Gentlemen. Welcome to the best thing that ever happened to you today. for some of us, is even better than usual. Because today is officially there. My state, California dropped mask mandates for adults. If the vaccinated, so there's not a clean wind and the cancer can still have to go, ass for at least two more weeks, but My long road to hell and back just about completed Because I don't have to worry about mandates, because I am vaccinated, whether that was a great decision or a bad one, I suppose will find out if I climbed up and die

but so far so good, which would mean there's a great possibility that I made it through the pandemic on the optimal bath. Dont know that, surely, if anybody who claims that the at this boy, anybody who claims that they made all the right decisions will premature little premature. But if I got through this with only two. Vaccination and no boasters, which gave me as much freedom as I can get and I got through it to the boy- were mass go away. So that means they didn't keep that weird thing for ever. I also Not get infected now in theory, I will, but we do have lots more information about long covered, which may or may not be true. However,. Let's do the simultaneous up. That's the important thing now is.

What about your glass integrity, I'll start again, teams with less a vessel of any kind Philly with your favorite liquid. I like coffee enjoyed me now for the unparalleled pleasures dopey Thursday. The thing makes everything better include, freedom which is breaking out everywhere o were a long ways to go still. We still got a claw back, but for now, let's drink to freedom and the the truckers in Canada were making us proud and enjoy your simultaneous, oh yeah. That was a good one. Surprisingly zesty did anybody else find that a little zest year than normal was. I just me I felt like it was like ten to fifteen percent extra zest and that one could be

imagination, while in California, as I said, the mask mandate is dropping released from the state will see other businesses deal with it. kid still afterwards for two more weeks at least, and then they re reassess. Why do the children need to continue where a mass for two weeks? Is it because we followed the science? Is that why is it? Is it the science Well now, because the science ignores reality, so if the science makes the speculation that the kids are being mask and very comfortable here, the very cautious all of the time except when they're in school, then the science might and I say, might cause. I don't think, there's enough evidence for it, but it might, under those conditions, suggest that masking children make sense.

under the specific condition there when they walk out of the school there still mascot but in the real world in which everybody is aware, the kids are massive, loosely masked. For the moment they walk out the door. There are actually unmasked between classes That they actually walk out of the class there. deletion in our town, you're allowed to take off their mask because around doors between the bill, things there, Haagen NEO, joking and interacting with each other at close quarters, and then they walk into the building and put on the mask, and then they go to lunch and take off

asks, and then they go home and have a sleep over Superbowl Party and they may go without their masks. Now, I'm not wrong the under those conditions. You don't really have to address the science. It would be one thing if this were some kind of a controlled situation where kids were always masks, then you say: well we care about these children. So much work masks completely until the dangerous past, which would also not be a good idea, but at least it would be consistent. It would at least speakers with science but

when the world, the science pretend not to know that the kids are cheating massively of the best to the point where it couldn't possibly make a difference that they're sitting ghetto in their isolated chairs in class in a well ventilated place? It's just crazy at this point and- and I think unforgivable, sleep is unforgivable here. The rates confectioner way down. Seventy percent, less infections and hospitalization sounds very six to forty said even Washington DC is dropping mandates? so we're saying the mandates dropping how many, We thought we would wear masks wherever they buy. Think that now so you did

some people actually were worried that the mask were forever thing at nine ever worried about that. Now, the the mask, the vaccine mandates. Those are sticky right. There was no chance the mass work and be forever, I think, but the mandates lay might be they might be forever. So slept less. We see emotion there, they might be Rasmussen poles, as that. Fifty nine percent of Americans support the canadian truckers. Fifty nine percent of Americans a pretty solid majority right there for by american standards. A large majority and what is president were not present, Prime Minister Trudeau, doing about it

How many of you saw to those press conferences, press conference about the emergency powers, so I guess Sir Kirby documents just save that imagined thinking that freedom breaking out as a national emergency that that's actually was happening. So did I believe you saw the the press conference with Trudeau explaining what he was doing now, if you didn't see it,

