Episode 2899 CWSA 07/16/25

Come on in everybody.

Grab a seat.

You are in the best place that anybody could ever be.

Yeah, good for you.

Just checking your stocks.

Well, it's mixed.

Bitcoin's up.

Tesla's up.

SPY is flat.

Yeah, not bad.

Let's get your comments working and then I got a show for you.

Oh yeah, we'll get to that.

We got a show.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating this experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tankered shelter sign a canteen jug or flask vessel of any time any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

The dope being of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.

It happens now.

Go.

Ah, so good.

But how good is it?

Hm.

Let's see.

Well, according to Eric Dolan, who's writing in Scypost, uh, caffeine may help prevent uh, stress induced depression.

That's right.

Drinking coffee can reduce your stress induced depression.

Do you know what else it can do?

It can reduce all of your other depression too.

How many times have I felt it was the afternoon and I said to myself, uh, life is, you know, crappy and there's nothing good in the world and I don't have any energy and I start to feel a little depressed and then I have a cup of coffee and suddenly all my depression is gone.

So, you should have just asked me, Scott, would uh caffeine make me feel less depressed?

Yes.

All right.

Um, but Scott, is it true that if you feel sick that having soup could help?

Well, it turns out that there's a uh study, a meta study that says that there's a good chance that having soup, which they call eating soup, is that what you call it?

When you have soup, do you eat it or do you drink it?

I don't know.

I just say I have it.

I would not say I eat soup and I would not say I drink it.

I would say I had some soup for lunch.

But according to an article by Sandra Lucas in the conversation, um you don't have to have chicken soup, but soup in general seems to be mildly indicated for helping you recover from things faster.

One study found that people who ate soup recovered up to two and a half days faster from, you know, normal respiratory problems than people who didn't.

It was just one one study.

So, get your soup.

Well, you didn't know that the Department of Homeland Security when they're not keeping your country safe are also very funny.

Very funny.

Uh case in point, the New York Times had a guest opinion piece by uh somebody who called himself one of Biden's border advisors and the name of the article was here's how to fix your immigration system.

Um let me say that again.

The New York Times has a guest opinion by one of Biden's border advisors and one of Biden's border advisors believes he can tell us how to fix our immigration system.

So what did the Department of Homeland Security say about that?

Well, they reposted it on Axe uh the the cover the cover to the article and the Department of Homeland Security just added this sarcasm.

Quote, I was Humpty Dumpty.

Here's how to sit on a wall.

I don't know how often the Department of Homeland Security tries to be funny, but that was pretty good.

Pretty good.

I think it's the Trump effect.

Does it seem to you that the Department of Homeland Security would go on social media and say something that's just purely a joke before Trump was president?

I I feel like Trump makes it safe for everybody else to joke around a little bit more in the government.

So, I like that.

All right.

According to Pirate Wires, GB Rango is writing that uh uh this is weird.

So, this is a real business that already exists.

It's a startup that is so exactly what I've been imagining for the cities of the future that it looks like it came right in my head.

It's called uh Pipet Stream Labs.

And what they're doing is they're trying to put underground robot delivery systems.

So it would be a a big pipe underground and a robot would deliver things that are up to like 40 lbs.

But it would be so efficient because there would be uh you know no traffic on the roads.

It would just be robots zipping around underneath the uh underneath the ground.

Then you could uh order stuff that you wouldn't normally even bother like uh you could order a candy bar and maybe pay 25 or 50 cents to have it delivered.

So anything you wanted would just sort of appear.

Now at the moment since they don't have pipes underneath everybody's house um the delivery goes to some central kind of a building.

So you you can go get it.

But the plan is that you would deliver directly to apartment buildings and eventually to your house if you had the foresight to build these little pipes for delivering everything.

So imagine if you will that everything you get from Door Dash, everything you get from Fed.

Ex, all all that uh local delivery, it just all goes away and it just becomes a a little door you open to your underground delivery, I guess.

Anyway, I've always thought that having delivery trucks and delivery cars on the surface of the world was the wrong way to go.

Underground delivery pipes, it's coming.

So, this is a real thing.

It's already being built.

Um Elon Musk has confirmed that uh his AI X AI which would be Gro 4.

Um he says it's the smartest AI in the world and also it's going to be built into Optimus humanoid robots.

Um but my question is this.

How in the world is a large language model going to be safe to put in a robot?

If the biggest problem with AI is hallucination, how does a robot learn not to do that?

And does the hallucination apply to physical acts?

Now, I understand how AI can work in your your um fully self-driving car.

If you have a bazillion hours of video of cars, you know, from the perspective of the car, then all you need is visual AI and apparently cars can drive themselves.

But do you think you could have a humanoid robot that had seen enough video of the real world that it could navigate your house?

It would just walk in your house and you'd say, "Robot, make me a sandwich." and the robot would know what your refrigerator looks like and you know where you keep the condiments and stuff.

It would just figure it out.

I don't know.

I feel like that problem of hallucinating is unsolved and maybe unsolvable with any large language model.

So, I'm going to be a skeptic in saying that uh Optimus will be successful with just the large language model AI.

They would have to have some other kind of AI or some other kind of programming on top of it.

There's no way that you can just put some large language model AI in there and and your robot will come to life.

I don't I don't think so, but I'd love to be wrong.

Anyway, I do think we'll get there.

You know, I I think humanoid robots will be big and uh Musk believes that the value of that robot business will be 10 trillion dollars bigger than the i.

Phone.

All right, here's a persuasion lesson courtesy of President Trump, who was uh speculating in front of reporters yesterday.

Um, who had the lower IQ?

Was it AOC or Jasmine Crockett?

So, the the press is listening to Trump.

He's like, um, you know, I don't know who's dumber.

We we have to give an IQ test to AOC cuz she's really dumb, but maybe Jasmine Crockett is dumber.

So, we should have them compete to find out which one is the dumbest.

Do you recognize the persuasion technique?

Do you all see it?

Compared to AOC is dumb or compared to separately that Jasmine Crockett is dumb.

What he is doing is making you think past the sale.

The sale is are they dumb.

He's making you think about which one is dumber.

If he can make you think about which one would do better on an IQ test, he's already convinced you to sort of uncritically accept.

Well, they're both dumb.

What the only mystery left is which one is dumber?

I've taught you that so many times.

It's a special trump trick that makes you think past the sail.

the sale of Yeah, they're both dumb.

All right.

See, you learn things.

Well, according to Representative Anna Paulina Luna, um she posted yesterday that Jerome Powell is going to be fired and firing is imminent.

Now, that would be that of the Fed.

Now I have not seen any confirmation of that but separately um and Paulina Luna says that uh she has a very good source and she's been told that Powell will be fired real soon.

I asked Grock if anybody else is talking about that and they're not.

So that's the first thing you need to know.

probably probably not likely because uh Grock explains that although it's true that the president can fire the head of the Fed, they can only do it with cause.

And cause would be something like doing such a terrible job that it's obvious it's not just a difference in judgment, but there's, you know, something wrong with you.

Now, does Jerro Powell indicate that there's something just deeply wrong with him or that he has a different opinion with the other the other governors on the Fed?

Uh there's just different opinion.

So, I would say at this point it looks like a different opinion, but it might be the wrong one.

Um, you know, Bill Py is going hard at him and uh it could be that Trump wants to test the limit of firing the Fed chief because that would be that would be a little bit beyond the boundaries of what I would expect him to be able to get away with.

But he might try it.

It's possible.

I'm going to bet against this.

I'm gonna say I don't think he'll fire the Fed chief, but we'll see.

Well, there are a number of uh good things happening in the administration, and I think uh Trump's administration does a good job of touting their successes.

Now, if you're looking at them touting their successes, remember that's marketing and you could even call it propaganda.

So there might be some, you know, counterargument to a few of these things, but here are some of the things we're learning just today.

Um, apparently the Department of Justice and the DEA have seized an enormous amount of illegal drugs um in the country and coming into the country.

So here are some of the numbers, and these don't even sound like they could be real.

The numbers are so big.

News Newsmax is reporting on this today.

Um, allegedly since Trump got in into the job, they've captured 44 million fentinyl pills.

44 million fentinyl pills.

4500 pounds of fentinel powder.

I'm no expert, but it feels like that would make a lot of pills.

Um, nearly 65,000 lb of meth.

Really?

65,000 lbs of meth?

Isn't meth just like a little powder?

How much meth is that?

65,000bs of doses that would be just like a little line of powder.

Holy cow.

and more than uh 200,000 pounds of cocaine.

200,000 lb.

What?

How much cocaine is that?

If you saw it in one big pile, would would it be like taller than you?

And uh they've made more than 2100 fentinel related arrests.

Now, I don't know.

And here here's the caution here.

I don't know how this compares to the baseline.

Could it be that the DEA and the DOJ routinely catch this most drugs?

Um, we just don't hear about it.

Is that possible?

Because you always hear about uh the Biden administration was doing a bad job of messaging how successful they were and they did do a bad job of that.

Is it possible that what we're seeing is just that the Trump administration is really really good at taking credit and that's all you're seeing?

I don't think so.

I think this is probably a a real a real accomplishment.

But you have to be careful.

You got the documentary effect.

You're only seeing one side of it.

So I don't know if there is another side of it, but this is a awfully big success or it looks like it.

All right.

So that's one thing.

So one thing is big success at the border, big successes capturing illegal drugs.

On top of that, um, Trump announced yesterday they got a a great trade deal with Indonesia.

New York Post is writing about this and I guess it opens up their market to all of our products and they're going to pay 19% tariff and we are going to pay nothing, says Trump.

It's a good deal for both.

Now, remember I told you that if things went well with this tariff trade deal stuff that the thing that the Democrats don't see coming is that since they wouldn't do all the deals in the same day that Trump will have this nearly endless number of successes that every day or every few days he's going to be able to say, "Well, we we got another amazing trade deal with another major country.

Well, this is one of those.

So, how many major trade deals is he going to get with how many countries?

And and then, of course, there's the surprising, you know, amount of uh tariff revenue coming into the government.

Trump is winning pretty hard on trade.

The the stock market has decided he's not going to destroy the country.

So, the stock market is like, "Oh, we're fine." and he just is rolling up the winds.

Now, sometimes I imagine he'll get ahead of the reality.

So, he might claim that they have a deal and then you find out and it's not really finalized and stuff like that.

But in terms of taking credit, they're really good at it.

And and that's actually a positive statement.

Um, I like it when my government is telling me that things are great and getting better.

That's what I want to feel.

I want to feel that optimism that the government is doing a great job.

And then it makes me think, well, I can do things, too.

You know, I can contribute.

Everything's heading the right way.

Um, I sure like being an American.

You know, it makes you feel good.

So Trump is really good at that.

On top of that, um I think this was all happening this morning.

Uh Trump has announced a whole bunch of gigantic investments in the United States.

So he announced uh I think it was today 56 billion in new energy infrastructure.

56 billion.

That's a lot of dollars.

uh more than 36 billion in new data center projects.

That's a lot.

I don't think we have anything that compares to those numbers in the past.

And he says that uh 20 leading tech and energy companies are announcing more than 92 billion of investment in Pennsylvania.

Just Pennsylvania.

92 billion dollars.

just Pennsylvania.

Now, why Pennsylvania?

Is that because it's close enough to everything?

Um, but they have maybe better situation for regulatory problems maybe.

So, I'm guessing that Pennsylvania has their act together enough that they can they can attract all that investment.

So, good job, Pennsylvania, whatever you're doing.

Now, Trump has also claimed uh I think this was also today maybe that that he's already secured 16 trillion dollars in investments in the US economy.

