into kicking mom out of her nursing home, which by the way is not close to anything that's really going to happen, but wow, that's visual persuasion right there.

Well, meanwhile, Trump says he's got a deal with Vietnam for trade in which there would be no tariff when we sell into Vietnam, but they would still pay a 20% tariff for what they're selling into the US. So that would be a... Oh, and also the bigger part is that Vietnam would not be allowed to take Chinese products and just ship it through Vietnam so it looks like it came from Vietnam to avoid the higher tariffs. The US would impose extra tariffs on stuff that came from China first and that would be a 40% tariff. So Vietnam agreed to that apparently. So that's like a really big deal because it sort of validates what Trump was saying that we have the most valuable market. So we can essentially charge other countries an entry fee just to have access to the market. So Vietnam will pay well, you know, you could say that US companies are paying it, but the point is that it would suppress imports from Vietnam. And sure enough, it would put a price on access to American markets.

There's a report. Anyway, so what's the big deal about the Vietnam thing is if it's true, and it's probably too soon to know if it's the final deal, but if he really got this, it's going to validate everything he said. It's just going to make him look like he was so right about tariffs that the other trade deals might hasten to make a deal maybe. So Trump's having the best summer ever.

Speaking of which, allegedly, according to the Times of Israel, Hamas is satisfied with the Trump-motivated ceasefire idea. So that would mean that Israel said yes to a ceasefire for Gaza and that Hamas has agreed to the terms. Do you believe that? I'm going to put that in my category of too soon. And I only see one source so far, Times of Israel. Now, I'm not saying the Times of Israel is low credibility. I'm just saying that this topic is low credibility. That if you hear that Hamas agreed to do something reasonable, what should be your first response to that? Should you say to yourself, "Wow, finally Hamas decided to be reasonable and make a deal." Or would it be more reasonable to say Hamas is never going to make a reasonable deal with anybody, so obviously the story can't be true? I lean toward I don't think Hamas can make a reasonable deal with anybody. So I lean toward this not being a true story. So I'm not going to embrace it yet. But it would be really impressive if Trump got this done right before the 4th of July. Oh my goodness.

So my optimism wants it to be true because it would be incredible. I mean, it would just be jaw-droppingly give me the Nobel Peace Prize. You know, that conversation is over forever. Best president of all time. So I mean it'd be wonderful if it's true, but I'm going to bet against it at the moment. Maybe it'll be true later.

Well, in a story that in normal times would be the biggest story in the country, but it's just sort of a thing that passes by at this point. CIA director John Ratcliffe. So he's head of the CIA. The CIA did an analysis of the Russia collusion prosecution against Trump. I call it the Russia collusion hoax. And what they concluded was that, and I love this because they concluded exactly what you and I thought was true. So see how many of you say, "Uh, that's what I thought was the case from day one." So they say that John Brennan and Clapper and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals all so they could pursue Trump and try to drive him out of office with essentially just made-up stuff. And according to CIA director John Ratcliffe, the CIA can conclude that they were bad actors who tried to essentially overthrow the election.

Now, when you saw Brennan and Clapper appear on all the networks that they appeared on during the time when the Russia collusion thing was at its peak, didn't you know that they were the two guys behind it and that they had manipulated things? Couldn't you tell every time they appeared on TV? Because I could. I just didn't want to say it out loud because I thought, well, I don't have evidence. So if you don't have evidence, you know, you don't want to get sued for libel or something. But every time I saw Brennan and Clapper, they looked so obviously like they were lying and they were obviously the ones who had the most, you know, their hands on the levers of what happens and what doesn't happen. It seemed really, really super glaringly obvious that they were trying to overthrow the country with their winged monkeys and the media supporting them. So to me, this is just the oldest news in the world. But the new part is that the CIA confirms it. They looked into it. So yes, these three guys, if you had Comey in there as the third, that they literally manipulated things and ignored things that they shouldn't have ignored and focused on things they shouldn't have focused on and they did it intentionally to Trump.

Now, I don't know what the criminal penalty is for that, but it's also part of the twin hoaxes at the moment. Well, you know the story of the fine people hoax that was the central tentpole hoax that was holding the Democrats together. You know, no matter what they thought about their own bad politicians, you could always depend on a Democrat to believe the fine people hoax. And they would say things like, "Well, yeah, my side isn't doing so well, but at least they're not promoting neo-Nazis," which of course never happened in the real world. Trump denounced them. He did not promote them. But as long as that hoax was there, Democrats could manipulate their base because they'd say, "Trump is worse. Look at what he said in Charlottesville," which of course he did not say. He said the opposite. So that hoax was holding up all the other hoaxes and then it collapsed.

So what did they do? They just put in a new tentpole. The new tentpole is January 6. The January 6 quote insurrection. And I was listening to CNN yesterday, I guess, and Anderson Cooper had some journalist on. And the journalist was just so deep into the pure propaganda. No, the 2020 election, the fact that Biden won is a fact. It's a fact. And do you know how he defended that he alone apparently would know that the election was not rigged cuz it's a fact. It's a fact. You can't change it. It's a fact. But you know, there's nothing you can say because it's a fact. It's just a fact. And he would just say that over and over again until the idiots watching that network would say, "Well, I guess we know that for sure." To which I say, "How would anybody know that for sure? Are you telling me that if our CIA tried to throw an election in another country that they get caught every time? Are you telling me that there's nobody involved in United States politics or intelligence or anywhere who would know how to cheat one of our elections? How would we possibly know if somebody knew how to cheat the election and whether they didn't? You can't know what you don't know."

And how in the world do these journalists get off telling you it's a fact when nobody can know that? That is a completely unknowable proposition. Now, do I have proof that that election was rigged? No. No, I don't have any proof of that. The only thing I know for sure with 100% certainty is that you couldn't know just by following the news. Yeah. What are you going to do? You can tell if the election is good because the news said it was good. Have you learned nothing about the news?

And then Anderson Cooper was agreeing with his guests. You know, it's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. Now, in order to sell that fact, they have to get you to believe two ridiculous things