Ep. 1831 - Insane Ruling Just Cleared A Path For The Creepiest AI Use Yet

You might like to think that your texts or DMs are at least somewhat private when you communicate with people on social media platforms like Instagram, they're actually monitored automatically for any signs of criminal activity, particularly criminal activity that might endanger children. And that's why in October of 2023, Metta, which is the parent company of Instagram, was able to alert the feds about a 42-year-old man in Wisconsin named Stephen Anderegg. Now Metta has been in the news lately for allowing Instagram to become a haven for child predators, as you may have seen. So they've implemented all kinds of monitoring systems and algorithm changes, agreed to settlements, etc. And in this case, they determined that Anderegg was transmitting apparent child pornography to another user. And very quickly, the feds determined that Anderegg was a software engineer with a background in AI models. They obtained a search warrant, seized all of Anderegg's devices, including multiple cell phones and a laptop. At that point, the authorities discovered that Anderegg had been entering text prompts into an AI model called stable diffusion. And the model generated thousands of explicit images depicting miners. And more specifically, Anderegg had installed some third-party software on top of stable diffusion, which allowed the model to create these kinds of images. So this was not something the model would have done by itself, you know, off the shelf, as it were. Anderegg was then charged with producing, distributing, and possessing child sexual abuse material or CSAM watch. And man from Holman, Wisconsin, was arrested and charged from crimes relating to inappropriate AI generated images of children. The Wisconsin Department of Justice says 42-year-old Stephen Anderegg used text-to-image-generative AI model to create realistic images of new children. Now, that report was from two years ago. It seemed like a pretty straightforward case. Certainly, that's how the DOJ presented it. But last week, someone unexpectedly, the seventh circuit quarter of appeals upheld the dismissal of the possession charge against Anderegg, saying the first amendment of the Constitution protects his right to possess obscene material in his own home. This ruling was based on two major Supreme Court precedents. The first precedent is that your home is a sacred space where you can be as obscene as you want. And additionally, the ruling was based on another Supreme Court precedent from 2002, which basically gave the green light to the possession of child pornography, as long as it was virtual child pornography, where no child was supposedly involved. Now, of course, in 2002, computer graphics technology general were in general were nowhere near as advanced as they are today. They didn't have AI generated images at all. That distinction doesn't matter, at least according to the precedent that we have today. Several of the judges made it clear that they don't like the precedent. They want the Supreme Court to change their ruling on virtual child pornography, but they ruled that as the law stands, you can possess AI generated child pornography, as long as it's contained within the home. Quoting from the ruling, the Constitution extends special safeguards to the privacy of the home. The Supreme Court has held that the state's power simply does not extend to mere possession by the individual in the privacy of his own home. If the First Amendment means anything, the Court explained, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read, or what films he may watch. So to be clear, Anderegg still faces charges of distributing and manufacturing this material. So he's on the hook for transmitting the material and for using his computer to create them. But if this ruling stands, he won't face a possession charge. So basically, if you're in your own home, then you can legally possess this horrific, immoral, evil material that obviously no human being should ever have. And as long as you don't send it to somebody else. Now, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's easy to point it out here that yes, this ruling is, is, is as incoherent as it sounds. If something is too horrible to give to someone else or to, you know, make it, then it's too horrible to possess in your own home. And it seems pretty obvious, yet you should be secure in your home from any kind of unlawful government search or seizure. The government shouldn't be able to monitor, you know, what goes on inside your home whenever they want. But at the same time, the government can absolutely make it a crime to possess certain things inside your property. And this should obviously be one of them. Nevertheless, depending on who you ask, this ruling is either a validation of our right to privacy, your home is your castle and so on. Or it's effectively the legalization of child pornography in the United States. I mean, after all, you can imagine the difficulty prosecutors might have in the future. If they need to prove that a certain image is genuine as opposed to AI generated, this decision opens up many different avenues for pedophiles to fight their convictions. And it could lead to a mass release of these degenerates all over the country. And it's going to be the number one defense of every pedophile from this moment forward, at least in the seventh circuit. Oh, yeah, that's not real. It's just AI, they'll say. How exactly the prosecutor is going to disprove that beyond any reasonable doubt. In some cases, it may not be as easy as it seems. And it's only going to get more difficult as the technology improves. And the same problem applies to all video evidence in court, by the way. It's a nightmare with no obvious solution. Now, first and important understand that and the reg is not alone. AI generated child