probably thinks they are. Oh Quid Pro Joe. That's the best.

And by the way I think Quid Pro Joe is another example that bubbled up from just a Twitter user. I don't know who it was but I think some Twitter user or somebody said it first and it was good so it bubbled up. That's your new republic right there. It's amazing.

Chris Cillizza has the funniest article that wasn't trying to be funny today. Chris Cillizza as you know CNN I guess pundit slash analyst, maybe political guy. So he's one of the top anti-Trumpers. I'm using anti-Trumper to the core and he's — I don't know if I'll ever stop laughing about this. This is so funny.

So here's the article. He was talking — I tweeted this if you want to see it. You just talk about there's a new Monmouth University poll in which they're asking people about the Ukraine transcript. Yeah the president's phone call with the president of Ukraine. And it said that according to the Monmouth University poll just four in ten Republicans believe that the transcript even mentions Biden's name. Sixty percent of Republicans don't think Biden's name's even in the transcript.

Now of course it is. It's there twice. It's there clearly and unambiguously and it comes from the president's office himself. So there's no question on the facts. The facts are as objective as any fact could be. Every single person who participated in the call in any way noticed that Biden's name was mentioned and still six out of ten Republicans say that Trump never mentioned Biden. Whose call was this?

Now it could be that the poll was worded in a way that people didn't know that's what they were answering exactly because there could have been something like without seeing the question it could have been do you think there was some quid pro quo with Biden or something. So it's possible that I'm not seeing the full context of this but it is still hilarious. And I'll tell you why that Chris Cillizza is complaining they're six in ten people can't look in a transcript and see what's right before their eyes. You know that's funny because Cillizza is one of the biggest pushers of the fine people hoax.

What would it take to debunk the fine people hoax? The idea that the conspiracy theory rumor that's not true that President Trump called the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville fine people. What would it take to debunk that? Just read the transcript. That's it. Just read it right there. He said the opposite. If you read half the transcript you could be confused and that's what most people see but if you read the full transcript there's no ambiguity whatsoever. He clearly said I'm not talking about those people. He said it directly. I'm not talking about that. And nobody even asked him to explain it. He explained just to be clear I'm not talking about them. All you have to do is read the transcript.

So one of the biggest pushers of the fake transcript — in other words the idea that he did call the neo-Nazis fine people — is CNN and Chris Cillizza. And so the tide is turned. Karma has come to visit. And karma comes to visit and says well I don't even think Trump mentioned Biden. Oh girl.

All right so here's it gets even better. This is Cillizza's comment to his own observation that six out of ten Republicans don't even see the name Biden in the transcript. He goes with periods. Are. You. Kidding. Me. And then this Cillizza goes on to say this. Listen to this. He says this poll finding doesn't seem so unbelievable. The primary work of Trump's candidacy and his presidency has been to erode the idea that objective truth exists.

So Cillizza of CNN says the president Trump has been working to erode the idea that objective truth exists. That's exactly what he's doing. He's eroding the idea that objective truth exists. Is that bad? Well it would depend wouldn't it? It would depend if objective truth exists. If it doesn't exist well then it would be good that President Trump is teaching us that objective truth doesn't exist. If it does exist well then that would maybe be bad because that would be untrue, right?

But in a real sense — and this is something I told you back in 2015 — I predicted that Trump would change more than politics. I said it directly publicly and multiple times. I said that what he would change is your understanding of reality and you see it happening. So Cillizza's understanding of reality is changing because he's saying how can it be that people could look at the transcripts and just not see the name Biden? It's right there. Well how could you, Chris Cillizza, think that the president called neo-Nazis fine people when the transcript says clearly I'm not talking about them. I said the opposite.

Chris Cillizza has been introduced to subjective reality while working at a news organization. That's got to be a mindfuck. That's got to be hard to process. I work for an organization that puts out the objective truth which doesn't exist. How do you process that? I don't work for a news organization so I can live comfortably in a world where objective truth isn't really a thing. Well how do you work for a news organization and believe objective truth doesn't exist? What would that do to your mental health? That'd kind of be hard to process seriously.

Now let me clarify. I know there are a lot of science pedantic people out there who are gonna say Scott, Scott, Scott there is a base reality. Just because some people are fooled and can't see it that doesn't make the objective reality go away. It's still there. Well I'll give you two answers to that. It doesn't matter because we don't use any objective reality to make our decisions. So when I say it doesn't matter I'm talking about the realm of political decision-making. Objective reality doesn't seem to be much of a factor in anything. You can see it on every topic. People are all over the place on what they're seeing and they're looking at the same stuff. There is no evidence of objective reality in terms of how we make decisions and how we process things.

But is there you ask still outside the realm of our ability to perceive it accurately all the time? Is there an actual objective reality? Maybe. And maybe that objective reality can affect your life. If you walk in front of a truck whether or not you see the truck probably doesn't affect the fact that it will kill you. So yes there's an objective reality in terms of there might be a truck. If you walk into it and it's gonna kill you even if you don't see it. So in that sense yes. But if you're trying to decide what do I think about this Ukraine situation, what did I think about Russia collusion, what do I think about health care for everybody, any of these big political topics, you're not using objective truth. Nobody is. We're all just using our subjectivity and arguing that it's based on the objectivity.

