tually ended up backing him when he's been conclusively debunked as a liar on several of his stories. Like there's no doubt about it. It's not even opinion. It's just the legal system itself showed that he was a liar or that his information was wrong. Not necessarily he was lying because that's mind reading, but that his stories were factually incorrect. And The Washington Post, instead of saying well he may have gotten some facts wrong but we back him, they didn't do that. They just said they back him as if his incorrect reporting is what they were backing.

So to me this was fascinating. It was extra fascinating because it showed you the gears of the machine. If you did not know that the opinion pieces, the opinion writers especially for something like The Washington Post, are not like regular reporters, that there's a whole different mechanism going on, if you didn't know that you got to see it for the first time. Because if you wondered, "Hey, I wonder if he thinks he's telling the truth. Maybe he believes what he's saying." You could tell for sure he doesn't believe what he's saying. That became really clear. I'm not a mind reader but after an hour and a quarter of him treading water and trying to divert from things, it was pretty obvious he knew. Yeah, it was pretty obvious he's a propaganda guy and not a genuine opinion guy. Well that's my opinion about him.

Let's talk about some more hoaxes. So here's one I didn't know at the time but apparently it's been revealed that there was some big massive hoax up in Canada about alleged mass graves of indigenous children. So the idea was that at some point in Canada's history — and I don't know what era they're talking about — but that a bunch of indigenous people, their children were killed in a mass grave. This of course turned out to be completely false. But in the period between when it was widely reported as true and the time it took them to dig up all the places where they said it was to find out there was nothing there, during that time 83 churches were burned down or vandalized in Canada in response.

Now, do you think that nobody who was pressing the story knew it was false? Because remember when they looked for evidence there was none. There was not even one body. It was just dirt. So do you think that there was anybody who reported, "People are saying this but there is zero evidence"? Do you think the news said there's absolutely no evidence of it so don't assume this is true but you know it's in the news so we're telling you about it? Somehow the Canadian news convinced people this was real without any evidence. Without any evidence. Because it didn't happen so there couldn't be evidence, right? I mean not physical evidence. And the physical evidence would be the most obvious thing you'd ask for because it's literally about a mass grave.

So if the story is about — I think it was multiple mass graves, right? If the story is about a mass grave on your own territory, how long does it take to see if there's a picture of some bones? How did it go that long? You have to assume that this was an op of some kind because it doesn't look like a natural news story or even a natural rumor that got in the news. It looks like an op. It looks like somebody wanted to get rid of some churches. Now I don't know that that was the case. It might have been just massive incompetence. Could it have b