of view which will not tolerate somebody sitting next to you debating it politely. Let that sink in. Misinformation is any information that is presented without the counterpoint. And I mean a legitimate counterpoint. A polite person who's not talking over you who's simply sitting there and presenting the other side. And of course you would have the chance to speak back. It's always disinformation if you're seeing one side.

So when the WEF officials, I just saw a video, were up there complaining about disinformation they were disinformation because there should have been somebody sitting right next to them saying it's not disinformation it's a different opinion. You just think it's wrong. Now if that person had been sitting there showing the counterpoint I would say well there's some information for me. There's a person who has this point of view. There's another person who has another point of view. I can compare them. That's called information. What's it called if only one of them is on the stage? Disinformation every time. It might be true sometimes but that would be like a weird situation. No one person talking without the benefit of a counterpoint is disinformation by definition, right? Because everybody's lying in politics except for Vivek, right? If it's not Vivek or you know Thomas Massie you know maybe you can add you know Paul you know Rand Paul and a few others but basically if it's somebody in the news or a pundit or somebody running for office usually it's not true in some way.

So I would use the same standard whether it's a Republican or a Democrat. If it's one person talking of course it's disinformation. Now if it's one person giving a campaign speech we all kind of put that in context don't we? Aren't we all grown up enough to know one politician giving a speech is not supposed to look like complete truth? I think we all know that right? You have to hear the other side. But when somebody's let's say in a news capacity, let's say you're Joy Reid and you're just giving one side of things that's disinformation by its nature. You don't even need to know the details of what she said. If she's giving one point of view and there exists a counterpoint or a context that's missing that's all you need to know. Yeah it's just information if there's only one person talking. What do you think that should be your standard? That this whole thing about one person talking might be true and might be false that's absurd in politics. One person talking is just every time. Right now like I said you could point out some weird exceptions but there's a reason that Vivek came in fourth. If he lied better he probably would have done a lot better. Imagine if Vivek had lied he probably could have done a lot better. Yeah but he just wasn't willing to go there.

All right. NPR was according to Pfizer King 64, NPR is talking today about the path forward for Nikki Haley. NPR is still talking about Nikki getting in there. The path forward is that something terrible happens to Trump. Can we stop talking about the path forward because I'm pretty sure it's a path backwards if you know what I mean. She might have a path backwards into the presidency but it's only if something terrible happens to the leading candidate. So no NPR we don't treat you as a legitimate news source.

Speaking of illegitimate things are you following the story of one of Trump's district attorneys, Fani you know Fani Willis. So it turns out she was having an affair with the prosecutor who was handling the Trump prosecution. Now by itself that doesn't bother me too much honestly. I didn't really want to make a thing about that because people have affairs. People who go to work in an office sometimes they hook up and I thought well that doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with this process. However yeah which one of them was married? Was it the guy who was married or was he? He was yeah he got divorced just recently but yeah allegedly right allegedly had an affair.

So but here's the part that'll get under your skin I think. It turns out that the boyfriend she gave the job to is nowhere near qualified for the job. He had never been involved in anything like this at this scale. And for some reason that we don't understand it was necessary for him to spend like two days at the White House talking to the Democrats and billing for it. So it doesn't look like he's legitimate. It looks like she was giving her boyfriend some free money which makes her look like she is corrupt.

Now separate from the question of whether she's corrupt when it comes to charging Trump she's clearly corrupt because she's doing this thing with her boyfriend and sending him money. Now you could say to yourself but Scott we don't know that there's any corruption. We just know it's a boyfriend. He's not quite capable and she's sending him a lot of money through allowing him this possibility this opportunity. Yeah we don't know. We don't. No no but in these situations the appearance of impropriety is the same as the impropriety would you agree? For all practical purposes the appearance of impropriety is a you got to recuse yourself situation. So yeah. They went on vacations together. Yeah so everything about it is corrupt sounding and sketchy. I don't know that any of it was illegal. I don't know that anybody's alleging that but yeah there's a lack of transparency. See here there's something very much to be concerned about and it's as sketchy as hell.

And what is h