Episode 2898 CWSA 07/15/25

in.

Grab a seat.

We are going to have some fun today, won't we?

Happy Tuesday.

I'm checking your stocks so you don't have to.

And we'll see how the stock market is doing.

Well, the S&P 500 is up a little bit.

Bitcoin's down a little bit.

Tesla's up a little bit and Nvidia doing well.

All right.

All right.

We'll accept that.

Let me get your comments working and then we're good to go.

Good morning everyone and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's the best thing that ever happened to you.

But if you'd like to see if you could take this rare and special experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is I'll bet you know.

All you need is a copper mug or a glass attacker gel inside a caned jug or flask vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the jumping into the day.

The thing that makes everything better is called a simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

Go.

Ah, so so good.

Well, I wonder if there's any science that could have been avoided if they had just asked me.

Oh, here we are.

Uh, according to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which is why which is the only reason that you're hearing about it is that it's a Chinese study.

It's a study that if you did in the United States, you wouldn't be able to do in the United States.

Here's what it is.

So, Chinese Academy of Sciences determined that intelligence is partly genetic.

Did how many of you knew that?

How many of you already knew without any science whatsoever that smart parents are more likely to have smart children than two dumb parents?

Is there anybody who didn't know that?

Um, they could have saved a little bit of time just by asking me.

But I learned the other day cuz I was watching some podcast I don't remember that in the United States if you said that uh intelligence is even partly genetic you would be called what?

A racist.

You you're not even allowed to uh consider that possibility in the United States.

And the funny part is 100% of the world is completely aware that that intelligence is partly, you know, it's not 100%.

But certainly partly genetic.

No doubt about that.

Anyway, we'll see if I get uh cancelled for for quoting a Chinese uh science.

Um well, Trump continues to be the funniest president of all.

uh he was at a White House faith office lunchon which makes this extra funny.

Now one of the things that tr that Trump really understands in in the comedy world is that it's not what you say, it's the fact that you would say something in a particular audience or a particular time.

So, he's really good at making sure that the things he says are a little bit inappropriate for the audience.

That's sort of the secret of what makes you laugh about it.

Well, here he's talking to the White House Faith Office at a lunchon and he was talking about the good things that his big beautiful bill would do to make everybody richer.

And Trump said, I said to one guy, he's a very, very unattractive man.

So that's the first thing that no president ever said about anybody before.

No president ever has stood in front of a audience and talked about somebody he knew and said they were a very, very unattractive man.

And that's only the first part.

It's already funny.

Anyway, he's a very, very unattractive man, but he's smart and he's rich.

And I said, "You better hope we get this thing passed." Talking about his big, beautiful bill, because your wife will be gone with within about 2 minutes.

So, he's telling people out of faith lunchon that that the ugly rich guy is going to lose his trophy wife unless Trump's tax bill goes through.

Oh, he's the funniest president ever.

Well, uh, Mark Zuckerberg, who allegedly is using gigantic piles of money to recruit AI experts to Meta, um, says it's not just because of the money that, uh, people want to work for him for another reason that might not be so obvious to you, but not just about the money.

Um, the researchers want access to the maximum amount of compute because you could be an AI expert, but if every time you log on to do some AI stuff, you don't have enough compute power, you're not going to go very far.

So, it sounds like the people who know the most about AI really want to be in an environment where they have the maximum GPUs.

Um, and Zuckerberg promises them that they'll be part of a smalish team that'll report directly to the CEO.

And I'm thinking to myself, that's actually a pretty good package if you knew you were, you know, directly connected to the top guy.

and you were getting a lot of money, but also you had the most compute power, which they don't have yet.

But listen to this.

Now, this is I saw this on X, a Sawyer Merit.

Um, he has a good good site.

He's a good follow Sawyer Merritt.

He does a lot of reporting on X about Tesla and Musk related stuff.

But he's got this story that I'm having some trouble believing.

Um, so it is true.

I believe that Zuckerberg is planning enormous just enormous building buildouts of computer centers to run his AI stuff.

And they're building several multi-GW clusters.

Um, they're calling the first one Prometheus and uh they're building another one called Hyperion.

To which I say, I love this idea of giving your data centers awesome names like Hyperion and Primetheus.

It's pretty good.

Pretty good naming.

Anyway, um the reporting says that just one of these buildings that will compute will have, you know, massive computing that one of them will cover a significant part of the footprint of Manhattan.

Now, it's not going to be in Manhattan.

They're just using Manhattan as a comparison.

And I saw a uh a graphic of how big the building would be compared to the entire island of Manhattan.

and it covers most of it.

Now, does that sound true to you?

Do you believe that that Facebook is right now building multiple data centers for AI?

Each one just one just one of them would be the size almost of the entire Manhattan Island.

Do you believe that?

I mean, it's in it's in Sawyer Merritt's Xi uh X feed.

So he's I I think he's quite credible, but I would be surprised if that's even possible.

It doesn't seem like it's possible.

You're probably aware according to Wired magazine um that uh there are a bunch of AI Nutify websites.

Nutify, there are about 85 of them.

And what they do is you you can take a picture of somebody's face and it will give them a naked body.

So AI adds a naked body.

Um and there are 85 of them and they're making millions of dollars.

And um of course you might be surprised and amazed to learn this.

I know this will be quite a surprise, but apparently the Nudify AI websites are uh quite used by male uh high school students to bully their classmates.

Now, that's the most predictable thing you could have ever predicted.

Scott, we're thinking of making an AI website that will make any picture of anybody look like they're naked and doing embarrassing things.

Who will be our target market?

Well, I'm glad you asked, but teenage boys.

And after that, um, disgruntled ex-boyfriends and husbands.

and after that probably mess and all kinds of stuff.

But um I'm going to suggest that this might be a self um solving problem in 2025.

If you were a, let's say, a high school 16year-old girl or something and some male bully in your class um started sending around an AI picture that was your face, but it looked like you naked, but it would be made by AI in 2025.

That would be terrible because uh it would scar you for life and everybody would be teasing you and they'd be sending it around and you know you'd never know who's who's giggling behind your back and it would be humiliating and horrifying.

But what happens if it becomes so common that the moment you saw somebody you know with you know naked picture you said to yourself it's AI you wouldn't be interested at all because you could make your own AI nude stuff anytime you wanted and it's the now it's the millionth time there's somebody you sat around one of your classmates looking naked and you know that's not really them.

an AI body put on them.

How much attention would that even get?

So, my guess is that the way through it is to do more of it and then just wait for young people to be totally bored by it.

You know, right?

Every time there's a new AI thing, you know, the first time you see it, you go, "Whoa, are you kidding?

AI made a picture of two cats that appear to be talking.

This is so cool.

I have to show all my friends.

And then by the hundth time you see a meme of two cats talking and it's made by AI, do you send it around or do you say, "Oh god, not another AI of two cats talking." Now, I know that, you know, nude nude people is more exciting than cats talking, but wouldn't you get bored with this?

And wouldn't it become a big nothing once everybody understood that the the nude person is not really there?

It's just AI.

I don't feel like it's going to have much impact, but it might might take, I know, three to five years to get to the point where people go, "Ah, don't send that to me anymore." Speaking of that, allegedly Conor Mc.

Gregor sent uh full nude pictures of himself to rapper Aelia Banks, who apparently posted them on social media to mock him.

To which I say, is it too soon for Conor Mc.

Gregor to say, "That wasn't me.

That was somebody did that with AI." He would be a tough one to nudify because he's got tattoos all over his body and the AI might not know where his tattoos are.

So, I would do a uh check on his tattoos.

If the tattoos are under his clothes, or would have been if he had had clothes and uh they still look right in the picture, well, he probably took a picture of himself naked and sent it to her probably.

But if the tattoos don't line up, might be AI.

So Conor Mc.

Gregor, if he had waited another two or three years, he could probably send his naked pictures to anybody and whoever got him would say, "I'm so tired getting AI generated naked pictures and they wouldn't think twice about it." Meanwhile, over at North Carolina State University, um, is talking about an AI powered lab for materials science, materials engineering.

So there's now a lab that can uh using AI it can decide what things to test in terms of materials you know creating materials that have special properties for making various things and it can decide what to test and then it can very rapidly because it's machines test a whole bunch of different material combinations and figure out which ones are commercial and it does that without human intervention.

So the AI decides what to test and then it tests it very quickly and decides whether to keep it or release it and that's already up.

That's like a real thing that's already here.

So we've got an automated AI factory.

Do you know how big a deal that is?

Do do you have any idea the upside potential of new materials?

You know, stuff that's super hard but also super light, stuff that can conduct electricity better than other stuff.

The upside potential of just materials sounds like a boring thing, but it's really a lot.

There was a story that I decided not to talk about until just this moment.

Uh there's some teenage kid who allegedly invented an electric motor that doesn't require these uh magnets that are rare earth.

And the idea is that you know you would change you know the entire uh the entire situation with making uh electric motors because if you could get rid of the magnet part you wouldn't need any rare earth minerals for making magnets.

Now, I saw in the comments that people said, "We've always had that kind of engine.

He didn't didn't invent anything." I don't know about that, but that's the size of the opportunity.

It could be as big as, "Hey, we found a way that you don't need these rare earth materials." That would be a pretty big deal.

Anyway, um Mark Cuban is uh helping the Democrats decide what to do.

Um, I don't know if the Democrats know that or they welcome it, but he's uh he was saying on a uh interview yesterday, I think that the Democrats only message Trump sucks and that's not going to get it done.

So, how much uh I feel as if um everybody who cares about the Democrats doing well uh that they don't really have good suggestions for them.

It's definitely a good suggestion to stop doing what they're doing.

That part is solid.

But what should they be doing?

I think everybody stops with, you know, you should have a better message.

Well, everybody knows that, right?

They all know they should they should have a better message.

But who is it who's coming up with a better message?

At what point do you say we all know we suck?

Do you have any idea how we could do this better?

But of course, it's not just the message, is it?

It's also the messenger.

So if you don't have the right messenger, doesn't matter if you have the right message.

And that's of course the the big secret to Zoran Mandani in New York City.

He's he's literally a socialist.

Some would say communist, but because his uh policy is so clean and well represented, you know, the affordability stuff, and because he's a an appealing messenger, he's actually overcoming being a communist.

that if you wondered how how much power you can get from having the right message and being the right kind of messenger, well, there's a guy called um Trump who had the right message at the right time and he was the right messenger and now he's the most influential person in the world.

That's how important it is.

Um, and if you might ask yourself, how in the world did voters um get comfortable with the fact that Trump is accused of all manner of things I won't even mention?

And the answer is he had the right policy.

He had the right message and he was charismatic and he could deliver that message and and deliver results.

So yeah, you could be a communist or you could be accused of absolutely anything.

But if you get those two things right, the right message and you're the right charismatic messenger, people will say, you know what, that's kind of rare.

So we're going to overlook all those other things that otherwise might bother us.

Um, in other news, the Supreme Court has ruled once again that Trump can do what he wanted to do, which was fire uh hundreds of employees at the uh education department, which he would like to get rid of.

