Bump bump bump bump bump. Oh, what good luck? You're all here and it's time for coffee was got items shrilly not safe. Without you. Glad you could come and are you ready already? Where can we talk of others impeachment stuff impeachment theatre as we call it, but first you gotta get pride. He got it ready you gotta be in your best frame of mind for this, and all it takes is a copper mugger glass at anchor tells Time Kantian, jogger flask of vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid. Like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dope beans with data thing makes everything better. The simultaneous sip you're ready.

Oh yeah special impeachment flavour: how does a taste very mpg somebody in the garments, comments section is saying: White Privilege was Scott, isn't always about that? I'm sorry, if I'm just my way privilege by using a public platform. So I continue to be amazed that my trolls disappeared suddenly and I don't know why it could be because I was playing with the filters, so but it filters to allow you to get rid of, I think some of the filters are you: can you can block people who don't have a picture in there?

photos. I think you ve been black. People were new accounts, some other options, but I don't know if that's it, they suddenly just disappeared and I'm talking about the ones who would always combined with the same three or four comments. They only happened in twenty sixteen and then they disappeared for a while, but they would flare up now and then, but for reasons I dont know they all disappeared, but That doesn't mean that we have reached the end of our questions about conservatives, especially being. Throttled were shadow bans. Let me give you an interesting uptake. I noticed it noticed a few days ago that, when I tried to follow Richard Grenelle embezzled grew now that I thought I had followed him, but then it suggested that I follow him on the list of suggested.

People to follow, and I thought what was going on I'm already following him. So I checked and I wasn't I thought: how did I imagine it so I followed him So I followed him and then he has suggested that I followed him again. The next day they thought. Is it possible. Twice. I thought I followed him and in so I tweeted out to question too to my followers. They said every if you tried to follow Embassadors Grenelle and found that your autumn ethically and followed guess what the answer is. Yes,

a lot of people a lot of evil. If you look at the comments in my two that tweed tweeted again today to just to let people look of the gun it if its massively happen. No investor Grenelle noticed that I was talking about this and he he thanked me for he had just for raising this issue You do get a few thousand extra followers just because I gave em gave him some attention. But if you look at the number of people in the comments were quite sure they followed him and our equation where they got on followed. Many of them just discovering, because I pointed out so lotta people didn't know it. They just said on following him. Let me check than they check them

then automatically on followed. Now here's the question- and I did put in a message to Jack Dorsey, to ask him if there's some official twitter response, because our own, what the official company position is not tell you, my hypothesis as offices, so don't put too much credibility on it. I think we're all confused when things are roughly. Three main possibilities. The one would be that Twitter senior management is intentional. The ordering their employees to game the system for some political game. I would call that deeply unlikely for particular topic. The the following in the unfolding, It is so to imagine that

they are doing it intentionally and that its coming from the top would imagine that they were all idiots and that's clearly at the gates, because you'd have to be really an idiot to bet your entire company, because that's what this would be a huge really be bearing the company, bearing the entire company and your reputation there's something so easily discovered by me, and obviously many of you can discover just as easily so if it's completely obvious and heavy handed, those two don't go together, because you wouldn't do a clever political scheme to you by us the elections, if it were also perfectly obvious and discoverable by anybody, you look

So what are the odds? The senior management again we're talking about very smart people here, not even ordinary smart people were talking about people who have started billion dollar companies and people were at the top of their management heap. They know what they're doing I dont believe it just stretches my credibility to two beyond where I can take it that it will be intentional and obvious at the same time it just doesn't make sense. The other possibilities is just a bug, as above that happens, everybody, but We just noticed in cases where we're looking and it could be a case of where you think you ve, you think you followed somebody. You think you ve like something, but maybe you're at is not doing a good handshake with the other, the central processes.

