Episode 2907 CWSA 07/24/25

Hello everybody.

Come on in.

Stream on in.

It's almost time for the live show you've been craving.

I will get your comments working and then we'll have something.

Oh yeah, now we got something.

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 on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker galistine, a kenzene jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.

Go.

Woody says it's the first time he's ever done this simultaneous sip.

Well, now don't you feel foolish that you never did it until now?

I know.

I know.

It is uh hypnotically designed to make you feel better.

That's actually true.

So, it's not a accident that I do a simultaneous sip of your favorite beverage.

And it's not an accident that I like to do it simultaneously.

It's because it gives you a little bit, just a small one, free boost of dopamine.

Probably dopamine.

That would be my guess.

But yes, you will enjoy it.

Elon Musk had some things to say.

Tesla's profits uh or their financials came out yesterday.

But among other things uh he has said recently, he said that Starling satellites will soon well actually now can broadcast directly to your cell phone.

I suppose it depends which cell phone surface you use.

I don't think it's all of them yet, but you will not need to be near a cell tower.

Um, you will be able to use your phone anywhere on Earth and I believe that's already active.

So, but you would need the right cell service.

Speaking of uh Elon Musk, the Cyber Cab estimates um for what it would cost, I think it's per mile, is that it would be as low as 25 to 30 cents for driving a cyber cab.

Now, you wouldn't drive it.

has no steering wheel, but uh it would be way cheaper than any other driving solution.

And one of the reasons is that uh Elon explains that if you're making an automobile that's just essentially a taxi cab that doesn't have a driver, you can skip a lot of expense.

So, they can make them kind of cheaply.

They they assume that they will not have to, you know, go around corners at 80 miles an hour because nobody would do that in a taxi.

Well, hopefully.

So, you can just u remove the ability for the car to do high-end stuff because it will never do that that stuff.

And then um production for the Cyber Cab is on track for volume production in 2026.

And uh it'll be rolling out um in Florida, Arizona, California, Nevada, and more.

And uh te um Elon says that if we execute well, Tesla has a shot at being the most valuable company in the world.

The most valuable company in the world.

Now that would mean you know car sales and cyber cabs and uh robots and all that but to be the most valuable company in the world they would have to beat what?

Nvidia.

I think Nvidia is the most expensive company, right?

Four trillion.

Well, we'll see.

That would make uh that would make Elon the first trillionaire.

Do you think he'll get there?

I feel like he will.

I feel like Elon will be the first trillionaire.

And that's really only four times what he already has.

So if if it's true that Tesla, you know, executes well with cyber cabs and with robots and more cars, could it go up by, you know, multiple of four?

Yeah, it could.

Well, let's uh let's see what the competition is doing over at Uber.

Um CB CNBC is reporting that Uber is going to allow a new option that if you're a woman who wants to ride on Uber, you can request a woman uh driver.

Now, that's a problem that Tesla won't have at all because they don't have a driver.

Which would you prefer if you had a choice?

I think I'll try to get an Uber, but I have to wait for a woman to be available.

Or I will summon my cyber cab because there's no driver.

I don't have to worry about it.

Uber is not looking very competitive at the moment because I don't know what your experience is, but most Uber drivers I think are male.

I don't know what the ratio is, but I would guess three out of four.

And sometimes it's hard enough to get a ride.

Imagine how hard it would be if you had to wait for the one out of four um who's a woman who has been requested by every single woman who wanted a ride.

I feel like Uber may have a plan for putting themselves out of business.

Doesn't look like that could work.

Elon Musk also says, quote, "Batteries are going to be a massive thing.

The scale of battery demand, I think that not many people appreciate just how gigantic the scale of battery demand is." And he goes on to say that only 0.

0001% of people seem to appreciate this crucial point.

And that crucial point would be this um that the sustained power output from the US grid is about 1 terowatt but average usage is less than half of it.

So if you add batteries to the mix you can run the power plants 24 hours a day at full capacity more than doubling the energy output per year of the United States just with batteries.

Now, every time I bring up the fact that batteries are going to be a big solution for our energy needs in the future, I'm really just, you know, cribbing from Elon Musk.

And it's not that I know anything about batteries.

It's just that I think he probably knows more than you know about batteries.

That's my whole B.

I think he's looked into it.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's researched batteries.

Uh, in other news, uh, teens are starting to turn to, uh, AI for their companionship and, uh, they it's a much bigger thing than you probably think.

the teens using AI.

Some of them use it all day long.

Just have somebody to talk to and ask about normal stuff like um for example, let's see, this is written in give credit to Joselyn Gekcker in fizz.org.

Um there's a uh young person named Kayla, a high school student in Kansas.

She says, "No question is too small for AI." So, the 15-year-old has always asked Chad GPT for stuff about uh back to school shopping and makeup colors and low calorie um food and ideas for birthday party, etc.

Now, I don't want to get ahead of this too far, but one of the things that I've predicted for now probably 20 years is that when it gets to the point where AI and virtual reality and robots and stuff become preferable to human contact, we're in a lot of trouble.

And I would say that if you look at the quality of the average teenager, imagine trying to be friends with a teenager even if you were a teenager.

Well, they wouldn't be very attentive or nice.

They might be bullies.

They might be judgmental.

But your AI, as the teens point out, is never judgmental.

It's always optimistic and it's always helpful.

How is a human teenager going to compete with that?

Because humans bring so many problems with them.

But the AI doesn't bring any problems.

It's just something you can talk to and it does what you want, the way you want it to.

So, we may be approaching that point where teens say, "I don't really need a mate.

I'll take care of that myself." Well, here's uh something I'm not too surprised at.

Well, maybe a little bit, but the Mcron um Bridget and uh whatever her husband's name is, what is Mcronone's first name in France?

Um, they're suing Kansas Owens for Kansas Owens continuous claims that Brit Breijit Mcronone was born a man.

So, um, what what would you bet will happen with that?

It seems to me that if you did discovery, and you would have to, wouldn't Bridg Bridget Mcronone need to prove that she's biologically female in order to win her case?

And uh Candace is doubling down.

Um, quote, "You were born a man and you will die a man." That's the point I'm making.

I think you're sick.

I think you're disgusting.

that I am fully prepared to take on this battle, meaning the lawsuit on behalf of the entire world.

Uh, I'll see you in court.

Now, do you think that the Mcron would sue her unless they could easily provide, let's say, DNA that would prove she was a woman?

I don't feel that they would make a big deal out of this if there was any chance they would lose.

So, I'm going to say that um unless they're bluffing and trying to force her into settling in some way or shutting up or apologizing and I don't think that this would be a good bluff.

So, my best guess is that Bridget Mcronone was born a woman.

That's just my best guess because I don't think they would do the lawsuit if Candace were right.

I think they would just try to shut her up some other way.

Um, so Candace, I wish you well.

I'm still a big fan of Candace Owens.

I don't I don't need to agree with her on everything and I know she's a good stirer, but wow is she talented.

She is so talented.

Um, I'm always impressed by that.

Well, Hunter Biden, um, I love how Hunter Biden can make any situation worse.

just when the topic has changed a little bit from um his father's brain and that cover up, he does a he does a podcast and he he says, and I didn't catch this as being the problem, but now I understand it is.

He said that his father was on ambient, the sleeping pill, and that that might explain because there's a little there's a fairly substantial after effect of the ambient which they tell you about.

It's a well understood phenomenon.

Um, and that that might be why he the father Joe didn't do well at the debate because it might have been a little ambient hangover happening there.

Now, it turns out that the medical establishment would like you to know, and I saw this on a Dr.

Drew clip on Instagram.

Um, Dr.

Drew points out that if you had a patient that was that age and had trouble walking and maybe there was some Parkinson's going on, I don't think that's confirmed, but uh if you had somebody who was as unstable and as old as Joe Biden and then on top of that um he his job was to wake up at 3:00 a.m.

If there's an emergency, you know, the president's job, that it would be close to, you know, almost a criminal activity to prescribe ambient to somebody like that in that specific situation.

It wouldn't be illegal, but it would be on that, you know, dangerously flirting with malpractice because if something happened, if that person uh that age and that mobility fell over, um, everybody would say, well, it's because somebody gave them ambient.

Everybody knows if you give ambient to somebody in that condition, the odds of them falling down are much higher.

So maybe you shouldn't have done that.

So somehow Hunter um took a topic that was fading in our minds.

You know, we were starting to forget a little bit about the Biden brain coverup and then we find out that maybe the way he was cared for was horrible.

If it's true, we don't know it's true, but if it's true that ambient was part of the story, boy, somebody has a lot of explaining to do, which would be his doctor, I would think.

But we don't know for sure that he was on ambient or that had anything to do with anything.

Unfortunately, Hunter is not the most reliable witness.

Well, if you were waiting to find out what would happen in the courts with uh Trump's effort to ban uh birthright citizenship, that's where if somebody's not a citizen, but they have a baby in our country.

The Constitution seems to say that those babies would be automatically citizens, but Trump doesn't want that.

And a lot of people who are pro.

Trump don't want that situation.

And so Trump tried to ban it, but uh you would not be surprised to know that uh a a federal appeals court just ruled that um Trump can't do that and that those babies are indeed citizens of the United States.

So that's a ruling from the 9inth US Circuit Court of Appeals.

But that just means that this topic gets bumped up to the Supreme Court.

Now, how many of you think the Supreme Court will ban, which is what Trump would want, ban birthright citizenship by interpreting the Constitution in a sort of an originalist form?

Um, where nobody really anticipated this particular problem, which is massive unchecked immigration and lots of babies.

So, what's your bet?

I wouldn't put a bet on this one.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I see in the comments 50/50.

That's exactly where I am.

If you said, Scott, place a bet.

Yeah.

You must you must think one of those is more likely than the other.

I really don't.

To me, this is a total coin flip.

It Well, uh I'll uh I'll commit.

All right.

I'll commit.

I I'll commit to the Supreme Court will not ban birthright citizenship.

I feel like it would be too big of a move even for the all the conservatives.

There might be a few votes for it, but I I think the Supreme Court's going to agree with the lower court.

What do you think?

Anything is possible.

So, it's possible it could go the other way, but I'll uh just for fun, I'll uh keep my prediction that it only goes one way.

Well, uh Nikita Byer, who is the head of product X, did a post at X called the current state of the medical establishment.

So, listen to this experience.

Um so, Nikita says, u brought a friend to the ER for a high fever.

uh put their symptoms into Grock.

Grock told me to ask for four tests.

The doctor, this is the ER doctor, said one of them is unnecessary.

I insisted we do them all.

The test came back positive on the one he didn't want to do.

So that's the state of current medicine.

your doctor has a lot of things on his or her mind, especially an ER doctor, you know, they're they're just seeing lots of different things come through all day long.

So, imagine the cognitive load on their brain, first of all.

Then second of all, um imagine all the possible things that can go wrong with any prescription or any diagnosis, etc.

And if you're not already checking your doctor's work with AI, you should start, may I say that again as loudly as possible, you should never take medical advice from me on anything because I'm a cartoonist and not your doctor.

But I do think we've reached the point in history where if you're not at least looking at the AI to see what it says compared to your doctor, but then ultimately you should check with your doctor, right?

If the doctor says no AI is hallucinating, I would go with the doctor.

But you want to know what the other argument is.

So I'll give you my experience recently.

So, a lot of my doctoring, especially because of the holidays, I couldn't get in for an actual doctor when I had a shingles attack, which I've recently recovered from.

So, my neck and the side of my face was breaking out in some kind of mysterious uh bumps.

And I started by sending a picture because I could still get some service from my healthc care provider by email and said, "Take a look at this picture." And then I guessed there might be spider bites because there were only three or four bumps.

And the doctor who was covering for my doctor who was on vacation said, "Well, you know, it might be spider bites, but we don't know.

So take some antibiotics and do something else.

Take some allergy stuff." But what they didn't guess is shingles.

So that wasn't part of the the guess.

Uh so time goes by and it gets worse.

So from three bumps it goes to I don't know 15 15 bumps or so.

At that point uh my own experience kicked in and I said it's only in one place.

There's no way that a spider is coming back to bite me every day in that same one area and no place else.

Um, so it's probably something else.

And so I guessed shingles, which I've never seen.

I've never seen anybody who had it, but I, you know, used AI and looked it up and it looked to me it looked like the pictures on the internet.

So I wrote back to my doctor and said, "You know what?

I think it's shingles." And then I got a prescription for exactly what I needed for shingles.

The doctor agreed as there were more bumps.

Now, to be fair, when there were only, you know, three or four bumps, it could have been a bug bite.

Um, it it was only obvious to me when there were lots of them.

But if you're not doing that exercise where first you check with AI, then you check with your doctor, and then after your doctor tells you something, you check with AI again.

Maybe even check on the medication that was prescribed and maybe check it against all of your other medications.

Have you done this yet?

Take your AI and put it on the visual mode where it can see what you see.

then take a picture of all your medications and all of your um nonprescription drugs, you know, say supplements and stuff so that the AI knows what you're already on.

And then if something else is u is prescribed, even the doctor doesn't know about your supplements probably.

So then your AI would tell you, hey, don't do this one with that one or stop doing this one with that one.

So, um, yes, check your AI.