And I guess that had been blocked, you know, once again by some district judge.

And once again, Trump wins when it goes to the Supreme Court, which you you could argue um proves that the judges are corrupt, the judges that block it in the first place, cuz they probably know it's going to the Supreme Court, and they probably know they're going to lose, and that the Supreme Court will will give Trump um the power to do what the president should be able to do, which is uh hire and fire people in the executive branch.

But doesn't it feel to you like you're just hearing the same story over and over again?

How many times have you read or heard the story?

Well, a local, you know, a more local judge blocked Trump from doing whatever and then it went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court sided with Trump.

So now he can do it.

I mean, literally, how many times have we heard that now?

I I don't know the answer to my own question, but is it a dozen times, or am I just remembering it weird?

Is it five times?

How many times has the Supreme Court slapped down the the lower court judges?

It's a lot, right?

I I don't even know the number.

Well, you want to stop talking about Epstein, but we can't.

We can't quit it.

It's just something new every day.

So, yesterday was Monday and we were all waiting to see if Dan Bonino showed up for work or if he quit.

Um, as far as I know, and of course things can change quickly, he did not quit.

And there were meetings in the White House in which all three Bundi and Patel and Bonino apparently all visited the White House.

There's some reports that um JD Vance might have been trying to talk people off a ledge.

There was talk that Bino had threatened to quit if uh Pam Bondi didn't get fired or leave uh or if she didn't change her approach to what was being released.

So the first thing I would say about that reporting is I don't trust any of it.

This is exactly the kind of reporting that never really captures the whole thing behind the curtain.

I mean, some of it might be true, but it' be out of context and you'd be missing parts and you wouldn't know who said what and you wouldn't know their internal feelings.

When somebody else says they're really mad, you don't know if they really are or they're pretending.

So whenever I hear these stories about who said I'll quit or if you don't do this I'll do that.

I don't I don't fully believe them to be literally true.

Um I treat them more like well this is what people are saying.

You know you don't know what's really happening behind the scenes there.

But uh we would know if Bongino quit.

We would know that.

So apparently he did not quit.

And there's some reporting that um maybe they're relooking at their approach to what they revealed about Epstein.

So maybe possibly there might be more to come and it might be that that more to come is the only thing that keeps Bonino staying there.

um because he needs he needs to get a win because he really Bino got kind of screwed in this whole this whole situation.

He gave up this lucrative, incredible podcasting, you know, gig he had to have the worst job in the world, which is working for the government, and tried to make a difference.

And then he gets, you know, totally shhat upon by this whole Epstein situation, which he had a reason to believe would go differently.

So if um to me um Bahanino is the canary in the coal mine meaning if he doesn't quit and nothing else happens that's going to give me one view of the whole situation versus if he did quit and says I can't talk about it but I can't work here anymore and if you're guessing it's because of the Epstein stuff you'd be But I can't tell you more than that.

Now, that would tell me that um the cover up was something that didn't really need to be covered up, but maybe, you know, there's some billionaire who's being protected or something like that.

And that would not be cool with the public or with him as well.

But if he doesn't quit, then then I would have to assume that uh he's been convinced that not releasing the information is better than releasing it.

Which would tell us that there's something really big that's been hidden like really big more than just one person's, you know, career or life or freedom.

uh maybe something at a national level, you know, something that would derail the country entirely if it got out.

So, I I'll be watching him.

Um Benny Johnson on his podcast says there's a massive disclosure coming on the Epstein files.

So, he's uh he's got good sources.

And uh so Benny says uh that uh Bonino's back at work and there's a major push for more transparency etc.

separately.

While we're waiting for that, um there's a story in Rolling Stone.

They've got an exclusive apparently that uh way back Jeffrey Epstein hired private investigators to follow and intimidate the FBI agents who were surveilling him um because he knew he was being investigated by the FBI.

So, he hired people to harass them.

You know, I don't know about you, but the more I hear about this Epstein guy, the more I'm thinking he's not a nice guy.

Yeah, that's a Norm Mc.

Donald joke.

I stole it.

He was talking about Hiller, but it works for Epstein.

All right.

Um, you know how I always tell you that you don't know, you don't know what's happening in the story until Durowitz tells you.

If there's anything that has anything to do with legality, um, you just have to wait for Dersuitz.

And I've been saying this for years now.

Here it is again.

So Durowitz was on Chris Cuomo.

Most of you know that Dersowitz was a lawyer for Epstein.

So he's not guessing.

So you know, a lot of lot of stuff is speculation and guessing, but Durowitz is not guessing.

He he knows.

And one of the things he knows is that there's not a client list per se, you know, where Epstein put a list together of all of his bad actions.

That doesn't exist as far as Duruitz knows.

Uh, and I assume it does does not exist as well.

But he says there is a redacted FBI affidavit from the accusers.

So, this would go way back.

And there are several of them.

So several instances in which the accusers have named names and those documents exist um but they've been redacted.

So uh Durit says he knows the names because he was the lawyer he was involved.

So he know he um he says now of course because as lawyer uh and I did only investigations I know who all these people are.

So Durowitz knows the truth.

He knows he knows who the bad guys are who have been accused.

But because he's a lawyer and ethical he can't tell you.

But he can tell you that if you could penetrate those redactions, you would know who was being blamed.

Now to complicate things um at one point Durowitz himself was being accused and his accuser who has recently died that Virginia Joffrey um well before she died she withdrew her accusation and said she was mistaken and that she does not at the moment she does not um well she's dead now but uh she went to the grave having said that she did not mean it and that Durowitz did not do anything illegal that she knows of.

So here's my question now that we know exactly what document would tell us what we need to know.

But it might not be accurate because remember if if it's true that Virginia Joffrey simply made up a story and it's also true that apparently there was some kind of fund established that would pay off victims who wanted to settle.

So allegedly, one of the reasons that we're not hearing from the uh alleged victims of Epstein's Island is that they probably signed NDAs, non-disclosure agreements, and they probably took large amounts potentially of money from a fund that was set up, I think, with Epstein's money to pay off people who had a civil complaint.

So though that's something that could be the NDAs could be penetrated in the context of a criminal case.

So the the people who signed the NDAs would probably sacrifice something if they talked, but not if a court made them.

So, we've got the possibility that some court somewhere will say, "Uh, I know you signed NDAs and I know you got paid for being quiet, but uh there's a legal case here and you just have to tell us and then they would know all." So, so now we have uh all the characters are at work today as far as we know.

Banino, Bondi, and Patel still at work.

And now Duroitz has said this document or this set of documents these are the ones these are the exact documents which we know exist there's no question that they exist and all you have to do is penetrate the redactions.

So my question would be, is that what the conversation is now?

Did Banino say, "Here's the deal.

I I'm just going to kick the out of the administration if they leave me hanging out to dry," which I would love it if he did that.

We don't know anything about what happened, but I would love it if Bonino said, "You guys hug me out to dry.

I'm going to take down the whole operation unless you redact these names and put them out.

What would they do?

Well, they're not going to murder him.

And he has the power now.

He has the power to take down the whole process.

He he could take down Trump easily.

All you'd have to do is say, "Look, I've seen everything, and if you vote if you vote for Democrats or if you vote for Republicans in the midterm, you're crazy because the whole Republican thing is u you know, covering up stuff.

So, weirdly and ironically, Bino is a blackmailer." Now, I say that um jokingly, so he's not breaking any laws as far as I know.

But don't you think that Bonino knows enough about what's happening on the other side of the curtain that if he had a conversation with Trump, he could say, "Here's the deal.

You can't make me a liar.

You cannot make me a liar.

If if you don't if you don't release more, I'm going to tell people what I know, but I won't do it within the administration, and you're going to have to deal with the the blowback for that.

So, how would you like to do a better job of transparency?

That's my guess.

My guess is that Bongino had so much power because he has knowledge um that he can force them to disclose more than they wanted to.

So we'll see.

Now of course you know that the risk here um as with Durowitz is that people were making false accusations to get paid out.

So, if you see a list of people who are accused of being abusers on Epstein Island, um my advice would be to assume that half of them are not true, but you'll never know which half.

That's the best I can do.

I mean, it will be it would destroy the reputations and lives and marriages probably of anybody who gets named, but there's a good 50% chance that anybody named didn't actually do what they're accused of.

So, we have to deal with that.

Well, of course, the uh Democrats uh are having fun with the Epstein file stuff because as long as we don't know what the story is, the Democrats can kind of suggest that it's much worse than you think.

So, Representative uh Hakee Jeff, he says, quote, "If you're trying to hide something, as many of Donald Trump's mega supporters apparently believe, then Congress should actually work hard to uncover the truth for the American people." So, he's pushing on that division and MAGA of the people who want to see what's going on.

Then Jamie Rascin, who I call the one of the several designated liars uh on the Democrat side, he said, "At this point, the president owes it to the country to put it to rest one way or the other." And I agree.

I agree with that.

the president owes the country.

Um maybe not all the redacted information, but definitely a better excuse for why we're not seeing it.

Um I don't know about you, but if Trump came out and said, "Here's the deal." um the country would be at a great disadvantage if this information came out and I can't tell you why.

But trust me, it's not about the individuals we're protecting.

I'm protecting the country.

And I'm making the tough decision.

I know you all wanted to see it, but you're going to have to trust me on this.

The country would be much worse off if I release everything.

Now, I'm not saying that's the case.

We don't know what the case is.

But at least if Trump said that, I would say to myself, all right, you know, under the sort of republic that we live in, we hired him to make those decisions.

He's telling us that he is hiding something and there's a reason for it.

Um, some people, not everybody, would say, you know what, at least that's better than what we had.

Uh, I can move on now.

Um, you prefer truth.

Well, what I learned is that many people are really bad at understanding themselves and at understanding how to do a a risk analysis.

So, if I say to you, releasing the full Epstein files would cause a nuclear holocaust, apparently an alarming number of you would say, that's okay.

I'd rather have the truth.

And you would put up with a nuclear holocaust.

Okay.

If if you say that you're either a liar, you're an idiot.

Uh is there any other or you haven't really thought it through?

Because I I think people want to I think one people want to present themselves as the strongest voice against these particular kinds of heinous crimes against children.

So a lot of it feels like just positioning.

And if you were the president and you really thought genuinely that releasing it would cause a nuclear holocaust, you telling me you'd really release it?

Really?

Really?

If if you had to make the decision, you would allow the entire world to burn just to know the names of those accusers?

Really, even knowing that maybe they're falsely accused.

I don't believe that.

I don't believe there's one person who would do that.

Not even one.

But I'll bet you a quarter of the people asked would say they would because they said it's the I don't care if the entire world burns up in a nuclear fire.

It's the principle of the thing.

As if your government has been honest to you about the other stuff.

If this were the the one thing that the government lied about, I'd say, you know, there is a principle involved here.

We don't want our government to lie to us about even one thing.

But is that the situation?

The situation uh I see is that the government lies to us about everything all the time and this is just more of that.

But okay.

Well, Trump says he's had enough of Putin and uh Putin talking nice but bombing Ukraine five minutes later.

