You know they're saying he used to dig up dirt and that another withholding that's all you know all the details, the public knows, and now it's just too confusing, but you know that now do it the other way. What's the what's the president's defence now for me, but what's the present its defence, as so far expressed by his by his defenders in in the impeachment, I don't know I watched it and I actually dont know. I think it was something like your accusations. Do, though, have merit But here's what it should have been issued, then there's only one relevant question to the President: have a legitimate interest in looking into bind in Britain. The Democrats say he did. However, good reason: that's really there

in the case, so we held our time to the Democrats. Our entire defence will be five minutes that he had a good reason to look into it and the Democrats and acknowledge that, because they say he believed that was something there, that's what they say. We believe it to swear on the same page. We all believe that the present in thought there was something legitimate in terms of national interest. That should be looked at that I would say anything else. I wouldn't defend my presidency. Confidentiality with their whither advisers and all that stuff, it's all important, but if you're trying to convince the public, you need to keep it simple and I don't think that's happened, so I expect them to focus on that point. I let's talk about shift

and his presentation. I got to start with a positive that I said this before this is like the energizer bunny. I have never seen shift. Look tired. Have you have you ever seen her look tired? Now, I think he's pure evil, but man, the guy's, got energy. Is like that. Like a pebble and before I recently learned that he also was a, he runs, marathons and try athletes itself, it turns out the ship is like a really good athlete, I'm actually variant and that's a good role model, and I don't want to lose that good part just because the other part is pure evil so I think CNN had this headline shift gets choked up during emotional speech. What

what what's theatre were you watching, I didn't see, shifted choked up. I saw him pretending to be choked up. Do you think the ship is really choked up about any other stuff? Do you think even believes this case? I don't think there's a sleigh case even believes its own case. So it's hilarious that that you fooled anybody into thinking. You yeah genuine emotion in this, is not genuine emotion that was just acting so I've been marking shift for his many cases of loser. Think as as I described in my bustling book I think, all the bad ways of thinking and arguing.

Uses all Lord Ingram pointed out the mind reading, so he makes less of assumptions about what the strangers were thinking in their secret thoughts. He also uses laundry list, persuasion, which is bad persuasion, because if you don't have one good reason, you have to give ten and makes you think. Well, there's no one good reason, but if you put all ten together. Who is doing what it was persuasion mind reading usually have pinions half billion. Is we're Asia one side now, because this is a domain in which people are just being advocates, of course, are only doing their side, but in terms of loser. Thank showing one side of a decision is irrational. It's not irrational in terms of persuasion. Bell talk about that.

You show a failure of imagination. How many times have you seen? She have say one other explanation. Is there except this? Well, if you can think of another explanation from the same the factual saying it could be because there's only one explanation, it could also be cause. You're, not gonna, think Alternate explanations: it could be just the failure of your own imagination. If you can think of more than one reason to explain the facts. You see. Problem might be on your end. You can tell the difference. They look is actually the same. Then, of course, confirmation by a serious acts like every every piece of evidence fits together in this big mosaic. But in fact that's not how life works. Lessons that just confirmation by

people ask me: why are you saying that shift was winning yesterday? At the same time, you're saying is using all this loser think it was all just a rational bible. Those two things are not incompatible. When I talk about persuasion, the things that matter the most is what messages are getting through how much time you spending on it and what was that message he spending a lot of time, making at least two people watching the news focus on what he wants you to focus on. That is a gigantic persuasion win the fact that, in the process of doing that is using exclusively almost loser, think there's lies there: steps taken in the context of the year the videos you shall emerges. Lies just taken out of context to reverse their meaning. Is he's irrational. These reading minds does,

matter not really does my book before loser think was when vaguely persuasion and world were facts, don't matter. What he's trying to do is not be logical, he's not trying to ease not trying to convince a judge or a real jury who might try really hard to concentrate on facts, he's trying to persuade the people and you don't need good thinking to persuade the public, you just need your message to be repeated. A lot focused on I have an emotional content, that's about it, so his ears Lately, irrational loser think arguments are very effective because of how much time he's getting and the fact that we haven't heard yet the rebuttal. I would expect the situation to reverse when the defence is doing its full push. He's he's gonna, get an island,

