sually, they're mixes but they're dominant one way or the other — if you do an indica dominant it just makes you sleepy and stupid. That's why people do it, to relax and go to sleep.

So do you think that the long-term IQ effect of taking a drug that makes you sleepy and stupid would be the same as the long-term effect of somebody who took only the sativa version which makes you literally smarter but for a little while and then you plunge after that? What if the IQ effect is due to a lack of motivation exactly? Because sativa can make you feel more motivated. You do things you weren't even motivated to do before. Whereas indica makes you less motivated because that's why you take it, to slow yourself down.

So here's the first question I'd ask is if they didn't break that out. I think I tweeted it. So if you want to see the sources for any of these things look in my Twitter feed for the same day as I talk about it. It's usually there.

All right. So I saw a video that apparently has been out for a while. I don't know how many weeks. But it's a video in which Ted Cruz was talking to the FBI representative and asked whether the FBI had been involved in instigating any part of the January 6 event. And here's what I found interesting.

Now somebody said this is a real old video like from January. Does anybody have a confirmation when this was? Because I think some of you saw it in my Twitter feed but it's not brand new. But it's relevant more now than when it was new because now we're in the middle of these January 6 hearings so we have a lot more context. So now when you look at it it really reads different because we have more context.

And here's what happened. So Ted Cruz in his prosecutorial brilliance — because he's really good at this stuff — was grilling the FBI representative. He asked the question in a number of ways to say yes or no: was the FBI involved in any part of instigating January 6? And specifically Ray Epps. And the FBI representative refused to answer any of the questions. And at one point mentioned sources and methods as something that they don't want to give away accidentally. So they can't answer questions because it's questions about the secret stuff.

Now I interpret that as a confirmation that the FBI instigated January 6 or was involved in some way that was important. How do you interpret it? Because the sources and methods explanation isn't real. It isn't real. Because it would be very easy to carve out an answer that didn't give anything away. And it goes like this: "Mr. Cruz, we don't give away all the details of our undercover work or operational stuff but I can tell you with complete certainty that the FBI did not instigate anything or talk anybody into anything or try to get anybody to break the law. We don't do that and that definitely did not happen in this case. Beyond that I think you'll understand I don't want to answer any detailed questions because that would get to sources and methods. But for the benefit of the public let me just say certainly the FBI is not out there breaking laws. They did not break any laws or try to incentivize anybody to break any laws for any purpose at all. We don't do that. That's not the business we're in."

Now did I just give away any sources and methods? I don't think I did, did I? I don't believe there were any sources and methods that I just gave away. But I told you a very direct answer, didn't I? No, we didn't do that. But beyond that don't ask any detailed questions because I would be giving away sources and methods.

Now here's why I consider this a confirmation from the FBI that they were involved. Be