Do you believe that he's already secured $16 trillion in new investment?

Well, I feel like this is the situation where you have to say that might be a little bit of salesmanship there.

That that might be a little bit of hyperbole, a little bit of optimism.

Does that bother me?

Nope.

Nope.

I want my country to tell me that they're bringing in trillions of dollars of new investments so that other people want to invest too because people like to go where things are working, right?

If you tell the world, hey, everybody's investing in the United States.

I mean, really, the investments in the United States or the AI, the energy.

Oh, yeah.

This is really good.

You should get in on this.

Can't lose.

So, yes, I like it when they say they're capturing a bunch of drugs.

I like it when they say the investments are big.

And I like it when uh we get new trade deals.

Now, are there exaggerations involved in all these accomplishments?

Perhaps doesn't bother me a bit because I want a salesman and chief who is telling us everything's working out great because that's exactly what makes things work out great.

You need the optimism to drive the economy.

Nobody does it better.

Trump's the best optimist we've ever had as president.

Although Reagan was pretty good.

Um there's an article by David Hareni in the Washington Examiner titled why climate climate change alarmism failed and he notes that um there's a poll that CNN's Harry Enson is talking about that shows that uh um only 40% of Americans are greatly worried about climate change which is the same as in 2000.

So in 25 years of of trying to scare people, 25 years of trying to scare the public, the number of people who are who say they're scared exactly the same as it was before they tried to scare the public.

Now, do you ever just read a story and you sort of uncritically accept the elements of the story?

All right, I'm going to give you one right now.

All right, this will blow your mind if if it has the same effect on you than it does on me.

It's going to blow your mind.

All right, I live in California, as you know, so it's a very blue state presumably.

Um, most of my friends in my adult life have been probably more Democrats than Republicans.

Um, you know, obviously I lost uh most of my friends when I started backing Trump, so I'm talking about a little bit in the past, but I realize today that not once in my life have I met anybody who was worried about climate change, like ever in my whole life.

Not one person.

Now, are you really telling me that 40% of Americans are quote greatly worried about climate change?

That sounds to me like something that people say to pollsters, but is completely disconnected with reality.

How many times in your life have you been at, let's say, I don't know, a party or a barbecue or a family get together and somebody brought up climate change as an existential threat?

Has it ever happened?

Cuz it's never happened where I've been.

I've never even seen anybody interested in climate change, much less afraid of it.

no interest whatsoever.

So, is that different than your experience?

Because I'm very skeptical that 40% of the public thinks it's like our biggest problem.

And yet, nobody's ever, not once, 40% of the public and not once has anybody brought it up where I could have heard it in person.

Nobody.

Now, how many of you are having the same uh mental experience I had this morning, which is, oh yeah, how could it possibly be true if nobody's ever brought it up around me?

Cuz there's nothing else they haven't brought up, right?

You've heard people say bad things about Trump.

You've heard things about Ukraine and Gaza, the Middle East.

You've heard you've heard all kinds of things, but I'll bet you've never heard anybody complain about climate change.

Yeah, I don't believe it.

Anyway, um the uh Pentagon has announced it's uh removing those National Guardsmen from Los Angeles.

Remember, they were placed there to guard the government facilities because there was a lot of protesting that was getting on hand regarding the ICE stuff.

Well, I guess the protests have wound down and the National Guardsman never really had to get directly involved as far as I know, but they're being withdrawn.

Would we include that as a Trump success?

I would.

Wouldn't you?

the the point of the National Guardsmen was in case they're needed, but also as a deterrent.

So, they were there to deter, you know, bad actors doing violent things against government properties.

And as far as I know, they succeeded.

So the fact that there was no uh you know bloodshed or direct confrontation seems to be another Trump success.

All right.

Um there was a CEO according to the postm millennial Thomas Stevenson's writing about this uh CEO there's a CEO of a marketing group that apparently is in the business of organizing protests and the CEO of one of them says he was he was offered about $20 million as a contract to organize anti-Trump protests and he rejected it so he decided not to take But the CEO of the company called Crowds on Demand.

Um, and he didn't want to do the the uh the protests that are going to happen on the 17th, which would be tomorrow, I guess.

I guess a bunch of protests are going to kick off nationwide tomorrow.

And how alarmed are you that there is a commercial entity that organizes protests that are meant to look organic and he's completely public about it.

I I feel that Trump is letting this one um he's going easy on the protests, but maybe because they haven't been that big or that bad for Trump.

But I feel like the protests need to be branded as unnatural or non-organic or at least paid.

Um, so I don't know how many of the protesters are paid, but if the organizers are paid like a lot, it's not really a real protest, is it?

It's like it needs some other name.

If you call the protest, we have a long history in this country of saying, "Oh, protest.

I'm glad we have free speech.

Everybody gets an opinion.

Protest is good." But it's not really a protest because that would, you know, protest kind of implies that people had this opinion and they felt so strongly that they they had to just band together.

But if you're organized by paid people who were paid to do it, that's not exactly a protest.

What would you call it?

Uh, somebody says mercenary mobs.

Oh, that's not bad.

Mercenary mobs.

But that sounds like you're killing somebody.

What would you call it?

Indeed.

Indeed.

Some kind of persuasive um nickname.

kind of a kind of a Trumpism.

It needs something we can call it that makes you not want to do it.

So, we'll work on that.

I don't have an idea for that, but but maybe Trump does.

I've just been calling them organized and non-organic, but those are not really catchy.

Those are just descriptive.

We need something catchy.

All right.

Inorganic.

Inorganic protests.

No, it's catchy enough.

We could do better.

Well, this auto pen story refuses to die.

To me, this is a summertime story where there's not enough regular news, although there's more regular news under Trump than I've ever seen before in the summer, but you always need a little extra for political purposes.

So, I guess this auto pen story um the White House is going to review more than a million documents under the Biden administration.

Um and they just want transparency.

But to me, all they're doing is making sure the autopen stays in the news because it's really sort of a winner for Republicans, wouldn't you say?

It reminds you that the Democrats fooled you into thinking that Biden was functional.

And that's one of the biggest hoaxes, if not the biggest in the history of the United States.

So, as long as Trump can make you think about Biden and how that was covered up and how that wasn't a real government, Trump wins.

So, I would argue that nobody really cares about the auto pen.

Probably I doubt that Trump really cares.

Um, but it keeps it in the news.

So, auto pen is more about making you think Democrats are bad people.

I guess it's working.

Um, CNBC's Rick Santelli on on the TV.

He says that Trump's tariffs are not dooming the econ economy according to the Daily Color News Foundation.

Um, so there might be a little bit of inflation, but it's too small that you can even know for sure.

And I guess the CPI numbers were pretty close to expectations, the inflation numbers.

So, some say we're still waiting for the inflation that will come from these tariffs, and some say enough time has already gone by to conclude that we're not going to see that inflation.

I don't know.

Uh but I but I will tell you this and I'm gonna credit Dana Pino for the for this thought because I agreed with it completely but she said it first which is the right take on the tariffs was always I don't know that was the only honest and kind of useful opinion on the tariffs because there were people who were absolutely positive it would destroy the country.

Well, it's not the opinion that's the problem.

It's the certainty.

If you had certainty that the trade wars and the tariffs were going to tank our economy, well, you were wrong.

I mean, what whatever happens, it's not going to be gigantic or destroy the economy.

I think I think we can rule that out now, right?

So if you were sure that it was a disaster, your certainty was sort of revealing that you're not good at this.

But likewise, if you were just as sure that because Trump said it would make everything right, if you were just as sure that it would and it would, you know, replace maybe income taxes and all these other good things, well, that wasn't a good take either.

The only take that I respect is I don't know.

You know, we can reverse it.

You know, it's a sort of thing that is a really big ask and if it worked, it would be a really big deal.

If it didn't work, there would be some um discombobulation in the economy, but probably you could just reverse it in a week.

All you'd have to do is say, "All right, all right, that didn't work." Uh, I changed my mind.

Tariffs are dropped.

So, from a riskreward perspective, was it worth trying it knowing that if it didn't work, you could just sort of reverse it?

And if it did work, it would really change America forever in a positive way.

So, I'm going to give Trump an A++ for risk management on our behalf.

It was exactly the right risk management because the upside was really good if everything worked out and the downside was all manageable.

If it didn't work, well, reverse it.

You will be fine in about a week.

Well, uh, Governor Nuomo was on the Shaun Ryan podcast and, uh, if you haven't watched Governor Nuome speak on a podcast or in public lately, you have to see what's going on with his jazz hands, do you know what I mean by jazz hands?

So, jazz hands is sort of a a comical way to refer to dancers who are doing jazz dancing and and their hands get involved a lot.

So, you know, if if you're watching me on video, Jazz dancers like tada.

So, the so their hands are really involved.

But when you watch uh Newsome talk, I do not recall him being that animated as he is now.

And his hand motions are not only, you know, far bigger than they used to be, but they're a little bit creepy.

Like he was talking about some nuance in a bill and he does the piano playing.

nuance.

All of this nuance and it is weird.

Uh I'm going to be honest, it looks like drugs.

If you've known anybody who was on any kind of uppers, I don't I don't know what it could be.

you know, uh I'm not going to make a specific accusation, but he acts like somebody who's on some kind of an upper.

Uh but again, I don't have any evidence of that.

It's just that his behavior is different.

And uh if you've ever been around it, you know, around people who who are using some form of stimulant, you would say to yourself, "Oh, that looks familiar.

I think I've seen that before." And I hate to say it, but it's hard for me to imagine it just happened sort of on its own and that he just decided to change his his method of speaking or something.

I don't know.

I feel like there's something going on there.

But just to be clear, I don't have any factual evidence that would suggest, you know, that's what's going on.

It's just how it strikes me.

So, as as an impression, it gives me that impression.

Um, but then also, I forget who it was.

Was it was it Mark Cuban or maybe somebody else who was talking about how Democrats need to swear more and do more cursing?

And I thought to myself, is that real advice?

Like really?

The Democrats feel that in order to get the male vote or to be a little bit more manly um or maybe just a little more powerful looking that they could match Trump's use of curse words.

To which I would give them this advice.

You know when you should use curse words in public?

When you're Trump.

You can't just take that strategy and apply it to somebody who's not Trump.

The reason Trump could get away with it is that he's always in character, meaning it's, you know, who he really is.

It's not in character.

It's genuine.

When Trump curses, which isn't that often, um, you can tell how strategic it is.

And you know that he knows he's giving you the sound bite for the next 24 hours.

He knows he's doing it and he's really good at it.

He his cursing is never it never seems gratuitous.

It just feel it feels so I mean it feels like dropping one of those bunker buster bombs right down the ventilation shaft twice in a row.

That's what it feels like.

He he lands the curse word just perfectly and he's done it so many times that you know it's not an accident.

But then I watch uh Newsome on this podcast and when he was told that uh uh told that Joe Rogan had texted in a question for uh Sean Ryan to ask Nuome and Newsome says um you know just because he he thinks it might be a tough question.

So he uses the mother effer and then uh later when he was questioned about how he handled the pandemic he said everybody's a uh GD genius.

I know some of you hated to hear the Lord's name used in vain.

So I'll just say GD genius but he used he used the whole world.

And I'm thinking to myself, were those strategic uses?

Did he do what Trump would do, which was guarantee that that would be the sound bite and that you would laugh a little bit when you heard it?

Not really, cuz I didn't laugh when I heard it.

And it's not just because, you know, he's not my favorite politician or anything like that.

It just it wasn't funny.

It wasn't strategically placed.

It just looked like he's somebody who uses some foul language on a podcast.

It didn't have any effect.

