Episode 2911 CWSA 07/29/25

Hey.

Uh, check your stocks if you have any.

It's kind of flat.

All right.

Well, we'll uh keep our fingers crossed.

You never know.

Hey, everybody.

Come on in.

It's good to see you.

Have you been exercising?

You look so good this morning.

May I remind you that you're the sexiest person in your house right now?

Probably.

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 this experience to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

Well, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker shell, sustain a canteen, jugger flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

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

Uh, well, if you were one of the subscribers to the Dilbert comic, which would mean you were either an ex subscribing or on locals you would know that Wall-E has uh has done the the impossible.

He figured out how to not work at work, but then he got a Tesla self-driving car so that he doesn't have to work at his commute and then he doesn't have to work at his job and then when he goes home he doesn't have to work on his commute again.

Oh, Wall-E finally figured out how to do no effort whatsoever all day long thanks to Tesla.

Well, I wonder if there's any scientific news about studies that you didn't need to do because you could have just asked me.

Oh, here's one.

According to Science News, Simon Min is writing that if you show people sick faces, it primes the immune system to repel invaders.

So, all you need to do is show people pictures of sicklooking faces and it will cause your immune system to kick in so that you don't become one of those sicklooking people.

Now, how did I know that that was um probably going to be true?

It's a hypnosis thing.

A hypnotist would know that your body works in two directions.

One, if you're happy, it might make you smile.

But if you smile when you're not happy, it might help you make you happy.

So, your body is sort of a two-way system.

But uh it does make sense to me that if your body recognized a threat by looking at somebody who looked unhealthy and you think to yourself, "Oo, I can catch that." Maybe I could see how your your body would have evolved to automatically go to defensive mode.

So next time just ask me.

Well, there's a uh new article from the University of Michigan that a new study that ultrarocessed foods trigger addictive behaviors and that it meets a clinical criteria.

So, we might be approaching the time when addiction includes more than alcohol and illicit drugs.

It might include ultrarocessed foods.

Now, I told you, well, some of you about my experience several days ago, which is I was trying to gain some weight cuz I lost too much weight.

You I'm battling this uh well, you know, so I had lost too much weight.

So, I was just trying to gain it back as, you know, quickly as possible.

And uh I said to myself, I'll bet you I could eat ice cream, which I hadn't had in 25 years.

And I thought, well, I'll just eat some ice cream.

And I ended up I probably had a quart.

I think a container about this big.

I just ate it right to the bottom.

And I could not stop.

It was addictive.

And because I don't normally eat food that is um processed or highly processed, I'm I'm not really exposed to addictive foods.

I just avoid them.

Hey there, Gary.

Come on up.

Um so, so after avoiding all the sugary addictive foods for years, really, I don't even keep them in the house.

Uh when I finally let myself experience the ultrarocessed foods, I was so aware that my body had been taken over that the experience was like being in a robot and watching the arms and the legs and the and the mouth and stuff.

I couldn't stop it.

It was every bit an addiction.

It it totally took over my brain.

So the only way that I can avoid stuff like that is I can't have it in the house otherwise it is just too strong.

Well, 21 states, um, I assume these are the red states, um, have warned JP Morgan, Jaime Diamond, the head of JP Morgan, and Black Rock's Larry Frink that, uh, that both of those banker types, those money guys, need to get rid of their woke environmental requirements.

So, um, a letter was signed by 26 state financial officers and they ordered those firms to take five concrete actions to demonstrate their commitment to a fiduciary model grounded in financial integrity, not political advocacy.

So in other words, they wanted to make sure that the big money people were making decisions based on their customers and not making decisions based on uh climate change and you know I want to change the world and uh have more diversity and stuff like that.

So, the pendulum has completely reversed and now it's if you're doing those things, you're uh somebody who needs to change what you're doing.

All right.

Well, you've been following the dispute between the Trump administration and Harvard.

Harvard was too woke and too racist.

And uh now Harvard uh watched what happened when Colombia, was it Colombia, which is the one that Yeah.

Colombia just settled for 200 million plus.

And now Harvard is indicating it might be willing to settle up with the administration for as much as $500 million.

Now, I don't know if that's true because this is a sort of reporting that feels a little mind readading readerish.

So, I don't know that that's real a real number, but News Newsmax is reporting it that they might be ponying up $500 million just to resolve it and to get their federal funding released.

Um, and so once again, I am impressed at how President Trump can monetize his problems.

Not only will the universities ideally, you know, address their racism, but uh, they will also pay a bunch of money into the Treasury so that Trump can lower the deficit.

I just love that.

No other president has really ever tried to monetize all of his biggest problems, but Trump is doing it one after another.

And every time he does it, you know, you you kind of fail to notice that it's part of a pattern that he's just monetizing everything.

It's very impressive.

So, you want to be uh frightened about something, you should be.

So Sam Alman warns, I think he was on Theo Van's podcast and he warns that uh Chat GBT remembers its conversations with you.

It also remembers what you've uh asked it about.

So, if ever there were some kind of lawsuit in which um it became necessary to find out what you've been saying and thinking lately, they could with a warrant, they could access all of your questions to AI.

So, how many people do you think have contemplated breaking the law and ask AI how to do it effectively and get away with it?

I don't know how many, but I'm guessing a lot of people I'm guessing that a lot of people have asked AI how to get away with a crime.

A lot of people at the very least, you know, how to hide your tax money illegally or how to do something illegally.

So, um, I'm proud to say that I knew that was a risk from the start.

And so I do not use Google search engines to look for anything that I wouldn't want the entire world to know about.

You should adopt that standard.

Let me say it again.

Don't use a search engine or AI to look for anything, anything at all that you wouldn't want the whole world to see publicly because the odds of them someday seeing it publicly not very bad.

there's a good chance they will.

So, uh, follow that advice.

Um, so you may have noticed that the whole Russia hoax collusion story should be the biggest story in America because now even more than we already knew, we know that uh I think we know it.

I I feel like the information is sufficient at this point for me to call it a fact.

It's a fact that Obama and Brennan and Clapper and Comey um and a bunch of others colluded to overthrow the government of the United States.

To me, based on what we've been told by Tulsi Gabbard and what we've know from other reporting, I believe that that's no longer in question.

Is it?

Is there even a question about whether those those cats I mentioned were trying to change the result of elections or get rid of Trump once he got elected?

There's no doubt about it, right?

So the question is um why is it not a bigger story?

If you're following only the news on the political right, you think it's a big story, but nobody on the political right is changing their opinion about any of it because we already knew, we kind of already knew it, right?

But the people on the left who don't know anything about it and indeed still think that the dossier was real and that uh Mueller proved there was uh collusion.

If you talk to Democrats, they will tell you that that Müller proved collusion.

Um, that Russia tried to help Trump and and that's all there is to the story.

They'll have no idea that, you know, the the worst political actors in our lifetime, maybe ever, um, pulled off the most despicable coup attempt, and it's just not really something their news is interested in.

Now, it makes sense that the mainstream news wouldn't cover much of it.

They've all mentioned it, of course, so it's not like somebody's completely ignored it.

Um, but they they can't really say what's true because that would implicate themselves and they're already implicated enough with the Biden brain coverup.

Imagine if they go from the Biden brain cover up to, well, I guess we also covered up the Russia collusion hoax.

Uh, yeah, that's the other thing we did.

We covered that up and now they're covering it up again.

How in the world can they get away with that?

And the answer is because it's a complicated story.

All you need is a complicated story with lots of actors and actions and you know it goes across time.

Uh you combine the complicated story with all of the people on the mainstream media for their own use, their own reasons so they don't have to be talked into it.

minimizing the story and acting like there's nothing there.

That's all you need to make it go away.

So, what's interesting is the only way the story, which is the most relevant story in American um experience at the moment, the it's the biggest one, but it's totally going away.

And the Democrats will succeed in disappearing it right in front of you.

and their their voters won't even won't even imagine that it matters when they go to the voting booth.

Won't even be on the on their minds at all.

Won't be in the top 20 of things they're thinking about.

Um the only thing that would change that is a perp walk or actually arresting Obama or Brennan or Clapper or Comey.

So, um, you know, I've said before that normally I'm not I'm not too keen on one administration punishing the last administration cuz, you know, that's a a slippery slope to complete chaos.

But that's only if you're the one who's starting it.

If the other side started it and they made it clear that they will do absolutely anything, including the the the fine people hoax, including covering up Biden's brain, including um saying things that would get Trump assassinated, uh and including the Russia hoax.

There's absolutely nothing that they wouldn't do to, you know, retain power.

So, so anyway, that's happening.

The only way to keep it in the news is to arrest a highle person.

So, if I were Trump and his team, um, I would be thinking, who should we go after first?

And somebody needs to get arrested.

Now, that doesn't mean they'll go to jail.

I think the odds of any of them going to jail are pretty low because there's a thing called lawyers and there may be some credible deniability and I feel like they may have created a situation where they can weasle it sort of like they did the hunter laptop where they say we never said it was Russian.

No, we never said that.

That's what you believe we said.

But if you look at our actual words, what we said was it has all the the look of being a Russian product.

We didn't say it was, which would have been wrong.

We just said it really looks like it.

So, there's going to be some version of that that would probably be a sufficient defense, you know, at least with the jury trial.

Anyway, um Sean Davis is pointing out that Gina Haspel, who had been the head of the CIA, um she uh reported prior to the 20 Oh, I guess Sean Davis was writing about this all all the way in 2020.

um that she personally blocked the release of key documents exposing the Russia collusion hoax and that she was personally banking on a Trump election loss to keep all the evidence hidden.

Now, I don't know exactly how Shawn Davis says that uh exclusive scoop, but he's a credible guy, so if he says so, I believe it.

So, could that be much worse than having the CIA, the CIA working against the country?

Well, that's about as bad as it gets.

All right.

Um, Senator Holly, Josh Holly, is introducing a bill to take the $600 million, not million, billion, right?

600 billion uh that we've made from tariffs or that we will make from tariffs by the end of the year and uh give rebate.

Oh no, he's talking about a $600 tariff rebate check.

Sorry, it was written.

Um so he wants to give rebate checks based on all the tariff money coming in.

What do you think of that?

Do you think that um Trump's base wants to get a tariff rebate check and it would only be for people under a certain income?