The eleven has little legal problem you made. This is an older store able is following up again, I'm not sure why. But there's a man whose suing done lemon CNN host for allegedly a sexual assault. Now I don't want to give you the details of both those who say something: creepy happened at a bar. Drinking was evolve. Nobody, nobody took the clothes off. I don't want to go into the details, but it's a creepy accusation, if happened now, of course see, that is quite famous for me to stories as really the entire press is famous for that a lot of them, but

The question for CNN is: when do you believe the accuser, because the accusers gonna story that, on the surface sounds pretty credible? I think that when this I think multiple witnesses actually now, if those multiple witnesses are saying the same thing and that's the early reporting that they are, why see you, then keep him on the payroll. That's a good question right now I very much in favour of innocent until proven guilty. So if you work for me, if I were, is also definitely keep them on the payroll, and I would also have kept everyone else on the payroll who is accused of things while the trial and where they are. Sources working its way through, but here's all I want to say about that. If, if CNN ever did decide to cancel lemon will say the lawsuit when someplace.

Would we ever see this headline CNN. Hours on lemon. That's all As always, I tell you the story, because I don't care too much about it other than Will we ever see Fox news with this headline CNN sours Lamb? Well, I also. Well, I know it don't I don't hope that anything bad happens to him. I just hope if something does that we get a funny headline in it, but I anything about only by right. So there was an interesting pole from National Emerson College Pole and they asked supporters of the various democratic handed. If they be willing to support any democratic nominee if their preferred one doesn't get pet. So at the top of the list was Elizabeth. Warm so ninety percent of the people want warrant, be the nominee also say that there was support well, whoever gets nominated, that's

binds that eighty seven percent Buddha judge eighty six other clustered toward the top and around that ninety percent. So what does that tell you? Why keep going so Bloomberg? Seventy eighty sort of in the middle of the pack and that at the bottom gets interesting centres only fifty four percent of the people who say they want sanders as the first choice are willing to pick just any old democratic. If it's not him only link and he hangs out exactly half Yang supporters say that only half of them would would support the democratic. If it's not Yang have only half of them. So was I tell you what does that tell you about? Who would be the stronger candidate? Well, I think this sort of upside down from what you think if you think that the best candidate,

well, I will put it this way. I'll go right to the punchline. The reason that Yang has only fifty percent of the people who say they want to be president, would be willing to support. Any Democrat is clearly because they're, not Democrats, in other words Yang in centres, are picking up a whole bunch of support from people who don't maybe consider themselves quite totally democrat. They might be independence in some cases. They might actually be Republicans who just happen to like this one guy Yang, because he's more science based or whatever it is so I'll. Tell you what this tells me that the two candidates with the biggest chance a beating trump, would be centres in the end.

That is why I believe that the Democrats, who are just solid Democrats, I just can vote Democrat all the ones, even the ones who say. Ninety percent say that they would sport, Warren, but yeah, that's the first choice, but ten percent of them. I probably would not support the other candidate. If it's somebody else, I don't believe that. I believe that something like one hundred percent of the people who support Warren, probably a hundred percent of them will still no matter what for democratic, as the alternative is tromp right, but what about those Sanderson young people were about half of the people said they wouldn't support the other Democrat. Well, if you did pick Sanders or Yang, doesn't that suggests you would pick up a lot of independence and Republicans that you couldn't get with any other candidate? Am I wrong so?

I need to be checked on the logic of that, but my logic is centres the that are clearly signalling that they can pick up people who were not Democrats, because if they were solidarity,. As half of them would not abandon their candidate just because another democratically elected, I feel like this pole, is telling us as clearly as possible. I might be wrong about this. I feel like that. My my opinion on this, I feel like saying Yang centres are the ones that could be drunk The study this as one third of household food is wasted. This is important because I've been saying forever that the way to balance the budget is to figure out how to lower the cost of living.

