u're a hardcore Democrat and you're watching the news and you find out that your news source got something wrong and they sort of fooled you, you say well they got everything else right. I'm going to give them a pass for getting that one thing wrong. Then they get a second thing wrong. You say well damn it that's two things wrong but still all the other stuff is right so you know nobody's perfect. Two things wrong, I'll let that go. But we've now reached a level of hoaxes that are confirmed hoaxes that it's sort of crazy to imagine that this is anything except planned, organized, persuasive and the new texture of the news that it's fake.

I feel like the Democrats are going to notice. They're going to eventually notice that everything is fake. At least the political news is pretty much 100% fake news. And I think that there's some tipping point that's coming where even the Democrats are going to say whoa, whoa, whoa. I've been believing this stuff for the last five years and now I can see that all the stuff lately is fake. What about the stuff I believed? We're right there now.

People go to their teams so strongly that massive amounts of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance will keep them where they are despite all evidence changing, all data changing, despite better arguments, despite anything they find out, right? It's really sticky but it's not unbreakable, right? Cognitive dissonance is super strong but not unbreakable. There is some amount that will convince you that Hitler did actually kill a lot of Jews if you know what I mean. There had to be some point in World War II, I'm no historian so this may be a bad example, there had to be some point where people were just denying the obvious, don't you think? People were like oh that can't be happening. I don't think that's really happening. Is it really happening? I don't think it's really happening. Because you would have to act radically differently if you knew what was happening. But then there reached a point where you just couldn't possibly deny it anymore, right?

So no matter how much cognitive dissonance you have, it's still vulnerable. It's just hard. And I think we've reached the mountain of fake news that's confirmed fake news that even people on the left are going to say oh God I didn't realize how bad it was. And I have to admit I didn't realize how bad it was either. I thought it was bad. You know you've watched me talk about the fake news for five plus years, some of you. So obviously I knew it was bad but I didn't know it was this bad. Did you? I mean this is actually surprising. I'm pretty skeptical about how bad things can be with information but even I didn't know it was this bad. I mean I was kind of fooled and I was definitely leaning very hard in the fake news direction and I'm actually amazed.

All right. General Flynn suggested in some conservative meeting I guess recently if we're going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God and one religion under God. So I want to say officially that General Flynn is dead to me. All right. So I was a big supporter of him getting out of his legal jeopardy because I didn't think any of that was fair. But this opinion is a sufficiently crazy town that you need to start ignoring him at this point. Now he says some other things that I thought were sketchy and I thought but that's a different issue. You know he's still being legally railroaded so I was more about the legally railroaded part. But once you see him free and talking, he's a nut job and you shouldn't pay any attention to him. Like the worst thing in the world would be to imagine for him to have any authority in government I think now.

This is nothing against your religion by the way. I'm pro-religion. I'm pro-religion. But it's the United States still the United States. And one religion? No, no, no, no, no and no.

Oh somebody's saying Flynn did not say that. Does anybody else have that? Is that fake news? Is the quote a fake news? Because I'm looking at something that's in quotes but is it fake news? I'm actually willing to believe that. All right. Send me a link to anything that would show that's fake news. So I'll read it again. So this is in quotation marks so allegedly this is a quote and you're going to tell me today that with a link that's fake news or maybe taken out of context. Is there a way that this could be taken out of context? Because it doesn't look like it could be but that's how you get fooled. Are both sides reporting it? Well Fox News reported it and he's their guy so but that's a good question. CNN you'd think would want to say bad things about him and report that but I think I only saw it on Fox News or did I see it the other way around?

Scottsdale is saying it's too on the nose. You're right about that. It is too on the nose. But you don't usually see something in quotation marks. Well it could be fake news. Yeah based on what we've seen this could be fake news. Why don't we put a pin in this and you will tell me tomorrow if it's fake news, okay? If it's not fake news I think you need to be done with General Flynn forever. But if it's fake news then we will all revise our opinions, okay?

Yeah the fine people stuff was unquote exactly. So it could be just taken out of context but because this has so much context in it I suspect that's not the case. Well you'll let me know. I'll be open-minded to this being fake news.

All right. The Rittenhouse prosecution has asked for reduced charges and can you help me on the facts? Was it reckless endangerment with a firearm or something? Is that what they want to go for now? Can somebody give me a fact check on that? Reckless endangerment with a firearm, something like that. I'm seeing some yes.