But here again that would be so hard to believe because it's such a massive bug, that it would certainly at least republic. In other words, if it were a bug that size that is affecting God knows how many people happens on a regular basis has been happening for years. If that were the case, it would just be public. Knowledge is probably would be included in the direction somewhere here the press, this we can guarantee it'll take or something like that. But more to the point, do you think in the year twenty twenty that twitter doesn't know how to build an app, whereas the absence of information to the central processor it doesn't have a process to make sure that the hand happened seriously. I mean- maybe maybe

the bug, but it seems so unlikely, so I likely so I tell you my hypothesis again just speculation but I'm looking at the main possibilities and I'm just putting some odds item. So I think the that is intentional and coming from twitter management, almost zero. The odds that it's a bug and weed out first of all, know about it isn't getting fixed feels like zero again. You can. You can never really completely rule out stuff like this, but very low. Here's. My hypothesis, there's somebody was control of their system. That is not in the management chain. Could just a rogue employ could be. Somebody took bribe

because one of the easiest ways to get access to somebody's algorithms. Fine, sir programmers will have access and offer them millions of dollars to tweak something. Now, if I had to guess of all the possible explanations, there's one of them, this actually kind of normal. And typical and himself ass one. Unfortunately, we live in a world where could not be hard for a motivated, bad actor too far. And an employee in one of these big social media companies and just bridle. How much would it cost to bribe one employee snap, Alex if you're talking about billions, terrorism and maybe foreign countries, God knows what and maybe they didn't even need to be bribed, maybe they're. Just partisans who found themselves in the right job took advantage of it

but I'm gonna go with bad actor somewhere under the hood as my top hypothesis. So I've got a message into Jack Dorsey asking if there's anything, official explanation I'll be haven't chair, but that's worries that now I have also been keeping you updated that my twitter feed, I'm so another twisted my Youtube videos, yet routine lead monetize, but apparently I have now complained about that enough that I have a Google's attention. And, although I haven't followed up, I did get an email yesterday from somebody whose job it is to follow up on exactly this, so it turns out Google's a big gap between the others, a job for everyone.

And apparently, there's somebody who's job. Their actual job includes the responsibilities of figuring out. Why people like me are complaining about being demonetized. So apparently is enough of a problem that, through somebody, job. It is to find out what's wrong now, a preliminary hypothesis there is that trolls are reporting it, so it could be that Google is just responding to them, there are lots of complaints, and until we manually asked for review, they don't notice of the complaint still match up with the material until they look at it manually, maybe because it wouldn't it wouldn't be crazy The Google system would automatically automatically block something if it got a lotta complaints and until they sorted down seems like that to be reasonable,

to do, but it would allow justice huge, gaping problem which, which would be the trolls, could legitimately get you demonetized. So if I had to guess that's my top hypothesis is the troll. Are complaining and they just figured out ETA game the system now I'd be worth around salt or talk to Google and let you know that goes. I guess we need to talk about impeachment. A this talk about impeachment. Will you do you think one? The first round of impeachment Theatre sort of like the stern of the sort of a reality tv Show- Firstly, I am watching this impeachment stuff and I don't even feel that it has something to do with government, because, Both sides have acknowledged that we know how it ends.

And if you know how it ends and how it ends is not going to affect the government, the least in terms of removing a president. All this left is the theater and its obvious that the participants Playing to the audience, unfortunately, there also boring the heck under the audience. It's it's hard to watch it too long, but if you like me, did you have? I watched enough of the essence that I felt ass though I felt as though I was learning lot. It is so impressive to wash the best use some of the best attorneys, world argue two sides of the case, because you, you may have the same experience. I add you'll hear one of the attorneys makes their case so they go home and I think, while I was pretty good, that was very persuasive. The fires that argument DE inclined to agree with our lawyer

and then the other lawyers from the other side gets up and just demolishes the argument and makes another argument is so strong. You say guess. I got to change my bedroom. Without lawyer, then the next lower gets up to infinity. So it's fascinating watch my view of reality change in real time, so called they ve got a good point. No, they don't looks like they ve really. Really they'll, know them and the same experience are you, maybe he'll, those, you were a little more partisan are probably saying one side is winning every time. The other side is losing,

every time, but I'll tell you what's the most absurd part about this whole process. The absurdity is, that is something called the trial, and yet there is apparently there's nothing in the process that stops people from standing for the public and lying crazy. I mean seriously lying now, unlike the saints only happening on one side because of the new sources, I'm watching, I'm see more of it more. The accusations about shift lie. I dont even need to check, MSNBC and see them. I don't, to check, because I already know they're saying lawyers alive and they're, gonna show their evidence and legally show what they said, etc. Now I can't necessarily sorted allowed, but I can say with some confidence

the people are intentionally lying from the public and there's no repercussions, no repercussions that they can just stand there and say anything. They want honestly, though, as long as they're not mean to each other chief Justice Roberts is go. Let him go, I guess he I guess he wanted them to be a little more professional. This now but there's really wonderful, to be a little more respectful to the to the other side. But in terms of lying Ets is just a it's a free, so free market. They can just lie the whether what and so I ask you If there are no rules of evidence, you know No normal way is that you get to the bottom or whether the fact is really a factor that what they are,

