d in the real world. Trump never said anything about inviting or not inviting any World Series people. And the community note says the claim stems from a fabricated screenshot. Fact checks on the White House confirms no such Trump post exists. The image came from a satire account and never appeared on his platform.

So it’s a completely imaginary problem which I have taken the initiative—as you know I do, I like taking initiative—to refer this matter to the Department of Imaginary Concerns, which handles all of the Democrat problems because they’re all imaginary concerns.

But Stephen King, to his credit, when fact-checked, he realized that he had spread some misinformation and he went on and said it was his mistake. So he took responsibility for it. I’ll give him that.

Meanwhile, over on MSNBC—that’s soon going to be MSN Now—Lawrence O’Donnell tried to dunk on Scott Jennings for being what he said. “CNN eagerly pays a Trump supporter, Scott Jennings, to lie every day and night for Donald Trump.”

So MSNBC is now going after CNN as an enemy because CNN’s not as right-leaning crazy as they used to be. They actually have somebody on there that will do a very good job of spreading the Trumpish point of view.

But he claimed—and I wondered about this—Lawrence O’Donnell claimed that his show at the same time slot as where Jennings appears on Phillips, he says he has triple the audience. Do you think that’s true? Has triple the audience? Because that would not be a good look for CNN if MSNBC has triple the audience for their what I think is their weakest host, Lawrence O’Donnell. But maybe he brings some people in. Maybe they like hearing him say bad stuff about Trump.

Anyway, it’s just amazing that if CNN adds some balance to the reporting that that’s a whole segment on MSNBC about how they shouldn’t be adding any balance to their reporting. So good job there, Lawrence O’Donnell.

Meanwhile, you all know about Prop 50 in California. It’s a proposition that would, if passed next week, would allow California to do some extra partisan redistricting. And that would give them maybe one more representative in Congress if they do it right. That’s the plan anyway.

However, according to people who understand constitutions and laws and stuff like that, which seems relevant to this topic, it probably won’t survive a court challenge, at least at the Supreme Court, because it explicitly uses race as the dominant factor in deciding where to redraw the lines.

And I thought to myself, wait a minute. I’m no constitutional scholar, but if you ask me on a multiple-choice test, will the Supreme Court be in favor of racial discrimination or opposed to it? I think I would say they’d be opposed to it, at least by a conservative majority. So I don’t feel like this is going to make it. That argument seems like a slam dunk, doesn’t it?

As soon as the conservative majority Supreme Court hears, “Uh, wait, how did you draw these new lines?” “Well, we drew it so we could get more Black representation.” What? That is exactly what’s illegal. Exactly. That’s exactly what’s illegal. So I don’t know. We’ll see.

But not to be outdone, Indiana governor, Republican, according to Newsmax, he wants to do some redistricting too. We’ll see if that happens.

And I did a post yesterday that I got so much pushback, but it’s because you people didn’t read my post carefully. So let me do a correction. It’s a correction in the sense that I should have been extra clear about something I was clear about. I mean, I wrote it very clearly, but sometimes you just have to hit a point more than once because it’s not going to sink in. So that’s on me.

So yesterday I saw what was a PR photo of Mamdani and I noted that his eyes and his smile are compatible. Now, if you know the science of spotting liars, which I spend a lot of time studying because it’s sort of a hobby—not the lying, the studying of the lying. Lying is not my hobby.

One of the biggest tells is if somebody’s smiling but their eyes are not joining in on the smile. You’ve heard that one before, right? Is that something you’re familiar with? That’s how you tell somebody’s a psycho or has mental problems or they’re lying to you.

So his eyes match his smile. And so I did a post where I said, you know, I wasn’t supporting him as a candidate. I was just saying that it’s just a fact that part of his success may lie directly with the fact that his eyes and his mouth match, which gives you the sense of credibility and honesty.

Now, where did I go wrong there? Everybody said, “But Scott, don’t you know that it’s been photoshopped?” To which I said, “Yeah, but I’ve seen his videos. I mean, I’ve seen him live lots of times and his eyes also match his smile most of the time.” Then people would send me one photo where he wasn’t smiling. Okay, that’s not really a debate.

And then people would say, “But Scott, he’s Muslim, so he’s doing this taqiyya thing.” Every time there’s a Muslim in the news, some Republican will tell me, “But Scott, they have a whole belief system around lying to people who are not Islamic.” You know, it has a name. Taqiyya. Is that what it’s called? I think I’m pronouncing it wrong, but it’s something in that category.

To which I say, “Okay, where’s the part where I said he’s telling the truth?” That’s where I went wrong. So I was trying to carefully say he looks credible, which would be a distinction between looking and being honest and all that. I don’t know if he’s honest. I can’t read his mind. So I’m not really dealing in the domain of whether he’s lying or not lying.

But that was my mistake because people thought that’s what I was doing. No, I was saying he’s got the look which could propel him through politics.

But then I thought it would be extra helpful to tell you about people who don’t have that look so they’re fighting against it. Taqiyya.

Think about Hakeem Jeffries. Hakeem Jeffries has a creepy smile and sadly there’s nothing he can do about it, but he was just born with creepy eyes. So that doesn’t really work for politics. Like he can never be president with those eyes, unfortunately for him.

Think about Chuck Schumer. Think about who’s smiling and it seems like he’s got a weasel smile that doesn’t match his eyes, right? So you can… But then think of Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary. His smile and his eyes match. So one of the reasons that he has credibility is, you know, his great experience, he’s done a great job so far obviously, but he also has a look—just his face, his smile, which he smiles often, matches his eyes which are smiley.

How about Marco Rubio? Same. When he’s in a jocular mood, which is not always—I mean, he has a serious job, so lots of times he has to act serious. But when he’s just joking around, do his eyes match his smile? Yeah, they do. Rubio’s face totally works.

How about Vance, JD Vance? He is a little more complicated because he has a little bit more of a theatrical control over his facial muscles, meaning that he can change his face to fit whatever situation he’s talking about. So he’s got more of a range. So he’s sort of in a different category because he can really manage the whole facial thing better than other people.

But Trump has the ultimate facial game. Have you noticed that? I give you as my argument his mugshot. You remember his mugshot? Now the face he gave on the mugshot was obviously intentional and obviously world-class. You’ve seen him also smiling at things and you’ve seen him grimacing at the press.

So Trump actually, I don’t know if you know this, but a million years ago when he was a young man, he actually was serious about becoming a th