Episode 2906 CWSA 07/23/25

Hey everybody, come on in.

Here we have room up front.

Grab a share.

We're about to enter the coffee with Scott Adamone and it will be glorious as soon as I've got your comments working so that we have a interactive experience.

You know, the best kind.

Forgot my notes.

Hold on.

I knew I was forgetting something, but we're all good now.

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 elevate your experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger glasser shelter canine jug or flask vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And it happens.

Now go.

Oh, so good.

Well, I wonder if there's any science that they didn't need to do cuz maybe they could have just asked me instead.

Oh, here we go.

Uh, Eric Dolan writing for a signpost.

I always do the Eric Dolan signpost stuff.

Um, according to a new study, higher income may boost the odds of finding a romantic partner.

Huh.

Having a higher income improves your chance of getting laid.

Yeah, you could have asked me.

Next time, skip the study and just say, Scott, do you think money would help you in dating?

I think it would.

Yes, I do.

Um, I wonder if there's any other studies that they could have skipped.

Oh, here's one.

Uh also in Cypost by Vladimir Hedra um they found out that social anxiety so if you have social anxiety it predicts future loneliness.

Huh.

So you're telling me that people who are super uncomfortable being around other people might have a little extra problem with loneliness.

Huh.

Well, you could have saved some money on that study.

Just ask me next time.

And I wonder if science has determined that exercise is good for you.

Huh?

I wonder if exercise is good for me.

Oh, yeah.

Here's a study in GMA science that uh that now they think that uh exercise and muscles reduce the odds of getting cancer and make your tumors grow more slowly.

So yeah, exercise is good for you in a variety of ways.

That's just one of them.

Um, and uh there's a new dating app.

Have you heard of this one?

Uh, the dating app is called T Dating Advice.

T is spelled T E A like the tea you drink.

Dating advice.

Apparently, it's a I guess it's the number one app or something.

And instead of setting you up with people that you have things in common with, like a normal dating app, the dating app is entirely based on women reporting what's wrong with men.

So, uh, real real actual men, individuals would be raided on the app by other women so that you knew all the problems that you would have if you got with them.

That is truly the end of the end of civilization right there.

As a number of people said, could you imagine if men had an app that was dedicated to men saying bad things about women so you could check to make sure you didn't get one of those bad women?

How long would that stay in the app store?

About a minute.

about a minute before somebody says you can't do that.

But when uh the subject is men and how bad men are, no problem.

Very popular app.

So, I've always thought that dating requires you to dupe somebody long enough that they begin to like you before they find out who you really are.

Let me say that again because it it sounds like a joke, but I don't don't mean it as a joke at all.

So, we all know that um our feelings uh and our urges can overrule our good common sense, right?

Everybody's had that experience that if your emotions get too high, it'll just cancel your common sense.

So now they've got an app that will allow your common sense to go first.

So your common sense looks at this app and says, "Oh, uh, this this guy or this woman have been reported to be, you know, bad." So my common sense says I'm not even going to talk to them.

But in order to get anybody to like you, you have to make sure that they only see your good stuff for a while and then they can start to like you and then slowly you can start feathering in all of your bad habits.

Oh, so uh it turns out you snore.

That would be me.

Uh oh.

H it turns out you work on the weekends when I want to be doing something else.

Hm.

So yeah, um there would be no reproduction and no marriage and no romance if we didn't have our emotions overruling our common sense.

Now that's been reversed.

Well, Sunonny Hosen of the view um she was talking about the coal bearer cancellation and says if comedians are being attacked then that means our constitution is being dismantled.

So when uh Democrats complained that Trump was going to uh steal your democracy, what they meant is that CBS was going to cancel Coal Bear for losing $40 million a year to them.

So how do you feel?

How do you feel now?

now that you supported Trump, but you found out that he took your democracy because a company that's not Trump fired somebody who was losing a tremendous amount of money for them.

Well, I didn't see that coming and uh it could be.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that there was a political element to it, but I do think they might have been happy if they had a political element to it so they could cancel something that costs $40 million a year.

You know, maybe they wouldn't have done it except for Trump.

Maybe they wouldn't have done it, but I'm pretty sure they're happy they did it.

Well, uh Carrie Lake is telling us about uh discovering that the voice of America um and she w she's the president senior adviser for the US agency for global media.

So that would be her domain.

Apparently the voice of America which by its design is intended to be America's propaganda um element for other countries.

So, Voice of America by its nature is supposed to tell other countries stuff that we want them to hear basically.

So, it's not meant to be, you know, unbiased.

It's meant to be biased in favor of America.

And apparently um now we know that uh some of the Voice of America managers met multiple times with Chinese officials because China wanted them to uh say nicer things about China and give them more favorable coverage.

Wait a minute.

Voice of America is our propaganda machine.

you're not supposed to be meeting with our adversaries to find out how they would like you to talk about them.

Now, I don't know, maybe they were just learning what they could learn and had no impact on their coverage, but it doesn't feel right.

So, so we just learned that those meetings were happening.

So, it's not ideal.

Just the news is talking about that.

Um, apparently the the Biden administration set up a hotline so that unaccompanied minors coming across the border could call that hotline if they had trouble with whatever strangers they came with.

So in other words, if you came across the border with someone who was not your family member or parent and you wanted to complain about them, so you know, let's say you were being trafficked or abused or something, you had a phone number to call.

Isn't that great?

That's pretty great, isn't it?

Gave them a phone number to call in case they had problems.

Well, today we found out that 65,000 of those calls from children who were having a problem with the non-relative who brought him across the border, 65,000 of those calls went unanswered.

They just sent it to voicemail.

That's not funny.

That's not funny.

It's kind of funny because it's so incompetent and evil and bad, but it's not funny because there are 65,000 children who didn't get a response when they complained about the non-family member who was in charge of them.

So, there's that.

Um and uh now according to Fox News um you know the Democrat fundra fundraising organization called Act Blue and they're getting some heat because instead of doing what they said they were doing which is collecting small contributions from lots of different citizens uh they are accused and now they've been subpoenaed by three powerful committees.

in Congress uh with maybe taking foreign sources of money and finding a clever way to make it appear as though it was being donated by individuals in small amounts from Americans.

So, they've got some answering to do now.

What would happen if ACT Blue um got in enough trouble that they could no longer do what they were doing?

Would it make a big difference to a Republican fundraising and enough of a difference that it would influence either the next presidential election or the midterms coming up?

And I feel as if Act Blue might be a large enough entity that if its fundraising got shut down, it would actually influence votes, wouldn't it?

I don't know.

I'd have to see it in context.

This is the uh it's the type of story that I usually use grock to get the context because without knowing how much um maybe you could put this in the comments.

If I had if I had more time this morning, I would have looked it up, but how much money did Act Blue um donate to Republicans or handle the donations for?

Was it a lot?

Like does anybody have a dollar amount for that?

Because a news story about um like this is only meaningful if you know how much money they were providing and if that really made a difference.

I suspect it did.

Well, in other news, uh the Trump administration is going to slash 25% of the IRS workforce, most mostly with buyouts as opposed to just regular firings.

Um Washington Times is reporting on this.

So, they're going to get rid of nearly 26,000 people um reversing Biden's buildup in that same area.

Now, do you believe that the IRS will not be able to do their job because they would lose 25% of the workforce?

Well, that's what they'll tell you.

You know, if you cut anybody's budget by 25%.

They're definitely going to tell you that that's the end of the world.

But will it be?

Probably not.

Probably not.

We'll find out.

And good news for the president, Japan has agreed to a trade deal and uh the stock market seems to like it so far.

And uh let's see, the US will levy a 15% tariff on Japanese goods.

Um and said the same level on said with tariffs on the same level at the same level on the country's critical auto industry.

