s actually really smart. It's actually one of the best persuasion plays, maybe you could argue it's in the top three of all time. I mean it's just so brilliant it's invisible. I mean if I didn't mention it would you have ever heard that filter on it? If I hadn't said to you he intentionally and publicly said I'm gonna do this poorly and now you bastards are gonna have to fix it. He said that, not in those words, but he said it as directly as that. You could hate your healthcare, you can hate Obama, you can hate you know hey whatever you need to hate in this story, but that worked. It was intentional, it was brilliant, and it worked. And now we're talking about the Bernie plan. I don't think we would have if that hadn't happened.

Now Bernie is getting a lot of heat from the media on the right because he said things that sounded like a partial defense of Fidel Castro and his Cuban Revolution. Now I just hate these stories. Here's what basically Bernie said. Sure, Fidel Castro you know murdered people and you know we condemn him for all of his bad stuff. So Bernie's not ignoring the bad stuff. You say yeah we condemned him for all that. But it's also true, says Bernie, that he had a massive literacy program and that that actually was good. So Bernie saying yeah yeah there was some murder and abuse and all that stuff, that's real, but there were also some good stuff. And why would you ignore the good stuff?

Now on one hand I say to myself anybody should be able to talk that way. Anybody should be able to say well this person is bad for this but you know good on this. We should all be able to talk like that without this happening where somebody making it look like you were in favor of the bad parts. So I would say it's despicable fake news coverage to blame Bernie for acting as though he's praising a dictator when he says in direct words I'm not praising the dictator. Why don't we believe that? Can't we believe that? I mean it certainly sounds true. Why wouldn't it be?

All right, I tweeted about Bloomberg today, the company as well as the person. Back in 2017, some of you saw it, but Bloomberg the publication sent a reporter out to follow me around because of course I'd been saying good things about Trump and it was just a hit piece. So it was clearly a designed hit piece.

Now the worst part about it, and I put this picture on Twitter, is that the photo they ran — it was a big article, you know, major piece — and so the photo, the big photo that was a half a page or a quarter of the page, showed me exiting my garage in my house and a hat on the wall on a hook that the way it was photographed made it look like a MAGA hat. It wasn't, but that was the story they wanted to tell. They wanted to paint me as a MAGA hat-wearing guy.

Now I've never owned one and if I had one I wouldn't wear it and I would probably throw it away as soon as I got it. I have no complaints with you wearing the hat. For me I would just consider it stupid because I would be inviting risk that I didn't need. And if people are offended by the hat it's a hat, I don't care. Now if you want to wear it to make a point about free speech I have no complaints. If you want to take that risk, well I'm not sure it's a wise choice but that's your choice to make. So I'm certainly not suggesting that you need to do anything differently. Wear your MAGA hats, do whatever you want. It's a free country. And if you want to assert your rights I'm with you totally. I'm just telling you my personal risk-reward decision is I'm just not going to bring a risk that has no reward.

The hat looks like one of those hats because it's a takeoff on that. I forget what it actually said but instead of Make America Great there was something, some profession. It might have been like security or data security or something like that. It was like Make Data Security Great Again. And somebody sent it to me. I didn't buy it. And I thought I don't want to throw away a hat so I put it on that hook by my door in case I would need it to go into my backyard and didn't have a hat. Though I'll just use my emergency backup hat.

But look how much of a lie that photo told. And of course the rest of the story was just a hit piece. But that photo, we used to say that photos don't lie, you know pictures don't lie. But I think it's more accurate to say that they always lie because a photo is an opinion by the photographer and in this case in the editor deciding which pictures to run. So really that photo was an opinion that you probably took as a fact and you probably took it wrong because you said to yourself if he didn't read the article he'd say oh there's that Adams guy, he's a MAGA hat-wearing guy. And that would put me in a certain class of people that I don't I would not put myself in. I certainly would put myself as a Trump supporter but you know wearing the hats and that's a different lifestyle.

All right, so here's my point. Back in 2017 I don't believe that Bloomberg the company did a hit piece on somebody in the political realm unless the boss was okay with it, either directly ordering it or at least being okay with it as a concept. So Bloomberg, Bloomberg the candidate, has to take responsibility for his company publishing a hit piece on me, wouldn't you say? I would say that that's the CEO's responsibility because he sets the tone. And it's not like they recanted the article or anything. It's still there.

So here's my point. Karma can be a... Now I don't k