because they can claim we knew some of it was not credible. We didn't know at the time that none of it was true. They might even claim some of it was true because you've heard them say that recently. Well, not everything was debunked. Even though I think there's no evidence for any of it, but there's some of it that maybe wasn't debunked. It's just there's no evidence for it. So is that the same? If you can't debunk something, but you can't prove it didn't happen, maybe sort of you could argue that the intelligence people said, well, you know, it wasn't the best evidence talking about the Steele dossier, but it did fit the other stuff we were looking at in some way. So somehow it fit into the larger story. So you know, it was our judgment that that needed to be part of it. Now, in retrospect, we can look at it and say, "Well, that was a terrible judgment." But do you think they can argue, "Well, we were wrong. Maybe we were wrong, but that was our legitimate judgment that Russia was helping Trump." It just seemed likely. So I don't think that anybody's going to get perp walked and put in jail over this. I know you want it, and I want it too. Trust me, I want people to go to jail. I just don't want you to feel too disappointed when it doesn't happen. Get it? I'm priming you.

Bill O'Reilly predicts that John Brennan, who is the CIA chief behind all of that, will be indicted for publishing fraudulent intelligence reports. He said that to News Nation's Chris Cuomo. I don't know, maybe indicted, but convicted. I'm still going to say no. He will just weasel his way out of that, I think. And he would be charged with essentially making up the argument that Putin intended or preferred Trump to win. So apparently there's no evidence that Putin wanted Trump to win or expected he could. And indeed there's some evidence of the opposite although I don't know how they got that. So the evidence for the opposite appears to come from secret sources. So I hate to say it, but I don't believe any secret sources. So if they have secret sources that say Putin knew that Hillary was going to win or expected her to win and that he was keeping some secrets to weaken her administration when she got into office, but that he was not trying to get Trump into office. He was trying to hold on to things to weaken Hillary when she got into office. Now, how do we know that? I'm pretty sure that they can't tell us how they know that because I would suggest some kind of source that's pretty close to Putin and we wouldn't want to give that up, obviously. So I don't believe it. It might be true. It might be true. But if you tell me, "Trust us, we have secret ways of knowing this information." That happens to be exactly what my administration wants you to think. That's not good enough for me. But like I say, I'm convinced that they're all dirty and that they did one of the worst criminal acts of all time with the Russian collusion hoax. So I don't have any doubt that they're bad actors who deserve some legal justice, but I'm not sure I buy every part of everybody's story here.

I wanted to tie together something else here. So let me do a few other things and I'll tie together some other stuff. How many of you found out that Obama's hoaxes, which would include the Russia hoax, and it would also include the fine people hoax because Obama was behind that and Biden ran for office. Those two hoaxes, I would argue, ruined my life. Let me say that again. Those two hoaxes, Russia Russia Russia and the fine people hoax, ruined my life because those are the hoaxes that allowed my entire social group to say, "Are you kidding me? You're backing Trump. Trump's a Russian puppet." And he said that neo-Nazis are fine people. So we can't even talk to you again. You're so bad that we can't invite you anywhere. We can't be your friend and you should just fuck off. So this is very personal to me.

What Obama did was he divided the country with these hoaxes because if you imagine a different history where there had never been a Russia hoax and there had never been a fine people hoax. Those were the two primary ways that people became anti-Trumpers like really serious ones where the TDS comes in. Now, I would also argue that it's possible that that's what ushered in all the woke stuff. It's what got me cancelled. So if you were to go back, you know, trace the causes back to their origin, you would find out that Obama and Clinton and Biden, etc., and their hoaxes ruined my life.

Now, I didn't realize that until today because my natural personality is not to complain about it. My natural personality is to say, "Oh, that happened. I guess I have to do this now." So I don't spend a ton of time whining about bad things that happened to me. I just sort of get moving to fix it and make the best of every situation. But if you were to look at it objectively, those ruined my social life and then my professional life. And it was entirely based on two hoaxes. So do I want them in jail? Yes. Yes. I want Obama in jail for ruining my life with what looks like criminal acts to me. And you know, I don't know if the fine people hoax was a criminal act, but it was definitely a conspiracy. They were all in on it and they all knew the truth and the news backed them up. So the news was part of the bad guys. If you said there's a way to make some of the news hosts get handcuffed and taken to jail because they knew that they were supporting a lie, I'd be in favor of that. I don't think there's any law that would support that. But if there were, yeah, I think that some of the people who ruined my life and maybe a lot of your lives should go to jail. Absolutely. I just don't think it's going to happen.

Speaking of Trump derangement syndrome, which I would say those two hoaxes triggered, Graham Noble is writing in Liberty Nation News that there were two Republicans who back in May introduced some legislation. I don't think it's been passed, but they want to have a Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act of 2025. So the Republicans want it to be part of mental health that there's a Trump syndrome and they want the act if it were passed would involve investigating TDS origins and contributing factors including the media's role in amplifying the spread of TDS. Now I think it would go back to the hoaxes. I think it would go back to Obama and Russiagate and fine people and then it would ask people to analyze its long-term impacts on individuals, communities and public discourse. Then explore interventions to mitigate extreme behaviors informing strategies for a healthier public square. That's a little generic. And then have some data-driven blah blah blah and require an annual report to Congress. So it is an epidemic. It is a mental health epidemic and I think you can very clearly see that the Democrat leadership created it intentionally. Maybe they didn't know how bad it would be, but they did it intentionally and they did it for political reasons and it caused 50% of the country to have a mental health breakdown.

Now I didn't get the mental health breakdown. I just got the impact on my social life and my professional life. But mentally, I think I'm okay as far as I know. But their own team paid a big price.

