pay for it. She had to know there would be a price. So I would accept the fact that it's courage. But I'm not so sure about selfless, because I feel as though her actions strongly suggested that it was personal. Now again, we don't know what she's thinking. But if you act in a way that doesn't have balance in a situation that just screams for balance, you know you should have balance in that situation more than any situation, especially if you're a Republican looking at a Republican. If you can't have balance in that situation, one has to assume that there's something else going on. And I do.

I would like to revisit this idea. So Edward Luce tweeted this. I don't know who he is, but he's just somebody on Twitter. He tweeted, I guess he's a reporter of some kind, I've covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous, and contemptible than today's Republicans. Nothing close.

Really? Nihilistic would be people who don't want to follow the rules. Don't want to follow the rules. Would Republicans be a group that doesn't want to follow the laws and the constitution of the United States? There's someone who actually is smart enough to write sentences and use Twitter who believes that the most central thing about Republicans is that they're rule followers. Constitution, Bible, the law of the land. There's nothing that defines Republicans more than wanting to follow the rules and making sure other people do as well. Nothing defines them more, period. That's almost baked into the definition of conservative, right? Conservative: let's do it the way we've been doing it. Follow the rules.

But anyway, this is this one person's view that the Republicans are opposite of what it looks to me, and they're dangerous and contemptible. Okay, now clearly some Republicans are dangerous, as some of every group are, right? But here is the shocking part. General Michael Hayden, ex-CIA director, agreed with this tweet. And he said, I agree, and I was the CIA director. So the guy who was the CIA director believes that Republicans today are more nihilistic, dangerous, and contemptible than anything else around the world, such as Al Qaeda, Taliban, just to pick a couple of examples.

Now, I'm not going to disagree with his characterization because that's not the point. The point is that we finally got a direct confession. It's a direct confession. In his opinion, the Republicans are as bad as this. And that would be a complete explanation of why the CIA and the FBI apparently colluded for the Russia collusion hoax. And probably they're colluding again. He says it directly that he believed that the threat of the Republicans was greater than external threats. So if you would be willing to assassinate Al Qaeda, what would you be willing to do to a greater threat than Al Qaeda? He doesn't say. But I appreciate the transparency. He's basically saying that there would be nothing, if you read between the lines, it suggests that there's nothing you wouldn't do.

Now let me say there's nothing wrong with that. And a little bit I'm going to agree with Sam Harris, and it's going to make your head just blow up. I agree with General Hayden that if, in this one narrow sense, if you really believed that this group was as dangerous as he apparently says he does, then you would break some rules to stop them. Because you would murder Hitler, wouldn't you? I would. I would break a rule to murder Hitler, right? So he's basically saying the Republicans are worse than Al Qaeda, worse than external threats. So he doesn't say that he would break a rule to stop them, but I think that's perfectly implied. If you're the director of the CIA and there's something that's like a mortal threat to your country, I feel like it's implied that you might bend a rule to stop it. And if you wouldn't, w