So here's the thing. His explanation of it is that when he said "we'll stop it," meaning the election of President Trump, that he was talking about voters, the public. Now here's the question: Is it credible, his explanation that he meant the voters will stop it versus that he and Lisa Page and insiders will stop it? Is it credible? Yes, it is. A hundred percent credible.

I know you don't want to hear it, but I'm not going to be the guy who just agrees with you because you want to hear that. All right? Now when I say credible, I don't mean necessarily true, because we weren't there. We can't really know what he was thinking. We're not mind readers. But is it a credible explanation that he was talking about the public and the voters versus personally doing something? One hundred percent credible, which is not to say it's true.

Here's why it's credible. If you have two competing theories, one of them is completely ordinary and one of them is fantastical, which one is more credible? Let's say there are two explanations that would explain the same set of facts, but one explanation is just normal. It's just normal things that normal people do, and the other one is like unbelievable. Which one of those is credible? Well, the normal one.

So his explanation is presumably — and I think this is a fair assumption — he watches CNN. He's sort of buying into the anti-Trump part of the media. If all you watched was the anti-Trump media, the CNNs, MSNBCs, and at times the Washington Post, if that was what you were consuming, is it reasonable and normal to say "we," meaning the majority of the public? Yes, it is. It's completely reasonable, because people who watch just one side of the media tend to think that's sort of the majority opinion.

Keep in mind that the assumption was that Hillary would clearly win the election because the majority of the public was going to vote her in. So in that context, "we" being the voters, a totally normal thing to say for someone who's a CNN consumer and you know that type of information.

Look at the other explanation, that he was secretly plotting an overthrow of the government. It's possible, right? I'm not telling you what's true and I'm not telling you what's not true. I can't know. But one of those stories is fantastical: a plot to overthrow the government. And the other one is "I watch television. I watch CNN. Yeah, we'll stop it. We the voters will stop it." Completely normal.

So you're gonna want to disagree with me because you think the facts are different, but I'm not talking about the facts, because we can't know what he was thinking. There's no way we'll ever know that fact, I think. But we can know whether his story is credible, and his story is completely credible.