In fact, maybe it was a little negative.

I thought to myself, well, why would you use those words without using them strategically?

I mean, it Yeah.

So, so no, you can't take people who are not known for this kind of behavior, you know, breaking the the bounds of civility because that's what Trump is known for.

Trump's entire persona is very linked to, you know, violating the the social boundaries.

So, it makes sense when he does it.

Well, we have to talk about Epstein because again, it's a summer summer kind of topic.

But, u Alan Dersowitz continues to be one of the most interesting people on this topic because he was Epstein's lawyer.

and he tells us he knows what names are redacted and who accused who and all that stuff.

Um, but he also says that he's sure that Epstein was not an intelligence asset for anybody because he was his lawyer.

And he says if he had been an intelligence asset, the first person he would have told would be his lawyer because you would tell the lawyer so that the lawyer could negotiate a sweetheart deal.

Now, he did get a sweetheart or deal and some say it's because the prosecutor knew he was an intelligence asset, but apparently Durowitz never used that argument because he was never told that he was a intelligence asset.

But here's my question.

Durowitz didn't ask him.

Are you telling me that everybody in the world suspected he was an intelligence asset except for Alan Dersowitz?

Is he the only person who didn't suspect it?

Really?

Um and then then I present you with this confuser.

Um you you know I'm a big fan of Alan Dersuit's public opinions about everything.

basically he he just has a smarter, more reasoned, more experienced um opinion on everything that's legal.

And but here's the thing you need to know.

If Alan Dersuitz himself were working for some intelligence unit, wouldn't it be perfectly appropriate for him to lie about it?

Because if you work for an intelligence agency, aren't you sort of encouraged not to tell people, isn't it isn't it a better play if you don't mention it?

And if somebody asks, aren't you supposed to say, "Nah, not me." And then there's also that gray area, which is, well, you don't have to be on the payroll of an intelligence agency.

You could just be in favor of what they're doing.

Maybe lend them a hand now and then.

Maybe they do you a favor later.

Maybe you were just afraid of what they would do if you didn't help them.

But isn't isn't there a lot of gray area that would push both uh um Epstein and maybe even his lawyer into a not necessarily an employee of any intelligence agency but possibly on their side possibly.

So, as fascinating as that point is that Epstein would have told him if he was an intelligence asset, the part that I'm missing is I asked him if he was.

Isn't that kind of missing?

I don't know.

Um, and since we know Durowitz is very pro-Israel, if uh there was any kind of Israel connection, would we expect that Ellen Dersuitz would be the person who would let us know about that?

I would say not if it's bad for Israel.

Um, he he's very open about, you know, being highly supportive of Israel.

He's he's an American first, but uh still I don't know if he's the one we should believe when it comes to intelligence assets.

U but highly credible on other topics.

And by the way, that has nothing to do with Duruititz.

I would say that's the same for anybody, right?

If you put anybody else in in the position of being Epstein's lawyer, I would say, "Yeah, I mean, if you know something you're not supposed to tell people, we get it." Um Glenn Greenwald found an old New York Times article that uh said that Galain Maxwell's father's publishing group, you remember Galain Maxwell's father was a big publisher, um that his publishing group admitted in court that uh Seymour Hirs who wrote about the Glane Maxwell and the father situation, I guess mostly about the father, was quote fully justified in accusing and Robert Maxwell of working for Israeli intelligence.

So, and we also know that um when Maxwell died, he was given a uh official state funeral in Israel even though he was not an Israeli citizen and that multiple former heads of MSAD attended his Israel state funeral.

Again, he was not Israeli and they gave him an Israel state funeral.

So, I would say the evidence that Galain Maxwell's father worked for the MSAD is pretty darn good.

Not confirmed, but certainly the breadcrumbs are there.

Does that mean that Galain Maxwell was a spy?

No, doesn't mean that.

So, we're we're short of any kind of a confirmation there, but we got our suspicions.

And then you probably saw some fake news yesterday.

People asked me why I didn't talk about it.

It was because when I saw it, I didn't trust it.

So, my hunch that it was fake news was right.

So Marjorie Taylor Green is explaining that if you saw something that said that the there were several House Republicans who voted to block the release of the Epstein files, that was fake news.

It's true in some form, but it's the reason they blocked it had nothing to do with the Epstein stuff.

It had to do with the it was a procedural thing, you know, that it was either wrapped up with something they didn't want it wrapped up with or there was some procedural problem.

But no, there were no Republicans who voted to not show the Epstein files to the public.

That didn't happen.

There was something that might have headed in that direction that they thought had some flaws that had nothing to do with Epstein.

So, that did happen.

but more fake news than real news.

All right, here's uh Trump um talking about the Epstein files and he said to reporters yesterday, quote, I would say that these files were made up by Comey.

They were made up by Obama.

They were made up by the Biden, and we went through years of that with the Russia Russia hoax.

Now, let me give you some advice.

Um, if you ever find yourself in a position of having to cover up something and you want to tell a a lie about it, never start your lie with these words.

I would say Trump literally started with I would say that these files were made up by Comet Comey and the others.

I would say if you start your explanation with I would say you're basically saying I'm making this up.

Do you remember when OJ wrote his book If I Did It.

If I Did it.

What if you see if I did it on OJ's book, you say to yourself, he's telling us he did it.

If your president say I would say that these files were made up, that doesn't mean he believes that.

If he believed it, he would say, well, you know, the files were made up by Democrats, so you can't trust them.

He wouldn't say, "I would say it." Well, I would say it.

I would.

No, that's bad lying.

Um yeah, never never do that.

And then he said that uh he was asked about releasing more of the Epstein stuff and he said uh yes and uh that any credible Epstein information should be released.

Why do you have to add the credible part?

Well, I mean credible is sort of assumed in all information, right?

that you wouldn't present it unless it was credible.

But he sort of drops that word in there like it gives you a little out.

It's like, well, there is more information, but it wasn't credible, so we didn't release it.

Now, if he had started with that, that might have been an easier sale if he'd said, "You know what?

We looked at everything and uh the only things you don't know about that matter look to be low credibility.

So we think it would just make things worse if we release it because you remember what happened when the steel dossier got out?

That was low credibility.

You know, wouldn't the country have been better off if nobody had ever seen the steel dossier?

Yeah, of course.

So we don't want to make the same mistake as the steel dossier.

So, since it's low credibility according to our experts, um, you know, I know I know we told you we would give you everything we had, but that doesn't mean the low credibility stuff, right?

That's not going to help you.

So, probably that would have been a better way to start.

I don't know if it would have made other people happy, but it would have sounded at least like, oh, that's a real reason.

The other thing that I would have bought completely is if instead of saying that the files were made up, I would have said, uh, we really thought there was going to be some stuff there, but if it was ever there, it was already removed.

So, yes, you have every right to suspect that there's more to this Epstein situation.

We suspect it, too.

But when we look at the files, we have to conclude that either there isn't anything there or that whatever was there was removed.

Now, I would have I would have believed that if they said we were sure there was going to be some stuff there, but when we dug down when we dug down, there was nothing credible or there was nothing there at all cuz it it looks like it might have been removed and we don't know how or when.

I would have bought that.

That to me that sounds like exactly the sort of thing that would happen in the real world.

What are other people saying?

Well, Dick Durban was on CNN and uh he he says that uh Republicans must be hiding something because they're not as forthcoming as they could be with the Epstein files.

Now, that's a really good political attack and it looks like a little bit like what even Republicans think is true, which makes it a good political attack.

I don't know if there's any truth to it, but it's a good political attack.

Um, Speaker Mike Johnson says he supports the idea of Gain Maxwell testifying to Congress.

So, I guess that's an option that got floated.

He was talking to Benny Johnson.

So, Benny Johnson got an exclusive on that.

And, uh, Mike Johnson said, "I'm for transparency.

we should put everything out there and let the people decide blah blah blah blah.

So that's always the right answer, >> you know, to say you're for transparency.

Uh Thomas Massie introduced a uh a discharge petition to compel the Department of Justice to release all relevant Epstein documents.

So that's happening.

Um, I don't know if that's going to get any purchase, but at least there's some motion to release everything.

Um, here's what I would like to see.

And ask yourself why you haven't seen this yet.

I would like to see all the guards, just the regular guards, not the management, not the warden, but just the regular guards who worked in that area of the jail when Epstein died.

Why have we never seen them in public?

because I did hear through a source, which I think is probably credible, that there would be at least one of those guards who would tell you that the FBI took the video away and there was nothing wrong with the cameras and they told them to shut up about it.

Now, I can't guarantee that that's true.

I'm just saying that I heard it through a source that I don't have any reason to question that there is a guard who has told somebody in person.

Yeah, I was there.

The FBI took the video.

There was nothing wrong with the cameras.

Now, I'll say it again.

I don't know that that's true, right?

Cuz I'm not I didn't talk to a source directly.

But why have we never heard from the other guards?

There must be what maybe a dozen guards who are there or have you know direct or indirect knowledge of what happened because there's no way you could keep all of that from all the guards.

So there might be somebody who has something to talk about.

Well, of course, the Democrats would like to make a big deal about the division in the MAGA base because some people are mad at Trump.

And uh so there's a publication a left-leaning publication called the bull work where somebody called Will Summer was writing an article about the quote um Epstein civil war in MAGA and it listed on the cover five u MAGA p I guess MAGA personalities who were in this alleged uh Epstein civil war.

So the names that they said are in this civil war are Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and me.

So there were only four uh figures who were mentioned, you know, on the cover.

Anyways, the cover.

So my pictures on the cover of the story, etc.

Now, did you know there's an Epstein civil war?

That I I feel like I'm in a civil war and nobody told me.

I thought I was just talking about it and speculating what could be true and letting my audience know.

Am I in some kind of civil war?

Have I ever said, uh, you know, don't vote for Trump because of this?

No, absolutely not.

I I think that it's trivial and that whatever the reason is, even if it's the wrong reason.

Are you going to throw everything that you've gained away because of the one thing?

Well, some people say yes, and that would be your privilege to do that.

I would say don't.

But I don't know that any of these people, Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, or Scott Adams, would any of those people say you shouldn't vote for Republicans in the midterm?

I don't think we would.

Would any of them say you should stop supporting Trump in all the other things he might want to get done?

I don't think anybody said that.

So, a lot of people are sure that voters will decide to stay home, and they might.

Um, but I I just would disagree with the civil war part.

What I think is that the Democrats convinced themselves that Trump supporters were a cult and that we agreed on everything no matter what it was.

And then when they see quite obviously that that's not the case, instead of going back to their own assumption and saying, "Oh, I I guess we've been wrong for years, they were never a cult.

It's just that they were on the same page that the followers and Trump were in favor of strong borders.

We weren't in favor of it because Trump told us to be in favor of it and we were part of a cult.

No, we just have the same opinion.

So when it got to Epistine and the opinions legitimately were different, well then everybody can see, oh, it's not a cult.

So the way this this story should have been written is, uh, you thought MAGA was a cult, you're totally wrong.

Here's why.

But instead it turned into Epstein Civil War.

as if as if I couldn't have a conversation with Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson, or Steve Bannon and and somehow it wouldn't go well.

Of course it would.

We probably wouldn't even agree disagree on much if we're, you know, really hammering it down.

All right, in other news, uh, OMG, the O'Keefe Media Group got a hidden video camera conversation with a Johnson and Johnson lead scientist.

Now, let me give give some advice to the other lead scientists involved in uh uh co vaccinations.

If you go on a date, don't talk about the things you got away with in your day job, don't do it because there's a good chance your date works for uh James O'Keefe.

