Pretend you didn't see it the first time. Get ready. Trump is so far in her head that he's on her head. Wasn't that better the second time? Much better the second time.

All right, well that's happening. So Glenn, you're a superstar Glenn Greenwald but no I wouldn't be waiting for the self-reflection to handle it.

All right. Well, CNN and MSNBC, if you didn't watch the coverage from either of those networks you missed the best show. You missed the best show because watching the TDS coverage of Trump destroying the field in Iowa, it was really fun because I do watch it like it's a mental health show. Like it's just people just acting out with suffering. I don't really see it as news or anything even in that sort of general category. It's pure entertainment watching people suffering who kind of deserve it because God do they deserve it.

All right. So what happened was MSNBC last night when Trump got on to do his victory speech they decided to not show it. And Rachel Maddow said that she explained why NBC and other mainstream networks are not to show it because they say the caucus goers believe the lies but you know they don't want to be basically playing his lies. That's right. The news is going to decide that there was this one candidate who lies. Let me check the record. Let's see the political record of every candidate in the history of the United States. Looking. Let's see. AI can you tell me? I'm doing my research. Doing my research, huh?

Well there's an awkward problem here. It turns out that 100 percent of all candidates lied except for Vivek who's out of the race. So how do we handle that? So I guess MSNBC has gone to the ultimate level of censoring. They're going to tell you who's lying and then not let you see them. And they call that the news. How does MSNBC survive the political season because they've gone so far into the ridiculous? I mean they're just a farce at this point. It's just ridiculous. I feel like in the past they did a good job of pretending they were like news when they clearly weren't. But now they stopped pretending. They're just going to give up on all the pretending and they're just going to say we can't talk to you about the other side because we don't want you to know what they're thinking.

But again this is the problem that Vivek might slice through because he can break through that.

All right. Jake Tapper said that they would talk over Trump because as he said you could hear him repeating his anti-immigrant rhetoric. His anti-immigrant rhetoric. Anti-immigrant. I wonder where else we say things are anti when do you say you're pro something and when do you say you're anti something? Because I thought Trump was pro law and order, pro American legal citizens. I didn't realize he was anti something. Oh he's against something. That's a funny way to say it. So he's really, really for American and the way you'd say that is he's anti-immigrant. I don't believe that he's ever called himself anti-immigrant. I believe he's anti-crime. I believe he's anti-unenforced borders. I believe he's anti-chaos at the border with enormous terrorism risks. And Jake Tapper who is anything but a real newser says that's anti-immigrant.

Well I also don't like the way he talks about immigrants so I would agree with him that his choice of words not optimal and that's something Vivek can get right. But no he's not anti-immigrant. To say he's anti-immigrant is just crazy shit.

All right. Of course there'll be lots of discussions about whether 2020 was a stolen election. That will never go away. But Laura Loomer is reporting that CNN said that ahead of the Iowa caucus there was a poll: do you think Biden legitimately won in 2020? And CNN was forced to report on CNN's own network that when polled in Iowa by a majority of 68 percent, no. 68 percent have been watching their coverage for five years and just said nope. 68 percent. Now that's just in Iowa and that's probably just the Republicans because it's the Iowa caucus. So I mean that's high for anything but not as high if you consider that it's Republicans going to a caucus.

All right. But here's my recommendation. I believe it is not the high ground and you need the high ground. It is not the high ground to say the 2020 election was stolen. That's not the high ground. Here's the high ground. We have a system that is designed so you can't tell. That's the high ground. If you want to sound crazy say you know it was fixed and you can't prove it. Well then you look like crazy. Doesn't mean you're wrong. Doesn't mean you're wrong. But you would look crazy if you claim with certainty that it was rigged and then somebody says all right show your evidence. You go ah but some things are brewing right. So it doesn't really work as an argument except on your own side basically.

But here's the argument that can work. It's designed by intention so that you can't tell if it was rigged or not. Now that's the argument you want to get the other side into. That it's designed so you can't tell who won. Do you want some evidence of that? Now you're saying to me but Scott you're getting yourself right back into another situation where you don't have any evidence for your claim. Don't I? Well let's see if there's any recent news. Yes. Was it Virginia just found that there were thousands and thousands of votes that were not counted? Now it turns out that if they had been counted it would have been good for Trump. No it would have been good for Biden. Trump actually got overcounted. There were actually in Virginia there were like 4,000 too many votes for Trump. Now it's 2024 and we just learned that the count in Virginia was off by thousands of votes.

So the very least we could say for sure is that you can't tell if your result is accurate within thousands of votes for five years. That's a fact, right? They could not tell in Virginia if they had an accurate count for five years and then when they found out they didn't. Now 8,000 votes wasn't much. Th