in high school. Now apparently he was bullied and he wasn't popular. But has anybody talked to his classmates and said, they say he had no social media. Is that true? His classmates would know if he had social media. Where's that? Now you don't necessarily want to put them on camera because they'd be, well they'd be twenty-two so that'd be fine. So if you had some twenty-year-old people who went to school with him and you say, can you tell me that this is the only twenty-year-old, then he would have been eighteen, who has no social media? Just ask the people who know him. They know for sure. For sure they know if he had social media. They know.

Now I can understand why the people doing the investigation maybe don't want to tell you anything yet because it's an ongoing investigation. But the news, the news knows where he went to school. The news knows his family. The news could easily find his friends. And why isn't the news telling us if he had social media? Because they could. You think they couldn't figure that out? You think there's no way an investigative journalist could find somebody who went to school with you? Just have to find one person you went to school with. Did this guy have social media? Of course he did. Or oddly he did not. Right? So that it's kind of missing. It's kind of conspicuously missing.

Anyway, there's a big headline news today. This is unusual. I mean it's the reason it made news. I've told you before that if a dog bites a man, that's the old saying, that's not news because that could happen. But if a man bit a dog, well that could be news. You know, that's the old saying. So here's one of those. It's, I mean I know you didn't expect this so that's why it's news. Representative Adam Schiff told the truth at a private meeting and made headline news anyway. Next story. Oh you're probably wondering what he said. Well that's not the fun part. What he said was just the truth that you already knew. The story is that Adam Schiff told the truth. That's literally the story. I'm not making that up. The story is that he told the truth. The truth was that he thinks that the Democrats will lose everything if Biden stays in the job. Now don't you believe that that is the truth? It's the truth that it's probably true because you're talking probabilistically. It's probably true. And I probably believe he believes it. So there was nothing new in the idea that the Democrats are panicked about losing everything. So there was no news quality in the fact that there was this one person who believes what everybody else believes. Would you agree? It's not news that there's somebody who believes what everybody else believes. What's news is he told the truth. Just think about that. That's exactly what made it a headline. He told the truth. That is how amazing that is. And he did it on closed doors. So apparently Biden is very sharp behind closed doors. And behind closed doors sometimes Adam Schiff tells the truth. So here's my advice. You should stay away from sloped roofs and closed doors. Y'all.

All right. I posted a message today asking who has the best debunk on the January 6 insurrection hoax because it appears that the media has retreated to that hoax. So that's their strongest remaining hoax because the fine people hoax got debunked. You know Trump is rising in every other way. He's unifying people. So they're sort of running out of hoaxes and their best play is now the January 6 one. So I posted and it's my pinned post if you want to grab it by the way you should if you think you're going to get in this conversation. You should literally screen grab or copy my post. It's the pinned one this morning. And I'll read it to you but I think this is the strongest argument that January 6 was not an insurrection.

All right. It goes like this. Several points. Number one, if somebody says it was an insurrection, here would be your response. Explain to me how trespassing in one building leads to conquering the United States. So that's the kill shot. But then they're going to say if they know enough, you know first of all they probably give up just on that point alone. But if they know a little bit more they'd say, whoa, whoa, whoa, Scott, hold on. It wasn't just about the protesting. No there was also this fake electoral situation. So I mean that was the real coup attempt. To which I say, explain how the alternate or you call them fake electors could have led to the conquering of the United States. Can you conquer a country with paperwork? Did you feel that? Can you conquer a country with paperwork? Because the normal way that would have gone would have been, oh I challenge this to the Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court looks at it and goes, ah get rid of these fake electors. And then that would be it. Just like everything else. It would be absolutely routine for the courts to reject this and then everybody goes their own way just like everything else. But what was the way in which it could have work