Speaking of AI, Trump signed three, uh, administrative executive orders, I guess, on AI.

And, uh, one of them is that, uh, the US government will not buy any AI product that's too woke.

So, it can't be essentially an anti-white person AI.

the government will not uh be part of that.

It says uh Trump would not uh would not allow the government to buy an AI that says George Washington was black or that or that refuses to uh note that white people had some accomplishments in history.

Um or argue that misgendering someone is worse than a nuclear apocalypse.

All those things have actually happened.

So, there's that.

Anyway, Trump appears to be um AI's biggest friend.

Um but he's willing to take out a little more risk that maybe another leader would.

And I feel like that's exactly the right place to be.

If you were to make a continuum of, you know, a graph or something of all the people who are afraid of AI, you know, what it might do in the near future, you would have people who say, "Yeah, you should slow down." And you would have other people just in case, you know, it's an existential threat.

And other people would say, "You better hurry up because the biggest existential threat is your competitor getting there first." So you got two ways to die.

One is being too slow with AI and the other is being too fast and not having enough guard rails.

Two ways to die.

Trump is biased toward um beating the competition.

So that would be optimism that we could control the worst, you know, possibilities of the AI, but we wouldn't be able to control the worst impulses of the human leaders of other countries that are adversaries.

I feel like he's exactly right on that.

It's a guess because you don't know which way it could go, right?

It could go either way, but I would take his his same uh risk.

I would say that the biggest risk is somebody gets there first.

That's a big big risk.

The risk of it killing us just because that's built into the risk of the technology.

I feel we have a much better chance of controlling that than we do of controlling let's say China.

So I think Trump is completely right on this and that would mean that uh David Sachs is advising him really well and I think that is the case if Trump isn't listening to everything that the Sachs tells him.

That would be a mistake.

But by now, I'm pretty sure the administration and Trump in particular, he knows who the smart people are.

And when Saxs tells him what to do on one of these topics like crypto or AI, I'm pretty sure he's listening.

And that is just nothing would make me more comfortable than that because Sax also is connected to all the people who know everything about those topics.

So, it's not like he's sitting in a room by himself making up opinions.

he's connected to all the smartest people.

So that is really good news in terms of the organization of your government.

Um MSNBC is saying out loud that the worst predictions that inflation was going to be fueled by Trump's tariffs have not turned out to be the case.

So MSNBC is saying directly, well, we were kind of worried about all this inflation, but by now we should have seen some.

Uh Scott Basant, head out of the Treasury is explaining that the reason for that is probably that uh that the cost increases are being absorbed by the the shipper or the receiver and that there were some margins there that they had to play with.

We might not see we might never see uh inflation caused by that.

Now, have I ever told you that economics is mostly guessing?

Wouldn't you think that the easiest thing you could predict if you were some professional economist is whether these tariffs would increase inflation?

Shouldn't that be right on the list of the easiest things you could ever predict?

And apparently it went the other way so far.

I mean, it could all reverse tomorrow, I suppose.

But at the moment, pretty much almost every economist got this wrong.

I'm I'm thinking back to my days under Jimmy Carter's presidency and there was a belief that you couldn't have um slow growth and inflation at the same time so-called stagflation for stagnant economy with inflation but it happened and I think the economist said that's not even possible but it happened.

So, a lot of uh a lot of what you think is science and economics, it really isn't.

It really isn't.

Uh meanwhile, the US and the EU are getting closer to a deal according to a number of reports.

Um and Trump says he's got a 15% tariff deal with Japan, which would be a gigantic relief because they're one of our bigger trading partners.

And uh that would be an improvement for the US.

And as I've said a number of times that uh Trump will apparently given that things look like they're starting to work out, he will be announcing big trade deals that are better for America probably one a week for weeks and weeks and weeks.

And the Democrats are going to be so mad.

So mad that the main thing they had to about, which was the tariffs, are turning out to be a gigantic victory that you will be reminded of every week because it'll just be one after another saying, "All right, all right, we'll pay extra tariffs and your inflation is not going up." Well, uh, Representative James Comr has issued and his group in Congress issued a subpoena to Galain Maxwell and I believe that they're planning to talk to her today at her prison.

So, that means somebody in his group will depose her or get her opinion on a bunch of questions today.

Um, but I would like to point out that the the uh theory that we live in a simulation is now proven by the fact that comr is going against a groomer.

Comr versus the groomer.

Come on.

We must be living in a simulation.

There's no way that's natural.

So, will we learn anything?

I don't think so.

My my guess is that Galain has nothing to say.

Do you do you know what I would do if I were Gain?

I would say um I'm happy to sit here and listen to your questions, but it would be against my interest to answer them.

Because if I'm going to tell you some juicy stuff that you really want to hear, and boy do I have some juicy stuff.

If you want me to name names, I'm not going to do it from prison.

you're going to have to get to the DOJ and you're going to have to make me a deal to get out of prison.

Uh, and then I'll tell you everything you need to know.

So, I feel as if there's a very low odds that she will name names we haven't heard before.

So, I wouldn't I wouldn't get all excited about this one.

Well, apparently we have learned that the Department of Justice told Trump back in May that his name, among many other names of people, are on the Epstein files.

Now, that doesn't mean he's on the client list, and there is no client list that we know of.

It just means that he's mentioned as are many prominent people who knew Epstein but does not mean and there is no indication that Trump is accused of any unto behavior.

So is it possible that the real reason Trump wants the Epstein files to go away is that his name is in the files?

Maybe.

Yeah.

Maybe.

And if he knows that he was not guilty of anything, but it would give the Democrats this gigantic hammer to hammer him on endlessly.

I could see why he might say, "Uh, we're done here.

There's nothing to see.

I don't know if that's why, but you could imagine that that would be a pretty good reason from his perspective." Well, I'll uh I'll say again, there's no indication.

whatsoever that Trump is accused of any bad behavior.

It's just his name is mentioned as a presumably an associate or friend of or a contact of Epstein's at one point before he banned him from Marago and cut all contact.

Um, apparently the House panel is also directing the chairman to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton about the Epstein probe according to Fox News.

Now, do you think that Hillary and Bill Clinton will have anything to say that won't be a lie?

I don't think we're going to learn anything from either of those two.

They're a little bit too smooth.

Uh, we might find out what the def definition of is is and maybe Bill Clinton will say, "I did not I did not sleep with any of those women." Well, how about this one?

No, not that one either.

How about this one and this one?

No, not them either.

I did not sleep with them.

So, he might be busy.

Um, Hakee Jeff, Democrat Hakee Jeff says, uh, quote, "It is reasonable to conclude the Republicans are continuing to protect the lifestyles of the rich and shameless, even if that includes pedophiles." So, he's talking about the nonrelease of all of the Epstein files, right?

Because we assume there's stuff we haven't seen that would tell us something.

So here is my lesson for the day.

Uh this is something I learned in hypnosis class years ago.

And do you remember I told you that when Trump said he was asked some question recently, he started his answer with I would say and I told you that if you start with I would say whatever follows that is going to be a lie.

You don't start a true statement that you believe in that's just a statement of truth.

You don't start that sentence with well I would say you just don't you only do that when you're saying something that may not fully check out.

So has a similar tell when he says it's reasonable to conclude.

You don't start your sentence with it's reasonable to conclude if it's reasonable to conclude and it's also true and it's obvious and it's just a fact.

You just don't start with those words.

It's reasonable to conclude.

So, in hypnosis class, what I learned, among other things, is that when people say things um extemporaneously, meaning they're talking off the top of their heads, they often will say the truth if you just look for it in the exact wording.

So, people have a real hard problem of not saying what's true when they're speaking off the top of their head.

It's just that they might hide it in a part of a sentence that says the opposite of what is true.

This would be it.

I would say signal or it's reasonable to conclude signal.

And there's probably a million varieties of that, but yeah, that's that's telling you he doesn't believe what he's saying.

Well, another no surprise.

Zero Hedge is reporting that uh a judge has denied the DOJ request to unseal the Epstein grand jury transcripts.

How many of you thought that just because the Department of Justice asked for that to be done that you were going to see the Epstein grand jury transcripts?

If you believe that was going to happen, um you were not well informed on that topic.

I don't think there was really any chance it was going to happen.

And I'm happy it didn't.

I I would rather I would rather preserve the standard that if you're going to if you're going to violate something like that, which is, you know, really intended to be private because the grand jury is not like the actual case with um proven evidence and facts.

It's uh way more speculative as in yeah, yeah, that looks like it probably should go to court, but it hasn't gone to court, which means that the defense has not presented its defense.

So, if you saw a bunch of accusations on a grand jury transcript, you being not a lawyer, you would never say, "Well, it's just a grand jury, you know, we can't take that as fact." No.

in a political sense, you would immediately treat it like it was fact when you shouldn't.

So, I'm in favor of, as much as I would love to see all the Epstein stuff, I wouldn't want it to be revealed this way.

And so, I I agree with the court to keep the grand jury testimony private.

Um, we've learned that Barack Obama was um at his home, which was right near where his personal chef drowned.

So, he's not uh Obama is not being blamed for drowning him, but apparently he was there um not necessarily at the drowning site, but at his home that was right nearby.

Um, oh, I'm seeing in the comments that Duritz thinks Maxwell should be released because five years is usually the max sentence for what she did.

H and uh he says that she got basically Epstein's sentence because Epstein wasn't available.

Well, he's probably right.

Um anyway, so but there was one witness we heard on this uh personal chef drowning, Obama's personal chef that there was a woman who witnessed it, saw him fall off his board and not come up.

And uh so we have one witness that it was an accident as opposed to the murder that you might have suspected, but we have not heard much about that witness.

So I wouldn't say that that's 100% conclusive, but I would lean toward accident.

Well, the big news yesterday was Tulsi Gabard DNI uh released new documents about the Russia Russia Russia hoax and Trump.

And she's not recommending specific charges for anybody.

Uh but she says and says it repeatedly that the Department of Justice uh now knows what she knows because they've turned it over to the Department of Justice and they alone will decide if there are any legal charges that are appropriate.

But uh don't look to Tulsi Gabbert to tell you if some law was broken.

That is um the domain of the Department of Justice which which is looking into it.

Um, but let me tell you what we think we know now.

We know now from documents that Obama was made aware that uh Hillary Clinton was planning a fake hoax.

Uh, the Clinton plan intelligence it was called.

So he knew that in the summer of 2016, so before the election he knew that Clinton was doing this fake thing.

Um, and I guess John Durham mentioned it in a report, so that's how Obama would know it.

Uh, then Obama directed the creation of a new intelligence community assessment that said instead of saying what it said at first, which is there's no evidence that the Russians directly um directly hacked the voting systems and changed any votes.

So there's no evidence of any of that, but uh Obama directed them to um rewrite it um after Trump was victorious in the election.

So that's a little suspicious looking, right?

Um and the rewrite would focus on Russia's meddling, but it wouldn't change the fact that they didn't see any direct changing of votes on the election system.

Um then the President Obama was part of uh uh big discussions in January of 2017.

Remember that's just when Trump's coming into office then uh related to the FBI's targeting of Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn.

Now we know that the Mike Flynn targeting was completely illegitimate.

And now we know that Obama was in the meetings when the decisions about what illegitimate things they would do against Mike Flynn uh were discussed.

Um and then uh Gabbert says there is irrefutable evidence that details how Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an int intelligence community assessment that they knew was false.

Now, here's the part where it gets dicey.

How do we know what somebody else knew?

I mean, I I get that the circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence certainly indicate that they must have, you know, known that they were making up a fake hoax.

Um, they must have known it was fake.

But I'm going to double down on my opinion that you wouldn't be able to prove it in court.

So the standard that you and I go by is sort of a common sense standard.

If we know that these people did this and that and we know what their incentives were, you can reasonably conclude what they knew and why they did it.

But I don't know that it's it's going to be any legal standard for that, you know, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because it seems that they could simply claim that they thought it was real.

Now, you might say to me, Scott, they knew that the steel the steel dossier was not credible and yet they used it as part of their explanation of why they could go after uh Trump.

To which I say there's a big difference between knowing it's not credible and knowing none of it's true because they can claim we knew some of it was not credible.

We didn't know at the time that none of it was true.

They might even claim some of it was true because you've heard him say that recently.

Well, not everything was debunked.

Even though I think there's no evidence for any of it, but there's some of it that maybe wasn't debunked.

It's just there's no evidence for it.

So, is that the same?

If you can't debunk something, but you can't prove it didn't happen, maybe sort of you could argue that the intelligence people said, well, you know, it wasn't the the best evidence talking about the steel dossier, but it did fit the other stuff we were looking at in some way.

So, somehow it fit into the larger story.

So, you know, it was our judgment that that needed to be part of it.

Now, in retrospect, we can look at it and say, "Well, that was a terrible judgment." But do you think they can argue, "Well, we were wrong.

Maybe we were wrong, but that was our legitimate judgment that the Russia was helping Trump." It just seemed likely.

So, I don't think that anybody's going to get perwalked and put in jail over this.

I know you want it, and I want it, too.

Trust me, I want people to go to jail.

I just don't want you to feel too disappointed when it doesn't happen.

Get it?

I'm priming you.

Um, what else?

