vel.

So is Cuomo the same? I don't know. I will say this again and again and again. When we're looking back in the past in this fog of war, once we have our perfect vision of the future, you know, we'll be so smart in the future and we'll look back and say well we should have done this, we should have done that. And I'm not going to stand for any of it. Whether it's Trump's mistakes or Cuomo's mistakes, alleged mistakes, real mistakes, and the other governors' mistakes and the experts' mistakes, any of it.

Because we were asking people to make decisions without the benefit of all the information. That was the task our leaders were given. You know, our experts and our leaders, please make our decisions. We all understand we don't know what is the right answer and we're gonna have to guess and we're gonna have to adjust. Guess, adjust, guess, adjust.

So when you ask your leaders to guess what's right, try it and then adjust. Because that's the only thing we had. We didn't have good information. You know, wouldn't it be great if we used all our great drugs on our great information? We didn't have any of that. We were totally in the dark.

And so if you're totally in the dark and the only thing you can do is try stuff and then adjust, and then we note that our leaders were doing exactly that, trying stuff and adjusting, I'm not going to tolerate this governor got it right and this one didn't. Because if you got 50 governors, somebody's gonna get it right. Does that mean they're the smart ones? No, because you can't demonstrate that. You can only demonstrate that there were done 50 different ways and they got 50 different results. You're not gonna really know who was the smart one. You're really not.

So we should be easy on ourselves, meaning our leaders who had to make those decisions, be they Democrats or be they Republicans. I know it doesn't work that way, but we should.

All right. Here's the weirdest thing. Oh, I love the fact that I think Tucker Carlson is the only one who talks about this. That there actually is no evidence of Russia hacking on the Podesta's email. Did you know that? Because it's been reported as just a fact that we know the Russians hacked us. But if you actually dig down now, we know with the Obamagate stuff coming out that we actually don't know that.

And I think you remember very early on when I was talking about it, the way I was talking about it was this: how is it we know that Russia was hacking? Because if we know that Russia was hacking, I don't know what hacking is. That's the part I was lost on. I was like, are you telling me that our highest level government spy hackers leave a trail that tracks right back to them? The best hackers in the world working for top secret intelligence agencies, they don't know how to hack something without leaving a trail.

So that part was just mind-boggling to me that anybody believed that we could actually know. Certainly you could leave a trail that it was someone else, couldn't you? Isn't that common? So I always took that as I hear what you're saying that you know Russia did it. I hear you're saying that you got your secret sources. Well, I'm not gonna buy the Seth Rich part of that story. You know, I don't rule anything out if I don't have a reason to rule it out, but I don't have a reason to rule that one in.

All right. So here is this two-world thing happening with Obamagate. First of all, I very much love the fact that President Trump has embraced the Obamagate hashtag and label. Because Russia collusion has now been rebranded. It was the final step. Because it was one thing to say Russia collusion, Russia collusion, but that brand of the topic made Trump look guilty just when you talked about it, because they had Russia collusion right in the name of the topic.

Well, now that we know that that didn't happen, at least in terms of the president's involvement or the administration, it needed a new name. And Obamagate is sort of perfect political branding now. I'm not saying, you know, I'm not giving you a moral opinion. I'm just saying that it's effective from the Republican perspective to call it Obamagate. You saw how sticky that was. It was like the major trending thing. And it also, it just, the name of it now puts it on Obama.

But here's the question. What do we know that Obama did? Here's what we know. Here's what we know, and then I'll tell you what the two worlds have divided into. Okay, here's what we know. That Obama reportedly voiced concern, voiced concern. So this is not gave an order. He simply was voicing concern about potential Russian influence with the Trump administration. Now that's what the reporting is.

So the only thing we know is that Obama asked the question, I think of Comey and Yates, should we do anything differently because there's some concern about Flynn and Russia? Now, is that illegal? Is it illegal or even unethical to wonder aloud whether there's any kind of Russia connection? That's important to know with Flynn.

Now you say to yourself, but Scott, there's no evidence that there's a problem. But you know, everything that matters with whether this is an Obamagate or just a series of bad decisions by individuals, the difference is what Obama's internal mental state was and what the internal mental state of Comey and Yates were when they had the conversation. That's not in evidence.

The thing we don't have in evidence is what anybody was thinking. We only have in evidence what people were saying. And what Obama was saying was a question. It wasn't an order. I did think he said get me the answer to the question, which is should we treat Flynn differently? Now was this simple question from Obama, should we treat them differently, you know, in other words brief them fully and all that stuff, was that question really an order? And was that question an order with details like wiretap, own, spy in the administration?

Could you say if the only thing you knew and you could never prove more than that is that Obama simply asked the question, would that be enough to say that he ordered the takedown and the coup of the United States? Okay, can you connect those dots? Because I can't.

Somebody says it's unethical to wonder aloud. Why would it ever be unethical to wonder aloud if somebody was compromised by Russia? I don't get that point.

Now Trey Gowdy was on, was it a Hannity show or Tucker show? I guess a Tucker show. And Trey Gowdy said that there's an as-yet still redacted memo. So there's part of some memo, might have been Susan Rice's. But Trey Gowdy says with a big smile, because he's seen it, you haven't, then when that gets unredacted that we're gonna know a lot more.

So here's what I suspect. If I'm just looking at what's been reported and the new stuff that's been unredacted, I don't see evidence that Obama ordered a takedown of the government, you know, the incoming government. So it's just not there. What is there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. What is there is a lot of stuff to speculate about. What is there is that reasonable people could look at this and say, you know Scott, I get that you're not looking at the smoking gun, but there's a lot of smoke and guns and there's way too many of them for it to be coincidence.

So let me say as clearly as I can, I'm not telling you that Obama didn't order it. I'm not telling you that. Trey Gowdy, I'm sorry, not Trent Gowdy. You people are correcting me in the comments. Trey Gowdy, not Trent. So yeah. So I'm not telling you Obama is innocent. I'm saying I haven't seen the evidence. Have you?

But it's being reported by Fox News mostly types. It's being reported that the smoking gun has been found and now we have the evidence that Obama ordered basically a coup. But I would say I don't see it at all. The only thing in evidence is he asked a question, which wasn't the worst question in the world to ask. Because, you know, I've defended Trump for asking in private meetings crazy questions that just really are, you know, you throw out there, you see what happens and you move to the next crazy question. So asking questions that are a little out there, it's not that unusual, I don't think.

So if I had to guess where this is going, I would guess that the further unredactions will make clear that there was more of a plot here than we know. So if I had to guess. Somebody says if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. Well, that's where you're wrong. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's usually confirmation bias. If you don't get that, you're not operating at the highest level of understanding of your reality.

Let me say that again. You've heard the old saying, you know, if it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Completely false. And if you ever believe that, you're wandering around in a dream world. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it only might be a duck. It only might be.

Did you happen to see the Bill Barr edited video that NBC showed? According to the NBC vide