BS or if it's trying to cover up something and there's no debunk that's real. What do you think before I go through it? Do you think the debunk will stand up or will it be transparent? Let's see your vote before I go on.

All right. So here are some of the claims. They're saying that Fox News is inaccurately declaring, this is what Charlie Savage says in New York Times, it says that Fox News is inaccurately declared that Mr. Durham had said he had evidence that Hillary Clinton's campaign had paid a technology company to infiltrate a White House server. Did Fox News ever say that? Almost. Fox News said something like that but not that. So what he did was he set up a straw man, a thing that Fox News did not say, and then he debunked it. Now how many people reading the New York Times also watch Fox News to know that what they're debunking is not what they said? Not many. This is why it's so genius. There's almost no crossover between people who watch Fox News and New York Times. So if you're only trying to convince your side that something is true you just say Fox News says that unicorns can fly and we proved it's not true. Would you know that Fox News never claimed that unicorns can fly? You would not. You would just accept that they probably said that and it's debunked. This is really clever stuff. I mean clever even though it's like right in your face and obvious but clever in the sense that it works.

All right let's go on. What else do they say to debunk the story? Now first of all it's my understanding, can you give me a fact check, my understanding is that there is no claim that Hillary Clinton directly paid the tech company. My understanding is that Clinton paid a law firm or somebody associated with it to get some information and then the lawyer got it from the tech company. Is that true? So if what they're debunking is the campaign paying the tech company to spy that was never the claim. It wasn't, I don't think, that what he's debunking is the actual claim. He's taking out the middle part, the lawyers, which is the part that makes the whole story hold together. So he's acting like they said there were no lawyers in the middle even though they are mentioned but it's mentioned in a way that looks like it's intentionally misleading. That's what it looks like. We don't know what anybody's thinking so I can't read his mind but as a reader it comes across as intentionally trying to mislead me. I don't know that that's true but that's how I'm receiving it.

So Charlie Savage also says the Washington Examiner claimed that this all meant there had been spying on Mr. Trump's White House office and when mainstream publications held back Mr. Trump and his allies began shaming them. So now they're claiming that the reason that people held back is that there was nothing there. That's not true. Do you think that's true? There was nothing there and that's the reason everybody held back? You know at the very least they would be doing the story about how the story is wrong, right? At the very least they waited for New York Times to go first. Do you know why? Because they knew if they went first it wouldn't be credible. You needed somebody to write a long complicated story that nobody understood so that everybody from that point on could just point to the story. What do you think the news will be talking about on CNN today? CNN will be able to say the New York Times debunked this and then the CNN viewers will say did they? I don't know I didn't read that story. But if all these people on CNN are saying it's debunked it must be debunked. So the way they're going to sell this is effectively it will work. It is working.

All right here's some more. That nothing is news. So part of the defense or the debunk is that nothing new. Oh not all of it but for one much of this was not new. And then they go on to say that the New York Times had reported some of this in October. That what Mr. Sussmann, I guess this is one of the lawyers, had told the CIA about data suggesting that Russian-made smartphones were connected to networks at Trump Tower and the White House. So New York Times is saying we did report this so it's not new. But of course the whole point of it is that it was reported fakely. So they're claiming that they had already reported it without noting that what they reported was the fake narrative. So they're claiming that it's old news by showing their own fake news. The part that was the narrative not the real news. The narrative part that the Democrats planted. Unbelievable. Now how many people are going to do what I did which is pour through this, compare it to the Durham report, and see how completely unethical all of this looks? Nobody. Almost nobody.

All right about, let's talk a little though. Here's some other things they say. Let's say the conservative media also skewed what the filing said. For example Mr. Durham's filing never used the word infiltrate. Well did the conservative media say that he said infiltrate? I don't believe they claimed he said infiltrate. That sounds like their own word. What does the word infiltrate mean? I mean without looking, could somebody look it up while we're doing this? Put it in the comments. Just paste it. What's the definition of infiltrate? Well I would think it would mean get in somewhere you don't belong and get some stuff. It means spying, right? I feel like that would be a fair characterization if the facts were the way they thought the facts were.

Let's go on. So they're arguing with infiltrate as if it mattered that Durham didn't use that word but that didn't matter, right? So it's a fake debunk. They're debunking Fox News's word because Durham didn't use it but that's not the point. It doesn't matter if Durham used it. What he described sounds a little like infiltrating, doesn't it? Now whether it happened or not is a good question but whether you characterize it as infiltrating doesn't seem like the big question here.

And most important, this is the New York Times says, contrary to the reporting from the conservatives the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era. That is correct. So this debunk correctly says that the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era. But that's not a debunk. That's what the story is. So notice that they're acting like this is a debunk but what they're saying is the same thing that the actual story says. That it was not all from the Trump era. That being the entire point of the Durham complaint. That they should have told law enforcement that this data came both before Trump's era and after. And since that part was left out the implication was they were selling a narrative which was a lie. The narrative was that something about the Trump administration is what activated these sketchy looking contacts with Russia. But apparently they had been going on since 2014.