Bill O'Reilly, Bill O'Reilly predicts that U.

John Brennan, who is the CIA chief behind all of that, will be indicted for publishing fraudulent intelligence reports.

He said that to News Nation's Chris Cuomo.

I don't know, maybe indicted, but convicted.

I'm still going to say no.

He will just weasle his way out of that, I think.

um and and he would be charged with essentially making up the argument that Putin intended or preferred Trump to win.

So apparently there's no evidence that Putin wanted Trump to win or expected he could.

Uh and indeed there's some evidence of the opposite although I don't know how they got that.

So, the evidence for the opposite um appears to come from secret sources.

So, I hate to say it, but I don't believe any secret sources.

So, if they have secret sources that say uh Putin knew that uh that Hillary was going to win or expected her to win and that he was keeping some secrets to weaken her administration when she got into office, but that but that he was not trying to get Trump into office.

He was he was trying to hold on to things to weaken Hillary when she got into office.

Now, how do we know that?

I'm pretty sure that they can't tell us how they know that because I would suggest some kind of source that's pretty close to Putin and we wouldn't want to give that up, obviously.

So, I don't believe it.

It might be true.

It might be true.

But if you tell me, "Trust us, we have secret ways of knowing this information." That happens to be exactly what my administration wants you to think.

That's not good enough for me.

But like I say, I'm convinced that they're all dirty and that they they did one of the worst criminal acts of all time with the Russian collusion hoax.

So, I don't have any doubt that that they're bad actors who deserve, you know, some legal justice, but I'm not sure I buy every part of everybody's story here.

Um, uh, let's see.

Uh, I wanted to tie together something else here.

So, let me let me do a few other things and I'll tie tie together some other stuff.

Um, how many of you found out that Obama's hoaxes, which would include the Russia hoax, and it would also include the fine people hoax because Obama was behind that and Biden ran for office.

Those two hoaxes, I would argue, um, ruined my life.

Let me say that again.

Those two hoaxes, Russia, Russia, Russia and the fine people hoax, ruined my life cuz those are the hoaxes that allowed my entire social group to say, "Are you kidding me?

You're backing Trump.

Trump's a Russian uh puppet." And uh he said that neo-Nazis are fine people.

So we can't even talk to you again.

You're so bad that we can't invite you anywhere.

We can't be your friend and you should just off.

So this is very personal to me.

Uh what what Obama did was he divided the country with these hoaxes because if you imagine a different history where there had never been a Russia hoax and there had never been a fine people hoax.

Those were the two primary ways that people became anti-Trumpers like really serious ones where where the TDS comes in.

Now, I would also argue that it's possible that uh that's what ushered in all the woke stuff.

It's what got me cancelled.

So, if you were to go back, you know, trace the causes back to their origin, you would find out that Obama and Clinton uh and Brandon, etc., and their hoaxes ruined my life.

Now, I didn't realize that until today because my natural personality is not to complain about My natural personality is to say, "Oh, that happened.

I guess I have to do this now." So, I don't spend a ton of time whining about bad things that happened to me.

I just sort of, you know, get moving to fix it and make the best of every situation.

But if you were to look at it objectively, those ruined my social life and then my professional life.

And it was entirely based on two hoaxes.

So, do I want them in jail?

Yes.

Yes.

I want Obama in jail for ruining my life with what looks like criminal acts to me.

And you know, I don't know if the Finding People hoax was a criminal act, but it was definitely a conspiracy.

They were all in on it and they all knew the truth and the news backed them up.

So, the news was, you know, part of the bad guys.

If if you said there's a way to make some of the news hosts um get handcuffed and taken to jail because they knew that they were supporting a lie, I'd be in favor of that.

I I don't think there's any law that would support that.

Um but if there were, yeah, I I think that some of the people who ruined my life and maybe a lot of your lives should go to jail.

Absolutely.

I just don't think it's going to happen.

All right.

Um, speaking of Trump derangement syndrome, which I would say those two hoaxes triggered, um, Graham Noble is writing in Liberty Nation News that there were two Republicans who back in May uh, introduced um, some legislation.

I don't think it's been passed, but the uh, they want to have a Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act of 2025.

So the Republicans want it to be um part of mental health that there's a Trump syndrome and they want to the act if it were passed um would involve investigating TDS origins and contributing factors including the media's role in amplifying the spread of TDS.

Now I think it would go back to the hoaxes.

I think it would go back to Obama and and Russian gate and u find people um and then it would ask people to analyze its long-term impacts on individuals me communities and public discourse.

Then explore interventions to mitigate extreme behaviors informing strategies for a healthier public square.

That's a little generic.

and then have some datadriven blah blah blah and require an annual report to Congress.

So it is an epidemic.

It it is a mental health epidemic and I think you can very clearly see that the Democrat leadership created it intentionally.

Uh maybe they didn't know how bad it would be, but they did it intentionally and they did it for political reasons and it caused 50% of the country to have a mental health breakdown.

Now I didn't get the mental health breakdown.

I just got the impact on my social life and my professional life.

But mentally, I think I'm okay as far as I know.

But their own team paid a big price.

How many of you remember that when uh Hillary was running against Trump 2015 16 that uh I was saying publicly and getting mocked mercilessly for it that Hillary Clinton looked like she had a major medical problem.

This was before, this is important, before she collapsed and got dragged into her car after the 9/11 event.

Now, after she she passed out and had to be dragged into her car, I believe everybody said the obvious.

Hey, looks like there might be some medical problem that she's she's hiding there.

So, it was easy after she passed out.

Can we all agree on that?

But I was saying it maybe a year before that and I was even predicting that she might die on the campaign trail.

Well, it turns out that based on the Tulsi Gabbard new documents that have come out that uh allegedly Russian foreign intelligence services they're they're spy people.

Um, they thought that Clinton was experiencing significant health issues in 2016 that Obama administration officials and Democrat leaders found quote extraordinarily alarming.

So, Russia was somehow aware, I think it was because they hacked the DNC maybe, um, but they were aware that the Democrats were super worried about Hillary Clinton's health.

So, do you want to give me uh give me the win on that?

I was wrong that she she did not uh she was not deceased during the campaign.

So, I was wrong on that, but apparently it was pretty bad.

And she was uh the the specific claims include her suffering from quote intensified psycho emotional problems with quote uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression and cheerfulness and being on a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers to manage those issues.

Uh the report also hinted at other conditions.

So this is nonconfirmed.

is eskeemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, COPD, that would be a breathing problem, and deep vein of thrombosis, though we don't have corroboration from any medical records to those.

Um but her own doctor back after she collapsed in that 9/11 event in 2016, her own doctor said the problem was uh uh undiagnosed pneumonia and she had some exhaustion and dehydration and that's why she passed out.

Uh over well overheating and dehydration.

Um, but the uh but the belief and here again I don't know how we know this so it's a little sketchy.

The belief is that that Putin um knew about these health problems and thought it would be better to release them after she got elected but that he was not trying to get Trump elected and didn't think that was, you know, really an option.

All right.

Um, so here is the the weird thing about this whole Russia Russia hoax situation.

So we were told that that Putin's um ambition was to sew discord and chaos in our election system.

Now, there is evidence that Russia may have been involved in exactly that sort of thing in past elections, and maybe we do the same to them, but it it was kind of at a low level.

You know, they they weren't trying to get somebody elected so much as they were trying to make people doubt the credibility of the election system.

So, that would be that would be a win for them if they can make the Americans doubt their own system.

Um, but apparently the people who made us doubt our system were Obama and what I call his winged monkeys.

You know, all of his aids and Brennan and Clapper and those guys.

When they were done, they had convinced us that Russia could control who got elected in the United States.

Am I wrong?

that the Russia hoax, the entire point of it is that our election systems and our government are so vulnerable that Russia and Putin specifically would decide who our president was.

Now, can you even imagine anything that would be sewing more discord and chaos?

And so now we learned that Putin probably didn't do anything of scale.

There were a few things that came in of Russia allegedly, but they're not really of scale.

They wouldn't have changed anything.

Um, so the weird thing is that the only person who was not involved, I'm going to read this is somebody else's joke.

Sergeant Pony Soldier said this on X.

So this is Sergeant Pony Soldier's quote.

Apparently, the only people not involved in the Trump Russia collusion issue were Trump and Russia.

Now, did any of you have that observation?

Cuz when you hear it, you say to yourself, "Oh, damn.

That's true.

The only people who were not involved in the Russia Trump collusion story were Trump and Russia.

Trump wasn't involved in any way." And apparently Russia wasn't either, at least not in any important way that changed anything.

So um so I saw a post by cynical Publus on X.

Now he's a lawyer but not a prosecutor.

So he warns us that uh his takes um are not as good as maybe a prosecutor's take.

but he is a lawyer, so he's not he's not totally guessing on stuff.

And he did a a post on X that was very helpful because he um he tied crimes, you know, crimes that are on the books to what we know so far about the Russia hoax so that we can see what crimes are in play.

Um, and there are six six crimes.

Uh, and I will just read them.

So, this is from Cynical Publus.

If you're on X, you should definitely be following him.

He's one of the best accounts you'll follow.

Uh, number one, it would be illegal to knowingly falsify classified intelligence reports for political gain.

But you see the trick?

It's knowingly.

The defense will be, well, we thought it was true.

We We thought Russia was trying to collude.

We thought they did influence the election.

So, it's not a crime because we didn't knowingly falsify anything.

We thought it was true.

So, the first one, I think, will not put anybody in jail because they that the knowingly part will be too hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Um, and and then you're going to say, "But what about that steel dossier?" And as I said before, all they have to say is, "We knew that it wasn't highly credible, but we didn't know that every part of it was fake." So, we thought it was worthy of considering, you know, it's part of the larger story and uh maybe we were wrong, but there's no evidence that we knowingly did something fake.

And number two, uh, relying on those, uh, knowingly false classified things to do things.

But again, number two won't kick in if it wasn't proven that it was knowingly.

So number one and two are not going to be a threat to Obama if he can argue, well, we didn't know it.

Number three, releasing classified information to the media.

We don't know who did that, right?

and the media will go to jail rather than reveal their source.

So, yeah, that's great that it's illegal to release classified information to the media, but how are you going to catch anybody for that?

There's nobody to catch.

You'll never catch that person, I don't think.

Number four, conspiring with other government officials to accomplish any of the foregoing.

Um, have they done that?

Well, they they definitely conspired with other governments, maybe the UK with the Russia Russia stuff, but again, they would have to know that they were conspiring something illegal, but they could argue, "No, we asked for their help, but we thought it was for legitimate reasons." Uh, how about number five?

Lying about the foregoing to Congress while under oath.

Well, I haven't seen any politicians go to jail for lying under oath to Congress.

Um, have you remember Clapper told that Whopper that uh that they were not collecting information on Americans and it turned out just total lie.

Is Clapper in jail?

No.

So, lying to Congress, probably not putting anybody in jail.

Uh, attempting to cover up any of the foregoing.

Well, if you can't prove that any of that was a crime, would it be a crime to try to cover up the thing that wasn't a crime?

So, here's my non-awyer take.

So, remember, um, cynical Publius is not a prosecutor.

He's a lawyer but not a prosecutor.

So you should, you know, factor that into what I told you.

But then you should also factor in that I'm definitely not a lawyer of any type.

But when I look at it just from a common sense, how would you ever prove this beyond a reasonable doubt?

I would bet against it.

I don't think that you could get this past the reasonable doubt stage.

Now, is it possible that you get a grand jury to indict?

Yes, that is totally possible.

I'm not going to predict it, but the grand jury stuff is sort of easy to get.

So, I would say that the evidence that uh Tulsi Gabbert has released and plus what we know is definitely enough for a grand jury to say that it should go to go to trial.

But I don't see any chance of a conviction.

That's what I think.

Anyway, apparently the Department of Justice has launched a what they call a strike force to investigate the Tulsi Gabard's claims that the intelligence community weaponized their department.

So the postmillennials reporting on that.

So that's good.

At least they're looking into it.

Um, here's my favorite story of the day.

So, you know that uh Trump has been trying to get rid of um Jerome Powell, the head of the Fed, but he would like him to quit.

He says he's not going to fire him because that would royal the markets.

And he's uh he's repeated Trump has that firing him is off the possibility.

The only way you'd be able to fire him is if he were involved in something so illegal or corrupt that the the public would say, "Oh, okay." You know, he he has the ability legally to fire him for cause, but the cause would have to be really obvious and the public would have to see it.

Now, if it's really obvious and the public sees it, well, then maybe the markets would understand.

It's like, oh, you can't let this go.

So, the question is, would there be anything like that?

Well, as you know, Bill PTE has been u he's been uh promoting the idea that there are lots of questions to be answered with the building or the uh what do you call it the the upgrades to the Federal Reserve headquarters, which apparently are budgeted at $2.5 billion.

And as Bill PTE points out, um that is a lot of money and you should be able to build an entire building for that, you know, much less just fix up the building that already exists.

So they have some real questions there.

And uh Py had said that he would be willing to, you know, tour the site because he has a background in construction as well.

You've heard of PE Homes.

Uh that was his grandfather's business and he worked there so he knows about construction.

Um Bill Py did visit.

I don't think he had a a reservation with him.