pornography is a booming industry. There are many, many more cases like this. So here's an ongoing case out of New Mexico, for example, watch. Police department search ward. A police raid on a man accused of using AI to create disgusting images of children. Images so vile, we can barely describe them. No, I had with my coffee and I did look my tip. I don't have my lighter. The affiant informed Mr. Gallagher that the cyber tip was from synchronous, which is a cloud service, and that there were reports of child sex abuse material from his account. Mr. Gallagher stated that he did not know he had the cloud. The affiant asked Mr. Gallagher if investigators would find any images of new children on his devices. Mr. Gallagher responded, you might. Mr. Gallagher said that those images were from a long time ago and that they were mostly just AI. Gallagher if the images of the new children provided him with sexual gratification and Mr. Gallagher responded, yeah, I guess so. Mr. Gallagher said that he had not been content for very long and that he was just lonely. Unlike Android, Gallagher is accused of feeding genuine images of real life children, which he found online into an AI app to edit them to create CSAN. This is something you need to keep mind when you upload family photos to websites like Facebook. When you share these kinds of images with the entire world, it's very likely that a pervert is going to see them or could see them. And right now these perverts have a lot of AI tools they can use in order to do whatever they want with those images. They can create pornography or they can make deep fakes and attempt to blackmail you. They can steal identities. I mean, it's something everyone has to be aware of. And this case has alleged by the authorities, Gallagher took innocuous photos from social media and had the AI transform them into pornography. And that might seem like a pretty significant distinction from Anderegg, who as far as we know, did not deliberately use any real photos of children when he created his AI generated content. But you have to keep in mind that AI models by their nature are trained on images of actual children. That's how they work. They source an enormous amount of information, including pictures. Anyone who uses an AI model to generate obscene picture of a child is relying on the fact that the AI has a vast database of millions of images of children to draw from. And that's true when it comes to stable diffusion, the model that Anderegg used. This was reported by ours technology back in 2023. Quote, more than 1,000 known child sexual abuse materials, CSAM were found in a large open data set known as LAION5B that was used to train popular text image generators such as stable diffusion, Stanford Internet Observatory Researcher David Teal, relieved, revealed rather. Our new investigation reveals that these models are trained directly on CSAM present in a public database of billions of images. The data set included known CSAM scraped from a wide array of sources, including mainstream social media websites like Reddit, X WordPress, and blog spot, as well as a popular adult video sites like X hamster and X videos beyond verifying 1,000 eight instances of this kind of material in the data set. SIO found 3,226 instances of suspected CSAM in the data set. Teal's report warned that both figures are inherently a significant undercount due to researchers' limited ability to detect and flag all the CSAM in the data sets. The report also predicted that the repercussions of stable diffusion's 1.5 training process will be with us for some time to come. So in practice, it's reasonable to say that every AI generated image of a child, one way or another, involved an actual child at some point in the process. An AI simply cannot make a realistic image of a child if it's never seen an actual child. But in many of these cases, judges are saying that their hands are tied. In cases of AI generated child pornography, that's what they're claiming. Here's one more case from an Indianapolis watch. of creating child pornography, not guilty. Not because he didn't do it, but because the way he did it is beyond Indiana State law. Our Russ McQuade examines how artificial intelligence is challenging law enforcement in their quest to protect who's your children. Last year we told you about the arrest of a man charged with 10 counts of child exploitation and child pornography. Because he was found not guilty, we can't tell you his name, but we can tell you what he was accused of, and why a judge thinks that state lawmakers need to tighten up their laws when it comes to artificially created AI pornography. This probably cause affidavit alleges, quote, two images located on the man's phone depicted minor females. With use of an AI mirror program, he transformed the images to depict female teenagers to be nude. Now these are rulings that have clear implications for our culture, our politics, many other ongoing debates that we're seeing. It's become very common for someone to invoke the right to privacy and shut down debate across a wide range of issues. So we need to resolve some fundamental questions about what the constitution says and what it does not say. We also need to identify the red lines that we simply won't cross as a society. Now this is hard to do because unless you are homeschooled, then you've been through a school system that in all likelihood has been relentlessly lying to you. So some of these questions become more difficult than they should be. One of the main lies you'll hear is that in reality there are no difficult choices to be made when it comes to our legal rights. Barack Obama was fond of reading lines like, "We reject this false to choice between our safety and our ideals." That was from his first inaugural speech we mentioned it many times afterwards. It was always a vapid statement, but people seemed