And on top of that, Japan committed to invest $550 billion in America.

Now, remember I told you that um the Democrats didn't see this coming, that if this whole trade negotiation thing starts working out for Trump, which it is, that it would give him this almost unlimited stream of victories, and that once a week there would be some important country that said, "Yeah, we just made a deal." Hold on, my light went out.

There we go.

Um, so here's another one.

Japan has fallen in line.

We'll see if that makes a difference.

Um, and then the 60 Minutes lawsuit that Trump was pressing against CBS.

Um, and you heard that, uh, CBS has agreed to pay $16 million, but on top of that, uh, we're learning now that there will be an extra $20 million from the new owners.

So, whoever buys CBS, um, we'll we'll pitch in another $20 million in services basically.

Um, so it would be stuff like uh for advertising or PSAs or similar programming.

So it would be 36 million in total, but 20 million of that would be in services.

Um, and uh here's how Trump announced it on True Social.

This is another in a long line of victories over the fake news media who were holding to account we were we are holding to account for their widespread fraud and deceit.

The Wall Street Journal, the failing New York Times, the Washington Post, MSDNC, CNN, and all other mainstream media liars are on notice that the days of them being allowed to deceive the American people are over.

Make America great again.

Now, how many of you are impressed, as I am, that Trump has effectively destroyed the entire fake news media structure in the United States?

I mean, they still limp along.

They're they're still doing their thing, but uh you know, between the podcasters eating their lunch and Trump hammering on them non-stop, um tough times in the mainstream media world.

Well, according to the Washington Times, an appeals court has sided with ICE in blocking New Jerseyy's sanctuary law banning migrant detentions.

So apparently uh without getting into details, New Jersey was trying to do something that would thwart ICE and the appeals court said you can't do that because the federal government has authority over this domain, the immigration and you New Jersey are not allowed to stop them from doing what they are legally allowed to do.

So that's another win for the Trump administration.

Well, Astroenetica, which you know, uh you've heard of that company, big company, out of the UK, uh they have agreed to build the largest US plant in Virginia as part of a $50 billion investment in the US.

So, Trump gets another multi-billion dollar win.

Um, is it working?

Well, in similar news, um, General Motors says it's going to invest billions in the US to build more cars here and fewer of them in Mexico, according to the National Pulse.

So, do you believe that uh Trump's approach is working in the sense that it's causing big companies to permanently move their facilities to the United States?

Well, again, context matters.

If you were to add up all of the billions of dollars, and you, of course, these billions will be over 10 years or whatever, um, and you compare it to the gross domestic product of the country, it might not be that big.

But if every day or two you see another national story about another big company that's bringing billions to the United States, that should cause almost every other big company to say, "Oh, damn it.

We're going to have to match that." If if we don't say we're bringing stuff to the United States, it's going to bite us in the ass later.

So, every time there's another story of somebody bringing their their investments to the US, um we get close to the point where they just will all have to do it.

We're not there yet, but don't you think that um two of the things that the Trump administration has accomplished, one is that people are bragging about saving money for the first time.

Well, at least maybe since the Clinton era.

But now that government entities when they want to brag and get attention, they say we're cutting some expenses.

We're getting rid of this.

That is really good for the country that people are bragging about money saving as opposed to all the other stuff that they could brag about.

and uh and then companies bragging about bringing investment into the US.

What they brag about is what you're going to get more of.

So trend is looking good.

All right.

Well, you probably see behind me in the corner there the whiteboard.

Yes, there will be a whiteboard.

I've been trying to understand the whole Russia collusion hoax story and what we know about Brennan and Clapper and Obama and what they did or did not do and was there a crime there and it's all really complicated.

Are any of you having the same problem that you want to understand that story but you don't want to, you know, make it your full-time job?

It's just it's just a lot of details.

A lot of these stories have that that element to them.

So apparently today Tulsa Gabbard released some additional Trump Russia collusion documents and the um President Trump is characterizing it this way in quotes.

Um he said quote Tulsi is the hottest one in the room right now.

Now, when I finish the context, you'll realize he's talking about her work, her work product.

So, when he says she's the hottest one in the room, you immediately go to, wait, is he metoing her in front of the entire world?

Well, sounds like it, but no, he's referring to her work product that he's impressed with.

And uh he says she found out Barack Hussein Obama led a group of people and they cheated in the election.

Um and he says that Tulsi told me quote, "You've seen nothing yet." And he says that the bombshell claims that the Obama administration manufactured the Russian collusion hoax um which he calls the biggest scandal in the history of our country.

and he says that Obama is uh guilty of treason for being the the head of that conspiracy.

Um he said uh he's guilty.

It's not a question.

This was treason.

Um so that's where he stands.

Now, Obama has responded to the complaint, saying he was part of this major Russia collusion hoax um play that was really an attempt to change the government of the United States.

and he said uh talking about the the documents that came out recently uh Obama said there's nothing in the document that undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that now let's see if if what follows is actually a widely accepted conclusion.

Right?

So he says there's nothing new that uh undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that quote Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.

Now, that's usually the part where if you don't follow the news too closely, you start getting confused because you're saying, "Wait a minute.

Why is Trump saying that we have all this, you know, fresh evidence that Obama should go to jail when Obama is saying nothing that happened has changed what we already knew and none of that would be illegal?" So, how could it be true that it's the biggest bombshell of all time at the same time nothing new happened?

Just nothing.

Well, uh, then NBC News, who you should know, how many of you are aware that NBC News is, uh, accused by people who know more than I do of being the mouthpiece for the CIA?

How many of you knew that NBC, especially, you know, it's not the only one, but very much especially NBC News is identified with being a mechanism that the CIA uses when it needs to get a story out there.

Did do most of you know that?

If you didn't know that, you would be a little bit confused by watching the news.

But, uh, NBC News says that, uh, President Trump's intelligence chiefs, so that would be people including Tulsi Gabbard, are conducting a systematic campaign to rewrite the history of the 2016 election, seeking to reverse an 8-year-old assessment that Russia waged an information war to boost Trump's candidacy.

Waged an information war.

So, Russia waged an information war to boost Trump's candidacy.

Is that an evidence?

And is is Trump trying to reverse something that we all knew was true?

Let's go to the whiteboard.

All right.

Here's where it's it's all going to come together for you for the first time.

This will be the first time some of you, not all of you, but it'll be the first time for some of you to understand what's going on here.

So, I'll have to move the board around so that you can see it more clearly, but I'll do the best I can.

All right.

So we go back to 2016 and there was something called the presidential daily briefing that is put together daily for the president and the the presidential's daily briefing for Obama during this critical period um said that Russia did not hack the election systems.

So, in other words, there was going to be part of the daily briefing that would say that uh the our intelligence people looked into it and found no evidence whatsoever that Russia directly hacked our voting systems.

Now, the first thing you need to know is that this is a narrow claim.

They're not saying that Russia did nothing bad about the elections.

They're just saying that they did not, as far as I could tell, hack into the election systems themselves and make a change.

Now, the story is that we now know that Obama said, uh, take that back before it gets published.

Um, and the the worry was that uh Trump's team Trump's team would see it because apparently if you're the president-elect uh you get to see the presidential daily briefings and if they had put out something that said that our intelligence people say that Russia had not hacked our election systems, being very specific, just the election systems that uh that might be a bad look.

So instead, allegedly Obama ordered his people to go back and instead of saying what did not happen, they should rewrite it to say what did happen.

Now, if Russia had changed actual vote outcomes directly, that would be the biggest problem in the world.

But this other stuff, although it looks like it might have been real, was trivial and wouldn't have affected anything.

And it would be hard to say that necessarily they did it, Russia did it for the benefit of Trump.

