h Russia in a secret way. Now and then we all talked about how the mainstream media didn't touch it, right? So there were two stories. One is the story itself and then the story of how the news was being suppressed. But the suppression is over. The New York Times just ran a large story about it by Charlie Savage. He wrote this and he has debunked the entire thing. Debunked the entire thing.

So what you thought was the Hillary Clinton campaign paying lawyers and that the lawyers working with the tech people got this information they shouldn't have had for the purpose of a narrative, according to the New York Times that's all fake news. Now let me tell you something about the news ecosystem. If you wanted to debunk something that was true how would you do it? How would you debunk something that was true? Like if you wanted to get somebody to say something that is true is not true how would you do it? Well if you were let's say an unknown person you'd go to social media and then who's going to believe it, right? It's just you on social media so that doesn't work. Let's say you go to a second-tier publication, so whatever you want to call a second tier, and you get them to say yeah I debunked this. Would that work? Well it would help you tweet things. You'd have something to tweet but probably not. That wouldn't make that much of a difference. But if you were the Democratic Party and you had access to the most powerful everything including people in the press, how would you make a true story disappear? Here's how you would do it. You would contact somebody who worked at the New York Times primarily, right? Second choice would be the Washington Post but first choice by far is the New York Times. And you would have them write a debunking piece that once the New York Times has said it's debunked all of the lesser entities can just say well you don't believe me but look at the New York Times because that's the standard for news.

So the New York Times is doing exactly what you would expect if the Clinton campaign had corrupted them to write a cover story to debunk something that actually was true. Now I'm not making that allegation so I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm saying that if a top Democrat wanted to debunk something that was true it would look exactly like this. Anybody disagree? This is exactly what it would look like if the fix were in. But it's also exactly what it would look like if the story wasn't true and they were just debunking it. But let's see what he says and we should be able to tell pretty quickly by how he handles the story whether he's really debunking it and the whole thing was