I would strongly recommend something's happening in my house right now. There's unexplained away, you see what kind of trouble here who's gonna fix. The problem. Problem solved October, that or not will see so here's what I want to say about dead shadows, emergency powers, a press conference. Now be very careful when I say this guy. I will be very careful when I say this:

as you know my regular audience, I'm a big supporter of the eligibility Q community. so I'm going to say something that if you heard it in the wrong context was like I was making fun of the eligibility community which are not so that's not what's gonna happen, but. in terms of looking at after our politicians how they. Present themselves as part of the story. Would you agree. Now that the way we receive the message from our politicians is this part of the story in addition to what the message itself is when I watch true those pressing France, I see somebody and again this is not a criticism. This is an observation The observation is, he looks like he's. Transitioning, thereby also looks like he's transitioning.

Now it's severe saying that obtain in the comments he was acting gay I want to make very clear here to all of you that none of this should be construed as anti anybody. This is simply an observation which, because he's a leader, it matters how we receive them and how we process, but there's something about his helicopter which suggests just he is growing it out, because who would go on tv without Erika haircut unless unless it was part of a larger strategy, did you see as Erika. I mean it was way beyond the other. The normal erika, be it looked like, is growing out and he was talking with a lesson,

mannerism, which I had not heard before the sound indifferent. Did he not sound different as in more feminine and again, that's not a criticism. It's an observation and I'm not I'm not. There's no hyperbole. Here, I'm saying that there was something about his presentation. We strongly suggested to me, and they could be because the news has so much news about Trans issues that maybe I'm just primed to see it or something by he looked like he was essentially and it was very distracting and again I want to be very clear: that's not a criticism, because if he is transitioning, thus his business, not mine,. but if it changes how you received, the message doesn't and well

whether you looked at it and thought? Well, he's you simply not acting very testosterone II. That has an effect on you now you process, but to me it looked like somebody who knew him Political life was over. How many Avonlea also pick that up and again this is just so subjective, we're just reading speculation. Reading his mind. And none of this is real issues, how we feel about it and they entered a political contacts. How you feel about is kind of all the matters, so I think it's fair game. How I felt about it, does it look like a Lou leader would completely lost it, just completely lost it and knew it and knew that his game was over basically- and I think he's doing the best again to try to act tough, but he spent so much time, not being tough that I just don't know if he could pull it off. It didn't pull it off.

so that was interesting. I loved Donald Trump tweed about this. as Prime Minister Prime Minister, Trudeau, was acting somewhat authoritarian with his emergency powers You sound little like Mussolini, but I'll trump Junior tweets it with a different spelling that the most part spoke like a moose, the canadian moose. So his Mussolini pretty good. good. Doesnt translated the verbal, but if you started writing you'd be laughing right now, so I think it's a pretty big deal that the in Washington DC their dropping mandates goes. Washington DC was being targeted by truckers. Wasn't it can either be effect

others sit, and so are we a little bit surprised the Washington DC dropped the men mandates already and was Washington DC not targeted for the truckers, and did they do? That too was it was the point to get the to make sure there was no truck insurrection, so I dont know if those are related or not or just the timing work like that. But to me the time he looks a little bit interesting. here's another. To tell you, I told you so where the news So the news is talking now about how Russia.

and China are becoming more strategic. Allies are not quite the best friends but they're moving in that direction. Who is the first person who told you that that's like the biggest thing we have to worry about? Probably my audience probably heard it from me for such orders, because I can remember seeing in the press until maybe just this week or less two weeks or kissinger- I guess Kissinger beat me too. So you I eurostar like I invented the idea, obviously, but in terms of how much it is an affront to your head. I think I was warning warning you about this. At least a year before it became headline news which wishes renew and sure enough. That's the big thing door about so got that right. Here's a random

thing. That is out of order, and my notes, or just tell you so I saw tweets by doktor, crush Budapest. India. Who is in her by Oh, she says she's a India's first social media doctorate right. So I assume I mean she lives and works in India and she is a doctorate and she tweets S. That's a quote: Our own add lattimer. Now I say our own, I mean you America's Twitter and our own. Being his is well loved among a lot of people. Anyway, apparently said this has been quoted in the street. When your words are capable of cutting through the fog, and your signal is free of noise than you're, a dangerously effective individual which I have two comments about number one. That's perfectly captures the Joe Rogan problem. Doesn't it perfectly captures it

