Bump bump bump bump bump Pum Pum Pum everybody let's give in and get in here you know what time it is it's time for a coffee was God items I decided to give you a little fireplace view.

Part of my long term plan to show less of me and more of something else, but you know what are the reasons you come here if so that you can enjoy the simultaneous up and it's coming up grab your mug grab your thermos, your Stein, your your chalice, your cup, your glass fill it with your favorite liquid. Here it comes the rope, the simultaneous up that could have been better. Had it been warmer right back to me, so we get all kinds of news happening, NEWS all over the place. So, let's go, let's run through it one at a time

So I was waiting to hear Ellen Dershowitz opinion. Look at my twitter feed to remind me of some specific, as was waiting for Alan Dershowitz to and on this question of Mikhail reporting that they talked about using the twenty fifth amendment and TED Lou. Who is besides being the husband of Betty, in the? U S a airforce veteran he's a member of Congress and I'll tell you what Ellen Dershowitz, said and then I'll tell you what TED loosened now what's funny about. This is Dershowitz, is what probably the world's expert on constitutional law TED Lou

is whatever is not that sir Lou is constitution, splaining do the best constitutional scholar in the world, and this is funny soldiers. Rated, Do so at present, tromp actually was quoting Ellen Dershowitz from the top Karlsson show, and he said quote this is scoring, documents trying to use the twenty third amendment to try to circumvent the election is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing, which happens in third. countries you have to obey the law. This is an attack on our system and constitution, so

Dershowitz saying it's a despicable act of unconstitutional power know what he's talking about is Mackay referencing the conversation about using the twenty fourth amendment, which typically as well its intended for before a precedent, is incapacitated mentally or physically and then can be replaced which did not apply to president drums situation and so Dershowitz to say it was a unconstitutional power grab. But TED Lou does some constitution splaining and he addresses islanders. Tourism is sweet, tweet and he says the twenty fifth amendment, is the law and immature. We have the Mr President, a majority of the cabinet can invoke this amendment. You can, I agree with our use of it. Should they invoke it, but you cannot say it should be unconstitutional. You should

read the U S, constitution again, Ellen Dershowitz. I know you to say to that. The euro, can you imagine TAT Lou going into too the doctors for his appointment, and the doctor says TAT with we ve checked you out and you ve got high blood pressure and then TAT explains to the doktor why he is completely misdiagnosed him. At what point is an embarrassing to explain and experts job to an expert, now. I suppose you could word think this until the point where you'd say: ok, it's not illegal to use the twenty fifth amendment.

but I have to say it's pretty constitutional to use it when the president is not incapacitated to use it to change the result of an election. That's pretty unconstitutional. Now, I think you refer to say would never would never get approved by the people to be. Implemented and we would have to worry about it. Necessarily, but the fact that it was even talked about was shocking now this the fact that was talking about also maybe question at what point: will trump derangement syndrome be a legitimate legal defence and is more interesting question than you think,

because the entire legal system depends on the illusion of free will. If we didn't imagine that people have free, will it wouldn't make sense to punish them for their choices, because if somebody doesn't have a choice for what they pick, you know if it's just cause and effect them was all lose all pre determined that the big bang, then you have no legal system because you people just say well, it's not like. I They choose to do something differently, I'm just a victim of particles bouncing around. so. The legal system has always had to have the sort of thin fiction. The people have free will and make their own decisions, and is certainly feels like that. So we live in a world where it feels like you make your own decisions, but sir,

chipping away shipping away at that, and I would say that it would be easy to get a an expert, a psychologist scientist, a brain expert, to confirm that people are being brainwashed by their choice, a media. No, it's Bolsa you're getting Brainwash, but in different ways in I'm, pretty sure that you could prove that was same a cave, and this is just the hypothetical none of this is gonna happen. What I think you can get scientists

