in now. Is the study wrong? I wouldn't know. Would you? Maybe the people who say the study's wrong are the ones that are wrong. But my point is sometimes the studies or the data will be correct but it's never going to be credible. So you still can't use it or you still can't trust it. You can use it but you can't trust it.

Here's some more data that is fake. The data might be real but the interpretation may be fake. So you know that the lawyer representing over 120 victims of the Diddy party situation, so there's a lawyer, he's got a hundred clients that are going to try to get money I guess from some kind of reports of bad behavior. But since the lawyer went public with all those people who are going to be complaining and maybe trying to get money, they've received 12,000 phone calls with tips on various bad Diddy behavior. 12,000.

Now here's what you need to know about that. If you took any public figure, even one that wasn't real like Mickey Mouse, I'll use Mickey Mouse as my example because Mickey doesn't exist. If somebody did a press release and said we have 120 complaints that Mickey Mouse was sexually assaulting them, what would be the most obvious thing that would happen after that? Well I think you would get 12,000 phone calls from people who said Mickey Mouse sexually assaulted me too. Can I get in on this?

Yeah. So what you should not interpret from 120 people who got a lawyer to go after Diddy triggering 12,000 phone calls of more reports of Diddy, this will be your toughest challenge for assuming innocent until proven guilty. There are 12,000 reports of guilt and you somehow as a citizen of the United States, if you're playing it right, if you're playing it fair, still innocent. Still innocent.

Now trust me I have the same instinct about this that you do. It feels like he's not innocent. It feels like he's not. But I'm going to try as hard as I can to set a standard here that only the government is guilty from the get-go. They have to prove they're innocent. But citizens, you're really going to have to prove they're guilty. And this doesn't do it. 12,000 phone calls doesn't do it. One lawyer with over a hundred clients doesn't do it. That's not good enough. It might be later. I mean of course after the evidence comes in we'll redecide. But don't decide because so many people said that they were there or saw it. I mean all it is is the anonymous source about Trump times 12,000 basically.

Well speaking of Diddy, I was looking at Netflix for something to watch last night and there's a Netflix documentary about Clive Davis, you know the music mogul guy who made a lot of people rich and made a lot of stars. And I gotta say it was fascinating but it's twice as fascinating now that you know the context of the accusations against Diddy.

Here are some things to look for. And I want to say this very carefully. I'm not aware of any accusations against Clive Davis. So again everybody I mention is innocent unless some court of law says they're not, right? So I'm making no allegations. I'm just saying that if you watch this documentary which is made to be very complimentary to Clive Davis, I assume he was behind the making of it because it's just so complimentary, but you have to watch this with your current context. Everything looks different now. I don't know if the everything looking different is my bias creeping into a story in which there was nothing that was wrong. I don't know.

But some of the things I learned were that I didn't know that Clive Davis had come out as bisexual at some point. So he liked relations with men and women. And in the context of hearing the Diddy allegedly, again we don't know for sure, was allegedly forcing himself on young male people. And then in the documentary we see that Clive Davis discovered Diddy or he was a big part of Diddy's advance and that Diddy saw him a