It is one thing that we all think we know word ends, and that makes it a ridiculous you theatre exercise. But how did that process possibly work? In what universe could the process as it exists, possibly work, because both sides are deeply their deeply incentivize lie? Why would you tell the truth in that setting? It would, it would be a losing strategy you might as well. Why? Because this, system rewards it it's the damned thing, We're system ever receive our support, some of the fun small stories within the big story. First of all, I can tell I think the public can tell who is willing or losing in any this people are just go grab. Whatever factor understand and say. Well I understand this. One variable soy based my decision.

Probably that's all of us, but here's the most, The two men of yesterday, I could not enjoy this more. What I'm going Tell you next is just delicious. I've never been so entertained by the news? I'm a news is just become entertainment. Now I'm in this whole impeachment thing is hard to see. It is anything but a reality. Tv entertainment, but by far the coolest best most entertaining thing that came out of it came from Ellen Dershowitz, his mouth when he was interviewed. I assured him, and he said, oh god, I love this. I love you so much. I could barely the Saint Dershowitz as everybody's wrong about the president already being impeached, and that is The statement will last forever does as Dershowitz explains. If the Senate acquits him he's not engaged.

That's the first time. I've ever heard that this is the same with you. You heard anybody who actually knows what you're talking about I'm talking about a new constitutional scholar. Type person like Dershowitz has anybody by him said. I'm an interview, know you're all wrong. There is no impeachment if the Senate votes votes it out. Now. I assume that by they will see. Experts on the other side say no. No, no Alan Dershowitz is crazy. It's definitely impeachment. Oh yes, it's impeachment. Even if the Senate votes against it hits impeachment, but here's the delicious park, it's not that they disagree.

It's not that somebody saying something I would love to hear, because I think it would just be amazing if that were true unlikely Dershowitz. You no opinion on this. To be true. Here's was the fun part. Both positions are supported, by experts, our two world to movies are one screen is preserved, no matter what happens so the votes gonna happen and the people and the people who say he is Each forever he's gotta stay than him forever. They're gonna be able to say that, because they have their argument and the people who suffer

The present. You don't want to say that as well you you could say that, but let us look at the constitutional experts. Ellen Dershowitz says no impeachment, assuming that he the Senate votes. I way now. Here's the fund part who gets to Wikipedia first cassettes the whole game here, whoever guess the Wikipedia and makes their edit stick winds. Because you can't trust the news to tell you if he was impeached or another page. I already know how that's gonna go Fox news. He wasn't impeached see, then he was totally impeached. You know how that's gonna go so nobody's gonna. Look at the news to find out of his impeach did have tried. Find a history book, but there is really a history book written yet still early they're gonna go to Wikipedia and we

Baby is going be a battleground of competing editors who say here's my source I gotta source now baby, Wikipedia Wool Battle to a standstill and they'll just put both points of view and say: well, there's a controversy. So we ve got two points of view: we're not going to judge it. We're just sailor, two views that they might end up there But I love the fact that Dershowitz is very clearly giving cover to anybody who later later wants to make the claim that the present wasn't impeached. Do you know who else is going to make that argument that the present wasn't impeached, assuming the the Senate goes away. President Europe. Do you think President tribe is ever going to say in public? I was not impeached, I think you will. I think he might. There will be a fun battle for whose reality wins.

Somebody else that Dershowitz says no. I told you yesterday that I understood that ninety ninety eight about the Clinton trial that impeachment doesn't necessarily have to be a crime. You know it could be, doesn't have to technically be a crime, the books and then he is clarified, and then he said he here he retracts his old stay there and if it was, if it wasn't cheers my current view and the current view is that it still needs to be. It doesn't need to be a crime. Yeah I've done more research, here's my current view and the current view is that it still needs to be. It doesn't need to be a crime, so he's consistent from ninety. Ninety eight today, he always said, does need to be a technical crime, but based on his scholarly research, updated in these to be crime, light

know what the hell does that mean what is prime like this? Not a crime. Well, helpfully Dershowitz gave two examples: they thought there exe examples now. They're, not exhaustive. There are just two examples. View. The idea one is, let's say the these: some some president had done something and it was discovered, but let's say, and I'm I'm gonna this example, little bit less say, was one day after the statute of limitations had just run out. He was a horrible crime. But we don't find out about it until the presidents in office One day passed the statute of limitations. Or maybe he already had to be in the office. I think you would have had to do it in the office and then the statute of limitations still expired or something like that but anyway, so one example would be society