to say that my cave was literally brainwashed to believe that there was a a crisis in the constitution and that something had to be done immediately to save the country. So, but would that be a legal defence? Let them at the moment it would not do. It might have some effect, then sentencing, but you couldn't legally get away with it. Defence. It is, however, scientifically valid. Another word you would have scientists come in, say, yeah, it's pretty obvious that this person was brainwashed and therefore not entirely in control of their own decisions. I'm sure you could get experts to say that, and probably all them, if you had enough evidence of of

ridiculous political opinions. Yes, let's say there was a let's say at a history of social media postings. There were so biased there. Any jury would look at them and say tat doesn't look like this person uses facts. They seem to have been brainwashed by consuming their media. Somebody says BS science, my ass, good arguments- science, your ass, why didn't somebody say that earlier I could have saved a lot of time. There was a clever and incisive argument: science, my ass, good one eyed. I know you want me to talk about the Jesse Smollett situation, and I've been waiting for we are more or less a factual basis

but what we know so far is somewhat hilarious and I'm gonna. Let me framed this by saying you shouldn't believe everything you hear about the story. Just literally, nothing don't believe any of the reports about what the police did not did not see or do or talk to. I wouldn't believe anything about who got picked up. I wouldn't believe anything about was a suspect believe everything about what is or is not on a camera, leave everything that just smaller says or does not say so? Basically, you should have intense distrust for every part of the story That said where we are at the moment in terms of the alleged story is quite hilarious because in fact check but I believe that two people of interest have been questioned by the police,

seem to be the people who were on the video cameras, who seem to be the people who are to act. Jesse's, Molly, Jesse, smaller, and apparently there Nigerians, one of which worked on the show with Jesse small it. Now, if it's true, the two Nigerians the world all than this in some way there It is probably not true, that's buddy was yelling. This is mega country and it is probably not true but there were wearing mega had at the time. So we don't know what the real story is again. Don't believe anything you here on this story, absolutely everything is unreliable. Some of it is true,

but we have no way of knowing this boy is just all unreliable from every angle It is nonetheless hilarious that the current situation is that Two nigerian guys are being questioned, so it doesn't gave any than that. In fact, I would say that this story just smaller wrong, gay now there was a piece by Chris Silesia Who is a notable and I jumper? and I wonder I want to just read to you a little bit from him today. If I can find it and I'm sure I can all right, I just took a little sniffing out why this from Chris Cillizza on the

and websites you talked about the news of what my cape said about the twenty fifth amendment says there too. look. Look at one of one of those ways is that the that there is a deep sigh, they were literally talking about a coup using the twenty fifth amendment to replace the government So he says: that's one way to look at this sort of the two movies are ones real idea in his own words so one way is that it was exactly what a lot of you think they were talking about a coup, but here's the other way. So this is crystal as Anti trapper tell you the other thing that this evidence? Good, he says this news remove became his confirmation, so this is, if you're, a trump opponent. You might think this in his framing. This news from the cave is come from vision the senior officials within the adjusted Justice Department,

we're so worried about trumps behaviour in office, his behaviour in office. He had just started that they broached the unthinkable Colin removal by means of the constitution, the fact that such serious and professional people men and women, charged with enforcing the laws of the country, were driven to such extreme action, or at least the contemplation of such extreme act. Prove just how abnormal and dangerous trump really is both to the presidency and the country. Now this is sort of what I was explaining yesterday. The idea that, in the caves mind he might have been paid threats, but only in his mind, you're not near by and obviously but it is mind he Molly.