to think it was profound. The truth is whether we like it or not, there are indeed choices to be made when it comes to balancing safety and ideals, the safety of our children and our ideals. These are choices that everyone makes every single day. We see it everywhere. For instance, the presumption of innocence is an ideal. We don't want to treat people as criminals without any evidence. But sometimes, say when people want a board and airplane, we have to balance that ideal with security. By the same token, we have to recognize that no right, including the right to freedom of speech, the right to privacy, is absolute in every single case. Before you jump down my throat, yes, I'm aware of Orwell wrote a book called 1984. I'm aware Ben Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty and or safety." That's a handy quote, but it's also just a quote. For that matter, Franklin was careful to mention essential liberty and temporary safety, which pretty clearly is a way of sort of kicking the can down the road, or at least qualifying it. What liberties are essential exactly? What if we can obtain permanent safety in a certain or something close to it in a certain area of life? Ben Franklin didn't say because he wanted us to figure it out, but the founders, including Franklin, did have a very clear preference for national security over some vaguely defined right to privacy at the individual level. This is important to understand because almost no one says it anymore. The constitutional right to privacy is an invention of the extremely left-wing Supreme Court in the 50s and 60s, which wanted to invent a constitutional right to birth control and abortion. It's fake. There is no generalized right to privacy at all beyond the text of the Fourth Amendment. Until the 1960s, there wasn't a single Supreme Court decision that recognized any right to privacy outside of the Fourth Amendment because these words do not appear anywhere in the actual document. This explains why when they were running the country, the founders did not go to particularly great lengths to enshrine anyone's privacy as they got given right, at least once they were outside their homes, certainly. Let me look up the collection act of 1789, which was passed by the first Congress in 1789. This is a law that allowed the authorities to enter any ship or vessel to search for goods that might be concealed. They could search both American and foreign ships. The only requirement was that the authorities have reason to suspect that taxable goods were on board somewhere. If they wanted to search a home or business, the authorities needed a warrant, but under this law, the authorities could search a ship top to bottom based on a mere hunch. The next year, an even broader law was passed, allowing for quote, "all collectors, naval officers, surveyors, inspectors to go on board of ships or vessels in any part of the United States or within four leagues of the coast thereof, if bound to the United States for the purposes of demanding the manifest and of examining and searching the said ship servicels and the set officers respectively shall have free access to the cabin and every other part of a ship or vessel." And by the way, these kinds of searches were not limited to ship surviving at ports of entry. Consider the tax on whiskey that was imposed in 1791, which was also passed by the first Congress and signed by Washington. The law permitted officers to enter, quote, "houses, storehouses, warehouses, buildings and places that have been registered as distilleries at all times in the daytime upon request. No warrant was needed." Now, there was a rebellion over this tax and how it was enforced, but in the end the law survived. If you run a business, you already know that opportunities rarely arrive on a convenience schedule. A customer might suddenly place a much larger order than usual, a piece of equipment might need to be replaced, you might find the perfect person to hire or have the chance to expand it exactly the right moment. The problem is traditional financing doesn't always move at the same speed that your business does. If you want bank-level rates without bank-level delays, need to check out cardiff.co/walsh. Cardiff provides funding for established companies and the entire process is designed for business owners who don't have weeks to sit around waiting for an answer. You spend years building your business so that you would be ready when the right opportunity came along to be unfortunate to finally get that opportunity and then lose it because your financing could not keep up. Banks try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key. Big banks may want to approve your business loans, but Cardiff does. If you've been in business for at least a year and are pulling in $20,000 a month in revenue, apply now for up to $500,000 in same day business funding at cardiff.co/walsh. Again, let's cardiff.co/walsh. Real growth fast funding. Cardiff borrow better. If you're on a home, you know the temptation to ignore a problem and hope it goes away. The dishwasher starts making a strange noise. You close the kitchen door. There, you fixed it. Unfortunately, ignoring clogged gutters is harder once rainwater starts pouring over the sides and pooling around your foundation. That's where leaf filter comes in. They're local pros and spec to clean out and repair or place your gutters before installing their protection system. Leaf filter surgical grades, stainless steel, micro mesh helps keep leaves and other common debris out so water can flow through your gutters and away from your foundation. Which is the entire reason you have gutters. They should probably be allowed to do their job, I would say. Every installation comes with a lifetime transferable warranty and a no-claw guarantee. Help protect your home today with leaf filter. America's number one gutter