So the New York Times is acting like they're debunking exactly what conservative media also agrees is true. So they're saying something that agrees completely with conservative media but because you don't know what conservative media is if you're a New York Times reader they can say they're debunking it while completely agreeing with it. Now keep in mind all of this is in the context of a big complicated piece. If you read this without knowing the other side, the side that I'm trying to present here, if you didn't know any of that you would not suspect anything was missing. This is so diabolical.

And then they quote lawyers for some of the people who are accused of stuff and the lawyers say what Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong. Say the blah blah blah. Lawyers for Mr. Dagan. Now of course the story does need to quote both sides. They're both sides. But they're just saying they're wrong. And then they go on and say that this is the reason. Wrong according to the lawyers. They say the cyber security researchers were investigating malware in the White House. We don't know that. Could be true, could be not. Not spying on the Trump campaign. And to our knowledge all the data they used was non-private DNS data from before Trump took office. That's just not true. Can you do a fact check on that? I believe what the lawyers are saying is unambiguously not true and the New York Times knows it's not true and they're only reporting in the same story and the conservative news knows it's not true. Am I right? Somebody says it is true. I'm saying that the DNS data included before Trump and after Trump and the lawyers are saying it was only before Trump. Do you think the lawyers are correct? If the lawyers are correct then all the reporting is wrong which is possible. Well this is pretty sketchy. I don't know what's true about that.

And also it seems to me that the tech people did have legal access to the data but did the tech people have authority to give it to the Clinton campaign? Is it the big question? How did that information get into the hands of the Clinton campaign? That's the question, right? Or am I missing the big question? So it's not that the tech people were spying. It's that the tech people gave information to somebody who was spying. Like that's different. Well it's different in one sense. It's different in the sense that the accusation would be about the middle people more than the tech people. But why did the tech people even give that information to anybody? I know. Did they have access? So there's so many questions in this. You can see how easy it's going to be to confuse this to the point where you're not sure what's true. Somebody's claiming they're apolitical. That's BS.

And then the New York Times just throws this in like it's a fact. So without a link or anything they say, or Charlie Savage says, after Russians hacked networks for the White House and the Democrats in 2015 and 2016 it went on. Wait a minute is that true? Do you believe that Russia hacked networks for the White House and the Democrats in 2015? I know it was reported but do you believe it's true? I believe we can't tell. I believe it was reported as true but we don't know. Because if you're telling me that hackers can't cover their tracks I don't know what world I live in. Do we live in a world where hackers can't cover their tracks? I thought they could. Why does hacking even exist? It seems like it'd be hard to be a hacker if you couldn't cover your tracks.

All right so I thought that was interesting. They slip it in there like that's unquestionably true. I certainly question it. And then they say a spokesman for Mr. Durham declined to comment toward the end. But why would Mr. Durham decline to comment? Shouldn't that also include the statement that of course he doesn't comment because you never comment during the investigation? So acting like he wouldn't comment makes him look guilty of saying something wrong. Well he didn't comment but that's not the case. It's just something where you don't comment.

Now what do you think about this? The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware. Do you think that in the course of investigating malware that's what caused them to find out all these weird Russia server connections? Maybe. Possibly. But I'd have to see why looking into one got you the information on the other. It could. I mean that's not impossible but it doesn't sound true even if it is. Anyway it looks to me like the New York Times is running cover for this story by pumping out a bunch of inaccurate statements of what the conservatives are saying and also trying to sort of obscure that connection between the campaign and the data.

All right anything else happening? Nope that's it. That's what's happening. Read up more of this and get back to us tomorrow. The problem is that no matter how much I read up on it if I got to the point where I understood it then the explaining to you would be too complicated. So this is sort of a situation that can't be explained because it's just too complicated. So when you have a situation that can't be explained the best way to hide it is to have the New York Times pretend they're debunking it and then just call it good and walk away. And it looks like that's what's going to happen and it looks like it's working. You are unable to explain something well. Unable in the specific sense that if something is detailed and complicated and all of the complication matters what are you going to do? There is a category of things that is one of my favorite mental hobbies is thinking about things that can't be communicated. Sometimes because they're too complicated but sometimes because there's nobody you could trust. Yeah the only people who know the information for sure are the ones you can't trust at all. And so there are situations where things simply can't be communicated and this might be one. You'd have to litigate it in court.

So if we were going to simplify the case of whether it's debunked or not I think it comes down to did the Clinton campaign ask lawyers that they paid to get some information to create a narrative that they knew was false? And the New York Times did not debunk that. They pretended the story was a little bit different and debunked the different parts.

Canada has just removed all civil liberties. Not worth a comment. Well here's my comment on, I did talk about Trudeau. I think that Canada is in good shape so I'm liking what I'm seeing in Canada. I believe that the great claw back is underway. Clawing back our rights around the world not just the US. And that the truckers are going to get what they want I think in the long run but it might require removing their government first. So I do think that the truckers took out the Trudeau government. Do you agree? I think Trudeau is done. I mean it's hard for me to read the room in Canada but from my perspective I think he's completely done. Am I wrong about that? Because I can't imagine that even his low approval rating as it exists I can't imagine it survives this. This doesn't look like anything that Biden's doing. Compare the way Biden is running things even if you don't like it to how Trudeau ran things,