And so he has issued a 50-day ultimatum to end the war in Ukraine.

And the ultimatum is that he will do secondary tariffs of up to 100% on Russian goods that are going to other trading partners.

So the the tariff would be on anybody who deals with Russia, not just on Russia directly.

Now I don't know how much impact that would have cuz I don't know how much exports Russia does.

I mean if if they're selling stuff to China, will we put 100% um tariffs on that?

Yeah.

Will will China will will we shut down our own trade with China which would destroy the United States so that we could stop Russia from trading with China?

I don't know.

So, I'm a little uh questioning whether this would be effective, but it's better than nothing.

Then Trump confirmed that the US is going to send Patriot missiles uh and systems to Ukraine and it will be funded by the European countries and Canada.

Now he doesn't say NATO, but I'm wondering if he means NATO.

Does he mean NATO?

Because um because Ukraine is not part of NATO.

So presumably the the I I'll take a fact check on this by the way.

Presumably the budget that goes to NATO would not be used by a non-NATO country.

So it could be that this is on top of that 5% that Trump's trying to get all the countries to.

Uh but it would be the NATO countries.

it was not all of them because I guess Turkey would not be involved here.

Um, so it looks like it's not NATO but rather the countries individually and I'm guessing that because Turkey is not mentioned and I don't believe that Turkey would want to be funding weapons over there anyway.

U but, uh, Trump has said it's not going to be just defensive weapons like the Patriot.

um it's going to be everything all of them.

So he's talking about offensive weapons that we have so far tried to not send there and um then now he's willing to send missiles that could reach Moscow.

And there's some reporting, I don't know how reliable it is, that Trump is completely aware uh and checked that Ukraine would use new weapons to attack Moscow itself.

So, here's what I think the play is.

I think Trump is literally going to bomb Moscow, but he's going to do it through our proxy, Ukraine.

Literally going to bomb, not bomb, but let's say send missiles and drones um at a large scale.

Uh we've been sending offensive weapon for years now.

Probably not the good stuff, though.

Um, so, so I think Trump is teasing that we may have held back some of the good stuff and that that would be the difference.

But I take I take that correction.

I would be surprised, very surprised if we've never sent them any form of offensive weaponry, you know, and it's also hard to define what is offensive and what is defensive.

So, I would say uh if you're if we're selling them missiles that are meant to be shot at a foreign city as far away as Moscow, to me that feels like an offensive weapon.

So, I think that's what's going to happen.

Anyway, um so we'll see how that goes.

Um, it feels like the odds of nuclear war are not that high just because Putin is not insane and the last thing he wants is a nuclear war.

So, it could be that Trump is just calling his bluff and saying, "You know what?

Um, there's no limit to what we're going to do to you if you keep doing this.

We there's no upper limit.

We'll just keep ratcheting up.

We're going to give Ukraine better and better weapons.

And I'll say again that we're probably three years away from the front lines of this war being only robots and not even controlled by humans, but just robots, you know, nothing but robots because we're going, you both sides are going to run out of humans on the front lines.

They'll just be dead.

and uh the robots and the drones and the AI will be the new the new battle.

So do you think that Russia believes it could keep up with the Ukraine if the Ukraine has the full backing of the United States and the other other countries to make as many drones and the most powerful ones they could possibly make?

Is it possible for for Russia to keep up?

Well, they've got China on their side, right?

So, they could buy a lot of drones.

Um, and I guess Iran maybe.

I don't know if they have anything left to sell, but um it's going to be a robot only war because I don't think that that Putin's going to back down and make peace.

And I don't think he's going to quit.

And I don't think Ukraine's going to quit.

And now the US has turned it into a profit center where we're just selling our arms and somebody else is paying for it.

So we're not going to quit.

And Europe doesn't want to lose because they don't want Putin to roll through Europe, they think.

So there's nobody who really has any chance of wanting to quit.

So in three years the people will be mostly dead on the front lines and just be robots and we'll then you're going to really see the future.

All right.

Uh then Trump wants to put uh let's see what else is he doing?

Um, apparently if Trump puts a the big tariff on Russian oil, that will make oil prices everywhere go up because Russia is a big enough exporter that if you crush their oil industry um and reduce the supply, the entire world will pay more according to Bloomberg.

So, um, Wall Street and the stock market did not go down when Trump threatened to make oil prices go up by blocking Russian oil.

Which means that, according to Bloomberg, that Wall Street doesn't believe he's going to do it.

In other words, the investors don't believe that uh, Trump will successfully do anything that would cut down on Russian oil sales.

So, we'll see.

There's a new poll, Harvard Caps Harris poll that was just released yesterday that says the Democratic Party's approval rating is at a new low.

It dropped from 42% to 40.

So, four and 10 respondents approved of the Democrat party, which is down from June two points.

Um, so my question is this.

It's the weirdest situation when the the Democrats are at the lowest approval that, you know, we've seen, but at the same time, all the smart people are saying that the Democrats are probably going to pick up seats in the midterm.

you.

Now, I know the reason for that is that everybody likes their own representative, but they think that the other ones are bad.

So, they vote for their own representative, and then next thing you know, you got you got a Democrat win when Democrats have the lowest approval level, like of all time.

I don't know if it's at all time, but it might be.

So, that's a weird situation.

Obviously, that's a system problem.

But speaking of uh bad advice for Democrats, who would you say is the Democrat's smartest player?

If you had to pick one person, the one experienced, smart, proven, brilliant messenger, uh not only a good messenger, but somebody who's good at coming up with a message.

Who do you think would be the very best the best you could get on the Democrat side?

Um, I'm seeing Roana, Fedman, Fedman.

I was going to say Obama.

Don't we all believe that Obama was gifted in terms of political skill?

I even even Republicans say that.

Even Republicans would admit, "Yeah, we don't like what he did, but he has skill." Like, he was good at this politics stuff.

Good at talking in public, good at having messages that that resonated with people.

Well, here is Obama's advice for Democrats.

You ready for this?

Here's their best guy, their best, smartest, experienced guy.

He says, "Uh, don't tell me you're a Democrat, but you're kind of disappointed right now, so you're not doing anything." No, now is exactly the time you get in there and do something.

Okay.

So, the first part of his is advice is to do something.

So, did that help?

Were there any Democrats who didn't know that doing something would be an advantage for them as opposed to doing nothing and continuing to, you know, suck?

So, that's a little bit generic.

Obama, but there's more.

Um, he said that they should toughen up.

Oh, okay.

So they should do more and they should toughen up.

Okay, that's a little bit generic, but is there more from their best wisest advisor?

Yes, there's more.

He also said they should do less naval gazing and that's it.

Did he have a specific suggestion about some messaging that might work?

No.

No, he didn't.

All he had was generic advice about toughening up, doing something, and having less naval gazing.

Do you imagine that he could have been more worthless if it had been his intention to do it?

It's almost like if he had a contest to see who could do the least useful thing for Democrats, it would be right here.

He would win the contest of the most useless advice ever given.

Do something toughen up and less naval gazing.

That's their best guy.

If you if you try to find the second best guy, and here guy means man or woman.

Um, so you know it's going to be somebody like Fedterman that even the Democrats are mad at because Fedman keeps agreeing with common sense.

Anyway, so that's pretty worthless.

Um, so according to u just the news, the uh the reason that we're not hearing much from the uh Department of Justice, I guess uh on the Russia collusion investigation is that they're trying to make a RICO case out of it.

Now, RICO means that it's not just an individual bad behavior by any person or persons, but rather it's an organized ongoing um plot to do something illegal.

Now, you tell me, do you think they could make the case that the Russia collusion hoax, which apparently was well known as a hoax because they knew the steel documentary, the steel document was fake, they knew that Hillary's campaign was paying for it from the start and that, you know, Brennan and Obama and Clapper, they all knew.

So could uh do you think that the Trump administration's people could make the case that would stand up in court that it wasn't just an isolated incident?

It was an organized Democrat attempt to do a series of illegal things maybe.

Yeah.

The dossier, not the document.

Um, but on top of that to really round it out would be the lawfare stuff.

So, not only allegedly was there a conspiracy to come up with hoaxes about Trump, the Russia collusion hoax and you know all the other ones, uh, but the Russia collusion hoax is the one they focus on.

But could they also make the case that they had gone after Trump with lawfare that was organized, let's say, by Joe Biden or organized by the top?

Could they make that case?

because then they would have two parts that both individually would be a little Rico like, but if you put them together and you sold both of them to a jury, would it be would it be compelling?

What do you think?

It feels like it probably is too tough to get a conviction because the one of the things I understand from Trey Gaudy and people who know more than I do is that getting a RICO conviction, well, we learned this from the Diddy Diddy situation because the prosecutor dropped the RICO stuff.

Um, and the reason they dropped it is it's just really hard to make the case that it's organized.

But in this case, do you think they could find enough documents and meetings and connections that they could prove that the lawfare was organized and also that the Russia collusion hoax was organized and they all knew they were in on it?

They they knew they were doing something illegal, if not just immoral.

I don't know.

I think it would be tough.

I I wouldn't want to get you all excited like like the Epstein stuff where you think that, oh man, now these people are going to pay the price and go to jail.

I doubt this will be successful, but I like the fact they're trying because I do think that there's a real crime there.

Um, so might as well take a run at it.

Well, here's a little story that makes me or reminds me that who you know makes a difference between whether you get rich or not.

Um, apparently the US had a one big company that was involved in making uh rare earth materials, mining it, and it was called uh um materials, what's it called?

MP or something uh MP materials I think it's called.

And so when it became a big thing that China was going to block our rare materials because of the tariff force, if I had known, if I had been aware that there was a big American company that was in this space, what would I have done?

I would have bought that stock if I had known that.

But for some reason, it never really occurred to me that there would be some largestish publicly traded company in the US that would obviously obviously benefit a lot from uh the government saying we should do more of this domestically because if you get the government on your side, that's when you have, you know, the big gains.

But I didn't know that.

I didn't know that.

Never heard of that company.

didn't know we even had a big company that was in that space.

But if I did, it was free money.

It's already tripled.

Now, this is not investment advice because remember, it already tripled.

So, that doesn't mean it's going to keep going up.

But the people who knew that and it was, you know, sort of publicly available information, but the people who knew that, they just got free money.

All you had to do is put a few bucks in that company and it was about as close as you could get to a guaranteed payoff.

It it wouldn't be like regular investing or gambling at all.

It'd be just like here's a dollar, give me $3 back.

And when I look at this sort of situation, I think to myself, it's terribly unfair that some of us are paying attention.

How many how many people uh have already made huge gains by investing in AI companies because they were following that and other people weren't.

How many people made a killing in Bitcoin because they simply paid attention and they knew more about it than people who don't know about it?

A lot.

How many people, now this one could be a wild card, but how many people invested in Tesla and have already made a bunch of money because they understood that Tesla took a different approach to full self-driving um AI.

If you knew that, you'd say to yourself, "Oh my god, this is going to be bigger than Uber." Um, and then if you knew that Tesla was also making robots, which isn't something that most people know, you know, maybe at most 10% of the country knows that Tesla is even in the robot business.