protection system personally, I prefer home projects that end with somebody else putting the ladder away. Schedule your free inspection today at leaffilter.co/walsh. For a quote, that's good for one full year and right now you can get up to 35% off leaf filter at leafilter.co/walsh. Minimum purchase required, restrictions apply to your representative for warranty and promotion details. So no, the founders did not believe that you have some absolute right to avoid searches or seizures when you're outside your home, quite the opposite. When you engage in an activity that the government has an interest in regulating, whether you're traveling to a port or selling whiskey, Ben Franklin would have no problem with authorities searching your stuff without a warrant. That's because again, the right to privacy as such did not exist. It hadn't been invented yet by activist courts looking to legitimize baby murder and other atrocities. You know, in the road decision, the Supreme Court found in the Constitution a right to abortion, even though abortion is never mentioned anywhere in the document, nor did any of the framers even hint that they had a prenatal homicide in mind when they wrote it, obviously. The court recognized this obstacle so it inferred a right to abortion from the right to privacy found in the 14th Amendment. The only problem, of course, is that the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about a right to privacy. The phrase right to privacy appears nowhere in the bill of rights at all. And even if it did, of course, it would require a galactic leap of logic to get from, I have a right to privacy to have a right to directly kill this biological human life. So the court found it. It's right to abortion, which is not enumerated on another right that is not enumerated, and which even if it were enumerated, still would not logically apply to abortion. Now, Roe, of course, has been overturned, but the general right to privacy fiction remains. And, you know, when I say fiction, the point is not that we should have no privacy, or that the government has the magical right to invade our privacy whenever it wants. Obviously, neither of those are the case, or should be the case anyway. The point is that the right to privacy is not some sort of absolute legal principle. It can't be. But just because you're doing something in private doesn't necessarily make it okay or legal. A great majority of the crimes people commit every single day are committed by someone at least attempting to be at some level secretive or private about it. A forcing laws and arresting criminals will always involve an invasion of privacy. And so privacy cannot be sacrosanct. It is conditional. And the constitution already recognize that and laid out some of the conditions, which is why by the Fourth Amendment, you don't have a right to be freased from search and seizure generally, but from unreasonable search and seizure. Well, what happened? as unreasonable. You know, that's a qualifier that's been debated for like 230 years and will be debated for another 230 years if we're still around. There's really no way around. Because the only way around it is to dispense with the qualifiers and declare that you either have an absolute unquestioned right to privacy in all cases, or no rights of privacy in any case at all, and neither of those extremes are workable or rational. So that takes us back to the case of Stephen Anderegg and other pedophiles who are using AI to create child pornography. Yes, Anderegg was being charged for conduct inside his own home, which is different from, you know, being out in public. Treated differently, legally, often. The home was entitled to far more protections than anywhere else in terms of privacy, but once again, that cannot be absolute. As a reason you're not allowed to possess a nuclear bomb in your home, or a dead body. Now, even in your own home, the right to privacy is not absolute. It can't be. Which is my position, which you've probably deduced by now, is that we should absolutely, of course, ban AI from making this stuff and arrest anyone who consumes it. Pretty simple. It might not be easy to enforce in every case because of how wide spread this technology is, but it's simple. It's a simple thing. Now, even if you can somehow prove that the AI model, AI model, didn't rely on any actual pictures of children, which, you know, you can't. It doesn't matter. Nordism matter of some pedophile is merely possessing this material in his own home, where he supposedly wasn't hurting anyone else. This logic, the idea that, you know, if it doesn't hurt anyone, then it's fine. Has infested our culture and conservatism more generally for decades, and in every single case, or in a great majority of cases, it makes society worse for everybody. You know, gay marriage, marijuana, medically assisted suicide, sports betting, abortion, no fault divorce again, and again, we've been told to relax, you know, it doesn't actually affect anyone else, but it turns out that when you endorse deviant and immoral behavior in an individual context, then before long, you see the consequences everywhere. You can't go two blocks in New York without smelling pot. Women in Massachusetts are now rallying around a woman who executed her children one by one. Teenagers with mental health problems are getting put down in Canada so that the state can harvest their organs, gambling as ruined sports in about 20 different ways to the point that we now have live betting odds displayed prominently on screen. Women are more miserable, more medicated than ever. All of these downstream consequences are felt by everyone in society, not just the people who get the abortions or take the drugs or whatever else. And we've ended up in this place because of this non-existent failing moral framework that says that something is automatically okay as long as