My god, I'm the last defence against Russia running the country, and so he attacked them. But the way was a frames us it's hilarious, because its framed as though there too there to pass nor is there to wasted describe, was happening. One is that it was a deep state plot to overthrow the country or overthrow the governed using twenty fifth amendment. The second is the present was so sketchy and they were there. So many reasons to think there was something wrong that, even if Mikhail was incorrect,

he was operating in good faith against these obvious indications that there were some gigantic problem. Potentially, what did they leave out? Those it there's a third possibility- or at least the second possibility is not been fully described. What's left out is the more obvious option. The obvious option is that CNN and the mainstream media has hypnotized. There was no use or hypnotized They brainwashed does actually is. I can defend that word brainwashed that that the media

has a legitimately brainwashed, a huge segment of the country into something like trumpet arrangements syndrome. Now that to me is by far the most accurate description of what's probably happening here I think, what's probably happening is that the media got the cave and other people, so we job into thinking. There's something dangerous was happening that ordinary evidence that would not normally claim to the level of discussing the twenty fifth amendment certainly seemed attenuated suddenly seemed attenuated, in other words, things that they might have ordinarily written off as coincidence or politics or or confirmation by us. Remember these profound

models and all day long they have to deal with. Ok is at a coincidence, or that evidence is confirmation that by us, or is this really true- so. These are professionals who work through this stuff all the time, and yet they managed to look at this bunch of nothing and convince themselves. It was. It was a danger to the republic now keep in mind that we have elections on a their basis and parties change. The government changes on a regular basis, and is unusual that the people in the government, the FBI, the department, adjust, it would not be unusual for them to not like whoever get elected we every other time the Athens Psycho. I wish that person did not get elected. but they do not act on that. They do not consider the twenty fifth amendment, because

Them is just somebody in power who is politics, they don't like that's now over, happening here here here. My cave and presumably others were so afraid that this particular new government was dangerous that they acted in a way the reasonable people are calling treason or a coup Sure, as fits treason, if you doing it for the benefit of the country, is an usher there monsieur treason works. If you imagine person doing it, was trying to preserve the republic as opposed to destroy it. So unless show that word,

completely works, but certainly there was a breach of constitution. Our least they discussed using the constitution in a way that it was not designed to be used. So that's pretty bad somebody saying it's sedition well before I agree or disagree with that. Let me look up the definition solution to make sure I am speaking Submission is over conduct such a speech, an organisation that tends towards insurrection against the establishment could be subversion of a constitution and incitement discontents. Yes, so it's get us the established order, but is the established order, the specific president or as the established order, the United States and the constitution? So

Here's here's the thing, I think the most likely explanation of events. That the media brainwashed half of the country and that some of those more than half of the country were in important jobs such as Mc Abe and that they, acted the way other brain people would have acted in the same situation, thinking that there is an immediate end to the world problem and that they might have to bend some rules to save the world to save the country. So less my guess now in some saying, come on. Let's compare the alternatives, so one alternative is that Mccabe consciously just said. I don't like this president. I want to put you know I want. I want somebody else to be president, so we'll try to take this guy

but keep in mind the twenty fifth amendment would have explicitly put the vice president in charge so so check your theory against this one, and this fact, if your theories became wanted, If my cabs, if your theories in a cave wanted to get rid of Republicans, because he was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, it doesn't make sense that he would invoke the twenty fifth. Alright, so some of you lost the connection, and I see that the comments, but the connection is fine now and it should work and replay. My experiences that, when replay that the replay will be clean, but you may have just lost,

action by the is working. Fine for other people. That means you might have to refresh on your end but what I M saying is compare these two theories. One is the Mccain didn't like the political outcome of the election, but that wouldn't make sense, because the twenty fifth amendment would have removed Trump and poor pence in charge and that's the opposite of what he wanted. What he would have wanted for political reasons. It would have worsened things in innocence. So the fact that they were talking about the twenty fifth amendment, which would have maintained a republican government. I think that to me that suggests that,

there. He was acting based on trumped arrangements syndrome because you have to be pretty desperate to you have to be pretty desperate to want to replace Trump with pence if you're a Democrat that's a desperate act and you wouldn't act desperately under any normal conditions. You wouldn't act desperately just cause. You didn't like the political outcome that you just wouldn't do that you would act desperately if you really believe there was a risk to the republic so that so that when that fits, evidence better, stop criticising the F B. I do you think, that's what I just did you have a completely backwards. Fbi concocted the russian hoax

