e. But then other people weighed in and said that this is the most widely debunked conspiracy theory ever.

Now I told you before that one of the authors of the Plandemic book lives locally around here, and he's lobbied me. I think he sent me three books so far. He's lobbied me to get him on here to my Periscopes, which makes me think he might be watching right now, so I can't be too lively. So I did get your messages, and the reason that I haven't responded is that I can't vet this sort of stuff. So Eric Bolling apparently had the doctor on there recently and he got some criticism for not knowing ahead of time the other things that they had claimed, etc. And I don't want to make the mistake that Eric Bolling made, which is putting on one side of a controversial scientific claim if I can't argue the claim. In other words, if I don't know enough about the topic or I could push back on a claim, I don't want that person talking in public with my help, because any single claim in a context looks persuasive.

So I don't have an opinion about whether the Plandemic is totally debunked, as other people say, or there's something to part of it but maybe not all of it. Don't know. But I'd also suggest that you don't know. And for the fact that the Sinclair stations are going to run this, I think is completely irresponsible unless it also runs something from the critics. If it's balanced, if they say, well, this is what the experts say, here's what the Plandemic movie says, and let's go back to the experts and see what they say—if they do something like that, then fine. You know, maybe it's a public interest to see both sides. But I don't think that's going to happen.

Let me give you a good example of what happens when you only look at one side of an argument. In the comments, tell me: Was Michael Jackson totally, definitely a child molester or not? In the comments, tell me your opinion and I'll tell you why I'm asking this. I'm asking because this goes to my point about how if you see one side of an argument, it's always convincing. If one lawyer gets to talk and the other side doesn't get to talk, that one lawyer will convince you pretty much every time.

I'm looking at your comments about Michael Jackson and you'll see that they're mixed, which is what I was expecting. You'll see a bunch of yeses, you'll see a bunch of nos. Now, how can it be that we get to this point in time and you've got a bunch of yeses and you've got a bunch of nos? Well, let me tell you my experience. I went from saying, well, gosh, I don't know, could be true, could be not true. And then I watched a Netflix special, I think it was Netflix, in which he showed two of his accusers, now adults, telling their story. Now when you hear the adults telling the story of what happened to them when they were younger, it is 100 percent credible. It would be hard to watch that documentary and walk away thinking that Jackson was innocent. I mean, it would be really hard. It's completely convincing. So therefore Michael Jackson definitely a child molester, right? Very convincing.

Except last night I watched another documentary. Last night I watched one called Square One, and it took the other side and it went through the description of how the initial accuser made the accusation, etc. And I don't want to give it away. Oh, was it an HBO special? Somebody's correcting me. Was it Leaving Neverland? Yeah, that was the name of it. So anyway, I watched the other side of it, and let me tell you, the other side of it that says he was not a child molester is 100 percent credible. Blew my freaking head off. If you had told me that there was another side to this story after I'd seen the completely convincing evidence that he was obviously a child molester, when you see the other side, it'll blow your head off.

Let me give you just a flavor of it, and let me tell you, you should watch this. Because if you believe that Michael Jackson definitely is guilty—and I'm not going to say he is or not, I'm going to only talk about the quality of the arguments. Do I know anything? Yeah, I wasn't there. Let me give you some examples. The very first accuser, who ended up settling—when you hear the story of how that scam came about and you hear that even the kid didn't think anything happened, he talked to his friends and said nothing happened even after the fact—I mean, when you hear the whole story, it really was just a con artist who figured out a way to make Michael Jackson pay.

And here was the part of the story I'd never heard before, and it goes like this. There were two court cases. One was criminal and one was civil. So one tries to get money and one is trying to see if Michael Jackson goes to jail. Typically the way you do those is you do the criminal case first, and then depending on how that turns out that gives you a basis to do or not do a civil suit where you're trying to get money. Now the problem is that in the Michael Jackson case, his civil suit was on a faster schedule, which meant that he would have had to give away his entire defense in the civil suit before the criminal case was run. And if you do that, the experts say that the criminal case people get to craft and recraft their case so that the defense doesn't work. And therefore it's massively unconstitutional, or at least unfair. I think it's actually passed constitutional muster since then, but in my opinion it's unconstitutional because it guarantees an unfair trial in the criminal case. It guarantees it. It guarantees an unfair trial.

And so Michael Jackson had the following situation. He could either settle for something that definitely didn't happen, or he could risk going to jail because he knew that his defense would be laid bare in the civil suit. And when he went to criminal court, basically he would get eaten alive and probably be convicted for something that didn't happen. And so he settled. Once he settled, there became another thing that happened. And here's the key part. The fake news business at the time was paying people who would come forward and say that something bad happened at Michael Jackson's house. What happens when you pay massive amounts of money to people who are willing to lie on television? What happens? You get a lot of people who are willing to lie on television. And the ones who came after were just sort of obvious liars.

So now you've got one case that Jackson settled because he got this weird legal bind that he just had to. The same thing that created the first story that generated fake news paying people for more stories, because they got a lot of clicks. So now you have a pattern. And when you say to yourself, but what about those two older ones that you saw in the other documentary? They're adults. It doesn't seem like they have anything to gain by making something up. Well, here's the thing. They also have some connection to some of the badness, and they won't give it away. But the documentary that excuses Jackson doesn't too directly deal with those latest adult accusations, but it does completely eliminate the bulk of the ones you've heard, and they are absolutely—they look pretty fake. The other ones, who knows?

But let me give you a little anecdote here. Colleen McCulkin was saying this. When you hear the story that Michael Jackson let children they had been visiting sleep over in his bedroom, what do you think? You see them all in the same bed, right? And here's one of the stories that Colleen McCulkin was saying. He goes, the first thing you don't understand is that Michael Jackson's bedroom was two stories. It was two stories. So you could be in his bedroom without even being in the same room. And he told the story about some kid who wanted to sleep in his bedroom, in his bed, and Michael Jackson asked one of the adult staff members to sleep in the room with him. And the two of them slept on the floor and let the kids use the big bed. Now, I don't know how common it was for him to do that, but the fact that it happened even once tells you that Michael Jackson was aware that you don't want to be alone with a kid in your bed. Did he ever do it before? I don't know.

So here's the point