And do you think they'd rather do that or have it go toward paying down the national debt?

Well, the answer is I'm pretty sure most Republicans would say pay down that debt.

Um, remember I told you that um, Congress is so broken that no matter how much money Doge could save, and this applies to the tariffs, no matter how much money the tariffs make, that instead of seeing it as a reduction in your expenses or reduction in your deficit, that Congress would see it as a source of money to spend.

That's what this is.

So Josh Holly is seeing this tariff stuff as a source of money to spend to what?

Directly buy some votes by just sending people a check.

I assume it polls well because Holly is pretty smart.

So he wouldn't suggest it unless he probably had some internal polling or something that says, "Oh yeah, if you send people a check, they remember the check and they might want another one." So, so it'll help uh Republicans get elected, but I'm opposed to it.

Um, but I can understand why they'd want to do it if it's good for them getting reelected.

Um, according to Axios, Dem Democrats have a reason to be optimistic about the 2026 midterm elections.

So, here are the reasons that Axios gives for why Democrats would do well in the midterms.

Now, keep in mind that you don't need any reasons.

Um, we have such a long track record of the party that's not in power gaining seats in midterm elections.

So, it almost doesn't matter who the president is, and probably it's just going to go that usual way.

However, if if ever there was a time that it wouldn't go the usual way, it would be this time.

So, uh the historical trend, which you know, even if it had been 100% of the time up until now, this would be the one time you could legitimately say, well, this this situation is fundamentally different.

And what's fundamentally different is that the favorability of Democrats is at an all-time low and that Trump is having the presidency of all presidencies.

Now, not everybody's going to give him as high marks as his base, but we'll talk about that.

Even even the Democrats are starting to say, "All right, well, okay, I got to admit that was pretty good what you did there, Trump." So, that's a situation that's very rare.

Will it be enough?

I don't know.

But listen to Axios's um five things that would make Democrats have a better midterm, right?

Uh they say the big beautiful bill is polling terribly.

Well, I think people would only care about individual things that that are in the bill.

I don't think they would vote or show up to vote or decide not to stay home because of the big beautiful bill.

Does that one sound persuasive to you that because people don't like the big beautiful bill that more Democrats will show up for the midterms?

I don't feel like it.

I I feel like if you had a conversation with any Democrat, you stop them on the street.

You go, "Tell me about Trump and why you'd want Democrats to win the midterm." Would any of them say, "Well, I'm still mad about that big, beautiful bill that I don't even know what was in it." I don't feel like it.

So, I'm going to I'm going to disagree with Axios on their first one.

Number two, cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

Um, which is part of the big beautiful bill.

Um, let's be mad at that.

That's a possibility.

But if we if we go another year and the people who vote have not personally lost their healthcare, do you think they'll have as much interest in it?

It will be true that uh illegal, you know, non-citizens will lose their coverage.

It will be true there's some uh able-bodied people who should have done something more to make sure that they got their healthcare i.e.

get off the couch and get a job.

If are those people who are going to vote if you were so lazy that you wouldn't even get a job so that you can also have healthcare.

Do you think you're voting?

I don't know.

So, it's possible that while on in concept the Democrats would be very against anybody losing healthcare, but they might just forget about it because they might not know anybody who actually loses their healthcare and and didn't have it coming.

So, we'll see.

So, that one could make a difference, but not 100%.

Then there is the fact that prices are still high under Trump and he had promised to lower them.

Let me ask you this.

How many of you think that a president has any control over prices?

Why are we even talking about it?

The the only thing a president can do is not overspend.

That's it.

They they basically have one button.

don't run up the debt so we have to print a bunch of money.

Nothing else.

Now Trump also has the energy thing which is an inspired way to look at it.

So if he goosees energy production and he has been let's say judicious with the debt so that it's not spiraling out of control and he's doing some doge things.

Um that's all he can do.

No.

Well, if you look at things like eggs, um the government can, you know, subsidize one area of expenses for a while or uh they can change some change some regulations so that one part of the um one part of the economy improves like eggs.

But basically, you don't have really any tools.

you're just doing more energy because that lowers all the energy costs and you're uh yeah so I don't know I do think that people are have an affordability problem and that that will matter uh even though it shouldn't maybe um then there's Trump's deportation because he's sending back more than just the worst first but I have not heard anybody complain about it yet have you Is there anybody in your real your real world who's complaining that too many of the wrong kind of people are being shipped out of the country?

I've complained.

Um, nobody I know has been shipped out of the country.

Nobody I know has been deported.

But I do have a problem with somebody who's lived and worked here for 20 years being deported.

I I'm not going to I'm not going to hide that just because I know that's not popular to say on this broadcast and you might have a different opinion and I would respect that.

Um but the one thing I'll tell you is that the more personal contact you have with members of the immigrant community, there's no way that doesn't affect you.

And I've had a lot of contact.

So, you know, if you had as much contact as I did over the course of your adult life, you would probably agree with me, but most of you haven't.

So, on paper, I if if there were no humans involved just on paper, I would say, "Yeah, of course.

Deport everybody.

Absolutely." But once it becomes personal, well, it's harder.

All right.

Um then the fifth thing from Axios is that Democratic enthusiasm to go vote in the midterms is much higher than Republican enthusiasm.

But I wonder if that's something you can measure yet because when the midterms get close, Trump is going to get really active.

And even though he's not in that election, he's going to make sure you think it's the end of the world if you don't vote.

So, I would kind of suspect that Republican uh enthusiasm for voting might be a lot higher once we get there.

But also, I don't know that Republicans need enthusiasm to vote.

Democrats might.

They might need to get whipped up to vote, but I feel like Republicans vote because it's a civic duty.

A and you know, the stuff you want.

So, I don't know.

I don't know if enthusiasm really tells you what Republicans are going to do.

I just have a open question on that.

Um, according to Mike Benz, I guess the National Endowment for Democra Democracy, better known as NED, got fully funded by the House of Republicans.

Um, Trump had asked for that to be zeroed out and the entire National Endowment for Democracy to be eliminated.

Now, I can't explain this story as much as Mike Benz could.

So, let me say if you're not following Mike Benz, you probably are just flying blind trying to understand why everything is the way it is.

You really need to follow him.

It's completely uh it'll just spin your brain around in in your head.

But I think the bottom line is that this National Endowment for Democracy may have been something that the CIA uses to further its goals and maybe that's the reason they're keeping it.

I don't know.

So I can't give you the full story.

I'll refer you to Benz on that.

Um, so Trump is now suggesting that the Democrats might have planted some names in the Epstein files.

He said, "Those files were run by the worst scum on earth." That's when Biden was in control.

The whole thing is a hoax.

They ran the files.

I was running against somebody that ran the files.

If they had something, you know, bad for Trump, uh, they would have released.

I think that's true.

Uh, and he says, "Now they can easily put something in the files that's phony." Well, to me it seems like he's inoculating us just in case there's something in there that doesn't look good for Trump.

And my guess is apparently he's mentioned a bunch of times, but never went to the island.

There's no no direct evidence that he was involved in anything illegal or unethical with Epstein.

But um there might be there might be something in there that he doesn't know about.

So he's just inoculating us by saying, "But you know, they could put fake stuff in there." All right.

Um apparently the CIA um person who put together the Russia report about the steel dossier.

uh or did she just put together a Russia report?

Um she led the team that created the draft intel community assessment on Russian meddling in 2016 and she's still allin and she still embraces the steel dossier.

Um and in her social media the past she's referred to Trump as a dictator and uh mega as Nazis.

So that's who was giving you your uh your objective uh assessment of Russia, someone who thought Trump was Hitler.

And apparently she's now doing some interviews.

Um Susan Miller, recently retired CIA counter intelligence officer.

Um so she was tight with Brennan, I guess, putting that stuff together.

And uh apparently Susan Miller, the CIA person, uh according to Paul Sperry, is best friends with Caroline Kennedy and she also helped write the Muller report.

Unbelievable.

So again, I say it's so obvious that this was a coup attempt.

Somebody needs to get arrested.

They really, really do.

Well, Trump says he's now shortening the time he's given to Vladimir Putin.

He'd given him 50 days.

Some of those days had expired, but he's now reducing it to 10 to 12 days to reach a ceasefire with Ukraine because Trump says we just don't see any progress being made.

Um, and then he's talking about how if there's no progress made in 10 or 12 days that uh they'd put these gigantic secondary tariffs on them.

So the secondary tariff is a tariff on people who were doing business with Russia because we've already tariffed Russia directly, I guess.

So there's nothing left to tariff.

So, what if the 12 days go by and then what if Trump does in fact put in these secondary tariffs?

That would be kind of devastating.

But what if they don't work?

What then?

What then?

Because do you think that Russia is going to cave because of the secondary tariffs?

Or is it more likely they'll just find ways to avoid being detected and they'll do as much trading as they always did?

Or maybe China will say, uh, we're going to tariff you if you tariff us 500%.

So, I don't feel like there's really a path to a solution.

Um, but he might be monetizing it.

It might be that that's all it is.

He's just monetizing the war a second way because he's already monetized it by uh not providing money to Ukraine, but only selling weapons to Europe to give to Ukraine.

So, he's monetized it one way.

If he monetizes it with these secondary tariffs, he's monetized it a second way.

But there's no real chance that that's going to settle anything, right?

Um meanwhile in a related story uh Russia is testing a um remote controlled tank uh and it's a tank that's hardened against uh drones bombing it etc.

So remember my prediction that the Ukraine Russia war at least the front line will turn into an all robot war.

So now now Russia will be able to have a tank brigade.

I don't know if I'm using that word right, but a bunch of tanks that can attack a position and there won't be a single person in the tanks and they'll just be fully functional tanks.

So yeah, it's going to be robot on robot.

Um you may be following the story in Gaza in which uh a lot of people are saying that there's a famine there that the uh the poor uh citizens who are still in that area uh are having some starvation.

There were reports of people dying of starvation.

But I remind you that all information coming out of the war zone is unreliable.

Doesn't matter who is saying it.

Doesn't matter if it's Israel or Israel's enemy.

You can't really believe anything that comes out of the war zone, especially on stuff like this.

However, when Trump was asked about it, he said, uh, there's no way that that's a fake because he's seeing the the actual children on TV.

He goes, they're hungry.