I think he just showed up at the site and saw there were there were only like half a dozen people working.

So does make you wonder where the 2.5 billion is going.

But here is the best part.

Trump is going to uh join uh Bill PE and James Blair and Russ Vot uh on his team and today they're going to be visiting the Federal Reserve building site.

Now remember I told you that Bill Py has a background in construction so he knows what he's talking about.

What does Trump have?

Trump has, you know, he also has an extreme background in construction, specifically for these larger buildings, which I think uh would be on point.

And this is just great.

Now, I don't know that this will have any impact on Jerome Powell because the the work wouldn't even be done while he's still in office.

His term ends in May, so he's not going to spend even one day in that building after it gets rehabbed.

But maybe, you know, somebody's taking some bribes or some of that money is being wasted.

There might be more to the story.

We don't know.

Uh the the budget is so big that asking questions makes sense.

So, imagine Trump um getting to uh attack his enemy, I guess you could call it that, Jerome Powell, by looking at a construction project.

And what do you think Trump is going to say about the construction project?

Do you think he's going to go there and say, "Oh, everything looks good.

Looks like they made all the right decisions.

That budget makes sense to me." No, he is going to absolutely eviscerate the whoever is doing the building of this thing and he's going to raise all kinds of questions and boy that's going to be a fun visit.

So, uh, so Bill Py, uh, congratulations for pushing that topic forward because, um, I've told you before that when you see the government competing to try to find out who can find more fraud and get rid of it, that is a really good sign of a healthy change.

If people were simply, you know, approving more budget and spending it, you're heading to doom.

But the Trump administration and Doge especially have changed the thinking such that your highest priority, and that's what this looks like, highest priority is to look for waste and and abuse.

And so it all makes sense.

They're looking for waste and abuse.

Um, I told you that uh Trump has humorously monetized things he couldn't solve.

So, he monetized the Ukraine war by saying, "We won't put any money into it, but we will sell Europe as many weapons as they want to buy." He monetized it.

He monetized um the fentinel problem by by using it as an excuse to raise tariffs on China and also Canada and Mexico I believe.

Uh so he so he couldn't solve it but he monetized it.

And now apparently Colombia University is settling with the government for the government's claims that they were being too discriminatory against white people and not doing enough for anti-semitism.

But do you think that's a solvable problem?

Do you think you can just fix these colleges?

Maybe not.

But he monetized it.

So now Colombia is settling and they've agreed to pay $200 million to the federal government over three years and uh they're also going to settle for some equal opportunity commission for 21 million now.

So this will in theory Colombia will stop discriminating and maybe do more to squash anti-semitism.

So that was what was asked of them.

But they're also going to pay $200 million plus $21 million.

And we don't believe that they will completely get rid of all their DEI and all their bad practices.

They'll probably just hide it a little bit.

So here again, you have a problem that I don't think you could completely solve.

I mean, you could shrink it a little bit.

And that looks like what's happening.

But he's monetized it.

He monetized it again.

Um Harit Dylan uh she's on the job of chasing an all the DEI um criminals.

I say criminal because DEI is illegal at the federal level anyway.

And she's going after companies and entities that are not following the law on DI DI.

So, she's the assistant attorney general and I I'm watching her with great interest because she appears to be very capable and uh she's in the right job.

I saw a post by the rabbit hole um on X who asks this question.

Um he says uh legacy media will publish endless articles about men uh but rarely if ever cover the radicalization of women.

Now the article about men I think he means um that men are more Republican.

They're moving Republican in a big way.

But who is talking about the fact that women have been radicalized?

It's a good point.

If if men had been radicalized the way women have been radicalized, it would be a huge topic and everybody would say, "We have to unradicalize these men." What happened to these men?

They're believing all this ridiculous stuff.

But when it's women who are the radicalized ones on the left, I don't know that there's a lot of talk about reprogramming them and their mental illness or their radicalization.

Now, is he right?

I mean, this is anecdotal.

It's just observational, but I do wonder about that.

It does seems like if we're going to talk about TDS being an actual mental problem, which it is, um we should talk about the radicalization of women, especially the crazy ones because there are so many of them.

Um, according to Gizmodo, Matt Novak is writing that uh CNN says the FDA's new drug approval uh involves AI.

So AI is helping the FDA decide what to approve.

So that sounds good, right?

Probably a big improvement in their speed and the accuracy because they're using AI.

Well, well, there's a problem.

Apparently, the AI is uh hallucinating in this realm as well.

So, it's actually making up studies that never existed.

Oh, yeah.

This uh this drug should be fine.

Uh here's a study that says it works great.

But if the human didn't know to check to see if that study existed, they would be approving something for the wrong reason or disapproving it.

So that's scary.

AI is literally making up um scientific studies and inserting it into the conversation.

Oh my goodness.

So RFK Jr.

signed a recommendation to remove a um component called theosol from the the regular flu vaccines, not from the co stuff, but from regular seasonal flu vaccines.

Now, there's a little bit of a backstory to that.

Uh this thing called theosol, um at one point RFK Jr.

thought it was a cause of autism because it used to be in a lot of different shots, but apparently it got removed from the childhood shots a while ago back in 2001.

But it did not make any change in the rate of autism.

So if this had been the cause of autism, which is what RFK Jr.

suspected way back then.

Um the removal of it would have by now shown all kinds of improvements.

The the the number of people who had autism diagnosis when they were young would drop down back down to some historical baseline which was a lot lower, but it didn't.

Um, however, there's still some concern about that component and it wasn't in many things at this point, but it was in the seasonal flu shots.

To which I say, how many of you get the seasonal flu shot?

Long before the pandemic, a lot of you said, um, this seasonal flu shot is right?

Uh, I I'm one of those people, you know, once you learned that the the seasonal flu wasn't even tuned to the seasonal flu.

It it was tuned to last year's flu, which you're not going to get this year.

I mean, once I heard that, I thought, are you kidding me?

How's that even possibly true that we're we're highly recommended to get a flu shot that's designed for a virus that doesn't exist?

How in the world is that possible?

Now, I never looked into it that hard, but once I heard that, you know, that was the last time I got one of those.

So maybe someday we'll learn what causes autism or what caused the increase in it, but it looks like it wasn't that particular part of the shots.

Um, according to Newsmax, there's a Mccclaclin poll, 77% of Americans oppose amnesty for illegals.

Now, the amnesty would not just allow them to stay here, but wouldn't it also allow them to be citizens?

So, 77% oppose that.

56% uh say deport everyone who's an undocumented migrant.

56%.

So, that's where that's at.

So, I believe that although uh there's going to be a lot of complaining, it looks like the public is sort of back in Trump, at least by a majority.

Here's something else to worry about.

According to interesting engineering, uh it's possible to use wifi as a sort of a whole body fingerprint fingerprint to track humans.

So in other words, it turns out that if you were in your house where there was Wi-Fi, the Wi-Fi would be disturbed by your body, you know, the way it's disturbed by any object in the house.

But the way your specific body disturbs Wi-Fi apparently is unique.

So, with about 95% accuracy, if if they've picked up how you distort Wi-Fi on one Wi-Fi system and then you went to another Wi-Fi system, they would know it was you if they had access to the Wi-Fi in both places.

Now, they don't, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine that they could get it.

So, that's a new way to track people.

tracking by their disturbance to the Wi-Fi system.

Scary, huh?

Well, apparently the Israeli uh is it Ness or Knesset?

I never know.

I I read it, but I never hear it pronounced.

They voted 71 to13 in favor of a non-binding motion for the agenda in favor of annexing the West Bank.

Um, so all right.

So I don't think that has any impact anything.

Um, I may have written that down wrong, too.

So forget about that story.

I don't have anything to say about it.

The only thing I'm going to say about the uh the uh two-state solution in Israel is that there's no way that's going to happen.

There's just no way there's going to be a two-state solution.

Uh that's my that's my prediction.

All right.

The largest teacher union in the United States, which is the NEA.

All right.

So, it's the largest teachers association uh union.

It's a union according to the Washington Free Beacon.

This is hard to believe, but I'll tell you what the story is.

um that that they want the materials that um people are using to learn history to include that the Holocaust had uh 12 million victims instead of 6 million.

6 million would be the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

But the NEA wants to expand what students think of the Holocaust to 12 million because that would include people from different faiths and that they would leave out from history the idea that Germany and Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jewish people.

So they want to just leave that part out and say, well, it wasn't the Jewish people per se, but it was people of different faiths and that there were 12 million of them.

So it's not really a story about, you know, what happened to the Jews.

It's more of a story about 12 million people of different faiths.

Now on top of that um uh they want to include uh lessons that say that would teach students that Israel was founded through quote forced violent displacement and dispossession.

So it would go hard at Israel for the knockbar and kicking out the uh the Palestinians who were in that location where Israel was formed.

And they would try to redefine or reframe the Holocaust as not being specifically a Jewish problem and not making it well.

So, I'm no historian, but let me just talk about it politically.

How in the world can the this teachers union survive that?

Don't you feel that Israel and the ADL and certainly all the Jewish teachers who were part of that union, don't you think they're going to go as hard as you could possibly go at that union?

I've got a feeling if you were hoping for the teachers unions to be somehow neutered that we're a lot closer to that than you thought.

Because if you get the entire Jewish community, both domestic and internationally saying, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

You can't take away the Holocaust from us.

You can't take that away.

It's it's too it's too uh you know it's too built into our entire narrative, our history, uh our understanding of who we are, our understanding of the risks of of being in that situation and all that.

So I feel like the NEA, the biggest teachers union, just declared war on domestic and international Jews by this.

I mean, how do they survive that?

We'll see.

But it is uh certainly suggestive of a gigantic change where the uh Jewish Americans and Israel in particular um have just had a reputational destruction in the past year, past year or so.

So things are going to get frothy.

Um, Russia apparently is doing some publicity on what they call the the world's largest drone factory in Russia.

So, wonderful engineering is talking about this and uh it's the Alabuga Alaba factory in Tatterstan.

Um, and it's supposedly the biggest drone making facility in the world.

But here's the part that interested me.

Um, apparently for that factory 25,000 North Koreans, industrial workers were shipped in to do the work.

Do you think that the only reason that they shipped in North Koreans to do that work is because they work cheaper?

Do they work cheaper?

Maybe.

Um, is it possible that um there just weren't enough Russians?

Is Russia running out of people to do new stuff?

I feel like the biggest story is that they didn't have domestic employees to run the most important factory in their country.

They didn't have enough Russians.

Are all the Russians that can walk and do things, have they already been shipped to the war?

Have they already been killed?

Uh why in the world do they need 25,000 North Koreans for their factory?

Are you telling me that the employment situation in Russia is so good that people already had better jobs than this one?

I don't know.

I don't know.

I have questions.

But I do think that that Russia may have a population collapse uh problem that has not been discussed enough.

I think they're running out of young people.

And if you run out of young people, you're kind of in trouble.

So, we'll see.

I also wonder, I didn't look on the map to figure out where Tatterstan is, but if it's within missile range of Ukraine, is it possible the Ukraine is going to use American weapons to destroy the biggest drone factory in Russia?

And if they didn't try, why wouldn't they?

Can you think of any reason why the Ukrainians would not use if our missiles can reach it?

Do you think that they would buy new missiles and just take out the drone factory?

Cuz I don't know how a drone factory survives in a war.

Isn't the drone factory the very first thing you bomb?

I mean, I haven't run any wars, but that's how I'd handle it.

All right, that's all I got for you today.

Sorry I went late.

I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers.

Beloved, beloved local subscribers, thanks for the rest of you for paying attention.

And I will see you tomorrow, same time, same place in 30 seconds.

Hello everybody. Come on in. Stream on

in. It's almost time for the live show

you've been craving.

I will get your comments working and

then we'll have something.

Oh yeah, now we got something.

[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 on elevating

your experience up to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains. All you need for

that is a copper mug or a glass, a

tanker galistine, a kenzene jug or

flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it

with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit

of the day, the thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip and it happens now. Go.

Woody says it's the first time he's ever

done this simultaneous sip. Well, now

don't you feel foolish that you never

did it until now? I know.

I know. It is uh hypnotically designed

to make you feel better.

That's actually true. So, it's not a

accident that I do a simultaneous sip of

your favorite beverage. And it's not an

accident that I like to do it

simultaneously. It's because it gives

you a little bit, just a small one, free

boost of dopamine. Probably dopamine.

That would be my guess. But yes, you

will enjoy it. Elon Musk had some things

to say. Tesla's profits uh or their

financials came out yesterday.

But among other things uh he has said

recently, he said that Starling

satellites will soon well actually now

can broadcast directly to your cell

phone. I suppose it depends which cell

phone surface you use. I don't think

it's all of them yet, but you will not

need to be near a cell tower. Um, you

will be able to use your phone anywhere

on Earth and I believe that's already

active. So, but you would need the right

cell service.

Speaking of uh Elon Musk, the Cyber Cab

estimates

um for what it would cost, I think it's

per mile, is that it would be as low as

25 to 30 cents for driving a cyber cab.

Now, you wouldn't drive it. has no

steering wheel, but uh it would be way

cheaper than any other driving solution.

