So what do you think of Yang's new political party? Who is he going to take votes away from? Yeah, I think I heard somebody say he would take votes away from Republicans, but it was the Republicans who were going to vote for a Democrat anyway. I don't know. Maybe Yang will yank votes. Yeah, I don't. It's hard to see how it's helpful. But maybe, you know, if Yang can control 10 percent of the vote, he's a kingmaker, right? So it's not a bad strategy if you've got all these sort of in-between confused people.

What if, let's just do a what-if. What if Yang's real play is to only try to control the sensible people? Because there aren't that many of them. I'd say about 10 percent. Maybe if 10 percent of the country are identified with a political party but they're willing to listen to a better argument, it's about 10 percent. He could control the whole country like Joe Manchin. So everybody who says this Yang thing is just a sideshow and of no importance is wrong. It's not a sideshow. It's an insurrection legally, but it's an insurrection in concept in the sense that if he succeeds he will be effectively the president just by having a third party that actually makes sense.

And here's something that I think Andrew Yang could do that so far nobody else was able to do: be reasonable. Nobody tried that yet. All right? Nobody really tried being reasonable yet. There have been third party attempts but they always seemed sort of ideologically driven. So what would happen if you had a third party where the only thing they're trying to do is figure out what makes sense? You know, follow the science. What if you had, all right, how about this? What if you had the follow-the-science party? I guess the Democrats think they are that, but evidence suggests maybe not so much. I don't know. So I think if you ignore this Yang situation you do it at your peril. Because if he gets just 10 percent of people on board and it's the reasonable people who could switch sides in a situation, that's real power. That's real power.

Define science. Yeah, good question. Well, how would you like a story about how I'm so right? That's your favorite story, isn't it? No, your favorite story is when I'm wrong and I admit it. I know, I know, I know how you are. You'd rather me be wrong. But I'm sorry, I'm as right as right can be. Because it turns out that there's a new Harvard University study and they tried to look into the motivations of the Capitol rioters. Now they used an interesting term here, rioters, so I don't know if that excludes people that they thought were just protesters. So I have a little question about how they define that. But they found out that only 8 percent of the people who they called rioters believed they were there for an insurrection. And 92 percent of them believed they were there to save the democracy, save the republic.

Now, is there anybody, you know, who said, hey, I think that J6 committee is making us think past the sale? The sale is what did the people who were at the event believe? Because they started with they wanted insurrection and then let's look at all the facts. No, you don't start with they want an insurrection. That you have to demonstrate that. And when anybody did, well, I guess this is probably the first one. I don't think there's been another. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's been another study, and certainly not from Harvard University, which at least the left would be inclined to believe. This says that basically 92 percent of their people believed Trump that there were some sketchiness to the election and that they were there to fix the sketchiness. They were not there to overthrow the government. They're there to fix it.

Now what does the January 6 committee and all of the mainstream news do with the fact that the very foundation, the most important part of their narrative, has collapsed and it was destroyed by their own side? If you call anything coming out of Harvard left-leaning, and I think you could make that assumption. Now even the person involved in the study said he was quite surprised. He was surprised. And the results were that, quote, "many believe they were defending democracy from, quote, imminent existential danger," unquote. Right?

How does the news handle this? The only way the mainstream news can handle this new information is by completely disappearing it. It will be disappeared right in front of you. Do you think there's any way that if Harvard University did a study and it came out showing that 92 percent of the attendees wanted a literal insurrection to install a dictator, suppose it had gone that way, do you think the news would cover it? I think so. Yeah, I think they might. I think they might cover it if the people said they were there for an insurrection. But what if the people say that they were not there for an insurrection? They were there to fix the republic. Exactly what it looked like to me. I mean that's exactly what it looked like to me. Is there anybody who even doubted that who's watching this? Is there anybody here who didn't have the same impression that they were there for good intentions even if they had bad information? We don't know if they had bad information, but if they did, right?

So this is fascinating, the degree to which the fake news no longer needs to pretend. It's sort of stunning, isn't it? Are you surprised that the fake news doesn't need to pretend anymore