uppose if they wanted to find every asset for every year and really dig into every single thing that could have been inflated, maybe, maybe. But by now we would have a specific example I would think. This building was — you know this problem. There were other little problems but boy this building, they really inflated this cost on this building.

I'm feeling that every day that goes by that we don't see a conclusion to this inflated property value thing, I don't think it's real. So here's my prediction. There will be no indictment on asset inflation or valuing. So that's my prediction. There won't be an indictment on that. Now if I'm wrong about the indictment I'm going to back that up and say there won't be a conviction. But I'll go a little bit more aggressive and say there won't even be an indictment because it just doesn't feel real enough at this point.

Then there's also the question of the quote hush money paid to silence allegations of an affair. My understanding is that that would just be a fine, right? If you didn't account for something that arguably did have a valid — did Dershowitz say this? — that as long as you have a valid campaign reason for doing something it's fine. But maybe there was a tax implication of it. But this is just such small ball. Nobody's going to jail for the Stormy Daniels stuff. At most I guess it's a fine. That's it. Because apparently a lot of people have violated campaign finance stuff. I think Obama did. It was just a fine.

So the way this is reported is so fraudulent.

All right. The Tucker Carlson story gets more interesting. The NSA. He blamed the NSA for spying on him because he says there's a whistleblower that says exactly that and that his digital communications had been penetrated by the NSA and that there was an intention to take his program off the air.

Now as CNN cleverly points out — and I don't know if you knew this — it turns out that nobody else on Fox News is reporting this story. Hmm. Now CNN, I criticize you often but you do have a good point on this one. Apparently the rest of Fox News is not buying into the story because otherwise it would be the top story, right?

So the news part of Fox News is not. Think about that. On one hand it's really a good sign because one of the things I always compliment Fox News on is this much clearer distinction between what's news and what's opinion. Perfect example. The news people have made one decision. An opinion person, at least one of them, Tucker, has a very different view. And they put them both on. Apparently both opinions are on there. One by its absence and one by its inclusion. That's actually a really good sign for an organization that has opinion and news that sometimes they don't even agree. That's not terrible.

Now it would be terrible if the news people know it's not true but I don't think they can know that. I think they can maybe just say we need a little bit more before we report on this. But you'd think that they would at least report that their opinion person is talking about it. It's at the very least it's news that Tucker Carlson is making this claim. That's news. So at least that should be on the news. So we don't know what's happening with Fox News but there might be some disagreement on that.

Now here's the funny part. The NSA made a statement and they said the following. And this is how liars deny things. All right. So I'm going to teach you how to spot a lie. This is a lie. What I'm going to read you now is a clear and unambiguous lie and it's very obvious in the form that they put it. The way you find the lie is that it's overly specific.

So here the NSA is going to deny a couple of things that are not actually the allegation. Listen for it. They say, quote, "Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the agency." It's pretty specific, isn't it, to say that he's never been a target? Is that the same as saying we're not looking at his communications? No. The allegation is that they're looking at his communications. What they denied was that he's an intelligence target.

And we know from experience that that doesn't mean he's not being monitored. It just means that that label "target" is not applied to him but rather could be applied to somebody in his universe which gives them access to his communication. So when you see the specifics of this denial, what they could have said is we are absolutely not monitoring his communications in any way, right? They could have said that.

If they had said we are not monitoring his communications whatsoever for any reason that would be a denial. But "he's not an intelligence target" is confirming they're doing it. And that's really a confirmation that they're doing it. Then it goes on. It says the NSA has never had any plans to take his program off the air, which was the other accusation.

Now did Tucker Carlson say that the NSA as an organization has a formal plan to take him off the air? Well he wasn't too specific but that would be a pretty dumb assumption because the reasonable assumption is that employees who work for the organization have let's say Democratic-leaning tendencies and that the individual employees and maybe some other bad actors working with them are doing this thing.

Did Tucker ever say I think it's a formal plan of the NSA, the organization's leadership, to take me off the air? He did not. He did not. He talked about the purpose of the snooping was to take him off the air. He didn't say it was an official NSA plot plan. So when the NSA says very specifically that they never had any plans, that's probably true. I'll bet you if you could get access to all their documents there would be no leadership of the NSA saying it is our plan to take Tucker Carlson off the air.

Then they went on to say the NSA went on to say that it has a foreign intelligence mission and that it quote "may not target U.S. citizens without a court order that explicitly authorizes the targeting." Again a little too specific, right? Because nobody accused them of changing their mission. They accused them of sort of violating the mission. And yes and Clapper has already lied on this very topic in a different context.

So what do you do with the fact that the NSA has effectively just confirmed that they're spying on Tucker Carlson and yet Fox News isn't going to cover it? What the fuck is going on here? Seriously, what the fuck is going on? I don't know what to believe about this story but I do know that the NSA didn't deny it and they confirmed it.

So let me say it as clearly as possible. This is a confirmation. This is a confirmation. It's not slightly suggestive that they did it. It's a confirmation. You can't confirm anything harder than this. If they had said yes we did it it would not be a stronger confirmation than this. This very specific denial. That's a liar's denial.

Let me give you another example. Let's say you accuse your spouse of messaging a lover and your spouse says I don't have a burner phone. And you say no I didn't accuse you of having a burner phone. I accuse you of messaging a lover. And then your spouse says I do not have a burner phone. Stop saying I have a burner phone. And you say wait a minute, wait a minute. Nothing like that just came out of my mouth. I'm saying you're messaging using any variety of messaging app on any device. I'm not really being specific. I think you're messaging a lover. I'm not using a burner phone. That's a confirmation, right? It's a confir