process. Do you know how much it would cost to defend against that? They probably just had to go into debt forever, destroy their whole family for a generation. And that's because they were simply politically active and doing what they thought was both legal and appropriate. And the court has found that at least it wasn't illegal. And they lost pretty much everything except their freedom, which is important. But that's the world we live in. Totally broken.

If you're not following this, the story about the ex-CIA director and Brennan and Clapper, both from the intel world, had been set up in a Department of Homeland Security office that's being described as a place to go after Trump's supporters. Apparently they had some concepts about how to identify the bad people, the Trump supporters, the ones they thought were going to be domestic terrorists. And that some of the ways you could detect these domestic terrorists were if they had been in the military and if they had a religious inclination. Religion and military service as indicators of traitors, people that they have to keep an eye on. Now obviously this was set up as a completely illegitimate effort to weaponize the government against Republicans. As Mike Benz characterized it, he says on X, he said today you can have the literal CIA director busted, meaning caught not in the law but busted, setting up a literal government intelligence office to literally go after supporters of the former president. And captured regime media keeps their omertà of total silence.

So as Mike Benz points out, the traditional news is just not even reporting about it. This is like one of the biggest scandals in all of American history, that a group of spooks was set up to hunt, yes, hunt Republicans. Now the words that Mike Benz used was "go after." "Go after the supporters of the former president" is "go after," kind of the same thing as "hunt" to me. It is in this context. So yes, my 2020 prediction that if Biden won in 2020, Republicans would be hunted, was so accurate that there was actually a department set up in the Department of Homeland Security to hunt Republicans. Now they would say, "No, no, we're looking for the bad ones." But they're not looking for bad people who are Democrats. And nobody trusts these particular people because if I've taught you anything, it's know the players. Mike Benz teaches you that much better. But know the players. Brennan and Clapper are a huge glaring signal of fraudulence and bad behavior. It's pretty much all they do. They don't have anything else. So they were behind the Russia collusion op and they're still free. They were behind the laptop hoax, still free. They were behind the insurrection hoax, still free. And then they created an entire department to hunt Republicans, still free. They're still just walking around like regular people. What's up with that? How in the world are they not in jail? How is it even possible? Well, they're clever and they're powerful and they don't do things that are overtly illegal. And lying apparently is pretty legal, especially if you've got a license to lie, as they do.

The only reason I think that they can get away with it in this case, not that I'm sure it was all legal so they got that working for them, is that the public doesn't understand it. I would say no more than half of 1% of the public knows about this story and understands it in context and knows Brennan and Clapper to be who they really are. Almost nobody. So if people did understand that, maybe it would be in the media, the regular media. But it's going to just sort of disappear because we have trouble understanding complicated things.

Glenn Greenwald is a national treasure because he helps more than anybody besides Mike Benz in telling you who the players are. If the only thing you know is what happened, you don't know anything. You have to know the players. So you would have to know that one of the biggest names on MSNBC, the person who's most supportive of the Democrat narrative, is Nicole Wallace. But as Glenn Greenwald points out, she was also famous for being the biggest liar for the Bush administration. So she was the most famous liar for the darkest of the Republicans, the Bush-Cheney people. Now she's the biggest liar for the Biden administration. So you say to yourself, "Hey, did she change sides?" Here's the problem. Probably not. That's the scary part. The scary part is that she probably didn't change sides. She probably always agreed with the military industrial complex, the Brennans and the Clappers. So she seems the most obvious candidate for someone who's not even trying to tell you the truth. Someone whose job it is to not tell you the truth. It looks like she thinks it's her job to never tell you the truth and protect the military industrial complex. And she's not that concerned about which party they're in.

So Greenwald calls her out for being the most famous liar from the Bush-Cheney days. And now she's claiming this is amazing. The word has gone out so that all the big networks are talking about how the video about Biden looking decrepit and dementia-riddled are at least partially cheap fakes. Meaning that yes, it is a video of him, but that because of the way it's shot or the angle or the thing that's left out or the extra video, it's not nearly as bad as it is. And they're making up the fact that he's in bad shape. Now you also have the video of where Obama helped, seemingly helped Joe Biden off stage by holding his hand and sort of walking him off. Now Nicole Wallace, and you have to see this to believe it by the way. When I describe this, you're going to say, "Really? I'm going to have to see that to believe you, Scott." Because I'm going to tell you something that even I know you're not going to believe unless you see it. So she says she's telling the story about how that video is a cheap fake, a misleading thing. And she says that what really happened was that when it was over, Biden just turned and walked off. And that whole thing about Obama taking his hand, that never even happened. Except that you watched it on video. So how could she tell the story about a video and then say that the thing that everybody sees in the video didn't happen?

Do you know how she did it? She talked about it and showed the video before it happened. So you can see them standing on stage. So you'd say to yourself, "Oh, they're showing the video." And then when he goes to walk off stage, they don't use the video that clearly shows Obama taking his hand. They take a shot from the back of the audience where you can't see anything and their heads are in the way. And then she says while you can't see them that they just walked off stage and that it's fake. She actually showed you video that didn't show what was happening and tried to make you think she was describing what was happening when you couldn't see it. And it was opposite of what we have already seen. Now imagine if you only watched MSNBC. You would actually think that was fake news because there was nothing about it that screamed it was fake if you were just casually watching the news. But if you'd seen it, yeah, you could call it a Rupar, I suppose. But if you'd seen it and you knew the real story, it is such a head-shaker. It's like I cannot believe we live in this world where MSNBC could put her on knowing that she's telling a lie about this story and showing the fake video. And that she just goes to work the next day. There's not a single person in the network to fire her or tell her to run a correction. The entire network is in on it. So you don't have to wonder if the rest of the network's in on it. You know, have you noticed that even on Fox News you'll occasionally get somebody disagreeing, right? But you don't really see that on MSNBC. Yeah, you'll never see it.

By the way, here's something I learned recently on CNN. One of their legal analysts was curiously supportive of Trump's point of view that he was being lawfared in the New York case. And it really stood out because, and I remember I was saying to you, "Wow, this is really a standout honest thing because it's not the direction that CNN likes to report." But he's saying it very clearly that this case is garbage and that Trump is being lawfared. Later I found out that he used to work for Bragg. Do you know that? Or he worked with him. So he knew him personally and worked with him. Do you think that made a difference? I do. Remember, I keep telling you that you have to know the players. If you don't know the players and who they've worked with and their associations and stuff, you don't understand anything. And here's somebody who worked with Bragg. He worked with him. And he was the only one at the network to say this. It kind of suggests that he knows more about Bragg than we do because he worked with him. And it could be that he doesn't have a good feeling about Bragg in general. And he's using this situation to, let's say, stick the shiv in. I'd love to know how good his relationship with Bragg was because maybe it's not so much a story about a brave analyst who's bucking what his network wants him to do. Maybe it's a disgruntled guy who worked with somebody who had it coming and he just decided to deliver it when he got a chance. It's one of those. Or maybe both. But either way, I believe he was reporting it straight and honestly and I appreciate it.

The fact that the Democrats have moved to full gaslighting, I think is someth