We believe this to be a crime is just that for a technical reason. There wasn't. Let's say somebody got accused of a crime and they were acquitted by the courts, but only because it was some problem with collecting that collecting evidence or something My own example. Another one was suppose he did a horrible crime, but he did it. Wally's overseas uses different jurisdiction. You can imagine a president going to some other country have to give you examples, because you can think of your own, something horrible happens with say in his personal dealings. You can fill them with any details. You want, but it's not a crime because he happens to be in the country where this just now criminal. But maybe we want to treat it like that in this country, because to us is exactly like one of our crimes so as crime like now. I love those examples because they give you

They begin to give you a little bit of a sense of what it means to be like a crime, but not actually being a crime, so there could be those. Samples, and then you can imagine that the framers of the constitution wanted to make sure that day they picked up all the exceptions they just through their crime like thing understanding in their peers wagons. Interesting, the the impeachment articles do not Do not alleged crime, so what would be crime like in terms of abuse of power? What would be the most?

crime like what what is a crime? That's not abuse of power, but is like really close to it, and the answer is nothing. Nothing. There's nothing. This almost like abuse of power by the President there's also a grim criminal act. There's nothing there, corruption and bribery. Those are very specific but coercing a foreign power to do something that may or may not be for the national interest losing nothing on the books, the sort of in that ball park. Apparently so it looks like in and dirty would says what I've been saying, which is they should just vote on the constitutionality of it and be done with it could cause digging into the details. Does nothing but give shift lots of opportunity to show the public details in his?

maybe biased, lying way less. I did so. I dont know why. There's somebody on the president's team, whose not taking Dershowitz advice on just vote, vote the constitutionality of gone, but they must have the reasons for their very good lawyers. One thinks they shifted and then I think one of the other, democratic impeachment manager showed was they. They actually showed a hoax video, oh my god, and by hawks video Venus deceptively edited the chain, meaning as a video where the President says in his own words. I think this is close to his own words that

I can do anything I want and they take it in a context. Where looks like you saying that as president I'm above the law, I can do anything I want. If you see it didn't context, he was talking, though I can do anything I want. I forget what it was, but a special the question in which we can do anything you want. So what you said is not what you actually said is not in dispute. I dont believe by anybody, there's no lawyer anywhere, who disputes what he actually said. But if you cut out the context which they did and they showed a hoax video in the Senate. Just think about this and intentional hoax video twice on the same day.

They always being told him. The commons reminded that when he said he can do anything, you want to do with whether he could higher or fire people in the executive and the executive branch. The answer is, of course, he's the is the boss. He didn't do anything. You want some terms: irish fire, it within reason, so. Why don't you wonder what Chief Justice Roberts was thinking because apparently doesn't have power to jump in in and and manage the proceedings other than just the ceremonial parts that he's doing? What do you think he was thinking now? Maybe you didn't know that it was a deceptive and hoax video, maybe, but probably he probably knew And he had sit there, the head of the Supreme Court- just just imagine, is mindset NEO just for a moment.

I'm not gonna, say that I know what you're thinking but imagine what are you thinking? He he's the person who is most. Let's say he has the greatest responsibility in the entire country for making sure that the citizens play fair with each other right. Chief justice of the Supreme Court. That's is primarily point private the thing life is a people play fair now within the legal system, of course, but he had to sit there and watch in the Senate. The most respected often often said the most respected body, governmental body of just about anywhere right and they had to watch shift play a hoax, video and another one playhouse for the right in front of him and he had to just sit and watch it. Oh my card that would have made me crazy, I think

stop there either. I think our elder man said you know. Stay in my role and is not to get involved, but You should have any others, a hoax video in front of the whole world in the Senate, It doesn't get any worse than that mean, I suppose, there's a lot of verbal lying in the Senate, so people used to it by man showing hopes video as as bad as it gets one of the things that shifting couple you are suggesting- and this is my own words and putting on this- is that the president mounting a legal defence is tantamount to it to admitting guilt. What now, of course, I'm putting my own words and what what they're saying but

their version of it was, and one of the impeachment managers said this. I can't name she said that she should work and law enforcement before being in government and that she knew that anybody who had evidence that did not read them or show their innocence would be happy to show too. Therefore, because the Iceland is not allowing these documents in the people associated with the press, see not allowing them to talk under the assumption of executive privilege, presidential privilege that that alone is strong evidence of his guilt. To which I said what country are. We now still on the United States. Because in the United States you can fight like a wounded badger for your defence.