It might have been consistent with Russia's past that they were just trying to reduce our credibility in our system.

So they wouldn't care who won.

they would be more concerned with it reducing the credibility of our own system.

That would be sort of normal Russia activity.

So, some of the things that Russia did do is uh allegedly, I don't know this for sure, but allegedly they hacked into the DNC's email.

Um the worst thing that they would have found there is that uh the Hillary Clinton and DNC people screwed Bernie Sanders.

So, you could argue, well, if we found that out, would that cause somebody to uh switch their vote to Trump?

Probably not too many.

I mean, the average person isn't following the news that closely that they would have even known any of this happened.

Then there were two states where apparently the Russian hackers got into the voter database of each state.

Now, the voter database apparently was not changed and it wasn't used in any way that would have affected the race.

So, that's trivial.

And then, uh, as you know, Russia bought some Facebook ads, but only $100,000 worth, which is so small that it wouldn't affect anything.

And then they made some memes or advertisements that were so poorly done that even if you saw them, you wouldn't even you definitely wouldn't say it was going to help Trump.

But here's the clever part.

Brennan was asked to find out if Russia was doing these things to help Trump or were they just doing these things because they chip away our credibility in any way that they can.

and John Brennan went away and came back and said, "Oh yeah, definitely Putin wants Trump and Putin is doing these things specifically to help Trump." Now um because Brendan put that um put that narrative on it um that allowed the Democrats to say, "Wait a minute.

Are you saying that Russia was involved in meddling, interfering, hacking, and maybe some information warfare, and that according to our own intelligence people, the reason is that Putin wanted to help Trump?

Well, that's basically Russia collusion.

I mean, there's no actual collusion, but Democrats don't really need much to make a claim like that.

So the politicians could look at this mess, this this messy situation, and they would say, "Yeah, there you go.

There's your Russia collusion." And then they would throw in the story about Paul Maniffort, who was apparently running a scam on some Russian oligarch and saying that he would give him insider information about the campaign, but never gave him any more than um some stale internal polling.

And then he went to jail for it.

But there was no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign was aware that he was scamming the Russian guy.

So there was no collusion there.

Just bad behavior by Maniffort.

So here's the bottom line.

The the claim is that Obama um manipulated the intelligence with Brennan to build a picture of Russia helping Trump.

And the reason that they did that is to essentially uh get Trump out of office and and degrade him.

Now, you might say, "But Scott, if all this is true, is this really, as Trump says, one of the worst things that's happened in the country?" And I would say yes.

Yes.

If this is all true, this is one of the worst things we've ever seen in the country.

And Brennan has some questions to answer because he's never really told us nor would we expect him to.

How do you know that what Putin wanted?

How do you know Putin ordered this for the purpose of helping Trump?

because it turns out that at least two senior people who were part of that decision told uh Brennan that there's no evidence that Putin wanted to help Trump and it looks like the allegation is that Brennan just made that up.

So he put together some stuff to make it look like there was some backing for it but it looks like it was just made up.

So, you know, like the Steel Dossier, just totally made up.

So, when you see the news talking about it, you'll see stuff like NBC News, which is not a credible source of news in my opinion.

um they'll they'll put together the things that Russia did which you could definitely call meddling, interfering, hacking or you know information warfare but so trivial that there's no way it affected the election and then on top of that on top of the fact it didn't affect the election as far as we know they added the that it was Putin's intention to get Trump into office and there's no evidence for that that we've seen.

So when you watch in this story, you'll see them conflate the first thing that Obama did with, you know, the the uh the revised story and uh it gets really confusing.

Now, do you believe even if you believe this is all true, does this look like a crime to you?

Well, maybe there's some crime here, but how easy would it be for Obama, I'll be Obama's defense attorney now.

Um, you've been accused of, you know, changing telling the intel people to change their report for political reasons.

And then I'm Obama's lawyer and I say, "What do you mean?

It doesn't make sense to do a a daily briefing to the president to tell him what didn't happen.

Why?

Why would you need to tell him what didn't happen?

It would make more sense to tell him what did happen.

So Obama wanted it to be rewritten to say what did happen instead of what did not happen.

Where's the crime in that?

Because there are lots of things that didn't happen.

Are all the things in the world that could have happened but didn't happen.

Are they in the presidential daily briefing?

No.

The presidential daily briefing is not to tell you what didn't happen.

It's the opposite.

It's to tell you what did happen.

So that's all he did.

That's all Obama did.

He said instead of saying what didn't happen, which by the way, I don't recall that even being in the news.

Does anybody recall back then was there any credible news that Trump that Russia had literally changed the votes by hacking?

I don't even remember that being in the news.

So why would it make sense to put that in the daily briefing when instead you could say all the things that they did do?

So I think he's got an out there.

But then you say, "But what about Brennan making up the fact that Putin wanted to do it to to help Trump?

Isn't that a problem?" Well, it might be if you could prove it.

But instead, I think it'll turn into well um yeah, there were people who said there was no evidence or insufficient, but there were other people who said some things which I interpreted to be important.

And my opinion, and this is always opinion, you know, I was hired to give my opinion.

My opinion was that when you looked at the totality of the evidence, the people who said there was nothing there plus the people who said there was something there.

And I made a call, you know, a decision.

And my decision was there was enough there to conclude based on everything we know about Russia, based on all of our experience with Russia in the past.

It was a reasonable assessment.

Might have been wrong.

I might have been wrong, but there's no law broken.

It was just a reasonable assessment that it it looked like Putin was behind it.

Now, where is the crime?

And then the Democrats, the politicians, and the news, they get to say stuff like, "Well, you know, we've proven that Russia was helping Trump, and we're going to call that collusion." Well, when politicians lie, it's not really a crime.

It's just a Tuesday.

The politicians lying is not a crime.

So when I look at this um I see everybody conflating the things that would have mattered with the things that didn't matter and leaving out the fact that it didn't matter.

And I don't see the crime.

Now again, I'm not a lawyer.

So a lawyer might look at this and say, "Scott, you fool.

There are 10 crimes right in front of you.

Why don't you see them?" And I would say, well, I'm not a lawyer.

So, as you know, um I absolutely hate Brennan and Clapper and Obama and Susan Rice and John Kerry and all the people who are alleged to be behind this biggest hoax in American history.

I hate them.

I would love to see them go to jail.

I just don't think there's evidence that would put them in jail.

So, if I had to predict, my prediction was that there would be no convictions over anything we've seen so far.

Even if we knew, even if we were positive that the reason they did what they did is because they're weasels, you would never be able to convince a jury that the reason you changed the presidential daily briefing was because you were trying to change the politics.

It would just look too much like why are you doing a briefing saying what didn't happen when you should do the briefing that says what did happen.

That would completely convince me if I were on a jury.

If you put me on that jury, I would say I I don't see the crime.

So, don't get don't get too excited that we've seen the smoking gun and the the weight of the law will be coming down on them any minute.

I just don't think that's necessarily going to happen.

I'd like it to happen.

I would be very happy if it happened.

I don't see it yet.

Maybe, maybe something else will happen.

Anyway, um that's my take on that.

Apparently, uh according to the Daily Wire, immigrants to the United States are sending $200 billion dollars a year out of the United States, um sending it back to their families.

Most of it, uh the the biggest part of that is going back to Mexico.

Now, I have two feelings about this because uh Trump administration has put a 1% tax on that and they're resisting it.

At least in Mexico, they're trying to resist it.

But um on one hand, I think people should be able to spend their money on whatever they want to spend it on as long as that's legal and it's completely legal to send money to your family in another country.

So, I don't like it being um limited because I don't like limiting people's, you know, freedom.

