but it's starting to feel that way isn't it? Because the way you feel isn't necessarily the exact way that things are but the way it feels as a Trump supporter is that Biden is literally threatening us. And other people have made this observation but I'm just piling on it. It does feel like the left is threatening us.

But here's what they don't get. The left has not yet fully internalized that the protesters are not on their side. You get that right? The left doesn't quite understand. They're just starting to understand. That's why they're coming out against them. That the protesters are not on their side. The protesters are on their own side whatever that is but they're definitely not on the Democrat side and they're not on Trump's side. They're not on America's side.

You could argue there's a big non-story, two big non-stories in the conservative world now. For those of you who say Scott why do you only say good things about Trump, why don't you never say any bad things about the other side? Well I do all the time and I'm going to do that now.

So there's this tape. You heard it on Tucker's show some of you. Chris Cuomo talking to of all people Michael Cohen, the disgraced and jailed lawyer, ex-lawyer for Trump. So apparently Chris Cuomo and Cohen knew each other pretty well. Who knew that? That's sort of a weird little backstory. But on this audio recording Chris Cuomo is heard to say things which are completely exculpatory and make Chris Cuomo look like he did not do the things he's accused of.

How did conservative pundits treat an audio tape in which it's pretty clear that Chris Cuomo legitimately believes he was not involved in the things that he was accused of doing, the MeToo-ish accusations? How does conservative world treat the fact that it really shows he doesn't think he did these things? In private he acts like he believes that they didn't happen. They treat it like it happened, like he didn't say what he said. And I watch this and I think we're seeing more and more of this where somebody will say they'll hand you an apple and they'll say what do you think of this banana? And you'll say what banana? You just handed me an apple. This is clearly an apple. It's red. It's round. I take a bite out of it. It's an apple. Stop saying this is a banana because that's an apple.

And then the person will look right at you like nothing had ever happened and they'll say is the banana good? And you'll say what's going on here? This is no banana. We're both looking at this. It's an apple. And the other person will look right at it and say now that's a banana. I've never seen this before.

So it happened with the Cuomo story. There's nothing on there that should be embarrassing to Chris Cuomo and is treated as a national story of something that's embarrassing to Chris Cuomo. It's literally the opposite. It's completely exculpatory. I don't even know what to think about that.

All right. Is that the only time that's happened? No. How about this one? So Dr. Scott Atlas, he's part of the Trump team, you know the coronavirus team I guess. And CNN was reporting that he was pushing for herd immunity. So he came on I think it was Fox and they said were you doing that? He was like no, no I've never pushed for herd immunity. Nobody has. It's not even a thing. It's never been brought up. The president's never mentioned it. It's never been in a conversation. It's never been floated as a possibility. Nobody thinks it's something we should pursue. There's zero times zero times zero to this story.

What will people say once the person who is the most closest to the story — what will CNN say now that he has said no there's nothing to it? They'll just act like he didn't say it and they'll just keep reporting that it's happening like it didn't even happen. This is just a weird world.

How about there's another one. How about the story that the CDC had modified their death count and it wasn't 180,000 or whatever it was closer to 9,000 because there were only six percent of the people were dying without comorbidities. Therefore it's all the big fraud etc. Nothing like that happened. It again it's like a big national story but it didn't happen. It literally didn't happen. None of that happened. All that happened is they just sliced it a different way. And as the experts say pretty much everybody who dies of anything has comorbidities. It's very rare for a person to die unless it's say an accident or some rare genetic disease or something. But it's actually really unusual for anybody to die without comorbidities. So the fact that 94 percent of people who die from coronavirus have comorbidities it's kind of like everything else.

Now what do conservatives say? But they say but Scott I know what you're saying but still what that proves Scott you're missing the whole point Scott. Scotty. People who disagree with me like to call me Scotty. Scotty you're missing the whole point. The point is that those people who don't have the comorbidities should not have been afraid because their odds of dying are just vanishingly small. So let's send the kids back to school because why in the world would you not send kids to school when you know it's good for the kids. You know that their risk is tiny. There's no reason, there's no logic whatsoever for not sending the kids to school.

And I look at that and I go what's wrong with you? What's wrong with you that you would say that in public? The reason that they don't want to send the kids to school is not that the kids will die. It's that they'll be part of the transmission that will get to the 94 percent of people with comorbidities and there's more spread could put the teachers at risk in some cases. We don't know how much risk but could put them at risk. Well it would put them at risk. We don't know how much.

And I think to myself if you leave out the part where the kids bring it home or help spread it you're not part of the adult conversation. The minimum requirement to be an adult in the conversation is you have to at least acknowledge the big factors in the conversation. One big factor is the kids themselves. And I think almost everybody agrees that they would be mostly fine and the risk would be so small that the benefits to the kids themselves would be tremendous. Benefit to the parents tremendous because the parents would now be freed up to do what they need to do. But if you leave out the part about this clearly would contribute to the spread, if you leave that part out you're not in the adult conversation. You really aren't.