further to the media well and are really talking about that away, the it wasn't Mikhail who concocted the F b, I hoax we're talking about him right. I do believe that there was the dossier was a hoax. I do believe that the whole investigation is closer to a witch hunt that prevails, but when you talk about Mikhail talking about the twenty fifth amendment that doesn't feel like him trying to get a democratic office that feels like desperation, because pence would have replaced,

hence couldn't would abandon step to that's a big reach yeah. I hear you saying that well, then he would get rid of tents- next, maybe I know and whose, after that wouldn't have been, who would have been so at the time who would have been president if pence was removed? Somebody

So they do in fact checking here what about another republic- and I now here's something interesting many view complained about patriarch because you said a patriarch is kicking off some Republicans or at least carry off some people for free speech reasons they you don't agree with now. Patriot on is the platform where people can donate to artists, and it is, and so people said that we are going to stop donating to use, got so a lot of people who used to be donating to me on Patria. Maybe twenty five percent of them are a third of them just disappeared. So my plan of

ending my illicit expansion of what I'm doing on periscope by you. I I have an assistant that I paid a long run you tube and put it into podcast form, and I was funding that through patron, but patriotic got attacked for being a say. A little too aggressive in kicking people off their platform, and so people said to me: hey scatter, you ever an app that's used for something slightly different, but why don't you but I don't need, but none there, and so we put it only by man there. Let me show you, Sir, all, look at myself here too, to adjust research in the interface by when Hub S area of it. So the app is primarily designed for experts to make a video call

people who days expert advice and want to pay for it per per minute, but we just added Dante button. So, if you wanna do Don't let me or anybody else who signed up so any any creator can sign up here, just takes about sixty seconds to put in your profile and stick a picture there and then you're available for donations. So if you all to donate you just to donate button, taking them out, he had apple payable your thumb on it in there you done so. I won't claim that this is the first macro say that this is the only the only alternative to patriarch and I'm not going to leave patriarch solely to stay on there too. But a lot of conservatives, especially just didn't, want to use patriotic and asked me how else they could do it. So we just added that the EP,

None of this was planned. I just talk to my city one day and said. Hey I'm hearing this complaint about patriotic. And I knew that we had a payment platform, and I knew that there was something that anybody can sign a forest. Said how hard wood it. How hard would it be, too, just add a donate button? It I just sort of brought it up as a brainstorming idea and the next time I checked they they added to the EP. So my my crack team of technology experts just made it.

just because it was a good idea. So it's called the interface by went up. It's free, it's in the EP stores and if you dont want to use patriotic, you have you have an option. Now we dont yes, but he s re question. So in phase one it is not a recurring model, so you just pay once and then walk away. So if you wanted to pay again, you'd have to do it again. If, if people use it will add a recurring function so that they have the option of, carrying or not, I think you should be an option. I don't think you should be the default policy. Very many cares of people use. It will add that action should not be hard The ways you can give me money thanks asking is either patriotic or the interface by one hub app, it's gotta donate button, just search for my name.

or you can do a super art here on periscope So there should be an option at the bottom of your screen for something called a super heart which, if you press it, would give you options for donating, but so few extra steps we we don't accept Bitcoin within the app as payments, but Thanks for asking, are you going to leave patriotic? I'm not play, two, but if I get more donations, unless I worry us so if, if I ended up,

getting something something even close to a replacement level on the interface by one hub app. Then I would leave patriotic but lacking leave unless people prefer this method a what percentages investing. So we just now

two patriotic five percent so of the five percent. Roughly speaking, half of that actually just goes to the banking, the transaction just to pay the fear that they go between people and then something like two percent plus goes to goes to the company are yet we still, you can still pay for experts with the crypto currency. That's integrated with the air

its integrated with visa the up by the way for those of you who have purchased Lee when W H here, which is the crypto currency. That is part of the intervention by one, how about, in addition to credit cards, so the app works just with normal money in granite cars in the? U S, dollars and stuff, but we ever the crypto option. The value of the crypto is tied to the value of the company, so if it turned out that a lot of people wanted to use it as a patriotic replacement Let's say that became that became a big thing which occurred. Then the app would be more viable because it would have another source of income and the weapons that people have already purchased probably would go up in

