E145: Presidential Candidate Chris Christie in conversation with the Besties

Ron DeSantis’s 2024 presidential campaign did in fact fail and end weakly rather than in a competitive fight for the nomination.

• DeSantis suspended his campaign on January 21, 2024, just six days after a distant second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses (about 21% to Trump’s ~51%), and he dropped out before the New Hampshire primary and most other contests. He finished with only nine delegates to the Republican National Convention—far from a competitive delegate battle. (en.wikipedia.org)

• Analyses and post-mortems widely characterized his run as a flop. NBC’s reporting (summarized by CNBC/The Week) and others described his campaign as a "total failure to launch" and highlighted a chaotic, glitch-ridden rollout and ongoing dysfunction. (cnbc.com)

• Commentators called it "one of the most embarrassing, hapless, & disastrous presidential campaigns in memory" and "a stunning fall" that "failed to match the hype." (theweek.com)

• A Florida-focused roundup of reactions to his withdrawal explicitly said, "Ron’s campaign was dead on arrival" and that it ended with "a whimper of an ending almost as embarrassing as his failure to launch in May." (floridapolitics.com)

Given that DeSantis’s campaign collapsed early, produced only a token delegate haul, and was broadly described in real time and retrospect as an embarrassing flameout rather than a serious, competitive finish, Chamath’s prediction that the campaign was DOA and would have a "withering, embarrassing end" rather than a competitive conclusion was essentially correct.

Chris Christie did not reinvent his campaign around dramatically heterodox policy positions; he largely ran as a conventional, anti‑Trump Republican and then suspended his 2024 presidential campaign on January 10, 2024 due to lack of a path to victory. (en.wikipedia.org)

What actually happened in the GOP race is that Donald Trump dominated from the start, while Ron DeSantis and then Nikki Haley were treated as the principal non‑Trump alternatives in polling and media coverage, with Vivek Ramaswamy generally in single digits. (en.wikipedia.org) In the first contest, the Iowa caucuses on January 15, 2024, Trump won in a landslide (~51%), DeSantis took second (~21%), Haley third (~19%), and Ramaswamy finished a distant fourth (~8%). (en.wikipedia.org) That night Ramaswamy suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump. (axios.com)

After Iowa, DeSantis suspended his campaign on January 21, 2024 and endorsed Trump, leaving Trump and Haley as the only remaining major candidates for the Republican nomination. (en.wikipedia.org) Haley then continued as Trump’s sole significant challenger until she suspended her campaign on March 6, 2024 following Super Tuesday, at which point Trump became the last major Republican candidate. (apnews.com)

At no point did the "effective contest" for the 2024 Republican nomination narrow to Donald Trump versus Vivek Ramaswamy. Instead, it effectively became Trump versus Haley (after DeSantis exited), with Ramaswamy already out of the race. Given that Christie did not make the kind of heterodox pivot envisioned and the race still did not become Trump vs. Vivek, Chamath’s conditional prediction is best judged as wrong.

Hunter Biden was convicted on three federal gun charges in Delaware on June 11, 2024, and later pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges on September 5, 2024, both before the November 5, 2024 election.(cnbc.com) However, he was not incarcerated before the election: his gun‑case sentencing was postponed to December 4, 2024, and his tax‑case sentencing was set for December 16, 2024, meaning he remained free pending sentencing through Election Day.(apnews.com) President Joe Biden then issued a full pardon to Hunter on December 1, 2024, further confirming there was no pre‑election imprisonment.(people.com)

On the corruption aspect, Republican‑led investigations and an impeachment inquiry produced allegations that Joe Biden abused his office to benefit his family, but multiple independent reviews and investigative reporting repeatedly noted that concrete evidence of criminal bribery or corruption by Joe Biden himself was not established.(theguardian.com) A key FBI informant whose claims had underpinned some of the most serious bribery allegations later pleaded guilty to fabricating that scheme, further undercutting the idea that clear, verified evidence emerged tying Joe Biden to corrupt payments.(apnews.com)

Because Hunter Biden was not jailed before the 2024 election and no broadly accepted, substantiated proof of Joe Biden’s personal criminal corruption surfaced, the combined prediction that he would be convicted and incarcerated before the election with clear corruption links to Joe Biden emerging did not come true overall.