He goes, you can't fake starvation.

And I think Trump is right about that.

So if he's looking at the images of the actual citizens and they look like they're starving, that's not something you'd be wrong about.

So my guess is that uh while Israel might be trying as hard as they can to avoid it, there's probably some starvation happening.

Uh that's a lie, Scott.

We all know it's happening.

Yeah.

So anyway, so the um I I I think as soon as you say we all know that something's happening, then you're not a serious person because you can't really know too much about what's happening over there, even even if you think it's really obvious.

Probably we don't.

Um but there's more on this topic apparently.

And then Trump uh quite reasonably is talking about the need to feed the feed the people.

So that's the right focus.

I like it when he does that.

Uh Trump gave uh Kier Starmer of the UK uh what the independent is calling a green light to recognize the Palestinian state.

You probably heard that France decided to recognize um Palestinian state or promote a two-state solution, I guess.

So now Starmer wants to do that.

It's not a done deal, but he checked with Trump and Trump said you could do that.

Now, that's interesting to me because I don't remember Trump ever saying he favored or did not favor Tuesday's solution, which is weird that I don't know that.

Um, because that would be the most important thing to know, right?

Does anybody know has Trump said anything recently about a two-state solution versus a one-state solution?

I don't know.

Um, however, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what anybody else wants because Israel is the only one that's going to decide, and I don't think that they're anywhere near wanting a two-state solution.

So, um, we'll see how many people line up against Israel's one-state solution, and it might be the United States.

It's entirely possible that Trump has the the capital Um, hope you can't hear my cat with his cat toy over there.

Um, Trump has the political capital to say, you know what, you really need to make a two-state solution.

Now, I'm not saying I'm in favor of that or that's a good idea.

Um, what I say is I'm American, so they just need to work it out.

And, uh, I I will just observe.

I will not condemn and I will not recommend.

Um Trump does say he might he wants the Netanyahu to quote soften his tactics in Gaza.

He may have to do it a different way.

We don't know what that different way would look like.

But the uh here's the big question.

I'm going to teach you something about debate today.

And you may have heard me say this before, but if somebody tries to win a debate by forcing you to accept their definition of a word, that's not a debate.

That that's not a reason.

That's somebody trying to weasle you into winning a debate by getting you to accept their their own definition of a word.

For example, with uh abortion, um if you say that's a living human person as soon as soon as the uh the body produces whatever the the fetus is, if you say it's a person, then it sounds like murder if you do an abortion.

If you say it's a fetus, then doesn't sound so much like murder.

So with a lot of our uh debates, we try to win the debate by insisting that somebody accept our definition of something.

For example, in the um the pandemic, if I say to you uh the experts have created a uh kind of a shot that can help you in various ways, but you say no, it's an experimental shot.

If you can make me accept that it's experimental, then you've won the argument.

There's nothing else to say.

So here again with uh with Israel, the word genocide is becoming the debate.

So if you could get the people who disagree with you to accept the definition of genocide that you want to push forward and you could say uh Israel is involved in genocide.

But if uh if somebody else can get you a definition that doesn't say that then they can get they could win their argument just by definitions again.

So I went to uh Grock and asked it to define genocide cuz I was pretty sure I didn't know exactly the definition.

So let me tell you what G says is genocide and then you can say is that happening over in Gaza?

So it would include killing members of the group but that's you know not by itself.

That wouldn't be enough by itself because there's lots of wars where people are killing members of the other group, but those wars are not all genocide, right?

So, um that would be an indicator, but it wouldn't be enough by itself.

Uh causing serious bodily or mental harm, that would be in the same category of causing harm to people.

Inflicting conditions to bring about physical destruction.

Is that happening in Gaza?

Is Israel inflicting conditions to bring about physical destruction?

Yes.

Yes, they are.

But that doesn't mean it's genocide.

We're we're going to look at the all the definition before we decide.

Uh what about preventing births within the group that's being targeted?

Well, there's no evidence that Israel is intentionally preventing births, but I would guess there are fewer of them under the current situations.

I don't know, could be wrong.

It might go the other way.

Um, but again, these are not you must have checked all the boxes.

So, it's not a every box situation.

Um, and then forcibly transferring children to another group.

Um, there may be some of that for orphans, but doesn't seem like that's a major element that's going on.

And then here's the important part.

For something to be legally categorized as genocide, listen, listen to this part.

This is the most important part.

You would have to prove intent.

So, if Israel's intent is self-defense and all of their documents say that and all their public statements say that and you can't find any counter to that, it just looks like this is their version of what would help their self-defense.

If that's true, it's not a genocide.

And as far as I know, there has not been any statement or leak or whistleblower who would say, "Oh, oh yeah, the the real intention is to, you know, kill as many of the the residents of Gaza as we can and depopulate it." I don't believe you would find that.

If you did and it was coming from the top, well, that'd be a pretty good argument that it's genocide, but I don't believe we've seen that.

Um and uh experts are split on the question of whether scale makes a difference.

So in other words, if it's a big enough killing, then some would say some experts would say the size of it alone tells you their intention because nobody accidentally kills millions of people of the same group, right?

So if it's big enough, you don't have to ask yourself, well, is there a document that says that you intended to do it?

Well, it's so big.

Killing millions of people, obviously, you intended it.

Sort of like the Holocaust.

You know, you don't have to ask, well, could you give us more thinking about that Holocaust situation?

What were they thinking?

You could talk about that all day long, but the scale of it is enough to say it was a genocide.

you don't you don't need to know too much about their inner thoughts.

So, it's subjective and uh I'm not going to make a determination about whether that's genocide or not.

Um the closest you could get is that Israel says they want total victory.

And I'm wondering, is that what Germany and Japan experienced?

Would you say that the US um had a genocide in Japan at the end of World War II or would you say there was a genocide in Germany after Germany surrendered because it got pretty ugly.

There was a lot of starvation in Germany in particular, probably in Japan.

Um, so I'll just say this.

To me, the um the Hamas versus Israel situation has a weird quality, which is that if if Israel were not doing what it's doing, and Hamas got its way, they would create a genocide of the Israelis.

So if you're trying to determine if one side is doing a genocide, I I feel like it matters like who your target group is.

If your target group is somebody who you could reasonably, very reasonably say if they had the power, they would genocide us.

If Hamas had the power, would they genocide Israel?

It looks like it, right?

So if you have two entities that appear like they both think their only option is to genocide the other one, do you even talk about genocide?

It it just feels like it's not even the right conversation.

So it's very special case where you've got such extremism on both sides.

It's not like a war, you know, it's not like a war where somebody wants to capture some territory or something like that, you know, like Ukraine.

Ukraine's a war.

Um, but whatever is going on in the Middle East, you got some extremism there that's not like anything else.

So, I will not give you my opinion of whether genocide is happening cuz that would be trying to win an argument with a definition.

And the definition has enough squishiness in it.

and the and the situation is unique enough that you're you're you're trying to stop somebody who you think would genocide you if you didn't stop them.

So I would just avoid the war that word altogether.

Trump reminds us on truth social that he's quote not seeking a summit with she of China.

Now, apparently there was some reporting that says that he was seeking a summit, which would make him look weak, like he's begging she for a meeting.

And uh Trump says no, he's not seeking a summit.

Uh he would only do that if he's invited, which he has been, but he wants you to know it's up to him if they meet.

It's not that he's begging she.

Um, it's only a few days be before Trump's uh automatic tariffs kick in.

And that would only apply to uh the auto I got a little cat situation going on here.

Come here, Gary.

Come on.

Let go of that cable.

All right.

Stop.

Stop.

Don't fight.

Say hi.

All right.

You can go down.

All right.

So, we don't know what'll happen when that happens, but um we're hearing lovely things about the European Union deal that Trump got into.

Would you believe that people don't agree about whether it was a good deal?

So, the Europeans think that America got everything and that Trump just rolled Europe and got everything.

Um, and uh, some smart people say that.

But here's what the deal includes.

The EU is going to pay a 15% tariff on everything.

We will have no tariffs.

So that just looks like America winning.

The EU agreed to invest 600 billion in the US just because Trump wanted them to, but apparently that one's um not one that will be carefully monitored.

So I feel like that's the honor system that they would spend that they would invest 600 billion in the US.

So I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

And that the EU will purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of American military equipment.

I feel like maybe that was going to happen anyway.

And the EU commits to buying a whole bunch of our LNG, our gas, um, even though it's not the cheapest source for energy.

Um, anyway, and in exchange for what are being called concessions, the EU would get nothing because the apparently America did not agree to give them anything.

They just agreed what what we were going to take.

Well, Schumer says it's a fake deal uh because there some elements of this are non-binding.

So, I think the commitments to buy energy and weapons and the invest 600 billion.

Uh maybe sort of window dressing that Trump is smart enough to put on this deal because it sounds like more of a win.

But Europe may have been cleverly understanding that he needs to announce a win, but when it comes right down to it, maybe they won't do as much of this as they say.

We'll see.

It's not binding.

Um, according to the Brussels signal, uh, the the tariff deal in Europe will really hurt the German car makers.

So, we're adding a tariff that will, you know, jack up the cost of a German car in the US.

And here is my take.

This might be just me, but uh you probably know that the I think one of the bestselling cars in the world is the Tesla Model Y.

Is that true?

I think it's maybe one of the top selling cars.

But when I think of what competes with Tesla, I usually think German cars.

Do you if if you said to yourself, I'm thinking of getting one of the, you know, more expensive Teslas, what would be your second choice for a car?

Probably a German car, right?

Mercedes, BMW, um, what's the other one?

Um, and so it makes me wonder if if Tesla is going to be the big winner, if it makes it look like the competing cars are going to be more expensive.

So, we'll see.

Anyway, Bill Maher continues to he continues to turn mega, but it's only like one degree per week.

Now, he would say that's not happening at all.

But, uh, in his, uh, recent show, they, um, what's it called?

Club Club Random show, he says to his guests, "Look, the stock market is at record highs.

I don't see a country in depression at all.

I would have thought, and I got to own it, that these tariffs were going to f effing sink this economy by this time, and they didn't." So, if you're keeping track, here would be all the things that Bill Maher has now acknowledged uh about Trump.

One, he's not a monster in person because they had dinner together.