So do you think that there's anything in this case that would suggest a reckless endangerment with a gun? Here's what I think. Do people think guns are for? Is this exactly what a gun is for? It's like the whole point of a gun which is there's a dangerous situation that people might need some protection and so he brought a gun. Is it reckless endangerment to bring a gun to a situation where people are in danger and need protection? That feels like exactly the right thing to do.

Secondly when he was handling the gun was he handling his gun in an unsafe way? I didn't see any evidence of that. It looked like he was keeping his barrel down and it looked like he had some training. He looked like he knew firearm safety and just from the outside it looked like that. So that didn't look reckless.

And then how about the actual acts in which he was shooting people? Was that reckless endangerment or was that just pure self-defense? I'd say it was pure self-defense.

Now here's the question that maybe the prosecution will ask which is did he bring this upon himself by bringing a weapon into a place where a reasonable person would have known that could have attracted trouble? What do you think? Is it reckless to take a weapon into a place that you know it's going to attract attention? Again I say that's what a gun is for. A gun is for to go into that situation, right? That's exactly what a gun is for. To go into a situation where things are unpredictable and dangerous and people might have bad intentions for you. That's what the gun's for.

So I would say there's no chance of, in a common sense way, that reckless endangerment makes sense. But in a legal way who knows? Who knows? Maybe he can sell this. Maybe because he went so big trying to ask for murder charges and he's not going to get that I don't think. Maybe that's like a big first offer and then the jury says oh okay well you talked me down from murder to this reckless thing. Yeah we don't want people, we should make an example of him. We don't want people bringing guns to situations so yeah let's just give him some reckless endangerment and maybe that'll keep other people from coming.

Now the jury is not supposed to think that way, right? The jury is not supposed to make an example of you. That's exactly what they're not supposed to do. They're supposed to just judge that the facts either make it a crime or not a crime. But I don't know how you could stop people from thinking that way. If you put me on the jury I would definitely be thinking what message are we sending? I'm not supposed to but I would be just like everybody else.

So on one hand you could imagine that the jury might say well you know for the social good we're going to give him a little bit of a, you know maybe even jail time. I don't know how much is reckless endangerment worth in terms of jail time. You know I would like to think it would be time served if that's what happened but I don't know.

I would say that reckless endangerment is a pure opinion. What do you think in this situation? It would be a pure opinion. It would not be a finding of fact. Yeah yes it would be pure opinion and we don't put people in jail for opinion. Well we do but we're not supposed to. They should be just doing a finding of fact. So I think reckless endangerment is not something that is subject to fact. To me that looks like pure opinion. You can imagine situations that are just obvious to everybody but this isn't one of them. You know certainly it's probably, well I say it's probably good to have this law in the books because there have to be cases where somebody is just playing with a loaded gun and somebody gets killed and yeah they need to answer for that. But that's not what happened here. He wasn't playing whatsoever.

Here's how I would have taken this. If I saw the prosecutor asking for murder and then I saw that the prosecutor had no evidence for that charge, what would I do for the lesser charges? What would you do? Let's say you thought the lesser charges might actually be fairly valid but you watched a prosecutor ask for murder with no evidence for murder. You watched that happen right in front of you and then they go oh how about this lesser charge. How's your attitude now? You put me on that jury I would not convict him for jaywalking if there were 100 witnesses and 50 videos. Because once I found that they tried to railroad this poor bastard with a murder charge with no evidence, no evidence, once I learned that there is nothing I would convict him for. And I was in that jury trial and I would lie my ass off. I would say no I don't see the evidence for this reckless endangerment thing. Nope, nope, nope, nope. Don't say it even if I did see it.

Now in truth I don't see it based on what I've seen but I'm not in the room so I mean I don't see it. But if I did see it even if I saw it so that the facts totally supported reckless endangerment I'm letting this guy get off. Period. That's not even negotiable. I'm sorry not negotiable. You do this to an American citizen and by the way let me be as specific as I can. If Kyle were black I'd be saying the same thing. If Kyle were an illegal immigrant I'd be saying the same thing. No exceptions. If the government tries to put you in jail on junk charges I don't care what else you're charging him with he's walking. You know I would hang the jury so hard you know even if it came to fisticuffs. There's a limit to how much you can push the public. That would be my limit. I don't know what your limit is but that would be mine. It wouldn't matter how much evidence they had for these lesser charges. No way, no way.

And again it doesn't matter what ethni