Jerusalem is dangerous because he's cutting through the fog and these clear. Now the attacks on item are for misinformation. But we wouldn't even be talking about him, except that he can do this thing, which has got through the fog and simplify and resort to get to the truth of things. and ensure it off at Lattimer is is correct and I would say that's a feature of what we're watching is the most effective voice being taken. Because each side was the silence, the most effective voice on the other side and are doing a good job taking pieces, often chessboard, but here's the part that cop That is side of the story with the story that debtors the in the areas. First, social media doctorate is called Lattimer do you know why somebody who's provenance on social media in India is quoting at Lattimer.

in America, because it turns out that Lattimer is the best example of his own point. You somebody use, words can cut through the fog and his signal is free of noise. So If you want to know how much purchase you can get in this world by just being a good communicator look at Lattimer, so he gets a lot of boost from people. Like me, What we see in him is a communication message. This first saw a great messages and second of all his communication capabilities. Stellar, I mean really is, so this is one person who, just by being good at talking, I guess communicating, I should say, is becoming a well known in India on the other side of the world is like about that.

I mean He'S- is becoming famous around the world for just being good in saying stuff, that's less like a real thing! That's happening right now. I thought that was worth worth mentioning. Meanwhile, the expression of Honduras is PIG arrested for alleged, Lee being involved, a subjective drug trafficking gaze and some other electoral fraud and stuff electoral fraud. Didn't you know that was possibility but did you know that the United States can just tell Honduras to elect to arrest the ex president than under us will go? Do it because that's happening right now, And we were actually like us just completely normal, would do we just ring up a neighbouring country and say like you to arrest the sky, and then they just around them up.

I guess that healthy, it's gonna weird, because the context is we're talking about, should Russia have this control over Ukraine. right should Russia have control over its neighbouring countries Same time weakens ring up ponderous and say you know what you're round up your ex president put him in jail. Now, and also he doesn't deserve it,. I'm not saying that this is a normal business. Winters countries do contact other countries to get people arrested, but this one a little smoothly, is supposed to go this smoothly. I we ve got some evidence that Europe. President does should be arrested. Can you get all your already arresting them? Thank you. Thank you. Could you turn is already on the flight is already on the way back. Is there a little bit a little bit too friendly or something

I really talk about? I will talk about the Hillary Clinton stuff in Kosovo. Ukraine, so the news is reporting that Russia's withdrawing some troops from the Ukraine border is that true. was true that they announced it. It's not true. Apparently anybody's noticing any difference in troops. Strength, probably Just rotating some troops are some normal stuff. Maybe chess move, some people are suggesting it's all part of four dimensional chess. Where he's trying to keep you guessing, am I going to attack? Am I not and it exhaust you if you become psychologically exhausted, do you get ready for the attack and then it's off they get ready, and then

and though you tax, so it be, that could be or could be literally nothing or could be just troops rotating whatever. But let's talk about where there's going. What's your current gas and whether Putin will attack invasion yes or no and the comments Gimme, your parents opinion. Oh I'm, seeing mostly hours interesting locals. You know the news on social areas, mostly ass wrong and how about on? Oh, my goodness, I'm seeing some yes, his aunts Youtube, mostly no There is well. I was happening here, I'm a little confused about what I'm saying. Is this a reflection of the uniqueness of my life stream audience?

Or is this actually a general opinion? Does the general public think there's not going to be attacked, because I would think that the media is telling us there will be while I take a minute just drink. This and will you I'm pretty sure the mainstream media is telling us. The attack is inevitable. Am I wrong, and yet the public at least as represented by my life stream audiences I dont now unique. This is thus the question. None of your believe in this are you it's like you just do not buying it at all. Did I do that? You barley? How much of this is because? Well what I said verses is just obvious in some way, or you just don't believe the news news anymore. Well. Are you is blown away or use blown away by the other comments, as I am are used,

the prize that people are expecting this to be an attack. Here's my current analysis as of today, pollutants calculation depends on the odds of success. Right so he's got the odds of success of actually you conquering in holding whatever it is. You wants to conquer, but then there is also the unknown. How big will leave the blow back, be and sanctions etc? How bad will I be so? Potent is dealing with massive unknown. But one of the unknowns that you and you and I and the rest of the world have discounted is whether he can succeed Because we just look at the size of the army and say, oh

