that's true, but it's a low reliability.

Speaking of low reliability, Catherine Herridge and a number of other people reporting about the, I guess we have some new information about the internal deliberations at the FBI during the time that the Hunter laptop story was breaking. And the news is that the FBI knew that it was real, but they just shut up and told everybody to shut up about it.

Now, did you have the same experience with this story that I did? If you already heard it, that didn't you think, didn't we already know that everybody in the government was lying about the laptop and that they knew it was real? I had trouble figuring out what was the new part. Maybe I just assumed it, didn't you? Is there even one person listening who thought the FBI thought that that was fake or the Department of Justice or those 51 intel people who said it looked like Russian disinformation or something like that? I didn't think that there was anybody who thought that was real. I didn't think there was anybody who thought it was anything but real. I thought we knew everybody in the government was lying in every capacity in every place, including the FBI.

But I guess Catherine Herridge is going to do an expose with or a deep dive with Michael Shellenberger. I don't think they've worked together before, so this could be interesting. And so they got newly released FBI chat messages and basically people were told to stand down and shut up about it. But again, why does it feel like it feels like I saw the future or something, right? Because I kept reading and thinking, didn't everybody know this? Didn't everybody know the FBI was lying if they were involved at all? Stop acting surprised that the FBI lied to you.

Well, the New York Times has inexplicably written a very long story about the US involvement in Ukraine. I guess this was yesterday or the day before. And it kind of reveals what all of us already knew again. So this is like the same thing I said about the last story. Didn't you already know that the US was deeply involved in creating the situation that caused war in Ukraine? But now the New York Times is revealing to us through their investigation that yes, the US was very involved. But what they were keying on here is that the targeting information was coming from US people at a German military base and that even General Milley was directly involved in planning for the Ukraine military and there were even troops on the ground. US troops on the ground in Ukraine, presumably advising, but I would think helping with targeting and I would think helping tell people which button to push on the weapons if they're American weapons.

And so again, I asked the question, didn't we all know that? Is there anybody who is watching this who didn't know that there must have been US military people sort of embedded with the Ukrainians from day one? I just thought everybody knew that. So now it's a big story in the New York Times and people are like, "What?" But seriously, in the comments, didn't you all know that we had boots on the ground from day one? Because that's the way everything works. You don't have to know about Ukraine. You just have to know anything about the United States. And anything about the United States would tell you of course we had people pretending not to be our military who were our military. Might have been CIA, might have been just special forces or something, but they just take off their outfits, dress like Ukrainians, which I guess dress like Americans, and they're just training them. Maybe they're just training them. This is the least surprising story of all.

But there's some speculation. I saw Jack Posobiec talking about it and that the New York Times might be trying to maybe cover their own asses or get ahead of the fact that there will be more coming out so it doesn't look like they didn't do their job. So I don't know. So apparently the US has been directly involved in a war with Russia the entire time, which again, I thought everybody knew it. None of you were surprised, right? It's just how we operate.

Anyway, so now that there are multiple offers for TikTok, Wall Street Journal is reporting that Trump is going to be briefed on all the offers and make some kind of a decision. But here's my question. Isn't it up to China? If China says you can't sell it or TikTok says it, but really we would imagine that China has to approve. And I don't think China's going to sell it. So if I had to predict, I think that China would eat the billions of dollars of revenue that they could have made, 50 billion or whatever it is. Because a lot of that would have gone to the investors. It wouldn't go to China. If you were China and you knew you were going to lose control of TikTok in America anyway, just America, would you sell it if you thought you had a little money involved? You know, maybe a billion here or there, or would you just say, "No, we'll just go out of business in America and just sell it everywhere else." I think China is not going to approve the sale. So I think Trump is going to have to kill TikTok, which China would be challenging him to do because you know how unpopular that would be? That would be super unpopular because even Trump has said he's on TikTok