How many of you remember that when Hillary was running against Trump in 2015-16 that I was saying publicly and getting mocked mercilessly for it that Hillary Clinton looked like she had a major medical problem. This was before, this is important, before she collapsed and got dragged into her car after the 9/11 event. Now, after she passed out and had to be dragged into her car, I believe everybody said the obvious. Hey, looks like there might be some medical problem that she's hiding there. So it was easy after she passed out. Can we all agree on that? But I was saying it maybe a year before that and I was even predicting that she might die on the campaign trail. Well, it turns out that based on the Tulsi Gabbard new documents that have come out that allegedly Russian foreign intelligence services, their spy people, they thought that Clinton was experiencing significant health issues in 2016 that Obama administration officials and Democrat leaders found quote extraordinarily alarming.

So Russia was somehow aware, I think it was because they hacked the DNC maybe, but they were aware that the Democrats were super worried about Hillary Clinton's health. So do you want to give me the win on that? I was wrong that she was not deceased during the campaign. So I was wrong on that, but apparently it was pretty bad. And the specific claims include her suffering from quote intensified psycho-emotional problems with quote uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression and cheerlessness and being on a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers to manage those issues. The report also hinted at other conditions. So this is nonconfirmed. Ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, COPD, that would be a breathing problem, and deep vein thrombosis, though we don't have corroboration from any medical records to those.

But her own doctor back after she collapsed in that 9/11 event in 2016, her own doctor said the problem was undiagnosed pneumonia and she had some exhaustion and dehydration and that's why she passed out. Overheating and dehydration. But the belief and here again I don't know how we know this so it's a little sketchy. The belief is that Putin knew about these health problems and thought it would be better to release them after she got elected but that he was not trying to get Trump elected and didn't think that was really an option.

So here is the weird thing about this whole Russia Russia hoax situation. So we were told that Putin's ambition was to sow discord and chaos in our election system. Now, there is evidence that Russia may have been involved in exactly that sort of thing in past elections, and maybe we do the same to them, but it was kind of at a low level. You know, they weren't trying to get somebody elected so much as they were trying to make people doubt the credibility of the election system. So that would be a win for them if they can make the Americans doubt their own system. But apparently the people who made us doubt our system were Obama and what I call his winged monkeys. You know, all of his aides and Brennan and Clapper and those guys. When they were done, they had convinced us that Russia could control who got elected in the United States. Am I wrong that the Russia hoax, the entire point of it is that our election systems and our government are so vulnerable that Russia and Putin specifically would decide who our president was?

Now, can you even imagine anything that would be sowing more discord and chaos? And so now we learned that Putin probably didn't do anything of scale. There were a few things that came in of Russia allegedly, but they're not really of scale. They wouldn't have changed anything. So the weird thing is that the only person who was not involved, I'm going to read this is somebody else's joke. Sergeant Pony Soldier said this on X. So this is Sergeant Pony Soldier's quote. Apparently, the only people not involved in the Trump Russia collusion issue were Trump and Russia. Now, did any of you have that observation? Because when you hear it, you say to yourself, "Oh, damn. That's true. The only people who were not involved in the Russia Trump collusion story were Trump and Russia. Trump wasn't involved in any way." And apparently Russia wasn't either, at least not in any important way that changed anything.

So I saw a post by Cynical Publius on X. Now he's a lawyer but not a prosecutor. So he warns us that his takes are not as good as maybe a prosecutor's take. But he is a lawyer, so he's not totally guessing on stuff. And he did a post on X that was very helpful because he tied crimes, you know, crimes that are on the books to what we know so far about the Russia hoax so that we can see what crimes are in play. And there are six crimes. And I will just read them. So this is from Cynical Publius. If you're on X, you should definitely be following him. He's one of the best accounts you'll follow.

Number one, it would be illegal to knowingly falsify classified intelligence reports for political gain. But you see the trick? It's knowingly. The defense will be, well, we thought it was true. We thought Russia was trying to collude. We thought they did influence the election. So it's not a crime because we didn't knowingly falsify anything. We thought it was true. So the first one, I think, will not put anybody in jail because the knowingly part will be too hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And then you're going to say, "But what about that Steele dossier?" And as I said before, all they have to say is, "We knew that it wasn't highly credible, but we didn't know that every part of it was fake." So we thought it was worthy of considering, you know, it's part of the larger story and maybe we were wrong, but there's no evidence that we knowingly did something fake.

And number two, relying on those knowingly false classified things to do things. But again, number two won't kick in if it wasn't proven that it was knowingly. So number one and two are not going to be a threat to Obama if he can argue, well, we didn't know it.

Number three, releasing classified information to the media. We don't know who did that, right? And the media will go to jail rather than reveal their source. So yeah, that's great that it's illegal to release classified information to the media, but how are you going to catch anybody for that? There's nobody to catch. You'll never catch that person, I don't think.

Number four, conspiring with other government officials to accomplish any of the foregoing. Have they done that? Well, they definitely conspired with other governments, maybe the UK with the Russia Russia stuff, but again, they would have to know that they were conspiring something illegal, but they could argue, "No, we asked for their help, but we thought it was for legitimate reasons."

How about number five? Lying about the foregoing to Congress while under oath. Well, I haven't seen any politicians go to jail for lying under oath to Congress. Have you? Remember Clapper told that whopper that they were not collecting information on Americans and it turned out just total lie. Is Clapper in jail? No. So lying to Congress, probably not putting anybody in jail.

Attempting to cover up any of the foregoing. Well, if you can't prove that any of that was a crime, would it be a crime to try to cover up the thing that wasn't a crime? So here's my non-lawyer take. So remember, Cynical Publius is not a prosecutor. He's a lawyer but not a prosecutor. So you should factor that into what I told you. But then you should also factor in that I'm definitely not a lawyer of any type. But when I look at it just from a common sense, how would you ever prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? I would bet agains