them. Oh my goodness. Except for us. That's everybody. New Zealand, Portugal, Estonia, I've never even heard of some of these places. What's more? So you got that right? You got that? And then um, but you know what? You can just tell like that lady's like, oh, it'd be so inconvenient.

Think think of all the poor people and the elderly people who just can't get to get an ID. I'm like, well then lady, can we work on this list? Because these are all the things I already have to have an ID for anyway. That's right. Oh, and a lot of those same people that are getting food stamps and welfare and all that other stuff have it. Donating blood! Yes we're gonna remove the ID requirement for donating blood or adopting a child, joining the military, renting a hotel room. What about a rental car? It's so discriminatory for people to have to have an ID and a credit card to rent a car. Let's remove

that barrier. Right or buying liquor. That's not fair. Adopting a pet, buying a firearm. Going to a nightclub, using a pawn shop. It's such a stupid argument. But you saw that woman, she was very passionately explaining why it would be such a terrible thing to have voter ID. Look at all the places you already have to have an ID. You can't open a bank account, you can't pick up mail,

you can't buy train tickets, insurance. You can't get a prescription. Yeah, this is insane. Her point is ridiculous. Yeah, it's retarded. Thank you for reclaiming that word. All right, so let me skip that. But by the way, Elon Musk said, it must just be a coincidence that look at the all the states that do not have voter ID and look at the color they vote.

Wow. Did you notice that before? Look at that. No, I've not seen that before. And they brought in millions and millions of people, gave them social security numbers so they could get onto the voting rolls. And so that they could get supported by you and me, all us taxpayers. You know why you work so hard? So somebody else can have a free apartment and a debit card given to them.

That's what it is. Well, I think we should just extend the argument and very clearly say if the, like, you know, a debit card given to them. That's what it is. Well, I think we should just extend the argument and very clearly say if like, you know, sometimes in tug of war, one of the winning strategies when you think you're about to lose is to just let go of the road and they fall on their butt. Yeah, the Democrats pull really hard on the voter ID thing and then go, oh, well, then we don't need any IDs to buy firearms. That's a good one. As as a acute stress response said, there it is. Let's remove ID from purchasing firearms.

Let's remove it. And I think this is true, because this is the main point of why I'm going down this big track. Right. If this is not addressed, judges in voting and arrests per existing law found, then Trump loses support. And that is the objective. And that is the objective here. So, I agree. Now, this sort of gets us into one more piece of territory,

which this kind of skated by, but I'm gonna pull this back up again, because this is very important to me personally, which is our voting systems, the whole idea of people at the margins fraudulently voting because they have the wrong ID or something, it's Trump change. What matters is we have electronic voting machines

that are in completely insecure. They have vulnerabilities that mean that people can undetectably change the vote totals at the tabulator level and if not the machine level. And so this was fascinating. So Tulsi Gabbard, now National Security Director, saying this. Tulsi Gabbard, National Security Director, National Security Director, National Security Director, The very dangerous and negative consequences of that. I've got a long list of things that we're investigating. We have the best of the best going after this. Election integrity being one of them.

We have evidence of how these electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time. We have evidence of how these electronic voting machines systems have been vulnerable to hackers, which we also call party officials in Wisconsin, for instance. Or Georgia. Or Georgia. But evidence, so evidence.

In my perfect world, Evie, if we could just go back to paper voting, right? France manages to tally up all of their votes by nine o'clock that same night, right? There's a whole system for it. There's a big pile of paper ballots on the table. You have observers from both sides because nobody trusts anybody and they shouldn't. Trust should never be part of a voting system. They should be verifiable. You say, I want to know how many votes actually came in.

You verify it. You recount the stacks. That's right. Everybody agrees, right? Yeah. And that's it. And we would have then a system that you should never trust a voting system. Should be able to verify what happened.

That's a complete joke that we have these machines, these Dominion machines, and a lot of the processes that we engage with. It's a total joke because with the technology we have now, it doesn't have to be this way. It shouldn't be this way. Like we know how vulnerable these machines are. We've known that for years.

And like, to your point earlier, people like it that way. They do. They do. So let's jump now. Mark Elias, one of my least favorite people in the world, but once all of this voting machine irregularity stuff started to come out in the voter ID, I think he sounds a little worried. What do you think?

You know, I mean, Donald Trump, you are an election liar. You are a threat to democracy. You tried to overturn a free and fair election in 2020. You spread, you spread lies and disinformation about about our voting systems and the security of elections. And you continue to lie to the American people almost every single day. And I am going to continue to say that. I don't, you can't go after some corporate overlord as Brian said, you know, democracy.com is published on its own platform and you're not going to intimidate me. So, you know, we're going to continue, I'm going to continue to do what I need to do as a responsible citizen. I'm going to speak out against tyranny. I're going to continue to do what I need to do as a responsible citizen.