On the other hand, if you come into this country and work illegally and you're shipping money that would have been um would have gone to an American worker and then that American worker would have spent it in the United States, there's a pretty big difference.

between the money just leaving our system and benefiting the other country versus staying in the country where it it multiplies, you know, that the person who earns it buys something in the store.

Now the store owner has some money and they buy something and etc.

So there is a really big difference between the money leaving the country and staying in the country and multiplying.

So, uh, overall, since I'm America first, I would like to see that text, it makes sense to me.

Um, I saw a post on X from uh, PhD Kevin Bass.

I don't know who he is, but he says a 2020 paper showed that uh of 500 randomized controlled trials, now if you're a nerd and you follow science, you know that an a so-called uh RCT or randomized controlled trial is the gold standard of science.

If you see that somebody did a randomized controlled trial, you would trust that result, wouldn't you?

Because that's the best the science could do.

They've randomized, they've controlled, they've got a comparison going on, right?

Uh but it turns out that uh half of the ones um analyzed had fake data and a quarter were purely fabricated.

purely fabricated, meaning that there wasn't any data at all.

They literally just made it up.

Sometimes they faked some data on top of the real data and other times they just made it up.

And so, how many of you have made the mistake that I have and I would like to flog myself and throw myself at the mercy of the court?

because I too am a person who has said in public, "Well, this one's a randomized control trial, so I guess you can trust that one, huh?" I apologize for ever misleading you.

A randomized control trial is only as good as the data you put into it, and they don't check the data.

I mean, typically, um, nobody's checking the data.

Even if it's a peer-reviewed study, they're only going to check the reasoning.

They're not going to they're not going to reproduce the data and see if they use the wrong data.

That's not part of the peer review.

So if you believed that science was a little bit sketchy, if it's just anecdotal, you know, just people looking at stuff, it's a little bit sketchy if they do a metaanalysis where you take all these bad studies and you see if there's any kind of weird average that you could conclude.

That's not the best way to know what's true.

And so you're thinking, but but if only we could have more randomized control trials.

Well, then then we'd know what's going on, right?

Nope.

It turns out the science is so corrupt that you can't even trust a randomized control trial.

And the fact that only I would say this year is when I first started to suspect this because I saw I saw an example of it.

I think it involved the vaccinations.

There was a there was a case where there was a randomized control trial, but they decided to throw away the data from the first two weeks or something.

Now, if you're the peer reviewer, you just say, "All right, this matches the data.

It's an analysis.

Good enough." But if you knew that they had to throw away the first part of the data to get the result that they wanted, you would say, "Wait a minute, there's a way to game these randomized control trials just by where you start the data and what data you put in there." And you get to use your assumptions.

Oh, well, I I should take this data out because there's a reason that only I understand why it should not be included.

and then you can reverse you know the outcome of the study.

So don't trust your randomized controlled trials.

Well according to interesting engineering uh the world's first laser armed tank uh has been produced uh out of Turkey and it's a tank that can jam drones and then use its laser to zap them.

So, I think the jamming is only half the job.

They also want to laser them out of the sky.

So, um I told you that we're heading toward a robot only war in Ukraine and and uh Russia on the front lines at least just the front lines would be the robots only.

And uh this might be part of that.

So, there's going to be this uh this neverending uh race between the drone superiority and the anti- drone defenses.

So, that's getting interesting.

Um I saw a stat that cannabis use marijuana is being increasingly common in older adults.

So apparently the percentage of people over 65 in the US who report using cannabis in the past year has nearly tripled since 2015.

So that's about the time that Trump Trump announced his candidacy.

and the the demographic group that does the highest percentage of voting, the over 65s, uh started smoking three times more marijuana than before or three times more people are smoking.

And uh I'm surprised honestly because if you're not operating heavy equipment and you're retired, I would think that number would be a lot bigger, frankly.

Um, how many of you have ever said to yourself, "Well, I kind of liked that marijuana when I was in my 20s, but you know, once I had children in the house and, you know, I had to take drug tests for my job and all that, I I just let all that go." But then you turn 65 and let's say you retired and you don't have that much to do and you don't have many hobbies.

Well, you you've led a good life so far.

The odds of the marijuana being the thing that kills you after you retire, pretty low.

Pretty low.

Now, I'm not recommending it.

I'm just making a prediction that if you think that a tripling of marijuana use among the retired is a lot, I feel like that tripling is going to maybe triple again.

So, we'll see.

That's just a prediction.

Leftist pi heads are killing the country, says Jennifer.

Maybe.

I don't know if it's because they pot or because they are the type of people who who want to kill the country, but on top of that, they smoke pot.

So, I don't know if it's a cause, but uh yeah, there's a whole different situation if you're in your if you're in your productive years.

Uh, well, let me give you the best advice I can give you on marijuana use.

I've said this before.

I don't recommend it because it's a drug and I'm not a doctor.

Those of you who paid attention know I didn't recommend that you get any shots for the pandemic.

Although the internet believes the opposite of that.

But I've always said I'm not a doctor.

So, you know, don't put anything in your body that I tell you to, except maybe vitamin D.

That's about it.

So, don't listen to me.

Um, however, you should know the following.

In my experience, the biggest change that marijuana has on a person is to make them more of what they already were.

So, I'm a creative person and I've always been unusually creative.

It makes me more creative.

I've also been an ambitious person.

So, I'm always up for starting a new project, starting a new product, inventing something, you know, doing a podcast.

So, I'm always looking to try stuff.

For me, marijuana makes me do more of that.

And both of those are good things.

So, more creative and more energy to do a new thing.

But that's only because I'm smart enough to know there are two kinds of marijuana.

One of them makes you want to do stuff and that would be um sativa.

And the other kind is called indacica and just makes you lazy and want to take a nap.

Now despite me being a go-getter kind of personality, if I do the wrong kind, well then I just want a nap, too.

So be just like anybody else.

But if you knew which kind to do and you knew that accentuating whatever it is you got going for you might be useful, it might work for you.

I like to exercise and work out.

When I smoke marijuana, I like it even more.

So for me, it accentuated a bunch of good habits I had.

And uh if it accentuated any bad ones, I don't know.

I can't think of one.

However, if your biggest problem in life was that you didn't have a direction and uh you were too lazy, you were too timid to do what you needed to do, then the marijuana would make you lazier and more timid and less likely to succeed.

So, you should know yourself.

If you're the kind of person that weed would definitely bring you down and end your possibility of success, don't do it.

If you're a retired person who might enjoy painting in your free time and hanging out with your cats, well then that's a different equation.

I don't recommend it, but it would be a different situation.

All right, that is what I have for you today, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm going to talk to the good subscribers on locals who are my beloved.

And uh the rest of you, thanks for joining.

I hope the whiteboard was useful.

And we'll be back tomorrow, same time, same place for more fun.

All right, locals will be private in 30 seconds.

Hey everybody, come on in. Here we have

room up front. Grab a share.

We're about to enter the coffee with

Scott Adamone

and it will be glorious

as soon as I've got your comments

working

so that we have a interactive

experience. You know, the best kind.

[Music]

Forgot my notes. Hold on.

I knew I was forgetting something,

but we're all good now.

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 elevate your experience up

to levels that no one can even

understand with their tiny shiny human

brains, all you need for that is a

copper mugger glasser shelter canine jug

or flask vessel of any kind. Fill it

with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the

end of the day, the thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now

go.

Oh, so good.

Well, I wonder if there's any science

that they didn't need to do cuz maybe

they could have just asked me instead.

Oh, here we go. Uh, Eric Dolan writing

for a signpost.

I always do the Eric Dolan signpost

stuff. Um, according to a new study,

higher income may boost the odds of

finding a romantic partner. Huh.

Having a higher income

improves your chance of getting laid.

