Boom ba-ba-boom. In case you're worried that my face looks very red, I will tell you that that's the lighting in the mirror. I don't look like I'm about to have a heart attack. I'm halfway through eating, but Rand Paul made the morning too interesting. I just gulped Doritos. Breakfast is still ongoing. Mmm.

And if somebody says you look old, this is how I look when I just wake up after a long night. I'm in Las Vegas right now, coming home today. So now that you're all here, let's pick this up where we left off.

I hope you've seen the news that Senator Rand Paul had tweeted the following. So this is Senator Rand Paul. He tweets, "Is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance? Is John Brennan making millions of dollars divulging secrets to the mainstream media with his attacks on real Donald Trump?" And then later Paul tweets, "Today I will meet with the president and ask him to revoke John Brennan's security clearance."

Now you see what's going on here, right? Rand Paul is very cleverly playing a reverse Russia collusion on Brennan. And not only is it clever and hilarious, it's probably effective, but it could not be more perfect.

And let me just talk about the parts of it. So first of all, Rand Paul does not accuse Brennan of a crime. He simply asks the question, because all of the evidence would suggest that interpretation. Now it's different. You know, saying somebody did something is very different than saying, well, all the evidence would suggest that there's a big problem here. I'm just asking the question. Is he selling secret information to the media to overthrow the country? Just asking.

What does that sound like? It sounds exactly like what everybody's been saying about Russia collusion, primarily John Brennan. I'm just asking. Why is the president asking in this bit, "Tell me one reason why the president should be nice to Putin"? Well, of course there are obvious reasons why to do that, and they're not all nefarious.

So Rand Paul is just giving back to John Brennan exactly what he's been giving to the president and the country for the last, I don't know, two years or whatever. This is the funniest, coolest thing I've seen. This is like four things that didn't come from the president himself. This is like the play of the year. This is so good.

And here's what it does. The first thing it does is it takes all the energy out of the headlines, because yeah, it flips the script, but you can't look away. He's accusing the ex-head of the CIA of — well, not an accusation exactly, but more of a question. It's just a question. He's got top-secret clearance. He is clearly against the president. He's working with the networks. He has access to these secrets. The networks would like them. The networks have money. They would certainly pay for insider information. Huh.

Now that doesn't mean that John Brennan has committed any crimes. I want to be very clear. I personally am aware of no crimes by anybody, by the president or John Brennan. But is it fair for Rand Paul to go after John Brennan in what I think anyone would call a totally unfounded semi-accusation in the form of a question? Is it appropriate? Well, it wouldn't be appropriate if it were anyone else except maybe Clapper. But with John Brennan, it is totally appropriate. And the fact that he's going after his security clearance is perfect.

Now I don't know who it was who realized that there was a perfect analogy going on here. You know, the analogy of, hey, did Trump do something with Putin? There's a perfect analogy: hey, did John Brennan start selling some secrets to sell out the country? We don't know. We don't know. But look at all the circumstantial evidence.

Now if I've taught you nothing — and I hope I've taught you something — it is that the human mind cannot tell the difference between confirmation bias, where everything looks like it supports one theory, and the truth. If you have the truth, then all the facts support the truth. Everywhere you look, the facts are consistent with it because it's the truth. Where else do you see that when it's not the truth and there's a bunch of confirmation bias?

So the Russia story has mounds of confirmation bias material. The John Brennan story has mounds of confirmation bias material. It looks the same whether it's true or it's something that's going to attract all kinds of confirmation bias. Now that Rand Paul has called this out, you can't tell the difference, folks. You know, someday we might know, but at this point you cannot tell the difference.

And if you can't tell the difference, this is the clever part about what Rand Paul is doing. There are probably five clever parts, but one of the clever parts is that if you can ask the question of Brennan and it's not laughable, he has to have his security clearance taken away. Think about it. If you can even ask the question — well, it kind of looks like it might be a situation where potentially he might be abusing that security clearance for personal gain. You know, there's no direct evidence, but the situation certainly suggests that possibility and it certainly clearly suggests the motive. And if you've got the motive and the opportunity, you've got to take away the security clearance.

So it doesn't matter if there's any direct evidence that Brennan did something illegal or inappropriate. That doesn't matter. As long as the confirmation bias or the circumstantial evidence — whatever you want to call it in this case — as long as it all lines up in one direction, and it does, that's enough.

So do you think there's any chance that the president will let John Brennan keep his security clearance? Because that's the next story, right? The very next story should be that the president met with Rand Paul and issued an order to revoke John Brennan's security clearance. Now what's that going to do? Well, it's going to suck all the energy out of the other stories. And you know, even CNN has to cover this. So all the networks that love John Brennan, they have to cover this. This is a big story now. You know, you've got a senator and probably in a few minutes you'll have the President of the United States revoking security clearance of the guy who used to be the head of the CIA for potentially trying to monetize his security clearance.

And the way Senator Rand Paul says it — "Is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance?" — that could not be a more perfect sentence.

So I've said this enough that you're tired of hearing it, but I don't agree with all of Rand Paul's policy preferences. You know, he goes further than I do on a lot of stuff. But he does operate on principle. He is very smart. He does seem to have the country's best interest in mind. That seems clear. And he's very effective. So this is a new reason to love Rand Paul.

And I love the fact that in one year he survived two attempts on his life. The neighbor who tackled him and could have killed him, and the shooter on the baseball field who was trying to kill him. And it appears that — I don't want to read too much into this, but imagine if you will that you had survived two attempts on your life in one year. Just imagine your mindset. Do you think you'd be braver? Yeah, you would. So however brave Rand Paul was or however determined he was before, it just went up a notch.

All right, so his political power is probably — we're just speculating here — but chances are he's operating at a higher level than he was before any of this bad news came his way. I've got a feeling that he's not going to take any anymore, if you know what I mean. If you had had two attempts on your life, let me put it to you in this context. I don't know that his neighbor attacking him — this is Rand Paul I'm talking about — when the neighbor attacked him, I haven't heard that that's political. But don't you assume it is? Don't you assume the neighbor's attack is political at least a little bit? You know, even if they had a specific dispute, don't you think it reached a new level probably because of politics? I haven't heard that in evidence, but I'm guessing. And then of course the potential shooting was clearly politics.

So imagine if you will that you've had two attempts on your life. And who do you think is the most responsible person for both of those attempts on your life? John Brennan. If you're Rand Paul, you're probably thinking John Brennan almost killed me — meaning Rand Paul — twice. Do you think Rand Paul is ever going to back off of this? Not in your life. I'll tell you, Brennan better finish him off because Rand Paul's coming for him now.

And who's on Rand Paul's side? Me. Who else is on Rand Paul's side against John Brennan? Two attempts on Rand Paul's life. John Brennan arguably — and it's a good argument — is the inspiration for both of them. All right, I'm on Rand Paul's side. So whatever he needs to do, you know, I got his back. Hope you do too.

All right, I would also go so far as to say that when the president is done running for president — whether that's, you know, who knows, he might say I've done everything I've done and I don't need a second term. That's always possible. But if Rand Paul runs for president, he's got a head start. You know, it would be very hard for me to side against him after this.