he doesn't know that. I would say every adult with an IQ over 110 would know that. I don't have to explain it to you.

Anyway, and of course Putin is running the same play on Trump, you know, flattering. Good morning, Ken. Then the funniest thing I'm watching is that MSNBC always has all these anti-Trump critics who have to be on every day. And one of them is Molly Jong-Fast. And I like watching her because she's so bad. She's just so bad at it. But the lowest level I'm going to say the lowest level of pundit analysis is that the new thing is primarily a distraction to the old thing. Now, I know both sides say that and I've even talked about it myself, but it's the lowest level of clever analysis because the world is full of things that are new news every day. Isn't it more likely that there's new news every day? Isn't that far more likely than, oh, this new thing is a distraction from the old thing, and the old thing was a distraction from the thing before it? I think the better way to say it is that Trump floods the zone. Doesn't allow you to focus on one thing too long. Fills up all the shelf space with things he wants you to think about. So that part is true, but this whole one thing is a distraction to the other thing. There's such a low level of analysis.

David Axelrod, you might know as one of the more famous Democrat advisers. He says that Trump's red carpet embrace of Putin may enrage a lot of Americans. I would say that literally everything Trump does enrages the theater kids. Is there anything Trump could do, including golf? They get enraged if he golfs. Oh, we don't pay him to golf. Well, you don't pay him at all. He doesn't even take pay. Let him golf anyway. Yeah. We have to worry about Democrats being enraged by things Trump does. That's just everything.

Hillary Clinton said some good things about Trump and then there's one part of it that's fake news. Hillary Clinton gave Trump credit for the NATO spending going up to 5%. She gave him credit for Ukraine buying weapons from the US instead of us giving them to him. And she thinks we have a better working relationship with Europe lately, and she's actually encouraged by that. So you might say, wait a minute, what are all these good things that Hillary is saying about him? Then she goes on and she said she'd support a Nobel Peace Prize if Trump got a peace deal without giving up any Ukrainian territory. Now what did the news do with her quote? They hoaxed it up. They cut out the last part. So it's a completely different message. If you leave in the whole quote about if he can do it while not giving any previous Ukrainian land to Russia, that's the part that can never happen in the real world. Literally, not one person in the world, not one, not one person believes that this will end with Ukraine getting back all the land they had before it started. So when she says conditionally that she would nominate Trump for a Nobel Prize if he could get a peace deal while Ukraine got back all of its land that she'd do it. And then the news, the fake news reported that she would nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize if he gets a deal. That's not the deal. Brennan made the same mistake because he will get fake news too. So Brennan was on MSNBC and he boosted what Clinton said. He said, "Yeah, I would agree essentially that if he could do it without and also get back all of Ukraine's property that even he would nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize because that's impossible. It's just not going to happen."

And anyway, so I wonder if Hillary Clinton will try to soften her approach to Trump because Trump now has his Department of Justice looking into all of her crimes. Is it possible that Hillary has decided to vastly soften her approach to criticizing Trump because she doesn't want him angry at her at the same time he has the goods on her in the legal system because once Trump decided not to go after her in his first term. So she would know that is within the realm of possibility that he could have the goods on her and decide not to pursue it or tell his people to stand down. So you might be seeing her softening her anti-Trump approach to keep herself out of jail. That might be happening.

Well, I guess there were some protesters up in Alaska. I guess it was Ukrainian protesters. Their signs were funded by somebody who used to work for Kiev's Soros Foundation. I guess Data Republican found out who the funding came from and Data Republican on the X platform. You should follow that account. She's amazing.

And I will propose to you again the following fact. There's no such thing as organic protests in America. Maybe nowhere, but there is no such thing as an organic protest. If you saw the signs of the protesters, it's just all these old white retired people who must be doing it for $100 because you know that they got nothing to do and they could use $100. None of it looks real. And I don't know if we've now completely defanged the whole idea of the fake protests because once you know that they're all fake, do they still have power? You know, Black Lives Matter had a lot of power. But if you knew it was fake from day one, would it ever have had that much power? I don't know. We may be past the point where these big protests have the same impact. We'll all just go fake Soros.

So do you remember the 2018 Russia summit? So that was the first time that Trump met with Putin. And according to the Federalist, Hans Mahncke is writing that Tulsi Gabbard has released two emails. They show that just two days before the Trump-Putin summit, well hold on, in late 2016 DNI James Clapper pushed for a fraudulent narrative that Russia had hacked the DNC. And the timing, apparently some of this Russia hoax was timed to make it impossible for Trump to get a good outcome in 2018 with Putin. And as Hans Mahncke points out, special counsel Robert