Yeah, you could have asked me. Next

time, skip the study and just say,

Scott, do you think money would help you

in dating? I think it would. Yes, I do.

Um, I wonder if there's any other

studies that they could have skipped.

Oh, here's one. Uh also in Cypost by

Vladimir Hedra um they found out that

social anxiety so if you have social

anxiety it predicts future loneliness.

Huh. So you're telling me that people

who are super uncomfortable being around

other people might have a little extra

problem with loneliness.

Huh.

Well, you could have saved some money on

that study. Just ask me next time.

And I wonder if science has determined

that exercise is good for you. Huh? I

wonder if exercise is good for me. Oh,

yeah. Here's a study in GMA science that

uh that now they think that uh exercise

and muscles reduce the odds of getting

cancer and make your tumors grow more

slowly.

So yeah, exercise is good for you in a

variety of ways. That's just one of

them.

Um,

and uh there's a new dating app. Have

you heard of this one? Uh, the dating

app is called T Dating Advice. T is

spelled T E A like the tea you drink.

Dating advice. Apparently, it's a I

guess it's the number one app or

something. And instead of setting you up

with people that you have things in

common with, like a normal dating app,

the dating app is entirely based on

women reporting what's wrong with men.

So, uh, real real actual men,

individuals would be raided on the app

by other women so that you knew all the

problems that you would have if you got

with them.

That is truly the end of the end of

civilization right there.

As a number of people said, could you

imagine if men had an app that was

dedicated to men saying bad things about

women so you could check to make sure

you didn't get one of those bad women?

How long would that stay in the app

store? About a minute. about a minute

before somebody says you can't do that.

But when uh the subject is men and how

bad men are, no problem. Very popular

app. So, I've always thought that dating

requires you to dupe somebody long

enough that they begin to like you

before they find out who you really are.

Let me say that again because it it

sounds like a joke, but I don't don't

mean it as a joke at all. So, we all

know that um our feelings

uh and our urges can overrule our good

common sense, right? Everybody's had

that experience that if your emotions

get too high, it'll just cancel your

common sense. So now they've got an app

that will allow your common sense to go

first. So your common sense looks at

this app and says, "Oh, uh, this this

guy or this woman have been reported to

be, you know, bad." So my common sense

says I'm not even going to talk to them.

But in order to get anybody to like you,

you have to make sure that they only see

your good stuff for a while and then

they can start to like you and then

slowly you can start feathering in all

of your bad habits. Oh, so

uh it turns out you snore. That would be

me. Uh oh. H it turns out you work on

the weekends when I want to be doing

something else. Hm. So yeah, um there

would be no reproduction and no marriage

and no romance if we didn't have our

emotions overruling our common sense.

Now that's been reversed. Well, Sunonny

Hosen of the view um she was talking

about the coal bearer cancellation and

says if comedians are being attacked

then that means our constitution is

being dismantled.

So when uh Democrats complained that

Trump was going to uh steal your

democracy,

what they meant is that CBS was going to

cancel Coal Bear for losing $40 million

a year to them.

So how do you feel? How do you feel now?

now that you supported Trump, but you

found out that he took your democracy

because a company that's not Trump fired

somebody who was losing a tremendous

amount of money for them. Well, I didn't

see that coming

and uh it could be. I'm not ruling out

the possibility that there was a

political element to it, but I do think

they might have been happy if they had a

political element to it so they could

cancel something that costs $40 million

a year.

You know, maybe they wouldn't have done

it except for Trump. Maybe they wouldn't

have done it, but I'm pretty sure

they're happy they did it.

Well, uh Carrie Lake is telling us about

uh discovering that the voice of America

um and she w she's the president senior

adviser for the US agency for global

media. So that would be her domain.

Apparently the voice of America which by

its design is intended to be America's

propaganda

um element for other countries. So,

Voice of America

by its nature is supposed to tell other

countries stuff that we want them to

hear basically. So, it's not meant to

be, you know, unbiased. It's meant to be

biased in favor of America. And

apparently um now we know that uh some

of the Voice of America managers met

multiple times with Chinese officials

because China wanted them to uh say

nicer things about China and give them

more favorable coverage.

Wait a minute. Voice of America is our

propaganda machine. you're not supposed

to be meeting with our adversaries to

find out how they would like you to talk

about them.

Now, I don't know, maybe they were just

learning what they could learn and had

no impact on their coverage, but it

doesn't feel right. So, so we just

learned that those meetings were

happening. So, it's not ideal. Just the

news is talking about that.

Um, apparently the the Biden

administration

set up a hotline so that unaccompanied

minors coming across the border could

call that hotline if they had trouble

with whatever strangers they came with.

So in other words, if you came across

the border with someone who was not your

family member or parent and you wanted

to complain about them, so you know,

let's say you were being trafficked or

abused or something, you had a phone

number to call. Isn't that great? That's

pretty great, isn't it? Gave them a

phone number to call in case they had

problems. Well, today we found out that

65,000 of those calls from children who

were having a problem with the

non-relative who brought him across the

border, 65,000 of those calls went

unanswered.

They just sent it to voicemail.

That's not funny. That's not funny.

It's kind of funny because it's so

incompetent and evil and bad, but it's

not funny because there are 65,000

children who didn't get a response when

they complained about the non-family

member who was in charge of them.

So, there's that. Um

and uh now according to Fox News um you

know the Democrat fundra fundraising

organization called Act Blue and they're

getting some heat because instead of

doing what they said they were doing

which is collecting small contributions

from lots of different citizens

uh they are accused and now they've been

subpoenaed by three powerful committees.

in Congress uh with maybe taking foreign

sources of money and finding a clever

way to make it appear as though it was

being donated by individuals in small

amounts from Americans.

So, they've got some answering to do

now. What would happen if ACT Blue

um got in enough trouble that they could

no longer do what they were doing? Would

it make a big difference to a Republican

fundraising and enough of a difference

that it would influence either the next

presidential election or the midterms

coming up? And I feel as if Act Blue

might be a large enough entity that if

its fundraising got shut down,

it would actually influence votes,

wouldn't it? I don't know. I'd have to

see it in context. This is the uh it's

the type of story that I usually use

grock to get the context because without

knowing how much

um maybe you could put this in the

comments. If I had if I had more time

this morning, I would have looked it up,

but how much money did Act Blue

um donate to Republicans or handle the

donations for? Was it a lot?

Like does anybody have a dollar amount

for that? Because a news story about

um like this is only meaningful if you

know how much money they were providing

and if that really made a difference. I

suspect it did.

Well, in other news, uh the Trump

administration is going to slash 25% of

the IRS workforce, most mostly with

buyouts as opposed to just regular

firings. Um Washington Times is

reporting on this. So, they're going to

get rid of nearly 26,000 people

um reversing Biden's buildup in that

same area. Now, do you believe that the

IRS will not be able to do their job

because they would lose 25% of the

workforce?

Well, that's what they'll tell you. You

know, if you cut anybody's budget by

25%.

They're definitely going to tell you

that that's the end of the world. But

will it be? Probably not. Probably not.

We'll find out.

And good news for the president, Japan

has agreed to a trade deal and uh the

stock market seems to like it so far.

And uh let's see, the US will levy a 15%

tariff on Japanese goods.

Um and said the same level on said with

tariffs on the same level at the same

level on the country's critical auto

industry.

And on top of that, Japan committed to

invest $550 billion in America.

Now, remember I told you that um the

Democrats didn't see this coming, that

if this whole trade negotiation thing

starts working out for Trump, which it

is, that it would give him this almost

unlimited stream of victories,

and that once a week there would be some

important country that said, "Yeah, we

just made a deal." Hold on, my light

went out.

There we go.

Um, so here's another one. Japan has

fallen in line.

We'll see if that makes a difference.