Probably will go up in value, but nobody can guarantee that causes not and investments, but the value of the when is tied to the success of the EP. So everything that makes the more successful is likely to make the EU when go up and value. But no guarantees That's what we know. and is re other news we haven't talked about. Let me just do a quick check on CNN see if there's anything we forgot. Always talk about, we have even talked about the national emergency. So the national emergency We could talk about Amazon's actually do so. it seems to me that the president can either accept or a veto. The the bill-

and still do is emergency thing and still build a thing, because what what's different today compared to just a few weeks ago, is that we watched Congress fail, in front of us. When you see what Congress produced with their bipartisan group working together, I think I think we all have to say yeah. That looks like a complete failure. Now is it? Is it wrong for the commander in chief who has a Alfred Homeland Security issue is valid for him to say: look the Congress tried right in front of you and they failed miserably. You didn't you see with what they produced is not even a bill that I can sign because apparently and here's the part that I was

It is a little bit of a wait and see I've been seeing the conservative complaints about the bill but not yet seen anybody defend those same objections, in other words the things that the conservatives are complaining about. An old man those in the minute. I have not heard anybody on the other side say other actually good ideas, you're, not looking at it in contact story. You misunderstand, some still waiting for that until I get that what are throw in with a side, but I'll tell you what the conservatives are saying to problems. One is this: if there is a, if there's a child and the child has some kind of a sponsor than that for us and yes to stay in people say my God is a giant loophole for every amiss, thirteen and cartel member to say all this is MIKE id. I guess I can stay in the country I would wait to make sure that that interpretation of

of the size of that loophole is accurate. might be that there is more to this story than we know and that the Congress was not as stupid as it appears in the service so as possible. There's more to their story, and I am waiting to hear the other argument before I welcome but what we know sounds terrible right if all you knew, as they have opened up this giant loophole that will increase child trafficking in and be like an open door for the cartel, while thou would be and certainly the president should not silent, but I'd wait. Wait to see if there's a

no, no, the argument would be, but I will wait to see if there is. One second part is something that will be read the exact tweet here, because the other part is that the local cities. get a say on the question of whether the fence would be in their area in, as was port, pointed out at sea to to get me one moment by Brendan Darby. The problem is that the local, the local cities get. Decide where at least their part of the decision, whether there is a barrier where they are the problem as derby as Brenda Dark. He has pointed out is that the cartel

There are already buying those local officials so that people who would be Bay, whom the decision about putting a fence or a barrier between them and the cartels, would actually be owned by the cartel. So the cartels in too many cases donor. How many already have corrupted those officials so we would have effectively be- and this is this is insane but true as far as I can tell it again, maybe it's still fog a war or maybe we don't know exactly what this bill Sesar or how would be implemented in a way for a better explanation, But on the surface it appears that we that the bill, and I not even making this up, but it appears that the bill delegate said decision about building a wall in the border to the cartel

and that's not even an exaggeration, that's not a joke! That's literally what's happened, the bill as it stands accord, to what we understand that it could be wrong. but what we understand is that Congress got together and they were so incompetent, that they came up with an idea for delegating the decision. about building a border wall to the mexican cartels literally Let me then say it in those words, but that's actually what's gonna happen, because the cartels in too many cases have influence over the american government on the border. Now did you know that? that change european you right. Doesn't change your opinion now this why you talk to the experts right