Russia one of the biggest militaries, though you look at the Uk- and you say: ok, not one of the biggest militaries, they should be quick work great. It should be like the United States, just rolling up Iraq in the Iraq war should be like that right, I'm not so sure, because the the biggest wildcard is what weapons Ukraine has, and I dont think Putin knows do Do you think that food knows what kind of military assets or even strategies will be used if he attacks, because I keep hearing that he's amassing tanks.

can somebody who knows more about all things military explain something to me: can you have a tank? A tank group move against the modern army. Is that even the thing, because I would think that modern technology would take our tanks more easily than anything could take out anything? Could you not I'm just I don't know anything about the technology for tank killing, but is there not already a missile they even fire in the air? The comes down approximately where all the tanks are, but before it hits, the ground is splits into twenty five. Take killing projectiles just find the biggest metal thing and kill it like that. Doesn't,

already exists. Couldn't couldn't you fire one missile that takes out an entire tank, whatever you call it squadron or something now by yours, the question would, do you know if it existed? Do you think that do you think that the public is aware of the weaponry? There would actually be employed by Ukraine with the help The United States advisers, if you know what I mean, because all you need is the other advisers standing near by and saying: ok, Ukrainians push this button now. So then is the Ukrainians using the weapons? Not us, we just told them how to do it. You don't think we ve got some good stuff that the Russians are afraid of. I don't know either I'm just speculating, but here's my current. My current thinking is one of the reasons that Putin would build up a force.

Keep it there for a while is to see what the reactions, because that might scare up some information about what the response would be and he might be learning something he doesn't like. Another words. Putin might have made sure that Ukraine responded, so they can see what the response would. Militarily, and then they didn't like a response at all. Grab this invasion is gonna. Go so well, look what happened when the Soviet Union tried to Afghanistan as long as Afghanistan had modern weaponry and with the willingness to die they they did well. as I think we need a bigger known on what weaponry will be used against them. Acumen if he attacked and lost. Imagine that just Imagine a scenario where Putin neither got in there and couldn't get out and couldn't win later,

yeah a few miles in Rwanda regard, part of the country and then got bogged down. What would that? What will they do for the the credibility of Russia's military strength? It would be a disaster because, right now, people are afraid of the russian military. But what? If? What, if there were shown to be ineffective in an actual war, would be different? So I guess the argument would be that if they ve got some experience in Georgia Agus Scots Alfred other hoax says Chan, which is the hopes, and I also wonder how expensive it is for people to keep his army there idling. I wonder if of our strategy is to just break the bank Sore Ronald Reagan, like

because Reagan did the star Wars thing which was soviet into to overspend on defence which lead to their demise in part. Could it be we're doing the same strategy of just trying to starve Putin, but maybe energy prices are so high that used in fine? I imagine if tromp had been present, This favorite speculation, imaginative trumpet been present while number one trumped would have been keeping the United States the number one producer of energy, or at least your way more than we are. If trumpet done that, what would be the price of energy around the world will be lower when. as the price of energy were lower with that, come out of pollutants pocket and into ours. I think it would so,

is the real was the real strategic error when Biden started crippling our own domestic energy cuz when he crippled our own energy stuff, what he did was basically transferred assets to Russia. and other places, so I think from a military perspective, Tromp was one hundred percent that the The thing we have to get right is to have the biggest domestic energy programme. We have palm oil like crazy, keep all of the prices for oil low and and basically degrade our enemies. While we built up the capability to replace oil ourselves. I feel like we're not talking enough about the the military benefit of domestic energy programme and I feel like I feel I try

new. That in every way, am I wrong. I don't, tromp was simply operating on the hay. Energy is good for the country as a user. Rating also on a strategic, global kind of a basis? I was probably the biggest thing the by IRAN. Speaking of the left apparently there a conservative democrats which exist there. The more liberal Democrats in San Francisco and three members of the San Francisco School Board are up for re election and there being challenge

so the progressives on the school board of being challenged by the Democrats, so it might not even be the Republicans who make any kind of head roads against laid the Super progressive part of the country and might be the Democrats themselves having to having to shut it down Democrats can still have power, as other be a civil war. There happen. No information on long covered David Box and worn tweeted today So as a new study out, why talk about studies? What love? of credibility. Should you put on the study that I talk about and I say. hey, there's a new study, which should be your first impression of the credibility of the study. Love fifty percent would be the top. The top