You know, we if you follow the news like most of us do, you think everybody knows that, but they don't.

Only 90% of the country would not know that the Tesla company is also making robots.

So that little bit of knowledge um I've used because I've invested in AI and I've invested in nuclear power because I because I've been following the nuclear industry and I knew that pretty soon nuclear is going to be on fire.

Well, not in a bad way, in a good way.

So, so some time ago, I put money in nuclear uh and ETF because I didn't want to pick individual companies and uh AI and Tesla.

Now, I feel almost guilty because those are not like regular investments.

Those are simply I just knew more about the news.

It's all public.

I just paid attention.

And if you didn't, you wouldn't know that these were all free money.

And I didn't know about this materials company, you know, that does the rare earth.

If I had, do you think I would have invested?

Yes, absolutely.

I I would have put some money in it and I would have gotten some free money back already.

So, yeah, what you know and who you know and whether you know somebody who's in this space is a difference between making money and not making money.

And it's not fair.

Um, it just is.

And uh let's see what else is happening.

Um so Senator uh Ran Paul uh he wants to reissue criminal referrals about Fouchy uh and Fouch's involvement with the um the lab and funding it and all that.

And I think it was related to Fouchy allegedly lying under oath.

But um when it looked like Fouchy had a pardon from the Biden auto pen process, then there was no point in having a criminal referral because he was already pardoned for everything.

But now since the autopen is being questioned and some people are saying, was it even legal to do all these pardons if if Biden maybe didn't even know what he was doing or it went through underlings?

So, that was enough of an opening for Senator Paul to reissue his criminal referral.

It seems to me like I just see Moby Dick when I when I read about Rand Paul going after Fouchy.

I I feel like Fouchy is just this great white whale and Rand Paul will go to his grave trying to put that guy in jail.

I don't know if he ever will, but he's trying.

Um, let's talk about the autopen situation.

So, if you follow the right leading news, as most of you do, but you don't follow other news or other podcasters, you would probably think this autopen thing is a real big scandal and it really matters and it's going to change things if we get to the bottom of it.

I don't feel that that's true because I don't feel there's necessarily a crime there and I don't feel that any of his rules will be reversed because uh Biden has confirmed that he individually approved everything that was signed.

Now, did he?

No, of course not.

He didn't know everything that got signed.

I I don't even know if he knew his name.

but he's the only one who could testify um that he knew or didn't know what he was doing.

And I also think that the excuse that he gave some guidelines, you know, you can pardon people if they fall under these guidelines.

I don't think it's a big deal if he didn't know the specifics and then his staff said, "All right, we have the guidelines.

So, as long as we're within the guidelines, he's pre-approved it and then he auto penetent.

Is that is that the biggest problem in the world?

Not really.

Is that illegal?

Not that I know of.

Uh, apparently there's enough of a paper trail that you can determine that the aids were talking to to Biden in the process of figuring out what to auto pen.

If you knew that they were talking to Biden about what to auto pen and what not to and Biden also said, "Oh yeah, I I basically approved everything." There's not much there.

Right.

So if you're waiting for this auto pen thing to become a, you know, much bigger legal thing or something like that, I don't think it will.

And I don't think any of them will be reversed.

I could be surprised, but my prediction will be none of the autopen stuff will be reversed by a court or anything else.

Um, but uh I saw Mark Halperin on his podcast two-way, which is great by the way, great podcast.

Um, he was saying that there's something missing.

there's a dog not barking in the New York Times coverage of it because you probably said to yourself, well, why did it take the New York Times so long to get on that story about the autopen and uh but then they eventually did and they did a big feature story on it.

So, you say to yourself, all right, all right, a little later than I wanted, but at least the New York Times, you know, legitimately looked into it.

But then uh Mark Halperin points out that there are some things that you definitely would have seen in the story if it had been a story about Republicans and Trump.

And he says, "Uh, so what do law professors think about that?

What do Republicans think about that?" And I thought, "Yeah, is there no reference to a law professor in the New York Times article where the law professor would say, "Oh, he could totally use the autopen.

It's no problem." or the law professor would say, "Oh, no." If if there's no paper trail, they specifically approved it.

That can't stand.

So, wouldn't you expect that if they had been a Republican, they would have talked to a law professor who would have said, "Oh, no.

Trump can't do that.

We have to reverse all that." But when it was about Biden, no law professor.

Nope.

Didn't need to talk to any law professors.

Um, and then uh and then they'd also have a Republican saying this needs to be investigated.

So that's probably true.

So where is the Democrat?

Is there not one Democrat?

Nobody in Congress, not one who says the autopen thing ought to be investigated.

you would definitely see it if it was a Republican.

So, he's right from that.

So, it's absent from the story.

Daily Caller is writing about that.

Um, you probably already know the answer to this, but apparently the June inflation numbers are out.

Um, have you seen them yet?

Are the June inflation numbers good or bad?

It looked like the stock market was kind of happy, so it must be in line with expectations, but we'll but that's today.

So, keep an eye on that.

We'll see if those tariffs are working their way into the inflation numbers.

Fox News is reporting that um police officers in blue cities are uh are leaving in large numbers to go to red states because if you're a police officer in a red state um the people in charge actually appreciate you.

If you were a police officer in a blue city, you you might be in, you know, arresting people all day long and they're just getting released and uh everybody hates you.

So, I would add this to the list of how in the world could blue cities survive because they're spending themselves into ruin.

um their their real estate will become worthless such as a crime scene and then the people who could keep the peace are leaving like crazy.

Is there is there any narrative that would save the blue cities?

And I think the answer is no.

No, I I think they will actually fail.

Now, I don't know about New York City because that's sort of a special case, but I do expect a lot of cities to just turn into, you know, escape from New York kind of hellscapes even more than they are.

So, I'd love to see some Democrat even explain how they they could ever write the ship because I don't see any way.

To me, it looks like it's a one-way trip to um being Detroit.

Has Detroit ever recovered from the car industry leaving?

It hasn't, right?

Isn't Detroit still in horrible situation?

I think it is.

I don't see how that's going to change.

Well, Ronda Santis has a big win.

Fox News is talking about this, too.

So, six southern states have banded together to create a new accreditation commission for uh higher education.

Now, if you don't know how important that is, it's really important because if the liberals are the only ones who can say your college is accredited, and nobody wants to go to a college that's not accredited by somebody, um then you know the left has all the power about what is a what is an acceptable college.

So now there's going to be a competing accreditation um process at least for six states in which if you're a college you can get accredited by the uh this this new organization and then you don't have to be super woke because I imagine that you have to be super woke to be accredited by the old accreditation system.

So this might be a really big deal.

We'll see.

Um uh all right.

So according to a publication called European Conservative, the European Union is uh having a tough time trying to figure out how to uh address Trump's tariff and trade escalation.

So, you would not be surprised to learn that the European Union is full of countries that don't all agree with each other about what to do and when.

So, it's like hurting cats.

So, apparently the European Union believed that they were um negotiating with Trump on a trade deal and things were going along fine.

They weren't close to a deal, but they felt h things are moving along.

And then suddenly Trump says, "Yeah, we're not negotiating anymore.

Uh here's a 30% tariff.

Uh thank you for your business." Which I'm starting to love as a technique.

I do love the fact that Trump says, "We gave you plenty of time.

If you if you can't come up with a trade deal that we can live with, we'll just send you the bill.

And then if you want to have access to our markets, you'll pay the bill.

If you don't want access to our markets, well, your entire economies will be in big trouble.

So, I kind of love the fact that instead of pushing hard, he's simply saying, "Do what you want to do, but we're going to do what we want to do, which is charge you 30% if you want access to our markets, and then just make it their problem." That that's the beauty of it.

It just makes it their problem instead of our problem and their problem.

No, it's just your problem.

You know, just here's the bill.

I do love that.

All right.

Uh I saw Zubie, you know Zubie.

Uh you've seen him on X, you've seen him on podcasts, and he was uh published on X the median age by country.

Now for those of you who are not nerds, median um doesn't mean average.

It means that half of the people are above that and half of the people are below it.

So in Monaco, the median age is 57.

Half of all the people in Monaco are older than 57.

That's pretty old.

But you have to have a lot of money to live in Monaco.

So that's probably why Japan is 50.

That's the median age in Japan is 50.

That's way up there.

Um, if you get all the way down to China and the USA, we're very similar.

China, the the median age is 40 and the USA is 39.

If you took away illegal immigration, I believe our median age would probably jump up pretty high, but I don't know about that for sure.

Um, but then you keep going down the list.

India, the median age is 30.

Just think about that.

In in Japan, the median age is 50 and in India, it's 30.

in Mexico is 31.

So these are very young countries.

Um but it gets younger.

Philippines 26, Egypt 24, Ghana 21, Nigeria 18, and Niger 15.

The country of Niger the median age is 15.

In Japan is 50.

No, in Japan is 50.

Wow.

Now, obviously, we assume that Niger the people are having lots of babies.

So, it's probably uh you know, if you look at the birth rate plus the age, you've got a pretty good way to predict who's going to be doing well in the future.

If I had to guess, if I were an investor, and this is not investment advice, but if I were an investor, I'd say, hm, Japan looks like a problem.

Um, Germany is 47.

That's kind of old.

But then I would look at Mexico where the average age is or the median age is 31 or India at 30 and I would tell myself hm there's going to be a lot of energy in those companies countries.

So if you had a very long investment horizon uh I would favor the younger countries the the ones that at least are developed a little bit.

So, don't invest based on my commentary.

I'm not investment advice guy.

But, uh, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for today.

Kind of a slow news day.

I suspect there'll be lots more this this afternoon.

And I'm going to say some words privately to the beloved people on locals.

U, the rest of you, thanks for joining.

I will see you um tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

All right, locals coming at you private in 30 seconds.

[Music]

in. Grab a seat.

We are going to have some fun today,

won't we? Happy Tuesday.

I'm checking your stocks so you don't

have to.

And we'll see how the stock market is

doing.

Well, the S&P 500 is up a little bit.

Bitcoin's down a little bit. Tesla's up

a little bit and Nvidia doing well. All

right. All right. We'll accept that.

Let me get your comments working and

then we're good to go.

[Music]

Good morning everyone and welcome to the

highlight of human civilization.

It's the best thing that ever happened

to you. But if you'd like to see if you

could take this rare and special

experience up to levels that nobody can

even understand with their tiny shiny

human brains. All you need for that is

I'll bet you know. All you need is a

copper mug or a glass attacker gel

inside a caned jug or flask vessel of

any kind. Fill it with your favorite

liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

for the unparalleled pleasure, the

jumping into the day. The thing that

makes everything better is called a

simultaneous sip. And it happens now.

Go.

Ah,

so so good. Well,

I wonder if there's any science that

could have been avoided if they had just

asked me. Oh, here we are. Uh, according

to the Chinese Academy of Sciences,

which is why

which is the only reason that you're

hearing about it is that it's a Chinese

study. It's a study that if you did in

the United States, you wouldn't be able

to do in the United States.

Here's what it is. So, Chinese Academy

of Sciences determined that intelligence

is partly genetic.

