ers that had been cobbled together over the years, in fact the commentators said it was the worst team the Warriors had ever won with. It was the worst performing team because people were injured, etc. And yet Steve Kerr got winning performances out of every combination of players he put together. Every time Steve Kerr put a combination together, with or without Curry, the best player in the game, he still won. Do you know why? Because he got the psychology right. I think that was the main thing he kept getting right. And he had Green on the team. That helps, right?

Somebody says yeah, plus luck. There's always luck. So here's my point about Tony Robbins. Imagine you're the Celtics and you get out on the court and you're thinking, all right, we got this. We're feeling good. We got this. All we have to do is play harder and be smarter because we got the size. So if we can match them in psychology, we already have the size and the youth. We're going to win it all. And then they look over and sitting next to Steve Kerr on the bench is the most powerful hypnotist in the history of civilization. This would be sort of like you got in a math league competition and you saw on the other team was Paul Dirac. Now this is a very obscure reference that maybe five percent of you got. Paul Dirac. D-I-R-A-C. Anybody? Okay, mathematical genius.

So imagine if you go for a pickup game of basketball and Michael Jordan's on the other side. Like that is what Steve Kerr did to the Celtics. What Steve Kerr did to the Celtics was so effective it should be banned. What Steve Kerr did to the Celtics in that critical game was so devastatingly mentally effective that you should have been able to call the result of the game as soon as you saw him sitting on the bench. As soon as I saw him I was like, oh no he didn't. Did Steve Kerr really put Tony frickin' Robbins next to him on the bench? Because if you're the Celtics, you're just going to give up. Remember, there's two variables: size and psychology. And Steve Kerr basically said, all right, we got you on the psychology, so you better work on the size thing a little bit more because we're going to pulverize you on the psychology. And then what did he do? He pulverized them on the psychology. You could see the Celtics just look defeated about halfway through. They looked like they just didn't have anything left. It was awesome.

Well, Senator Tom Cotton is saying that the attorney general should resign because there have been, I didn't know this, but reportedly 50 attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches in recent weeks, purportedly carried out by some shadowy domestic violence group called Jane's Revenge. So they're targeting conservatives. And once again Tom Cotton shows us he's one of the effective people in Congress, in the Senate. So I always like the fact that he picks things which I always think are the obvious things that should be done. But why isn't anybody else doing them? I don't know. There's a certain genius to be able to do the obvious things. The free money, you know, the thing that just needs to be done and why isn't somebody else doing this? So yeah, I think this is a pretty valid thing to say there. If conservatives and Republicans are being hunted, hashtag hunted, do you remember anybody who made a prediction that if Biden won the election that Republicans would be hunted? Anybody? Anybody who believes in the simulation? Somebody you can think of? Yes, me. I was widely mocked for that. But there might be at least one more story today on that topic.

So to their credit, and I'm going to keep giving them credit for this, CNN had another what I would consider very balanced segment in which John Berman was pushing Jennifer Granholm, the energy secretary, on the consistency of the following things that the Biden administration wants. So at the same time that the Biden administration is demanding the energy companies make massive investments so that energy prices will go down, he's also telling them he wants them to be out of business in their traditional energy business. So he's asking them to make massive investments for the future at the same time telling them, but of course in the future we want to put you out of business. So make a massive investment for the future we want to disappear. And watching CNN's John Berman push her on that inconsistency was actually, first of all, refreshing. So that was straight reporting, straight approach by CNN, which I think should be complimented. And she didn't really have what I would consider a sufficient answer for that.

Now her answer was that the future of these companies should be divesting into greener energy, which I think is a fair thing to say. But it doesn't quite explain the inconsistency because they were all going to do that anyway. Companies invest in other things because they think it's a good investment or not. So that's all that's going to happen there. If they think it's a good investment, they'll do it. If they don't, they won't. So I don't think anything's going to change about how those companies invest in other stuff. But why would you make massive investments in these traditional energy sources that the Biden administration wants to crush in the future?

Well, here's the most damning stuff about Trump from January 6. Because I keep waiting for the January 6 hearings to come up with the goods against Trump specifically. And I love watching how dots are connected that are not actually connections. So making a connection that's not really a connection. And so if you read some of the coverage fast and you don't really parse the words, you could think it means something it doesn't mean. I'll give you an example. So this I think was from CNN. According to testimony from people around the then-president and elsewhere in Trump's political machine, all right, so they're saying that people close to Trump, they were told Eastman's plan to have Pence declare that he had won, declare that Trump had won, or accept other electors was illegal. See, this is getting complicated. Yet Trump tried to go ahead with it anyway.

All right, so here, let me simplify this. So Trump's attorney Eastman had a plan, and people told Trump that Eastman's plan, who is a lawyer, was illegal. So there were apparently lawyers who disagreed with lawyers. Now if you're Trump, does that mean that you knew it was illegal? So the report, the factual reporting, is that he had his most important lawyer, I guess his closest lawyer maybe, or one of the closest lawyers, recommend it. But then other lawyers said it's illegal. So did Trump know it was illegal? Well, if the lawyers didn't know, if the lawyers didn't know it was illegal, how is he supposed to know?

Now if all of the lawyers had agreed, then I would say the story is yeah, Trump knew that was illegal. But if there was even one lawyer that was close to him and was a credible lawyer saying no, I think this is legal, then Trump did not know it was illegal. He knew it was gray. Or maybe. So if the reporting was Trump knew it was a gray area, I would say that's completely probably supported by the facts. Because if you can find one lawyer who says it's a good idea and at least one who says it's a bad idea, then you say okay, it's a gray area. So what does a leader do when there's a gray area about what's legal? You tell me. If there's a gray area, like a leg