But apparently this uh lead scientist for J&J uh COVID vaccine area said um that the vaccine was quote not safe and effective and it lacked research and it was rushed and he said people wanted it so we gave it to them and he said quote do you have any idea the lack of research that was done on those products?

you was talking about the vaccines.

That's that's a lead scientist who basically threw his company completely under the bus.

So there's that.

He said, "I mean, we basically just had a race to figure out who could solve it best, meaning the various um companies trying to make a vaccine." He goes, "At one point, we just canned it." meaning we we canned the you know the appropriate process.

So uh then James O'Keefe shows up like he does in these situations and he says are you so and so and the guy tried to the guy tried to say that he had the identity wrong.

So that didn't work out according to Breitbart.

uh the make America healthy again thing is is working a little bit because 35% of US food industry is committed to removing artificial dyes from the food.

You know, I have the following question.

Um, were artificial dyes like right at the top of the list of things that were maybe killing us?

Because the artificial dyes, you know, I'd always heard the issue, but I never really thought that was a top three, top five health concern.

Um, but maybe it was maybe it was much worse than I imagined.

So 35%'s a good start, but it makes me wonder, is there something we should have been focusing on a little bit more, like just processed foods in general?

Yeah.

Anyway, and and I'm a skeptic on the seed oil stuff.

Um, I' I've seen arguments on both sides.

I don't know how to, you know, create a winner from that.

Anyway, uh Trump is also going after Adam Schiff for his alleged mortgage fraud, which involved uh having a house in Maryland.

So, that would be, you know, close to DC.

So, that's where he would stay most of the time.

But also having a condo in California, which allows him to say he's a resident of California, so that's how he can be our senator.

Um but the problem is that he told the banks or the IRS or both that they were uh both um primary residents, but legally you can only have one primary residence.

So uh Trump is calling him out for claiming that he had two primary residents, which is not legal.

And I guess the documentation is pretty clear.

So there's not much question on the factual part.

Um I I believe we have the documents that show that he claimed they were both primary residents.

Now that would be a problem.

Um so but Schiff um responded to Trump and he said this.

So, the president today is accusing me of fraud and the basis of his accusation is that I own a home in Maryland and I own my home in California.

Big surprise.

Members of Congress, almost all of them, own more than one home or rent more than one home because we're required to be on both coasts.

So, he is using my ownership of two homes to make a false claim of mortgage fraud.

So, do you see what shift did there?

He acted as though the complaint is that he has two homes.

That's not the complaint.

That was never that was never even an issue.

Of course, Trump knows, as I know, and probably most of you know, that if you're an elected official from some state that's far away from Washington DC, you almost certainly have to have a place to stay where you live and a place to stay where you work because you're going to be there most of the year.

So, no, it's not about having two homes.

It's about uh specifying that both of them are your primary residents because that allows you to save money.

So, it's a a uh is it a tax savings?

I think it's a tax savings thing.

So, the designated liar, as I call him, Adam Schiff does it again.

Um, according to the uh Daily Caller News Foundation, Maryanne Angela is writing that uh according to one pollster, GOP pollster, if you throw in Elon Musk's uh America party, which we think will be formed because Mus says he's going to form it, uh the the Dem the Republicans would lose the midterms.

So, if uh Elon Musk does not create a third party, uh Republicans have a narrow advantage in the midterms.

I I think other pollsters have it the other way, but whatever it is, it's going to be close.

you know, narrow advantage one way or the other.

But if you throw in the third party, the America party, um it looks like that gives the Democrats a closer to something like a clean win in the midterms.

So, do you believe that Elon Musk would finalize that party and knowing that it would cost the control of the uh Congress?

Would he do that?

Would there be a principle involved or um some bigger riskreward benefit that I'm not aware of?

Uh, I have some trouble believing that he would really do that because I don't think he could recover from that reputationally.

If Elon Musk personally through his own efforts created that third party and and what the public came to believe is that that's the only reason that the Democrats had a great midterm.

Even if it's not true, uh that would be very bad for Elon Musk's, you know, brand going forward because everybody can see it coming.

If it were a surprise and nobody could have seen it coming, then you say to yourself, "All right, well, he gambled.

He got that one wrong.

We wish it hadn't happened." But if you know what the impact is, you're going to have to own that impact.

Do you think he wants to do that?

I I'm going to bet against it.

Um, you know, anything's possible, but I'm going to say 65% chance that he decides it would be too much of a cost to the country as well to him and his colleagues.

If you were a uh stockholder, well, I am a stockholder in Tesla and you knew that the head of Tesla was going to do something that would permanently piss off at least half of the country, would you be okay with that as a stockholder?

I'm not okay with it.

I'm not okay with it.

I mean, he's got free speech and he has the right to do it, but I'm not okay with it.

Not even a little bit.

All right.

Um, I saw an article by Daniel Greenfield who uh talked about some polling in Gaza.

And let me see if you can guess what the answer is before I tell you.

You ready for this?

Um how many how many palace well actually how many residents of Gaza um and I guess resident means that you had lived there or you are living there I don't know how many people are still there but how many residents of Gaza the Gazins uh believe that Hamas is winning the war so far believe that that go that Hamas is winning the for right now.

23% 23% of the residents of Gaza believe the Hamas is winning the war with the IDF.

how you know uh we always joke there's you know if you're new to the podcast here there's a running joke that doesn't matter what the topic of the poll is roughly one in four people will have the wrong answer no matter what now how in the world could you be a resident of of Gaza that's completely leveled and and Hamas is hiding underground ground and getting wiped out a little by, you know, every day.

How in the world do you conclude that they're winning?

Amazing.

But, uh, apparently 58% of people in or from Gaza acknowledged that October 7th was a mistake.

Um, and that's way down.

After October 7th when it was fresh, 72% of the residents thought that the Hamas attack was a good idea.

What?

What?

You would think at this point it would be obvious that was a bad idea, but no.

All right.

Um, Zalinski has said that uh Biden couldn't end the war with Ukraine and Russia, but he says, "I'm confident President Trump can." To which I say, "Oh, Zalinski finally figuring out how to play this.

Zalinski, you don't go to the Oval Office and try to embarrass our president.

That's not going to work out." And it didn't.

Here's what you need to be doing.

Uh, Biden couldn't get it done, but I'm confident President Trump can.

All right, now we're talking.

You should be flattering him.

You should be complimenting his successes so far.

You should be saying that nobody in the world but Donald Trump would be the right person to end this war.

Why?

Because that's what you that's what gets you some cooperation.

You know, show some respect, you're going to get some back.

And at the moment he's gonna get a bunch of weapons that the US is sending him.

Um and uh he he also he also uses the uh the Trump idea.

Remember when Trump would threaten uh she and threaten Putin and say, "Well, they only have to believe there's a 10% chance they'll go through with it." Um and and Zilinski is borrowing that technique talking about the offensive weapons that Trump is going to give him.

He says any offensive weapons provided by the US could force Putin to come to the negotiating table.

Here's the important part.

Even if those weapons are never used, that's a Trumpism.

Trump is the one who says, "I don't have to do the threat.

You just have to think there's a 10% chance I might." And then you're going to get real serious about negotiating.

Silinski is borrowing his technique.

We don't have to use the weapons.

It might be enough that Putin knows we could.

There you go.

Yeah, he's uh pacing Trump in just the right way.

At least at least that day.

Um, Trump was asked about the report that he seemed to be in favor of Zalinski bombing Moscow using not bombing but sending missiles into Moscow using the better um weapons that Trump and America are planning to provide.

But Trump says no that Zilinski should not bomb Moscow.

um despite the fact that Trump did say he wanted Putin to feel some pain.

So the Daily Mail, Emily Guden, is writing about this.

Um but there was a conversation in which Trump may have asked Zalinski if he could bomb if he could attack Moscow with the American weapons.

And I think that Zalinski said yes, but it was more of a what's possible, you know, what's doable.

It wasn't a suggestion to do it.

So Trump does not support attacking Moscow.

But if Zilinski did attack Moscow, I don't know if Trump would be unhappy, would he?

He's just saying he's not in favor of it.

But if somebody did it anyway, could it put enough pressure on Putin that he'd want to end the war?

I don't think so.

I don't think that Zalinski could um destroy enough of Moscow that would do anything except increase Putin's support because once you attack somebody's capital, well, people are going to back whoever is in charge of their country.

So, it's not going to I don't think it's going to hurt Putin even if Zalinski took part of Moscow.

So, probably a bad idea.

Um Putin responded to Trump's threats that they would put 100% tariffs on anybody who was doing business with Russia.

Um Trump's or Putin's response to that was that a Kremlin official says Trump's threats of tariffs are serious and Putin will comment if necessary.

He'll comment if necessary.

Isn't that really Putin just dismissing the whole risk of tariffs?

I'll comment if necessary, but honestly, he doesn't look like it's going to be necessary.

So, he's sort of brushing that off.

Um, and then O is talking about how uh um the chief Pentagon correspondent Oh, um we're looking at my own notes here.

Um apparently the Department of Defense has contracts with some big AI companies, at least three of them.

So Google, OpenAI, and XAI, and I think Anthropic.

So they have these gigantic um contracts for AI that I believe is tied to their Jeron um plans.

So remember I told you that within 3 years the Ukraine front line with Russia will be an all robot war.

There won't be people because the people will be killed instantly by all the drones that have AI and are making their own decisions about who to attack and when.

So apparently the US is trying to sort of leapfrog the other drone makers where you need a person to control each one.

And if we could build a whole bunch of drones in the US and provide them you to Ukraine and those drones had AI built in so you didn't need a human operator for every moment of its flight.

Um that could change the war.

Now, what I don't know is if Russia with the help of China presumably could match uh all the unguided AI drones that the US is likely to provide.

They could probably beat us in quantity, but could they beat us in AI plus drones?

And that's where I think we might have an advantage.

And that's why I think it'll turn into just a drone war.

So that's my prediction.

Within 3 years, no humans on the front lines.

It'll be the first robot war in the history of humanity.

All right, people.

That's all I had to say today.

I'm going to talk to the uh beloved subscribers on locals because they're the best.

You're pretty awesome, too.

But the local subscribers, oh man, they're the best.

Um, don't be jealous.

All right, the rest of you, I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place.

Thanks for joining.

I hope you got something out of it.

And locals, I will see you privately in 30 seconds.

Come on in everybody. Grab a seat. You

are in the best place that anybody could

ever be. Yeah, good for you. Just

checking your stocks.

Well, it's mixed. Bitcoin's up. Tesla's

up. SPY is flat.

Yeah, not bad. Let's get your comments

working and then

I got a show for you. Oh yeah,

we'll get to that.

We got a show.

[Music]

[Music]

Good morning everyone and welcome to the

highlight of human civilization. It's

called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance of elevating

this experience up to levels that no one

can understand with their tiny shiny

human brains. All you need for that is a

copper mug or a glass of tankered

shelter sign a canteen jug or flask

vessel of any time any kind. Fill it

with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure. The dope being of

the day, the thing that makes everything

better. It's called, that's right, the

simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go.

Ah,

so good. But how good is it? Hm. Let's

see.

Well, according to Eric Dolan, who's

writing in Scypost,

uh, caffeine may help prevent uh, stress

induced depression.

That's right. Drinking coffee can reduce

your stress induced depression. Do you

know what else it can do? It can reduce

all of your other depression too. How

many times have I felt it was the

afternoon and I said to myself, uh, life

is, you know, crappy and there's nothing

good in the world and I don't have any

energy and I start to feel a little

depressed and then I have a cup of

coffee and suddenly all my depression is

gone.

So, you should have just asked me,

Scott, would uh caffeine make me feel

less depressed?

