Episode 2913 CWSA 07/31/25

There you are.

Come on in.

I'm checking the stock market, which appears to be up.

So far so good.

Not Tesla.

Tesla's down a little bit.

All right, we'll put that on hold while we do a show that you deserve.

Yeah, you deserve it.

All right, let's make sure this is all working.

It's all working.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of Human Civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

And if you'd like to take this experience that's already the best thing that ever happened to you up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

Well, all you need for that would be a copper mug or a glass, a tankered shell, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

ever it's called the simultaneous happens now go ah so very good well here's a little uh a little tip for you um you might know that my book Loser Think was one of the books that got cancelled when I got cancelled So, if you tried to buy this, you would not be able to, but we are going to reissue it.

So, there'll be a second edition.

It'll be on Amazon and maybe a month or two.

I will let you know.

But there's a uh chapter here.

This was written in 2019.

And the chapter is called the golden age filter.

And in it, I made a bunch of predictions about how the golden age would unfold.

And you might say to yourself, huh, I wonder if those predictions are anything like what's actually happened now that uh the predictions were actually before the pandemic, right before.

So, you might want to check that out.

I think you'll be amused.

See what I got right, see what I got wrong.

Well, I would like to get your brains ready for the rest of the show with a little bit of an exercise.

All right.

Uh, those of you who are my regular viewers, I would like you to give me the answer to the question I haven't asked yet.

Go.

If you're new, boy, are you going to be impressed.

Watch this.

All right, everybody.

The answer to the question before I ask the question.

Go.

There it is.

That is the correct answer 25.

Well, Rasmus said in the polling company says that 73% of likely US voters believe that requiring a photo ID to vote is a reasonable measure to protect the integrity of elections.

So, let's see.

If 73% think it's a good idea, and there are a few people who don't know what they're doing, but uh 21% disagree, 21% think it's not reasonable to check ID, but I will give you full credit for 25% because, you know, margin of error.

Well, according to New Atlas, uh, one diet of soda a day increases type 2 diabetes risk by 38%.

According to a new landmark study, 14-year study.

So, let's see.

Um, if a diet soda can give you type 2 diabetes or make your risk of it much higher.

Um, let me check.

Okay.

Yes.

Yes.

100% of the things I was told as a kid have turned out to be wrong.

All of it.

I don't know about you, but I learned you can't eat a sandwich and go swimming for an hour.

Totally made up.

I don't know about you, but I learned you have to drink how how many glasses of water every day?

Totally made up.

Totally made up.

I learned that the safest thing you could do for your health is put on sunscreen before you go out in the sun.

Well, maybe the jury is still out on that, but the smartest people I know are not using sunscreen because apparently it's just a chemical that gets in your body.

Then, of course, there was the food pyramid.

You all remember that, right?

Completely upside down and wrong and probably still is.

Let's see what else.

Uh then there was uh what we believed about carbohydrates.

There was uh uh alcohol is good for you in moderation which turned out not to be true.

So yes, 100% of everything I was taught as a young person was made up.

All of it.

But my my whole uh first part of my life was just fake.

But thank God that you're here and I'm here at this time when finally we have all the correct answers to all the scientific questions.

Am I right?

Yeah.

Just think about how lucky that is that after I don't know, let's say the last 1.5 million years of evolution where we were completely wrong about reality.

Just totally wrong.

didn't didn't have a clue.

And then during my childhood, we were still wrong.

During my life, still wrong about everything.

But thank goodness I had I'm still alive when we figured out everything and now we're not wrong about anything.

Right.

Wait.

Right.

How many of you have fallen for the illusion that we used to be wrong in the past, but but now we've got things pretty well figured out.

I used to believe that.

I used to believe that that humans were fundamentally desperately wrong about all the important questions for 1.5 million years in a row.

But thank goodness, thank goodness I was born in the time when we finally got everything right.

There's almost no chance that the things you believe are true and right are true and right.

There's almost no chance.

It's never been true.

We've never been right about anything important.

But you it would make you crazy to imagine that we were just wrong about everything.