I'm going to speak out against tyranny. I'm going to speak out against Donald Trump's lawful actions. And I'm going to litigate. And I'm not going to be cowed or back down from that. You know? All right. Yeah. How dare he question our safe and secure, safe and effective elections? He seems to have some co-conspirators too because he said we're he slipped a few times where he was saying I'm I mean we're I mean

I'm yeah, no, it's not good. By the way, remember we talked about this once before but this is what our democracy looks like so When they elected that their new Supreme Court judge up there in When they elected their new Supreme Court judge up there in Wisconsin, I believe, they had frosted windows, they locked doors. This is all supposed to be out and open. They put mail grades blocking windows. Like they did it all when they're counting votes behind closed doors and it's by default, you toss the election out it's rigged it is no good you can't trust it 100% but this is what he's like oh we need our

our democracy right now do you remember Evie there was this incredible thing where after the 2020 election they said you can never question the sanctity of this but then Time magazine wrote this extraordinary article where the people who had pulled it off openly said, wow, we formed a conspiracy and we fortified the election results. And thankfully we did what we needed to be done to save democracy from having Trump come back in again, fortified. They fortified it, right? Turned out that CISA, which is this awful, CISA was the one who were picking, who was essential, non-essential during COVID for some mysterious reason, right? Your restaurant closes, these people don't. But they're also, they're in charge with cybersecurity and

infrastructure, right? CISA, Security Administration Agency. So, and Chris Krebs was the head of that, and he was the person who was out there saying the 2020 election was the safest and most secure election in US history, which it was the exact opposite, right? With 2000 mules and weird results and mail in ballots and all that. But this this was worth pointing out here. Perhaps the former head of CIA. This is a man who weaponized his position against free speech in the election context, in the context of COVID-19. He's also given a presidential memorandum to the one you just signed.

I don't know why it's skipping like that. He gives you the chances he might have and further instructs your Department of Justice, other aspects of your government, to investigate some of the malign acts that he participated in while he was still head of CISA. This is another one. I don't know that I met him. acts that he participated in while he was still head of CISA? This is another one.

I don't know that I met him. I'm sure I met him, but I didn't know him. And he came out right after the election, which was a rigged election, badly rigged election. We did phenomenally in that election. Look what happened to our country because of it. Open borders, millions of people coming into our country. Russia and Ukraine, that would have never happened.

October 7th would have never happened. Afghanistan, the way that they withdrew with 13 dead, but so many killed, actually. I mean, so many, so many killed outside of the 13 soldiers. Hundreds of people killed. And maybe, I don't know, never mentioned, but I mentioned it, 42 or 43 people so badly injured the legs, the arms, blown off the face.

And it was all because of an incompetent group of people that preceded us, and that would have never happened. And this guy Krebs was saying, oh, the election was great. It was great. Well, it's been proven that it was not only not great when you look at all these lawyers and law firms that are signing, giving us hundreds of millions of dollars. It was proven by so many different ways in so many different forms from the legislature's not approving to do the. Well, he goes on. I don't know why that's halting like that.

But the point is, is he's clearly saying if the election hadn't been stolen, look at all this death and misery that would not have happened. Right. We wouldn't have had 10-7. We wouldn't have done this whole Afghanistan. All the disasters that befell us, the open borders, everything that happened because somebody allowed our electronic voting machines and the paper ballot system to be hacked and rigged.

That's what they mean when they say we have to defend our democracy. They mean the system that we've carefully installed that makes sure that only we end up in power. Right, right. And Chris Krebs is at the head of that whole thing. He played an important role. And here he is being singled out so what he's signing there is a uh it's an executive order to look into this man and his role in this whole

thing. Good. Security clearances get revoked and all that so so you have Tulsi Gabbard coming out saying we have evidence. Right. We have Krebs now under the gun and you got Mark Elias out there sweating bullets I'm getting a little gating. How dare you question the sanctity of the most pure election It was virginal No, it really does give a new meaning to our democracy You know it does doesn't it like this is my version of democracy and I'm going to do whatever I want. That benefits me and the people that I'd like to have in power. Yeah, it's not what the constitution was about at all. So, um, Barry, I have just a little bit more to go before we can switch over. But I got to finish up this little section here real quick. So this is Chris Krebs on 60 minutes. It's completely and utterly surreal.