Now, he says, "I still disagree with all of his policies, a bunch of policies, but I have to say that in person, he's a he's not Hiller." So, that's a start.

Um, then correct me if I'm wrong, Bill Maher agrees with Trump on the trans issue uh in sports.

He he believes that Trump did a good job on the border, if not a great job.

Um, he praised Trump for the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities.

I think Maro was way on board with that.

He likes the fact that Trump is pushing American patriotism.

I think he likes that.

And he does believe that the Republicans, weirdly, are the free speech party now and that all the wokeness and all that stuff was coming from his own team and that the anti-semitism might be coming from his own side.

So, I may I may uh be mischaracterizing some of his opinion there.

So, don't blame him if if he heard it from me.

Um, but here's a here's what jumped out at me.

Apparently, Bill Maher had a very firm opinion about what would happen with tariffs and he thought it would tank the economy and that by now we would see the all that chaos it caused, which he acknowledges didn't happen.

And so my question is this, why did he have certainty that turned out to be wrong?

Why did he have certainty about tariffs?

What would cause you to have any kind of certainty about which direction that was going to go?

You could have optimism.

You could have pessimism.

But it almost sounded like he had something closer to certainty that it was a mistake.

Where would he get that certainty?

From watching TV and watching, you know, and reading the New York Times, right?

And whatever else.

You don't get that certainty on something you've had no exposure to and nobody's ever done and there are smart people on both sides.

You don't get certainty from that.

Yeah.

I I'll say again that the wisest opinion I heard on uh tariffs the entire time, the wisest opinion was Dana Perino who said, "Can't tell.

We'll just wait and see.

No way to know.

Just wait and see." And so I adopted her opinion.

I said the same.

I was like, "Don't ask me.

We've never done this.

We don't know how Trump's going to play it.

We don't know if it's just a negotiation.

We don't know if he's going to be flexible.

We don't know how many times he's going to be unpredictable and change things.

We don't know.

It could work and it might not." So to me, that was the only reasonable take that might work.

You just don't know.

And now we know that it did.

So, um, you just watch what is left of all the things that Bill Maher once thought about Trump.

He also used to believe that uh he also used to believe that only the Republicans doubted the elections.

And then it was uh Megan Kelly who showed him a compilation clip of Hillary Clinton and other other Democratic leaders doubting that Trump really won.

So he knows that.

He also knows the Finding People hoax was a hoax.

What's left?

What what does he have left?

That he wishes Trump didn't cut healthcare.

But even the cuts to health care were to preserve it, not to destroy it.

So, I don't know.

Uh I don't think it's likely that Bill Maher will ever become Republican or Trump supporter, but it's funny watching uh like all of the things that support his his prior point of view.

One by one, each of these pillars is being tapped out.

There's nothing left.

Bill, you might as well just come to the other side because that's where all the common sense is happening.

But meanwhile, um, James Carville says he's not remotely worried about the future of the Democratic party because the Democrats have quote bucketloads of talent coming.

Bucket loads.

Um, Pam Key at Breitbart News is writing about this.

It was on, I guess, Fox News had an interview with him.

He was talking to somebody on Fox News on the story is the name of the show and uh what do you think?

He said uh I think the hand ringing well I agree to the image of the party is at an all-time low.

He goes there's a bucketload of talent coming online.

Now can you explain to me why the Democrats are hiding all this talent?

So according to Carville, their their party is in, you know, complete life support.

It's it's basically um it's basically the lowest it's been in 35 years.

And according to Carville, waiting the sidelines is a bucketload of highly talented people.

What is it that's causing them not to make themselves known right now?

Do they think that if they start too early, they'll peak too soon?

How in the world could you say that they have a bucket load of talent?

But they're all hiding.

All the talented people are, "Well, maybe I'll just hide over here.

I'll write it out while I'm hiding." No, James Carville, they would not be hiding if they had bucketloads of talent.

They would not be hiding.

Well, um, according to the economists were looking at the tariffs so far, do you know who's paying for the tariffs?

Um, is the end user paying for them in the form of higher prices?

That's what Democrats said would happen.

Is the importing American company paying for it with lower margins, profit margins, or is the foreign company paying for it by just paying for it?

Because we won't buy it unless they pay it.

So, which of those is paying for it?

Well, the early indication is that the American importers are absorbing most of the costs.

Not all of it, but most of it.

Now, if that's the case, what would be another way to describe that?

The big American companies, also small ones, but the big ones, you know, would be the biggest bang for the buck.

Um, they're eating most of the tariff costs.

Doesn't it seem like Trump found a way to tax the oligarchs?

And meanwhile, while Bernie and AO and AOC were running around the country saying, "Oh, the oligarchs, the oligarchs, they need to pay their fair share." Meanwhile, Trump is implementing these tariffs which have the the unexpected effect of taxing the oligarchs.

He taxed the oligarchs and he passed some tax relief that should help all the lower income people.

uh while he is taxing the oligarchs.

It's called the golden or the golden age people.

I guess the Fed is meeting to talk about interest rates and now there are a few members of the Fed who are in favor of lowering them but it looks like the Fed is not overall likely to lower rates.

So there's that.

Are you following the Sydney Sweeney uh drama?

So, a company called American Eagle, they make uh casual clothes.

Uh they hired Sydney Sweeney, who's a blonde um sex pot kind of actress who's wellknown.

And so she she doesn't go overboard in my opinion, but she makes it sexy, sort of girl nextdoor sexy, you know, not not gross sexy.

And I think she does it really well.

And uh apparently there's some outrage over it and uh some progressives are calling it white supremacy propaganda because she said something about she has good jeans, you know, meaning she's pretty because she has good jeans, but she's also selling blue jeans.

And uh apparently if you mention your jeans and you're a pretty white woman, it's uh that's that's some white supremacy right there.

Um and then uh CNN reported that this latest mass shooter who went into a building in Manhattan uh that he was possibly a white male unless you see his picture.

And he is not possibly a white male.

Let me just put it that way.

But apparently the early reports are that he had some kind of mental health issue.

So we don't know exactly why he did what he did, but mental health issue for sure.

Um I wasn't going to talk about this, but there's an angle that I will.

So, you know the story that in Cincinnati the other day there was a music festival and then I think it was after the festival uh there was a large crowd of uh black people who beat up several white people and really beat them badly while a 100 or so people watched and filmed.

And here's the part that caught my attention.

Apparently only one of the 100 people called 911.

So there were a hundred black Americans watching what looked like entertainment to them.

Um the the brutal beating of some white people and only one of the hundred people thought to do something about it.

Now I don't know if any of the hundred people tried to physically stop the beating because I didn't see that in any of the videos.

Um, but um, someday I'm going to share my secret on how to avoid being brutally attacked.

I don't know if you've heard me talk about it before, but I have a secret.

If you want to avoid being brutally attacked by by a crowd of people who will not call 911 and not try to stop it, I do know how to do that.

Someday I'll tell you about it.

What?

Um, Bingington University says there there's some study that says that most women in the field of STEM that are still in school, I guess, um, feel like frauds.

So, they more than men, I guess.

Yeah, I think a lot of the men would feel like frauds as well.

But a lot of the women and it's, uh, what percentage?

It was like 97.5% of women in STEM graduate programs report at least a moderate level of impostor experiences.

So they don't feel like they're qualified for the the field they're in.

Now I have a cure for that.

You ready?

So this is something that took me a long time to learn.

When I first entered the uh the workforce, I of course believed that I was worthless because I didn't know anything.

I had no experience, didn't know how the company worked, and that I was a total impostor and that I had to just sort of pretend I knew what I was doing.

Then eventually, you know, you learn how some things work.

But then I would get promoted or change jobs just when I was learning how the thing worked.

And then I would be in a new unfamiliar situation in which I was once again the least capable person in that environment.

But I'd work on it until I could build up some experience and capability and then I would change jobs again.

I changed jobs a lot every I don't know six to nine months when I was a banker.

And uh so I often almost continuously had the imposttor syndrome but it never really bothered me except for maybe the first few months.

Here's my reframe so that you can learn to avoid your own imposttor syndrome.

It goes like this.

Everybody is an impostor.

Everybody is bluffing.

everybody all the time.

And they also feel that you can tell that they're bluffing and they're hoping that you don't know that they're bluffing.

The moment you realize it's universal, that everybody's bluffing and they all feel like they don't know enough about their own field, then it won't bother you.

You You're not the one person who's the impostor.

It's all impostors all the way down.

It's turtles all the way down.

So try that reframe.

And by the way, I guarantee it's true.

So you don't have to just say it and then not believe it.

It's true.

Everybody believes that they're an impostor to some some degree.

So don't worry about it.

You can feel that you're an impostor, but don't feel like it matters.

That's a completely different question.

Doesn't matter.

It's the way it's always been.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had to say for today.

And I hope you enjoyed it even a little bit or even a lot.

I'm going to talk privately to the people on um locals, my beloved subscribers, and the rest of you.

Thanks for joining.

I will see you same time, same place tomorrow for more fun.

We'll solve all the problems in the world and then we'll really launch that golden age.

All right, locals coming at you in 30 Thanks.

Hey. Uh, check your stocks if you have

any.

It's kind of flat.

All right. Well, we'll uh keep our

fingers crossed. You never know.

[Music]

Hey, everybody. Come on in. It's good to

see you. Have you been exercising? You

look so good this morning.

May I remind you that you're the sexiest

person in your house right now?

Probably.

[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

this experience to levels that no one

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains.

Well, all you need for that is a copper

mug or a glass, a tanker shell, sustain

a canteen, jugger flask, a vessel of any

kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee. And join me now for the

unparallel pleasure, the dopamine of the

day, the thing that makes everything

better. It's called the simultaneous sip

and it happens now.

Uh, well, if you were one of the

subscribers to the Dilbert comic,

which would mean you were either an ex

subscribing or on locals

you would know that Wall-E has uh has

done the the impossible. He figured out

how to not work at work, but then he got

a Tesla self-driving car so that he

doesn't have to work at his commute and

then he doesn't have to work at his job

and then when he goes home he doesn't

have to work on his commute again.

Oh, Wall-E finally figured out how to do

no effort whatsoever all day long thanks

to Tesla.

