me have said that separations from the family are akin to torture psychologically, and the people will be damaged. But here's some context. I need to ask — correct me if I'm wrong — each of these people got separated in the context of a definite crime being committed. It's an immigration crime, not a violent crime. But am I right that all the separations happened in the context of people who definitely had committed a crime because they were here illegally? Now you could argue it shouldn't be a crime or whatever, but current laws — all of them were in criminal status, correct? Correct.

What do we do with American citizens when they commit crimes? Do we send the whole family to jail to keep them together? Do we absolve the person who's guilty and say, "Ah, we'd love to send you to jail, but there's no way we could stop separating you from your family, so I guess we won't prosecute you because we don't want to separate you from your family"?

Has anybody even thought to add the context that we routinely separate children from parents? It's called the legal system. We do it all the time. Do you know who Mr. and Mrs. Rittenhouse don't get to spend much time with their son? Because he's currently incarcerated for what looks like not even a crime on the surface. It looks like not even a crime. Yes, the most normal thing we do in this country is separate children from their parents. Now you could tell me that this is different, but I'm not sure you can. You could convince me it's different enough that we should look at it so differently.

By the way, I'm not in favor of separating kids from their parents. I'm just saying we should keep things in context.

Here's what I love about this story. It feels like Democrats have stopped trying to win. Scott, you don't follow the Rittenhouse case. Yeah, I do. It's just that there's nothing there. The Rittenhouse case is this: Show us the evidence that it was in self-defense. Here's nothing. Okay, well, do you have anything else to make your case that it wasn't just pure self-defense the way it looks exactly like on the video? Well, I got this. Okay, that's nothing. That's pretty much the whole story. If anybody finds anything that would suggest Rittenhouse should be going to jail, let me know, because I don't think they found it yet. We'll see.

Anyway, what I love about this story is the Democrats aren't even trying anymore. Imagine any level of settlement. So let's say it's not $450,000. Let's say they talk it all the way down to $5,000. Possible, right? Let's say they talk it all the way down from $450,000 per person to $5,000 per person, and then they settle for that. Democrats still lose the election, right? They still lose in 2022 because there's no way you can sell this at any dollar amount because it's the principle. It's the principle thing. It's not the $450,000 that got our attention, but it doesn't matter what the dollar amount is. You don't pay your criminals. Stop paying criminals.

Do you know what happens when you pay people for being criminals? You get more of it. So once again the Democrats prove that they do not understand human motivation whatsoever. But I love this story because they're just basically — it's like it's Alec Baldwin except government. Basically the Democrats have gone full Alec Baldwin. It's like, "Ah, yeah, I don't need to check this gun. It's already been checked by that woman with blue hair who's never handled the gun before, so I'm fine."

All right, here's the strangest thing that happened. There is a gigantic blockbuster story, probably one of the biggest stories of the year, and it's not on CNN, at least not on their website, and it's not on Fox News, at least not on their website. Now, unless that's changed in the last few minutes, that one of the biggest stories by far — by far one of the biggest stories we've seen all year — is not being covered by the two major medias. Yeah, the Durham indictments. But Glenn Greenwald is on it, and Chuck Ross, and Joel Pollak is on it. So you've seen a lot of very credible people on it, but not seeing that in Fox News yet. What's going on there?

Now remember my fake news filter. If one of the two — either Fox News or CNN — says it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Of course that's not 100 percent accurate, but that's a good rule to follow. If one of them says it didn't happen, it didn't happen. But neither Fox News nor CNN are reporting it didn't happen. They're just not talking about it. What's going on?

Joel says Fox covered it. I assume you mean on the air, but look at the website. Find it on the website. That's all I'm saying. Find it on the website. I'm pretty sure the website gets more traffic than the on the air. Am I wrong? And was it the opinion people who covered it or the news people?