Available reporting shows that Hunter Biden was not in jail at the time of the 2024 U.S. presidential election (November 5, 2024), nor afterward as of 2025. Instead:

• In June 2024, a federal jury in Delaware convicted Hunter Biden on three felony gun charges related to a 2018 firearm purchase. He faced potential prison time but remained free pending sentencing.
• In a separate federal tax case in California, he later reached a plea agreement and was sentenced in 2025 to probation and home confinement rather than incarceration in prison.

There is also no court finding or widely accepted evidentiary record of ‘clear links of corruption’ involving Hunter Biden and Joe Biden that became publicly established in a way comparable to proven criminal corruption cases. Multiple GOP-led investigations and impeachment inquiries targeted President Joe Biden’s alleged involvement, but they did not produce conclusive evidence of criminal corruption by the president, and no such charges were brought.

Because (1) Hunter Biden was not jailed by the 2024 election and (2) the predicted clear, publicly established corruption links did not materialize in the way forecast, Chamath’s prediction is wrong.

Key parts of Chamath’s conditional scenario did not materialize in the way he described.

1. Did new “serious Hunter Biden corruption” evidence emerge?

   • After the podcast (Sept. 2023), Hunter Biden was indicted on tax charges in California for a years‑long scheme to avoid paying over $1.4M in federal taxes, and prosecutors alleged he spent millions on an extravagant lifestyle instead of his tax bills. (forbes.com)
   • On June 11, 2024, a jury convicted him on three federal gun felonies for lying about his drug use to buy and possess a firearm; in September 2024 he pleaded guilty to nine federal tax counts in Los Angeles. (reuters.com)
   • Special Counsel David Weiss’s final report (Jan. 2025) concluded Hunter’s income largely came from trading on his name and failing to properly report some of it (including Burisma income), but it also documented that a key informant’s claims of Ukrainian bribes to the Bidens were fabricated and that the prosecutions were the result of standard investigative work, not proof of a bribery scheme by Joe Biden. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • In other words, substantial criminal evidence against Hunter (gun and tax crimes) did emerge, but the “Biden crime family” bribery/corruption narrative never received confirming evidence in court or from investigators; formal inquiries consistently failed to show Joe Biden took bribes or used his office corruptly.

2. Did Republican megadonors then “come out of the woodwork” to fund a Hunter‑focused super‑PAC ad blitz?

   • Republican‑leaning megadonors did pour massive sums into conservative outside groups in the 2024 cycle. OpenSecrets’ 2024 outside‑spending data show figures like Elon Musk, Timothy Mellon, Miriam Adelson, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, Ken Griffin, Jeffrey Yass, and Paul Singer each giving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars almost entirely to conservative causes and super PACs. (opensecrets.org)
   • Some of that money went to Trump‑aligned super PACs. For example, MAGA Inc (the main pro‑Trump super PAC) received multiple $50M donations from Timothy Mellon in 2024, as well as eight‑figure contributions from Diane Hendricks and others. (en.wikipedia.org) Preserve America PAC, heavily funded by Miriam Adelson, also spent over $100M in 2024, mostly attacking Democrats. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • Those groups did run Hunter/Biden‑corruption–themed spots, notably MAGA Inc.’s 2023 “Hey Joe” ad, which aired on Fox News, CNN, and Newsmax and framed the Bidens as a “corrupt Biden crime family” enriched by foreign business deals. (axios.com) But that ad pre‑dated the Sept. 2023 podcast and the later indictments and conviction; it was part of an ongoing narrative, not a new reaction to fresh 2024 evidence.

