Trump saying everything in these 10 boxes is declassified. He didn't do that as far as I know but suppose he did. And then later hypothetically the FBI planted some evidence in it. That would actually be, correct me if I'm wrong, but if nobody knew it had been planted, wouldn't the legal standard be that it had been declassified if it's in that box? Because that was in the box that was specified for declassification in a hypothetical world. Not in the real world. So it actually is true. This is why it's so funny. There could have been a situation where the FBI planted something that got accidentally declassified and then didn't work as planted evidence. Like that's actually real, right? I mean it didn't happen but it's something that might have happened like in the real world. That could have easily happened.

Now I say easily because in my sense of things the FBI planting information would be normal. If you don't agree with that you haven't been paying attention to the news once in a while. If you don't think it's normal that the FBI would try to frame Trump by planting information, you haven't been paying attention. That is now in the normal way of business for the FBI. I hate to say it but I didn't create that situation. It wasn't me. And if it had been me I wouldn't have done it. But that's where we are right now.

And every time you tell me in patriotic emotional terms that we should not be criticizing the rank-and-file members of the FBI, I'm not sure that's us doing that. You know what I mean? I feel like the rank-and-file FBI members have been disgraced by their own co-workers and leaders. I didn't do that. Where was I disgracing the FBI by falsifying information on a FISA document? I didn't do that. And you can't say that that has no consequences. There are reasons that this stuff is illegal because it has big consequences. One of the consequences is on the rank-and-file members of the FBI. I didn't do that. I didn't do that.

So if I say the FBI is completely discredited as an organization which includes the rank and file, I didn't do that. I didn't do that. I'm just observing. It's not even an opinion. An opinion means you're sort of adding something to the situation. I'm not adding. I'm observing. I'm observing a situation that has a degree of confirmed bad actors. Confirmed. Nobody's questioning that. The Mueller report found some issues. Was it Mueller or was it not Mueller? You know what I mean.

All right. So here's some more stuff we know about these Mar-a-Lago documents. So I guess in June, in a letter in June, one of the Trump lawyers, I don't know which one, said that there were no more classified things at Trump's Mar-a-Lago. Now do attorneys tell direct lies in a situation like that? Now I'm not going to say no attorney has ever lied but there's a way that attorneys lie, right? So an attorney could lie by omission, you know if it was a situation where they could get away with it. They could exaggerate. They could prefer a narrative. They could question somebody else's facts. They could put doubt on things that actually are true. There are all kinds of schemey weaselly things that lawyers can do. But how likely is it that a lawyer who had reached a level of accomplishment that they worked for a president or an ex-president, somebody at that level, how likely is it they would tell a direct lie that if they got caught and it's very catchable, it would be very catchable because it exists, it's a physical thing and someday somebody's going to figure it out. Would a lawyer tell a direct lie, this does not exist, if that lawyer knew it did exist, could be later found? I don't think they do. In my experience, I've dealt with a lot of lawyers and anytime they get even close to asking a lawyer to say or do something that's not true they immediately balk, right?

So now I'm going to acknowledge to you that there are lawyers who will lie just like there are anything that will lie. But it's kind of unusual. It's unusual. So remember when we're looking into this fog of war situation we don't know what's true yet if we ever will but we could put odds on things. What would you put as the odds that this particular lawyer, and they have to accept all of it not just part of it, what are the odds that this lawyer knew the contents? This is important. Do you think that the lawyer knew the contents of all of this stuff at Mar-a-Lago? Probably not, right? Probably not. Do you think anybody did? Do you think there was even one person anywhere in the world who knew the contents of all the boxes in Mar-a-Lago? I would say that's unlikely because you know who would spend the time going through them? Who would know for sure that they had all the boxes? I know it feels unknowable, right?

So what are the odds that Trump is in trouble if his attorney said there was nothing there? Now I don't know if you haven't operated at a level where you've got attorneys and accountants doing stuff for you it is a real good cover for your own badness if there is any, right? If your attorney says something's okay you're in a much better position than if you decided on your own, right? Because the judge and the jury are going to look at it and say well that was a qualified attorney who gave you that advice. It might have been wrong but look where it came from. So if somebody who knows more than you do says this is legal and it's my job to tell you what's legal and trust me this is totally legal and you take the advice, correct me if I'm wrong but that's going to give you a little comfort if anything goes to court.

Is there a lawyer on here who can, I'm not totally confident about this point, can you confirm or deny that point? Say you're a lawyer in the comments. But if a lawyer has advised you that something's legal aren't you in better shape? You're not safe. I'm not saying you're safe but you're in better shape, right? Any lawyers? Okay so a lawyer confirms yes you're in much better shape. Doesn't mean you're out of the clear. You're out of the woods. Yeah okay the lawyers are confirming. Lawyers confirm that that would help. So that's a point in Trump's favor which doesn't tell you anything about the documents.

Now here's a question that you all watch the news all right so all of you watch the news. So here's a question. Which is the most obvious question about this Mar-a-Lago stuff? There's one question that's the most obvious question. It's the one that you would ask if you were in charge of figuring out what's going on over there. What's the first question you'd ask about the boxes? Go. First question you'd ask. Really? Who packed them? Yes right. The first question you ask is who packed them? What's the answer to the question? You all watch the news. Give me the names of the people who packed them. Give me their names. Don't just say GSA. Just give me the name. Why? You don't know the name? What?

Now here's a moment where you need to, this is a moment where the entire machinery of your reality just opened up for you. There's sometimes you can see the mechanism behind what we're seeing here. This is like the fact that you don't know the names, the actual name of the person who packed it or names. The fact that those people have never been asked to comment and we don't even know who they are. What's that tell you? What does that tell you? It tells you we're not serious about this. Whatever is going on has nothing to do with the documents. Am I right?

Let me say this as clearly as possible. If anybody in the news business had even the slightest interest in what was going on in that story the only thing they'd be talking about incessantly was how do we find the names of the people who packed it and can we get permission to talk to them because they might have clearance or whatever. Am I wrong? Tell me I'm wrong. It's the only question that matters and the entire news industry is ignoring it like it doesn't matter. What's that telling you? It tells you nobody's serious about this as an issue. They're serious about it as a political issue. Nobody cares about the actual event. Nobody. In fact I've never even met anybody who cared.

There are people who say oh Trump was going to sell nuclear secrets to Saudi Arabia. Do they really believe that? The people who are tweeting that Trump was going to sell nuclear secrets, they really believe that? No they don't. It's just a political thing. Do the supporters of President Trump who say as I do it's very unlikely there's anything in those documents that is really important, it's very unlikely, am I saying that for political reasons or because I know what's in those boxes? I don't know what's in the boxes. I don't know. But I've got this political opinion that's pretty strong which means I need to check myself, right? Shouldn't I be checking myself for confirmation bias, you know team play and cognitive dissonance? Absolutely. Absolutely I should be checking myself really hard if I could. It's pretty hard to check. But I don't think there's anything more completely transparent than the fact that all sides of the media, left, right