A high quality life now do you know why a third of the food in american households is wasted. A variety of reasons right, but one of the big reasons given is that you have to drive to get the food in our system. You have to get the car, you get a planet any going driving gifts and food, and what does that cause you to do? What causes you to buy more food than you need today, because you don't want to drive every day, so you buy a bunch,

food? Some of it goes bad before you eat the stuff. Do you like the most so there's something about your food being far away from where you want to eat it? That causes a third of it to be wasted or other factors, so they're probably doesn't explained all third. But that's that's hypothesis, for why isolation- and it was then I saw this in the context of how to design a proper future city where you food is close to you say, is walk outside so silly say it's for thirty in the afternoon, and you want to eat dinner in six years: walk outside tendons way. There's a market grab a bag full of fresh food and you go eat what you bought stay. So if you designed the way people live to be more efficient, you could cut their food costs by third by third and they be not only justice happy. They would be happier because the food that they did it would be fun

so I think, there's a gigantic opportunity to lower the national debt, because, if you get lower the cost of living in general than all the people who need a little extra help won't need as much help and that's where most of our money is going. Here is an interesting little signal of things to come. I talked about this before, but I'm going add point to it. So I talked about how the president agreeing to plant to be part of the trillion tree planting to combat climate change and the fact that recently said it wasn't a hoax. Strongly suggest that the president is migrating toward the center the centre. Being you know that climate change is enough to worry about, we don't know everything about everything. Maybe we can predict the future to accurately, maybe the

Maybe the alarm is too high, but some to worry about. So you see the present shifting towards the middle, and I said that before, but we also see Democrats starting to embrace nuclear power, especially the newer types that are their safer generation for coming down the pike. If we can develop it quickly, enough doesn't melt down because its bills, who can't and its existing nuclear waste as its fuel, in some cases? So you watching you watching too things happening. You saw too highly polarized camps ABC using is the end of the world. We're all gonna die trump. Julie setting out our lungs completely opposites, but every time there is a new story, the says the temperatures are the highest they abandoned whenever it gets a little more convincing. The sun

exactly weathers man made or partly man made or not, but there some general agreement that the temperatures look like a grown up and it looks like trumpet sorely drifting towards the middle, which is absolutely the smartest thing you should do politically forget about the science politically is no brainer politically drifting towards the little is exactly what you want to do, because that such a big issue and it's gonna be a big issue for the election so but you're ceasing both sides, drifting towards the middle. I think it's because we're now recognising a common enemy. It's a difference between the two sides, thinking that the other is the enemy which is where we ve been right.

The green new deal people say you Republicans or the enemy guess: you're you're, gonna get us all killed and the Republicans or saying you green new deal. People are the enemy, can you gonna, ruin our economy and get us all killed? But it feels like this This gradual move to the centre is because both sides are finally realising there's a common enemy. The temperature. Now I'm not gonna, get into than debated. What's real and what's not just talking- politics than its drift into the middle and here's another sign of it. There was one The articles on Fox NEWS, which famously is pro trump and that's the important point so Fox NEWS, a very approach entity has this headline: did Trump have a change of heart over climate change policy. It talks about

The five Gregor felt was talking about the same topic in noting that the president's seems because a trillion tree planting, it seems you soft and on its position, moving towards the middle of it. Here's the interesting There was nothing in this article. There was negative about climate change. It was straight up reporting that this is what the five said, and this is what the president it now I feel as if a year ago, that would not have looked the same. I feel as if Fox NEWS, what is it What's something a little more sceptical sounding because its readership certainly many them in that in that camp so it's looks to me like There's something happening there now. As you know minority

leader coming Mccarthy is working on a plan for energy and clean climate. Those two things really the same time. And we may see some good stuff coming there and so were- were definitely seeing movement on the republic inside toward accepting at least the risk of climate change Big deal. Here's a little thing, that's bubble up. Apparently the way houses invited Israel's Prime Minister and his main political rivals to Washington. This is where does that, so that way, houses? why did you let me, but also his main political rivals? The people disagree with them.