3. What actually dominated GOP super‑PAC advertising in 2024?
   Systematic ad‑tracking data show that when Trump and his allied super PACs ramped up TV ads in 2024, they emphasized bread‑and‑butter issues, not Hunter Biden:

   • The Wesleyan Media Project, which codes the content of all broadcast presidential ads, reports that late‑summer 2024 pro‑Trump television ads overwhelmingly focused on the economy, inflation, gas prices and housing, while Trump’s allied super PACs like MAGA Inc and Preserve America focused primarily on immigration and public safety, not corruption scandals. (mediaproject.wesleyan.edu) Their regular “issue spotlight” summaries for July–October 2024 track abortion, energy, guns, health care, housing, immigration, inflation and public safety; Hunter Biden or “corruption” are not major coded themes. (mediaproject.wesleyan.edu)
   • A CNBC analysis of Trump’s digital fundraising during Hunter’s June 2024 gun trial found no new fundraising or digital ad push focused on Hunter at all; Trump’s operation spent hundreds of thousands on Facebook/Instagram ads in that window, but none mentioned Hunter Biden. Strategists cited both the sensitivity of addiction and the fact that the gun case didn’t match the grand corruption narrative as reasons not to campaign heavily on it. (cnbc.com)

4. Did “every single Republican mega‑donor” fund a Hunter‑corruption ad blitz?

   • While megadonors did heavily bankroll Trump and other Republicans via super PACs, those donations mostly underwrote conventional partisan messaging on immigration, the economy, inflation, crime, and attacks on Kamala Harris once she became the nominee—not a wall‑to‑wall, Hunter‑centric corruption campaign blanketing the airwaves. The best quantitative data we have on ad content show that Hunter Biden attacks were, at most, a small subset of the overall Republican paid‑media mix in 2024. (mediaproject.wesleyan.edu)
   • Moreover, some prominent Republican megadonors (e.g., elements of the Koch network, and Ken Griffin in the presidential context) were ambivalent about or hostile to Trump specifically, directing much of their money toward congressional races or non‑Trump Republicans rather than a unified Hunter‑focused presidential super PAC offensive. (cnbc.com)

Bottom line:

• New, serious criminal evidence against Hunter Biden (gun and tax crimes) did emerge, but it did not substantiate the sweeping “Biden crime family” corruption narrative about Joe Biden’s official conduct; investigators and impeachment hearings never produced proof of presidential bribery. (en.wikipedia.org)
• Republican megadonors did pour vast sums into conservative super PACs, but the content of the resulting ad campaigns in 2024 centered on immigration, the economy and other standard issues. There was no mega‑donor‑driven, Hunter‑centric advertising barrage across U.S. airwaves of the kind Chamath described.

Given those facts, the real 2024 cycle does not match the specific megadonor‑and‑media scenario he forecast. The prediction is therefore wrong as a description of what actually happened.

David Weiss was appointed special counsel in the Hunter Biden matter on August 11, 2023. 【0search0】 After the appointment, his office secured indictments and brought cases to trial on a timeline that clearly predated the 2024 election:

• Gun case: Weiss indicted Hunter Biden on three federal gun charges on September 14, 2023. 【0search0】 The federal gun trial in Delaware began on June 3, 2024, with jury selection and opening proceedings that day, and concluded in a guilty verdict on June 11, 2024. 【1search1】【1search2】【1search12】
• Tax case: Weiss’s office indicted Hunter Biden on nine federal tax charges on December 7, 2023. 【0search0】 That trial was rescheduled to September 5, 2024, in Los Angeles federal court, still before Election Day. 【0search5】【0search14】【1search12】

The 2024 U.S. presidential election was held on November 5, 2024. 【2search12】【2search13】 Thus, at least one Weiss-led Hunter Biden case went to trial and reached a verdict about five months before the election (the gun case in June), and the tax case also reached the trial/plea stage in early September, roughly two months before Election Day.

Given that both criminal matters under Special Counsel Weiss advanced to trial proceedings well before November 5, 2024, Chamath’s core prediction that the Hunter Biden case "will move to trial quickly (well before the 2024 election)" is best classified as right on the measurable timing claim, even though "quickly" is somewhat subjective.