Now you could argue that it won't spread but that would be a scientific question. I think the evidence is that it probably does but maybe we don't know. But still if you leave it out you're not part of the adult conversation.

The funniest story is that Portland's mayor has just reportedly — I would look for confirmation on this but reportedly he's considering selling his home in Portland because of the protests. So the guy who has been most supportive of the protesters and literally joined in with them is learning that these protesters are not on his side as he had hoped but rather are a malign force as they like to say on TV.

Here's another non-story reported as a big story. The State Department I guess in Kiev, something about Ukrainians. You know the State Department, our State Department was illegally monitoring conservatives on Twitter and social media. Jack Posobiec, Hannity, Laura Ingraham and others. To which I say why is that a story? Do you know who else is illegally monitoring Jack Posobiec? I am. I am. Yeah I'm illegally reading his Twitter account and when he tweets I break the law. I break the law and I read it. And if he tweets again I don't like to broadcast this but I'm probably going to break the law again and read what he tweeted.

Now you might say that you say to me Scott that's not what they're talking about. They're not talking about reading his tweets. What are they talking about? Are they talking about hacking Twitter? No that's not in the story. All they're talking about is asking some third party to keep an eye on various accounts that were of importance and tell them what they saw so that they didn't have to do it themselves. Is that a real story? Now if there's more to it, if there was some hacking, an actual illegal act, I would say yeah let's look at that. But the way it's reported, and again could be more to the story I don't know, but the way it's reported is they asked somebody to read the tweets of people who are important to their livelihoods and their jobs. And I thought to myself I don't think that's illegal. If it is it shouldn't be.

Trump is fighting back against the so-called fake news that he had some kind of stroke or mini-strokes or something. The best evidence against it is that his trip to Walter Reed was brief and he went home. If you had any of the things that he was alleged to have had, do you go in and then just go home and go back to your job the next day? Is that a thing? Well so I think this is debunked. The president has debunked it in the clearest possible words. But I know that the public isn't going to trust him on that.

If I had to guess I would guess his slurred speech in a few of his speeches could be fatigue. It could be dental work. It could be anything. But my guess is that whatever they rushed him in for was something embarrassing or something that wasn't really a problem. And if it wasn't really a problem did you need to do anything? Have any of you ever gone to the emergency room only to be told oh that's no big deal? You have, right? You know unless you're bleeding or you've got a broken arm or something. How many of you have gone in and the emergency room just says oh that's nothing, take an aspirin? It's a pretty common thing.

So I wouldn't be surprised if they did rush the president in for some greater medical treatment than they had available in the White House — and I guess there's a lot in the White House — and then they checked it out and it was no big deal or something easily treatable and he just wants it out of the news, which I can understand.

What was Biden's exact quote when he did his speech and he said do I look like some kind of wild-eyed progressive? What were his exact words? Do I look like some kind of wild-eyed progressive? And I thought to myself how does that get him the vote of the wild-eyed progressives? Because it feels like he's insulting how they look isn't it? Because he's saying do I look — do I look like — literally look. He didn't say have I acted like, do I have a record of, have I ever promised anything in that nature. He didn't say that. He said look at me. Like literally with your eyes look at me. Do I look like some wild-eyed progressive? It feels like he was mocking the protesters, their actual physical look. Not that we haven't done that but it would be news if he did. And I wondered how this completely escaped the pouncing. I thought there'd be more pouncing on that.

All right. Apparently Trump is down depending on what polls you want to believe. They're all over the place. But I think it was Nate Silver who said Trump is down four to five percent. Or he said if it was more of an if it's based on where things are heading, Nate Silver said that if Trump ends up being down four to five percent in the battleground states it's actually a close race.

Here's what I say. What does it mean to be down four or five percent in a world where 12 percent of the GOP says that they won't tell pollsters their honest opinion? So 12 percent of Republicans would lie and Trump's only down four to five. What does that tell you?

Now I want you to correct me on the math of this but sometimes there are things that seem really obvious that your brain isn't quite processing in the right way so this might be one of those. But here's what people are missing. If a Republican voter simply refuses to talk to a pollster they'll just call until they get another Republican. So refusing to answer probably doesn't change the result that much because they'll just find somebody who's willing to answer until they have enough answers.

But if the GOP people who are being surveyed are lying it's a double impact because not only are they taking a vote away from Trump that they intend to cast but they're giving it to Biden. Doesn't that double the impact? Because it's not just a vote that's missing. It's a vote that the lie