's wait for the end part.

So the first part is just a setup. "Roger Stone has been treated very unfairly. How about that jury? 4-0-1. Does anybody think that was fair? Disgraceful. Stay tuned for Fox News." And guys, and then he says, "And guys like low ratings psycho Joe Scarborough are allowed to walk the streets. Open the cold case. A cold case."

So if you don't know what that story's about, Joe Scarborough and the alleged cold case. Jake Tapper tweeted the president's tweet and gave you some context. So Jake says, "Yet again the president uses the death of Lori Klausutis, 28 — I guess she died at age 28 — to attack Joe Scarborough. In 2001 she fainted, hitting her head. An autopsy revealed a heart condition. There's no cold case. It's a tragedy. He cruelly exploits it. Indecent."

Now I won't weigh in on the opinion if this is cruel exploitation or indecent because we're in the political season and it's hard to think of anything that isn't. Is there anything in this whole political race that isn't indecent or cruel? I mean Pelosi just called Trump morbidly obese yesterday, which surprisingly I saw a write-up that says he's actually only just a few pounds into the obese category because he's so tall he can handle it. He can handle the weight better than most people. So he's only barely into the "you should lose a good ten or twenty pounds would be good for him," I think according to his doctor. But he's not morbidly obese.

So it's a weird world. I think we're in a world in which people will say absolutely anything. So Don Jr. used the pedophile word against Joe Biden. And of course there's no evidence or even an allegation of that. But it's — and he didn't mean it seriously either. It was obvious he didn't mean it in the literal sense. But we're in that world where people will say absolutely anything about anybody.

But once you've learned that there's no limit on what ridiculous things you can claim, why would you stick with something that's only a little bit ridiculous, right? So this is one of the president's great skills. I talked about finding free money and picking it up. If you live in the world where the other side can say the Steele dossier might have been real, that's the world he lives in. Trump did not make the rules.

There was no point at which Trump said, "All right, let's agree on the rules. Do you think it's okay to make wildly ridiculous claims that are even involving illegalities and jail time terms and everything? Do you think that would be okay?" He never was in that conversation. It just became the standard.

If you're playing a game and someone else has said here are their rules and then you play with those rules as someone else established, are you indecent? Well, you'd be indecent if you made those rules, if you were the one who came up with it in the first place or the first one to act indecently. You'd have something to answer to, I think so. I think it would be fair to say that if you were the one who introduced the idea of going too far and making ridiculous legal allegations against people based on no evidence whatsoever, if you're the one who started it, yeah, I think you'd have some explaining to do.

But I don't think he started it. I think he simply said, "Well, what are the rules of the game? I'm going to play this game. Can somebody explain the rules? All right. All right. Wait, you're telling me I can say absolutely anything? I can just make stuff up? I can make an allegation that somebody murdered and raped and genocide, anything?" And the answer is yep, you can say absolutely anything in a political context apparently. There's just no restrictions whatsoever.

Not only that, but if you were to artificially limit yourself and the other side did not, you can't even win. So it's not only is he playing by the rules, he's playing by the only rules that can win. The hard rules, the ones where you can say anything. And so he is. So I just look at this as funny.

Because when Trump accuses Joe Scarborough of this, and I should say as clearly as possible, I would imagine — I wasn't there, but I would imagine that Jake's framing of this is accurate, meaning that it probably is true that there's nothing that would suggest a crime even happened, much less that anybody in particular was associated with it. So I think it's true that there's literally nothing there.

But the fact that the president calls it a cold case, you have to know that's tongue in cheek, right? It's tongue in cheek because A, he knows people will believe it. B, it might make a difference. I mean in terms of the back and forth of how people feel about things, it might change pe