Yes.

All right. Um, but Scott, is it true

that if you feel sick that having soup

could help? Well, it turns out that

there's a uh study, a meta study that

says that there's a good chance that

having soup, which they call eating

soup, is that what you call it? When you

have soup, do you eat it or do you drink

it?

I don't know. I just say I have it. I

would not say I eat soup and I would not

say I drink it. I would say I had some

soup for lunch.

But according to an article by Sandra

Lucas in the conversation,

um you don't have to have chicken soup,

but soup in general seems to be mildly

indicated for helping you recover from

things faster. One study found that

people who ate soup recovered up to two

and a half days faster from, you know,

normal respiratory problems than people

who didn't. It was just one one study.

So, get your soup.

Well, you didn't know that the

Department of Homeland Security when

they're not keeping your country safe

are also very funny. Very funny. Uh case

in point, the New York Times had a guest

opinion piece by uh somebody who called

himself one of Biden's border advisors

and the name of the article was here's

how to fix your immigration system.

Um let me say that again. The New York

Times has a guest opinion by one of

Biden's border advisors

and one of Biden's border advisors

believes he can tell us how to fix our

immigration system.

So what did the Department of Homeland

Security say about that? Well, they

reposted it on Axe uh the the cover the

cover to the article and the Department

of Homeland Security just added this

sarcasm. Quote, I was Humpty Dumpty.

Here's how to sit on a wall.

I don't know how often the Department of

Homeland Security tries to be funny, but

that was pretty good. Pretty good. I

think it's the Trump effect.

Does it seem to you that the Department

of Homeland Security would go on social

media and say something that's just

purely a joke before Trump was

president? I I feel like Trump makes it

safe for everybody else to joke around a

little bit more in the government.

So, I like that.

All right. According to Pirate Wires, GB

Rango is writing that uh uh this is

weird. So, this is a real business that

already exists. It's a startup

that is so exactly what I've been

imagining for the cities of the future

that it looks like it came right in my

head. It's called uh Pipet Stream Labs.

And what they're doing is they're trying

to put underground

robot delivery systems. So it would be a

a big pipe underground and a robot would

deliver things that are up to like 40

lbs. But it would be so efficient

because there would be uh you know no

traffic on the roads. It would just be

robots zipping around underneath the uh

underneath the ground. Then you could uh

order stuff that you wouldn't normally

even bother like uh you could order a

candy bar and maybe pay 25 or 50 cents

to have it delivered.

So anything you wanted would just sort

of appear. Now at the moment since they

don't have pipes underneath everybody's

house

um the delivery goes to some central

kind of a building. So you you can go

get it. But the plan is that you would

deliver directly to apartment buildings

and eventually to your house if you had

the foresight to build these little

pipes for delivering everything. So

imagine if you will that everything you

get from Door Dash, everything you get

from FedEx, all all that uh local

delivery, it just all goes away and it

just becomes a a little door you open to

your underground delivery, I guess.

Anyway, I've always thought

that having delivery trucks and delivery

cars on the surface of the world was the

wrong way to go. Underground delivery

pipes, it's coming. So, this is a real

thing. It's already being built.

Um Elon Musk has confirmed that uh his

AI X AI which would be Gro 4. Um he says

it's the smartest AI in the world and

also it's going to be built into Optimus

humanoid robots.

Um but my question is this.

How in the world is a large language

model going to be safe to put in a

robot? If the biggest problem with AI is

hallucination,

how does a robot learn not to do that?

And does the hallucination apply to

physical acts?

Now, I understand how AI can work in

your your um fully self-driving car. If

you have a bazillion hours of video of

cars, you know, from the perspective of

the car, then all you need is visual AI

and apparently cars can drive

themselves.

But do you think you could have a

humanoid robot that had seen enough

video of the real world that it could

navigate your house? It would just walk

in your house and you'd say, "Robot,

make me a sandwich." and the robot would

know what your refrigerator looks like

and you know where you keep the

condiments and stuff. It would just

figure it out. I don't know. I feel like

that problem of hallucinating is

unsolved and maybe unsolvable

with any large language model. So, I'm

going to be a skeptic

in saying that uh Optimus will be

successful with just the large language

model AI. They would have to have some

other kind of AI or some other kind of

programming on top of it. There's no way

that you can just put some large

language model AI in there and and your

robot will come to life. I don't I don't

think so, but I'd love to be wrong.

Anyway, I do think we'll get there. You

know, I I think humanoid robots will be

big

and uh Musk believes that the value of

that robot business will be 10 trillion

dollars bigger than the iPhone.

All right, here's a persuasion lesson

courtesy of President Trump, who was uh

speculating in front of reporters

yesterday. Um, who had the lower IQ? Was

it AOC or Jasmine Crockett?

So, the the press is listening to Trump.

He's like, um,

you know, I don't know who's dumber. We

we have to give an IQ test to AOC cuz

she's really dumb, but maybe Jasmine

Crockett is dumber. So, we should have

them compete to find out which one is

the dumbest. Do you recognize the

persuasion technique?

Do you all see it?

Compared to

AOC is dumb

or compared to separately that Jasmine

Crockett is dumb.

What he is doing is making you think

past the sale. The sale is are they

dumb. He's making you think about which

one is dumber.

If he can make you think about which one

would do better on an IQ test, he's

already convinced you to sort of

uncritically accept. Well, they're both

dumb. What the only mystery left is

which one is dumber?

I've taught you that so many times. It's

a special trump trick that makes you

think past the sail. the sale of Yeah,

they're both dumb.

All right. See, you learn things.

Well, according to Representative Anna

Paulina Luna,

um she posted yesterday that Jerome

Powell is going to be fired and firing

is imminent. Now, that would be that of

the Fed. Now I have not seen any

confirmation of that but separately

um and Paulina Luna says that uh she has

a very good source and she's been told

that Powell will be fired real soon. I

asked Grock if anybody else is talking

about that and they're not. So that's

the first thing you need to know.

probably probably

not likely because uh Grock explains

that although it's true that the

president can fire the head of the Fed,

they can only do it with cause.

And cause would be something like doing

such a terrible job that it's obvious

it's not just a difference in judgment,

but there's, you know, something wrong

with you.

Now, does Jerro Powell indicate that

there's something just deeply wrong with

him or that he has a different opinion

with the other the other governors on

the Fed? Uh there's just different

opinion.

So, I would say at this point it looks

like a different opinion, but it might

be the wrong one. Um, you know, Bill Py

is going hard at him and uh it could be

that Trump wants to test the limit of

firing the Fed chief because that would

be

that would be a little bit beyond the

boundaries of what I would expect him to

be able to get away with. But he might

try it. It's possible. I'm going to bet

against this. I'm gonna say I don't

think he'll fire the Fed chief, but

we'll see.

Well, there are a number of uh good

things happening in the administration,

and I think uh Trump's administration

does a good job of touting their

successes.

Now, if you're looking at them touting

their successes, remember that's

marketing and you could even call it

propaganda. So there might be some, you

know, counterargument to a few of these

things, but here are some of the things

we're learning just today. Um,

apparently the Department of Justice and

the DEA have seized an enormous amount

of illegal drugs

um in the country and coming into the

country. So here are some of the

numbers, and these don't even sound like

they could be real. The numbers are so

big. News Newsmax is reporting on this

today. Um, allegedly

since Trump got in into the job, they've

captured 44 million fentinyl pills.

44 million fentinyl pills. 4500 pounds

of fentinel powder.

I'm no expert, but it feels like that

would make a lot of pills. Um, nearly

65,000 lb of meth.

Really? 65,000

lbs of meth? Isn't meth just like a

little powder?

How much meth is that? 65,000bs

of doses that would be just like a

little line of powder. Holy cow. and

more than uh 200,000 pounds of cocaine.

200,000

lb.

What? How much cocaine is that? If you

saw it in one big pile, would would it

be like taller than you?

And uh they've made more than 2100

fentinel related arrests. Now, I don't

know.

And here here's the caution here. I

don't know how this compares to the

baseline.

Could it be that the DEA and the DOJ

routinely catch this most drugs? Um, we

just don't hear about it. Is that

possible? Because you always hear about

uh the Biden administration

was doing a bad job of messaging how

successful they were and they did do a

bad job of that. Is it possible that

what we're seeing is just that the Trump

administration is really really good at

taking credit and that's all you're

seeing?

I don't think so. I think this is

probably a a real

a real accomplishment.

But you have to be careful. You got the

documentary effect. You're only seeing

one side of it. So I don't know if there

is another side of it, but this is a

awfully big success

or it looks like it. All right. So

that's one thing. So one thing is big

success at the border, big successes

capturing illegal drugs. On top of that,

um, Trump announced yesterday they got a

a great trade deal with Indonesia.

New York Post is writing about this

and I guess it opens up their market to

all of our products and they're going to

pay 19% tariff and we are going to pay

nothing, says Trump. It's a good deal

for both. Now, remember I told you that

if things went well with this tariff

trade deal stuff that the thing that the

Democrats don't see coming is that since

they wouldn't do all the deals in the

same day that Trump will have this

nearly endless number of successes

that every day or every few days he's

going to be able to say, "Well, we we

got another amazing trade deal with

another major country. Well, this is one

of those. So, how many major trade deals

is he going to get with how many

countries? And and then, of course,

there's the surprising, you know, amount

of uh tariff revenue coming into the

government.

Trump is winning pretty hard on trade.

The the stock market has decided he's

not going to destroy the country. So,

the stock market is like, "Oh, we're

fine." and he just is rolling up the

winds. Now, sometimes I imagine he'll

get ahead of the reality. So, he might

claim that they have a deal and then you

find out and it's not really finalized

and stuff like that. But in terms of

taking credit,

they're really good at it. And and

that's actually a positive statement.

Um, I like it when my government is

telling me that things are great and

getting better. That's what I want to

feel. I want to feel that optimism that

the government is doing a great job. And

then it makes me think, well, I can do

things, too. You know, I can contribute.

Everything's heading the right way. Um,

I sure like being an American. You know,

it makes you feel good. So Trump is

really good at that. On top of that, um

I think this was all happening this

morning.

Uh Trump has announced a whole bunch of

gigantic investments in the United

States. So he announced uh I think it

was today 56 billion in new energy

infrastructure.

56 billion. That's a lot of dollars. uh

more than 36 billion in new data center

projects.

That's a lot.

I don't think we have anything that

compares to those numbers in the past.

And he says that uh 20 leading tech and

energy companies are announcing more

than 92 billion of investment in

Pennsylvania.

Just Pennsylvania.

92 billion dollars.

just Pennsylvania.

Now, why Pennsylvania?

Is that because it's close enough to

everything?

Um, but they have maybe better situation

for regulatory problems maybe. So, I'm

guessing that Pennsylvania has their act

together enough that they can they can

attract all that investment. So, good

job, Pennsylvania, whatever you're

doing.

Now, Trump has also claimed

uh I think this was also today maybe

that that he's already secured 16

trillion dollars in investments in the

US economy.

Do you believe that he's already secured

$16 trillion

in new investment?

Well,

I feel like this is the situation where

you have to say that might be a little

bit of salesmanship there. That that

might be a little bit of hyperbole, a

little bit of optimism. Does that bother

me? Nope. Nope. I want my country to

tell me that they're bringing in

trillions of dollars of new investments

so that other people want to invest too

because people like to go where things

are working, right? If you tell the

world, hey, everybody's investing in the

United States. I mean, really, the

investments in the United States or the

AI, the energy. Oh, yeah. This is really

good. You should get in on this. Can't

lose. So, yes, I like it when they say

they're capturing a bunch of drugs. I

like it when they say the investments

are big. And I like it when uh we get

new trade deals. Now, are there

exaggerations involved in all these

accomplishments?

