ere's how David Sacks explains it. He calls it the business records double standard. In 2016 Hillary Clinton's campaign was fined $8,000. That was it. A fine of $8,000 for the following, for violating federal campaign finance laws. Why? Her team falsely reported the funding of the Steele dossier as legal services and legal and compliance consulting. Well what does that sound like? This sounds exactly like what Trump did. Exactly. What else do we know? According to Sacks, actually this opposition research was an attempt to smear her opponent with false and salacious allegations. Obviously it was also intended to influence the election. So she recorded it as a lawyer expense. But really no matter what she was thinking, because as Megyn Kelly explained on her video the other day, that it doesn't matter what anybody was thinking when they did the expense. It only matters that a reasonable person could look at it and say well there's more than one reason you would do that. So when Trump did his payments it didn't matter that he was thinking it was mostly about the election. This is Megyn Kelly's take. It had more to do with the fact that a reasonable person would say well there's more than one reason you would want that information not to get out. One's your family, one's your business reputation, and the other is political. So if everybody agrees that there were three reasons that should have been reason enough that he can't be convicted. You need one reason. If there's three it's just sort of automatically you're not guilty.

So Hillary obviously was putting this into legal expenses to hide her contribution to the hoax. Of course. Moreover, says Sacks, Hillary's campaign was headquartered in New York State and of Brooklyn, New York, which would make it fall under the jurisdiction of New York penal law 175.10, the state law which makes it a felony to falsify business records with the intent to conceal the commission of a crime. I feel like that Steele dossier thing was a crime, wasn't it? It should have been. I don't know, maybe it wasn't technically, but should have been. And then Sacks asks what the key distinction between Hillary's campaign violation versus recent news. And he concludes with Hillary's violation, there wasn't a Manhattan prosecutor politically motivated to bring an unprecedented case to trial.

Now as you know, people who in the past may have leaned left in their politics like Elon Musk, and I'm not sure where David Sacks was, but he's clearly in the anti-Biden train at the moment. So you see some people that you wouldn't expect to be anti-Biden who are clearly anti-Biden. But let's look at the rest of them because it's a growing thing and I think the dam's about to burst.

ABC News says this in a post. Like any other American found guilty of a crime, Donald Trump is likely to face new restrictions and lose a number of rights due to his newfound felon status. What about this choice of words, found guilty of a crime? Isn't that an interesting phrase? He was found guilty. Why wouldn't you just say guilty? Why wouldn't you just say now that he's a felon or now that the jury has concluded he's a felon? Why would you say that he was found guilty instead of guilty? Well let me put the hypnotist filter on it. As a hypnotist I was trained that people's choice of words reveals their thoughts and all the time it's really reliable. The choice of the words found guilty instead of just guilty. Now I do understand that found guilty is a common phrase and it wouldn't be surprising to see it used in other contexts. But where you have a choice and they obviously had a choice of any words that would tell the story, why would you put found guilty? Because found guilty has the odor of we know he's not really guilty but it is true that he was found guilty. It suggests that the ABC News person who wrote that post doesn't believe that he was guilty because they're watching the same thing we watched and it was lawfare. So look for that. Look for words that you say to yourself they had a choice of words and within all the words they could have chosen they picked the one that sends a flag. It's sort of a quiet signal.

But is there more? Well as you know, Elie Honig, who is one of the main legal minds on CNN, said the trial blew his mind and it's an unjustified mess. And basically Elie Honig dumped on the lawfare of it exactly as Republicans do. In other words in a purely factual way he just said it's lawfare garbage and it wouldn't have happened to anybody else. Now that's a big deal because he says that on CNN. He said it on his times on CNN and they're not taking him off the air. So CNN, I'm going to give them credit again. They do seem to be pivoting towards something like a reasonable middle. We don't want to get ahead of ourselves and say that it's going to be a completely clean situation, but I see the effort. I mean to me it looks like they're trying. Because remember also Fareed Zakaria said directly that unless your name was Donald Trump you never would have been charged with this crime. Now that is really clear. There's no vagueness in that. Fareed is saying all right, if you look at the situation this is dirty. I mean that's just as clear as you can be.

But it gets better. You know how many times I've told you that Smerconish is the least biased person on CNN? Well true to his brand he had Charlamagne tha God on. You know Charlamagne's doing a book tour. But Charlamagne is also famous for not being pro-Biden at the moment. He's not a lover of Trump but he's very clearly saying Biden's a mess. So Smerconish has him on there and asked if the verdict would change the outcome of the election. And here's what Charlamagne said. He said so it's really which candidate can energize their base and situations like this it does energize Trump's base. I see Biden's base upset with him over a number of things. I do think a situation like this gives them something to fight for, meaning the Trumpers.

Now I saw somebody say that they thought that Smerconish's face and body language suggested that he was going to explode like he didn't like seeing it. I would suggest that you're reading him completely wrong. Smerconish knew exactly what Charlamagne was going to say. I mean not exactly, but he knew what Charlamagne's message was. He invited him on the show. He wasn't surprised. He wanted his audience to hear Charlamagne's point of view. Just think about that. He intentionally invited somebody he knew was going to trash Biden, somebody who's black and is influential. Smerconish did that. Here's what I saw when I looked at Smerconish's face, and this is just subjective, right? But remember I have the perspective that I'm already biased that he's unbiased. The look that I saw on his face was just sort of like shock and amazement like the rest of us. So I think he was just trying to keep a poker face but I think he was having a reaction to it but not the reaction that he hated hearing it. I think it was a reaction of the moment we're in is a big moment.

So what happens when all of those people associated with CNN turn completely on the story and agree with the Republicans? Well they're not the only ones. Alan Dershowitz, a famous Democrat, says Trump was unjustly convicted. This worst case in 60 years should never have been brought and the public should see the judge's outrageous behavior. Now that's pretty clear. Dershowitz is not saying I don't know, you could see this both ways. Nope. One of the most experienced and capable legal minds in the country, a Democrat, said no, this is totally crooked. Totally crooked. Obviously crooked. Every part of this is crooked.

Now I've taught you before that if one of the major networks, let's say CNN or MSNBC, say something is a fact but then you go to the conservative outlets, let's say Breitbart or Fox News, and they say it's not a fact or vice versa, one of them says it's true and the other one says not, it's usually not. Or let me put it a better way, you can't tell if it's true. It's just two versions. Now if you could, you know there's some objective facts that they show you that you can make up your own mind. That's different. But you don't really know if something's true if they disagree in their normal way they disagree. But it's unusual that CNN and Fox News for example would be on the same page about anything. And they're on the same page that this was lawfare and it was a completely rigged system, which is phenomenal.

But here's the best part. Some of you know the name Naval Ravikant, founder of AngelList and one of the most prominent investors and thinkers in Silicon Valley. What you might not know about him is that he's famously non-political, famously does a lot of tweeting. He's one of the most quoted people in philosophy and technology at the moment, success, a lot of different domains. So he's generally considered, I've actually called him the smartest person I've ever met. So let me say that again. The smartest person I've ever met. Do you know how many smart people I've m