Well, I wonder if there's any scientific

news about studies that you didn't need

to do because you could have just asked

me. Oh, here's one. According to Science

News, Simon Min is writing that if you

show people sick faces, it primes the

immune system to repel invaders.

So, all you need to do is show people

pictures of sicklooking faces and it

will cause your immune system to kick in

so that you don't become one of those

sicklooking people.

Now, how did I know that that was um

probably going to be true? It's a

hypnosis thing. A hypnotist would know

that your body works in two directions.

One, if you're happy, it might make you

smile. But if you smile when you're not

happy, it might help you make you happy.

So, your body is sort of a two-way

system. But uh it does make sense to me

that if your body recognized a threat by

looking at somebody who looked unhealthy

and you think to yourself, "Oo, I can

catch that." Maybe I could see how your

your body would have evolved to

automatically go to defensive mode. So

next time just ask me.

Well, there's a uh new article from the

University of Michigan that a new study

that ultrarocessed foods trigger

addictive behaviors and that it meets a

clinical criteria.

So, we might be approaching the time

when addiction

includes more than alcohol and illicit

drugs. It might include ultrarocessed

foods. Now, I told you, well, some of

you about my experience several days

ago, which is I was trying to gain some

weight cuz I lost too much weight. You

I'm battling this uh well, you know, so

I had lost too much weight. So, I was

just trying to gain it back as, you

know, quickly as possible. And uh I said

to myself, I'll bet you I could eat ice

cream, which I hadn't had in 25 years.

And I thought, well, I'll just eat some

ice cream. And I ended up I probably had

a quart.

I think a container about this big. I

just ate it right to the bottom. And

I could not stop.

It was addictive. And because I don't

normally eat food that is um processed

or highly processed, I'm I'm not really

exposed to addictive foods. I just avoid

them. Hey there, Gary. Come on up. Um

so, so after avoiding all the sugary

addictive foods for years, really, I

don't even keep them in the house. Uh

when I finally let myself experience the

ultrarocessed foods, I was so aware that

my body had been taken over that the

experience was like being in a robot and

watching the arms and the legs and the

and the mouth and stuff. I couldn't stop

it. It was every bit an addiction. It it

totally took over my brain. So the only

way that I can avoid stuff like that is

I can't have it in the house

otherwise

it is just too strong.

Well, 21 states,

um, I assume these are the red states,

um, have warned JP Morgan, Jaime

Diamond, the head of JP Morgan, and

Black Rock's Larry Frink that, uh, that

both of those banker types, those money

guys, need to get rid of their woke

environmental

requirements.

So,

um, a letter was signed by 26 state

financial officers and they ordered

those firms to take five concrete

actions to demonstrate their commitment

to a fiduciary model grounded in

financial integrity, not political

advocacy. So in other words, they wanted

to make sure that the big money people

were making decisions based on their

customers and not making decisions based

on uh climate change and you know I want

to change the world and uh have more

diversity and stuff like that. So,

the pendulum has completely reversed and

now it's if you're doing those things,

you're

uh somebody who needs to change what

you're doing.

All right.

Well, you've been following the dispute

between the Trump administration and

Harvard. Harvard was too woke and too

racist. And uh now Harvard uh watched

what happened when Colombia, was it

Colombia, which is the one that Yeah.

Colombia just settled for 200 million

plus. And now Harvard is indicating it

might be willing to settle up with the

administration

for as much as $500 million.

Now, I don't know if that's true because

this is a sort of reporting that feels a

little mind readading readerish. So, I

don't know that that's real a real

number, but News Newsmax is reporting it

that they might be ponying up $500

million just to resolve it and to get

their federal funding released.

Um, and so once again, I am impressed at

how President Trump can monetize his

problems.

Not only will the universities

ideally, you know, address their racism,

but uh, they will also pay a bunch of

money into the Treasury so that Trump

can lower the deficit. I just love that.

No other president

has really ever tried to monetize all of

his biggest problems, but Trump is doing

it one after another. And every time he

does it, you know, you you kind of fail

to notice that it's part of a pattern

that he's just monetizing everything.

It's very impressive.

So, you want to be uh frightened about

something, you should be. So Sam Alman

warns, I think he was on Theo Van's

podcast and he warns that uh Chat GBT

remembers its conversations with you. It

also remembers what you've uh asked it

about.

So, if ever there were some kind of

lawsuit in which um it became necessary

to find out what you've been saying and

thinking lately, they could with a

warrant, they could access all of your

questions to AI.

So, how many people do you think have

contemplated breaking the law and ask AI

how to do it effectively and get away

with it? I don't know how many, but I'm

guessing a lot of people

I'm guessing that a lot of people have

asked AI how to get away with a crime. A

lot of people at the very least, you

know, how to hide your tax money

illegally or how to do something

illegally. So, um, I'm proud to say that

I knew that was a risk from the start.

And so I do not use Google search

engines to look for anything that I

wouldn't want the entire world to know

about.

You should adopt that standard. Let me

say it again. Don't use a search engine

or AI

to look for anything, anything at all

that you wouldn't want the whole world

to see publicly because the odds of them

someday seeing it publicly not very bad.

there's a good chance they will.

So, uh, follow that advice.

Um, so you may have noticed that the

whole Russia hoax collusion story should

be the biggest story in America because

now even more than we already knew, we

know that uh I think we know it. I I

feel like the information is sufficient

at this point for me to call it a fact.

It's a fact that Obama and Brennan and

Clapper and Comey um and a bunch of

others colluded to overthrow the

government of the United States. To me,

based on what we've been told by Tulsi

Gabbard and what we've know from other

reporting, I believe that that's no

longer in question. Is it? Is there even

a question about whether those those

cats I mentioned were trying to change

the result of elections or get rid of

Trump once he got elected? There's no

doubt about it, right?

So the question is um

why is it not a bigger story? If you're

following only the news on the political

right, you think it's a big story, but

nobody on the political right is

changing their opinion about any of it

because we already knew, we kind of

already knew it, right? But the people

on the left who don't know anything

about it and indeed still think that the

dossier was real and that uh Mueller

proved there was uh collusion. If you

talk to Democrats, they will tell you

that that Müller proved collusion.

Um, that Russia tried to help Trump

and

and that's all there is to the story.

They'll have no idea that, you know, the

the worst political actors in our

lifetime, maybe ever, um, pulled off the

most despicable

coup attempt, and it's just not really

something their news is interested in.

Now, it makes sense that the mainstream

news wouldn't cover much of it. They've

all mentioned it, of course, so it's not

like somebody's completely ignored it.

Um,

but they they can't really say what's

true because that would implicate

themselves and they're already

implicated enough with the Biden brain

coverup.

Imagine if they go from the Biden brain

cover up to, well, I guess we also

covered up the Russia collusion hoax.

Uh, yeah, that's the other thing we did.

We covered that up and now they're

covering it up again.

How in the world can they get away with

that? And the answer is because it's a

complicated story.

All you need is a complicated story with

lots of actors and actions and you know

it goes across time.

Uh you combine the complicated story

with all of the people on the mainstream

media for their own use, their own

reasons so they don't have to be talked

into it. minimizing the story and acting

like there's nothing there.

That's all you need to make it go away.

So, what's interesting is

the only way the story, which is the

most relevant story in American um

experience at the moment, the it's the

biggest one, but it's totally going

away. And the Democrats will succeed in

disappearing it right in front of you.

and their their voters won't even won't

even imagine that it matters when they

go to the voting booth. Won't even be on

the on their minds at all. Won't be in

the top 20 of things they're thinking

about. Um the only thing that would

change that is a perp walk or actually

arresting Obama

or Brennan or Clapper or Comey. So,

um, you know, I've said before that

normally I'm not I'm not too keen on one

administration punishing the last

administration cuz, you know, that's a a

slippery slope to complete chaos. But

that's only if you're the one who's

starting it. If the other side started

it and they made it clear that they will

do absolutely anything, including the

the the fine people hoax, including

covering up Biden's brain, including um

saying things that would get Trump

assassinated,

uh and including the Russia hoax.

There's absolutely nothing that they

wouldn't do to, you know, retain power.

So,

so anyway, that's happening. The only

way to keep it in the news is to arrest

a highle person. So, if I were Trump and

his team,

um, I would be thinking, who should we

go after first? And somebody needs to

get arrested. Now, that doesn't mean

they'll go to jail. I think the odds of

any of them going to jail are pretty low

because there's a thing called lawyers

and there may be some credible

deniability and I feel like they may

have created a situation where they can

weasle it sort of like they did the

hunter laptop where they say we never

said it was Russian. No, we never said

that. That's what you believe we said.

But if you look at our actual words,

what we said was it has all the the look

of being a Russian product. We didn't

say it was, which would have been wrong.

We just said it really looks like it.

So, there's going to be some version of

that that would probably be a sufficient

defense, you know, at least with the

jury trial.

Anyway, um

Sean Davis is pointing out that Gina

Haspel, who had been the head of the

CIA,

um she uh reported prior to the 20 Oh, I

guess Sean Davis was writing about this

all all the way in 2020.

um that she personally blocked the

release of key documents exposing the

Russia collusion hoax and that she was

personally banking on a Trump election

loss to keep all the evidence hidden.

Now, I don't know exactly how Shawn

Davis says that uh exclusive scoop, but

he's a credible guy, so if he says so, I

believe it. So, could that be much worse

than having the CIA, the CIA working

against the country?

Well, that's about as bad as it gets.

All right. Um, Senator Holly, Josh

Holly, is introducing a bill to take the

$600 million, not million, billion,

right? 600 billion uh that we've made

from tariffs or that we will make from

tariffs by the end of the year and uh

give rebate.

Oh no, he's talking about a $600 tariff

rebate check. Sorry, it was written. Um

so he wants to give rebate checks based

on all the tariff money coming in.

What do you think of that? Do you think

that um Trump's base wants to get a

tariff rebate check and it would only be

for people under a certain income? And

do you think they'd rather do that or

have it go toward paying down the

national debt?

Well, the answer is I'm pretty sure most

Republicans would say pay down that

debt.