Public records show that the U.S. Department of Justice, through Special Counsel David Weiss, obtained a federal grand jury indictment against Hunter Biden on three firearm-related felony counts on September 14, 2023, in the District of Delaware. This is documented in the DOJ’s own press release describing the indictment and the three federal gun charges related to his 2018 firearm purchase. (justice.gov)

Jason’s prediction was that the DOJ would indict Hunter Biden on federal gun charges in September 2023. The actual indictment occurred in that same month (and just six days after the Sept 8, 2023 podcast release), so the prediction is right on both substance (federal gun indictment) and timing (September 2023).

Federal and congressional investigations did not clearly and conclusively answer the specific questions Chamath described (whether Hunter Biden acted as an unregistered foreign agent, and whether there were incriminating links/communications involving Joe Biden) before the relevant legal processes concluded.

Key points:

1. Scope of actual charges: Special Counsel David Weiss ultimately brought cases only for a gun offense in Delaware and tax offenses in California. Hunter Biden was convicted on three federal gun charges in June 2024 and later pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges in September 2024; there were no charges related to acting as an unregistered foreign agent (FARA) or similar foreign‑agent conduct.

   • Gun case conviction: jury found him guilty on all three counts related to lying about drug use when purchasing a firearm and unlawfully possessing the gun. (cnbc.com)
   • Tax case: he pleaded guilty to three felony and six misdemeanor tax charges over failure to pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes. (cnbc.com)
   • Weiss’s later report describes the investigation and notes that the prosecution resulted in a felony gun conviction and tax charges, while Republican critics had pressed for additional charges tied to foreign business dealings; Weiss indicated the subsequent presidential pardon effectively foreclosed further legal action. (politico.com)
     These outcomes do not constitute a judicial finding that Hunter either did or did not act as an unregistered foreign agent; the issue was never adjudicated.

2. Pardon and termination of cases: President Joe Biden issued a sweeping pardon in December 2024 covering Hunter Biden’s federal gun and tax offenses from 2014–2024. Courts then terminated the pending gun and tax cases, leaving the existing conviction on the record but ending further proceedings. (theguardian.com) This brought the federal criminal “process” to a close without any factual findings on foreign‑agent conduct or on the nature of Hunter’s business links to his father.

3. Impeachment inquiry and "links" to Joe Biden: House Republicans conducted an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden focused largely on whether he abused his office to benefit Hunter’s foreign business dealings. A 2024 report by the Republican‑led committees asserted that Joe Biden engaged in influence‑peddling to enrich his family. (judiciary.house.gov) However:

   • Fact‑checking and mainstream reporting have repeatedly noted that, despite extensive bank records and testimony, Republicans have not produced direct evidence that Joe Biden personally profited from, directed, or materially participated in his son’s foreign business deals. (washingtonpost.com)
   • Even key GOP‑invited witnesses acknowledged the evidence does not yet establish that the president committed a crime or that the available information amounts to proven corruption. (cnbc.com)
     Thus, while the inquiry aired allegations and partial information about communications and proximity, it did not yield a broadly accepted, definitive answer about incriminating “links and communications” involving Joe Biden.

4. Status as of late 2025: By now, the criminal cases are closed (via conviction/plea and subsequent pardon) and the impeachment inquiry has produced only partisan, contested conclusions. There is no authoritative, widely accepted determination—judicial or otherwise—that:

   • Hunter Biden either did or did not act as an unregistered foreign agent; or
   • Joe Biden was demonstrably involved in, or benefitted from, his son’s foreign business activities.

Chamath’s prediction was that this process would "come out" and give "everybody" the truth—clearly establishing either innocence or guilt on these specific questions before the process concluded and around the 2024 cycle. Instead, the key issues he highlighted remain politically disputed and legally unresolved. On that basis, the prediction is best evaluated as wrong.