But suppose we're a simulation. Suppose our reality is a simulation. Under the simulation worldview is there an objective reality? Well yes there is but the objective reality is our programmers' reality not ours. Our reality would be completely subjective. It would act as though it's subjective in many cases. Again if you walk in front of the truck it could be a simulated truck but your simulated self is going to get killed by the simulated truck. So yeah in some sense there's an objective reality but in terms of our filters on the world we can't really see it in any reliable way.

So that was the understanding of reality that I said would change. We see this happening in stark in real time in a very stark way where you see that people can literally look at the same document — a document no longer than this — they can look at it and some of them won't even see names that are on it. They won't even be able to see sentences. They actually their ability to see objective reality is so weak that they're inventing it on the fly.

All right this is something else that Cillizza claims. He says so this is a CNN claim okay. There are zero evidence that the whistleblower in the Ukraine story is a partisan. Do you agree with that? Because I think your news sources most of you is telling you that that's just the fact. That we know that the whistleblower is a partisan. Have you seen evidence of that? What's the evidence of that? Do you believe that it's a fact that the whistleblower is a partisan? I believe it's possible. I also believe that I have never seen evidence of it. Have you? Have you ever seen evidence that the whistleblower was a partisan? I've heard people say there is evidence but I haven't seen it.

Does that blow your mind? Because I'll bet you've watched news reports that say oh yeah he's a partisan. Well he might be. If I had to put my own money on it I'd bet on it, right? If you had to bet you'd bet he was a partisan. But where's the evidence? The IC IG report stated he was a partisan but where's the evidence now? So I'm not going to say that the CNN report is true but when somebody says where's the evidence and I say to myself a lot I don't know I haven't seen it either. I've only heard it reported that he is. Now I would say if the IC IG report says he's a partisan it's very likely he is but I would still want to see the evidence wouldn't you? I'd want to see the evidence. So I wouldn't say there's zero evidence. I would say you know I could use a little more support on that point.

Yeah let's say the other thing that Cillizza says there's no evidence for. He says specifically independent fact checkers don't give credence to the idea that Joe Biden called for the firing of Ukraine's top prosecutor to avoid an investigation into his son. So CNN is reporting that there's no evidence that the reason Joe Biden called for that firing of the Ukraine prosecutor is to avoid an investigation into his son. Have you seen evidence to the contrary? I haven't. I haven't. Where is the evidence that that's why he did it? I'm not saying he didn't do it for that reason. I'm just saying okay I haven't seen the evidence either. Is it evidence that he went golfing with a board member? And that really it's not really evidence of anything. There's an evidence that — I would agree with this fact that I would agree with the statement that the fact checkers are not buying into Joe Biden doing it you know to get the investigator off his son but I don't think that matters to the story too much.

Somebody says the video. The video is not evidence. The video is not evidence that he did it because of his son. The video is evidence they did it. Well we don't have his evidence of why. All right but I don't think any of that matters because Hunter Biden was taking a lot of money from a Ukrainian entity while his dad was vice president. Doesn't really matter what Joe Biden did okay. It kind of doesn't matter what Joe Biden did or did not do with the prosecutor. It's sort of irrelevant because you have all the badness you would ever need just the fact his son was taking all this money from the Ukrainian entity while the vice president's portfolio including Ukraine. And then there was also the issue of Hunter Biden went with his dad to some China event and met with a banker and got a deal with some bankers in China while on a trip with his father who was a sitting vice president. Come on.

So what the president said if you saw this part which was really good by the way. Did you see the president look in the camera I think it was yesterday and he said as strongly as you've ever heard him say anything he looked directly in the camera and he said Joe Biden is a stone-cold crook. He's stone-cold crooked. You know it and I know it. Did you see him say that? That was really good in terms of persuasion because it looked different from other things that people say about politics. When somebody says blah blah's a racist your brain automatically says maybe yes maybe no. Just sounds like something that people say in politics. If somebody says somebody's crooked like Hillary maybe true maybe false. Sounds like something you say in politics. Somebody says somebody's incompetent, somebody's crazy, somebody's impulsive, somebody's dumb. All of those things you automatically put your political filter on don't you? You just say yeah maybe. Maybe that's something said by a political opponent so you filter it.

But when President Trump looked at the camera and said Joe Biden is stone-cold crooked. You know it and I know it. That didn't sound like politics did it? That felt like he has broken the fourth wall or something. You know that's not quite it but that looked like reality peeking through the politics. It looked like he believed that to be stone-cold true and he was selling it pretty well. Now again I'm not saying it's true but I'm saying that the way he said it was I don't know that's a 10 out of 10 for sounding credible even if it isn't true. It really sounded like he believed it and he knows you believe it.

And here's what I believe. Every one of us sees Hunter Biden taking that money. Every one of us thinks it's crooked. Even the Democrats right? Even the media. There's nobody in the media who's defending Hunter Biden is there? So when Trump looked at the camera and said he's stone-cold crooked that's an amazing turn of words. I mean I don't know if that was spontaneous or he thought about it a little bit but those are dagger words. That's like stab stab stab. Stone cold crooked and you're dead. And then he said you know it and I know it. That's like the next level of persuasion because one of the main strongest parts of persuasion is when you say what somebody else is thinking as they're thinking it. If you can ever do that it really gives you