I'm at on this. I'm sort of at I don't think I want to use a name on this one because remember what I said if you don't see a video you have to suspend credibility basically you know it doesn't mean it's false but it doesn't mean it's true so my minimum for the pipe bomb video to be credible to Scott not to you just to me this would be my personal standard I would have to see a video of the alleged person walking in in a way that would be similar enough to what they got in video. And then I would have to see the actual video, which I'm not even sure they showed us the actual video. It might have been some kind of clipped or AI video or something. So there's something going on.

And do you remember my first take on this? Because it's important to track people's first take to see how crazy they are. My first take was that if I don't see the video, it's not a thing. And that's where I still am. No video, no thing.

Well, still Mark Levin and Candace Owens and I guess Tucker, they're still trying to entertain us by creating some right-wing controversy that didn't need to be created whatsoever. I'm really curious what they think about the whole situation because it shouldn't matter to any of you, should it? That they all have different opinions. I said, and I'll say this again. I've said this 10 times. If I were Jewish, then things that wouldn't bother me if I'm not Jewish would probably bother me and I would see them as anti-Semitic. And so when I see somebody with a Jewish background say that's anti-Semitic, I say to myself, it's not a yes or no. You just have a filter. Not just, but you have a filter that would guarantee that if somebody just keeps walking up to that line, you've got a right to ask, why are you always up on that line? Why are you so interested in this? Perfectly fair question, but it doesn't mean you're a monster.

So and I can't read mine, so I don't know. But I definitely see that if I were in a group that looked like at a historical reason to be worried about something that looks exactly like this to them, maybe not to everybody. I can see it. I can see why you'd be concerned about that, but I would be more in the get together and talk it out kind of world. I'm not sure the I think Mark Levin might be the one who doesn't want to platform anybody. Doesn't want to platform. I feel like the only people I don't want to platform are the people who don't want to platform anybody. That feels like the only sin, doesn't it? The only sin is censoring, not platforming. So but anyway, use your own judgment.

You know how I always tell you that the Democrats have what I call the designated liars? They have liars that tell the lies that the normal Democrats just can't do because they're just too big. The lies are just so obviously lies and they're so ridiculous that the regular ordinary normie Democrats can't tell that but Jamie Raskin can and Swalwell can and Adam Schiff can. You know, they're among what I call the designated liars. So they trot them out when they need to.

So one of them, this one was funny today because there's always a video of Jamie Raskin saying the opposite of what he's saying now almost every time. And not too long ago, not too many years ago, he wanted to do away with the filibuster. Can you guess which party was in charge of the presidency and maybe the House when he wanted to get rid of the filibuster? You're right. When the Democrats were in charge, he wanted to get rid of the filibuster. What do you think he thinks about the filibuster now? Because it was a good idea then. It'd be even a better idea now, right? Nope.

So when you see the two videos side by side, by the way, I should be giving a video credit and I'm not because I didn't write it down. So if anybody has a video credit for that clip, find it. That was genius. They should get some attention.

One of the other designated liars, Chris Murphy, he's pretty funny. He's actually talking about, I read this in a Jonathan Turley article on The Hill. So Chris Murphy is talking about keeping the government shut through the midterms. Now I'm no political expert. I just watch it on TV and on the internet, but is that really an advantage to keep the government shut through the midterms? Doesn't that sound batshit crazy to you?

And then I thought, oh, let's put this in context. The context for the Democrats seem to be that something good happens and then they all try to guess what it was that made the good thing happen. But they don't know what made the good thing happen. So for a while they thought that swearing is what made somebody win an election. Why? Because they can't tell what works. They had no idea what works. They're l