None of these lies have been substantiated to any extent. Every single one of them has been debunked. Chris Krebs was director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency charged with protecting the 2020 election. He called it the most secure election in American history and days later was fired by President Trump How secure was the 2020 election? Let me put it this way. It was the How handsome are you?

60 minutes Doing whatever they can to narrative control buffing the shine on the ball. How secure was it? Mm-hmm. And listen to his laugh. The most litigated? It was the most scrutinized? No, no, no, no. It was not litigated. The judges in those cases invariably said you do not have standing. None of the data ever saw the inside of a courtroom during the time. None. Zero.

The most audited. You know how you audit an electronic voting machine? You say, wow, I don't like that result. And you press the button and it gives you the same bad result. It has no audit trail. That's right. There are no receipts. There's no receipts.

There's no possible way to audit it. It's like that it's not part of the system. It was the most audited. Is he just stupid? This election was put through the wringer from so many different directions. There's no evidence that any machine that I'm aware of has been manipulated by a foreign power. We've got some trolls here. Well, let's see, I've got some trolls here.

We've got some trolls manipulated by a foreign power because we're not a foreign power, right? I guess. I mean, it's just, anyway, this guy, I hope he gets, helps us fill the Gulf. Yeah, that's, that would be gets, helps us fill the Gulf. Yeah, that would be good. Yeah. That would be nice. You know, and so this was the executive order. It says, okay, all his security clearances active

are revoked, suspends any security clearance held by individuals and entities associated with him, including Sentinel-1. So like everybody he works with just had their security clearance revoked. So that puts some pressure on him. It's like, Hey dude, maybe you could leave the firm now because yeah. And the reviews can include a comprehensive evaluation of CISA activities over the last six years.

Oh, that'll be good. Good. Finally. These were the people censoring CISA was censoring, ramming lockdowns down our throat, fortifying elections, like basically operating as an enemy of the United States, enemy of democracy, enemy of the constitution, enemy of free speech, everything, not of our democracy, but of the democracy, the actual our democracy. Okay. By the way, and he said, there's never been any evidence of, remember this? Where a computer expert hacked a voting machine in front of the

judge with a big pen. Oh my God, should I read it? In a recent Georgia trial, an expert in voting systems testified that Dominion voting system machines were alarmingly susceptible to hacking. According to the coverage by Law 360 polls, the expert professor, Alex Halderman, from the University of Michigan, demonstrated how he could use a BIC pen and a smart card to easily copy, edit, and change votes within seconds. Okay, but wait, but we're all done. Wow.

Like as soon as you demonstrate that once, like these machines, you just throw them in the bin and you never use them again. Recycle. We could just use paper. It works. We could. It's worked forever. We could. I did point out that if you go into the United States Constitution, you ask to search for voting, voting matters. It clearly points to the idea that voting shall be done in a way that's that's verifiable. It describes how it has to be done well and in a verifiable way and it describes it is done by citizens over and over and over again.

Mm-hmm. That's right. And by the way it's actually right there, Amendment 15 1870, the right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged. I consider it abridged if you force upon me voting machines that are junk. They're defective. That abridges the voting process because I can look at when you put frosted glass up and stack mail bins so I can't watch the vote you were abridging the vote. That's right and if you have people that think it's okay to cheat and they tell everybody to go home

and they're not going to count any more ballots and then they do and they allege that some pipe leaked and that's BS. Yeah. And then, you know, I've covered this all before, but we saw here that when that was all proven that the Dominion voting machines were completely garbage and they needed security patches. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger of Georgia said, Oh, well, I don't think we can, I don't think we'll be able to get around to us putting that patch in for the 2024 elections, you know, not going to be able to do it's too hard, too hard, you know, too expensive. You know,

you have to like hit enter. I don't know. And for people who are wondering, this is that Time magazine article talking about the fortification. See that last that last thing. Mm hmm. They were not rigging the election. They were fortifying it. They were not rigging the election. They see this like with a straight face.

They're like. They were not rigging the election, they were fortifying it. It's just like, come on, come on. So gross, the craziest thing ever. So at any rate, we're going to have to call it there for the public side of this. We're going to say adios, amigos to everybody on the public side for people who are part of peak prosperity. Of course, you'll continue watching over there. And we're going to be talking about this. This is what comes up

next. The end is near. Evie and I couldn't find hair shirts with knotted belts, you know, maybe next time, you know, but no, the global resets upon us. We have to talk about that end game. Huge things are happening economically right, we have to talk about that endgame. Huge things are happening economically right now. We'll talk about what we're doing about that. So we'll see you next week.