And one of the reasons is that uh Elon

explains

that if you're making an automobile

that's just essentially a taxi cab that

doesn't have a driver, you can skip a

lot of expense. So, they can make them

kind of cheaply. They they assume that

they will not have to, you know, go

around corners at 80 miles an hour

because nobody would do that in a taxi.

Well, hopefully. So, you can just u

remove the ability for the car to do

high-end stuff because it will never do

that that stuff. And then

um production for the Cyber Cab is on

track for volume production in 2026.

And uh it'll be rolling out um in

Florida, Arizona, California, Nevada,

and more. And uh te um Elon says that if

we execute well, Tesla has a shot at

being the most valuable company in the

world.

The most valuable company in the world.

Now that would mean you know car sales

and cyber cabs and uh robots and all

that but to be the most valuable company

in the world they would have to beat

what? Nvidia.

I think Nvidia is the most expensive

company, right? Four trillion.

Well, we'll see. That would make uh that

would make Elon the first trillionaire.

Do you think he'll get there?

I feel like he will. I feel like Elon

will be the first trillionaire. And

that's really only four times what he

already has. So if if it's true that

Tesla, you know, executes well with

cyber cabs and with robots and more

cars, could it go up by,

you know, multiple of four?

Yeah, it could.

Well, let's uh let's see what the

competition is doing over at Uber. Um CB

CNBC is reporting that Uber is going to

allow a new option that if you're a

woman who wants to ride on Uber, you can

request a woman uh driver.

Now, that's a problem that Tesla won't

have at all because they don't have a

driver.

Which would you prefer if you had a

choice? I think I'll try to get an Uber,

but I have to wait for a woman to be

available.

Or I will summon my cyber cab because

there's no driver. I don't have to worry

about it.

Uber is not looking very competitive at

the moment because I don't know what

your experience is, but most Uber

drivers I think are male.

I don't know what the ratio is, but I

would guess three out of four. And

sometimes it's hard enough to get a

ride. Imagine how hard it would be if

you had to wait for the one out of four

um who's a woman who has been requested

by every single woman who wanted a ride.

I feel like Uber may have a plan for

putting themselves out of business.

Doesn't look like that could work. Elon

Musk also says, quote, "Batteries

are going to be a massive thing. The

scale of battery demand, I think that

not many people appreciate just how

gigantic the scale of battery demand

is."

And he goes on to say that only 0. 0001%

of people seem to appreciate this

crucial point. And that crucial point

would be this

um that the sustained power output from

the US grid is about 1 terowatt but

average usage is less than half of it.

So if you add batteries to the mix you

can run the power plants 24 hours a day

at full capacity more than doubling the

energy output per year of the United

States just with batteries. Now, every

time I bring up the fact that batteries

are going to be a big solution for our

energy needs in the future, I'm really

just, you know, cribbing from Elon Musk.

And it's not that I know anything about

batteries. It's just that I think he

probably knows more than you know about

batteries.

That's my whole B. I think he's looked

into it. Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's

researched batteries.

Uh, in other news, uh, teens are

starting to turn to, uh, AI for their

companionship

and, uh, they it's a much bigger thing

than you probably think. the teens using

AI. Some of them use it all day long.

Just have somebody to talk to and ask

about normal stuff like um for example,

let's see, this is written in give

credit to Joselyn Gekcker in fizz.org.

Um there's a uh young person named

Kayla, a high school student in Kansas.

She says, "No question is too small for

AI." So, the 15-year-old has always

asked Chad GPT for stuff about uh back

to school shopping and makeup colors and

low calorie um food and ideas for

birthday party,

etc.

Now, I don't want to get ahead of this

too far, but one of the things that I've

predicted for now probably 20 years is

that when it gets to the point where AI

and virtual reality and robots and stuff

become preferable to human contact,

we're in a lot of trouble.

And I would say that if you look at the

quality of the average teenager,

imagine trying to be friends with a

teenager even if you were a teenager.

Well, they wouldn't be very attentive or

nice. They might be bullies. They might

be judgmental.

But your AI, as the teens point out, is

never judgmental. It's always optimistic

and it's always helpful.

How is a human teenager going to compete

with that?

Because humans bring so many problems

with them. But the AI doesn't bring any

problems. It's just something you can

talk to and it does what you want, the

way you want it to. So, we may be

approaching that point where teens say,

"I don't really need a mate. I'll take

care of that myself."

Well, here's uh something I'm not too

surprised at. Well, maybe a little bit,

but the Mcron

um Bridget and uh whatever her husband's

name is, what is Mcronone's first name

in France? Um, they're suing Kansas

Owens

for Kansas Owens continuous claims that

Brit Breijit Mcronone was born a man.

So, um,

what what would you bet will happen with

that? It seems to me that if you did

discovery,

and you would have to, wouldn't Bridg

Bridget Mcronone need to prove that

she's biologically female in order to

win her case?

And uh Candace is doubling down. Um,

quote, "You were born a man and you will

die a man." That's the point I'm making.

I think you're sick. I think you're

disgusting. that I am fully prepared to

take on this battle, meaning the lawsuit

on behalf of the entire world. Uh, I'll

see you in court.

Now, do you think that the Mcron would

sue her unless they could easily

provide, let's say, DNA that would prove

she was a woman? I don't feel that they

would make a big deal out of this if

there was any chance they would lose.

So, I'm going to say

that um unless they're bluffing and

trying to force her into settling in

some way or shutting up or apologizing

and I don't think that this would be a

good bluff.

So, my best guess is that Bridget

Mcronone was born a woman.

That's just my best guess because I

don't think they would do the lawsuit if

Candace were right. I think they would

just try to shut her up some other way.

Um, so Candace, I wish you well. I'm

still a big fan of Candace Owens. I

don't I don't need to agree with her on

everything and I know she's a good

stirer, but wow is she talented. She is

so talented. Um, I'm always impressed by

that.

Well, Hunter Biden, um,

I love how Hunter Biden can make any

situation worse.

just when the topic has changed a little

bit from um his father's brain and that

cover up, he does a he does a podcast

and he he says, and I didn't catch this

as being the problem, but now I

understand it is. He said that his

father was on ambient, the sleeping

pill, and that that might explain

because there's a little there's a

fairly substantial after effect of the

ambient which they tell you about. It's

a well understood phenomenon. Um, and

that that might be why he the father Joe

didn't do well at the debate because it

might have been a little ambient

hangover happening there.

Now, it turns out that the medical

establishment would like you to know,

and I saw this on a Dr. Drew clip on

Instagram. Um, Dr. Drew points out that

if you had a patient that was that age

and had trouble walking and maybe there

was some Parkinson's going on, I don't

think that's confirmed, but uh if you

had somebody who was as unstable and as

old as Joe Biden and then on top of that

um he his job was to wake up at 3:00

a.m. If there's an emergency, you know,

the president's job, that it would be

close to,

you know, almost a criminal activity to

prescribe ambient to somebody like that

in that specific situation. It wouldn't

be illegal, but it would be on that, you

know, dangerously flirting with

malpractice because if something

happened, if that person uh that age and

that mobility fell over, um, everybody

would say, well, it's because somebody

gave them ambient. Everybody knows if

you give ambient to somebody in that

condition, the odds of them falling down

are much higher. So maybe you shouldn't

have done that. So somehow Hunter um

took a topic that was fading in our

minds. You know, we were starting to

forget a little bit about the Biden

brain coverup and then we find out that

maybe the way he was cared for was

horrible.

If it's true, we don't know it's true,

but if it's true that ambient was part

of the story, boy, somebody has a lot of

explaining to do, which would be his

doctor, I would think. But we don't know

for sure that he was on ambient or that

had anything to do with anything.

Unfortunately, Hunter is not the most

reliable witness.

Well, if you were waiting to find out

what would happen in the courts with uh

Trump's effort to ban uh birthright

citizenship, that's where if somebody's

not a citizen, but they have a baby in

our country. The Constitution seems to

say that those babies would be

automatically citizens, but Trump

doesn't want that. And a lot of people

who are proTrump don't want that

situation. And so Trump tried to ban it,

but uh you would not be surprised to

know that uh a a federal appeals court

just ruled that um Trump can't do that

and that those babies are indeed

citizens of the United States. So that's

a ruling from the 9inth US Circuit Court

of Appeals. But that just means that

this topic gets bumped up to the Supreme

Court. Now, how many of you think the

Supreme Court

will ban, which is what Trump would

want, ban birthright citizenship by

interpreting the Constitution in a sort

of an originalist form? Um, where nobody

really anticipated this particular

problem, which is massive unchecked

immigration and lots of babies. So,

what's your bet? I wouldn't put a bet on

this one.

Yeah. Yeah. I see in the comments 50/50.

That's exactly where I am. If you said,

Scott, place a bet. Yeah. You must you

must think one of those is more likely

than the other. I really don't. To me,

this is a total coin flip. It Well,

uh I'll uh I'll commit. All right. I'll

commit. I I'll commit to the Supreme

Court will not ban birthright

citizenship.

I feel like it would be too big of a

move even for the all the conservatives.

There might be a few votes for it, but I

I think the Supreme Court's going to

agree with the lower court. What do you

think? Anything is possible.

So, it's possible it could go the other

way, but I'll uh just for fun, I'll uh

keep my prediction that it only goes one

way.

Well, uh Nikita Byer, who is the head of

product X, did a post at X called the

current state of the medical

establishment. So, listen to this

experience. Um so, Nikita says, u

brought a friend to the ER for a high

fever.

uh put their symptoms into Grock. Grock

told me to ask for four tests. The

doctor, this is the ER doctor, said one

of them is unnecessary. I insisted we do

them all. The test came back positive on

the one he didn't want to do.

So that's the state of current medicine.

your doctor has a lot of things on his

or her mind, especially an ER doctor,

you know, they're they're just seeing

lots of different things come through

all day long. So, imagine the cognitive

load on their brain, first of all. Then

second of all, um imagine all the

possible things that can go wrong with

any prescription or any diagnosis, etc.

And if you're not already checking your

doctor's work with AI,

you should start,

may I say that again as loudly as

possible, you should never take medical

advice from me on anything because I'm a

cartoonist and not your doctor. But I do

think we've reached the point in history

where if you're not at least looking at

the AI to see what it says compared to

your doctor, but then ultimately you

should check with your doctor, right? If

the doctor says no AI is hallucinating,

I would go with the doctor.

But you want to know what the other

argument is. So I'll give you my

experience recently. So, a lot of my

doctoring, especially because of the

holidays, I couldn't get in for an

actual doctor when I had a shingles

attack, which I've recently recovered

from. So, my neck and the side of my

face was breaking out in some kind of

mysterious

uh bumps.

And I started by sending a picture

because I could still get some service

from my healthc care provider by email

and said, "Take a look at this picture."

And then I guessed there might be spider

bites because there were only three or

four bumps.

And the doctor who was covering for my

doctor who was on vacation said, "Well,

you know, it might be spider bites, but

we don't know. So take some antibiotics

and do something else. Take some allergy

stuff." But what they didn't guess is

shingles. So that wasn't part of the the

guess.

Uh so time goes by and it gets worse. So

from three bumps it goes to I don't know

15 15 bumps or so. At that point uh my

own experience kicked in and I said it's

only in one place. There's no way that a

spider is coming back to bite me every

day in that same one area and no place

else. Um, so it's probably something

else. And so I guessed shingles, which

I've never seen. I've never seen anybody

who had it, but I, you know, used AI and

looked it up and it looked to me it

looked like the pictures on the

internet. So I wrote back to my doctor

and said, "You know what? I think it's

shingles." And then I got a prescription

for exactly what I needed for shingles.

The doctor agreed as there were more

bumps. Now, to be fair, when there were

only, you know, three or four bumps, it

could have been a bug bite.

Um, it it was only obvious to me when

there were lots of them. But if you're

not doing that exercise where first you

check with AI, then you check with your

doctor, and then after your doctor tells

you something, you check with AI again.

Maybe even check on the medication that

was prescribed and maybe check it

against all of your other medications.

Have you done this yet? Take your AI and

put it on the visual mode where it can

see what you see. then take a picture of

all your medications and all of your um

nonprescription drugs, you know, say

supplements and stuff so that the AI

knows what you're already on. And then

if something else is u is prescribed,

even the doctor doesn't know about your

supplements probably. So then your AI

would tell you, hey, don't do this one

with that one or stop doing this one

with that one.

So, um, yes, check your AI. Speaking of

AI, Trump signed three, uh,

administrative executive orders, I

guess, on AI. And, uh, one of them is

that, uh, the US government will not buy

any AI product that's too woke. So, it

can't be essentially an anti-white

person AI. the government will not uh be

part of that.

It says uh Trump would not uh would not

allow the government to buy an AI that

says George Washington was black or that

or that refuses to uh note that white

people had some accomplishments in

history. Um or argue that misgendering

someone is worse than a nuclear

apocalypse. All those things have

actually happened. So, there's that.

Anyway, Trump appears to be um AI's

biggest friend. Um but he's willing to

take out a little more risk that maybe

another leader would. And I feel like

that's exactly the right place to be. If

you were to make a continuum of, you

know, a graph or something of all the

people who are afraid of AI, you know,

what it might do in the near future, you

would have people who say, "Yeah, you

should slow down." And you would have

other people just in case, you know,

it's an existential threat. And other

people would say, "You better hurry up

because the biggest existential threat

is your competitor getting there first."