no one else is directly actively harmed by it. And oftentimes when they say no one's directly actively harmed by it, they actually are. Abortion, there's another person being actively harmed, even before you get to the societal harm, obviously. Now, along the same lines, AI generated sexually explicit images of children, harm society more broadly and the nation as a whole, and that is precisely the kind of harm that the government must prevent. Any society where perverts can gorge themselves legally on hours of this kind of stuff is obviously a society no healthy person wants to live in. We would all be the victims of it. Not to mention all the research showing that indulging a compulsion only makes the compulsion stronger, which means real human children are put at greater risk. Here's just one study from researchers in Montreal. It says, quote, this study analyzed the evolution over time of the activity of consumers of child sexual exploitation material. To this end, images and metadata were extracted from the hard drives of 40 individuals convicted of possession of child pornography and analyzed. The most prevalent pattern was a progressive decrease in the age of the person depicted and a progressive increase in the severity of the sexual acts. So in other words, over time, the children in this material became younger and the content became even more explicit. They get some exposure to this stuff and then their compulsion becomes more severe and even more depraved. Then there's this study from the Journal of Family Violence in 2009, known as the Butler study. The interview people who had been convicted of possessing a child pornography but hadn't been charged with actually abusing a child in person. What the researchers discovered is that many of these people had also abused children in real life. They simply hadn't been discovered by investigators yet. Quote, our finding showed the Internet offenders in our sample were significantly more likely than not to have abused a child via a hands-on act. They also indicated that the offenders who abused children were likely to have offended against multiple victims that the incidents of crossover by gender and age is high. So this is one of the dangers posed by all forms of child pornography, whether it's AI-generated or not very often. It's not simply an online crime as evil as that crime already is. It's a precursor to real life sexual assault. Sometimes here it argued in defense of AI child porn or other supposedly fictional depictions of child abuse. Sometimes here it argued that this might be a way to actually prevent child abuse because it gives the perverts an allegedly safe outlet. Even if that were true, the stuff should still be banned. No such outlet should exist and anyone who needs that outlet should simply be imprisoned at a minimum, at a minimum. But it turns out that this whole outlet idea is a psychological misnomer. You don't tamp down a compulsion or keep it contained in utter control by indulging it. The more it's indulged, the stronger it grows. And that's true of any compulsion. And it's certainly true of this, which is the worst compulsion a person can have. So put simply, there's no compelling reason at all to allow people to use AI this way. Does anyone have a God-given right to generate horrific sexual images with AI? Obviously not. Does anyone have a God-given right to use AI at all for anything? No. Does it help society or the country in any way for people to be doing this? Obviously not. Is it grotesque and evil and bad? Obviously it is. Therefore, it should be banned. It really is that simple. College is often discussed entirely as an investment, get a loan, choose a major, earn a degree, get a job that pays it all back. That matters obviously. But if four years of education teaches a student how to make a living without helping them understand what makes life worth living, then something important is missing. And what I appreciate about Grand Canyon University is that it doesn't separate professional preparation from character and purpose. GCU is a private nonprofit Christian University, whether you're studying on campus and Phoenix or online from home GCU offers hundreds of programs designed to help students build practical skills and prepare for meaningful careers. But wherever students learn, the mission remains the same. Provide a strong academic foundation within a community grounded in Christian values. They felt tuition steady on their traditional campus for the past 17 years while continuing to invest in their students. In fact, 75% of their programs and facilities have been built within the last decade. Learn more at gcu.edu Grand Canyon University private Christian affordable nonprofit that's gcu.edu. Apparently couples sleeping in separate bedrooms now call it a sleep divorce. One person snores, the other steals the covers. And somebody wants the thermosat set to meat locker. Well, naturally, we've given this a name that makes it sound like you need an attorney before you start negotiating custody of the comfort or though, consider whether your mattress is maybe part of the problem. I've been sleeping on a helix for the last few years. A sleep better wake up feeling more rested. It's considerably more useful than another term from the internet. Helix's quick sleep quiz matches you with one of the more than 20 mattress models based on your sleep position, firmness preferences and support needs. Their cooling upgrades also help you stay comfortable on hot nights. Helix is the most awarded mattress brand recognized by experts, including Forbes and Wired. Your mattress comes directly to your door with free US shipping a 120 night sleep trial and the happy with Helix guarantee. Try a better mattress before drawing up the bedroom separation agreement. Labor Day Sale starts now. Go to helixleap.com/walls for 27% off site wide. That's