Um, remember I told you that um,

Congress is so broken that no matter how

much money Doge could save, and this

applies to the tariffs, no matter how

much money the tariffs make, that

instead of seeing it as a reduction in

your expenses or reduction in your

deficit, that Congress would see it as a

source of money to spend. That's what

this is. So Josh Holly is seeing this

tariff stuff as a source of money to

spend to what? Directly buy some votes

by just sending people a check. I assume

it polls well because Holly is pretty

smart. So he wouldn't suggest it unless

he probably had some internal polling or

something that says, "Oh yeah, if you

send people a check, they remember the

check and they might want another one."

So, so it'll help uh Republicans get

elected, but I'm opposed to it.

Um, but I can understand why they'd want

to do it if it's good for them getting

reelected.

Um, according to Axios,

Dem Democrats have a reason to be

optimistic about the 2026 midterm

elections. So, here are the reasons that

Axios gives for why Democrats would do

well in the midterms. Now, keep in mind

that you don't need any reasons. Um, we

have such a long track record of the

party that's not in power gaining seats

in midterm elections. So, it almost

doesn't matter who the president is, and

probably it's just going to go that

usual way. However, if if ever there was

a time that it wouldn't go the usual

way, it would be this time. So, uh the

historical trend, which you know, even

if it had been 100% of the time up until

now, this would be the one time you

could legitimately say, well,

this this situation is fundamentally

different. And what's fundamentally

different is that the favorability of

Democrats is at an all-time low and that

Trump is having the presidency of all

presidencies. Now, not everybody's going

to give him as high marks as his base,

but we'll talk about that. Even even the

Democrats are starting to say, "All

right, well, okay, I got to admit that

was pretty good what you did there,

Trump." So, that's a situation

that's very rare.

Will it be enough? I don't know. But

listen to Axios's

um five things that would make Democrats

have a better midterm, right? Uh they

say the big beautiful bill is polling

terribly.

Well, I think people would only care

about individual things

that that are in the bill. I don't think

they would vote or show up to vote or

decide not to stay home because of the

big beautiful bill. Does that one sound

persuasive to you that because people

don't like the big beautiful bill

that more Democrats will show up for the

midterms? I don't feel like it. I I feel

like if you had a conversation with any

Democrat, you stop them on the street.

You go, "Tell me about Trump and why

you'd want Democrats to win the

midterm."

Would any of them say, "Well, I'm still

mad about that big, beautiful bill that

I don't even know what was in it." I

don't feel like it. So, I'm going to I'm

going to disagree with Axios on their

first one. Number two, cuts to Medicaid

and the Affordable Care Act. Um, which

is part of the big beautiful bill. Um,

let's be mad at that. That's a

possibility.

But if we if we go another year and the

people who vote have not personally lost

their healthcare,

do you think they'll have as much

interest in it? It will be true that uh

illegal, you know, non-citizens will

lose their coverage. It will be true

there's some uh able-bodied people who

should have done something more to make

sure that they got their healthcare i.e.

get off the couch and get a job.

If are those people who are going to

vote

if you were so lazy that you wouldn't

even get a job so that you can also have

healthcare.

Do you think you're voting?

I don't know. So, it's possible that

while on in concept the Democrats would

be very against anybody losing

healthcare, but they might just forget

about it because they might not know

anybody who actually loses their

healthcare and and didn't have it

coming. So, we'll see. So, that one

could make a difference, but not 100%.

Then there is the fact that prices are

still high under Trump and he had

promised to lower them. Let me ask you

this. How many of you think that a

president has any control over prices?

Why are we even talking about it? The

the only thing a president can do is not

overspend.

That's it. They they basically have one

button. don't run up the debt so we have

to print a bunch of money. Nothing else.

Now Trump also has the energy thing

which is an inspired way to look at it.

So if he goosees energy production

and he has been let's say judicious with

the debt so that it's not spiraling out

of control and he's doing some doge

things.

Um that's all he can do. No. Well, if

you look at things like eggs,

um the government can, you know,

subsidize one area of expenses for a

while or uh they can change some change

some regulations so that one part of the

um one part of the economy improves like

eggs.

But basically, you don't have really any

tools. you're just doing more energy

because that lowers all the energy costs

and you're uh

yeah so I don't know I do think that

people are have an affordability problem

and that that will matter

uh even though it shouldn't maybe

um then there's Trump's deportation

because he's sending back more than just

the worst first but I have not heard

anybody complain about it yet have you

Is there anybody in your real your real

world who's complaining that too many of

the wrong kind of people are being

shipped out of the country? I've

complained. Um, nobody I know has been

shipped out of the country. Nobody I

know has been deported. But I do have a

problem with somebody who's lived and

worked here for 20 years being deported.

I I'm not going to I'm not going to hide

that just because I know that's not

popular to say on this broadcast and you

might have a different opinion and I

would respect that. Um but the one thing

I'll tell you is that the more personal

contact you have with members of the

immigrant community,

there's no way that doesn't affect you.

And I've had a lot of contact. So, you

know, if you had as much contact as I

did over the course of your adult life,

you would probably agree with me, but

most of you haven't. So, on paper, I if

if there were no humans involved just on

paper, I would say, "Yeah, of course.

Deport everybody. Absolutely." But once

it becomes personal, well, it's harder.

All right. Um

then the fifth thing from Axios is that

Democratic enthusiasm to go vote in the

midterms is much higher than Republican

enthusiasm.

But I wonder if that's something you can

measure yet

because when the midterms get close,

Trump is going to get really active.

And even though he's not in that

election, he's going to make sure you

think it's the end of the world if you

don't vote. So, I would kind of suspect

that Republican uh enthusiasm for voting

might be a lot higher once we get there.

But also, I don't know that Republicans

need enthusiasm to vote.

Democrats might. They might need to get

whipped up to vote, but I feel like

Republicans vote because it's a civic

duty.

A and you know, the stuff you want. So,

I don't know. I don't know if enthusiasm

really tells you what Republicans are

going to do. I just have a open question

on that.

Um, according to Mike Benz,

I guess the National Endowment for

Democra Democracy, better known as NED,

got fully funded by the House of

Republicans.

Um, Trump had asked for that to be

zeroed out and the entire National

Endowment for Democracy to be

eliminated. Now, I can't explain

this story as much as Mike Benz could.

So, let me say if you're not following

Mike Benz, you probably are just flying

blind trying to understand why

everything is the way it is. You really

need to follow him. It's completely

uh it'll just spin your brain around in

in your head. But I think the bottom

line is that this National Endowment for

Democracy

may have been something that the CIA

uses to further its goals and maybe

that's the reason they're keeping it. I

don't know. So I can't give you the full

story. I'll refer you to Benz on that.

Um,

so Trump is now suggesting that the

Democrats might have planted some names

in the Epstein files. He said, "Those

files were run by the worst scum on

earth." That's when Biden was in

control. The whole thing is a hoax. They

ran the files. I was running against

somebody that ran the files. If they had

something, you know, bad for Trump, uh,

they would have released. I think that's

true.

Uh, and he says, "Now they can easily

put something in the files that's

phony."

Well, to me it seems like he's

inoculating us just in case there's

something in there that doesn't look

good for Trump. And my guess is

apparently he's mentioned a bunch of

times, but never went to the island.

There's no no direct evidence that he

was involved in anything illegal or

unethical with Epstein.

But

um there might be there might be

something in there that he doesn't know

about. So he's just inoculating us by

saying, "But you know, they could put

fake stuff in there."

All right.

Um apparently

the CIA

um person who put together the Russia

report about the steel dossier.

uh or did she just put together a Russia

report? Um she led the team that created

the draft intel community assessment on

Russian meddling in 2016

and she's still allin and she still

embraces the steel dossier. Um and in

her social media the past she's referred

to Trump as a dictator and uh mega as

Nazis.

So that's who was giving you your uh

your objective uh assessment of Russia,

someone who thought Trump was Hitler.

And apparently she's now doing some

interviews.

Um Susan Miller, recently retired CIA

counter intelligence officer.

Um so she was tight with Brennan, I

guess, putting that stuff together.

And uh

apparently Susan Miller, the CIA person,

uh according to Paul Sperry, is best

friends with Caroline Kennedy and she

also helped write the Muller report.

Unbelievable.

So again, I say it's so obvious that

this was a coup attempt. Somebody needs

to get arrested. They really, really do.

Well, Trump says he's now shortening the

time he's given to Vladimir Putin. He'd

given him 50 days. Some of those days

had expired, but he's now reducing it to

10 to 12 days to reach a ceasefire with

Ukraine because Trump says we just don't

see any progress being made.

Um,

and then he's talking about how if

there's no progress made in 10 or 12

days that uh they'd put these gigantic

secondary tariffs on them. So the

secondary tariff is a tariff on people

who were doing business with Russia

because we've already tariffed Russia

directly, I guess. So there's nothing

left to tariff. So, what if the 12 days

go by and then what if Trump does in

fact put in these secondary tariffs?

That would be kind of devastating. But

what if they don't work?

What then?

What then? Because do you think that

Russia is going to cave because of the

secondary tariffs? Or is it more likely

they'll just find ways to avoid being

detected and they'll do as much trading

as they always did? Or maybe China will

say, uh, we're going to tariff you if

you tariff us 500%.

So, I don't feel like there's really a

path to a solution.

Um, but he might be monetizing it. It

might be that that's all it is. He's

just monetizing the war a second way

because he's already monetized it by uh

not providing money to Ukraine, but only

selling weapons to Europe to give to

Ukraine. So, he's monetized it one way.

If he monetizes it with these secondary

tariffs, he's monetized it a second way.

But there's no real chance that that's

going to settle anything, right?

Um meanwhile in a related story uh

Russia is testing a um remote controlled

tank

uh and it's a tank that's hardened

against uh drones bombing it etc. So

remember my prediction

that the Ukraine Russia war at least the

front line will turn into an all robot

war. So now now Russia will be able to

have a tank brigade. I don't know if I'm

using that word right, but a bunch of

tanks that can attack a position and

there won't be a single person in the

tanks and they'll just be fully

functional tanks.

So

yeah, it's going to be robot on robot.

Um you may be following the story in

Gaza in which uh a lot of people are

saying that there's a famine there that

the uh the poor uh citizens who are

still in that area uh are having some

starvation. There were reports of people

dying of starvation. But I remind you

that all information coming out of the

war zone is unreliable. Doesn't matter

who is saying it. Doesn't matter if it's

Israel or Israel's enemy.