Did how many of you knew that? How many

of you already knew without any science

whatsoever

that smart parents are more likely to

have smart children than two dumb

parents? Is there anybody who didn't

know that?

Um, they could have saved a little bit

of time just by asking me. But I learned

the other day cuz I was watching some

podcast I don't remember

that in the United States if you said

that uh intelligence is even partly

genetic

you would be called what?

A racist.

You you're not even allowed to uh

consider that possibility in the United

States. And the funny part is 100% of

the world is completely aware that that

intelligence is partly, you know, it's

not 100%.

But certainly partly genetic. No doubt

about that.

Anyway, we'll see if I get uh cancelled

for for quoting a Chinese uh science.

Um well, Trump continues to be the

funniest president of all. uh he was at

a White House faith office lunchon which

makes this extra funny. Now one of the

things that tr that Trump really

understands in in the comedy world is

that it's not what you say, it's the

fact that you would say something in a

particular audience or a particular

time. So, he's really good at making

sure that the things he says are a

little bit inappropriate for the

audience.

That's sort of the secret of what makes

you laugh about it. Well, here he's

talking to the White House Faith Office

at a lunchon and he was talking about

the good things that his big beautiful

bill would do to make everybody richer.

And Trump said, I said to one guy, he's

a very, very unattractive man.

So that's the first thing that no

president ever said about anybody

before. No president

ever has stood in front of a audience

and talked about somebody he knew and

said they were a very, very unattractive

man. And that's only the first part.

It's already funny.

Anyway, he's a very, very unattractive

man, but he's smart and he's rich. And I

said, "You better hope we get this thing

passed." Talking about his big,

beautiful bill, because your wife will

be gone with within about 2 minutes.

So, he's telling people out of faith

lunchon

that that the ugly rich guy is going to

lose his trophy wife

unless Trump's tax bill goes through.

Oh, he's the funniest president ever.

Well, uh, Mark Zuckerberg, who allegedly

is using gigantic piles of money to

recruit AI experts to Meta,

um, says it's not just because of the

money that, uh, people want to work for

him for another reason that might not be

so obvious to you, but not just about

the money. Um, the researchers want

access to the maximum amount of compute

because you could be an AI expert, but

if every time you log on to do some AI

stuff, you don't have enough compute

power, you're not going to go very far.

So, it sounds like the people who know

the most about AI really want to be in

an environment where they have the

maximum GPUs.

Um, and Zuckerberg promises them that

they'll be part of a smalish team

that'll report directly to the CEO.

And I'm thinking to myself, that's

actually a pretty good package if you

knew you were, you know, directly

connected to the top guy. and you were

getting a lot of money, but also you had

the most compute power, which they don't

have yet. But listen to this. Now, this

is I saw this on X, a Sawyer Merit. Um,

he has a good good site. He's a good

follow Sawyer Merritt. He does a lot of

reporting on X about Tesla and Musk

related stuff.

But he's got this story that I'm having

some trouble believing.

Um, so it is true. I believe that

Zuckerberg is planning enormous just

enormous

building buildouts of computer centers

to run his AI stuff. And they're

building several multi-GW

clusters.

Um, they're calling the first one

Prometheus

and uh they're building another one

called Hyperion. To which I say, I love

this idea of giving your data centers

awesome names like Hyperion and

Primetheus. It's pretty good. Pretty

good naming. Anyway, um

the reporting says that just one of

these buildings that will compute will

have, you know, massive computing that

one of them will cover a significant

part of the footprint of Manhattan. Now,

it's not going to be in Manhattan.

They're just using Manhattan as a

comparison. And I saw a uh a graphic of

how big the building would be compared

to the entire island of Manhattan.

and it covers most of it.

Now, does that sound true to you? Do you

believe that that Facebook is right now

building multiple data centers for AI?

Each one just one just one of them would

be the size almost of the entire

Manhattan Island. Do you believe that? I

mean, it's in it's in Sawyer Merritt's

Xi uh X feed. So

he's I I think he's quite credible,

but I would be surprised if that's even

possible. It doesn't seem like it's

possible.

You're probably aware according to Wired

magazine

um that uh there are a bunch of AI

Nutify websites.

Nutify, there are about 85 of them. And

what they do is you you can take a

picture of somebody's face and it will

give them a naked body. So AI adds a

naked body.

Um and there are 85 of them and they're

making millions of dollars. And um of

course you might be surprised and amazed

to learn this. I know this will be quite

a surprise, but apparently the Nudify AI

websites are uh quite used by male uh

high school students

to bully their classmates. Now, that's

the most predictable thing you could

have ever predicted. Scott,

we're thinking of making an AI website

that will make any picture of anybody

look like they're naked and doing

embarrassing things. Who will be our

target market? Well, I'm glad you asked,

but teenage boys. And after that, um,

disgruntled ex-boyfriends and husbands.

and after that probably mess and all

kinds of stuff. But um I'm going to

suggest

that this might be a self um solving

problem

in 2025. If you were a, let's say, a

high school 16year-old girl or something

and some male bully in your class um

started sending around an AI picture

that was your face, but it looked like

you naked, but it would be made by AI in

2025.

That would be terrible because uh it

would scar you for life and everybody

would be teasing you and they'd be

sending it around and you know you'd

never know who's who's giggling behind

your back and it would be humiliating

and horrifying.

But what happens if it becomes so common

that the moment you saw somebody you

know with you know naked picture you

said to yourself it's AI you wouldn't be

interested at all because you could make

your own AI nude stuff anytime you

wanted and it's the now it's the

millionth time there's somebody you sat

around one of your classmates looking

naked and you know that's not really

them. an AI body put on them. How much

attention would that even get? So, my

guess is that the way through it is to

do more of it and then just wait for

young people to be totally bored by it.

You know, right? Every time there's a

new AI thing, you know, the first time

you see it, you go, "Whoa, are you

kidding? AI made a picture of two cats

that appear to be talking. This is so

cool. I have to show all my friends. And

then by the hundth time you see a meme

of two cats talking and it's made by AI,

do you send it around or do you say, "Oh

god, not another AI of two cats

talking." Now, I know that, you know,

nude nude people is more exciting than

cats talking,

but wouldn't you get bored with this?

And wouldn't it become a big nothing

once everybody understood that the the

nude person is not really there? It's

just AI. I don't feel like it's going to

have much impact, but it might might

take, I know, three to five years to get

to the point where people go, "Ah, don't

send that to me anymore."

Speaking of that, allegedly Conor

McGregor

sent uh full nude pictures of himself to

rapper Aelia Banks, who apparently

posted them on social media to mock him.

To which I say, is it too soon for Conor

McGregor to say, "That wasn't me. That

was somebody did that with AI." He would

be a tough one to nudify because he's

got tattoos all over his body and the AI

might not know where his tattoos are.

So, I would do a uh check on his

tattoos.

If the tattoos are under his clothes, or

would have been if he had had clothes

and uh they still look right in the

picture, well, he probably took a

picture of himself naked and sent it to

her probably.

But if the tattoos don't line up, might

be AI.

So Conor McGregor, if he had waited

another two or three years, he could

probably send his naked pictures to

anybody and whoever got him would say,

"I'm so tired getting AI generated naked

pictures and they wouldn't think twice

about it."

Meanwhile,

over at North Carolina State University,

um, is talking about an AI powered lab

for materials science, materials

engineering. So there's now a lab that

can uh using AI it can decide what

things to test in terms of materials you

know creating materials that have

special properties for making various

things

and it can decide what to test and then

it can very rapidly because it's

machines test a whole bunch of different

material combinations

and figure out which ones are commercial

and it does that without human

intervention.

So the AI decides what to test and then

it tests it very quickly and decides

whether to keep it or release it and

that's already up. That's like a real

thing that's already here. So we've got

an automated AI factory. Do you know how

big a deal that is?

Do do you have any idea the upside

potential of new materials?

You know, stuff that's super hard but

also super light, stuff that can conduct

electricity better than other stuff. The

upside potential of just materials

sounds like a boring thing, but it's

really a lot.

There was a story that I decided not to

talk about until just this moment. Uh

there's some teenage kid who allegedly

invented an electric motor that doesn't

require these uh magnets that are rare

earth. And the idea is that you know you

would change you know the entire

uh the entire situation with making uh

electric motors because if you could get

rid of the magnet part you wouldn't need

any rare earth minerals for making

magnets. Now, I saw in the comments that

people said, "We've always had that kind

of engine. He didn't didn't invent

anything." I don't know about that, but

that's the size of the opportunity. It

could be as big as, "Hey, we found a way

that you don't need these rare earth

materials." That would be a pretty big

deal.

Anyway, um Mark Cuban

is uh helping the Democrats decide what

to do. Um, I don't know if the Democrats

know that or they welcome it, but he's

uh he was saying on a uh interview

yesterday, I think that the Democrats

only message Trump sucks and that's not

going to get it done. So,

how much uh I feel as if

um everybody who cares about the

Democrats doing well

uh that they don't really have good

suggestions for them. It's definitely a

good suggestion to stop doing what

they're doing. That part is solid. But

what should they be doing?

I think everybody stops with, you know,

you should have a better message.

Well, everybody knows that, right? They

all know they should they should have a

better message. But who is it who's

coming up with a better message? At what

point do you say we all know we suck? Do

you have any idea how we could do this

better?

But of course, it's not just the

message, is it? It's also the messenger.

So if you don't have the right

messenger, doesn't matter if you have

the right message. And that's of course

the the big secret to Zoran Mandani in

New York City. He's he's literally a

socialist.

Some would say communist,

but because his uh policy is so clean

and well represented, you know, the

affordability stuff, and because he's a

an appealing messenger,

he's actually overcoming

being a communist.

[Laughter]

that if you wondered how how much power

you can get from having the right

message and being the right kind of

messenger, well, there's a guy called um

Trump

who had the right message at the right

time and he was the right messenger and

now he's the most influential person in

the world. That's how important it is.

Um, and if you might ask yourself, how

in the world did voters

um get comfortable with the fact that

Trump is accused of all manner of things

I won't even mention? And the answer is

he had the right policy. He had the

right message and he was charismatic and

he could deliver that message and and

deliver results. So yeah, you could be a

communist or you could be accused of

absolutely anything. But if you get

those two things right, the right

message and you're the right charismatic

messenger, people will say, you know

what,

that's kind of rare. So we're going to

overlook all those other things that

otherwise might bother us.

Um,

in other news, the Supreme Court has

ruled once again that Trump can do what

he wanted to do, which was fire uh

hundreds of employees at the uh

education department, which he would

like to get rid of. And I guess that had

been blocked, you know, once again by

some district judge. And once again,

Trump wins when it goes to the Supreme

Court, which you you could argue

um proves that the judges are corrupt,

the judges that block it in the first

place, cuz they probably know it's going

to the Supreme Court, and they probably

know they're going to lose, and that the

Supreme Court will will give Trump um

the power to do what the president

should be able to do, which is uh hire

and fire people in the executive branch.

