working. The people were on the other side of it and they were sort of respecting the barrier because there were police there and the police actually removed the barriers and let them in.

Then we've also seen multiple interior security cameras. They show that the people look more like tourists. They were just wandering respectfully, staying between the lines and the law enforcement was high-fiving and basically just letting them do their thing because they either didn't think they would be violent or they were in on something. We don't know what they were thinking or why they did it. We just know what happened.

So do we have, let's get a, let me test the temperature of my audience in the comments. Do you think it's a fair statement that January 6 now looks more and more like entrapment? And we're also not told the number of undercover informants or whatever in the crowd. So we're told that we're not going to be told how many were the entrapers, the alleged entrapers. But let's just call them the undercover people. We're not told that number. The public can't know that number.

Now what do I tell you about the government? If this were an individual and an individual said I have some information I'm not going to tell you, I say unambiguously well I don't know what that person did but innocent till proven guilty. Definitely innocent. Innocent, innocent by our system which is a really good system until proven guilty. I don't care how guilty it sounds. It can sound guilty but you've got to prove that. That's the rule. But not for the government. If the government doesn't tell you something you can infer their guilt. Totally appropriate. It's logical. It might not be right but you can infer that they've given you reason to believe they're guilty and you can act on it you know within the law as a citizen you can act on it.

So yeah I agree with Vivek and I would say I didn't start here. I did not start out believing that there were enough FBI informants to make a difference. I didn't start there. I always knew it was an interesting question but I didn't have the data to firmly say one way or the other. And I didn't assume that just because we knew that maybe one or two doors had been opened or maybe some police officers acted in a certain way or maybe Ray Epps was still a question mark. I didn't think that that was yet enough to put it together, say oh well maybe it's exactly what it looks like.

But in the fullness of time when we can see the complete catalog of dirty tricks and intelligence ops, we can see the full bag of dirty tricks from the Democrats in general. We can see their desperation to hold on to power and we can see that they were trying to paint MAGA people as domestic terrorists. If you look at their motivation they have the motive. They have the motive for the crime. Did they have the time to prepare for it? They had time to prepare because they knew it was coming. Would it be unprecedented? No it would not. It would be well within the normal behavior but usually it's something you see America instigating in another country. So it's normal for America to do it to other countries. And we also know now that it's normal and routine for America to take tricks which they've applied only to other countries and apply it domestically. We see this with the censorship etc. It's obvious right.

So we've got the motivation, we've got the means, you know they have the resources. We've got a full umbrella of supporting interests. We've got a full map of all the players so we can see who's connected to who and it all looks exactly like it says it looks. And now we have an increasing number of anecdotal, still anecdotal but you know little bits of why is this police officer acting this way, why is this one opening this gate, why is this one just standing aside. If you put it all together I'm going to state that at this point the burden of proof has to be on the government to prove innocence right. The burden of proof on the government. When there are this many signals they have to prove it didn't happen. It's not like a citizen where they'd have to prove it did happen. They have to prove it didn't happen.

And at this point your working assumption, your working assumption, this doesn't mean you're right but the correct working assumption is that it's exactly what it looks like and it was entrapment. And Vivek sees the same thing you do. That is the correct working assumption even if it turns out not to be true which I would love. I would love that the government could tell you how many operators were there, let you interview them or let the press interview them, let you see any documents that were part of the decision making and then maybe there's nothing there. But when you act this guilty the working assumption has to be guilt. That's exactly what it looks like.

All right. Thomas Massie getting some pushback from a number of people. Charles Schumer, Chuck Schumer, he was reacting to Massie's post. I'll tell you what his post was in a minute but he said what did it mean? Well Massie just says it was antisemitic.

Now I'm going to tell you what Thomas Massie posted and I want you to see how antisemitic it looks to you. All right. So he posted a meme in which the rapper Drake is shown in two pictures and he's putting up a hand like you know no more of that or don't give me that, kind of stop it hand. And one of them says Zionism. So at first he's saying oh no he's first saying approvingly yes to Zionism but then he's looking disapprovingly and then the word says American patriotism.

So Massie's post showed what looked like a conflict between what Congress was doing for Zionism versus America.

Now here's how I interpreted it and I'll let you tell me how I'm interpreting it wrong. I interpreted it that he wants the American Congress to use American money first for things that are primarily America-centric and not so much for something that's directly Israel-centric and the country of Israel being part of that definition of Zionism.

Now if an American politician says we should spend money on our own country instead of another country, even an ally, even a strong ally, even one of our favorite allies, that he would still prefer as our elected representative that we spend it on American interests more directly. Although I do understand that America has an interest in Israel's well-being but it's a second order effect. You know the first order is do you have any money that's more important than how you spend it? Do you have any? And we don't you know. Massie would say we'd have to borrow that money.

So here's what I learned from this. If you use that Z word, Zion, apparently there's another interpretation of it that I can't find in a definition. So when I look at the definition of the words in this controversy I see Massie using the Z word to refer to the nation of Israel and protecting it. Is that racist? It refers to the formation of the nation of Israel and then protect