If you put the odds of a new study being both accurate and tell you what you need to know, it's not more than fifty percent. So should be your skeptical informed citizens, citizens starting point who would disagree with that ape any pushed back on. Then, if you don't know anything else about it the day you hear it never give it more than fifty percent credibility Non USA. Fifty percent is too high for what it really is. What I'm saying fifty is a cap. If you found yourself thinking is more likely to than not you should check your thinking. You should stop at could be true that that's the highest. You should go not probably true, not more likely to be true, that's a little too far, but

Possibly drew that's that's as far as you should take it so years and whose there's some suggestion that we know where that we we have a good eye, What causes long covered is long overdue, Israel. I know you have to play that scepticism in your head about, right is long overdue, even real. That's a good question. But apparently the evidence is mounting Linda's and theirs constellation of symptoms that finally may have revealed what's going on, which is this thing called a Vegas hope on pronouncing the right, Vegas. Nerve so there's nervous, starts in the back your head and goes all the way down here. Ass, some would say All the way down to your date, but in medical terms, you don't talk about your date. You talk about them yes nerve and they think he is that the virus dammit

is that at least may, potentially for a few months and they d longer? Who knows But the damage to that would would give you all of the range of symptoms and people are having, because it affects everything from. I guess. Breathing to swallowing to talking dizziness, heartbeat persistent voice problems. Did you know that I never that there is a persistent voice problem too long covert? That's for some over there I'm not even sure. I believe it, but if that's true that it would be interesting and maybe tell us how we get treated. Might also give us some inside about white effects on people more than others? Sort of thing So I think that's just a watch and see the big story today. How many of you were watching

the says the Durham filing recently shown on Friday, the Durham filing suggested that the Hillary Clinton campaign had funded some spy spying into the phone records of trump both before he was an office and after and that the Purpose of it was to join up a phoney narrative. Their tromp was communicating with Russia in a secret way now, and then we all talked about the mainstream media didn t right. So there were two stories. One is the story itself. the story of of how the news was being suppressed. But the suppression is over. The New York Times just Randy a large story about it. by Charlie Savage. He wrote this and he is debunks the entire thing debunks, the entire thing.

So what you thought was a Hillary Clinton campaign paying lawyers and that lawyers working with the attack people got this information they shouldn't have had for the purpose. Of a narrative Cory's in New York Times. That's all fake news! Now. Let me tell you something about the news ecosystem. If you wanted to debunk something that was true? How would you do it? How would you do, but something that was true like if you wanted to get somebody to say something that is true is not true outdated. Well, if you were. Let's say a unknown person, you'd go to social media and then who's gonna believe right issue on social media, so that doesn't work Let's say you go to a second tier publication. So one at whatever you want to call a second tier. You get.

I say bunk, I would bunk this without work. Well, you would help you tweet things. You'd have something to tweet, but probably not wouldn't make much difference, but if you were the democratic party and you had access to the most powerful everything, including people in the press. How would you make a true story disappear? Here's how you do it. You should contact somebody who worked at the New York Times primarily second choice would be the Washington Post, but first choice by far is the New York Times and you would have them right. A debunking peace. That once the New York Times has said this debunked, all of the lesser enter is, can just say: well you don't. believe me about. Look at the New York Times possess the standard for news, so the New York Times.