And the smartest thing you can do is to block every if he can, if you can do a legally, you have to do a legally, but if he can, you want a block every source of information from the prosecution cause. There might be something in there remember. This lots lots of documents, lots and lots of people whose memories or maybe different about what happened. People making assumptions. If you open all that up your guaranteed, that the other team is gonna, find some snippet a text, message and email that could be taken more than one way. Then what do you do you? Just you just gave the other side. Some ammunition wasn't even real, just something that looked real because other contacts you say if I saw the context, I would look handed damning. I don't want the jury. They see that right. You wasn't what year, what the judge to see that

because it's just something there taking other context So the only way you can prevent stuff taken out of context is. Are you fight as hard as you can legally within the legal system to prevent the prosecution or whoever is acting as a prosecutor in this case you wanna. Do you want to limit all their information is exactly the same reason? Why a precedent with less aid. President trumps, veal, complicated tax returns issue, People said well if he had nothing. Why? Wouldn't you just? Let us look at him. That is just so inexperienced. Nobody has experience in the real world would say so. So dumb. The reason you don't let the public in your critics see your tax returns.

One reason could be you're trying to myself, but an equally strong reason and justice compelling which, which has to be the first reason you consider that nothing good can come of it. It can only be bad if you're totally innocent. It's only bad, gives them stuff. Do you criticise that May or may not even be valid, but his plenty immaterial. You don't want it. You don't wanna earn your enemies, so I would say that the most offensive thing that the Democrats who are saying is that that the Trump team, using the legal process legal process due to put some obstacles in the way of the prosecution, the somehow this That's evidence of guilt. While it is amazing that we elect people who can say things like that, public Have you noticed

you lose your going on and the arguments and the small size. Both sides have done. Two of the biggest losers. Think errors, as I read about in my best selling book, called Loser- think which you can see beyond mere one of them? Is they? Imagine that they can read the minds strangers, hit the mind reading massive once you start looking for easy it everywhere, and What they do is also, and the reason is that this is too high a this or the reason the present doesn't want to have. This is because he knows will get the goods now you carried his mind and you certainly don't get to read his mind and put the worst possible interpretation on it. There are other interpretations, so both sides are doing their both saying that they know the motives of the other. Maybe right, but it's just the worst thing in the world.

Were to assume that now remember one of the one of the arguments from the present staff. Is there They're doing mind, reading about his intentions, and you don't want to have a system that lets people get punished because other people remind reading Here is the most interesting soil legal argument, factoid I've seen and it's all well about technical, but I think I can simplify this to the point where you understand now, Jaw Pollack, one of the few people will probably read all these documents in terms of the argument. Coming from the way out, pull them one of the arguments and highlighted the tweet, and this is just so engine listen to this argument from the lawyers for the present, so this is my version of it. So I hope I don't mess up.

In order for in order to get a conviction on the beach, and you have to have two thirds of the Senate vote meeting. They'd have to agree and vote the same way on the specific basis for conviction and other words that the vote that this is specifically the reason their impeaching get. That makes sense right you you want to two thirds of the Senate to be very specific this stuff is why we're impeaching you, but because the way the impeachment has been structured, it's a long lest it's a laundry list, the bad things suppressed and has done and they're trying to get the Senate to vote on a laundry list for impeachment and they'll. Listen to this argument is soak is so clever. If, if the Senate votes on a laundry list, no matter how no matter how

convincing. That list is unique at the end of it no. If any one of those things on list, because two thirds of the people the vote the way they did, in other words, by its structure, its not proceeded You couldn't proceed with a laundry list of reasons. Could you never know why the senators voted the way they did. You wouldn't know if you got two thirds rehnhjelm, it might be in I'll. Just do this hypothetically. It could be that one third of the senators voted because of one of those points, but we're not persuaded by. Was a two others. Another third voted for another one, but we're not persuaded by the other two and so on.

