Tulsi Gabbard & George Santos

Sigh.

I'm not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard. So when I flipped over to Fox to see what Tucker Carlson had to say (keeping abreast of the competition) and saw Tulsi, I almost flipped away. But she was about to talk to George Santos, and since I'd heard about his outrageous behavior, I thought I would listen in. 

I was actually impressed by Tulsi, I have to admit. She skewered Santos and left him looking like a complete fool.

And then I flipped the channel.

But the story kept popping up on CNN and MSNBC and other news outlets, and all of them used clips from the Tulsi Gabbard interview. And one of the things that they focused on was how Santos had said that a discussion would "go way above the American people's heads." Which certainly isn't a good way to win people over to your side when you're in the midst of a scandal.

To be clear, I am revolted by Santos' behavior, and I do not think that he should be allowed to be seated in Congress. 

However...

He did not say that a discussion of his lies would go above the American people's heads. And that is one of the things that CNN and MSNBC and the other news outlets are leading you to believe.

I went searching for a transcript of the Gabbard interview, but couldn't find one. So I went searching for a video clip of the original interview, and you know what? I had a lot of trouble finding that, too. Doing a Google search of videos of the interview only brought up the edited versions. I finally went to the YouTube site and was able to find the whole thing. Here's what Santos said:

"I can sit down and explain to you what you can do in private equity and capital intro via servicing limited partners and general partners, and we can have this discussion that's going to go way above the American peoples' heads...."

Since I don't speak economics, I'm not certain that I have all of the words right here, but one thing is clear: he's saying that a discussion of financial matters would (1) show that he knew what he was talking about reference the economy and (2) that such a discussion would be over the heads of the American people.

Well, maybe you're smarter than I am about such things, but I have to say that with respect to myself, he is certainly correct about that.

So once again I'm left wondering: isn't Santos a shitty enough guy that we can just take what he did say...and perhaps what he did, if the investigations into his financial escapades proves to be criminal...and not attack him for something he didn't say?

This is the kind of thing that gives liberals a bad name.

BTW, if you want to check it out, you can find the interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3sC1Ha2JwU. The specific comments I'm referring to come in at 6:36.