So you got two ways to die. One is being

too slow with AI and the other is being

too fast and not having enough guard

rails. Two ways to die. Trump is biased

toward um beating the competition.

So that would be optimism that we could

control the worst, you know,

possibilities

of the AI, but we wouldn't be able to

control the worst impulses of the human

leaders of other countries that are

adversaries.

I feel like he's exactly right on that.

It's a guess because you don't know

which way it could go, right? It could

go either way, but I would take his his

same uh risk. I would say that the

biggest risk is somebody gets there

first. That's a big big risk. The risk

of it killing us just because that's

built into the risk of the technology.

I feel we have a much better chance of

controlling that than we do of

controlling let's say China.

So I think Trump is completely right on

this and that would mean that uh David

Sachs is advising him really well and I

think that is the case if Trump isn't

listening to everything that the Sachs

tells him. That would be a mistake. But

by now, I'm pretty sure the

administration and Trump in particular,

he knows who the smart people are. And

when Saxs tells him what to do on one of

these topics like crypto or AI, I'm

pretty sure he's listening. And that is

just nothing would make me more

comfortable than that because Sax also

is connected to all the people who know

everything about those topics. So, it's

not like he's sitting in a room by

himself making up opinions. he's

connected to all the smartest people. So

that is really good news in terms of the

organization of your government.

Um MSNBC

is saying out loud that the worst

predictions that inflation was going to

be fueled by Trump's tariffs have not

turned out to be the case. So MSNBC is

saying directly, well, we were kind of

worried about all this inflation, but by

now we should have seen some. Uh Scott

Basant, head out of the Treasury is

explaining that the reason for that is

probably that uh that the cost increases

are being absorbed by the the shipper or

the receiver

and that there were some margins there

that they had to play with. We might not

see

we might never see uh inflation caused

by that. Now, have I ever told you that

economics is mostly guessing?

Wouldn't you think that the easiest

thing you could predict if you were some

professional economist is whether these

tariffs would increase inflation?

Shouldn't that be right on the list of

the easiest things you could ever

predict?

And apparently it went the other way so

far. I mean, it could all reverse

tomorrow, I suppose. But at the moment,

pretty much almost every economist got

this wrong. I'm I'm thinking back to my

days under Jimmy Carter's presidency

and there was a belief that you couldn't

have um slow growth and inflation at the

same time so-called stagflation for

stagnant economy with inflation but it

happened and I think the economist said

that's not even possible but it

happened.

So, a lot of uh a lot of what you think

is science and economics, it really

isn't. It really isn't.

Uh meanwhile, the US and the EU

are getting closer to a deal according

to a number of reports. Um and Trump

says he's got a 15% tariff deal with

Japan, which would be a gigantic relief

because they're one of our bigger

trading partners. And uh that would be

an improvement for the US.

And as I've said a number of times that

uh Trump will apparently given that

things look like they're starting to

work out, he will be announcing big

trade deals that are better for America

probably one a week for weeks and weeks

and weeks. And the Democrats are going

to be so mad.

So mad that the main thing they had to

about, which was the tariffs, are

turning out to be a gigantic victory

that you will be reminded of every week

because it'll just be one after another

saying, "All right, all right, we'll pay

extra tariffs and your inflation is not

going up."

Well, uh, Representative James Comr has

issued and his group in Congress issued

a subpoena to Galain Maxwell and I

believe that they're planning to talk to

her today at her prison. So, that means

somebody in his group will depose her or

get her opinion on a bunch of questions

today.

Um, but I would like to point out that

the the uh theory that we live in a

simulation is now proven by the fact

that comr is going against a groomer.

Comr versus the groomer. Come on. We

must be living in a simulation. There's

no way that's natural.

So, will we learn anything? I don't

think so. My my guess is that Galain has

nothing to say. Do you do you know what

I would do if I were Gain?

I would say um I'm happy to sit here and

listen to your questions, but it would

be against my interest to answer them.

Because if I'm going to tell you some

juicy stuff that you really want to

hear, and boy do I have some juicy

stuff. If you want me to name names, I'm

not going to do it from prison. you're

going to have to get to the DOJ and

you're going to have to make me a deal

to get out of prison. Uh, and then I'll

tell you everything you need to know.

So, I feel as if there's a very low odds

that she will name names we haven't

heard before.

So, I wouldn't I wouldn't get all

excited about this one.

Well, apparently we have learned that

the Department of Justice told Trump

back in May that his name, among many

other names of people, are on the

Epstein files. Now, that doesn't mean

he's on the client list, and there is no

client list that we know of. It just

means that he's mentioned as are many

prominent people who knew Epstein but

does not mean and there is no indication

that Trump is accused of any unto

behavior.

So

is it possible that the real reason

Trump wants the Epstein files to go away

is that his name is in the files?

Maybe.

Yeah. Maybe.

And if he knows that he was not guilty

of anything, but it would give the

Democrats this gigantic hammer to hammer

him on endlessly.

I could see why he might say, "Uh, we're

done here. There's nothing to see. I

don't know if that's why, but you could

imagine that that would be a pretty good

reason from his perspective."

Well, I'll uh I'll say again, there's no

indication. whatsoever that Trump is

accused of any bad behavior.

It's just his name is mentioned as a

presumably an associate or friend of or

a contact of Epstein's at one point

before he banned him from Marago and cut

all contact.

Um,

apparently the House panel is also

directing the chairman to subpoena Bill

and Hillary Clinton about the Epstein

probe according to Fox News. Now, do you

think that Hillary and Bill Clinton will

have anything to say

that won't be a lie?

I don't think we're going to learn

anything from either of those two.

They're a little bit too smooth. Uh, we

might find out what the def definition

of is is and maybe Bill Clinton will

say, "I did not I did not sleep with any

of those women." Well, how about this

one? No, not that one either. How about

this one and this one? No, not them

either. I did not sleep with them. So,

he might be busy.

Um, Hakee Jeff, Democrat Hakee Jeff

says, uh, quote, "It is reasonable to

conclude the Republicans are continuing

to protect the lifestyles of the rich

and shameless, even if that includes

pedophiles." So, he's talking about the

nonrelease of all of the Epstein files,

right? Because we assume there's stuff

we haven't seen that would tell us

something. So here is my lesson for the

day. Uh this is something I learned in

hypnosis class years ago. And do you

remember I told you that when Trump said

he was asked some question recently, he

started his answer with I would say and

I told you that if you start with I

would say whatever follows that is going

to be a lie.

You don't start a true statement that

you believe in that's just a statement

of truth. You don't start that sentence

with well I would say you just don't

you only do that when you're saying

something that may not fully check out.

So

has a similar tell when he says it's

reasonable to conclude.

You don't start your sentence with it's

reasonable to conclude if it's

reasonable to conclude

and it's also true and it's obvious and

it's just a fact. You just don't start

with those words. It's reasonable to

conclude. So, in hypnosis class, what I

learned,

among other things, is that when people

say things

um extemporaneously, meaning they're

talking off the top of their heads, they

often will say the truth if you just

look for it in the exact wording.

So, people have a real hard problem of

not saying what's true when they're

speaking off the top of their head. It's

just that they might hide it in a part

of a sentence that says the opposite of

what is true. This would be it. I would

say signal or it's reasonable to

conclude signal.

And there's probably a million varieties

of that, but yeah, that's that's telling

you he doesn't believe what he's saying.

Well, another no surprise. Zero Hedge is

reporting that uh a judge has denied the

DOJ request to unseal the Epstein grand

jury transcripts. How many of you

thought that just because the Department

of Justice asked for that to be done

that you were going to see the Epstein

grand jury transcripts?

If you believe that was going to happen,

um you were not well informed on that

topic. I don't think there was really

any chance it was going to happen. And

I'm happy it didn't. I I would rather I

would rather preserve the standard

that if you're going to if you're going

to violate something like that, which

is, you know, really intended to be

private because the grand jury is not

like the actual case with um proven

evidence and facts.

It's uh way more speculative as in yeah,

yeah, that looks like it probably should

go to court, but it hasn't gone to

court, which means that the defense has

not presented its defense. So, if you

saw a bunch of accusations on a grand

jury transcript,

you being not a lawyer, you would never

say, "Well, it's just a grand jury, you

know, we can't take that as fact." No.

in a political sense, you would

immediately treat it like it was fact

when you shouldn't. So, I'm in favor of,

as much as I would love to see all the

Epstein stuff, I wouldn't want it to be

revealed this way. And so, I I agree

with the court to keep the grand jury

testimony private.

Um,

we've learned that Barack Obama was um

at his home, which was right near where

his personal chef drowned.

So,

he's not uh Obama is not being blamed

for drowning him, but apparently he was

there um not necessarily at the drowning

site, but at his home that was right

nearby.

Um, oh, I'm seeing in the comments that

Duritz thinks Maxwell should be released

because five years

is usually the max sentence for what she

did.

H

and uh he says that she got basically

Epstein's sentence because Epstein

wasn't available. Well, he's probably

right. Um anyway, so but there was one

witness we heard on this uh personal

chef drowning, Obama's personal chef

that there was a woman who witnessed it,

saw him fall off his board and not come

up. And uh so we have one witness that

it was an accident as opposed to the

murder that you might have suspected,

but we have not heard much about that

witness.

So I wouldn't say that that's 100%

conclusive, but I would lean toward

accident.

Well, the big news yesterday was Tulsi

Gabard DNI uh released new documents

about the Russia Russia Russia hoax and

Trump. And

she's not recommending specific charges

for anybody. Uh but she says and says it

repeatedly that the Department of

Justice uh now knows what she knows

because they've turned it over to the

Department of Justice and they alone

will decide if there are any legal

charges that are appropriate.

But uh don't look to Tulsi Gabbert to

tell you if some law was broken. That is

um the domain of the Department of

Justice which which is looking into it.

Um, but let me tell you what we think we

know now. We know now from documents

that Obama was made aware that uh

Hillary Clinton was planning a fake

hoax. Uh, the Clinton plan intelligence

it was called. So he knew that in the

summer of 2016, so before the election

he knew that Clinton was doing this fake

thing.

Um,

and I guess John Durham mentioned it in

a report, so that's how Obama would know

it. Uh, then Obama directed the creation

of a new intelligence community

assessment

that said instead of saying what it said

at first, which is there's no evidence

that the Russians directly um directly

hacked the voting systems and changed

any votes. So there's no evidence of any

of that, but uh Obama directed them to

um rewrite it

um after Trump was victorious in the

election.

So that's a little suspicious looking,

right? Um and the rewrite would focus on

Russia's meddling, but it wouldn't

change the fact that they didn't see any

direct changing of votes on the election

system.

Um then the President Obama was part of

uh uh big discussions in January of

2017. Remember that's just when Trump's

coming into office then uh related to

the FBI's targeting of Trump national

security adviser Mike Flynn. Now we know

that the Mike Flynn targeting was

completely illegitimate.

And now we know that Obama was in the

meetings when the decisions about what

illegitimate things they would do

against Mike Flynn uh were discussed.

Um

and then uh Gabbert says there is

irrefutable evidence that details how

Obama and his national security team

directed the creation of an int

intelligence community assessment that

they knew was false. Now, here's the

part where it gets dicey. How do we know

what somebody else knew?

I mean, I I get that the circumstantial

evidence and the direct evidence

certainly indicate that they must have,

you know, known that they were making up

a fake hoax. Um, they must have known it

was fake.

But

I'm going to double down on my opinion

that you wouldn't be able to prove it in

court.

So the standard that you and I go by is

sort of a common sense standard. If we

know that these people did this and that

and we know what their incentives were,

you can reasonably conclude what they

knew and why they did it. But I don't

know that it's it's going to be any

legal standard for that, you know,

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because

it seems that they could simply claim

that they thought it was real. Now, you

might say to me, Scott, they knew that

the steel the steel dossier was not

credible and yet they used it as part of

their explanation of why they could go

after uh Trump. To which I say there's a

big difference between knowing it's not

credible

and knowing none of it's true

because they can claim we knew some of

it was not credible. We didn't know at

the time that none of it was true. They

might even claim some of it was true

because you've heard him say that

recently. Well, not everything was

debunked. Even though I think there's no

evidence for any of it, but there's some

of it that maybe wasn't debunked. It's

just there's no evidence for it.

So, is that the same? If you can't

debunk something, but you can't prove it

didn't happen,

maybe sort of you could argue that the

intelligence people said, well, you

know, it wasn't the the best evidence

talking about the steel dossier, but it

did fit the other stuff we were looking

at in some way. So, somehow it fit into

the larger story. So, you know, it was

our judgment that that needed to be part

of it.

Now, in retrospect, we can look at it

and say, "Well, that was a terrible

judgment."

But do you think they can argue, "Well,

we were wrong. Maybe we were wrong, but

that was our legitimate judgment that

the Russia was helping Trump." It just

seemed likely.

