Charles Barkley had a public statement on video that was really echoing what Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said, which is he was encouraging Black people to not be anti-Semitic because it works so much against your self-interest, because obviously it does. And Barkley says this directly: we can't be prejudiced if we're asking White people to respect us. And he says I don't understand how you beat hatred with more hatred.

So I'm completely on board with Charles Barkley. But listening to him and also to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, it reminds me that the Black community doesn't have a strong leader. It's really noticeable, isn't it? That the Black community has lots of concerns that are legitimate but they don't have sort of this one leader, you know? And you'd think it would be Obama but he's kind of retired, if you will.

But when I hear somebody like Barkley or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar talk out in such a pretty productive way — I mean I think this is exactly the most productive way that you could talk — I asked myself why can't we get more Charles Barkleys? He feels to me like he's really good for the country. I'd like to see him have more of a leadership role.

There's a new controversy about Roger Stone. So the controversy is this is the allegation, and you can put your own odds of whether this is true. And maybe by now we know because I turned off my computer a few minutes ago. But the allegation is that he was doing an interview with a Black disc jockey whose name I don't remember, and that allegedly Roger Stone said, when he thought that nobody was listening, I don't want to argue with this negro.

Now that is allegedly what he said when he thought nobody was hearing on the phone but it was allegedly clearly heard. And so when I heard that story I said, wow, I've got to hear this for myself. I've got to hear this for myself. So I clicked on the articles. I'm looking for the link where I can listen to it myself and it's not there. So I go, okay, okay, maybe there's some reason the New York Times doesn't have the link. So I Google it. I gotta hear this for myself because it just — that doesn't — it sounds like the kind of thing that maybe didn't happen, you know what I mean? So I gotta hear it for myself.

So I go from article to article to article, including something by the disc jockey himself with a tweet, and I'm looking for the link. Has anybody heard it? Has anybody heard the actual audio? Because I don't know if we're gonna hear it. Don't they record all radio shows? You think somebody recorded that, right?

So here is my question to you. Although it is reported it is very clearly said on that audio, just remember all the times things have been clear on audio and video and just weren't true. So you should have a really big dose of skepticism coming into that story. And I would encourage this: if you don't ever hear it with your own ears, it didn't happen. If you do hear it with your own ears and other people who are not crazy say I'm listening to it too and I don't hear it, it probably didn't happen.

So I don't know. Will we ever hear that video? If it turns out to be a Yanny and Laurel thing where if you're thinking that you can hear it but if you're not thinking it you can't hear it, probably didn't happen. It was my guess. Probably not. All right. But I wouldn't say for sure. Nothing for sure.

There was an amazing campaign video that apparently was not made by the campaign in which a Linkin Park song was heard. And I tweeted it because it was just one of the best campaign ads even though the campaign apparently didn't make it, because it showed the contrast. So there was lots of contrast between the sparkling bright capitalism that the president promotes versus the cities falling apart under the Democrats. It was a great contrast play but it got yanked because of that copyright problem, which is no surprise.

All right. Oh, here's some more things that are on the list of things that the president has already done wrong. All right. Treason. Pandering to Putin. What was the treason exactly? Treason. Who saw treason? That sounds imaginary. Pandering to Putin. What's the difference between being nice to dictators while you're attacking them with cyber attacks and you're banning their — what are they doing? Sanctioning them, etc.

Anybody who says that the president is pandering to Putin is sort of the lowest level of understanding of your environment. It's sort of the lowest level because if you don't understand that saying nice things to the dictator while you're negotiating with them, while you're trying to make something work, is just smarter. It's just smarter to be polite to them and you show them a little extra consideration while you're also being tough with them. If you don't understand that that's the best way to go, you're not much of an observer.

Here are the other complaints. Nepotism, corruption and profiteering. What would be some examples of things that hurt you because of any of these imagined things? What was it that hurt you? I can't think of anything. Nothing's hurt me.

Destruction of institutions of democracy. Which ones? What would be the institutions of democracy that the president destroyed? Have you noticed that all these complaints about the president are these weird generic hallucinations that don't even have any connection? I think the institution was the news. Do you think the president destroyed the news business? Is he the one that did that? Because it looks like the news destroyed itself with their own business model. I don't see how you could see it any other way anyway.

Hillary's selling our plutonium to Russia. What's that called? That's called just doing business. If you believe that Hillary sold our valuable plutonium to Russia then you did not understand what happened. So first of all the plutonium mines were in the United States. If the United States needed plutonium and the plutonium is in the United States in the mine, would we care who owned it? No, we wouldn't care who owned it. We just say, oh okay, you Russians, you have to sell us all your plutonium now. You can't sell it to other countries. The fact that they changed ownership didn't mean anything, didn't make any difference because they're still in our country. If they didn't sell it to us we just say all right you can't have it anymore. We'll just take it back. There was never any risk.

And our allies Canada and Australia, they produce that stuff. Was Australia going to stop selling us plutonium or whatever we need? Was Canada going to stop selling it to us? There was never a shortage. That was always a fake, just a fake Fox News story. Was it not plutonium? Uranium. Sorry, I don't know my plutonium from my uranium. So erase everything I said about plutonium and put in uranium. So thank you for that correction with many exclamation marks. Uranium, uranium, uranium. I hear you.

All right. Who do you want to moderate the debates? I don't think it matters. I don't think the moderators make any difference.

She sold the plutonium for her personal interest. Well she may have had a personal interest but not that it matters.

If China owns 35 percent of America, no problem. I don't know what you're talking about.

She took huge bribes. When you say bribes you mean that the Clinton Foundation got some money, possibly so. But the problem is not the selling of the uranium. The problem would be the taking of the bribe, wouldn't it, if that's demonstrated to be true? The point is she got rich from the transaction. I believe that the Clinton Foundation may have made some money. That's different.

All right. Russia, Ukrainian. Just looking at your comments. I don't have much to say today. All right.

Don't know your ass from your uranium. That's pretty funny.