All right, so you may have seen that Joel Pollak retweeted with some inflammatory language a Chris Cuomo's little bit he did I think last night in which he played a clip of the president saying, out of context, that you know he played clips as if the president had called the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville fine people. Now of course that's fake news. He did not call the neo-Nazis fine people. But CNN reports it that way. What of course he was speaking about was that there are fine people on both sides of the Confederate statue issue more generally. Now I'm against Confederate statues so I'm not on his side on that point. But nonetheless it's being reported in a fake news way. And so let me call out for you some more: the dog that isn't barking. So remember it was about a week ago I said I'm going to say in public loudly and clearly that the Charlottesville report that the president said the neo-Nazis were fine people, I'm going to say it's fake news and a hoax. I'm going to say it loudly and publicly and watch how none of the outlets that normally cover me is going to cover it. Now can you think of any other major story that someone as prominent as I am, and I'm not the most prominent person in the world, but you've observed that if I say something controversial it's definitely in the news, right? If I say something that gets me a little bit off the path it's news every time. It's not news everywhere but there's always some liberal-leaning publication that'll say ah this idiot is saying X. And I predicted that I would say the most outrageous thing you could possibly say, which is a major story was fake news and a hoax, and that I could back it up and it's obvious that it's a hoax, and that there would be no news coverage. And you watched it right? Did you not observe that literally no one touched my comment? No one on the left who believes that the Charlottesville hoax is real, no one even mentioned it. It's like it didn't happen. Coincidence? It's not a coincidence. It's not a coincidence at all. And if you think about the unlikeliness of that prediction, it was very unlikely that I could say something that insanely radical and get no coverage on it whatsoever. And I told you why. They can't cover it. Now doubling down, Joel has now commented on it and I think he might be writing something about it. But again he's a very prominent person in the political world. Breitbart is a prominent publication. And when he says in public that Chris Cuomo is lying, lying, he called him a liar, do you think that Chris Cuomo will respond? Now normally what would happen if somebody reports news and someone else prominent calls them out and says you're literally a liar? What would be the normal response of the person who's being called a liar? They would respond, right? You're not going to see it. So I predict that you will not see something like a real response. Yeah there might be like a brush back or something but I don't think Chris Cuomo can respond in any way because if he does it's going to bring attention to the accusation. And the accusation is so much stronger than the fake news that he's not going to be able to survive even the conversation. And when I say survive I mean in terms of his interpretation of the world. So watch for the dog that doesn't bark. Watch out. Loudly and often we can say the obvious statement that the Charlottesville reporting is fake news and a hoax. And the most dangerous thing that's ever happened in this country in my opinion. So dangerous in fact that I was wondering if there could be a class action suit against CNN. Now I'm very much against class action suits and lawsuits. I just think it's a horrible world to live in. I don't want to get any. And so therefore I typically resist suing anybody. I've never sued anybody by the way in my whole life. I've never sued anybody. I don't think. Yeah I've never sued anybody. It's because I just don't like the whole, don't like it to happen to me, don't like it to happen to other people, don't like to be involved in lawsuits. There's just almost always a better way to handle this stuff. But from a legal perspective I wondered, you see how dangerous it is to go outside wearing a Trump hat, you know just any kind of a pro-Trump shirt or a MAGA hat or anything. And you've seen how dangerous that is. You've seen how it could affect your career. You've seen how it could affect your safety. Now what's the biggest cause of that lack of safety? Well I would say unambiguously the biggest cause is the Charlottesville hoax. Because it doesn't live alone. There are lots of accusations against this president for every manner of thing. But all the rest of them are a little bit thin. So for example you would say well what about when he announced he was running and he said that Mexicans are rapists and murderers? Well even the people who were worried about that certainly understand that that was hyperbole and that he did not mean that the women and children coming across the border were also rapists. No reasonable person could look at that statement and assume that he thought they were all rapists. And nobody assumes that that was the one time he didn't use hyperbole. If somebody uses hyperbole all the time and that's the most ordinary explanation for what happened during his announcement, it was a little more hyperbole. He made the risk of people coming across the border sound a little higher than you've heard it before. Normal hyperbole. So you know when you see stuff like that you know it's not enough. It's not enough to create the bubble of fear and just the crazy stuff that the anti-Trumpers are