You can't really believe anything that

comes out of the war zone, especially on

stuff like this. However, when Trump was

asked about it,

he said, uh, there's no way that that's

a fake because he's seeing the the

actual children on TV. He goes, they're

hungry. He goes, you can't fake

starvation.

And I think Trump is right about that.

So if he's looking at the images of the

actual citizens and they look like

they're starving,

that's not something you'd be wrong

about.

So my guess is that uh while Israel

might be trying as hard as they can to

avoid it, there's probably some

starvation happening.

Uh that's a lie, Scott. We all know it's

happening. Yeah. So anyway, so the um I

I I think as soon as you say we all know

that something's happening, then you're

not a serious person because you can't

really know too much about what's

happening over there, even even if you

think it's really obvious. Probably we

don't. Um

but there's more on this topic

apparently. And then Trump uh quite

reasonably is talking about the need to

feed the feed the people. So that's the

right focus. I like it when he does

that. Uh Trump gave uh Kier Starmer of

the UK uh what the independent is

calling a green light to recognize the

Palestinian state. You probably heard

that France decided to recognize

um Palestinian state or promote a

two-state solution, I guess. So now

Starmer wants to do that. It's not a

done deal, but he checked with Trump and

Trump said you could do that. Now,

that's interesting to me because I don't

remember Trump ever saying he favored or

did not favor Tuesday's solution, which

is weird that I don't know that. Um,

because that would be the most important

thing to know, right? Does anybody know

has Trump said anything recently

about a two-state solution versus a

one-state solution?

I don't know. Um,

however, in my opinion, it doesn't

matter what anybody else wants because

Israel is the only one that's going to

decide, and I don't think that they're

anywhere near wanting a two-state

solution. So, um, we'll see how many

people line up against Israel's

one-state solution, and it might be the

United States. It's entirely possible

that Trump has the the capital

Um, hope you can't hear my cat with his

cat toy over there. Um, Trump has the

political capital to say, you know what,

you really need to make a two-state

solution. Now, I'm not saying I'm in

favor of that or that's a good idea. Um,

what I say is I'm American, so they just

need to work it out. And, uh, I I will

just observe. I will not condemn and I

will not recommend.

Um Trump does say he might he wants the

Netanyahu to quote soften his tactics in

Gaza. He may have to do it a different

way. We don't know what that different

way would look like.

But the uh here's the big question. I'm

going to teach you something about

debate today. And you may have heard me

say this before, but if somebody tries

to win a debate by forcing you to accept

their definition of a word, that's not a

debate.

That that's not a reason. That's

somebody trying to weasle you into

winning a debate by getting you to

accept their their own definition of a

word.

For example, with uh abortion,

um if you say that's a living human

person as soon as soon as the uh the

body produces whatever the the fetus is,

if you say it's a person, then it sounds

like murder if you do an abortion. If

you say it's a fetus,

then doesn't sound so much like murder.

So with a lot of our uh debates, we try

to win the debate by insisting that

somebody accept our definition of

something. For example, in the um the

pandemic,

if I say to you uh the experts have

created a uh kind of a shot that can

help you in various ways,

but you say no, it's an experimental

shot. If you can make me accept that

it's experimental,

then you've won the argument.

There's nothing else to say.

So here again with uh with Israel, the

word genocide is becoming the debate.

So if you could get the people who

disagree with you to accept the

definition of genocide that you want to

push forward and you could say uh Israel

is involved in genocide.

But if uh if somebody else can get you a

definition that doesn't say that then

they can get they could win their

argument just by definitions again. So I

went to uh Grock and asked it to define

genocide cuz I was pretty sure I didn't

know exactly the definition.

So let me tell you what G says is

genocide and then you can say is that

happening over in Gaza? So it would

include killing members of the group

but that's you know not by itself. That

wouldn't be enough by itself because

there's lots of wars where people are

killing members of the other group, but

those wars are not all genocide, right?

So, um that would be an indicator, but

it wouldn't be enough by itself. Uh

causing serious bodily or mental harm,

that would be in the same category of

causing harm to people. Inflicting

conditions to bring about physical

destruction.

Is that happening in Gaza? Is Israel

inflicting conditions to bring about

physical destruction?

Yes. Yes, they are. But that doesn't

mean it's genocide.

We're we're going to look at the all the

definition before we decide.

Uh what about preventing births within

the group that's being targeted? Well,

there's no evidence that Israel is

intentionally preventing births,

but I would guess there are fewer of

them under the current situations. I

don't know, could be wrong. It might go

the other way. Um, but again, these are

not you must have checked all the boxes.

So, it's not a every box situation. Um,

and then forcibly transferring children

to another group. Um,

there may be some of that

for orphans, but doesn't seem like

that's a major element that's going on.

And then here's the important part. For

something to be legally categorized as

genocide, listen, listen to this part.

This is the most important part. You

would have to prove intent.

So, if Israel's intent is self-defense

and all of their documents say that and

all their public statements say that and

you can't find any counter to that, it

just looks like this is their version of

what would help their self-defense. If

that's true, it's not a genocide.

And as far as I know, there has not been

any statement or leak or whistleblower

who would say, "Oh, oh yeah, the the

real intention is to, you know, kill as

many of the the residents of Gaza as we

can and depopulate it." I don't believe

you would find that. If you did and it

was coming from the top, well, that'd be

a pretty good argument that it's

genocide, but I don't believe we've seen

that.

Um and uh experts are split on the

question of whether scale makes a

difference. So in other words, if it's a

big enough killing,

then some would say some experts would

say the size of it alone tells you their

intention

because nobody accidentally kills

millions of people of the same group,

right? So if it's big enough, you don't

have to ask yourself, well, is there a

document that says that you intended to

do it? Well, it's so big.

Killing millions of people, obviously,

you intended it. Sort of like the

Holocaust.

You know, you don't have to ask, well,

could you give us more thinking about

that Holocaust situation? What were they

thinking?

You could talk about that all day long,

but the scale of it

is enough to say it was a genocide. you

don't you don't need to know too much

about their inner thoughts.

So, it's subjective

and uh

I'm not going to make a determination

about whether that's genocide or not. Um

the closest you could get is that Israel

says they want total victory.

And I'm wondering, is that what Germany

and Japan experienced? Would you say

that the US um

had a genocide in Japan at the end of

World War II or would you say there was

a genocide in Germany after Germany

surrendered because it got pretty ugly.

There was a lot of starvation in Germany

in particular, probably in Japan. Um,

so I'll just say this. To me, the um the

Hamas versus Israel situation has a

weird quality, which is that if if

Israel were not doing what it's doing,

and Hamas got its way, they would create

a genocide of the Israelis.

So if you're trying to determine if one

side is doing a genocide, I I feel like

it matters

like who your target group is. If your

target group is somebody who you could

reasonably, very reasonably say if they

had the power, they would genocide us.

If Hamas had the power, would they

genocide Israel?

It looks like it, right? So if you have

two entities that appear like they both

think their only option is to genocide

the other one, do you even talk about

genocide?

It it just feels like it's not even the

right conversation. So it's very special

case where you've got such extremism on

both sides. It's not like a war, you

know, it's not like a war where somebody

wants to capture some territory or

something like that, you know, like

Ukraine. Ukraine's a war. Um, but

whatever is going on in the Middle East,

you got some extremism there that's not

like anything else. So, I will not give

you my opinion of whether genocide is

happening cuz that would be trying to

win an argument with a definition. And

the definition has enough squishiness in

it. and the and the situation is unique

enough that you're you're you're trying

to stop somebody who you think would

genocide you if you didn't stop them. So

I would just avoid the war that word

altogether.

Trump reminds us on truth social that

he's quote not seeking a summit with she

of China. Now, apparently there was some

reporting that says that he was seeking

a summit, which would make him look

weak, like he's begging she for a

meeting. And uh Trump says no, he's not

seeking a summit. Uh he would only do

that if he's invited, which he has been,

but he wants you to know it's up to him

if they meet. It's not that he's begging

she.

Um, it's only a few days be before

Trump's uh automatic tariffs kick in.

And that would only apply to

uh the auto

I got a little cat situation going on

here. Come here, Gary.

Come on.

Let go of that cable.

All right. Stop. Stop. Don't fight. Say

hi.

All right. You can go down. All right.

So, we don't know what'll happen when

that happens, but um we're hearing

lovely things about the European Union

deal that Trump got into. Would you

believe that people don't agree about

whether it was a good deal? So, the

Europeans

think that America got everything and

that Trump just rolled Europe and got

everything.

Um, and uh, some smart people say that.

But here's what the deal includes. The

EU is going to pay a 15% tariff on

everything. We will have no tariffs. So

that just looks like America winning.

The EU agreed to invest 600 billion in

the US

just because Trump wanted them to, but

apparently that one's um not one that

will be carefully monitored. So I feel

like that's the honor system that they

would spend that they would invest 600

billion in the US. So I wouldn't hold my

breath on that one.

And that the EU will purchase hundreds

of billions of dollars of American

military equipment. I feel like maybe

that was going to happen anyway. And the

EU commits to buying a whole bunch of

our LNG, our gas, um, even though it's

not the cheapest source for energy.

Um, anyway, and in exchange for what are

being called concessions,

the EU would get nothing because the

apparently America did not agree to give

them anything. They just agreed what

what we were going to take.

Well, Schumer says it's a fake deal uh

because there some elements of this are

non-binding.

So, I think the commitments to buy

energy and weapons and the invest 600

billion. Uh maybe sort of window

dressing that Trump is smart enough to

put on this deal because it sounds like

more of a win. But Europe may have been

cleverly understanding that he needs to

announce a win, but when it comes right

down to it, maybe they won't do as much

of this as they say. We'll see. It's not

binding.

Um,

according to the Brussels signal,

uh, the the tariff deal in Europe will

really hurt the German car makers.

So, we're adding a tariff that will, you

know, jack up the cost of a German car

in the US. And here is my take. This

might be just me,

but uh you probably know that the I

think one of the bestselling cars in the

world is the Tesla Model Y. Is that

true? I think it's maybe one of the top

selling cars. But when I think of what

competes with Tesla, I usually think

German cars.

Do you if if you said to yourself, I'm

thinking of getting one of the, you

know, more expensive Teslas,

what would be your second choice for a

car?

