timate. I always say it wrong. I tweeted that wrong this morning. There's a big impact of the what-do-you-call-it, the accidental consequences of anything. And the accidental consequences of the president losing a few Supreme Court battles is that he can lower our health care costs. Yeah, you could never underestimate. Thank you, that's what I should say. So the accidental consequences, the unintended consequences, were to give the president more power. And then he took his power and he solved one of society's biggest problems with it.

Thank you for "unintended," yes. Now, who saw that coming? Who on their prediction card said president will lose important Supreme Court cases and that will allow him to lower our drug costs? What? And you're going to see a lot of exciting things, I think, happening as we get closer to election day, because the president has this one gigantic advantage and it's enormous, which is the president can do things whereas Joe Biden can't do things. So the president doesn't have to just talk about lowering drug costs. He can just do it. And apparently he's well on his way to doing it. We'll see if this stuff holds, but I'll bet it will.

You all had a good laugh, or I think celebrated silently, when Covington kid Nick Sandmann won his suit. Well, he got a kind of settlement, which is different from winning, although it's a kind of winning. And so this is his second win in a row. He won. He got a settlement, I guess, from CNN, and he got a settlement of unnamed amount from the Washington Post. He's got a few more outlets to sue.

And the basic idea here is that the news, the fake news, painted him as the bad guy when in fact he was just standing there and he was sort of the one that was approached, not the one who was causing trouble. So his reputation got destroyed by this sufficiently that a court, or at least it looked like it was something he could win sufficiently that the other side decided to settle. So that's how bad it was.

So this raises an interesting question, and it goes like this. Could somebody who had lost their job or had been attacked—let's say physically attacked, and I guess there were a few of them even last night at the protests—if people who are Trump supporters are physically attacked or fired for being Trump supporters, here's the question I ask the legal experts. Could those people sue the fake news for the fine people hoax and for the Covington kid hoax and the Russia collusion hoax? In other words, could you say the reason I lost my job for being a Trump supporter is because the fake news has run enough hoaxes that I'm demonized just for being a supporter? I lost my job. Could they make the case that the media, by knowingly running hoaxes—and of course the fine people hoax is the classic one where they know the real answer because it's in the transcript. It's not really an interpretation problem. It's right there. You just read it. So could you win a case against the same fake news companies if you had been abused in any way for being a Trump supporter? Because I think it's a pretty solid line from there.

Speaking of which, Rasmussen, who does polling, which you rarely will hear mentioned on the news—apparently Rasmussen is banned from being mentioned on the news. Did you know that? And I think it's banned on both the left and the right now. They claim, and I think there's evidence to support it, to be the most accurate polling company in the country for political stuff. Now, is that true? I think so. I think they're the most accurate, and they can't be mentioned. So there must be a counterargument to that, but I don't know what it is.

But one of the things that Rasmussen tweeted this morning is that if you look at what people believed during the 2018 midterm elections, you'd find that 30 percent—just before the vote for the midterms in 2018—30 percent of the country believed the Russia collusion hoax. Thirty percent of the country believed it, and that includes Republicans. Now, if 30 percent of your country believed the fake news that Russia was controlling the president, what would you expect the midterm to look like? You'd expect it to look like it did. People would vote in Democrats because they think the president is owned by Russia.

Now think about how much that changed the world, because it probably flipped the House. And I haven't even added the second part. If the only thing that happened was the Russia collusion hoax, which you had to know that the media pushing it had some suspicion it wasn't true, or know it wasn't true but they pushed it anyway, what about the fine people hoax? I would say that the fine people hoax was believed by maybe 70 percent of the country when it first came out. Wouldn't you say? I would guess that 70 percent of the country, because that includes a lot of Republicans, believed the fine people hoax. Now that's changed quite a bit.

I tweeted this morning because I periodically tweet that it's a hoax, and a PhD doctor-type guy who wrote an anti-Trump book weighed in to say it's not a hoax. Darth Dilbert. See, that's the funny part, because my critics call me Dilbert, but he called me Darth Dilbert. So that's like really, really funny. Very clever. And he was not aware, according to his tweet, that it was a hoax. And I thought to myself, how could you be an educated person in the United States and think that the fine people hoax was real? Now in 2020 I totally get why people believed it in 2018, because it was fresh and it was being misreported. But after two years of unraveling this thing, you'd think most people would know it's a hoax by now.

But think of those two hoaxes: the Russia collusion hoax and then I would call it the tentpole race hoax, because everything else about Trump would seem different if you took away that one thing that they think they got the smoking gun on, right? Because everything else is sort of, well, 30 years ago there was that full-page ad about the Central Park Five. So what about that? Well, if you were looking at it in isolation and you had not heard the fine people hoax and you're just looking at it on its own, you'd say, well, he wrote an ad that says nothing about race. There's nothing in there about race. It was about crime. The people accused happened to be Black, but it wasn't any part of Trump's point. So if you saw that in isolation, you'd say, yeah, I can see why people are saying it feels racist, but there's nothing there. I mean, there'