Chamath’s prediction was that prosecutors would take more time and then bring better-prepared charges tied to Hunter Biden’s foreign-lobbying/tax issues.

What happened:

• After the initial plea deal on two misdemeanor tax counts collapsed in July 2023, David Weiss was elevated to special counsel in August 2023 and kept investigating instead of ending the case. (en.wikipedia.org)
• On Dec. 7, 2023—about three months after the podcast—a federal grand jury in California returned a detailed nine‑count tax indictment alleging Hunter Biden ran a four‑year scheme (2016–2019) to avoid paying at least $1.4 million in federal taxes, including felony tax evasion and false returns. (justice.gov)
• In 2024, Hunter Biden ultimately was convicted on the Delaware gun charges and then pleaded guilty to the federal tax charges, before being pardoned by President Biden on Dec. 1, 2024. (reuters.com)
• U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi in California rejected all of Hunter Biden’s motions to dismiss the tax case (including claims of political motivation and improper appointment/venue), leaving the indictment intact and finding no legal defect in the charges. (cbsnews.com) This strongly indicates the tax case was substantively and procedurally robust—i.e., “well prepared.”
• On the foreign‑lobbying side, prosecutors investigated possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act but Weiss later told Congress his team “couldn’t put together a sufficient case,” and no FARA or foreign‑lobbying charges were ever filed before Biden’s broad 2014–2024 pardon foreclosed further prosecutions. (foxnews.com)

So, while the “foreign lobbying” component of the prediction did not materialize, the core forecast—that prosecutors would, after taking more time, bring substantial, carefully built charges over Hunter Biden’s tax issues—was borne out by the subsequent nine‑count federal tax indictment, the court’s refusal to dismiss it, and his ultimate guilty plea. Overall, that makes the prediction effectively right.

A Republican did in fact win the next U.S. presidency: Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and took office again in January 2025 as a Republican president. 【turn0search12】【turn0news14】

Special Counsel David Weiss’s Hunter Biden probe ended with Hunter’s conviction on federal gun charges and a guilty plea on tax charges, followed by President Joe Biden issuing a sweeping pardon in December 2024 covering Hunter’s federal offenses from 2014–2024. 【turn1search21】【turn1news16】 Weiss’s final report in January 2025 defended the investigations as thorough but explicitly noted that the pardon prevented him from making additional charging decisions regarding Hunter’s conduct, while Republicans such as House Oversight Chair James Comer criticized the report as incomplete and argued that broader financial and bribery-related crimes remained unaddressed. 【turn2search23】【turn2search0】【turn3search1】 This fits the condition that Weiss’s “resolution” was not widely seen as conclusive, at least on the Republican side.

Under Trump’s new administration, Attorney General Pam Bondi has publicly stated that the FBI is “working hard” to investigate records tied to long‑standing bribery allegations involving former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, referring specifically to the Burisma/FD‑1023 bribery evidence that had previously been part of the broader Biden-family controversy. 【turn3search2】 Simultaneously, additional FBI files with further Burisma‑related bribery allegations about Joe and Hunter Biden were released in 2025, with Senator Chuck Grassley pressing for a full inquiry into whether these leads were properly investigated. 【turn4news13】 These actions show the Republican Trump–Bondi Justice Department and FBI actively re‑pursuing Biden‑family (and thus Hunter Biden‑related) corruption allegations that many Republicans believed had not been fully or fairly resolved under Weiss.

Given that:

1. A Republican won the 2024 presidency.
2. Weiss’s outcome was not accepted as conclusive by key Republican actors.
3. The subsequent Republican administration has indeed moved to further investigate Hunter Biden‑related bribery and influence‑peddling claims,

Chamath’s conditional prediction (“if a Republican wins, they will reopen/further pursue the Hunter Biden investigations if Weiss isn’t seen as conclusive”) has effectively come true.

Jason’s normalized prediction was that at least one of Joe Biden or Donald Trump would not be an active, official major‑party nominee at the effective “starting line” of the 2024 general election.

