little bit of risk on that bipartisan stuff, a little bit, because we need to find out what's going on over there with the corruption, with the election, with Biden, etc.?

Whose right? Doesn't matter. Does not matter. Number one it already happened so arguing about what was right after the fact doesn't make much difference. Now was Vindman right because the president asked Ukraine to look into this? I think Ukraine kind of said they might. Has Ukraine lost bipartisan support? I don't think so. Was Vindman right that Ukraine would lose bipartisan support because the president asked Ukraine to look into it? Now they didn't really look into it as far as I know and they didn't announce it. But was Vindman right? Well he was not right about how it turned out because there seems to be no difference in support. But he didn't say it's definitely gonna go wrong. He talked about it in terms of risk.

So has Vindman been right that it introduced some risk? Well I would say some. I think that's fair. And I always advise people you know don't think in terms of you're definitely right or you're definitely wrong with a lot of this stuff. It's all about risk and risk management. Vindman's risk management said protect your project, protect your priorities, protect your job, protect the country. You know even Vindman legitimately was talking about a priority that is important to the country. So again I'm pro-Vindman. So far it looks like just a guy who was protecting his turf, doing his job, and legitimately thought that Ukraine was an important priority for the country. All good. No problem with that at all.

But it kind of comes down to who gets to decide where the country puts its risk and its priorities for international stuff. And as it turns out it's the president. So it doesn't really matter that Vindman had a different opinion about which way to play this in terms of risk management. Probably lots of people disagree with their boss on risk management decisions. So I would say that Vindman has basically ended the conversation. Because if the conversation from the main guy who said it was inappropriate, if the main guy says it was sort of a policy difference, a risk management decision, the president gets to make that decision and so he did. And we don't know. We don't know how it would have gone if it'd gone the other way, etc.

Alright, so there's that.

Now here's a question I've been struggling with and maybe some of you can fill in some blanks. I tell you in my book "Loserthink," which I don't have with me, that you should decide what is true in the political realm by looking at the reporting of both sides. So if the reporting on the left says something's true and the reporting on the right says something's true it's probably true. But if only one of them says something's true, it doesn't matter which one, and the other one says no there's nothing here, probably nothing there. Just a good general rule of thumb. Doesn't have to be right every time but a good general rule of thumb.

That brings us to Ukraine's involvement in 2016. It seems that reporting on the right, let's say Fox News etc., has concentrated on the work of John Solomon. And I'll tell you my impressions. I would watch John Solomon giving his exclusive reports on stuff and I always have the same thought which is why is he the only one getting these scoops? Well what's the secret sauce does John Solomon have that he keeps getting all this good stuff and other people are not? And so I said to myself I'm gonna put a little asterisk next to this and tell myself to make sure the reporting is the same on the other side.

Is it? It's not. If you go to CNN they report on John Solomon's reporting as nothing but conspiracy theories that got him fired from The Hill. Is that true? I don't know. But that's a pretty big difference. Fox News says these are scoops and maybe there's something there or at least they have said that in the past. And then apparently The Hill agreed to let him go or he moved on. But apparently there's some indication that The Hill was not happy because they moved his reporting from reporting to opinion. They started labeling his reports on Ukraine as his opinion. That was his own publication.

So I'm seeing the comments just so you know that I've seen them. I'm seeing that you're saying that there are other people reporting stuff. Sarah Carter, Stranahan, and I think you mentioned somebody else. I'm not seeing any of it. So I watch, I continuously watch the news and I'm not aware of one credible sounding thing about Ukraine. Why is that? Why is it that I can watch the news all day long and I'm not personally aware of any credible story about Ukraine doing anything? Why is that? Well it's not being reported on the left as even being credible.

So here's a good test for you. George Webb, somebody saying Stossel, somebody says has Fox ever lied to you. Well here's the rule. If you see the stuff reported by the news people on Fox you should treat it differently than if you see it reported on the opinion shows, right? So you know is Bret Baier reporting on the Ukraine stuff as true or is it only on the opinion? Those are the questions you must ask yourself.

So I'm going to give you my tentative opinion that this is reported as true on the opinion side of one side it looks like. Now I'm open to that being revised by the way. Somebody's saying Tim Pool, The Blaze. Okay why don't I know what those things are?

Let me ask you this. You're all aware of some kind of reporting which obviously some of you believe is credible. What, in the comments tell me because I think you haven't enough room in the comments, tell me a true fact about Ukraine that you believe is an important fact that's been reported by multiple sources that somehow it matters. Go in the comments. Tell me the fact. Give me any fact about Ukraine and 2016 because I can't even tell you what the rumor is.

Somebody says you're relying on MSM. Nope I'm not and I'm gonna block you for that because I just said the opposite of that. I literally said the opposite of that. I said that I don't rely on either side. I look for when they agree to say that's true and when they don't I reserve judgment.

Alright so whoever just came in here and said you're relying on the mainstream, no you get blocked for that cuz that's literally the opposite of what I just said. Somebody says you've always lived in your bubble and resisted other news sources. You get a block because I just said the opposite of that. I just said I wrote a book telling you to do the opposite of that. So when you say I'm living in my bubble I just asked you to tell me what I'm missing. It's the opposite of that.

You create help Clinton no detail. So the Lutsenko reported no crime. Chalupa helped the DNC get money corruption. Nobody has. You don't want anything via Chalupa tried to get dirt. So wasn't there. Chalupa lied to Solomon about something. That's the story right? Source for the dossier now.

So look at the comments. How many of you are convinced DNC employee Alexandra Chalupa worked with Ukrainian government for dirt on Trump and found nothing? Conviction for meddling. I don't think any of you know anything. Well I shouldn't say that. I'm only looking at your comments. I don't know what you know. I can only read the comments.

Alright the hundred dollar buying the stuff we already know about. That's not what Trump was asking about with CrowdStrike etc.

Alright so can we agree? So everybody's saying it's Chalupa, it's Chalupa, that's it. So there was one guy who made up some stuff. That's the Ukraine involvement?

Have you watched the Glenn Beck whiteboard? I did. I watched a little bit of it. I would worry about something that's so complicated it can't be explained. And so but I want you to watch what just happened. So there were many people following this who said oh yeah there's verified lots of reporting on this Ukraine situation. And I asked you what it is, just a simple statement what is the Ukraine thing? And it was just word salad in the comments. There's not one of you who has anything except some guy named Chalupa talked to somebody. That's it. Somebody named Chalupa talked to somebody. That's the Ukraine stuff.

Somebody says I saw the audacity a guy going there's no reporting on that. Politico wrote an article "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" and what are the facts? Nobody has a fact. Did somebody actually do something?

Alright so let me leave it here. There are enough of you who are saying there's something there and referring to articles there. I'm gonna guess there's more to this than what I know. A