Is doing exactly what you would expect if the Clinton campaign had corrupted them to write a cover story to debunk something that actually was true. Now, I'm not making that allegation. So I'm not I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm saying that if a top Democrat wanted to debunk something that was true, it would look at like this by disagree. This is this is exactly what it would look like if the fix wherein What is also exactly what it would look like if the story was untrue and they were just about here policy, what he says should be able to tell pretty quickly by how He handles the story weather

is really debunking had and the whole thing was bs or is it you trying to cover up something and there's no debunk this real? What do you think before I go through it? Do you think to debunk will stand up or will it be transparent, bullshit. I see your vote before I go on. So here are some of the claims they're saying that Fox NEWS's, inaccurately declaring this is what Charlie Savage says near comes it says a Fox news is inaccurately declared. The Mister Durham had said. he had evidence, they lose Clinton's campaign had paid a technology company to filtrate, a White House server did Fox NEWS ever say that almost all laws

Fox news says something like that, but not that. So why he did was he set up a strong man, a thing the Fox NEWS did not say, and then they debunked it. How many people will read in the New York Times also watch Fox news to know that what they're debunking is now what they said, not men, this is why so genius there is almost no cross over between people watch Fox NEWS and New York Times, if you're, only trying to convince your side, the something is true. You jack. a Fox news says that unicorns can fly. We proved it's not true. Would you know the Fox NEWS never claimed they unicorns can fly, you would not. You would just like. that. They probably said that, and this debunked this is really clever stuff

clever, even though its like right in your face and obvious him, but the clever in the sense that it works. I go, what else do they say to debunk the story? Now? First: it is my understanding. Can you give me a fact check? My understanding is that there is no claim that they, Hillary Clinton, directly played paid the Tec. My understanding is that Clinton paid a law firm or somebody associated with it to get some information, and then the lawyer got it from the tech company that you, so if what their debunking is the campaign paying the tech company to spy, That was never the claims wasn't. I don't think that why he's debunking is the actual claim he's taking out the middle part. The lawyers wishes.

Martha holds the makes a little story hold together, so he's acting like they said there was no no lawyers in the middle, even though they are mentioned, but as mentioned in it that it's less a looks like us intentionally misleading! That's what it looks like. We don't know what anyways thinking. So I can't read his mind, but as a reader, it comes across as intentionally trying to mislead me. I don't know that that's true, Thus I am receiving so Charlie Savage also says The Washington Zimmer claim that this all meant there had been spying on mister White House Office, and when mainstream publications held back MR trumpeters alleys begin shaming them.

So now there claiming that the reason the people held back is that there was nothing there. That's not true did. Do you think? That's that's true. There was nothing there and that's the everybody held back. You know at the very least, they would be doing the story about how the stories wrong right, at the very least, they waited for New York Times to go. First, do you know why? Because they knew if they went first? Be credible, you needed somebody to right along complicated story that nobody understood so that everybody from that point on can just point to the story. What do you think the news will be talking about on CNN today See you then we'll will be able to say the New York Times debunk this and then the CNN viewers will say, did they are? No? I didn't read that story, but if all these people on CNN are saying is debunked and must be the bond

the way they're gonna sell. This is effectively, it will work. It is working years more that nothing is. Is so so part of the defence within the debunk. Is that nothing new? Not all that For one much of this was not new and then they go. to say that in the New York Times are reported some of this in October, that what MR assessment, I guess, what Lawyers had told the CIA about data suggesting that russian Bade smartphones were connected to network Central Tower and the White House So near times saying we did report this, so is not new, but of course the whole point of it is that it was reported faintly, So there are claiming that they had already reported it without noting that what they reported was the fake narrative.

so they're claiming that is old news by show their own faith news? The part that was the narrative, not the real news. The narrative part that the Democrats planted. unbelievable now many people again do what I did, which is poor through this compared to the Durham Report and see how completely unethical always looks nobody almost nobody, about talking here, some other others, things they say. Listen. The conservative media also skewed what the filing said. For example, dirhams filing, never used. The word infiltrate well did Conservative media say that he said infiltrate, I dont believe they claimed he said infiltrate, sounds like their own word.