In reality, Joe Biden initially ran for re‑election and became the presumptive Democratic nominee, but he withdrew from the race on July 21, 2024 and endorsed Kamala Harris, who was then officially confirmed as the Democratic presidential nominee on August 5, 2024. (en.wikipedia.org) Donald Trump, by contrast, was formally nominated as the Republican candidate and faced Harris in the November 5, 2024 general election. (en.wikipedia.org)

Thus, when the general‑election campaign began with the official nominees (Trump vs. Harris), Biden was not an active nominee, satisfying the normalized claim that at least one of Biden or Trump would not make it to the “starting line.” However, his more literal statement that neither Biden nor Trump would make it (i.e., that both would fail to be nominees) did not come true, since Trump did. On the normalized formulation specified here, the prediction is assessed as right.

The prediction said the 2024 presidential election would be determined primarily by (1) moderates and (2) women angry about the overturning of Roe v. Wade, with those blocs playing a significant role.

What actually happened:

• Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris, 312–226 in the Electoral College and 49.8%–48.3% in the popular vote. (en.wikipedia.org)
• In the national exit poll, moderates were the single largest ideological group (42% of voters) and broke 58–40 for Harris, while conservatives (35% of voters) broke 90–9 for Trump. Overall, the vote was 50–48 for Trump in that same exit poll. (en.wikipedia.org) This means moderates favored Harris but did not decide the outcome in her favor; Trump’s overwhelming conservative and Republican support, plus their geographic distribution, were more decisive than the moderate vote.
• Independents/"independent" voters also made up a record share of the electorate (34%) and leaned slightly toward Harris (about 50–45 nationally), yet Trump still won, again indicating that swing and moderate-leaning blocs were not the primary determinant of the final result. (reuters.com)

Women and abortion / Roe v. Wade:

• Women were 53% of the electorate and backed Harris 53–45 nationally, while men backed Trump 55–43. (en.wikipedia.org) So women (including many motivated by abortion rights) clearly mattered to Harris’s coalition, but their margin was not large enough to decide the race overall.
• AP VoteCast/KFF analyses find that abortion was a very salient issue for many women: about three in ten women voters said abortion policy was the single most important factor in their vote, and majorities of several groups of women (especially Black and Hispanic women and women 18–44) said abortion policy had a "major impact" on their turnout and candidate choice. (kff.org) These voters heavily favored Harris.
• However, for the electorate as a whole abortion was not the top driver. National exit polls show only about 14% of voters named abortion as their top issue, compared with roughly one‑third citing the future of democracy and about one‑third citing the economy. (abc7chicago.com)
• Post‑election analyses note that while abortion remained central to Democratic messaging and clearly energized many women, economic worries and democracy concerns were higher‑ranking motivations for most voters; Trump even carried several states that voted simultaneously to expand or protect abortion access, with a noticeable share of pro‑abortion‑rights voters backing Trump for president. (kff.org) This undercuts the idea that women upset about Roe were the primary determinant of the presidential outcome.

Bottom line:

• The "significant role" part of the claim is supportable: moderates were the largest ideological group and women—especially those motivated by abortion rights—were central to Harris’s support.
• But the stronger assertion that the 2024 election would be decided primarily by moderates and by Roe‑motivated women is not borne out by the data. Moderates and those women mostly favored Harris, yet Trump won, and national evidence points to partisan/ideological polarization plus concerns about democracy and the economy as more decisive than those specific blocs.

Because the core emphasis was on these two groups primarily determining the outcome, the prediction is best judged as wrong, even though those groups were indeed important parts of the story.

Evidence supports parts of Jason’s forecast but isn’t sufficient to verify the full, very specific claim about 20 days of near‑daily releases.

What clearly did happen

• No regular episode during the summit week. The All‑In Summit 2023 ran September 10–12, 2023 at UCLA’s Royce Hall in Los Angeles.​ (en.wikipedia.org) The main All‑In feed shows E144 on Sept 1, E145 (the Chris Christie episode) on Sept 8, and then the next regular episode E146 not until Sept 22—there is no regular weekly episode around Sept 15.​ (allinchamathjason.libsyn.com) That matches Jason’s statement that they weren’t going to tape a normal pod the following week.