So, I don't think that anybody's going

to get perwalked and put in jail over

this. I know you want it, and I want it,

too. Trust me, I want people to go to

jail. I just don't want you to feel too

disappointed when it doesn't happen. Get

it? I'm priming you. Um,

what else? Bill O'Reilly, Bill O'Reilly

predicts that U. John Brennan, who is

the CIA chief behind all of that, will

be indicted for publishing fraudulent

intelligence reports. He said that to

News Nation's Chris Cuomo. I don't know,

maybe indicted,

but convicted. I'm still going to say

no. He will just weasle his way out of

that, I think.

um and and he would be charged with

essentially making up the argument that

Putin intended or preferred Trump to

win. So apparently there's no evidence

that Putin wanted Trump to win or

expected he could. Uh and indeed there's

some evidence of the opposite although I

don't know how they got that. So, the

evidence for the opposite

um appears to come from secret sources.

So, I hate to say it, but I don't

believe any secret sources.

So, if they have secret sources that say

uh Putin knew

that uh that Hillary was going to win or

expected her to win and that he was

keeping some secrets to weaken her

administration when she got into office,

but that but that he was not trying to

get Trump into office. He was he was

trying to hold on to things to weaken

Hillary when she got into office. Now,

how do we know that? I'm pretty sure

that they can't tell us how they know

that because I would suggest some kind

of source that's pretty close to Putin

and we wouldn't want to give that up,

obviously.

So, I don't believe it. It might be

true. It might be true. But if you tell

me, "Trust us, we have secret ways of

knowing this information." That happens

to be exactly what my administration

wants you to think.

That's not good enough for me. But like

I say, I'm convinced that they're all

dirty and that they they did one of the

worst criminal acts of all time with the

Russian collusion hoax. So, I don't have

any doubt

that that they're bad actors who

deserve, you know, some legal justice,

but I'm not sure I buy every part of

everybody's story here.

Um,

uh, let's see. Uh,

[Music]

I wanted to tie together something else

here. So,

let me let me do a few other things and

I'll tie tie together some other stuff.

Um,

how many of you

found out that Obama's hoaxes,

which would include

the Russia hoax,

and it would also include the fine

people hoax because Obama was behind

that and Biden ran for office. Those two

hoaxes, I would argue,

um, ruined my life.

Let me say that again. Those two hoaxes,

Russia, Russia, Russia and the fine

people hoax, ruined my life cuz those

are the hoaxes that allowed my entire

social group to say, "Are you kidding

me? You're backing Trump.

Trump's a Russian uh puppet." And uh he

said that neo-Nazis are fine people. So

we can't even talk to you again. You're

so bad that we can't invite you

anywhere. We can't be your friend and

you should just off. So this is

very personal to me. Uh what what Obama

did was he divided the country with

these hoaxes because if you imagine a

different history where there had never

been a Russia hoax and there had never

been a fine people hoax.

Those were the two primary ways that

people became anti-Trumpers like really

serious ones where where the TDS comes

in.

Now, I would also argue that it's

possible

that uh that's what ushered in all the

woke stuff. It's what got me cancelled.

So, if you were to go back, you know,

trace the causes back to their origin,

you would find out that Obama and

Clinton

uh and Brandon, etc., and their hoaxes

ruined my life.

Now, I didn't realize that until today

because my natural personality is not to

complain about My natural

personality is to say, "Oh, that

happened. I guess I have to do this

now." So, I don't spend a ton of time

whining about bad things that happened

to me. I just sort of, you know, get

moving to fix it and make the best of

every situation.

But if you were to look at it

objectively, those

ruined my social life and then my

professional life. And it was entirely

based on two hoaxes.

So, do I want them in jail? Yes. Yes. I

want Obama in jail for ruining my life

with what looks like criminal acts to

me. And you know, I don't know if the

Finding People hoax was a criminal act,

but it was definitely a conspiracy. They

were all in on it and they all knew the

truth and the news backed them up. So,

the news was, you know, part of the bad

guys. If if you said there's a way to

make some of the news hosts

um get handcuffed and taken to jail

because they knew that they were

supporting a lie, I'd be in favor of

that. I I don't think there's any law

that would support that. Um but if there

were, yeah, I I think that some of the

people who ruined my life and maybe a

lot of your lives should go to jail.

Absolutely. I just don't think it's

going to happen.

All right. Um, speaking of Trump

derangement syndrome, which I would say

those two hoaxes triggered,

um, Graham Noble is writing in Liberty

Nation News that there were two

Republicans who back in May uh,

introduced

um, some legislation. I don't think it's

been passed, but the uh, they want to

have a Trump Derangement Syndrome

Research Act of 2025.

So the Republicans want it to be um part

of mental health that there's a Trump

syndrome and they want to the act if it

were passed um would involve

investigating TDS origins and

contributing factors including the

media's role in amplifying the spread of

TDS. Now I think it would go back to the

hoaxes.

I think it would go back to Obama and

and Russian gate and u find people

um and then it would ask people to

analyze its long-term impacts on

individuals me communities and public

discourse. Then explore interventions to

mitigate extreme behaviors informing

strategies for a healthier public

square. That's a little generic.

and then have some datadriven blah blah

blah and require an annual report to

Congress. So it is an epidemic.

It it is a mental health epidemic and I

think you can very clearly see that the

Democrat leadership created it

intentionally.

Uh maybe they didn't know how bad it

would be, but they did it intentionally

and they did it for political reasons

and it caused 50% of the country to have

a mental health breakdown.

Now I didn't get the mental health

breakdown. I just got the impact on my

social life and my professional life.

But mentally, I think I'm okay as far as

I know.

But their own team paid a big price.

How many of you remember that when uh

Hillary was running against Trump 2015

16 that uh I was saying publicly and

getting mocked mercilessly for it that

Hillary Clinton looked like she had a

major medical problem.

This was before, this is important,

before she collapsed and got dragged

into her car after the 9/11 event. Now,

after she she passed out and had to be

dragged into her car, I believe

everybody said the obvious. Hey, looks

like there might be some medical problem

that she's she's hiding there. So, it

was easy after she passed out. Can we

all agree on that? But I was saying it

maybe a year before that and I was even

predicting that she might die on the

campaign trail. Well, it turns out that

based on the Tulsi Gabbard new documents

that have come out that uh allegedly

Russian foreign intelligence services

they're they're spy people. Um, they

thought that Clinton was experiencing

significant health issues in 2016 that

Obama administration officials and

Democrat leaders found quote

extraordinarily alarming.

So, Russia was somehow aware, I think it

was because they hacked the DNC maybe,

um, but they were aware that the

Democrats

were super worried about Hillary

Clinton's health. So,

do you want to give me uh give me the

win on that? I was wrong that she she

did not uh she was not deceased

during the campaign. So, I was wrong on

that, but apparently it was pretty bad.

And she was uh the the specific claims

include her suffering from quote

intensified psycho emotional problems

with quote uncontrolled fits of anger,

aggression and cheerfulness

and being on a daily regimen of heavy

tranquilizers to manage those issues. Uh

the report also hinted at other

conditions. So this is nonconfirmed.

is eskeemic heart disease, type 2

diabetes, COPD,

that would be a breathing problem, and

deep vein of thrombosis,

though we don't have corroboration from

any medical records to those.

Um but her own doctor back after she

collapsed in that 9/11 event in 2016,

her own doctor said the problem was uh

uh undiagnosed pneumonia

and she had some exhaustion and

dehydration and that's why she passed

out. Uh over well overheating and

dehydration.

Um,

but the uh

but the belief and here again I don't

know how we know this so it's a little

sketchy. The belief is that that Putin

um knew about these health problems and

thought it would be better to release

them after she got elected but that he

was not trying to get Trump elected and

didn't think that was, you know, really

an option.

All right. Um,

so here is the the weird thing about

this whole Russia Russia hoax situation.

So we were told that that Putin's um

ambition was to sew discord and chaos in

our election system.

Now, there is evidence that Russia may

have been involved in exactly that sort

of thing in past elections, and maybe we

do the same to them, but it it was kind

of at a low level. You know, they they

weren't trying to get somebody elected

so much as they were trying to make

people doubt the credibility of the

election system. So, that would be that

would be a win for them if they can make

the Americans doubt their own system.

Um,

but apparently the people who made us

doubt our system were Obama and what I

call his winged monkeys. You know, all

of his aids and Brennan and Clapper and

those guys. When they were done, they

had convinced us that Russia could

control who got elected in the United

States. Am I wrong? that the Russia

hoax, the entire point of it is that our

election systems and our government are

so vulnerable that Russia and Putin

specifically would decide who our

president was.

Now, can you even imagine anything that

would be sewing more discord and chaos?

And so now we learned that Putin

probably didn't do anything of scale.

There were a few things that came in of

Russia allegedly, but they're not really

of scale. They wouldn't have changed

anything.

Um, so the weird thing is that the only

person who was not involved,

I'm going to read this is somebody

else's joke. Sergeant Pony Soldier said

this on X. So this is Sergeant Pony

Soldier's quote. Apparently, the only

people not involved in the Trump Russia

collusion issue were Trump and Russia.

Now, did any of you have that

observation? Cuz when you hear it, you

say to yourself, "Oh, damn. That's true.

The only people who were not involved in

the Russia Trump collusion story were

Trump and Russia. Trump wasn't involved

in any way." And apparently Russia

wasn't either, at least not in any

important way that changed anything.

So

um

so I saw a post by cynical Publus on X.

Now he's a lawyer but not a prosecutor.

So he warns us that uh his takes

um are not as good as maybe a

prosecutor's take. but he is a lawyer,

so he's not he's not totally guessing on

stuff.

And he did a a post on X that was very

helpful because he um he tied crimes,

you know, crimes that are on the books

to what we know so far about the Russia

hoax so that we can see what crimes are

in play. Um, and there are six six

crimes.

Uh, and I will just read them. So, this

is from Cynical Publus. If you're on X,

you should definitely be following him.

He's one of the best accounts you'll

follow. Uh, number one, it would be

illegal to knowingly falsify classified

intelligence reports for political gain.

But you see the trick? It's knowingly.

The defense will be, well, we thought it

was true. We We thought Russia was

trying to collude. We thought they did

influence the election. So, it's not a

crime because we didn't knowingly

falsify anything. We thought it was

true. So, the first one, I think, will

not put anybody in jail because they

that the knowingly part will be too hard

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Um,

and and then you're going to say, "But

what about that steel dossier?" And as I

said before, all they have to say is,

"We knew that it wasn't highly credible,

but we didn't know that every part of it

was fake." So, we thought it was worthy

of considering, you know, it's part of

the larger story and uh maybe we were

wrong, but there's no evidence that we

knowingly did something fake.

And number two, uh, relying on those,

uh, knowingly false classified things to

do things. But again, number two won't

kick in if it wasn't proven that it was

knowingly.

So number one and two are not going to

be a threat to Obama if he can argue,

well, we didn't know it. Number three,

releasing classified information to the

media.

We don't know who did that, right? and

the media will go to jail rather than

reveal their source. So, yeah, that's

great that it's illegal to release

classified information to the media, but

how are you going to catch anybody for

that? There's nobody to catch. You'll

never catch that person, I don't think.

Number four, conspiring with other

government officials to accomplish any

of the foregoing.

[Music]

Um, have they done that? Well, they they

definitely conspired with other

governments, maybe the UK

with the Russia Russia stuff, but again,

they would have to know that they were

conspiring

something illegal, but they could argue,

"No, we asked for their help, but we

thought it was for legitimate reasons."

Uh, how about number five? Lying about

the foregoing to Congress while under

oath. Well, I haven't seen any

politicians go to jail for lying under

oath to Congress.

Um, have you

remember Clapper told that Whopper that

uh that they were not collecting

information on Americans

and it turned out just total lie.

Is Clapper in jail? No. So, lying to

Congress, probably not putting anybody

in jail. Uh, attempting to cover up any

of the foregoing. Well, if you can't

prove that any of that was a crime,

would it be a crime to try to cover up

the thing that wasn't a crime?

So, here's my non-awyer take. So,

remember, um, cynical Publius is not a

prosecutor. He's a lawyer but not a

prosecutor. So you should, you know,

factor that into what I told you. But

then you should also factor in that I'm

definitely not a lawyer of any type. But

when I look at it just from a common

sense, how would you ever prove this

beyond a reasonable doubt?

I would bet against it. I don't think

that you could get this past the

reasonable doubt stage. Now, is it

possible that you get a grand jury to

indict?

Yes,

that is totally possible. I'm not going

to predict it,

but the grand jury stuff is sort of easy

to get. So, I would say that the

evidence that uh Tulsi Gabbert has

released and plus what we know is

definitely enough for a grand jury to

say that it should go to go to trial.

But I don't see any chance of a

conviction.

That's what I think.

Anyway, apparently the Department of

Justice has launched a what they call a

strike force to investigate the Tulsi

Gabard's claims that the intelligence

community weaponized their department.

So the postmillennials reporting on

that.

So that's good. At least they're looking

into it.

Um, here's my favorite story of the day.