If you had not heard that from Brandon Darby the third key parts of the board, where the american governments the amount, african governments, the local city, people, are already bought by the cartels. Now easy guessing no goes in an article in bright bar that I'd like to, he actually goes down the list of the people who have, already been caught taking money from the cartel. It's not a one off. It's not speculation. Its Our happened that one time and I'm generalizing too much it already widespread, as confirmed nobody's guessing about this. The cartels are actually starting to run the governments on the border. And we just delegated the decision to build a wall to the cartels that actually happened. Now ask yourself

if that's not an emergency? What is, What is an emergency, if it's not EU emergency, that Congress just delegated border security to the mexican cartel, and that was the best thing Do if that's not an emergency I do not know what emergency looks like so, now remember, I said from the start that unless unless you see something coming out of this working committee about the border. That looks like a here's. What the expert said, and then here's what we decided. If you don't see that, then they have now served you, they have not done the job of a congress. Their bill does not deserve any considered.

listen. You should not even be talking about whether the bill should be signed or not signed, You should be saying that nothing got produced the shit, those worthy of looking at, because if they can't do that simple, thing. Here's what the expert said: here's what we funded Nathan compare them now. Yes, it turned out that the experts set up. We want eight things, and this is one report third, with years our aid priorities and then committee said all right. We can only find the top three that's a defensible argument, because I have communicated with the public. They looked at the priorities. They did not disagree with them. They just added their expertise, which is how much budget that we want to put on these priorities. That would be something you can agree with disagree with. Maybe you think you should be more funding, but at least

It would be a rational process, it would be honest, it would be transparent and the public could say I'm ok with the top three priorities. It's an eighty, twenty situation. If it is enough. It is, but if you don't see even that, here's the expert said here's where we did compared to what they wanted. You should now support anything that comes out of that committee. Even if it's good, even if its accidently good, you should not support it, because the process is spitting in your voter, face it disrespects, the public in a way that grotesque now can the president who has been saying from the start, I'm gonna sign that thing and then watching- super majority of the Congress agree with it raises

If the President vetoes it, a super majority can argue it and still and still overcome his veto right. I think he should still do it if, under this condition, if it's true that that this delegates- the decision about the border to the cartels- and I think the argument is pretty good than it does- I haven't heard the current counter argument- a need to wait for that. But it looks like that, if that's what this bill does and also opens up uneasy channel for child abuse and everything else that I think the president absolutely can. Just as we do that piece of shit and declare an emergency and say the cartels have breached the border there already controlling the local governments,

the local governments are no longer the credible defenders of this country. They have joined the other side in too many cases, certainly not the majority, but in too many cases and the federal government as a responsibility to the to the people to declare this an emergency so that weaken counteract the the bought off officials that the cartel loans. So I'm not going to predicts that that the press in return the spill, because he has said very clearly that he will- and he did get both sides to agree to it with a super majority says kind, a tough to dvd, but here's and its possible I can say this enough times that I have not your yet heard the positive argument for the bill.

For some reason nobody is making that argument. So if you don't hear a positive argument for the the parts of the bill that are flawed, letting the local governments be part of the decision. Having that kid spy, answer thing: that's just the open door. If you know you're the counter argument, I say the president has really responsibility to veto it, but he might not Wilson now what might happen- and I will just speculates I saw it- lets less. Just imagine the best case scenario. So the best case scenario is that the that sponsors part of it were, if there's a kid in the United States. I guess that we have to keep the sponsors well. It could be that what that does is prevents children in cages.

protects the children and it might, it might be a trade off the people willingly understood and took it could be that the defence of that is we are completely aware that it opens up the opportunity for abuse we are completely aware that that abuse will happen, but it's also problem for so many kids and families. There were consciously gonna make that train off. I would listen to that that that's a conversation I would listen to, especially if the population affected is sort of a one time thing, yeah they can deal with it overtime, non unjust, not saying I would listen to the argument right. I'm not saying that making decision under saying that if they knowingly made a trade off, that's good for some kids, but definitely bad for a smaller group gives all at least listen to the arguments.