helixleap.com/walls for 27% off site wide. If you've got something that you don't have a right to do it, it's not a God-given right. It does not improve society in any way. It's horrifically evil and degrade society at a minimum. In all of those cases, that thing should be banned, whatever it is. And that's why we have prohibitions. That's why you have the concept of banning things. It's for precisely those kinds of things. There's no real argument to not ban it. Now people will argue that, well, we have violent video games like Grand Theft Auto and they allow you to do horrible things as well, like shoot police officers. Although I'll note that they don't allow you to murder children, much less sexually assault them. And yes, it's clearly a negative for society, I would say, to have millions of children murdering police officers in a game for fun. But there are two important distinctions to draw here. First, Grand Theft Auto has a narrative, at least superficially, the games of a story that you're working through. And even when you take a detour to commit an act of to terrorism in the game, you're still playing as one of the characters from that narrative. And secondly, the more to the point, and this is really all that should need to be said, is you have to draw lines somewhere. Obviously, we all agree that there have to be lines. And if we can't draw the line here, then where exactly do you draw them? And this is why I disagree with a lot of commentators on the common good conservatism debate. You know, it's a question of whether the government should only protect individual liberty or does it have a role in protecting the general welfare of its people, and to some extent promoting public virtue. And I would say the government does have an obligation in the latter respect to protect the general welfare. If you're an individual liberty conservative, then you have no argument, really, or only a weak one for banning AI-generated child pornography. If you believe the government should be protecting the general welfare of the people, on the other hand, then it's not even a question. Like, obviously, this should be banned. But the government, for the most part, has been totally powerless against this evil. The attitude seems to be that, you know, AI exists and will do whatever it wants. And there's nothing we can do to stop any of it. So why even try? Now, obviously, there's plenty of AI alarmism on the other side, and we've talked about that previously, there are various factions that want to shut down AI for political reasons or because it gets clicked or because they're paid by China or whatever. But the AI defeatism, right? The attitude that, well, we can't and shouldn't even try to do anything to regulate AI at all, even in these really extreme cases like AI child pornography. That is just as extreme in the other direction, and it's kind of hysterical in its own way. Because it also seems to say that, you know, AI is like this mystical, unstoppable force, and we're utterly powerless in its grasp. There's nothing we could do at all. No laws could have any effect. I find that to also be hysterical. It's a technology. That's what it is. It's not magic. And so we don't need to treat it like evil sorcery, but we also shouldn't treat it as some sort of god that cannot be in any way controlled, and we shouldn't even try. You know, and also the idea that we can't possibly regulate anything that takes place in the home or even on public streets, again, is an extreme. It's a kind of hysteria. And these are positions that on the surface appear to be pro-liberty, anti-authoritarian, even patriotic, but in fact, you know, the idea that we shouldn't regulate AI at all or anything like that, but in fact, they are the antithesis of what the founders and the Constitution stood for. They represent a breathtaking miscalculation about the severity of the threats we face and that our children face. No, we shouldn't give up any essential liberty in exchange for temporary safety. Franklin was right about that. But the right to possess AI child porn on our computers is not an essential liberty. And we deny that a civilized society necessarily involves trade-offs, when we buy into Obama's tribe about false choices, then we invite collapse at the civilizational level. Some lines need to be drawn. And if we can't draw the line at this, then we can't draw any line anywhere for any reason. As the saying goes, our Constitution is not a suicide pact. Before our children are made to endure any more of these horrors, it's incumbent on the courts to stop pretending that it is. I'll do it with the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow of a great day. Godspeed. In all of my years of public life, I have never profited from public service. I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their presidents are corrupt, but I'm not a crook. But what if Richard Nixon was telling the truth? What if Watergate isn't what it seems? What if hundreds of thousands of pages of sworn testimony, memoirs, and newly released government documents tell a different story than the one you learned in school? In 1972, Nixon won the biggest electoral landslide in modern American history with grand plans to remake the federal government. Two years later, he was out of office. You were taught that Nixon's men broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters to spy on his political opponents. You were taught that when he found out, Nixon covered it up, and that the cover-up was worse than the crime. You were taught that two heroic Washington Post reporters, guided by a righteous FBI whistle blower, brought the most powerful man in the world to justice. But you were never taught what really happened. I shall resign the presidency, effective at noon tomorrow. Real history of the Watergate scandal is available now with Daily Bar please.