What does the word infiltrate means without Can somebody look it up one while we're doing this put it in the comments just paste. It was the detonation definition of infiltrate. While I would think we get in somewhere. You don't belong and get some stuff misfiring spying right, I feel like that would be a fair characterisation. If the facts were the way they thought export let's go on so their arguing with infiltrate as if it mattered the doomed and use that word, but that didn't matter right so as it is a fake debunk, their debunking Fox news is word because Durham didn't use it, but that's not the point. It doesn't matter after amused at what he described sounds

like infiltrating doesn't know whether happen or not is a good question, but whether you characterize it as infiltrating doesn't seem like the big question and most important that this is the New York Times says. Contrary to the reporting from them deserves the filing. Never said the way. How stated that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era. That is correct, so this debunked correctly says that the filing never said the White House Data came under scrutiny was from the Trump era, but that's not a debunk. That's what the story is so notice that are acting like this is a debunk What they're saying is the same thing that the actual story says that it was not often the trump error, that being the entire point of the Durham Complain,

that they should have told the I guess. Law enforcement should have been told that this day data came both before Trump Sierra, after and says that part was left out. The simple. mission was, they were selling a narrative which was a lie. The narrative was there's something about the trumpet administration is what activated these sketchy looking country with Russia, but apparently they had been going on since twenty fourteen, so. The New York Times as acting like their debunking exactly what conservative media also agrees is true, So they're saying something that agree completely with conserve the media, but because you don't know our concern The media is, if your New York Times reader, they can say their debunking at war, completely agreeing with keep in mind. All of this is in the context of the big complicated

If you read this without knowing the other side, you have to start the side that I'm trying to present here. If you didn't know any of that, you would not suspect anything was missing. This is so diabolical all right. Bob and then there they quote, lawyers for some of the people were accused of stuff. and the lawyers say what Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong, say the blah blah lawyers for Mr Dagon. Now, of course, the story does need to quote both sides. There but they're just saying the wrong and then they one and say that this is a reason wrong. According to lawyers, they they, the cyber security researchers were investigating malware and the White House. We don't know that could be true, could be not not spying on the Trump campaign and to her

I all the data they used was non private DNS data from before Trump took office. That's just not true. Can you do a chicken. I believe what the lawyers are saying is unambiguously not true and the New York Times that's not true in their own reporting in the same story and and the conservative news knows it's not true, Am I right so he says it is true. I'm saying that the deal thus data included before Trump and after Trump And the lawyers say it was only before tromp. Do you think the lawyers are correct The Lord, if the large cracked and all the reporting is wrong, which is possible well This is pretty sketchy other less true about that

And also, it seems to me that the tech people did have legal access to the data, but did the tech people have that they have authority to give it to the Clinton campaign? Isn't the big question? How did that information get into the hands of the Clinton campaign? That's the question right, or am I miss it with a question? So it's not that the tech people were spying is that the tech people gave information to somebody who was fine, what like that's different, what's different in one sense, is different in the sense that the accusation would be about the middle people more than the Tec people. But why did the Tec people even give that information than buddy? Do they have access? So so there are so many questions of this because see how easy is gonna be the confused as to the point where you're not sure was true

somebody's claiming their apolitical that's bs and then the send the New York Times just roses and like it's a fact, so without without a lane great age, they say were Jolly Savage, says. After Russians, hack networks for the White House and the Democrats and twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen it went on whether it is that true. Do you believe that Russia hacked networks for the White House and the Democrats in twenty fifteen? I know it was reported, but do you believe it's true? I believe we can't tell I believe it was reported true, but we don't know because if you're telling me that hackers can't cover their tracks, I dont know at world. I live in. Do we live in a world where hackers can cover their tracks? I thought they could. Why does hacking even exist?

it seems like would be hard to be accurate if you couldn't cover your tracks So I thought that was interesting. They slip it in their. Like that's unquestionably true. I certainly question. and then they they say a spokesman for Mister Durham declined to comment toward the end, but why would Mister Durham declined to comment shouldn't? That also include the statement. Of course he doesn't common cause. You never comment during the investigation, so acting like you wouldn't comment, makes them look guilty of saying something wrong laden comment, but that's not the case. It's just something where you don't it now. What do you think about this? The cyber security researchers were investigating malware. Do you think that in the course of events Stealing malware, that's what caused them to find out all these we

Russia, server connections, maybe possibly, but I'd- have to see why? Why, looking into one got you the information on the other, it could I mean that's, not possible, but doesn't sound true, even if it is anyway, it looks to me like the New York Times is running cover for the story by pumping out a bunch of inaccurate statements of what the conservatives are saying and also trying to sort of obscure that connection between the earth. The campaign and the and the deal I anything Else- Avenant, that's it. That's was happily Rita.

or this and get back to us tomorrow that the problem is that, no matter how much I read up on it, if I got to point. Where I understood it, then the explaining to you would be to complicate So this is sort of a situation that can't be explained because it's just too complicated, We have a situation that can't be explained. The best way to hide it. Just have the New York Times pretend they're debunking it and then just call it good and walk away, and it looks like that's. What's going to happen, it looks like it's working.

