at left, right, and Axios, which is somewhat in the middle, and they all cover this story the same way. They just tell you what happened. What's missing in the story? What's missing in the story is who are they, why were they there? Did anybody talk to them and say, hey, why today? Why today? What's happening? Are you protesting for or against the abortion rulings?

So they can't find their leader, and they can't get a quote from the Patriot Front. Really? There's nobody who can get a quote from their leader saying why were you there marching? Nobody? What the hell is going on? There's something so ridiculous about this whole thing, and I don't know what it is. I mean, you know we like to joke that they're all feds, but I don't know. I mean that's just one of several possibilities. It seems at least as likely that it's just a Democrat operation, or it's a foreign intelligence operation. And when I say foreign intelligence operation, it doesn't mean that they're from other countries. It means that all you need is enough money to bribe a leader and you can have any kind of grassroots movement you want. So you only have to convince the leaders. You don't have to convince the people. Buy off a leader, you got yourself a protest.

I don't know if that's what happened, but since nobody's asking, I guess we have to guess.

So you have to read an article. I don't do this often, but there will be a link in the reading. It's only because it's so good. It's good on two levels. One, the story is amazing. It's not too long. It'll only take you a few minutes. And the writing is excellent. So I recommend it. If you just like good writing, just to see what nice clear sentences and clean thinking looks like. And it's a Substack article by Mark Hyman, and I think it's free to subscribe if you want to see the rest of the Substack. But he's got a story about the Pulitzer honoring the New York Times and the Washington Post for their reporting about the Russia collusion. And the nature of the story is that basically the Pulitzer is a way to launder fake news. Now that's not the way Mark says it. That's my interpretation of his better article. So read it in his words. You have to see it stated well.

My own bad description of it is that the Pulitzer is basically a fig leaf for making you think that reporting is valid when maybe it wasn't so much. And at this point we know that the New York Times and the Washington Post won Pulitzer Prizes for being duped about the biggest story of the country, for being duped, completely fooled about what was really going on. In the context that at least 30 percent of the country didn't need to do any research at all. And here's 30 percent of the country roughly doing as much research as the people who won Pulitzer Prizes.

I give you now my impression of 30 percent of the regular public analyzing the Russia collusion charges: I don't think so. Nope. Nope. I'm not going to do a deep dive on this one because that one is sort of obvious. Yeah, there are all kinds of flavors. I'm sure you've tasted them all. You've got your subtle, your slight. You've got your hyperbole. You've got all manner of massaging the facts and misleading and leaving out context. Oh, there's every form. But you've never seen bigger than the Russia collusion story.

Now, am I wrong that 30 percent of the public spotted it from the jump? Right? I mean, I did. I'm not sure what exactly I was saying at the time, but as soon as it came out I said to myself, no, no, I don't believe that Trump, who is a germaphobe, urinated on a hotel bed with a hooker or asked a hooker to urinate on a bed for any reason. As soon as I looked at it I was like, no, that does not look like that's true.

All righ