Perhaps doesn't bother me a bit because

I want a salesman and chief who is

telling us everything's working out

great because that's exactly what makes

things work out great. You need the

optimism to drive the economy. Nobody

does it better. Trump's the best

optimist we've ever had as president.

Although Reagan was pretty good.

Um there's an article by David Hareni in

the Washington Examiner titled why

climate climate change alarmism failed

and he notes that um there's a poll that

CNN's Harry Enson is talking about that

shows that uh

um only 40% of Americans are greatly

worried about climate change which is

the same as in 2000.

So in 25 years of of trying to scare

people, 25 years of trying to scare the

public, the number of people who are who

say they're scared exactly the same as

it was before they tried to scare the

public.

Now, do you ever just read a story and

you sort of uncritically accept the

elements of the story?

All right, I'm going to give you one

right now.

All right, this will blow your mind if

if it has the same effect on you than it

does on me. It's going to blow your

mind.

All right, I live in California, as you

know, so it's a very blue state

presumably.

Um, most of my friends in my adult life

have been probably more Democrats than

Republicans.

Um, you know, obviously I lost uh most

of my friends when I started backing

Trump,

so I'm talking about a little bit in the

past, but

I realize today that not once in my life

have I met anybody who was worried about

climate change,

like ever in my whole life. Not one

person. Now, are you really telling me

that 40% of Americans are quote greatly

worried about climate change?

That sounds to me like something that

people say to pollsters,

but is completely disconnected with

reality. How many times in your life

have you been at, let's say, I don't

know, a party or a barbecue or a family

get together and somebody brought up

climate change as an existential threat?

Has it ever happened?

Cuz it's never happened where I've been.

I've never even seen anybody interested

in climate change,

much less afraid of it. no interest

whatsoever.

So, is that different than your

experience? Because I'm very skeptical

that 40% of the public

thinks it's like our biggest problem.

And yet, nobody's ever, not once, 40% of

the public and not once has anybody

brought it up where I could have heard

it in person. Nobody.

Now, how many of you are having the same

uh mental experience I had this morning,

which is, oh yeah, how could it possibly

be true if nobody's ever brought it up

around me?

Cuz there's nothing else they haven't

brought up, right? You've heard people

say bad things about Trump. You've heard

things about Ukraine and Gaza, the

Middle East. You've heard you've heard

all kinds of things, but I'll bet you've

never heard anybody complain about

climate change. Yeah, I don't believe

it.

Anyway,

um the uh Pentagon

has announced it's uh removing those

National Guardsmen from Los Angeles.

Remember, they were placed there to

guard the government facilities because

there was a lot of protesting that was

getting on hand regarding the ICE stuff.

Well, I guess the protests have wound

down and the National Guardsman never

really had to get directly involved as

far as I know, but they're being

withdrawn.

Would we include that as a Trump

success? I would. Wouldn't you? the the

point of the National Guardsmen was in

case they're needed, but also as a

deterrent.

So, they were there to deter, you know,

bad actors doing violent things against

government properties. And as far as I

know,

they succeeded.

So the fact that there was no uh you

know bloodshed or direct confrontation

seems to be another Trump success.

All right.

Um there was a CEO according to the

postm millennial Thomas Stevenson's

writing about this uh CEO there's a CEO

of a marketing group that apparently is

in the business of organizing protests

and the CEO of one of them says he was

he was offered about $20 million as a

contract to organize anti-Trump protests

and he rejected it so he decided not to

take

But the CEO of the company called Crowds

on Demand.

Um, and he didn't want to do the the uh

the protests that are going to happen on

the 17th, which would be tomorrow, I

guess. I guess a bunch of protests are

going to kick off nationwide tomorrow.

And how alarmed are you that there is a

commercial entity that organizes

protests that are meant to look organic

and he's completely public about it.

I I feel that Trump is letting this one

um he's going easy on the protests, but

maybe because they haven't been that big

or that bad for Trump. But I feel like

the protests need to be branded as

unnatural or non-organic

or at least paid. Um, so I don't know

how many of the protesters are paid, but

if the organizers are paid like a lot,

it's not really a real protest, is it?

It's like it needs some other name. If

you call the protest, we have a long

history in this country of saying, "Oh,

protest. I'm glad we have free speech.

Everybody gets an opinion. Protest is

good."

But it's not really a protest

because that would, you know, protest

kind of implies that people had this

opinion and they felt so strongly that

they they had to just band together. But

if you're organized

by paid people who were paid to do it,

that's not exactly a protest. What would

you call it? Uh, somebody says mercenary

mobs. Oh, that's not bad. Mercenary

mobs. But that sounds like you're

killing somebody.

What would you call it? Indeed. Indeed.

Some kind of persuasive um nickname.

kind of a kind of a Trumpism.

It needs something we can call it that

makes you not want to do it. So, we'll

work on that. I don't have an idea for

that, but but maybe Trump does. I've

just been calling them organized and

non-organic, but those are not really

catchy. Those are just descriptive. We

need something catchy.

All right. Inorganic. Inorganic

protests. No, it's catchy enough. We

could do better. Well, this auto pen

story refuses to die. To me, this is a

summertime story where there's not

enough regular news, although there's

more regular news under Trump than I've

ever seen before in the summer, but you

always need a little extra for political

purposes. So, I guess this auto pen

story um the White House is going to

review more than a million documents

under the Biden administration.

Um and they just want transparency. But

to me, all they're doing is making sure

the autopen stays in the news because

it's really sort of a winner for

Republicans, wouldn't you say? It

reminds you that the Democrats fooled

you into thinking that Biden was

functional. And that's one of the

biggest hoaxes,

if not the biggest in the history of the

United States.

So, as long as Trump can make you think

about Biden and how that was covered up

and how that wasn't a real government,

Trump wins. So, I would argue that

nobody really cares about the auto pen.

Probably I doubt that Trump really

cares. Um, but it keeps it in the news.

So, auto pen is more about making you

think Democrats are bad people. I guess

it's working.

Um,

CNBC's Rick Santelli on on the TV.

He says that Trump's tariffs are not

dooming the econ economy according to

the Daily Color News Foundation. Um, so

there might be a little bit of

inflation,

but it's too small that you can even

know for sure. And I guess the CPI

numbers were pretty close to

expectations, the inflation numbers.

So, some say we're still waiting for the

inflation that will come from these

tariffs, and some say enough time has

already gone by to conclude that we're

not going to see that inflation. I don't

know. Uh but I but I will tell you this

and I'm gonna credit Dana Pino for the

for this thought because I agreed with

it completely but she said it first

which is the right take on the tariffs

was always I don't know

that was the only honest and kind of

useful opinion on the tariffs because

there were people who were absolutely

positive it would destroy the country.

Well, it's not the opinion that's the

problem. It's the certainty. If you had

certainty that the trade wars and the

tariffs were going to tank our economy,

well, you were wrong.

I mean, what whatever happens, it's not

going to be gigantic or destroy the

economy. I think I think we can rule

that out now, right?

So if you were sure

that it was a disaster, your certainty

was

sort of revealing that you're not good

at this. But likewise, if you were just

as sure that because Trump said it would

make everything right, if you were just

as sure that it would and it would, you

know, replace maybe income taxes and all

these other good things, well, that

wasn't a good take either. The only take

that I respect is I don't know. You

know, we can reverse it. You know, it's

a sort of thing that is a really big ask

and if it worked, it would be a really

big deal. If it didn't work, there would

be some um discombobulation in the

economy, but probably you could just

reverse it in a week. All you'd have to

do is say, "All right, all right, that

didn't work." Uh, I changed my mind.

Tariffs are dropped. So, from a

riskreward perspective,

was it worth trying it knowing that if

it didn't work, you could just sort of

reverse it? And if it did work, it would

really change America forever in a

positive way. So, I'm going to give

Trump an A++

for risk management on our behalf. It

was exactly the right risk management

because the upside was really good if

everything worked out and the downside

was all manageable. If it didn't work,

well, reverse it. You will be fine in

about a week.

Well, uh, Governor Nuomo was on the

Shaun Ryan podcast

and, uh, if you haven't watched Governor

Nuome speak on a podcast or in public

lately, you have to see what's going on

with his jazz hands,

do you know what I mean by jazz hands?

So, jazz hands is sort of a a comical

way to refer to dancers who are doing

jazz dancing and and their hands get

involved a lot. So, you know, if if

you're watching me on video,

Jazz dancers like tada.

So, the so their hands are really

involved. But when you watch uh Newsome

talk, I do not recall him being that

animated as he is now. And his hand

motions are not only,

you know, far bigger than they used to

be, but they're a little bit creepy.

Like he was talking about some nuance in

a bill and he does the piano playing.

nuance. All of this nuance

and it is weird. Uh I'm going to be

honest, it looks like drugs.

If you've known anybody who was on any

kind of uppers, I don't I don't know

what it could be. you know, uh I'm not

going to make a specific accusation,

but he acts like somebody who's on some

kind of an upper.

Uh but again, I don't have any evidence

of that. It's just that his behavior is

different. And uh if you've ever been

around it, you know, around people who

who are using some form of stimulant,

you would say to yourself, "Oh, that

looks familiar.

I think I've seen that before."

And I hate to say it, but it's hard for

me to imagine it just happened sort of

on its own and that he just decided to

change his his method of speaking or

something. I don't know. I feel like

there's something going on there.

But just to be clear, I don't have any

factual evidence that would suggest, you

know, that's what's going on. It's just

how it strikes me. So, as as an

impression, it gives me that impression.

Um, but then also, I forget who it was.

Was it was it Mark Cuban or maybe

somebody else who was talking about how

Democrats need to swear more and do more

cursing?

And I thought to myself,

is that real advice?

Like really? The Democrats feel that in

order to get the male vote or to be a

little bit more manly um or maybe just a

little more powerful looking that they

could match Trump's use of curse words.

To which I would give them this advice.

You know when you should use curse words

in public?

When you're Trump.

You can't just take that strategy and

apply it to somebody who's not Trump.

The reason Trump could get away with it

is that he's always in character,

meaning it's, you know, who he really

is. It's not in character. It's genuine.

When Trump curses, which isn't that

often,

um, you can tell how strategic it is.

And you know that he knows he's giving

you the sound bite for the next 24

hours. He knows he's doing it and he's

really good at it. He his cursing is

never it never seems gratuitous. It just

feel it feels so

I mean it feels like dropping one of

those bunker buster bombs right down the

ventilation shaft twice in a row. That's

what it feels like. He he lands the

curse word just perfectly and he's done

it so many times that you know it's not

an accident. But then I watch uh Newsome

on this podcast

and when he was told that uh uh told

that Joe Rogan had texted in a question

for uh Sean Ryan to ask Nuome and

Newsome says

um

you know just because he he thinks it

might be a tough question. So he uses

the mother effer and then uh later when

he was questioned about how he handled

the pandemic he said everybody's a uh GD

genius.

I know some of you hated to hear the

Lord's name used in vain. So I'll just

say GD genius but he used he used the

whole world. And I'm thinking to myself,

were those strategic uses?

Did he do what Trump would do, which was

guarantee that that would be the sound

bite and that you would laugh a little

bit when you heard it? Not really, cuz I

didn't laugh when I heard it. And it's

not just because, you know, he's not my

favorite politician or anything like

that. It just it wasn't funny. It wasn't

strategically placed. It just looked

like he's somebody who uses some foul

language on a podcast. It didn't have

any effect. In fact, maybe it was a

little negative. I thought to myself,

well, why would you use those words

without using them strategically?