So you you tell yourself this weird little story that well we were wrong for 1.5 million years in a row but finally got it right just when you were born.

Uhhuh.

Uhhuh.

Uh well CJ Pearson has a opinion piece in Fox News.

CJ's talking about the war on hot women.

I could tell you what month it is by telling you what stories are the top stories.

It's summertime, people.

It's summertime.

So, the big story is the war on hot women.

And somehow the uh the pundits have managed to turn it into an actual story by uh uh by pretending that Sydney Sweeney, who did the uh advertisement, the sexy advertisement for American Eagle, which apparently worked really well and they sold out of their jeans.

They sold out.

If you wanted to buy some of those jeans, couldn't do it.

It was so successful.

And uh finally we're allowed to be common sensical again even if it hurts people's feelings.

So apparently the uh the ugliest people are very unhappy that uh that Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle would be talking about jeans.

Even though it was a joke and even though we can clearly see that that young woman has good genes, we're not allowed to say that anybody has good genes.

You're not allowed to say it cuz if you did, it would sort of change all of society because then you might say, "Well, you know, maybe maybe things are the way they ought to be cuz the people had the good genes did the best." Uh-oh.

Can't say that.

Cannot say that.

You know how I always tease the billionaires when billionaires are asked what's the secret of their success?

Do you know what they never say?

Well, to be perfectly honest, I'm just smarter than the people who didn't do as well.

Because that plus hard work will explain a lot.

Mark Zuckerberg, was he successful just because he tried hard?

No.

Although he did try hard, he's really smart.

Elon Musk, is it because he worked hard?

Well, he did work hard.

Still does, but he's smarter than the average person.

And that could go down the line and you would find that all these super successful people are unusually smart.

And we're supposed to ignore that, right?

And act like none of that mattered.

All right.

All right.

Fine.

But the uh Sydney Sweeney thing does show that apparently there's a little bit of common sense that's coming back.

But if you were one of those people who is um let's say jealous and angry that Sydney Sweeny's getting attention for you know being attractive and being born that way mostly.

I would give you this following consolation.

There has never been an easier time to be in the top 10% of attractive adults.

still hard to do it if you're young because you know that's just what you're born with.

But if you want to be in the top 10% of attractive adults, all you have to do is eat right and go to the gym.

That's it.

You know, maybe put a little of attention, a little bit of attention in what you do with your haircut and, you know, maybe learn a little bit about how to dress, but oh my god, it's never been easier to be in the top 10%.

So, if you're not in the top 10%, maybe you put a little bit of work into it and you could get there.

Uh Elon Musk, speaking of Elon, is bragging that uh X is now the number one news app in the USA.

Do you remember uh all the smart dumb people, you know, the people with high IQ's who told you that uh X had no chance of success and that uh it was a terrible move by Musk.

Uh he's he he's only good at building cars and rockets.

There's no reason to think he would be good at running a social media company.

And then he fired 80% of his staff.

And then all the smart dumb people said, "Well, told you.

Look, you had to fire everybody." And and then and then the advertisers started uh joining together to boycott it.

And then you said, "Well, there you go.

There's no way that's ever going to work." Well, it turns out that Elon Musk had one thing that other people didn't have.

He is way smarter than you are.

He's smarter than I am.

And apparently he knew how to make it work and he has.

It's now the number one news app in the USA.

Well, Kla Harris has announced that she will not be running for California governor.

Now, I would like to announce that I will also not be running to be governor of California.

Now, my reason is that I wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning.

I wonder what her reason would be.

H could it be that she doesn't have a chance in hell of winning and it would end all of her prospects forever if she ran for that and lost, which she probably would, the smart people say.

Um, however, I would like to suggest there might be one other reason.

I mean, maybe she's planning to run for president yet.

Maybe she hasn't ruled it out.

I don't know.

Uh but she may have some personal reasons for doing it.

We don't know.

Well, uh Jerome Powell did and the Fed did not cut interest rates yesterday at their meeting where they told us their decisions.

They did not cut interest rates.

Now, of course, uh Trump is not too happy about that.