You are unable to explain something well unable in these, in this specific sense that if something is detailed and complicated and all of the complication matters what he can do there are there. There is a category of things that is one of my favorite. Mental Hobbes is thinking about things I can't be communicated sometimes because it took up lions, but sometimes because there's nobody. You can trust that the only people know the information for sure are the ones you can't trust at all. So there's there are situations where things simply can't be communicated. And this might be one you'd have to live again court yeah. So if everyone, if we were going to simplify the case of whether is debunked or not, I think it comes down to did the Clinton campaign.

Ask lawyers that they paid to get some information to create a narrative that they knew was false and the New York Times did not demand that they they pretended. The story was a little bit different differently. Debunk, the different parts Canada has just removed all civil liberties, not worth the comment. Well, here's my comment on. I did talk about Trudeau. I think that Canada is in good shape so liking. What seeing Canada, I believe that the great claw back is is underway, clawing back our rights around the world, not just

U S and that the the truckers are going to get what they were. I think in the long run, but am I require removing their government first, so I do think that the charter's took out. The true no government d agree, I think Trudeau is done, is hard for me to read the room and Canada, but from my perspective I think he's completely done. Am I wrong about that because I can imagine even his low approval rating as it exists, I can't imagine survives is how this doesn't look like anything. The Biden stewing compare

compare the way. Biden is running things, even if you don't like it too, how Trudeau ran things you you could think Biden did a ton of things wrong and it doesn't come close to what you do is doing to his country right now it doesn't come close now, Not on an emotional level, not an ethical level, not a moral level, not even Biden to me Biden just looks like somebody is trying to do the best again. whatever is happening. Canada's doesn't look like that to me. It looks like it looks like a personality problem. It does. It looks like Trudeau painted himself in a corner and can get around. It doesn't look like a Canada problem. It looks like one person as a problem and and he's making that his personal political problem is becoming the country's problem. Now this said there are a number of my critics who sets

Don't you understand the importance of keeping the keeping things open to which I say? That's the point. That's the point. The point is that the country has released a segment of the country Has reached the point where they will shoot themselves in their own head before they will give up their freedom. Do you know how the only way that can be communicated shoe yourself in your own head. That's the only way anybody is ever going to believe it, and the truckers are doing that that the truckers are calling the bluff like I've, never seen the bluff called in my life. They are calling the truck Love, and so when Trudeau know is acting like he only has one choice: now he has another choice: freedom, freedoms, always the choice. Now that would probably kill more people, but he's got a choice and I think the pub

Here's what I think Trudeau did completely wrong. and I would argue that Biden got this wrong as well, but not as wrong no did not respect the opinion on the other side. Big mistake, big mistake. I think he could have done everything is doing now and said you know only area. I totally area if you'll get out of the trucks. I'll put you on tv, we'll talk about it on tv, you now. I think your message is employed And I appreciate anybody who is fighting for freedom? He You should have been on their side while disagreeing with them. You know I mean had he been more capable, he would have been solemnly on the side of the truckers wall trying to stop them and he could have done then Trump could adopt. Am I wrong thing,

I'm good. It's that needle you, gotta tromp, could have cited less. I I've been american problem. Tromp could have sided with the blue collar workers and he could stop them. Nobody else could have done that, I don't think I don't think, there's a anybody else who could have done that now, of course, speculation because he didn't have to do it but I don't think anybody could a thread. The needle like that- and this was this- was true- doze opportunity to be at least as clever as Trump in managing the room. Trump can manage the room. He doesn't manage the press cuz, that's that's a different issue, but you can manage the room. all right, that's my show, for they hope you, like it suppressing you'll ever see today and I'll talk to you tomorrow.