t and I'm totally wrong and now that I see the evidence of that. They don't. They back up to a related hoax that had nothing to do with the original and they try to claim that the related thing is the thing.

For example, when Russia collusion fell apart, the Democrats didn't say, oh god, I guess that was just a big old hoax. No, they said Paul Manafort went to jail for giving some internal polling data to a Russian oligarch. So really it was right all along. No, that's going down the hoax funnel that it was never about Paul Manafort doing something with this one Russian. That was not the Russia collusion hoax. But once they lose their main claim, as they did when the Mueller report came out, that they had to retreat down the funnel to something that sounds like it and has some factual basis, but it's not really the same thing. It's not even the same general point.

So here's what Snopes did going down the funnel. Yes, I'm very glad that they said Trump did not call the neo-Nazis fine people, but Snopes said it is false that there were any normal people there. Now those are my own words. Normal people in this context would be people who were not racist, did not agree with the racists, did not march with the racists, but still wanted the statues to remain. You know, they had an opinion. They just wanted to be there for that. And now Snopes says that it's not true they existed.

How did they explain that I actually talked to them personally? I talked to locals, Charlottesville locals, who saw on the news that there was a protest just down the street, and they saw that a whole bunch of people from out of town, this is important, a whole bunch of people from out of town were coming to their town to tell them what kind of statues they can have. And so some of the locals said, well how about all of you? How about we decide if we have these statues? And you know, they liked them for historical reasons.

I asked directly, do you side with, agree with or disavow the racists? They said very directly, oh we totally disavow them. We want nothing to do with the racists. We're not racist. They are racists. We want nothing to do with them.

So now once I say that, where do you go in the hoax funnel? Do you know the third ring of the hoax funnel? Once I say I have personally done the research and I'm talking to you and I'm telling you that there were fine people there who were not racist and not with them. What did they say? Well Scott, why would they be marching with the racists then? But that didn't happen. They were physically separated, nowhere near them. Didn't plan to march with them. Never would have marched with them. Hated their guts.

So then when I point that out that they weren't physically there, in fact the police kept everybody away from the marchers. So even if you wanted to march with them, you couldn't have got near it. You could have been in the area of the protest, but you could have gotten nowhere near the marchers. Even if you wanted to jump in and help them, you couldn't. The police were preventing you from getting near them for good reasons.

So what comes next? How could anybody not know it was a Nazi event? So Scott, since they all had to know it was Nazi organized, I'm not really believing that they went there for their own purposes because who goes to a Nazi event, Scott? Who goes to a Nazi event? To which I say again, I talked to them and I asked that question and they said, I didn't know it was a Nazi event. I just heard there was a thing on the news. So the local news reported it that there's people protesting statues and they had an opinion. So they got in their car and they drove down there. That's what it was. They had an opinion. They drove down there to maybe to watch, but maybe also to have their opinion known.

So Snopes is not credible in the sense that they're still lying. And they have to know they're lying because they did the same thing. Not Snopes necessarily, but the way the 2020 election is covered, they act like if they don't do the research, they can say there was no problem with the election. Well nobody found anything, so therefore there was nothing to be found. That's not how anything works. If nothing's found, you only know that nothing was found. It would be a rare situation where such as looking in a box that you have in your hand where not finding it would conclusively tell you there's nothing in it. Right? If you're holding a box and you're looking in the box, well yes, you can tell that if you looked in it and it's not there, there's nothing in the box. But you can't tell that about this big system where you couldn't possibly see all the moving parts. Yeah, that's not a thing.

So to say that there were no fine people when the only people who tried to check found them, the New York Times found some and I found some easily. So that's the third ring of the hoax, but it's enough so that Trump, if he chose to, could say, you know, this Snopes which leans left said the fine people thing was a complete hoax. If he said that during the debate, that'd be pretty strong because the Democrats have heard of Snopes and they would take that seriously, I think.

Well, there's new news about the alleged badness of Paul Ryan. Kash Patel is saying that there's a British court case. There was some kind of case over there that somehow has produced information that we hadn't seen before that alleges that Paul Ryan, Democrat, some would say anti-Trumper, but I'm sorry, a Republican. He was a Republican leader, but an anti-Trumper. So an anti-Trump Republican who is also on the board of Fox News, I believe. But we're finding out or the allegation is that he got a copy of the Steele Dossier in 2016 and never told anybody. In other words, he was one of the first people to have a full copy of the Steele Dossier and never till this day mentioned it.

Now the question you have to ask yourself is, since we know the Steele Dossier was created as a fraud for the intention of destroying Trump, doesn't it raise a little question about why they would give one to a Republican? If you suspected that Paul Ryan, you know, maybe more connected to the military-industrial complex and not so much a Republican, this would be evidence for that claim. That they knew that it wasn't his party that mattered. It just mattered if he was in favor of big wars. And maybe he was.

Now I'm just speculating. We don't know what was in the mind of Paul Ryan. We don't know why he kept it. Maybe he has a perfectly good reason. I mean the reason could be as simple as he didn't think it was real, so he just didn't mention it. It could be just that. So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that we know what this means. But is it disturbing? Very. How did we get to that today without knowing that he was one of the first people who had a full copy of the Steele Dossier? And what did he think about it when he saw it? Did he believe it? So we do have some questions, don't we? We have questions.

All right. Now Biden is gaslighting Israel. So the Democrats are very consistent. They're in full narcissist mode where they'll tell you that what you're looking at you can't see. So as you know, when we look at Joe Biden walking like a cadaver and babbling, we know his brain is gone. So what do the Democrats say? No, he's fine. What are you talking about? Oh, in private he's fine. Yeah, it's probably just some gaffe. No, you're not seeing what you're seeing. No, no, he's fine. So if they can sell that, if they can sell that, they can sell anything.

And now they're gaslighting Israel. Joel Pollak had an article on this in Breitbart. So apparently Yoav Gallant, he's the head of the military, had to come to America to see if he can get the Biden administration to release the shipment of arms and ammunition that Israel says it needs, but the White House claims it is not withholding. So Israel believes that they're not giving them the weapons. And what is the Biden White House saying? Yes we are. Well no you're not. Because you have the weapons. We need the weapons. You know what the weapons are. You've agreed to give us the weapons. We don't have the weapons. You have not given u