Um,

and then the 60 Minutes lawsuit that

Trump was pressing against CBS.

Um, and you heard that, uh, CBS has

agreed to pay $16 million, but on top of

that, uh, we're learning now that there

will be an extra $20 million

from the new owners. So, whoever buys

CBS,

um, we'll we'll pitch in another $20

million in services basically. Um, so it

would be stuff like

uh for advertising or PSAs or similar

programming. So it would be 36 million

in total, but 20 million of that would

be in services.

Um,

and uh here's how Trump announced it on

True Social.

This is another in a long line of

victories over the fake news media who

were holding to account we were we are

holding to account for their widespread

fraud and deceit. The Wall Street

Journal, the failing New York Times, the

Washington Post, MSDNC,

CNN, and all other mainstream media

liars are on notice that the days of

them being allowed to deceive the

American people are over. Make America

great again. Now, how many of you are

impressed,

as I am, that Trump has effectively

destroyed the entire fake news media

structure in the United States? I mean,

they still limp along. They're they're

still doing their thing, but uh you

know, between the podcasters eating

their lunch and Trump hammering on them

non-stop,

um tough times in the mainstream media

world.

Well, according to the Washington Times,

an appeals court has sided with ICE in

blocking New Jerseyy's sanctuary law

banning migrant detentions. So

apparently uh without getting into

details, New Jersey was trying to do

something that would thwart ICE and the

appeals court said you can't do that

because the federal government has

authority over this domain, the

immigration and you New Jersey are not

allowed to stop them from doing what

they are legally allowed to do. So

that's another win for the Trump

administration.

Well, Astroenetica,

which you know, uh you've heard of that

company, big company, out of the UK, uh

they have agreed to build the largest US

plant in Virginia as part of a $50

billion investment in the US. So, Trump

gets another multi-billion dollar win.

Um, is it working?

Well, in similar news, um, General

Motors says it's going to invest

billions in the US to build more cars

here and fewer of them in Mexico,

according to the National Pulse. So, do

you believe that uh Trump's approach is

working in the sense that it's causing

big companies to permanently move their

facilities to the United States?

Well, again, context matters. If you

were to add up all of the billions of

dollars, and you, of course, these

billions will be over 10 years or

whatever, um, and you compare it to the

gross domestic product of the country,

it might not be that big. But if every

day or two you see another national

story about another big company that's

bringing billions to the United States,

that should cause almost every other big

company to say, "Oh, damn it. We're

going to have to match that." If if we

don't say we're bringing stuff to the

United States, it's going to bite us in

the ass later. So, every time there's

another story of somebody bringing their

their investments to the US,

um we get close to the point where they

just will all have to do it. We're not

there yet, but don't you think that um

two of the things that the Trump

administration has accomplished, one is

that people are bragging about saving

money for the first time.

Well, at least maybe since the Clinton

era. But now that government entities

when they want to brag and get

attention, they say we're cutting some

expenses. We're getting rid of this.

That is really good for the country that

people are bragging about money saving

as opposed to all the other stuff that

they could brag about.

and uh and then companies bragging about

bringing investment into the US. What

they brag about is what you're going to

get more of. So trend is looking good.

All right. Well, you probably see behind

me in the corner there the whiteboard.

Yes, there will be a whiteboard. I've

been trying to understand the whole

Russia collusion hoax story and what we

know about Brennan and Clapper and Obama

and what they did or did not do and was

there a crime there and it's all really

complicated. Are any of you having the

same problem that you want to understand

that story but you don't want to, you

know, make it your full-time job?

It's just it's just a lot of details. A

lot of these stories have that that

element to them. So apparently today

Tulsa Gabbard released some additional

Trump Russia collusion documents and the

um President Trump is characterizing it

this way in quotes. Um he said quote

Tulsi is the hottest one in the room

right now. Now, when I finish the

context, you'll realize he's talking

about her work, her work product. So,

when he says she's the hottest one in

the room, you immediately go to, wait,

is he metoing her in front of the entire

world? Well, sounds like it, but no,

he's referring to her work product that

he's impressed with. And uh he says she

found out Barack Hussein Obama led a

group of people and they cheated in the

election. Um and he says that Tulsi told

me quote, "You've seen nothing yet."

And he says that the bombshell claims

that the Obama administration

manufactured the Russian collusion hoax

um which he calls the biggest scandal in

the history of our country. and he says

that Obama is uh guilty of treason for

being the the head of that conspiracy.

Um he said uh he's guilty. It's not a

question. This was treason. Um

so that's where he stands. Now, Obama

has responded to the complaint, saying

he was part of this major Russia

collusion hoax

um play that was really an attempt to

change the government of the United

States. and he said uh talking about the

the documents that came out recently

uh Obama said there's nothing in the

document that undercuts the widely

accepted conclusion that now let's see

if if what follows is actually a widely

accepted conclusion. Right? So he says

there's nothing new that uh undercuts

the widely accepted conclusion that

quote Russia worked to influence the

2016 presidential election but did not

successfully manipulate any votes.

Now, that's usually the part where if

you don't follow the news too closely,

you start getting confused

because you're saying, "Wait a minute.

Why is Trump saying that we have all

this, you know, fresh evidence that

Obama should go to jail when Obama is

saying nothing that happened has changed

what we already knew and none of that

would be illegal?"

So, how could it be true that it's the

biggest bombshell of all time at the

same time nothing new happened?

Just nothing.

Well, uh, then NBC

News, who you should know, how many of

you are aware that NBC News is, uh,

accused by people who know more than I

do of being the mouthpiece for the CIA?

How many of you knew that NBC,

especially, you know, it's not the only

one, but very much especially NBC News

is identified with

being a mechanism that the CIA uses when

it needs to get a story out there. Did

do most of you know that? If you didn't

know that, you would be a little bit

confused

by watching the news. But, uh, NBC News

says that, uh, President Trump's

intelligence chiefs, so that would be

people including Tulsi Gabbard, are

conducting a systematic campaign to

rewrite the history of the 2016

election, seeking to reverse an

8-year-old assessment that Russia waged

an information war to boost Trump's

candidacy.

Waged an information war. So, Russia

waged an information war to boost

Trump's candidacy.

Is that an evidence?

And is is Trump trying to reverse

something that we all knew was true?

Let's go to the whiteboard. All right.

Here's where it's it's all going to come

together for you for the first time.

This will be the first time some of you,

not all of you, but it'll be the first

time for some of you to understand

what's going on here.

So, I'll have to move the board around

so that you can see it more clearly, but

I'll do the best I can. All right.

So

we go back to 2016

and there was something called the

presidential daily briefing that is put

together daily for the president and the

the presidential's daily briefing for

Obama during this critical period

um said that Russia did not hack the

election systems.

So, in other words, there was going to

be part of the daily briefing

that would say that uh the our

intelligence people looked into it and

found no evidence whatsoever that Russia

directly hacked our voting systems. Now,

the first thing you need to know is that

this is a narrow claim. They're not

saying that Russia did nothing bad about

the elections. They're just saying that

they did not, as far as I could tell,

hack into the election systems

themselves and make a change. Now, the

story is that we now know that Obama

said, uh, take that back before it gets

published.

Um, and the the worry was that uh

Trump's team

Trump's team would see it because

apparently if you're the president-elect

uh you get to see the presidential daily

briefings and if they had put out

something that said that our

intelligence people say that Russia had

not hacked our election systems, being

very specific, just the election systems

that uh that might be a bad look. So

instead, allegedly Obama ordered his

people to go back and instead of saying

what did not happen,

they should rewrite it to say what did

happen. Now, if Russia had changed

actual vote outcomes directly, that

would be the biggest problem in the

world. But this other stuff, although it

looks like it might have been real, was

trivial and

wouldn't have affected anything. And it

would be hard to say that necessarily

they did it, Russia did it for the

benefit of Trump. It might have been

consistent with Russia's past that they

were just trying to reduce our

credibility in our system. So they

wouldn't care who won. they would be

more concerned with it reducing the

credibility of our own system. That

would be sort of normal Russia activity.