• Summit talks were recorded and released online. Multiple talks explicitly labeled All-In Summit 2023 and described as recorded live at Royce Hall were later posted as standalone videos/audio, including:

  • Ray Dalio on the rise and fall of nations (published Sept 19, 2023 on the “Talking Books” podcast feed, and Sept 17 on Rumble, embedding the All‑In video).​ (podcasts.apple.com)
  • Larry Summers on inflation and economic policy (Harvard Kennedy School links to a video described as recorded at All‑In Summit 2023 and notes it as a Sept 18, 2023 video).​ (hks.harvard.edu)
  • MrBeast (Jimmy Donaldson) on his business and the creator economy (Rumble shows a Sept 19, 2023 upload of the All‑In Summit talk; Listen Notes lists a Sept 26, 2023 audio episode).​ (listennotes.com)
  • Alexandra Botez 1v4 chess exhibition (audio episode dated Oct 3, 2023).​ (listennotes.com)
  • Rob Henderson on “Luxury beliefs are status symbols” (audio episode dated Oct 2, 2023).​ (podcasts.apple.com)
  • Stephen Wolfram on computation, AI and the nature of the universe (blog post embedding a YouTube video of the All‑In Summit 2023 talk, dated Oct 26, 2023).​ (digitalhabitats.global)

• Released on YouTube and promoted on X (Twitter). The Stephen Wolfram page embeds a YouTube player; the Dalio and MrBeast talks appear as All‑In videos on Rumble and as podcast episodes, implying they originate from the All‑In video pipeline.​ (digitalhabitats.global) Separately, coverage of Elon Musk’s All‑In Summit appearance shows the All‑In account posting the summit video as a clip “available exclusively on @X,” confirming that summit content was being pushed out on X as Jason described.​ (teslarati.com) A LinkedIn recap by the All‑In account lists at least eleven major 2023 panels (Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, JD Vance, Mearsheimer & Sachs, Megyn Kelly, Sergey Brin, Travis Kalanick, Marc Benioff, Michael Ovitz, Tekedra Mawakana, Bari Weiss) and notes that “full recordings from each are live on demand in the channel,” indicating a sizable slate of summit videos.​ (linkedin.com)

Where the uncertainty lies

• Jason’s prediction is unusually specific: (a) around 20 guest episodes recorded at the summit, (b) released on X and YouTube, (c) at a cadence of roughly one every 1–2 days, (d) yielding about 20 consecutive days of content after the summit.
• Publicly indexable pages (podcast feeds, Rumble mirrors, third‑party blogs, and recap posts) let us see some of the All‑In Summit 2023 content and its dates (examples above), but they do not provide a complete, authoritative list of all summit session uploads or a full release schedule. The official YouTube playlist is referenced on Wikipedia but its contents aren’t visible through static HTML scraping in this environment, so we can’t reliably count how many distinct summit videos exist or on which exact dates each went live.​ (en.wikipedia.org)
• The sample we can see shows summit videos being released on and after Sept 17, 18, 19, 26, Oct 2, Oct 3, and Oct 26, 2023—clearly a stream of content over several weeks, but not enough data to prove that there were approximately 20 videos or that they created a continuous ~20‑day run of daily/every‑other‑day releases.​ (podcasts.apple.com)

Conclusion

• We can confidently say Jason was directionally right about skipping a regular pod that week and then releasing a series of All‑In Summit 2023 guest sessions on X and YouTube afterward.
• However, because available public data do not let us definitively verify the exact number of summit episodes or whether they produced roughly 20 consecutive days of near‑daily releases, the full, detailed prediction can’t be confirmed or falsified from current sources.

Given those constraints, the fairest classification is "ambiguous": ample evidence the general idea happened, but insufficient evidence to judge the precise quantitative and cadence claims Jason made.