ded his upper echelon staff. Dude that apparently according to Comey in an email, so this was back in the beginnings of the investigation about Russia collusion. So Comey had an email that Brennan insisted the dossier be included in the Intel assessment. To which I say to myself how do you interpret that? Brennan would know. It seems to me, you know, can't read his mind but common sense tells you that he would have known that the sources of the Intel were Russian. Russian spooks. Brennan had to know that the source of the Intel was Russian Intel people. And then he wanted it to be included in our system which would have changed the result or had a high chance of changing the result of the U.S. election. Think about that.

What is being reported is that Brennan was aware that Russian Intel people had created a questionable document that almost certainly was false information because they came from sources that would give you false information. And that it was by its nature would affect the election. Now we see people on the right say, "Hey doesn't that prove that Brennan was the one who was doing the Russian collusion?" To which I say that makes a hundred percent sense. Brennan knew what he was doing. He knew where the sources were. He knew how reliable they were which was not. He knew that it was disinformation or he had to know because he was smart enough to know that from high Russian sources who wanted to change the result of the election. And Brennan wanted to change the result in the election the same way the Russians did apparently by some kind of. But no let me modify that statement. I don't know that the Russians wanted to change it the same way Brennan wanted to change it. We know that the Russians wanted to interfere and all that looked like interference. So but why is it that the entire news cycle is not "Russia collusion is real and it turns out it was Brennan" who, as far as we can tell until you know it's not confirmed you need investigations but as far as we can tell the paper trail says that Brennan and Comey were involved with Russian interference. In other words that they colluded with Russia. How is that not objectively obviously true? How is it not completely obviously objectively true that Brennan and Comey have a paper trail saying that they indeed colluded with Russia? Meaning colluded with the Steele dossier that came from Russian sources which they knew to change this, to interfere with the election. How is that not completely a hundred percent a true statement?

Now again you know you need investigations to make sure that emails meant what you thought and people were doing what we imagine. But here's my theory. It's cognitive blindness. Meaning that we can logically see the connection that I just drew but we can't quite wrap our heads around the fact that we have the story opposite for two years plus. Because the whole story had been framed so vigorously as the Trump organization was colluding with Russia and now we know it was literally the opposite. The Trump organization was being framed by people colluding with Russia. Now again it could turn out that that interpretation that I just gave you is overstated. That could be the case. But the evidence that we have very strongly suggests that was the case and there doesn't seem to be a counter narrative to that. In other words there's nobody arguing the other side. There's just the evidence that very clearly says that and that's it. That's all we know.

So I think that the human brain can't make that much of a 180. It's hard to go from two and a half years of thinking the Trumps were involved with Russia collusion. We can get ourselves or some of us can to a new truth that that didn't happen. But if you noticed that half of the country can't even get there. Half of the country is still stuck in the last movie where they believe that the Mueller report actually shows collusion. They're actually reading the same page and they can't even see the words the way they were intended apparently because they see a completely different story on the same page. And it's a page written by lawyers to be as clear as possible. And as clear as possible as we could not we could not determine any collusion or conspiracy. So I think that what we're seeing is a weird cognitive blindness that we see in a lot of different situations where it's just too hard for people to get their heads into that new frame because it's so different from what it had been two years ago. And it's not because the facts don't clearly and unambiguously suggest that's what we should be talking about. Because the facts do clearly and unambiguously state that Brennan was colluding with Russia to change the result of a U.S. election. I just don't see any other way those facts could be interpreted. But again that's just the facts of evidence. You always have to wait, give people their day in court. Brennan like anybody else is innocent until proven guilty. I don't want to suggest otherwise. But if you're in the news business you have to prove, you have to, you should be talking about the news that is in evidence. And the news in evidence does not look good for Brennan. Why is that not on the front page? Why is the front page of CNN not "Well it looks like there's very strong evidence that the head of the CIA was trying to change the results of the election and we've got a paper trail that proves it and all evidence points that way perfectly"? How's that not the front page of CNN? There's something definitely broken in the system.

Alright let's talk about executives at Deutsche Bank. So here's the headline. I think this was a CNN headline. Executives at Deutsche Bank rejected the advice of their specialists when some transactions by the Trump organization that got flagged. Alright so there's a bank, Deutsche Bank, and they have specialists who look for transactions that are questionable. These specialists it is reported flagged transactions from the Trump organiza