But doesn't it feel to you like you're

just hearing the same story over and

over again? How many times have you read

or heard the story? Well, a local, you

know, a more local judge blocked Trump

from doing whatever and then it went to

the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court

sided with Trump. So now he can do it.

I mean, literally, how many times have

we heard that now? I I don't know the

answer to my own question, but is it a

dozen times,

or am I just remembering it weird? Is it

five times?

How many times has the Supreme Court

slapped down the the lower court judges?

It's a lot, right? I I don't even know

the number.

Well, you want to stop talking about

Epstein, but we can't. We can't quit it.

It's just something new every day. So,

yesterday was Monday and we were all

waiting to see if Dan Bonino showed up

for work or if he quit. Um, as far as I

know, and of course things can change

quickly, he did not quit. And there were

meetings in the White House in which all

three Bundi and Patel and Bonino

apparently all visited the White House.

There's some reports that um JD Vance

might have been trying to talk people

off a ledge. There was talk that Bino

had threatened to quit if uh Pam Bondi

didn't get fired or leave uh or if she

didn't change her approach to what was

being released.

So the first thing I would say about

that reporting is I don't trust any of

it.

This is exactly the kind of reporting

that

never really captures the whole thing

behind the curtain. I mean, some of it

might be true, but it' be out of context

and you'd be missing parts and you

wouldn't know who said what and you

wouldn't know their internal feelings.

When somebody else says they're really

mad, you don't know if they really are

or they're pretending.

So whenever I hear these stories about

who said I'll quit or if you don't do

this I'll do that. I don't I don't fully

believe them to be literally true. Um I

treat them more like well this is what

people are saying. You know you don't

know what's really happening behind the

scenes there. But uh we would know if

Bongino quit. We would know that. So

apparently he did not quit. And there's

some reporting that um maybe they're

relooking at their approach to what they

revealed about Epstein. So maybe

possibly there might be more to come and

it might be that that more to come is

the only thing that keeps Bonino staying

there. um because he needs he needs to

get a win because he really Bino got

kind of screwed in this whole this whole

situation. He gave up this lucrative,

incredible podcasting, you know, gig he

had to have the worst job in the world,

which is working for the government, and

tried to make a difference. And then he

gets, you know, totally shhat upon by

this whole Epstein situation, which he

had a reason to believe would go

differently.

So if um to me

um Bahanino is the canary in the coal

mine meaning if he doesn't quit and

nothing else happens that's going to

give me one view of the whole situation

versus if he did quit and says I can't

talk about it but I can't work here

anymore and if you're guessing it's

because of the Epstein stuff you'd be

But I can't tell you more than that.

Now, that would tell me that um the

cover up was something that didn't

really need to be covered up, but maybe,

you know, there's some billionaire

who's being protected or something like

that. And that would not be cool with

the public or with him as well. But if

he doesn't quit, then then I would have

to assume

that uh he's been convinced that not

releasing the information is better than

releasing it.

Which would tell us that there's

something really big that's been hidden

like really big more than just one

person's, you know, career or life or

freedom. uh maybe something at a

national level, you know, something that

would derail the country entirely if it

got out. So, I I'll be watching him. Um

Benny Johnson on his podcast says

there's a massive disclosure coming on

the Epstein files. So, he's uh he's got

good sources.

And uh so Benny says uh

that uh Bonino's back at work and

there's a major push for more

transparency etc.

separately. While we're waiting for

that, um there's a story in Rolling

Stone. They've got an exclusive

apparently

that uh way back Jeffrey Epstein hired

private investigators to follow and

intimidate the FBI agents who were

surveilling him um because he knew he

was being investigated by the FBI. So,

he hired people to harass them. You

know,

I don't know about you, but the more I

hear about this Epstein guy, the more

I'm thinking he's not a nice guy. Yeah,

that's a Norm McDonald joke. I stole it.

He was talking about Hiller, but it

works for Epstein.

All right. Um, you know how I always

tell you that you don't know, you don't

know what's happening in the story until

Durowitz tells you. If there's anything

that has anything to do with legality,

um, you just have to wait for Dersuitz.

And I've been saying this for years now.

Here it is again. So Durowitz was on

Chris Cuomo. Most of you know that

Dersowitz was a lawyer for Epstein. So

he's not guessing.

So you know, a lot of lot of stuff is

speculation and guessing, but Durowitz

is not guessing. He he knows. And one of

the things he knows

is that there's not a client list per

se, you know, where Epstein put a list

together of all of his bad actions. That

doesn't exist as far as Duruitz knows.

Uh, and I assume it does does not exist

as well. But he says there is a redacted

FBI affidavit from the accusers. So,

this would go way back. And there are

several of them.

So several instances in which the

accusers have named names and those

documents exist

um but they've been redacted.

So uh Durit says he knows the names

because he was the lawyer he was

involved. So he know he um he says now

of course because as lawyer uh and I did

only investigations I know who all these

people are.

So Durowitz

knows the truth.

He knows he knows who the bad guys are

who have been accused.

But because he's a lawyer and ethical he

can't tell you. But he can tell you that

if you could penetrate those redactions,

you would know who was being blamed.

Now to complicate things um at one point

Durowitz himself was being accused

and his accuser who has recently died

that Virginia Joffrey

um

well before she died she withdrew her

accusation and said she was mistaken and

that she does not at the moment she does

not um well she's dead now but uh she

went to the grave having said that she

did not mean it and that Durowitz did

not do anything illegal that she knows

of.

So here's my question now that we know

exactly what document would tell us what

we need to know.

But it might not be accurate because

remember if if it's true that Virginia

Joffrey simply made up a story and it's

also true that apparently there was some

kind of fund established that would pay

off victims who wanted to settle. So

allegedly, one of the reasons that we're

not hearing from the uh alleged victims

of Epstein's Island is that they

probably signed NDAs, non-disclosure

agreements, and they probably took large

amounts potentially of money from a fund

that was set up, I think, with Epstein's

money to pay off people who had a civil

complaint.

So

though that's something that could be

the NDAs could be penetrated in the

context of a criminal case.

So the the people who signed the NDAs

would probably sacrifice something if

they talked, but not if a court made

them. So, we've got the possibility that

some court somewhere will say, "Uh, I

know you signed NDAs and I know you got

paid for being quiet, but uh there's a

legal case here and you just have to

tell us and then they would know all."

So,

so now we have uh all the characters are

at work today as far as we know. Banino,

Bondi, and Patel still at work. And now

Duroitz has said this document or this

set of documents these are the ones

these are the exact documents which we

know exist there's no question that they

exist

and all you have to do is penetrate the

redactions.

So my question would be, is that what

the conversation is now?

Did Banino say, "Here's the deal. I I'm

just going to kick the out of the

administration if they leave me hanging

out to dry," which I would love it if he

did that. We don't know anything about

what happened, but I would love it if

Bonino said, "You guys hug me out to

dry. I'm going to take down the whole

operation unless you redact these names

and put them out. What would they do?

Well, they're not going to murder him.

And he has the power now. He has the

power to take down the whole process. He

he could take down Trump easily. All

you'd have to do is say, "Look, I've

seen everything, and if you vote if you

vote for Democrats or if you vote for

Republicans in the midterm, you're crazy

because the whole Republican thing is u

you know, covering up stuff. So,

weirdly and ironically,

Bino

is a blackmailer."

Now, I say that um jokingly, so he's not

breaking any laws as far as I know. But

don't you think that Bonino knows enough

about what's happening on the other side

of the curtain that if he had a

conversation with Trump, he could say,

"Here's the deal. You can't make me a

liar.

You cannot make me a liar. If if you

don't if you don't release more, I'm

going to tell people what I know, but I

won't do it within the administration,

and you're going to have to deal with

the the blowback for that. So, how would

you like to do a better job of

transparency?

That's my guess.

My guess is that Bongino

had so much power because he has

knowledge

um that he can force them to disclose

more than they wanted to. So we'll see.

Now of course you know that the risk

here um as with Durowitz is that people

were making false accusations to get

paid out.

So, if you see a list of people who are

accused

of being abusers on Epstein Island, um

my advice would be to assume that half

of them are not true, but you'll never

know which half.

That's the best I can do. I mean, it

will be it would destroy the reputations

and lives and marriages probably of

anybody who gets named,

but

there's a good 50% chance that anybody

named

didn't actually do what they're accused

of. So, we have to deal with that.

Well, of course, the uh Democrats

uh are having fun with the Epstein file

stuff because as long as we don't know

what the story is, the Democrats can

kind of suggest that it's much worse

than you think. So, Representative uh

Hakee Jeff, he says, quote, "If you're

trying to hide something, as many of

Donald Trump's mega supporters

apparently believe, then Congress should

actually work hard to uncover the truth

for the American people." So, he's

pushing on that division and MAGA of the

people who want to see what's going on.

Then Jamie Rascin, who I call the one of

the several designated liars

uh on the Democrat side, he said, "At

this point, the president owes it to the

country to put it to rest one way or the

other." And I agree. I agree with that.

the president owes the country. Um maybe

not all the redacted information, but

definitely a better excuse for why we're

not seeing it. Um I don't know about

you, but if Trump came out and said,

"Here's the deal."

um the country would be at a great

disadvantage if this information came

out and I can't tell you why.

But trust me, it's not about the

individuals we're protecting. I'm

protecting the country. And I'm making

the tough decision. I know you all

wanted to see it, but you're going to

have to trust me on this. The country

would be much worse off if I release

everything. Now, I'm not saying that's

the case. We don't know what the case

is. But at least if Trump said that, I

would say to myself, all right, you

know, under the

sort of republic that we live in, we

hired him to make those decisions. He's

telling us that he is hiding something

and there's a reason for it. Um, some

people, not everybody, would say, you

know what, at least that's better than

what we had. Uh, I can move on now.

Um, you prefer truth. Well, what I

learned is that many people are really

bad at understanding themselves and at

understanding how to do a a risk

analysis.

So, if I say to you, releasing the full

Epstein files would cause a nuclear

holocaust,

apparently an alarming number of you

would say, that's okay. I'd rather have

the truth. And you would put up with a

nuclear holocaust.

Okay.

If if you say that you're either a liar,

you're an idiot.

Uh is there any other or you haven't

really thought it through? Because I I

think people want to I think one people

want to present themselves as the

strongest voice against these particular

kinds of heinous crimes against

children.

So a lot of it feels like just

positioning.

And if you were the president and you

really thought genuinely that releasing

it would cause a nuclear holocaust,

you telling me you'd really release it?

Really? Really? If if you had to make

the decision, you would allow the entire

world to burn just to know the names of

those accusers?

Really, even knowing that maybe they're

falsely accused.

I don't believe that. I don't believe

there's one person who would do that.

Not even one. But I'll bet you a quarter

of the people asked would say they would

because they said it's the I don't care

if the entire world burns up in a

nuclear fire. It's the principle of the

thing.

As if your government has been honest to

you about the other stuff.

If this were the the one thing that the

government lied about,

I'd say, you know, there is a principle

involved here. We don't want our

government to lie to us about even one

thing. But is that the situation? The

situation uh I see is that the

government lies to us about everything

all the time and this is just more of

that.