To meet with em in Washington to talk about a potential palestinian peace plan makes sense today, because if you can't get Israel to agree on a plan internally, while you're done so step, one get the Israelis on roughly the same pay so that there is at least one lesson to worry about before even talk to anybody else, Why are they doing there? Now? I think maybe it's because conditions are changing and other apparently massive hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Iraq today, the! U S out and we ve, said least preliminarily. We said no, not even so. And also you're up to date on everything with ran and we'd like to have some kind of a new could deal with a round that actually did prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, which we don't have now. Here's what

I think, and in their also talking about the way House, has delayed a few times there. There big peace plan ideas for the palestinian israeli situation. But that there are starting to ramp up again because they would, they wouldn't call Israel in to a meeting if they were serious about trying to ramp up again. Here's was interesting. Look what we have to offer now No, if you believe that ran, is the biggest influence on the Palestinians and lesser Hezbollah and the anti Israel forces in general. The proxies What's different. Well, solemn today is no longer on the playing field so that the main Terry Guy, who is causing the main military problems, is no off the chessboard and because around that the semi fake it.

Act. They said what we're done retaliating and as far as I know- and maybe the reporting is not good on this yet, but as far as I know, they have stuck to calling winding not winding down, but at the moment the proxies that you would expect to be active, don't seem extractive, I'm sure that are always be some missiles Ogden toward our allies rest, but it looks like something in the rams. Different they're at their economy is on the brink, so they're, probably more flexible than ever at the same time or racks citizens at least a lot of them seem to want us to leave what this creates is, for the first time, all of the variables that fell in place for a big deal- and it goes like this and, of course the US is not going to offer this.

It was the last time in order to get a peace deal, we would need a ran to stand down from its proxies. Stop supporting, dare you would You need a ran to agree to negotiate in some kind of a deal that more teeth in return for sanctions coming off their economy. Here's the big one and this asset just got created and nothing in my, is that what we have to negotiate is leaving Iraq, which we want to do anyway, The president as criminal situation, in which he can say, I got somethin to trade, here's something to trade, About we get out of the Middle EAST. Would a ran, consider themselves victorious if they got the United States military out of the Middle EAST or at least reduce this footprint to something

something manageable around would actually call that a victory when it, and I think it would be- I think they could legitimately say it- was a major victory if they get the. U S and the Middle EAST at least substantial ways interact anyway. I think that that's a deal under the right circumstances. We might be willing to make because we want to leave anyway, but we don't want to leave until it's a good idea to leave. So I'm thinking that we ve never had this situation before. Where are ran is presumably desperate for a deal because our economy is on the brink. We have something to give which is us leaving the rock at which doesn't cost us much weeks the ultimate deal situation. You want a situation where somebody can give up. Something is the key to the deal, but the thing they're giving up didn't costs too much so they're, so it's possible to give up its possible for us to give up Iraq under the Reagan,

machines so and then the other thing this the right conditions is it you ve got a deal maker as a precedent, and everybody recognised even everybody in the least understands that this presidency will make a deal. Is it's not dogma

they'll maker and that gets in their heads and that I think that that actually makes it more likely to do a deal simply because, when they think of the present they think of deal making we're so such simple creatures, then, if you just say this guy's a deal maker, a deal maker deal maker. If you hear that enough, what are you start thinking just uncritically? You said yourself: maybe we can make a deal such as the fact that his reputation is deal maker greatly in she increases the chance. The people's minds will be indeed making mode. That's a huge deal is invisible. Right is just part of the benefit of this president is he brings out with him to every situation and it takes everybody's mind to deal making because they think. Well, that's that's the variable we're dealing with them, but the other thing that we ve never had before is the strongest. I think these strongest leaders we ve ever had

all areas where we have some really capable leaders and I'll even talking about you ran I'm talking about Saudi Arabia, sure sure we're gonna problems right, sure sure envy ass. You know the needs to explain. Why is killing journalists, but Saudi Arabia is a solid. You know ally at this point and they ve got a strong leader who is also a deal maker. He's is is willing to do with other people were not willing to do. Netanyahu. Obviously deal maker array always deal arouse, render their deal makers. So we have the most deal, making solid, seen. People we ve ever dealing, probably solemn and that it was the big problem there and we may be finding out that his absence makes everything better.

So I think I had all my main points here get if somebody says he wasn't a journalist who was really just a spy for some Yeah, I saw the thing about the so Elizabeth Word was to cancel student debt and a citizen confronted earned What about all the money I paid? Why am I being penalized for being good saving? That would say. Let's go question, then, is probably why this student, I think, will never work. Thank you how people are complementary me on my personal today. Thank you, appreciate that, and I will talk to you all