So, you know that uh Trump has been

trying to get rid of um Jerome Powell,

the head of the Fed, but he would like

him to quit. He says he's not going to

fire him because that would royal the

markets. And he's uh he's repeated Trump

has that firing him is off the

possibility. The only way you'd be able

to fire him is if he were involved in

something so illegal or corrupt that the

the public would say, "Oh, okay." You

know, he he has the ability legally to

fire him for cause, but the cause would

have to be really obvious and the public

would have to see it. Now, if it's

really obvious and the public sees it,

well, then maybe the markets would

understand. It's like, oh, you can't let

this go. So, the question is, would

there be anything like that? Well, as

you know, Bill PTE has been u he's been

uh promoting the idea that there are

lots of questions to be answered with

the building or the uh what do you call

it the the upgrades to the Federal

Reserve headquarters, which apparently

are budgeted at $2.5 billion. And as

Bill PTE points out, um that is a lot of

money and you should be able to build an

entire building for that, you know, much

less just fix up the building that

already exists. So they have some real

questions there. And uh Py had said that

he would be willing to, you know, tour

the site because he has a background in

construction as well. You've heard of PE

Homes. Uh that was his grandfather's

business and he worked there so he knows

about construction.

Um Bill Py did visit. I don't think he

had a a reservation with him. I think he

just showed up at the site and saw there

were there were only like half a dozen

people working.

So does make you wonder where the 2.5

billion is going. But here is the best

part. Trump is going to uh join uh Bill

PE and James Blair and Russ Vot uh on

his team and today they're going to be

visiting the Federal Reserve building

site.

Now remember I told you that Bill Py has

a background in construction so he knows

what he's talking about.

What does Trump have?

Trump has, you know, he also has an

extreme background in construction,

specifically for these larger buildings,

which I think uh would be on point.

And this is just great.

Now, I don't know that this will have

any impact on Jerome Powell because the

the work wouldn't even be done while

he's still in office. His term ends in

May, so he's not going to spend even one

day in that building after it gets

rehabbed. But maybe, you know,

somebody's taking some bribes or some of

that money is being wasted. There might

be more to the story. We don't know. Uh

the the budget is so big that asking

questions makes sense. So, imagine Trump

um getting to

uh attack his enemy, I guess you could

call it that, Jerome Powell, by looking

at a construction project. And what do

you think Trump is going to say about

the construction project? Do you think

he's going to go there and say, "Oh,

everything looks good.

Looks like they made all the right

decisions. That budget makes sense to

me." No, he is going to absolutely

eviscerate the whoever is doing the

building of this thing and he's going to

raise all kinds of questions and boy

that's going to be a fun visit. So, uh,

so Bill Py, uh, congratulations for

pushing that topic forward because, um,

I've told you before that when you see

the government competing

to try to find out who can find more

fraud and get rid of it,

that is a really good sign of a healthy

change. If people were simply, you know,

approving more budget and spending it,

you're heading to doom. But the Trump

administration and Doge especially have

changed the thinking such that your

highest priority, and that's what this

looks like, highest priority is to look

for waste and and abuse. And so it all

makes sense. They're looking for waste

and abuse.

Um, I told you that uh Trump has

humorously monetized things he couldn't

solve. So, he monetized the Ukraine war

by saying, "We won't put any money into

it, but we will sell Europe as many

weapons as they want to buy." He

monetized it. He monetized

um the fentinel problem by by using it

as an excuse to raise tariffs on China

and also Canada and Mexico I believe. Uh

so he so he couldn't solve it but he

monetized it.

And now apparently Colombia University

is settling with the government for the

government's claims that they were being

too discriminatory against white people

and not doing enough for anti-semitism.

But do you think that's a solvable

problem? Do you think you can just fix

these colleges?

Maybe not. But he monetized it. So now

Colombia is settling and they've agreed

to pay $200 million to the federal

government over three years and uh

they're also going to settle for some

equal opportunity commission for 21

million

now. So this will in theory Colombia

will stop discriminating and maybe do

more to squash anti-semitism. So that

was what was asked of them. But they're

also going to pay $200 million plus $21

million.

And we don't believe that they will

completely get rid of all their DEI and

all their bad practices. They'll

probably just hide it a little bit. So

here again, you have a problem that I

don't think you could completely solve.

I mean, you could shrink it a little

bit. And that looks like what's

happening. But he's monetized it. He

monetized it again.

Um Harit Dylan

uh she's on the job of chasing an all

the DEI

um criminals. I say criminal because DEI

is illegal at the federal level anyway.

And she's going after companies and

entities

that are not following the law on DI DI.

So, she's the assistant attorney general

and I I'm watching her with great

interest because she appears to be very

capable and uh she's in the right job.

I saw a post by the rabbit hole um on X

who asks this question. Um he says uh

legacy media will publish endless

articles about men uh but rarely if ever

cover the radicalization of women. Now

the article about men I think he means

um that men are more Republican. They're

moving Republican in a big way. But who

is talking about the fact that women

have been radicalized?

It's a good point.

If if men had been radicalized the way

women have been radicalized, it would be

a huge topic and everybody would say,

"We have to unradicalize these men."

What happened to these men? They're

believing all this ridiculous stuff. But

when it's women who are the radicalized

ones on the left, I don't know that

there's a lot of talk about

reprogramming them and their mental

illness or their radicalization.

Now, is he right? I mean, this is

anecdotal. It's just observational, but

I do wonder about that. It does seems

like if we're going to talk about TDS

being an actual

mental problem, which it is, um we

should talk about the radicalization of

women,

especially the crazy ones because there

are so many of them.

Um, according to Gizmodo, Matt Novak is

writing that uh CNN says the FDA's new

drug approval uh involves AI. So AI is

helping the FDA decide what to approve.

So that sounds good, right? Probably a

big improvement in their speed and the

accuracy because they're using AI.

Well,

well, there's a problem. Apparently, the

AI is uh hallucinating in this realm as

well. So, it's actually making up

studies that never existed. Oh, yeah.

This uh this drug should be fine. Uh

here's a study that says it works great.

But if the human didn't know to check to

see if that study existed,

they would be approving something for

the wrong reason or disapproving it. So

that's scary. AI is literally making up

um scientific studies and inserting it

into the conversation. Oh my goodness.

So RFK Jr. signed a recommendation to

remove a um component called theosol

from the the regular flu vaccines, not

from the co stuff, but from regular

seasonal flu vaccines.

Now, there's a little bit of a backstory

to that.

Uh this thing called theosol,

um at one point RFK Jr. thought it was a

cause of autism because it used to be in

a lot of different shots, but apparently

it got removed from the childhood shots

a while ago back in 2001.

But it did not make any change in the

rate of autism.

So if this had been the cause of autism,

which is what RFK Jr. suspected way back

then. Um the removal of it would have by

now shown all kinds of improvements. The

the the number of people who had autism

diagnosis when they were young would

drop down back down to some historical

baseline which was a lot lower, but it

didn't.

Um, however, there's still some concern

about that component and it wasn't in

many things at this point, but it was in

the seasonal flu shots. To which I say,

how many of you get the seasonal flu

shot?

Long before the pandemic,

a lot of you said, um, this seasonal flu

shot is

right?

Uh, I I'm one of those people, you know,

once you learned that the the seasonal

flu wasn't even tuned to the seasonal

flu. It it was tuned to last year's flu,

which you're not going to get this year.

I mean, once I heard that, I thought,

are you kidding me? How's that even

possibly true that we're we're highly

recommended to get a flu shot that's

designed for a virus that doesn't exist?

How in the world is that possible? Now,

I never looked into it that hard, but

once I heard that, you know, that was

the last time I got one of those.

So maybe someday we'll learn what causes

autism or what caused the increase in

it, but it looks like it wasn't that

particular part of the shots.

Um,

according to Newsmax, there's a

Mccclaclin poll, 77%

of Americans oppose amnesty

for illegals. Now, the amnesty would not

just allow them to stay here, but

wouldn't it also allow them to be

citizens? So, 77% oppose that. 56%

uh say deport everyone who's an

undocumented

migrant. 56%.

So, that's where that's at.

So, I believe that although uh

there's going to be a lot of

complaining, it looks like the public is

sort of back in Trump, at least by a

majority.

Here's something else to worry about.

According to interesting engineering, uh

it's possible to use wifi as a sort of a

whole body fingerprint fingerprint to

track humans.

So in other words, it turns out that if

you were in your house where there was

Wi-Fi, the Wi-Fi would be disturbed by

your body, you know, the way it's

disturbed by any object in the house.

But the way your specific body disturbs

Wi-Fi apparently is unique.

So, with about 95% accuracy, if if

they've picked up how you distort Wi-Fi

on one Wi-Fi system and then you went to

another Wi-Fi system, they would know it

was you if they had access to the Wi-Fi

in both places. Now, they don't,

but it wouldn't be hard to imagine that

they could get it. So, that's a new way

to track people.

tracking by their disturbance to the

Wi-Fi system. Scary, huh?

Well, apparently the Israeli uh is it

Ness or Knesset? I never know. I I read

it, but I never hear it pronounced. They

voted 71 to13 in favor of a non-binding

motion for the agenda in favor of

annexing the West Bank.

Um,

so

all right. So I don't think that has any

impact anything.

Um, I may have written that down wrong,

too. So forget about that story. I don't

have anything to say about it.

The only thing I'm going to say about

the uh the uh two-state solution in

Israel is that there's no way that's

going to happen. There's just no way

there's going to be a two-state

solution. Uh that's my that's my

prediction.

All right. The largest teacher union in

the United States, which is the NEA. All

right. So, it's the largest teachers

association uh union. It's a union

according to the Washington Free Beacon.

This is hard to believe, but I'll tell

you what the story is. um that that they

want the materials that um people are

using to learn history to include that

the Holocaust

had uh 12 million victims instead of 6

million.

6 million would be the number of Jewish

victims of the Holocaust. But the NEA

wants to expand what students think of

the Holocaust to 12 million because that

would include people from different

faiths

and that they would leave out from

history the idea that Germany and

Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jewish

people.

So they want to just leave that part out

and say, well, it wasn't the Jewish

people per se, but it was people of

different faiths and that there were 12

million of them. So it's not really a

story about, you know, what happened to

the Jews. It's more of a story about 12

million people of different faiths.

Now on top of that um

uh they want to include uh lessons that

say that would teach students that

Israel was founded through quote forced

violent displacement and dispossession.

So it would go hard at Israel for the

knockbar and kicking out the uh the

Palestinians who were in that location

where Israel was formed. And they would

try to redefine or reframe the Holocaust

as not being specifically a Jewish

problem

and not making it well. So,

I'm no historian,

but let me just talk about it

politically.

How in the world can the this teachers

union survive that?

Don't you feel that Israel and the ADL

and certainly all the Jewish teachers

who were part of that union, don't you

think they're going to go as hard as you

could possibly go at that union?

I've got a feeling if you were hoping

for the teachers unions to be somehow

neutered that we're a lot closer to that

than you thought. Because if you get the

entire Jewish community, both domestic

and internationally saying, "Whoa, whoa,

whoa, whoa, whoa. You can't take away

the Holocaust from us. You can't take

that away. It's it's too it's too uh you

know it's too built into our entire

narrative, our history, uh our

understanding of who we are, our

understanding of the risks of of being

in that situation and all that. So

I feel like the NEA, the biggest

teachers union, just declared war on

domestic and international Jews

by this. I mean, how do they survive

that? We'll see. But it is uh certainly

suggestive of a gigantic change where

the uh Jewish Americans and Israel in

particular um have just had a

reputational destruction in the past

year, past year or so. So things are

going to get frothy.

Um, Russia apparently is doing some

publicity on what they call the the

world's largest drone factory in Russia.

So, wonderful engineering is talking

about this and uh it's the Alabuga Alaba

factory in Tatterstan.

Um, and it's supposedly the biggest

drone making facility in the world. But

here's the part that interested me. Um,

apparently for that factory 25,000 North

Koreans, industrial workers were shipped

in to do the work. Do you think that the

only reason that they shipped in North

Koreans to do that work is because they

work cheaper? Do they work cheaper?

Maybe. Um,

is it possible that um

there just weren't enough Russians?

Is Russia running out of people to do

new stuff? I feel like the biggest story

is that they didn't have domestic

employees to run the most important

factory in their country. They didn't

have enough Russians. Are all the

Russians that can walk and do things,

have they already been shipped to the

war? Have they already been killed?

Uh why in the world do they need 25,000

North Koreans for their factory? Are you

telling me that the employment situation

in Russia is so good that people already

had better jobs than this one? I don't

know. I don't know. I have questions.

But I do think that that Russia may have

a population collapse

uh problem that has not been discussed

enough. I think they're running out of

young people. And if you run out of

young people, you're kind of in trouble.

So, we'll see. I also wonder, I didn't

look on the map to figure out where

Tatterstan is, but if it's within

missile range of Ukraine,

is it possible the Ukraine is going to

use American weapons to destroy the

biggest drone factory in Russia? And if

they didn't try,

why wouldn't they?

Can you think of any reason why the

Ukrainians would not use if our missiles

can reach it? Do you think that they

would buy new missiles and just take out

the drone factory?

Cuz I don't know how a drone factory

survives in a war. Isn't the drone

factory the very first thing you bomb? I

mean, I haven't run any wars, but that's

how I'd handle it. All right, that's all

I got for you today. Sorry I went late.

I'm going to say a few words privately

to the local subscribers. Beloved,

beloved local subscribers, thanks for

the rest of you for paying attention.

And I will see you tomorrow, same time,

same place in 30 seconds.