aying. Now does that mean that it's not there? I'll tell you what I saw. I saw something that was ambiguous that could be interpreted one of two ways. One way is President said you should drink bleach. The other way is that something ordinary happened that was worded poorly.

Now I'm not going to defend anything that anybody did, so don't interpret this as me defending Joe Biden. I'm telling you that the claims that I read all the time on the internet are not supported by the thing that the claims derive from. I looked at it myself. Now part of it is that there are two claims. One has details and one is just an ambiguously worded thing that looks like it could be trouble, but you don't really know for sure. So the one that's got details is not supported by any documents. There's some kind of forgery floating around. So if you heard the one that says under certain conditions a thing happened, there's nothing like that in the diary. There's nothing that said under this condition this happened or how often or what ages were involved. None of that's in the diary. There's just one little thing that any normal person would be very concerned about, but it's a lot like the drinking bleach thing. What she said directly looks really troublesome, but it almost couldn't have been that. In other words, the most provocative interpretation of what it meant is probably the least likely. But if you want to believe that stuff, you kind of go to it automatically.

Now if you add it to the hair sniffing and the weird behavior that we see in public, it does create an overall picture that says maybe we should know more about this. But to say that it's sort of documented in writing and we can all read it? Nope. I don't buy it. I do buy that there's something there that raises your eyebrow all the way past the top of your head. Can we agree on that? I think we can agree that if you read the part that is confirmed to be real, you're going to have some questions. But I think there's probably more than one way to explain what that is, very much like if you didn't know that mail-in votes sometimes you walk into the office and drop it in the box. It's just that your imagination, getting back to my prior point, your imagination fails. When you read the diary, you say to yourself, I'm pretty sure this could only mean one thing and it's really, really bad. But could it? Can you imagine that if you heard the real story behind it, it would sound different? I'm not saying it would. I'm saying can you imagine it? Because I think we need a little better standard for blaming innocent people of crimes, especially bad ones. It shouldn't be that you strongly suspect it. I think we need to go a little bit better than that. But I'm not saying it's false. I'm just saying a little better evidence would be better.

All right. Speaking of Biden's kids, Hunter Biden's going in for his felony gun charges. You know, when this whole felony gun charge thing first came up, my first instinct is that this is not the thing that I want my legal system to be chasing because I like the Second Amendment, right? And I know that the law, particular law, said he lied on his application and he was an addict and so he shouldn't get a gun. And I understand the technical part of the law. But as a Second Amendment supporter, I just had some problems with the fact that of all the things in the world you would go after him for wanting to own a gun. And probably he's in the category of people who are safer with one. I mean, maybe the people around him are less safe, I suppose. But I've completely changed my mind on this because of the lawfare case. Because I'm fairly certain that Joe Biden would behind the lawfare against Trump. I think his family is in play. Sorry, yeah, yeah. If Hitler were doing Hitler things and you had a chance to take out his kids, you'd do it. You'd do it. And Biden is doing Hitler things. So when you're lawfaring the other candidate, trying to put him in jail and maybe trying to kill him, if the legal system comes for your kid, it's war. It's war. So I would say my empathy for Hunter has disappeared. And I'm not proud of it. I'm not proud of it because it takes me off principle. So anyway, I'm not even going to comment on what I'm seeing in the comments.

All right. You should know it's fake historian season. We're in fake poll, fake news, fake historian, fake justice system territory as we approach the election. But the one I always look forward to is the fake historians. So the bad guys have these historians who will say absolutely anything and they'll act like they're experts because they're historians. Here's what we know today. History is all fake. History is fake. We know that because we're watching fake history being written in real time during our lifetime. What are the chances that it just started? We've always known that the winners write the history. Yeah, there's nothing about our history that's accurate. The facts, maybe some of the big facts about what war happened and who died and who was the king. But all the narrative, the stuff about why anything happened, that's all fake. How would you like your job to be an historian and you have to pretend the history is real? That's a weird job.

So if there's anybody you should not trust in this world, it's someone who thinks history is real because they might also think the news is real today. I because they live in a world in which they have to believe that that fiction is real because their job is to tell you that it is. Hey, that fiction about history, that's totally real. Listen to me. I'm an expert on it. So one of these historians, Michael Beschloss, he's famous for coming out with those grinning things that are bad for Trump. Yeah, have you seen the face where they're a little bit too happy about the things coming out of their mouth? I don't even know how to describe that face, but they're so happy it looks like they're having some kind of physical dopamine overdose wh