But okay.

Well, Trump says he's had enough of

Putin and uh Putin talking nice but

bombing Ukraine five minutes later. And

so he has issued a 50-day ultimatum to

end the war in Ukraine. And the

ultimatum is that he will do secondary

tariffs of up to 100% on Russian goods

that are going to other trading

partners. So the the tariff would be on

anybody who deals with Russia, not just

on Russia directly. Now I don't know how

much impact that would have cuz I don't

know how much exports Russia does.

I mean if if they're selling stuff to

China,

will we put 100%

um tariffs on that?

Yeah. Will will China

will will we shut down our own trade

with China which would destroy the

United States

so that we could stop Russia from

trading with China? I don't know. So,

I'm a little uh questioning whether this

would be effective, but it's better than

nothing.

Then Trump confirmed that the US is

going to send Patriot missiles uh and

systems to Ukraine and it will be funded

by the European countries and Canada.

Now he doesn't say NATO,

but I'm wondering if he means NATO. Does

he mean NATO? Because um because Ukraine

is not part of NATO. So presumably the

the I I'll take a fact check on this by

the way. Presumably the budget that goes

to NATO would not be used by a non-NATO

country.

So it could be that this is on top of

that 5% that Trump's trying to get all

the countries to. Uh

but it would be the NATO countries. it

was not all of them because I guess

Turkey would not be involved here. Um,

so it looks like it's not NATO but

rather the countries individually and

I'm guessing that because Turkey is not

mentioned and I don't believe that

Turkey would want to be funding weapons

over there anyway.

U but, uh, Trump has said it's not going

to be just defensive weapons like the

Patriot. um it's going to be everything

all of them. So he's talking about

offensive weapons that we have so far

tried to not send there and

um then now he's willing to send

missiles that could reach Moscow. And

there's some reporting, I don't know how

reliable it is, that Trump is completely

aware

uh and checked that Ukraine would use

new weapons to attack Moscow itself. So,

here's what I think the play is.

I think Trump is literally going to bomb

Moscow, but he's going to do it through

our proxy, Ukraine.

Literally going to bomb, not bomb, but

let's say send missiles and drones um at

a large scale.

Uh we've been sending offensive weapon

for years now. Probably not the good

stuff, though.

Um, so, so I think Trump is teasing that

we may have held back some of the good

stuff and that that would be the

difference. But I take I take that

correction. I would be surprised, very

surprised if we've never sent them any

form of offensive weaponry,

you know, and it's also hard to define

what is offensive and what is defensive.

So, I would say uh if you're if we're

selling them missiles that are meant to

be shot at a foreign city as far away as

Moscow,

to me that feels like an offensive

weapon.

So, I think that's what's going to

happen. Anyway, um

so we'll see how that goes. Um, it feels

like the odds of nuclear war are not

that high just because Putin is not

insane and the last thing he wants is a

nuclear war. So, it could be that Trump

is just calling his bluff and saying,

"You know what? Um, there's no limit to

what we're going to do to you if you

keep doing this. We there's no upper

limit. We'll just keep ratcheting up.

We're going to give Ukraine better and

better weapons. And I'll say again that

we're probably three years away from the

front lines of this war being only

robots and not even controlled by

humans, but just robots, you know,

nothing but robots because we're going,

you both sides are going to run out of

humans on the front lines. They'll just

be dead. and uh the robots and the

drones and the AI will be the new the

new battle. So do you think that Russia

believes it could keep up with the

Ukraine if the Ukraine has the full

backing of the United States and the

other other countries to make as many

drones and the most powerful ones they

could possibly make?

Is it possible for for Russia to keep

up? Well, they've got China on their

side, right? So, they could buy a lot of

drones.

Um, and I guess Iran maybe. I don't know

if they have anything left to sell, but

um it's going to be a robot only war

because I don't think that that Putin's

going to back down and make peace.

And I don't think he's going to quit.

And I don't think Ukraine's going to

quit. And now the US has turned it into

a profit center where we're just selling

our arms and somebody else is paying for

it. So we're not going to quit. And

Europe doesn't want to lose because they

don't want Putin to roll through Europe,

they think. So there's nobody who really

has any chance of wanting to quit.

So in three years the people will be

mostly dead on the front lines and just

be robots and we'll then you're going to

really see the future.

All right. Uh then Trump wants to put uh

let's see what else is he doing?

Um, apparently if Trump puts a the big

tariff on Russian oil, that will make

oil prices everywhere go up because

Russia is a big enough exporter that if

you crush their oil industry

um and reduce the supply, the entire

world will pay more according to

Bloomberg.

So, um, Wall Street and the stock market

did not go down when Trump threatened to

make oil prices go up by blocking

Russian oil. Which means that, according

to Bloomberg, that Wall Street doesn't

believe he's going to do it. In other

words, the investors

don't believe that uh, Trump will

successfully do anything that would cut

down on Russian oil sales.

So,

we'll see.

There's a new poll, Harvard Caps Harris

poll that was just released yesterday

that says the Democratic Party's

approval rating is at a new low. It

dropped from 42% to 40. So, four and 10

respondents approved of the Democrat

party, which is down from June two

points. Um,

so my question is this.

It's the weirdest situation

when the the Democrats are at the lowest

approval that, you know, we've seen, but

at the same time, all the smart people

are saying that the Democrats are

probably going to pick up seats in the

midterm.

you. Now, I know the reason for that is

that everybody likes their own

representative, but they think that the

other ones are bad. So, they vote for

their own representative, and then next

thing you know, you got you got a

Democrat win when Democrats have the

lowest approval level, like of all time.

I don't know if it's at all time, but it

might be.

So, that's a weird situation. Obviously,

that's a system problem. But speaking of

uh bad advice for Democrats, who would

you say is the Democrat's smartest

player? If you had to pick one person,

the one experienced,

smart, proven, brilliant messenger,

uh not only a good messenger, but

somebody who's good at coming up with a

message. Who do you think would be the

very best the best you could get on the

Democrat side?

Um, I'm seeing Roana, Fedman, Fedman. I

was going to say Obama.

Don't we all believe that Obama was

gifted in terms of political skill?

I even even Republicans say that. Even

Republicans would admit, "Yeah, we don't

like what he did, but he has skill."

Like, he was good at this politics

stuff. Good at talking in public, good

at having messages that that resonated

with people. Well, here is Obama's

advice for Democrats. You ready for

this? Here's their best guy, their best,

smartest, experienced guy.

He says, "Uh, don't tell me you're a

Democrat, but you're kind of

disappointed right now, so you're not

doing anything." No, now is exactly the

time you get in there and do something.

Okay. So, the first part of his is

advice is to do something.

So, did that help? Were there any

Democrats who didn't know that doing

something would be an advantage for them

as opposed to doing nothing and

continuing to, you know, suck?

So, that's a little bit generic. Obama,

but there's more.

Um,

he said that they should toughen up.

Oh, okay. So they should do more and

they should toughen up.

Okay, that's a little bit generic, but

is there more from their best wisest

advisor? Yes, there's more. He also said

they should do less naval gazing

and that's it. Did he have a specific

suggestion about some messaging that

might work? No. No, he didn't.

All he had was generic advice about

toughening up, doing something, and

having less naval gazing.

Do you imagine that he could have been

more worthless if it had been his

intention to do it? It's almost like if

he had a contest to see who could do the

least useful thing for Democrats, it

would be right here. He would win the

contest of the most useless advice ever

given. Do something toughen up and less

naval gazing.

That's their best guy.

If you if you try to find the second

best guy, and here guy means man or

woman. Um,

so you know it's going to be somebody

like Fedterman that even the Democrats

are mad at because Fedman keeps agreeing

with common sense.

Anyway, so that's pretty worthless.

Um,

so according to u just the news,

the uh the reason that we're not hearing

much from the uh Department of Justice,

I guess uh on the Russia collusion

investigation is that they're trying to

make a RICO case out of it. Now, RICO

means that it's not just an individual

bad behavior by any person or persons,

but rather it's an organized ongoing

um plot to do something illegal. Now,

you tell me, do you think they could

make the case that the Russia collusion

hoax, which apparently was well known as

a hoax because they knew the steel

documentary, the steel document was

fake, they knew that Hillary's campaign

was paying for it from the start and

that, you know, Brennan and Obama and

Clapper, they all knew. So could uh do

you think that the Trump

administration's people could make the

case that would stand up in court that

it wasn't just an isolated incident? It

was an organized

Democrat

attempt to do a series of illegal things

maybe.

Yeah. The dossier, not the document. Um,

but on top of that to really round it

out would be the lawfare stuff. So, not

only allegedly was there a conspiracy to

come up with hoaxes about Trump, the

Russia collusion hoax and you know all

the other ones, uh, but the Russia

collusion hoax is the one they focus on.

But could they also make the case that

they had gone after Trump with lawfare

that was organized, let's say, by Joe

Biden or organized by the top? Could

they make that case? because then they

would have two parts

that both individually would be a little

Rico like, but if you put them together

and you sold both of them to a jury,

would it be would it be compelling?

What do you think?

It feels like it probably is too tough

to get a conviction because the one of

the things I understand from Trey Gaudy

and people who know more than I do is

that getting a RICO conviction, well, we

learned this from the Diddy Diddy

situation because the prosecutor dropped

the RICO stuff. Um, and the reason they

dropped it is it's just really hard to

make the case that it's organized.

But in this case, do you think they

could find enough documents and meetings

and connections that they could prove

that the lawfare was organized

and also that the Russia collusion hoax

was organized and they all knew they

were in on it? They they knew they were

doing something illegal, if not just

immoral.

I don't know. I think it would be tough.

I I wouldn't want to get you all excited

like like the Epstein stuff where you

think that, oh man, now these people are

going to pay the price and go to jail.

I doubt this will be successful, but I

like the fact they're trying because I

do think that there's a real crime

there. Um, so might as well take a run

at it.

Well, here's a little story that makes

me or reminds me that who you know

makes a difference between whether you

get rich or not. Um, apparently the US

had a one big company that was involved

in making uh rare earth materials,

mining it, and it was called uh um

materials, what's it called? MP or

something

uh MP materials I think it's called. And

so when it became a big thing that China

was going to block our rare materials

because of the tariff force,

if I had known, if I had been aware that

there was a big American company that

was in this space,

what would I have done? I would have

bought that stock if I had known that.

But for some reason,

it never really occurred to me that

there would be some largestish publicly

traded company in the US that would

obviously

obviously benefit a lot from uh the

government saying we should do more of

this domestically

because if you get the government on

your side, that's when you have, you

know, the big gains. But I didn't know

that. I didn't know that. Never heard of

that company. didn't know we even had a

big company that was in that space. But

if I did, it was free money. It's

already tripled.

Now, this is not investment advice

because remember, it already tripled.

So, that doesn't mean it's going to keep

going up.

But

the people who knew that

and it was, you know, sort of publicly

available information, but the people

who knew that, they just got free money.

All you had to do is put a few bucks in

that company and it was about as close

as you could get to a guaranteed payoff.