thinking. It's the Charlottesville hoax. That's the king of all the hoaxes. It's the one that people think this one we don't have to wonder about because we heard it in his own words. That's what people think about the Charlottesville hoax. They believed they heard something racist that was contemporary, meaning current, and in his own words and unambiguous. This time those other things you could see the argument. You could say okay maybe I'm taking this out of context. But with Charlottesville people said this one seems just too obvious. It's his own words. It's being reported everywhere. It's his own words. How could I be wrong? That's what makes it a hoax because it was out of context. It was a hoax and it's the big one. It's the mother of all hoaxes. The Charlottesville hoax is the mother of the smaller hoaxes. It's the mother of the Covington hoax. It's the mother of all hoaxes. And it's the one that is the most resistant to any kind of reason. I just had a back and forth with somebody here on Twitter and oh I wish I could, maybe I can find it because I wanted to show you what happens when you expose someone who believes in the Charlottesville hoax. When you show them the actual quotes and the context and then you tell them it's obvious that he wasn't talking about the neo-Nazis as being fine people, what happens to somebody? If you watch my Twitter exchange that was this morning they will devolve into word salad. And if you should see it just for entertainment and education purposes, it's on my Twitter feed this morning. It's somebody I was going back and forth with. Watch what happened to his last couple of tweets. They actually don't even make sense. Their words form something like a paragraph but they're actually just nonsense. And if some of you saw it, if there's anybody on here who witnessed that I'd just look for a confirmation that he did devolve into word salad. Word salad is when you have words in the sentence but they stop having meaning. They just fit together as words but they don't fit together with meaning. Yeah so you've seen some people confirm now that he devolved into actual babel. Just babel. Now the babel is when, and by the way I'm not making this next part up, when you get that kind of babble, irrational word salad answer, it means somebody has been pushed into cognitive dissonance. As a trained hypnotist I've seen this many many times. If you're new to it it's shocking and you might misinterpret it. You might look at it and say ah he must be just a troll and when you got him with your logic he's trying whatever he can. And maybe that's part of it but it's a classic signal for someone who's trying to get out of their mental prison but they can't. They hit a wall and they just degenerate into word salad. So let me give you an argument here for my interpretation of the Charlottesville situation versus the hoax interpretation. My interpretation was that the president went on television and said that there are good people on both sides of the statue debate. This makes perfect sense because he's actually said he's in favor of keeping the statues. And if any side was bad that was going to be the side that you thought had a problem, right? The people who want to keep the statues. I'm not in favor of keeping statues. I think they're offensive. But that I'm just giving you that as background so you know my own bias. But since he has been publicly in favor of statues you would think that he would say well there are good people on both sides of the statue question because he is one of those people in his own mind. He's a good person don't you think? Don't you think that the president thinks he's a good person? Don't you think that he thinks his buddies, his advisors who also want to keep the statues, the writers, the people on the right who want to keep them, don't you think that the president actually thinks they're good people? Of course he does. And there's no mind reading involved in that. That's sort of an obvious statement right? Nobody would really disagree with that. So my interpretation is completely normal and consistent with everything we've seen before and everything we saw after because he specifically condemned the neo-Nazis and the racists when asked to clarify. So the normal explanation is completely normal, completely consistent with the past, fits all the data, completely consistent with his clarification later and everything he's done since then. Now let's look at the hoax interpretation. Here's what you need to know. Here's what you need to believe is true in order to buy into the hoax that the president went on live TV and said racists were fine people. You'd have to believe first of all that my more obvious and normal explanation is the wrong one. So right away you're on shaky ground right because there's a normal explanation that explains all the data. Yeah you'd have to believe that he sided against his own family. Let me put it this way. Here's a quote for you if you want to quote me later. Here's the pull quote. I wrote it down so I'd say it right. The only difference between Antifa and the neo-Nazis who were at Charlottesville, the only difference, well not the only difference let me say it again. A big difference between Antifa and the neo-Nazis at Charlottesville is which members of the Trump family they wanted to kill. The big difference between Antifa and the neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville is which members of the Trump family they wanted to kill. Now I would say that probably the Antifa people would have loved to see bad things happening to the president and probably to Jared because he's central to