I mean, it Yeah. So, so no,

you can't take people who are not known

for this kind of behavior, you know,

breaking the the bounds of civility

because that's what Trump is known for.

Trump's entire persona is very linked

to, you know, violating the the social

boundaries.

So, it makes sense when he does it.

Well, we have to talk about Epstein

because again, it's a summer summer kind

of topic. But, u Alan Dersowitz

continues to be one of the most

interesting people on this topic because

he was Epstein's lawyer. and he tells us

he knows what names are redacted and who

accused who and all that stuff. Um, but

he also says that he's sure that Epstein

was not an intelligence asset for

anybody because he was his lawyer. And

he says if he had been an intelligence

asset, the first person he would have

told would be his lawyer because you

would tell the lawyer so that the lawyer

could negotiate a sweetheart deal. Now,

he did get a sweetheart or deal and some

say it's because the prosecutor knew he

was an intelligence asset, but

apparently Durowitz never used that

argument

because he was never told that he was a

intelligence asset.

But here's my question.

Durowitz didn't ask him.

Are you telling me that everybody in the

world suspected he was an intelligence

asset

except for Alan Dersowitz? Is he the

only person who didn't suspect it?

Really?

Um and then then I present you with this

confuser.

Um you you know I'm a big fan of Alan

Dersuit's public opinions about

everything. basically he he just has a

smarter, more reasoned, more experienced

um opinion on everything that's legal.

And

but here's the thing you need to know.

If Alan Dersuitz himself

were working for some intelligence unit,

wouldn't it be perfectly appropriate for

him to lie about it? Because if you work

for an intelligence agency,

aren't you sort of encouraged not to

tell people,

isn't it isn't it a better play if you

don't mention it? And if somebody asks,

aren't you supposed to say, "Nah, not

me." And then there's also that gray

area, which is, well, you don't have to

be on the payroll of an intelligence

agency. You could just be in favor of

what they're doing. Maybe lend them a

hand now and then. Maybe they do you a

favor later. Maybe you were just afraid

of what they would do if you didn't help

them. But isn't isn't there a lot of

gray area that would push both uh um

Epstein and maybe even his lawyer into a

not necessarily an employee of any

intelligence agency but possibly on

their side

possibly.

So, as fascinating as that point is that

Epstein would have told him if he was an

intelligence asset,

the part that I'm missing is I asked him

if he was.

Isn't that kind of missing? I don't

know.

Um, and since we know Durowitz is very

pro-Israel,

if uh there was any kind of Israel

connection, would we expect that Ellen

Dersuitz would be the person who would

let us know about that? I would say not

if it's bad for Israel. Um, he he's very

open about, you know, being highly

supportive of Israel. He's he's an

American first, but uh still I don't

know if he's the one we should believe

when it comes to intelligence assets.

U but highly credible on other topics.

And by the way, that has nothing to do

with Duruititz. I would say that's the

same for anybody, right? If you put

anybody else in in the position of being

Epstein's lawyer,

I would say, "Yeah, I mean, if you know

something you're not supposed to tell

people,

we get it."

Um Glenn Greenwald found an old New York

Times article that uh said that Galain

Maxwell's father's publishing group, you

remember Galain Maxwell's father was a

big publisher,

um that his publishing group admitted in

court

that uh Seymour Hirs who wrote about the

Glane Maxwell and the father situation,

I guess mostly about the father, was

quote fully justified in accusing and

Robert Maxwell of working for Israeli

intelligence.

So, and we also know that um when

Maxwell died, he was given a uh official

state funeral in Israel even though he

was not an Israeli citizen

and that multiple former heads of MSAD

attended his Israel state funeral.

Again, he was not Israeli and they gave

him an Israel state funeral. So,

I would say the evidence that Galain

Maxwell's

father worked for the MSAD is pretty

darn good. Not confirmed,

but certainly the breadcrumbs are there.

Does that mean that Galain Maxwell

was a spy? No, doesn't mean that. So,

we're we're short of any kind of a

confirmation there, but we got our

suspicions.

And then you probably saw some fake news

yesterday. People asked me why I didn't

talk about it. It was because when I saw

it, I didn't trust it. So, my hunch that

it was fake news was right. So Marjorie

Taylor Green is explaining that if you

saw something that said that the there

were several House Republicans who voted

to block the release of the Epstein

files, that was fake news. It's true in

some form, but it's the reason they

blocked it had nothing to do with the

Epstein stuff. It had to do with the it

was a procedural thing, you know, that

it was either wrapped up with something

they didn't want it wrapped up with or

there was some procedural problem. But

no, there were no Republicans

who voted to not show the Epstein files

to the public. That didn't happen. There

was something that might have headed in

that direction that they thought had

some flaws that had nothing to do with

Epstein. So, that did happen. but more

fake news than real news.

All right, here's uh Trump

um talking about the Epstein files and

he said

to reporters yesterday, quote, I would

say that these files were made up by

Comey. They were made up by Obama. They

were made up by the Biden, and we went

through years of that with the Russia

Russia hoax.

Now, let me give you some advice. Um, if

you ever find yourself in a position of

having to cover up something

and you want to tell a a lie about it,

never start your lie with these words. I

would say

Trump literally started with I would say

that these files were made up by Comet

Comey and the others. I would say

if you start your explanation with I

would say

you're basically saying I'm making this

up. Do you remember when OJ wrote

his book If I Did It. If I Did it. What

if you see if I did it on OJ's book, you

say to yourself, he's telling us he did

it. If your president say I would say

that these files were made up, that

doesn't mean he believes that. If he

believed it, he would say, well, you

know, the files were made up by

Democrats, so you can't trust them. He

wouldn't say, "I would say it." Well, I

would say it. I would. No, that's bad

lying.

Um

yeah, never never do that.

And then he said that uh he was asked

about releasing more of the Epstein

stuff and he said uh yes and uh that any

credible Epstein information should be

released.

Why do you have to add the credible

part?

Well, I mean credible is sort of assumed

in all information, right? that you

wouldn't present it unless it was

credible. But he sort of drops that word

in there like it gives you a little out.

It's like, well, there is more

information, but it wasn't credible, so

we didn't release it.

Now, if he had started with that,

that might have been an easier sale if

he'd said, "You know what? We looked at

everything and uh the only things you

don't know about that matter look to be

low credibility. So we think it would

just make things worse if we release it

because you remember what happened when

the steel dossier got out? That was low

credibility.

You know, wouldn't the country have been

better off if nobody had ever seen the

steel dossier? Yeah, of course. So we

don't want to make the same mistake

as the steel dossier. So, since it's low

credibility according to our experts,

um, you know, I know I know we told you

we would give you everything we had, but

that doesn't mean the low credibility

stuff, right? That's not going to help

you. So, probably that would have been a

better way to start. I don't know if it

would have made other people happy, but

it would have sounded at least like, oh,

that's a real reason. The other thing

that I would have bought completely is

if instead of saying that the files were

made up, I would have said, uh, we

really thought there was going to be

some stuff there, but if it was ever

there, it was already removed.

So, yes, you have every right to suspect

that there's more to this Epstein

situation. We suspect it, too. But when

we look at the files, we have to

conclude that either there isn't

anything there or that whatever was

there was removed.

Now, I would have I would have believed

that if they said we were sure there was

going to be some stuff there, but when

we dug down

when we dug down, there was nothing

credible or there was nothing there at

all cuz it it looks like it might have

been removed and we don't know how or

when. I would have bought that. That to

me that sounds like exactly the sort of

thing that would happen in the real

world.

What are other people saying? Well, Dick

Durban was on CNN and uh

he he says that uh Republicans must be

hiding something because they're not as

forthcoming as they could be with the

Epstein files. Now, that's a really good

political attack and it looks like a

little bit like what even Republicans

think is true, which makes it a good

political attack. I don't know if

there's any truth to it, but it's a good

political attack.

Um, Speaker Mike Johnson says he

supports the idea of Gain Maxwell

testifying to Congress. So, I guess

that's an option that got floated. He

was talking to Benny Johnson. So, Benny

Johnson got an exclusive on that. And,

uh, Mike Johnson said, "I'm for

transparency. we should put everything

out there and let the people decide blah

blah blah blah. So that's always the

right answer,

>> you know, to say you're for

transparency. Uh Thomas Massie

introduced a uh a discharge petition to

compel the Department of Justice to

release all relevant Epstein documents.

So that's happening. Um, I don't know if

that's going to get any purchase, but at

least there's some motion to release

everything.

Um,

here's what I would like to see.

And ask yourself why you haven't seen

this yet.

I would like to see all the guards, just

the regular guards, not the management,

not the warden, but just the regular

guards who worked in that area of the

jail when Epstein died.

Why have we never seen them in public?

because I did hear through a source,

which I think is probably credible, that

there would be at least one of those

guards who would tell you that the FBI

took the video away and there was

nothing wrong with the cameras and they

told them to shut up about it. Now, I

can't guarantee that that's true. I'm

just saying that I heard it through a

source

that I don't have any reason to question

that there is a guard who has told

somebody in person. Yeah, I was there.

The FBI took the video. There was

nothing wrong with the cameras. Now,

I'll say it again. I don't know that

that's true, right? Cuz I'm not I didn't

talk to a source directly.

But why have we never heard from the

other guards? There must be

what maybe a dozen guards who are there

or have you know direct or indirect

knowledge of what happened

because there's no way you could keep

all of that from all the guards. So

there might be somebody who has

something to talk about.

Well, of course, the Democrats would

like to make a big deal about the

division in the MAGA base because some

people are mad at Trump. And uh so

there's a publication a left-leaning

publication called the bull work where

somebody called Will Summer was writing

an article about the quote um Epstein

civil war in MAGA

and it listed on the cover five u MAGA p

I guess MAGA personalities who were in

this alleged uh Epstein civil war. So

the names that they said are in this

civil war are Roger Stone, Tucker

Carlson, Steve Bannon, and me.

So there were only four

uh figures who were mentioned, you know,

on the cover. Anyways, the cover. So my

pictures on the cover of the story, etc.

Now,

did you know there's an Epstein civil

war?

That I I feel like I'm in a civil war

and nobody told me. I thought I was just

talking about it and speculating what

could be true

and letting my audience know. Am I in

some kind of civil war? Have I ever

said, uh, you know, don't vote for Trump

because of this? No, absolutely not. I I

think that it's trivial and that

whatever the reason is, even if it's the

wrong reason.

Are you going to throw everything that

you've gained away because of the one

thing? Well, some people say yes, and

that would be your privilege to do that.

I would say don't.

But I don't know that any of these

people, Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson,

Steve Bannon, or Scott Adams, would any

of those people say you shouldn't vote

for Republicans in the midterm?

I don't think we would. Would any of

them say you should stop supporting

Trump in all the other things he might

want to get done?

I don't think anybody said that.

So, a lot of people are sure that voters

will decide to stay home, and they

might. Um, but I I just would disagree

with the civil war part. What I think is

that the Democrats convinced themselves

that Trump supporters were a cult and

that we agreed on everything no matter

what it was. And then when they see

quite obviously that that's not the

case, instead of going back to their own

assumption and saying, "Oh, I I guess

we've been wrong for years, they were

never a cult. It's just that they were

on the same page that the followers and

Trump were in favor of strong borders.

We weren't in favor of it because Trump

told us to be in favor of it and we were

part of a cult. No, we just have the

same opinion. So when it got to Epistine

and the opinions legitimately were

different, well then everybody can see,

oh, it's not a cult.

