So you may have noticed that the news has already gone into summer reruns a little early this year. I was expecting the summer reruns to start closer to May. You know what I'm talking about there. There's no good news coming out, so the news has started to recycle scandals from the past.

Do you remember that time President Trump made the hand motions that seemed to be mocking a man with a physical disability? No, I don't remember that. I do remember President Trump being blamed for that. And unlike half of the country who is trapped in a news silo, I saw the compilation clips showing that he uses that same motion making fun of a lot of different people, including Ted Cruz.

In fact, I would like to suggest the Ted Cruz rule. Are you ready for it? If the president uses a particular insult or attack against Ted Cruz, you cannot say that he is using it because he's a racist. And you can't say that he's making fun of handicapped people, because also the president questioned Ted Cruz's birth certificate. Not technically, but he questioned whether Ted Cruz was born in the United States and eligible to run for president.

So the president has blamed Ted Cruz, he's mocked Ted Cruz exactly the same way he mocked a person with a bad arm, and he's questioned Ted Cruz's citizenship and eligibility for president the same as he criticized President Obama. So it's the Ted Cruz rule. If he's ever done it to Ted Cruz, it doesn't count.

The other rerun we're getting is the animals comment taken out of context. We're getting the fine people hoax over and over again. The fine people hoax is coming out. The idea that the president never spoke out against white supremacists. We're getting the Steve Miller attacks. We've never seen those before, have we? Oh, Steve Miller, that Jewish white supremacist. How does that even work? How can you even be a Jewish white supremacist? Isn't that like opposites?

So the criticisms have become sort of hollow reruns of past criticisms that have already been debunked. That's all they have. It's really a good time to be alive because you look at the problems in the world and you just say, uh, that's it? The biggest problem in the world is a rerun of a hoax that everybody—well, not everybody, half of the country—knows is a hoax.

On CNN last night, the columnist Matt Lewis is saying that the Democrats are quote "too woke." They're over-woke. The Democrats are realizing that they're over-woke. They're so woke that they might not be able to beat President Trump. Now not only are they over-woke, but today CNN is taking a run at knocking Kamala Harris on the news. Now they could be trying to inoculate her by getting her bad news out of the way, but it doesn't look like that. It looks like they may have soured on Harris.

Why, you ask, would CNN be seemingly—this is us just interpreting it from the outside, doesn't mean we're right—but the way it looks from the outside is that CNN was initially very pro-Harris. But now that she is fourth in the polls, they may have soured a little bit. Because the problem with Kamala Harris as a candidate? Boring. Boring. She's very boring. She's had quite a few months here to make some news and she doesn't know how to do it, apparently. She's boring.

And you would never have imagined that boring would be such a problem. Doesn't it seem to you that boring didn't used to be a problem? Nobody really said, hey, that Romney, he can't win because he's boring. Not really. I mean, people said that, but they said he was boring. But I don't think anybody said there's no way you can win the presidency with your boring personality. Although I thought Romney was interesting and funny when he was talking about the effort by the Democrats to get Trump's tax returns and he called it moronic with a big smile. He showed some personality there. I thought that was funny.

So it could be that CNN—remember CNN is mostly like any other public company. They're mostly involved with their own profitability. So here's the interesting question. Would CNN make more money if their candidate won? In other words, if a Democrat beat Trump, would they make more money in the future or less? Think about it. Or along the same lines, would CNN as a business make more money in the future by running a boring candidate against President Trump? Which situation feeds their business model the most?

I don't know. It looks like running the interesting candidate who could also win would be in their best interests. But I think on some level they may not want to win. Let me ask you this. Would CNN have more stories that are interesting or fewer stories that are interesting if President Trump is no longer president? They might actually be panicked that their side could win.

There might be—and this is no joke, so what I'm going to say is not just speculation—CNN might get to the point where their financial interest is exactly counter to their political preferences. If we get to the point where, let's say, it looks like Kamala Harris could win, what would that do to CNN's ratings? If she actually won, who would watch CNN again for the rest of their lives? What would be the point? People watch CNN to watch them bash Trump. Watching CNN bash Kamala Harris? That's not fun. There's nothing fun about that.

So we may be in this weird situation where CNN needs to take out their own side for financial reasons. Now I don't believe that there will ever be a conversation like that where anybody at CNN in management says anything like that. So I'm not saying that anybody at CNN will ever say, hey, maybe we should put our thumb on the scale and let Trump win again because it's good for our ratings. But they're all going to think it. There's nobody at CNN who won't think it.

Excuse me, I don't know. My nose runs only when I talk on Periscope. It's a weird thing.

So we may see a situation where CNN becomes the inadvertent ally of Trump just to give him a second term. It's possible. You can't rule that out anymore.