and in terms of the local community. Agreeing or disagree it could day, and I am not saying this is the case: if you were to look at the language and if you understood how things work with governments, it could be that the government, the federal government, could never successfully build a border where the local government disagreed anyway. Now in terms of legal rights may be, they could in terms of a practical matter. It might be impractical for the federal govern. to override a city that didn't wanna wall, even if legally they had all the right to do it, in the real world, it just might be politically and practically impossible. Let me tell you how and again this is just speculation, not putting out that the south here, as anything

That is but increasing your imagination about how what the possibilities are. One possibility is that there will always be lots of cities on the list that that are candidates for a wall. And it could be that no matter how much funding we get your own Europe We were here at the top priorities, so it could be that if a particular city says Hey federal government, we absolutely resist the wall here than the federal government very much like Amazon com when they pulled out of New York, they. They can say all right, we're not legally the other. There's nothing that makes us impossible for us to stop what Amazon's headquarters in New York but if you don't have a friendly local government, it creates a friction. That's not worth it likewise in the real world. I can easily

imagine a situation where the local government, even if they had to accept the federal authority to build a barrier the local government could make it hard. They could just say sure, we'll get you know we're gonna go up ray with you, but it's not our priority source. While return phone calls, when you ask us where the gas lines are, we won't tell you. These are bad examples, but I'm just making the point. That all the the bill says that the local, the local groups need to approve the wall it might be, and this would be compatible with everything I understand about the world. It might be. That has no real change. It might be that unless the local government was on board, it's just too

hard and so priorities being what they are. The federal government would say: ok, we're gonna, wait that audacity, they're resistant, we'll just the walls with our limited funding in our limited resources, where that, where there's no problem, so I think they that are our simplistic idea that the cartel weakened by a government and the government can stop border. Probably true seems to be. That would be true, but it might not be any different. Whether or not this this bill says the government can stop it or not, because maybe, The government could sort of stop it just by being difficult to work with in exactly the same way that, YO see stopped Amazon from coming into New York City

Amazon is not legally stopped there, there's nothing, there would prevent them from going to New York City. It was just too much friction. Just wasn't worth dealing with the fray and the federal government probably always had that situation with the local governments too. So I don't know how definiteness weight so way for the experts. The way also could generate envy of cities with the wall. Good point near the. If you build, if you build several walls, and then Those cities are happy with their walls and crime goes down. the sitting next to you that did not build the wall, first of all, going to get all the extra crime, because people are you can't cross in one place cuz I got to go to the place with no wall, so the place with no wall should see an increase in crime and the voters. Voters have some decisions to make.

It just might not make any difference that some of the sum of the city's oppose the war as long as you can build it and other places, and then convincingly the other cities by example, I saw the beta better work was asked If walls or such a bad idea would he be in favour of tearing down the existing wall in El Paso, and he said yes, so Baino Orourke. actually sell you a tear down the existing wall

I dont know if there's any body was less chance of becoming president than that guy, but I think he just went from Joe. You went from a joke to a bigger joke. That is pretty crazy. You're. Even if you didn't like the wall, it would make more sense to put a gate there than would turn on the Wall somebody says he bought by the cartels and others a good question. If we now that the local governments are bought by the cartels- and you can't think of any other reason. Somebody would tear down the entire wall. What assumption do you have to make about better work? Now, I'm not I'm not gonna, say Now that the fact he wants to turn the wall necessary,

It means that the cartel already on some not necessarily, but I can tell you for sure that if you don't really suspect it you're, not you not acting like injured Mackay, thus Fisher Cassandra became would suspect. There was something going on there and he would you do something non constitutional about it. I think I hear your comments and I think we ve done enough and I'm going to go, do some other things and I'll talk to you later,