So the way this this story should have

been written is, uh, you thought MAGA

was a cult, you're totally wrong. Here's

why. But instead it turned into Epstein

Civil War.

as if as if I couldn't have a

conversation with Roger Stone, Tucker

Carlson, or Steve Bannon and and somehow

it wouldn't go well. Of course it would.

We probably wouldn't even agree disagree

on much if we're, you know, really

hammering it down.

All right, in other news, uh, OMG, the

O'Keefe Media Group got a hidden video

camera conversation with a Johnson and

Johnson lead scientist.

Now, let me give give some advice to the

other lead scientists involved in uh uh

co vaccinations.

If you go on a date,

don't talk about the things you got away

with

in your day job, don't do it because

there's a good chance your date works

for uh James O'Keefe. But apparently

this uh lead scientist for J&J

uh COVID vaccine area said um that the

vaccine was quote not safe and effective

and it lacked research and it was rushed

and he said people wanted it so we gave

it to them and he said quote do you have

any idea the lack of research that was

done on those products? you was talking

about the vaccines.

That's that's a lead scientist

who basically threw his company

completely under the bus.

So

there's that. He said, "I mean, we

basically just had a race to figure out

who could solve it best, meaning the

various um companies trying to make a

vaccine." He goes, "At one point, we

just canned it." meaning we we canned

the you know the appropriate process.

So

uh then James O'Keefe shows up like he

does in these situations and he says are

you so and so and the guy tried to the

guy tried to say that he had the

identity wrong.

So that didn't work out

according to Breitbart.

uh the make America healthy again thing

is is working a little bit because 35%

of US food industry is committed to

removing artificial dyes from the food.

You know, I have the following question.

Um,

were artificial dyes like right at the

top of the list of things that were

maybe killing us?

Because the artificial dyes, you know,

I'd always heard the issue, but I never

really thought that was a top three, top

five health concern.

Um, but maybe it was maybe it was much

worse than I imagined. So 35%'s a good

start, but it makes me wonder, is there

something we should have been focusing

on a little bit more, like just

processed foods in general?

Yeah.

Anyway, and and I'm a skeptic on the

seed oil stuff.

Um, I' I've seen arguments on both

sides. I don't know how to, you know,

create a winner from that.

Anyway, uh Trump is also going after

Adam Schiff for his alleged mortgage

fraud, which involved uh having a house

in Maryland. So, that would be, you

know, close to DC. So, that's where he

would stay most of the time. But also

having a condo in California, which

allows him to say he's a resident of

California, so that's how he can be our

senator. Um but the problem is that he

told the banks or the IRS or both that

they were uh both

um primary residents, but legally you

can only have one primary residence.

So uh Trump is calling him out for

claiming that he had two primary

residents, which is not legal. And I

guess the documentation is pretty clear.

So there's not much question on the

factual part. Um I I believe we have the

documents that show that he claimed they

were both primary residents. Now that

would be a problem. Um

so but Schiff um responded to Trump and

he said this. So, the president today is

accusing me of fraud and the basis of

his accusation is that I own a home in

Maryland and I own my home in

California. Big surprise. Members of

Congress, almost all of them, own more

than one home or rent more than one home

because we're required to be on both

coasts.

So, he is using my ownership of two

homes to make a false claim of mortgage

fraud.

So, do you see what shift did there?

He acted as though the complaint is that

he has two homes.

That's not the complaint.

That was never that was never even an

issue. Of course, Trump knows, as I

know, and probably most of you know,

that if you're an elected official from

some state that's far away from

Washington DC, you almost certainly have

to have a place to stay where you live

and a place to stay where you work

because you're going to be there most of

the year. So, no, it's not about having

two homes. It's about uh specifying that

both of them are your primary residents

because that allows you to save money.

So, it's a a uh is it a tax savings? I

think it's a tax savings thing.

So, the designated liar, as I call him,

Adam Schiff does it again.

Um,

according to the uh Daily Caller News

Foundation, Maryanne Angela is writing

that uh according to one pollster, GOP

pollster, if you throw in Elon Musk's uh

America party, which we think will be

formed because Mus says he's going to

form it, uh the the Dem the Republicans

would lose the midterms.

So, if uh Elon Musk does not create a

third party,

uh Republicans have a narrow advantage

in the midterms. I I think other

pollsters have it the other way, but

whatever it is, it's going to be close.

you know, narrow advantage one way or

the other. But if you throw in the third

party, the America party, um it looks

like that gives the Democrats a closer

to something like a clean win in the

midterms. So, do you believe that Elon

Musk

would

finalize that party and knowing

that it would cost the control of the uh

Congress? Would he do that? Would there

be a principle involved or

um some bigger riskreward benefit that

I'm not aware of?

Uh, I have some trouble believing that

he would really do that

because I don't think he could recover

from that reputationally. If Elon Musk

personally through his own efforts

created that third party and and what

the public came to believe is that

that's the only reason that the

Democrats had a great midterm.

Even if it's not true,

uh that would be very bad for Elon

Musk's, you know, brand going forward

because everybody can see it coming. If

it were a surprise and nobody could have

seen it coming, then you say to

yourself, "All right, well, he gambled.

He got that one wrong. We wish it hadn't

happened." But if you know what the

impact is,

you're going to have to own that impact.

Do you think he wants to do that?

I I'm going to bet against it. Um, you

know, anything's possible, but I'm going

to say

65% chance that he decides it would be

too much of a cost to the country as

well to him and his colleagues. If you

were a uh stockholder, well, I am a

stockholder in Tesla and you knew that

the head of Tesla was going to do

something that would permanently piss

off at least half of the country,

would you be okay with that as a

stockholder? I'm not okay with it.

I'm not okay with it. I mean, he's got

free speech and he has the right to do

it, but I'm not okay with it. Not even a

little bit.

All right. Um,

I saw an article by Daniel Greenfield

who uh talked about some polling in

Gaza. And let me see if you can guess

what the answer is before I tell you.

You ready for this?

Um how many

how many palace well actually how many

residents of Gaza

um and I guess resident means that you

had lived there or you are living there

I don't know how many people are still

there but how many residents of Gaza the

Gazins

uh believe that Hamas is winning the war

so far

believe that that go that Hamas is

winning the for right now.

23%

23%

of the residents of Gaza believe the

Hamas is winning the war with the IDF.

how

you know uh we always joke there's you

know if you're new to the podcast here

there's a running joke that doesn't

matter what the topic of the poll is

roughly one in four people will have the

wrong answer

no matter what now how in the world

could you be a resident of of Gaza

that's completely leveled and and Hamas

is hiding underground ground and getting

wiped out a little by, you know, every

day. How in the world do you conclude

that they're winning?

Amazing.

But, uh, apparently 58%

of people in or from Gaza acknowledged

that October 7th was a mistake.

Um, and that's way down. After October

7th when it was fresh, 72% of the

residents

thought that the Hamas attack was a good

idea.

What?

What?

You would think at this point it would

be obvious that was a bad idea, but no.

All right.

Um, Zalinski

has said that uh Biden couldn't end the

war with Ukraine and Russia, but he

says, "I'm confident President Trump

can."

To which I say, "Oh, Zalinski finally

figuring out how to play this.

Zalinski, you don't go to the Oval

Office and try to embarrass our

president. That's not going to work

out." And it didn't. Here's what you

need to be doing. Uh, Biden couldn't get

it done, but I'm confident President

Trump can. All right, now we're talking.

You should be flattering him. You should

be complimenting his successes so far.

You should be saying that nobody in the

world but Donald Trump would be the

right person to end this war. Why?

Because that's what you that's what gets

you some cooperation.

You know, show some respect, you're

going to get some back. And at the

moment he's gonna get a bunch of weapons

that the US is sending him. Um and uh

he he also he also uses the uh

the Trump idea. Remember when Trump

would threaten

uh she and threaten Putin and say,

"Well, they only have to believe there's

a 10% chance they'll go through with

it." Um

and and Zilinski is borrowing that

technique talking about the offensive

weapons that Trump is going to give him.

He says any offensive weapons provided

by the US could force Putin to come to

the negotiating table. Here's the

important part. Even if those weapons

are never used,

that's a Trumpism. Trump is the one who

says, "I don't have to do the threat.

You just have to think there's a 10%

chance I might." And then you're going

to get real serious about negotiating.

Silinski is borrowing his technique. We

don't have to use the weapons. It might

be enough that Putin knows we could.

There you go. Yeah, he's uh pacing Trump

in just the right way. At least at least

that day.

Um, Trump was asked about the report

that

he seemed to be in favor of Zalinski

bombing Moscow using not bombing but

sending missiles into Moscow using the

better um weapons that Trump and America

are planning to provide. But Trump says

no that Zilinski should not bomb Moscow.

um despite the fact that Trump did say

he wanted Putin to feel some pain. So

the Daily Mail, Emily Guden, is writing

about this. Um

but there was a conversation in which

Trump may have asked Zalinski if he

could bomb if he could attack Moscow

with the American weapons. And I think

that Zalinski said yes,

but it was more of a what's possible,

you know, what's doable. It wasn't a

suggestion to do it. So Trump does not

support attacking Moscow.

But

if Zilinski did attack Moscow,

I don't know if Trump would be unhappy,

would he? He's just saying he's not in

favor of it. But if somebody did it

anyway, could it put enough pressure on

Putin that he'd want to end the war? I

don't think so. I don't think that

Zalinski could um destroy enough of

Moscow that would do anything except

increase Putin's support because once

you attack somebody's capital, well,

people are going to back whoever is in

charge of their country. So, it's not

going to I don't think it's going to

hurt Putin

even if Zalinski took part of Moscow.

So, probably a bad idea.

Um Putin responded to Trump's threats

that they would put 100% tariffs on

anybody who was doing business with

Russia. Um Trump's or Putin's response

to that was that a Kremlin official says

Trump's threats of tariffs are serious

and Putin will comment if necessary.

He'll comment if necessary.

Isn't that really Putin just dismissing

the whole risk of tariffs?

I'll comment if necessary,

but honestly, he doesn't look like it's

going to be necessary.

So, he's sort of brushing that off.

Um, and then O is talking about how uh

um the chief Pentagon correspondent Oh,

um

we're looking at my own notes here. Um

apparently the Department of Defense has

contracts with some big AI companies, at

least three of them. So Google, OpenAI,

and XAI, and I think Anthropic. So they

have these gigantic

um contracts

for AI

that I believe is tied to their Jeron um

plans.

So remember I told you that within 3

years the Ukraine front line with Russia

will be an all robot war. There won't be

people because the people will be killed

instantly by all the drones that have AI

and are making their own decisions about

who to attack and when. So apparently

the US is trying to sort of leapfrog the

other drone makers where you need a

person to control each one. And if we

could build a whole bunch of drones in

the US and provide them you to Ukraine

and those drones had AI built in so you

didn't need a human operator for every

moment of its flight.

Um that could change the war.

Now, what I don't know is if Russia with

the help of China presumably could match

uh all the unguided

AI drones that the US is likely to

provide.

They could probably beat us in quantity,

but could they beat us in AI plus

drones?

And that's where I think we might have

an advantage. And that's why I think

it'll turn into just a drone war. So

that's my prediction. Within 3 years, no

humans on the front lines. It'll be the

first robot war in the history of

humanity.

All right, people. That's all I had to

say today. I'm going to talk to the uh

beloved subscribers on locals because

they're the best. You're pretty awesome,

too.

But the local subscribers, oh man,

they're the best. Um, don't be jealous.

All right, the rest of you, I'll see you

tomorrow, same time, same place. Thanks

for joining. I hope you got something

out of it. And locals, I will see you

privately in 30 seconds.