We could actually have a hundred percent of the Senate vote to convict, in other words, vote to impeach and carry it through and yet not satisfy the constitution, because the constitution requires that they know that they are voting for the same thing. Otherwise, you dont know if you got two thirds for any one of those things, and I thought, what's the counter arguments that I suppose lawyers are clever, so maybe they have won. Isn't that the end? Can you just say: let's just talk about this. One thing is even anything we have the way a structured there we could vote on is vulnerable. Apparently it's not even the you. You could not constitutionally gift from here to there very interesting.

One of the things I'm liking the most about this is that the Senate has decided to literally torture themselves. While we watch now you couldn't, you cannot write a better reality show and in some ways it was always having this way. People live joke for years that the government is just becoming a reality. Tv show, then we present trunk is elected. It looks more like a reality tv show. Then it manages is alive. Like a reality, tv show right down to the fact that the purely he wanted lawyers on his team will look good on camera. Allegedly under knows that actually happened, but it would be consistent with is his very smart way to look at the world which is

You certainly want to do you want. You want to be good at every level, you wanna be visually good, good arguments, etc. So we got to the point. Where the Senate is literally locking its members taking away the only thing they could save their their poor board mines which other electronic devices phones and stuff and making the sit there for twelve hours a day and then come back my god it would be. So can you imagine being in that room how in the world can you listen to all this stuff and especially the all the motions about these fifty years, so things that are voting on, but I gotta say:

I like the fact that I can depend in detail. So if I get bored, I can go, do something else, but when I leave another all still locked up on their robe they're gonna be there, for God knows how long so as just great The Senate is actually torturing their own members. I mean the actual torture. I mean not not the wartime sense, but I would feel tortured if I had to sit there for twelve hours they within a phone I mean I would be pretty unhappy. I imagine that the same with them and see what else we got going on here. So we ve got the question about about whether or not the presidential was a call d. They forget the word.

The executive privilege? So so there's some history about, I guess, there's some situations in which the the president's close AIDS did have to give up their information and did have to testify or their documents can be discovered whatever was, but there is some history in which that veil, husband, penetrated in the past and one of the arguments, apparently the better argument about it is that what's different about impeachment, the stakes are so so that in general you wouldn't want the president's close advisers to have to give up any of their communications, because it would make it harder for that any future president to get good advice. Nobody would want Nobody would even want to send an email to somebody to get some information if this or other electronic communications we're going, grabbed. So the argument is.

The only in this very special case, worsen impeachment. Other the fate of the republic rides on it and cetera that in those very important cases of impeachment, that's the exception where they can penetrate that their privilege and get to that get to the assistance. Risers, but here's the thing wasn't. All of that before impeachment became a big fucking joke. Sorry that slip down is impeachment this year, the same as what impeachment used to be a thing. So. Why are they so today's impeachment is not yesterday's impeachment. So the argument that impeachment is such a high stakes game, because the fate of the country depends on it that they should make an exception and penetrate that

executive privilege that doesn't really apply to today's form of impeachment. Today's form of Patient is literally theatre is just the shell. Do you think that the republic is, as is at risk, this impeachment process not even a little bit, not even a little bit there's there are no signs. Whatsoever in this way, What do you know how it ends the impeachment, this bunch of crap, it's just theatre under the situation where impeachment has thank you Nancy policy. She has trivialized one of the most important parts of the constitution. Down to the point: where is the lowest stakes? Impeachment should be the highest stakes right. The other whole country depends on not anymore

They made a joke and of the whole thing I mean literally joke. We are literally laughing about it s, day that I watch it I'm watching it. This is now Oh hyperbole here I wash it as entertainment. I don't watch it like there's anything at stake because I'd another. Isn't I'm not in the sense that the government will change? so, I would say the best argument for why the stakes are not that high, that this should be clearly. The veil should be appears as if there were no stakes they ve ruined impeachment forever and guess what, if Ellen, Dershowitz his rider, even if he isn't presidential, is going to credibly claim that no impeachment happened

