o that you saw with your own eyes, you saw them laughing and saying well the winners get to write history, ha ha ha. You saw it with your own eyes. You saw Bill Barr walking like a duck, talking like a duck, quacking like a duck. How could you be wrong? He was just laughing at winning and ignoring the rule of law. You saw it with your own eyes. How could you be wrong? It's right there.

Well, except we soon found out that it was an edited video and you didn't see it with your own eyes. You saw the edited clip, which when you see it in its entirety, it literally reverses the meaning. Because he says, you know, winners write the history, but you know we hope it'll be written compatible with the rule of law because it needs to be, basically paraphrasing.

So if you're still stuck in walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck, you've missed the last three years. Because it's all walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but isn't a duck. President Trump did not suggest drinking bleach. He did not call neo-Nazis fine people. A lot of people saw it, except they didn't. They think they did. They thought they saw the duck quacking and walking. How could it not be a duck? I saw it. Duck, duck, duck. It's a duck all the way. Except it wasn't. In any of those cases, it's never a duck.

So you need to lose that mindset. However, I would predict that things seem to be heading in a direction where we will know it's a duck. So don't worry. I feel like I'm going to end up where you are. Because some of you, I know that those who watch me regularly can get uncomfortable if my opinion differs too much from yours, because I hear that all the time. But I expect that our opinions will converge. It's just that you're there based on circumstantial evidence. I need a little bit more. I don't think you're wrong necessarily. I just think that maybe you're a little ahead of the evidence that's been presented. That's all. But we'll probably end up in the same place.

The other thing that I thought was interesting, and again I found this out on Tucker's show. I got to tell you, Tucker Carlson's show is just one of the best things ever. I mean, you know, I have my quibbles about some of the stuff that's on there, but that would be every show. I mean any show I would have some quibble about that. But the quality in which he lays out, I guess, the view of the world that you weren't seeing anywhere else, it's just really well done. I gotta say it's really well done. This whole Obamagate stuff he laid out really cleanly, I thought.

Here's my question. Where's the worse-than-Watergate guy? Where's Carl Bernstein? Because I'm not going to be happy until I see Carl freaking worse-than-Watergate Bernstein go on CNN, ideally CNN, and say, you know, if I'm being honest, I'm being honest, Obamagate is way worse than the Watergate.

Now I don't think he can say that yet, because for the same reason that I'm not saying it, because I think you need that gun isn't quite smoking in my world yet. I think it will. I think we'll really know what's going on. But I just need to see Carl Bernstein say I gotta admit Obamagate's worse than the Watergate. Because if the allegations are true, it's far worse. It's not even close.

When you say not even close, somebody said what is the threshold for evidence? The threshold for evidence would be something that is reported reliably that Obama said that's it. So if all he did was ask a question, that's all we know. But if he said go take these guys out, investigate them, anything like that, any direct order, or it could be even a note by an assistant. So it could be an assistant's note: this, you know, the boss wants us to do this or that. I would take that as, you know, if those notes were taken at the time, I would take that as evidence.

All right. And some part of the story I don't quite think we understand all of. And that is that there's some underlying desire by the Obama administration to keep the pressure on Russia and not so much on China. So Obama wanted to be a little bit more anti-Russia, friendlier with China, and knew that the Flynn and the incoming administration were the opposite. That they would be a little friendlier toward Russia, a little less friendlier toward China.

And I asked myself, what's behind all of that? Don't you feel like there's some kind of money thing behind that? Because if you were to look at it on the surface, and Tucker said this last night, Flynn apparently was writing off Russia as a declining power, one that's not actually a risk to the existence of the United States. Isn't that just true? Wouldn't you agree that we don't have any reason to be in a war with Russia? And in the long run it doesn't look like they're gonna dominate us economically.

So if you were to compare the rising China, just because of population alone, and that will give them more money collectively just because of the number of people, if China just goes the way it's going, how could you even compare the risk of China with the risk of Russia? That looks like a hundred to one. I don't even know how you'd put them in the same conversation. And that's what Flynn said. Flynn said declining power, no economic risk, it's a regional power. But China, China's looking to dominate the world and that could really have a big impact.

So what was it that made the Obama administration see the world opposite of that? What was that? And the only thing I can imagine is lots of economic interests in China. So the only thing I can imagine is that billionaires and politicians, etc., had so much business with China but relatively little with Russia, right? How many billionaire Democrats are doing big deals in Russia? Besides maybe Tr