ten have conversations with about politics or I have in the past, and he told me in the context of some other conversation it didn't have anything to do with January 6 I don't think, but he told me that it was in the New York Times and therefore you know it was reliable. And I thought what? In 2022 how could you possibly say that? In 2022 there's a like an adult human who pays attention who believes that because it was in the New York Times that makes it very likely to be true. I'm not 100 percent. Nothing's 100 but very likely to be true because it's the New York Times. To which I say well if you've been alive for the last five years you would know that if it's a political story that favors one side or the other it's not going to be true. It's you know maybe facts and dates are true but the political spin I don't think anybody expects that to be true. It's spin like everything else.

So here's some quotes from the Revolver article. You can see it in my Twitter feed. I tweeted it. The only problem is that Epps didn't go to Trump's speech. So apparently there's evidence that he planned the protest like he had advanced planning. And we know that he would be part of the protest. He went all the way to Washington and did not attend the speech, Trump's speech. He went directly to the Capitol where he immediately started organizing them to go in which apparently he talked about in advance with somebody.

So the guy who went there innocently didn't even go there for the reason that people went there. He had a different agenda.

And it says quote the Revolver piece says the Times piece attempts to wave off Epps' January 6th protest participation as negligible similar to those who committed minor offenses and weren't charged. Yet Epps is the key person caught on video with an advanced plan to go into the Capitol. He's the primary person on video organizing people to go into the Capitol and we know he had an advanced plan to do it. And he's being treated like people who trespassed. There's no correlation. That's not just a person who trespassed. That's somebody with a plan.

And even the New York Times who dismisses the conspiracy theories about Ray Epps, this is according to Revolver as well, refers to Epps in its own definitive video documentary. So this is New York Times against New York Times. They refer to him as a rioter for whom storming the Capitol was part of the plan all along. So the original New York Times reporting was that he's obviously a key member of the plot and he was planned to go into the Capitol all along. So New York Times has said this directly in reporting. And now they're reporting that he was basically a minor person like other people who were released.

And then according to the Revolver this is more opinionated I think that the New York Times ominously suggests Epps will sue news outlets for defamation if they keep saying things about him. So doesn't this look exactly like the New York Times is doing a cover piece for an intelligence agency? Not that they are. That's something I can't confirm but it looks exactly like it. I know unless there's something I'm missing.

Here's the most interesting part. Revolver asks this. I wonder if the author of the New York Times piece, Adam Feuer, could clarify for the record. Did he ask Epps if he had the association with the intelligence agencies or cutouts of such agencies? If so what did he say? If not why not? And I read this and I thought wait a minute. The New York Times did an article on the topic of whether Ray Epps was working for an intelligence agency. That was the point of the piece. And they didn't ask him if he did or if they did ask him they didn't report his answer. That being the only point. And they interviewed him and they didn't ask him if he's part of an intelligence agency. The only question that mattered.

Now here's the funny part. If Revolver had not helpfully pointed out that he hadn't asked the question I don't know if I would have noticed. Would you have noticed? If you read a whole article about how he definitely totally wasn't an intelligence operator just a normal person would you have noticed that they never asked him the question and then reported the answer? I don't know if I would. I think that that is so clever that I would not have noticed.

Now Revolver has more of an interest in this because they reported on Epps so they're defending their own reporting. But so they looked a little closer and they noticed and I didn't even notice that. Did any of you know that the New York Times did that article and didn't report on whether they asked him if he was a member of an intelligence organization? No we didn't notice that. Didn't we think about that? Oh you didn't notice. Somebody says they noticed. Good for you.

Apparently a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from some kind of ruling that would allow transgender students to use the same restrooms as their identification but also to allow transgender to join sports teams corresponding with their chosen genders. And the federal judge has blocked it.

Now I would like to reframe this again. I think we have to look at the sports as what's broken and not the athletes. And every time that we look at the athlete as is the athlete good, is that fair for them to do what they're doing or is there something wrong with the athlete, every time we're focusing on the athlete we're just looking in the wrong direction. There's something wrong with how we organize s