is that history going to look like? Who gets to write that? Because I don't know if there's ever been a time in my life where we couldn't agree, even among the intellectual class, what happened. We can't agree what's happening now and what just did happen. We can't agree on any of it.

So forget about the history books. How are you going to write, for example, the history of the Russia collusion hoax? How do you write that? As I say to my smart Democrat friend just yesterday, you know, is he aware that there was an actual coup attempt in the United States by Democrats and that it failed? And he says there was no coup attempt. That's fake news by a bunch of Trump supporters.

So how do you write the history? In my opinion, I was here. I watched the news. I watched all the news that would be the subject of whatever history gets written. I didn't miss much of the news. And what I saw was an obvious, well-documented coup attempt. What did you see?

So if I were writing the news I would say, well, these people in the government tried to do a coup attempt and members of intelligence and FBI colluded to try to get rid of the president.

In the comments somebody's saying, OMG no coup attempt. Now I have to say that I acknowledge that people on the left believe there was no coup attempt. But it's mind-boggling when you look at the evidence that's public and undisputed. So if you only take the evidence that's not disputed, the coup is right there. It's as obvious as it could possibly be.

Now what it probably wasn't is everybody involved meeting on a Zoom call to plot the overthrow of the president. I don't think that happened. I think everybody just knew what to do. Everybody knew that anything they could do against the president would be useful. So to me it looks obviously like we observed it. We're still observing the aftermath of it. And if I were writing the history book I would write it like that. I would say there was a coup attempt. It was sort of a loosely organized