mong other things, is that when people say things extemporaneously, meaning they're talking off the top of their heads, they often will say the truth if you just look for it in the exact wording. So people have a real hard problem of not saying what's true when they're speaking off the top of their head. It's just that they might hide it in a part of a sentence that says the opposite of what is true. This would be it. "I would say" signal or "it's reasonable to conclude" signal. And there's probably a million varieties of that, but yeah, that's telling you he doesn't believe what he's saying.

Another no surprise. Zero Hedge is reporting that a judge has denied the DOJ request to unseal the Epstein grand jury transcripts. How many of you thought that just because the Department of Justice asked for that to be done that you were going to see the Epstein grand jury transcripts? If you believe that was going to happen, you were not well informed on that topic. I don't think there was really any chance it was going to happen. And I'm happy it didn't. I would rather preserve the standard that if you're going to violate something like that, which is really intended to be private because the grand jury is not like the actual case with proven evidence and facts. It's way more speculative as in yeah, that looks like it probably should go to court, but it hasn't gone to court, which means that the defense has not presented its defense. So if you saw a bunch of accusations on a grand jury transcript, you being not a lawyer, you would never say, "Well, it's just a grand jury, you know, we can't take that as fact." No. In a political sense, you would immediately treat it like it was fact when you shouldn't.

So I'm in favor of, as much as I would love to see all the Epstein stuff, I wouldn't want it to be revealed this way. And so I agree with the court to keep the grand jury testimony private.

We've learned that Barack Obama was at his home, which was right near where his personal chef drowned. So he's not, Obama is not being blamed for drowning him, but apparently he was there not necessarily at the drowning site, but at his home that was right nearby. I'm seeing in the comments that Duritz thinks Maxwell should be released because five years is usually the max sentence for what she did. And he says that she got basically Epstein's sentence because Epstein wasn't available. Well, he's probably right.

But there was one witness we heard on this personal chef drowning, Obama's personal chef, that there was a woman who witnessed it, saw him fall off his board and not come up. And so we have one witness that it was an accident as opposed to the murder that you might have suspected, but we have not heard much about that witness. So I wouldn't say that that's 100% conclusive, but I would lean toward accident.

The big news yesterday was Tulsi Gabbard, DNI, released new documents about the Russia Russia Russia hoax and Trump. And she's not recommending specific charges for anybody. But she says and says it repeatedly that the Department of Justice now knows what she knows because they've turned it over to the Department of Justice and they alone will decide if there are any legal charges that are appropriate. But don't look to Tulsi Gabbard to tell you if some law was broken. That is the domain of the Department of Justice which is looking into it.

But let me tell you what we think we know now. We know now from documents that Obama was made aware that Hillary Clinton was planning a fake hoax. The Clinton plan intelligence it was called. So he knew that in the summer of 2016, so before the election he knew that Clinton was doing this fake thing. And I guess John Durham mentioned it in a report, so that's how Obama would know it. Then Obama directed the creation of a new intelligence community assessment that said instead of saying what it said at first, which is there's no evidence that the Russians directly hacked the voting systems and changed any votes. So there's no evidence of any of that, but Obama directed them to rewrite it after Trump was victorious in the election. So that's a little suspicious looking, right? And the rewrite would focus on Russia's meddling, but it wouldn't change the fact that they didn't see any direct changing of votes on the election system.

Then President Obama was part of big discussions in January of 2017. Remember that's just when Trump's coming into office then related to the FBI's targeting of Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn. Now we know that the Mike Flynn targeting was completely illegitimate. And now we know that Obama was in the meetings when the decisions about what illegitimate things they would do against Mike Flynn were discussed. And then Gabbard says there is irrefutable evidence that details how Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false.

Now, here's the part where it gets dicey. How do we know what somebody else knew? I mean, I get that the circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence certainly indicate that they must have known that they were making up a fake hoax. They must have known it was fake. But I'm going to double down on my opinion that you wouldn't be able to prove it in court. So the standard that you and I go by is sort of a common sense standard. If we know that these people did this and that and we know what their incentives were, you can reasonably conclude what they knew and why they did it. But I don't know that it's going to be any legal standard for that, you know, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because it seems that they could simply claim that they thought it was real.

Now, you might say to me, Scott, they knew that the Steele dossier was not credible and yet they used it as part of their explanation of why they could go after Trump. To which I say there's a big difference between knowing it's not credible and knowing none of it's true