the administration. Whereas the neo-Nazis would be more about deporting Ivanka and Jared and the president's grandchildren. So the neo-Nazis would also want to kill Trump's grandchildren. Antifa would only want to kill Trump himself and maybe Ivanka and Jared. So the big difference between them is which members of the Trump family they wanted to kill. Now CNN is reporting that the president said there were good people on both sides. Do you believe that the president of the United States went on television and said well here's two groups, they want to kill different parts of my family. One wants to kill me and Jared and maybe Ivanka and then the other side doesn't want to kill me but definitely wants to kill Jared and my grandkids but I'm not sure about Ivanka because she's converted. So yeah but in both cases both sides want to kill members of my family. CNN is reporting that the president said they're fine people in both of those groups. Does that sound reasonable? Does that sound like something he thought? Don't think so. In order to believe the Charlottesville hoax you would have to believe that the president consciously went on television and thought to himself I think I'll say some good things about the racists marching with tiki torches. Does that sound reasonable? Does that sound even a little bit reasonable? Now and even if you believe that then you have to believe the second part that the next day when he was asked to clarify he unambiguously clarified that he disavows, completely disavows, the racists and the neo-Nazis. So now you'd have to believe if you're going to buy into the Charlottesville hoax that this was the one time, the one time that we know of, maybe you can think of another but I think it's the one time that Trump changed his opinion because it was unpopular. How often does that happen? Do you believe that this president, if he had really held those views that people imagined he held, you think he wouldn't say that a second time? Do you think that he would have backed off of that? That's not the president you're watching. The president you're watching doesn't give a flying fuck what you think of his opinion. If he said it once he would say it again. If he said something that sounded ambiguous and then he clarified it to be completely consistent with everything he's ever said on the topic, completely consistent, that should mean something. All right. In order to believe the Charlottesville hoax you would have to also believe that he was sending a secret dog whistle by completely disavowing that group. Now what kind of a secret dog whistle do you send when the ambiguous statement, you know there's an ambiguous statement and then he clarifies it and he clarifies it as clearly as possible that he completely disavows the racists and the neo-Nazis. Is that a dog whistle? Because that's like a really bad dog whistle. You know here, let me give you an example. If I wanted to dog whistle my approval of you would I call you ugly and stupid? So if I said Bob is ugly and stupid would you say to yourself oh there's that secret dog whistle. I think he's in love with Bob. I think he and Bob got a little going on here because he just called him ugly and stupid. Well yeah you know where's this dog whistle that we keep hearing about? The next thing you'd have to think about in order to believe the Charlottesville hoax, you would have to also believe that Israel didn't notice. That they didn't notice or somehow that they didn't mind that the president of the United States was backing the anti-Semites marching in Charlottesville. Do you think Israel would give him a pass on that if it were true? Do you think Israel believes CNN's reporting? Do you think Netanyahu sees Cuomo reporting that the president praised the people who were marching with anti-Semitic statements? Do you think Netanyahu watches that and says oh yeah that's real news not a chance. There isn't the slightest chance that Israel thinks that news is true. Is Israel stupid? No evidence of that. Does Israel have a really fine-tuned sensor for detecting anti-Semitism? I think they do. I think they've had some practice. And if they don't see it who do you trust on a question of is something anti-Semitic? Do you trust Israel or CNN? One of them is credible on that question. You would have to also believe if you believed in the Charlottesville hoax you would have to believe that the 60 million Trump supporters are okay with it. You'd have to believe that 60 million people would be okay in this country with the sitting president praising white supremacists marching saying anti-Semitic things. 60 million of them who somehow didn't notice this. Now if you told me a million people believed it in a hoax I'd say oh yeah a million people believe anything. But 60 million and you can't find probably anybody in that group who believes he actually called the racists fine people. 60 million. None of them noticed. None of them noticed. Right? So that's my point. Now having completely demolished the idea that the president called the Charlottesville Nazis fine people, do you think this will become a story? Nope it won't. I will be completely ignored and they will just wait. They'll wait a few weeks and then they'll report it again like it's fact. But wait for this. If you see any kind of response, I don't even say that because there's no chance you won't see any kind of response, but if you did see a response it would be word salad. So that's my prediction. Prediction is you'll either see no response or you'll see one that is word salad. In other words it just it'll be words that fit together but they don't quite mean anything.