Probably a German car, right? Mercedes,

BMW,

um, what's the other one? Um, and so it

makes me wonder if if Tesla is going to

be the big winner, if it makes it look

like the competing cars

are going to be more expensive.

So, we'll see. Anyway, Bill Maher

continues to

he continues to turn mega, but it's only

like one degree per week.

Now, he would say that's not happening

at all. But, uh, in his, uh, recent

show, they, um, what's it called? Club

Club Random show, he says to his guests,

"Look, the stock market is at record

highs. I don't see a country in

depression at all. I would have thought,

and I got to own it, that these tariffs

were going to f effing sink this economy

by this time, and they didn't."

So, if you're keeping track, here would

be all the things that Bill Maher has

now acknowledged

uh about Trump.

One, he's not a monster in person

because they had dinner together. Now,

he says, "I still disagree with all of

his policies, a bunch of policies, but I

have to say that in person, he's a he's

not Hiller." So, that's a start.

Um, then correct me if I'm wrong, Bill

Maher agrees with Trump on the trans

issue uh in sports. He he believes that

Trump did a good job on the border, if

not a great job. Um, he praised Trump

for the bombing of the Iranian nuclear

facilities. I think Maro was way on

board with that. He likes the fact that

Trump is pushing American patriotism.

I think he likes that.

And he does believe that the

Republicans, weirdly, are the free

speech party now and that all the

wokeness and all that stuff was coming

from his own team and that the

anti-semitism might be coming from his

own side.

So, I may I may uh be mischaracterizing

some of his opinion there. So, don't

blame him if if he heard it from me. Um,

but here's a here's what jumped out at

me. Apparently, Bill Maher had a very

firm opinion about what would happen

with tariffs

and he thought it would tank the economy

and that by now we would see the all

that chaos it caused, which he

acknowledges didn't happen. And so my

question is this, why did he have

certainty that turned out to be wrong?

Why did he have certainty about tariffs?

What would cause you to have any kind of

certainty about which direction that was

going to go? You could have optimism.

You could have pessimism.

But it almost sounded like he had

something closer to certainty that it

was a mistake. Where would he get that

certainty?

From watching TV and watching, you know,

and reading the New York Times, right?

And whatever else. You don't get that

certainty on something you've had no

exposure to and nobody's ever done and

there are smart people on both sides.

You don't get certainty from that. Yeah.

I I'll say again that the wisest opinion

I heard on uh tariffs the entire time,

the wisest opinion was Dana Perino who

said, "Can't tell. We'll just wait and

see. No way to know. Just wait and see."

And so I adopted her opinion. I said the

same. I was like, "Don't ask me. We've

never done this. We don't know how

Trump's going to play it. We don't know

if it's just a negotiation. We don't

know if he's going to be flexible. We

don't know how many times he's going to

be unpredictable and change things. We

don't know. It could work

and it might not." So to me, that was

the only reasonable take that might

work. You just don't know.

And now we know that it did. So, um,

you just watch what is left

of all the things that Bill Maher once

thought about Trump. He also used to

believe

that uh

he also used to believe that only the

Republicans doubted the elections.

And then it was uh Megan Kelly who

showed him a compilation clip of Hillary

Clinton and other other Democratic

leaders doubting that Trump really won.

So he knows that. He also knows the

Finding People hoax was a hoax.

What's left?

What what does he have left? That he

wishes Trump didn't cut healthcare.

But even the cuts to health care were to

preserve it, not to destroy it.

So, I don't know. Uh I don't think it's

likely that Bill Maher will ever become

Republican or Trump supporter, but it's

funny watching uh like all of the things

that support his his prior point of

view. One by one, each of these pillars

is being tapped out.

There's nothing left. Bill, you might as

well just come to the other side because

that's where all the common sense is

happening.

But meanwhile, um, James Carville says

he's not remotely worried about the

future of the Democratic party because

the Democrats have quote bucketloads of

talent coming. Bucket loads. Um, Pam Key

at Breitbart News is writing about this.

It was on, I guess, Fox News had an

interview with him. He was talking to

somebody on Fox News

on the story

is the name of the show and uh what do

you think? He said uh I think the hand

ringing well I agree to the image of the

party is at an all-time low. He goes

there's a bucketload of talent coming

online. Now

can you explain to me why the Democrats

are hiding all this talent?

So according to Carville,

their their party is in, you know,

complete life support. It's it's

basically

um it's basically the lowest it's been

in 35 years.

And according to Carville, waiting the

sidelines is a bucketload of highly

talented people.

What is it that's causing them not to

make themselves known right now?

Do they think that if they start too

early, they'll peak too soon? How in the

world

could you say that they have a bucket

load of talent? But they're all hiding.

All the talented people are, "Well,

maybe I'll just hide over here. I'll

write it out while I'm hiding." No,

James Carville, they would not be hiding

if they had bucketloads of talent. They

would not be hiding.

Well, um, according to

the economists were looking at the

tariffs so far, do you know who's paying

for the tariffs?

Um, is the end user paying for them in

the form of higher prices? That's what

Democrats said would happen. Is the

importing American company paying for it

with lower margins, profit margins, or

is the foreign company paying for it by

just paying for it? Because we won't buy

it unless they pay it. So, which of

those is paying for it? Well, the early

indication is that the American

importers are absorbing most of the

costs. Not all of it, but most of it.

Now, if that's the case, what would be

another way to describe that? The big

American companies, also small ones, but

the big ones, you know, would be the

biggest bang for the buck. Um,

they're eating most of the tariff costs.

Doesn't it seem like Trump found a way

to tax the oligarchs?

And meanwhile, while Bernie and AO and

AOC were running around the country

saying, "Oh, the oligarchs, the

oligarchs, they need to pay their fair

share." Meanwhile, Trump is implementing

these tariffs which have the

the unexpected effect of taxing the

oligarchs.

He taxed the oligarchs and he passed

some tax relief that should help all the

lower income people. uh while he is

taxing the oligarchs. It's called the

golden or the golden age people.

I guess the Fed is meeting to talk about

interest rates and now there are a few

members of the Fed who are in favor of

lowering them but it looks like the Fed

is not overall likely to lower rates. So

there's that. Are you following the

Sydney Sweeney

uh drama? So, a company called American

Eagle, they make uh casual clothes. Uh

they hired Sydney Sweeney, who's a

blonde um sex pot kind of actress who's

wellknown. And so she she doesn't go

overboard in my opinion, but she makes

it sexy,

sort of girl nextdoor sexy, you know,

not not gross sexy. And I think she does

it really well.

And uh apparently there's some outrage

over it and uh some progressives are

calling it white supremacy propaganda

because she said something about she has

good jeans, you know, meaning she's

pretty because she has good jeans, but

she's also selling blue jeans. And uh

apparently if you mention your jeans and

you're a pretty white woman, it's uh

that's that's some white supremacy right

there.

Um and then uh CNN reported that this

latest mass shooter who went into a

building in Manhattan

uh that he was possibly a white male

unless you see his picture. And he is

not possibly a white male. Let me just

put it that way.

But apparently the early reports are

that he had some kind of mental health

issue. So we don't know exactly why he

did what he did, but mental health issue

for sure. Um I wasn't going to talk

about this, but there's an angle that I

will. So, you know the story that in

Cincinnati the other day there was a

music festival and then I think it was

after the festival uh there was a large

crowd of uh black people who beat up

several white people and really beat

them badly while a 100 or so people

watched and filmed.

And here's the part that caught my

attention. Apparently only one of the

100 people called 911.

So there were a hundred black Americans

watching

what looked like entertainment to them.

Um the the brutal beating of some white

people and only one of the hundred

people thought to do something about it.

Now I don't know if any of the hundred

people tried to physically stop the

beating because I didn't see that in any

of the videos. Um, but um, someday I'm

going to share my secret on how to avoid

being brutally attacked. I don't know if

you've heard me talk about it before,

but I have a secret.

If you want to avoid being brutally

attacked by by a crowd of people who

will not call 911 and not try to stop

it, I do know how to do that. Someday

I'll tell you about it.

What?

Um, Bingington University says there

there's some study that says that most

women in the field of STEM that are

still in school, I guess,

um, feel like frauds.

So, they more than men, I guess. Yeah, I

think a lot of the men would feel like

frauds as well. But a lot of the women

and it's, uh, what percentage? It was

like 97.5% of women in STEM graduate

programs report at least a moderate

level of impostor experiences. So they

don't feel like they're qualified for

the the field they're in. Now I have a

cure for that. You ready?

So this is something that took me a long

time to learn. When I first entered the

uh the workforce,

I of course believed that I was

worthless because I didn't know

anything. I had no experience, didn't

know how the company worked, and that I

was a total impostor and that I had to

just sort of pretend I knew what I was

doing. Then eventually, you know, you

learn how some things work. But then I

would get promoted or change jobs just

when I was learning how the thing

worked. And then I would be in a new

unfamiliar situation in which I was once

again the least capable person in that

environment. But I'd work on it until I

could build up some experience and

capability and then I would change jobs

again. I changed jobs a lot every I

don't know six to nine months when I was

a banker.

And uh so I often

almost continuously had the imposttor

syndrome

but it never really bothered me except

for maybe the first few months. Here's

my reframe so that you can learn to

avoid your own imposttor syndrome. It

goes like this.

Everybody is an impostor. Everybody is

bluffing. everybody all the time. And

they also feel that you can tell that

they're bluffing and they're hoping that

you don't know that they're bluffing.

The moment you realize it's universal,

that everybody's bluffing and they all

feel like they don't know enough about

their own field, then it won't bother

you. You You're not the one person who's

the impostor. It's all impostors all the

way down. It's turtles all the way down.

So try that reframe. And by the way, I

guarantee it's true. So you don't have

to just say it and then not believe it.

It's true. Everybody believes that

they're an impostor to some some degree.

So don't worry about it. You can feel

that you're an impostor, but don't feel

like it matters. That's a completely

different question. Doesn't matter.

It's the way it's always been.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I

had to say for today. And I hope you

enjoyed it even a little bit or even a

lot. I'm going to talk privately to the

people on um locals, my beloved

subscribers, and the rest of you. Thanks

for joining. I will see you same time,

same place tomorrow for more fun. We'll

solve all the problems in the world and

then we'll really launch that golden

age. All right, locals

coming at you in 30 Thanks.