That's so unimportant was I like to tell you a news that looks optimistic, here's one, although it could destroy the entire planet, but at the moment it looks activists There's a country is a company I forget which countries in that's making food out of thin air. Now that's exactly what you're doing so, starting with microbes and liquid and some kind of reformation tank, and then they They can breathe these microbes into some kind of a protein that doesn't have a flavor seek and had it anything about here. Twist. Normally, you feed you're figure, microbes, some kind of each. But they found a way to grow these things by feeding it co2. So they can

a policy or to enter the air pomp and entered Little mixture of fermented microbes and turn it into protein. Now, apparently there are already doing so. We have to wonder if, if the science works does already done it now, the question is whether it could scale up is a big question. But when I was laughing at how I'm not sure if this is good news and bad news, because it we really easy to imagine that you could build these inexpensive things that make you protein out of the air and that use user to feed less aid, african tribes or something that deny, other sources, but what happens if it becomes the main way we get? Protein, how much I was

do you wanna take out of the air cause, you sort, I have to have a limited, because the plants, the vegetation of the earth, requires a certain level of co2. So it's one thing: I talk before about companies that are making these scrubbers Napoleon no there, but the scrubbers. You can just turn off. If you pulling seo two out of the air just to get it out of the air and decide that you ve got enough, and if you took more of it it would be bad for the earth now good or you can just on blogger. But if you get people addicted to a machine that use the co2 to produce food and that becomes,

A major food source was especially if its feeding poor people are they going to turn it off your words there's someone seo too near that will never reached the limit of those. But, as I said said yesterday, it does look like President Trump has I was so taken a more nuanced approach to climate change. His he approved the United States entering this trillion trees situation, which you wouldn't do unless you thought there was some risk of climate change being a real problem by his take out. Is that we'll figure it out? And I completely agree with that that it's probably a problem which is a big enough risk. We should treat it seriously, but we can figure it out, and maybe maybe some of these new technologies are Zactly. What's gonna happen,

was saying I won't colored climate plan, but an energy plan in which they would go to more clean energy, including nuclear etc, and I heard from it with a version of the saying I won't colony climate plan, but an energy plan in which they would go to more clean energy, nuclear etc, and I heard from a number of Mccarthy's office who offer to debrief me on Sunday to follow up and then we'll get you more details on that. His announced support for nuclear, yet the president said generations, I think he's a generation for nuclear. In his list of things we should look at, but he's not called the doubters something to emphasise. Let me tell you the

arguments for the sceptics on climate, and these are the ones you should abandon and of embarrassment number one. They forgot to look at the sun, it's all about the sun and the sun spots in the sun cycles. The experts unwarming did not forget to look at all the elements of the sun. Now, like anything, anybody could be wrong, but they looked at the sun. The other one is that more co2 is just better. Now is not more seo too, with good for plants, but if it's also raising the temperature to the point where you can't live or its causing major problems, it is not a smart response is not a good argument to say that we need. She'll do lots more than we need we have now. Just did you shows you haven't looked at it enough detail, so please abandon the barricades. There are plenty of good arguments.

Unless there are no good arguments and just say, no use the bad ones it just makes it look like you haven't looked into enough and the best argument is that will be able to figure out how to deal with it in plenty of time. Why do I reject the sun? Ok, somebody just asked me: why do I think the sun should not be concerned at the real reason of the warming? My heads going explode, please please. It goes like this are just say one more time. If you believe that all of the experts in the world, the scientists were looking at why the earth is getting warmer. If you believe they have not looked into all aspects of the sun.

You're not a serious participant in the conversation? Of course they have. Could they have done, which could they have made a mistake, all of them things possible, but they But tat it stop saying that and look at it, you know a guy who's who has something you posted on Twitter that says that they forgot something about the sun. That's not real I uh the grand solar minimum stuff, dont, be amateur scientists and imagine that you know more than the actual scientists, because you you looked up at the sign, any thought they didn't think about it. Just now. Please them somebody says all the experts are lying really there are like, if you said some of the experts are lying

You said the experts might be wrong, I'd say: well, maybe connect could be, but when you say all the experts are line, you're, not a credible participant in the conversation there's just ridiculous. I was as Clim Scott S question. How is it that climate maintains itself so tightly the answers it doesn't? You can look at the history of the earth and easy The climate is changed substantially over that time. It's just that our human, a little human timescale is so short. We don't notice.

Can you name one credible scientists that has refuted the sun, but all of them, maybe all of them. A hundred per cent of that could argue climate signs on here today, but I will talk to you tomorrow.