So, some of the things that Russia did

do is uh allegedly, I don't know this

for sure, but allegedly they hacked into

the DNC's email. Um the worst thing that

they would have found there is that uh

the Hillary Clinton and DNC people

screwed Bernie Sanders. So, you could

argue, well, if we found that out, would

that cause somebody to uh switch their

vote to Trump? Probably not too many. I

mean, the average person isn't following

the news that closely that they would

have even known any of this happened.

Then there were two states where

apparently the Russian hackers got into

the voter database of each state. Now,

the voter database apparently was not

changed and it wasn't used in any way

that would have affected the race. So,

that's trivial. And then, uh, as you

know, Russia bought some Facebook ads,

but only $100,000 worth, which is so

small

that it wouldn't affect anything. And

then they made some memes or

advertisements that were so poorly done

that even if you saw them, you wouldn't

even you definitely wouldn't say it was

going to help Trump. But here's the

clever part.

Brennan was asked to find out if Russia

was doing these things to help Trump or

were they just doing these things

because they chip away our credibility

in any way that they can. and John

Brennan went away and came back and

said, "Oh yeah, definitely Putin wants

Trump and Putin is doing these things

specifically to help Trump."

Now

um because Brendan put that um put that

narrative on it um that allowed the

Democrats to say, "Wait a minute. Are

you saying that Russia was involved in

meddling, interfering, hacking, and

maybe some information warfare, and that

according to our own intelligence

people, the reason is that Putin wanted

to help Trump? Well, that's basically

Russia collusion. I mean, there's no

actual collusion,

but Democrats don't really need much to

make a claim like that. So the

politicians could look at this mess,

this this messy situation, and they

would say, "Yeah, there you go. There's

your Russia collusion." And then they

would throw in the story about Paul

Maniffort, who was apparently running a

scam on some Russian oligarch and saying

that he would give him insider

information about the campaign, but

never gave him any more than um some

stale internal polling. And then he went

to jail for it. But there was no

evidence anybody in the Trump campaign

was aware that he was scamming the

Russian guy. So there was no collusion

there. Just bad behavior by Maniffort.

So here's the bottom line. The the claim

is that Obama

um manipulated the intelligence with

Brennan to build a picture of Russia

helping Trump. And the reason that they

did that is to essentially uh get Trump

out of office and and degrade him.

Now, you might say, "But Scott, if all

this is true, is this really, as Trump

says, one of the worst things that's

happened in the country?" And I would

say yes. Yes. If this is all true, this

is one of the worst things we've ever

seen in the country. And Brennan has

some questions to answer because he's

never really told us nor would we expect

him to. How do you know that what Putin

wanted? How do you know Putin ordered

this for the purpose of helping Trump?

because it turns out that at least two

senior people who were part of that

decision told uh Brennan

that there's no evidence that Putin

wanted to help Trump

and it looks like the allegation is

that Brennan just made that up. So he

put together some stuff to make it look

like there was some backing for it but

it looks like it was just made up.

So, you know, like the Steel Dossier,

just totally made up.

So, when you see the news talking about

it, you'll see stuff like NBC News,

which is not a credible source of news

in my opinion. um they'll they'll put

together the things that Russia did

which you could definitely call

meddling, interfering, hacking or you

know information warfare but so trivial

that there's no way it affected the

election and then on top of that on top

of the fact it didn't affect the

election as far as we know

they added the that it was Putin's

intention

to get Trump into office and there's no

evidence for that that we've seen.

So when you watch in this story, you'll

see them conflate the first thing that

Obama did with, you know, the the uh the

revised story and uh it gets really

confusing. Now, do you believe even if

you believe this is all true,

does this look like a crime to you?

Well, maybe there's some crime here,

but how easy would it be for Obama, I'll

be Obama's defense attorney now. Um,

you've been accused of, you know,

changing telling the intel people to

change their report for political

reasons. And then I'm Obama's lawyer and

I say, "What do you mean? It doesn't

make sense to do a a daily briefing to

the president to tell him what didn't

happen.

Why? Why would you need to tell him what

didn't happen? It would make more sense

to tell him what did happen. So Obama

wanted it to be rewritten to say what

did happen instead of what did not

happen. Where's the crime in that?

Because there are lots of things that

didn't happen. Are all the things in the

world that could have happened but

didn't happen. Are they in the

presidential daily briefing? No. The

presidential daily briefing is not to

tell you what didn't happen. It's the

opposite. It's to tell you what did

happen. So that's all he did. That's all

Obama did. He said instead of saying

what didn't happen, which by the way, I

don't recall that even being in the

news. Does anybody recall back then was

there any credible news that Trump that

Russia had literally changed the votes

by hacking? I don't even remember that

being in the news. So why would it make

sense to put that in the daily briefing

when instead you could say all the

things that they did do? So I think he's

got an out there. But then you say, "But

what about Brennan making up the fact

that Putin wanted to do it to to help

Trump? Isn't that a problem?" Well, it

might be if you could prove it. But

instead, I think it'll turn into well um

yeah, there were people who said there

was no evidence or insufficient, but

there were other people who said some

things which I interpreted to be

important. And my opinion, and this is

always opinion, you know, I was hired to

give my opinion. My opinion was that

when you looked at the totality of the

evidence, the people who said there was

nothing there plus the people who said

there was something there. And I made a

call, you know, a decision. And my

decision was there was enough there to

conclude based on everything we know

about Russia, based on all of our

experience with Russia in the past. It

was a reasonable assessment. Might have

been wrong. I might have been wrong, but

there's no law broken. It was just a

reasonable assessment

that it it looked like Putin was behind

it. Now, where is the crime?

And then the Democrats, the politicians,

and the news, they get to say stuff

like, "Well, you know, we've proven that

Russia was helping Trump, and we're

going to call that collusion."

Well, when politicians lie, it's not

really a crime.

It's just a Tuesday. The politicians

lying is not a crime. So when I look at

this

um I see everybody conflating the things

that would have mattered with the things

that didn't matter and leaving out the

fact that it didn't matter.

And

I don't see the crime.

Now again, I'm not a lawyer. So a lawyer

might look at this and say, "Scott, you

fool. There are 10 crimes right in front

of you. Why don't you see them?" And I

would say, well, I'm not a lawyer. So,

as you know, um I absolutely

hate

Brennan and Clapper and Obama and Susan

Rice and John Kerry and all the people

who are alleged to be behind this

biggest hoax in American history. I

hate them. I would love to see

them go to jail. I just don't think

there's evidence that would put them in

jail.

So, if I had to predict,

my prediction was that there would be no

convictions over anything we've seen so

far. Even if we knew,

even if we were positive that the reason

they did what they did is because

they're weasels, you would never be able

to convince a jury that the reason you

changed the presidential daily briefing

was because you were trying to change

the politics. It would just look too

much like why are you doing a briefing

saying what didn't happen when you

should do the briefing that says what

did happen. That would completely

convince me if I were on a jury.

If you put me on that jury, I would say

I I don't see the crime.

So,

don't get don't get too excited

that we've seen the smoking gun and the

the weight of the law will be coming

down on them any minute. I just don't

think that's necessarily going to

happen. I'd like it to happen. I would

be very happy if it happened. I don't

see it yet. Maybe, maybe something else

will happen.

Anyway, um

that's my take on that. Apparently, uh

according to the Daily Wire, immigrants

to the United States are sending $200

billion dollars a year out of the United

States, um sending it back to their

families.