It it wouldn't be like regular investing

or gambling at all. It'd be just like

here's a dollar, give me $3 back. And

when I look at this sort of situation, I

think to myself,

it's terribly unfair that some of us are

paying attention.

How many how many people uh have already

made huge gains by investing in AI

companies because they were following

that and other people weren't. How many

people made a killing in Bitcoin because

they simply paid attention and they knew

more about it than people who don't know

about it? A lot.

How many people, now this one could be a

wild card, but how many people invested

in Tesla and have already made a bunch

of money because they understood that

Tesla took a different approach to full

self-driving um AI.

If you knew that, you'd say to yourself,

"Oh my god, this is going to be bigger

than Uber." Um, and then if you knew

that Tesla was also making robots,

which isn't something that most people

know, you know, maybe at most

10% of the country knows that Tesla is

even in the robot business. You know, we

if you follow the news like most of us

do, you think everybody knows that, but

they don't. Only 90% of the country

would not know that the Tesla company is

also making robots.

So that little bit of knowledge

um I've used because I've invested in AI

and I've invested in nuclear power

because I because I've been following

the nuclear industry and I knew that

pretty soon nuclear is going to be on

fire. Well, not in a bad way, in a good

way.

So, so some time ago, I put money in

nuclear uh and ETF because I didn't want

to pick individual companies and uh AI

and Tesla.

Now, I feel almost guilty because those

are not like regular investments. Those

are simply I just knew more about the

news. It's all public. I just paid

attention. And if you didn't, you

wouldn't know that these were all free

money.

And I didn't know about this materials

company, you know, that does the rare

earth. If I had, do you think I would

have invested? Yes, absolutely.

I I would have put some money in it and

I would have gotten some free money back

already. So, yeah, what you know and who

you know and whether you know somebody

who's in this space is a difference

between making money and not making

money. And it's not fair.

Um, it just is.

And uh let's see what else is happening.

Um so Senator uh Ran Paul

uh he wants to reissue criminal

referrals about Fouchy

uh and Fouch's involvement with the um

the lab and funding it and all that. And

I think it was related to Fouchy

allegedly lying under oath.

But um when it looked like Fouchy had a

pardon from the Biden auto pen process,

then there was no point in having a

criminal referral because he was already

pardoned for everything. But now since

the autopen is being questioned and some

people are saying, was it even legal to

do all these pardons if if Biden maybe

didn't even know what he was doing or it

went through underlings?

So, that was enough of an opening for

Senator Paul to reissue his criminal

referral. It seems to me like I just see

Moby Dick when I when I read about Rand

Paul going after Fouchy. I I feel like

Fouchy is just this great white whale

and Rand Paul will go to his grave

trying to put that guy in jail.

I don't know if he ever will, but he's

trying.

Um, let's talk about the autopen

situation. So, if you follow the right

leading news, as most of you do, but you

don't follow other news or other

podcasters, you would probably think

this autopen thing is a real big scandal

and it really matters and it's going to

change things if we get to the bottom of

it. I don't feel that that's true

because I don't feel there's necessarily

a crime there and I don't feel that any

of his rules will be reversed

because uh Biden has confirmed that he

individually approved everything that

was signed. Now, did he? No, of course

not. He didn't know everything that got

signed. I I don't even know if he knew

his name.

but he's the only one who could testify

um

that he knew or didn't know what he was

doing. And I also think that the excuse

that he gave some guidelines, you know,

you can pardon people if they fall under

these guidelines. I don't think it's a

big deal if he didn't know the specifics

and then his staff said, "All right, we

have the guidelines. So, as long as

we're within the guidelines, he's

pre-approved it and then he auto

penetent. Is that is that the biggest

problem in the world? Not really. Is

that illegal? Not that I know of. Uh,

apparently there's enough of a paper

trail that you can determine that the

aids were talking to to Biden in the

process of figuring out what to auto

pen. If you knew that they were talking

to Biden about what to auto pen and what

not to and Biden also said, "Oh yeah, I

I basically approved everything."

There's not much there. Right. So if

you're waiting for this auto pen thing

to become a, you know, much bigger legal

thing or something like that, I don't

think it will. And I don't think any of

them will be reversed. I could be

surprised, but my prediction will be

none of the autopen stuff will be

reversed by a court or anything else.

Um,

but uh I saw Mark Halperin on his

podcast two-way, which is great by the

way, great podcast. Um, he was saying

that

there's something missing. there's a dog

not barking in the New York Times

coverage of it because you probably said

to yourself, well, why did it take the

New York Times so long to get on that

story about the autopen and uh but then

they eventually did and they did a big

feature story on it. So, you say to

yourself, all right, all right, a little

later than I wanted, but at least the

New York Times, you know, legitimately

looked into it. But then uh Mark

Halperin points out that there are some

things that you definitely would have

seen in the story if it had been a story

about Republicans and Trump.

And he says, "Uh, so what do law

professors think about that? What do

Republicans think about that?" And I

thought, "Yeah,

is there no reference to a law professor

in the New York Times article where the

law professor would say, "Oh, he could

totally use the autopen. It's no

problem." or the law professor would

say, "Oh, no." If if there's no paper

trail, they specifically approved it.

That can't stand. So, wouldn't you

expect that if they had been a

Republican, they would have talked to a

law professor who would have said, "Oh,

no. Trump can't do that. We have to

reverse all that." But when it was about

Biden, no law professor. Nope. Didn't

need to talk to any law professors.

Um,

and then uh

and then they'd also have a Republican

saying this needs to be investigated.

So that's probably true. So where is the

Democrat? Is there not one Democrat?

Nobody in Congress, not one who says the

autopen thing ought to be investigated.

you would definitely see it if it was a

Republican. So, he's right from that.

So, it's absent from the story. Daily

Caller is writing about that.

Um,

you probably already know the answer to

this, but apparently the June inflation

numbers are out.

Um,

have you seen them yet? Are the June

inflation numbers good or bad? It looked

like the stock market was kind of happy,

so it must be in line with expectations,

but we'll but that's today. So, keep an

eye on that. We'll see if those tariffs

are working their way into the inflation

numbers.

Fox News is reporting that um police

officers in blue cities are uh are

leaving in large numbers to go to red

states because if you're a police

officer in a red state

um the people in charge actually

appreciate you.

If you were a police officer in a blue

city, you you might be in, you know,

arresting people all day long and

they're just getting released and uh

everybody hates you. So, I would add

this to the list of how in the world

could blue cities survive

because they're spending themselves into

ruin.

um their their real estate will become

worthless such as a crime scene and then

the people who could keep the peace are

leaving like crazy.

Is there is there any narrative

that would save the blue cities? And I

think the answer is no. No, I I think

they will actually fail. Now, I don't

know about New York City because that's

sort of a special case, but I do expect

a lot of cities to just turn into, you

know, escape from New York kind of

hellscapes

even more than they are. So, I'd love to

see some Democrat even explain how they

they could ever write the ship because I

don't see any way. To me, it looks like

it's a one-way trip to um being Detroit.

Has Detroit ever recovered from the car

industry leaving?

It hasn't, right? Isn't Detroit still in

horrible situation? I think it is. I

don't see how that's going to change.

Well, Ronda Santis has a big win. Fox

News is talking about this, too. So, six

southern states have banded together to

create a new accreditation commission

for uh higher education.

Now, if you don't know how important

that is, it's really important because

if the liberals are the only ones who

can say your college is accredited, and

nobody wants to go to a college that's

not accredited by somebody, um then you

know the left has all the power about

what is a what is an acceptable college.

So now there's going to be a competing

accreditation um process at least for

six states

in which if you're a college you can get

accredited by the uh this this new

organization and then you don't have to

be super woke because I imagine that you

have to be super woke to be accredited

by the old accreditation system. So this

might be a really big deal. We'll see.

Um

uh

all right. So according to a publication

called European Conservative, the

European Union is uh having a tough time

trying to figure out how to uh address

Trump's tariff and trade escalation.

So,

you would not be surprised to learn that

the European Union is full of countries

that don't all agree with each other

about what to do and when.

So, it's like hurting cats. So,

apparently the European Union believed

that they were um negotiating with Trump

on a trade deal and things were going

along fine. They weren't close to a

deal, but they felt h things are moving

along. And then suddenly Trump says,

"Yeah, we're not negotiating anymore. Uh

here's a 30% tariff. Uh thank you for

your business."

Which I'm starting to love as a

technique.

I do love the fact that Trump says, "We

gave you plenty of time. If you if you

can't come up with a trade deal that we

can live with, we'll just send you the

bill.

And then if you want to have access to

our markets, you'll pay the bill. If you

don't want access to our markets, well,

your entire economies will be in big

trouble. So, I kind of love the fact

that instead of pushing hard, he's

simply saying, "Do what you want to do,

but we're going to do what we want to

do, which is charge you 30% if you want

access to our markets, and then just

make it their problem."

That that's the beauty of it. It just

makes it their problem instead of our

problem and their problem. No, it's just

your problem. You know, just here's the

bill. I do love that.

All right. Uh I saw Zubie, you know

Zubie.

Uh you've seen him on X, you've seen him

on podcasts, and he was uh published on

X the median age by country. Now for

those of you who are not nerds, median

um doesn't mean average. It means that

half of the people are above that and

half of the people are below it. So in

Monaco, the median age is 57.

Half of all the people in Monaco are

older than 57.

That's pretty old. But you have to have

a lot of money to live in Monaco. So

that's probably why Japan is 50.

That's the median age in Japan is 50.

That's way up there. Um, if you get all

the way down to

China and the USA, we're very similar.

China, the the median age is 40 and the

USA is 39.

If you took away illegal immigration,

I believe our median age would probably

jump up pretty high, but I don't know

about that for sure. Um,

but then you keep going down the list.

India, the median age is 30.

Just think about that. In in Japan, the

median age is 50

and in India, it's 30. in Mexico is 31.

So these are very young countries. Um

but it gets younger. Philippines 26,

Egypt 24, Ghana 21, Nigeria 18, and

Niger 15.

The country of Niger

the median age is 15.

In Japan is 50. No, in Japan is 50.

Wow. Now, obviously, we assume that

Niger the people are having lots of

babies. So, it's probably uh you know,

if you look at the birth rate plus the

age, you've got a pretty good way to

predict who's going to be doing well in

the future. If I had to guess,

if I were an investor, and this is not

investment advice, but if I were an

investor, I'd say, hm, Japan looks like

a problem. Um, Germany is 47. That's

kind of old.

But then I would look at Mexico where

the average age is or the median age is

31 or India at 30 and I would tell

myself hm there's going to be a lot of

energy in those companies countries. So

if you had a very long investment

horizon

uh I would favor the younger countries

the the ones that at least are developed

a little bit. So, don't invest based on

my

commentary. I'm not investment advice

guy. But, uh, ladies and gentlemen,

that's all I have for today. Kind of a

slow news day. I suspect there'll be

lots more this this afternoon.

And I'm going to say some words

privately to the beloved people on

locals. U, the rest of you, thanks for

joining. I will see you um tomorrow.

Same time, same place. All right, locals

coming at you private in 30 seconds.