Most of it, uh the the biggest part of

that is going back to Mexico. Now, I

have two feelings about this because uh

Trump administration has put a 1% tax on

that and they're resisting it. At least

in Mexico, they're trying to resist it.

But um on one hand, I think people

should be able to spend their money on

whatever they want to spend it on as

long as that's legal and it's completely

legal to send money to your family in

another country. So,

I don't like it being um limited because

I don't like limiting people's, you

know, freedom. On the other hand, if you

come into this country and work

illegally and you're shipping money that

would have been um would have gone to an

American worker and then that American

worker would have spent it in the United

States, there's a pretty big difference.

between the money just leaving our

system and benefiting the other country

versus staying in the country where it

it multiplies, you know, that the person

who earns it buys something in the

store. Now the store owner has some

money and they buy something and etc. So

there is a really big difference between

the money leaving the country and

staying in the country and multiplying.

So,

uh, overall, since I'm America first, I

would like to see that text, it makes

sense to me.

Um, I saw a post on X from uh, PhD Kevin

Bass. I don't know who he is, but he

says a 2020 paper showed that uh of 500

randomized controlled trials, now if

you're a nerd and you follow science,

you know that an a so-called uh RCT

or randomized controlled trial is the

gold standard of science. If you see

that somebody did a randomized

controlled trial,

you would trust that result, wouldn't

you? Because that's the best the science

could do. They've randomized, they've

controlled, they've got a comparison

going on, right? Uh but it turns out

that uh half of the ones um analyzed had

fake data and a quarter were purely

fabricated. purely fabricated, meaning

that there wasn't any data at all. They

literally just made it up. Sometimes

they faked some data on top of the real

data and other times they just made it

up. And so,

how many of you have made the mistake

that I have and I would like to flog

myself and throw myself at the mercy of

the court? because I too am a person who

has said in public, "Well, this one's a

randomized control trial, so I guess you

can trust that one, huh?"

I apologize for ever misleading you. A

randomized control trial is only as good

as the data you put into it,

and they don't check the data. I mean,

typically, um, nobody's checking the

data. Even if it's a peer-reviewed

study, they're only going to check the

reasoning. They're not going to they're

not going to reproduce the data and see

if they use the wrong data. That's not

part of the peer review. So if you

believed that science was a little bit

sketchy, if it's just anecdotal, you

know, just people looking at stuff, it's

a little bit sketchy if they do a

metaanalysis

where you take all these bad studies and

you see if there's any kind of weird

average that you could conclude. That's

not the best way to know what's true.

And so you're thinking, but but if only

we could have more randomized control

trials. Well, then then we'd know what's

going on, right? Nope.

It turns out the science is so corrupt

that you can't even trust a randomized

control trial.

And the fact that only I would say this

year is when I first started to suspect

this because I saw I saw an example of

it. I think it involved the

vaccinations. There was a there was a

case where there was a randomized

control trial, but they decided to throw

away the data from the first two weeks

or something. Now, if you're the peer

reviewer, you just say, "All right, this

matches the data. It's an analysis. Good

enough." But if you knew that they had

to throw away the first part of the data

to get the result that they wanted, you

would say, "Wait a minute, there's a way

to game these randomized control trials

just by where you start the data and

what data you put in there." And you get

to use your assumptions. Oh, well, I I

should take this data out because

there's a reason that only I understand

why it should not be included. and then

you can reverse you know the outcome of

the study. So don't trust your

randomized controlled trials.

Well according to interesting

engineering uh the world's first laser

armed tank uh has been produced uh out

of Turkey and it's a tank that can jam

drones and then use its laser to zap

them. So, I think the jamming is only

half the job. They also want to laser

them out of the sky. So, um I told you

that we're heading toward a robot only

war in Ukraine and and uh Russia on the

front lines at least just the front

lines would be the robots only. And uh

this might be part of that. So, there's

going to be this uh this neverending uh

race between the drone superiority and

the anti- drone defenses. So, that's

getting interesting. Um I saw a stat

that cannabis use marijuana is being

increasingly common in older adults. So

apparently the percentage of people over

65 in the US who report using cannabis

in the past year has nearly tripled

since 2015.

So that's about the time that Trump

Trump announced his candidacy.

and

the the demographic group that does the

highest percentage of voting, the over

65s,

uh started smoking three times more

marijuana than before or three times

more people are smoking. And uh

I'm surprised honestly because if you're

not operating heavy equipment and you're

retired,

I would think that number would be a lot

bigger, frankly.

Um, how many of you have ever said to

yourself, "Well, I kind of liked that

marijuana when I was in my 20s, but you

know, once I had children in the house

and, you know, I had to take drug tests

for my job and all that, I I just let

all that go." But then you turn 65 and

let's say you retired and you don't have

that much to do and you don't have many

hobbies. Well,

you you've led a good life so far. The

odds of the marijuana being the thing

that kills you after you retire, pretty

low. Pretty low. Now, I'm not

recommending it. I'm just making a

prediction that if you think that a

tripling of marijuana use among the

retired is a lot, I feel like that

tripling is going to maybe triple again.

So, we'll see. That's just a prediction.

Leftist pi heads are killing the

country, says Jennifer. Maybe. I don't

know if it's because they pot or because

they are the type of people who who want

to kill the country, but on top of that,

they smoke pot. So, I don't know if it's

a cause,

but uh yeah, there's a whole different

situation if you're in your if you're in

your productive years. Uh, well, let me

give you the best advice I can give you

on marijuana use. I've said this before.

I don't recommend it because it's a drug

and I'm not a doctor. Those of you who

paid attention know I didn't recommend

that you get any shots for the pandemic.

Although the internet believes the

opposite of that. But I've always said

I'm not a doctor. So, you know, don't

put anything in your body that I tell

you to, except maybe vitamin D. That's

about it. So, don't listen to me.

Um, however, you should know the

following. In my experience, the biggest

change that marijuana has on a person is

to make them more of what they already

were.

So, I'm a creative person and I've

always been unusually creative. It makes

me more creative. I've also been an

ambitious person. So, I'm always up for

starting a new project, starting a new

product, inventing something, you know,

doing a podcast. So, I'm always looking

to try stuff. For me, marijuana makes me

do more of that. And both of those are

good things. So, more creative and more

energy to do a new thing. But that's

only because I'm smart enough to know

there are two kinds of marijuana. One of

them makes you want to do stuff and that

would be

um sativa. And the other kind is called

indacica and just makes you lazy and

want to take a nap. Now despite me being

a go-getter kind of personality, if I do

the wrong kind, well then I just want a

nap, too. So be just like anybody else.

But if you knew which kind to do and you

knew that accentuating whatever it is

you got going for you might be useful,

it might work for you. I like to

exercise and work out. When I smoke

marijuana, I like it even more. So for

me, it accentuated a bunch of good

habits I had. And uh if it accentuated

any bad ones,

I don't know. I can't think of one.

However, if your biggest problem in life

was that you didn't have a direction and

uh you were too lazy, you were too timid

to do what you needed to do, then the

marijuana would make you lazier and more

timid and less likely to succeed. So,

you should know yourself.

If you're the kind of person that weed

would definitely bring you down and end

your possibility of success, don't do

it. If you're a retired person who

might enjoy painting in your free time

and hanging out with your cats,

well then that's a different equation. I

don't recommend it, but it would be a

different situation. All right, that is

what I have for you today, ladies and

gentlemen. I'm going to talk to the good

subscribers on locals who are my

beloved.

And uh the rest of you, thanks for

joining. I hope the whiteboard was

useful. And we'll be back tomorrow, same

time, same place for more fun. All

right, locals will be private in 30

seconds.