Um he said that uh Jerome Powell is too late, too angry, too stupid, and too political.

Total loser.

Now, you know how I always compliment Trump for being um able to read the room and being persuasive and especially one-on-one like with individuals.

But it's hard for me to imagine that Jerome Powell could ever give Trump what he wants knowing that Jerome Powell's contract is up in May.

If my contract were up in May and uh my political enemy had been absolutely savaging me for months, I wouldn't give them what they wanted.

even if it were really important to the country, I would be just so mad that I would just say, "Oh, I guess I won't be cutting your interest rates cuz people are humans." So, I think that uh there's probably no chance that the government could browbe Jerome Powell into doing that and he didn't.

We'll talk about that some more.

Apparently in 2024, which would be if you're keeping track of your calendar, last year.

Last year, uh, Democrat Elizabeth Warren, Senator Warren, um, was on TV saying that Jerome Powell needs to cut interest rates.

What does she say now that Trump is president?

Now she says 2025, Trump needs to stop calling for Jerome Powell to cut interest rates.

Yes, Elizabeth Warren is one of the designated liars.

There are there's a handful of people Democrats who I always tell you if you see them go on TV that means that they've decided they have to go with a lie.

And it's not just an ordinary lie.

It's a big one.

One that you could easily debunk with, you know, a few minutes of effort.

But there are several people from Swallwell to Rascin to Elizabeth Warren who you could pretty much depend on will say whatever lie needs to be said at the time.

So, Elizabeth Warren.

Um, so Senator Josh Holly has introduced legislation to ban members of Congress from owning or trading individual stocks.

The problem is that they have inside information.

So if they were to trade stocks, um they would be tempted to cheat or we'd expect that they might cheat.

So it's a ugly situation.

And of course, uh people blame Nancy Pelosi for insider trading, which she denies uh even though it would be totally legal.

Congress is the one entity that has legal right to do insider trading.

Um and President Trump was asked about that and apparently even Republicans don't like the idea that uh Holly is putting forward the idea of uh banning Congress members from addit from owning stock.

But Trump was asked about it and he said, "Well, I like it conceptually." He said, "I don't know about it, but I like it conceptually." Um, I'm going to surprise you probably by saying I'm opposed to Holly's legislation because people in Congress are not exactly overpaid.

You know, if anything, they're probably underpaid.

And I understand that they have advantages, but I would handle it with transparency.

Now there are already I think there's already a website or a startup or something there reports whenever Congress makes a a trade so that you can match it.

Now, there might be a timing problem that Congress, you know, can get in a few days before you know about the trade or something like that, but you you basically know what the trade is.

And if you wanted, you could match your own investments to be the same as the politicians and then you can if they make money, you make money.

Um, I don't like I don't like taking a basic right away from politicians who are trying to serve the country.

That's, you know, best case scenario.

Um, do you think we should deny them the right to do the most basic financial thing that anybody does?

It's pretty basic.

If the if the legislation says that they can own stocks, but only if they're in funds.

So, it's not about individual companies.

It's about funds like the whole stock market.

I definitely wouldn't have any problem with that because then they would they would have some skin in the game of America.

But, uh, no, I don't like this.

Um, I would rather have transparency and if they have some insider information, you would have it too because you'd say, "Oh, that one always uses insider information," which is legal.

and that if you see the move, you just copy the move if it bothers you.

Um Nancy Pelosi agreed to go on CNN.

She thought she was going to be asked questions about the 60th anniversary of Medicaid and that would give her, I don't know, I guess an excuse to say bad things about Republicans and Trump.

So, she goes on and Jake Tapper um asked her about the idea of uh insider trading and uh she had a bit of a meltdown over that and she said, "Why do you have to read that?

That's not what I agreed to come and talk about." So, she got mad at the question.

Don't you think that getting mad at that question is sort of a tell?

Because if you put me in that position, I would say is something like, well, I leave all my investing to my husband and we don't talk about work, you know, which I'm sure is not true, but it'd be an easy way to defend yourself.

And then you could say something like, well, you know, it's all public, it's all transparent.

you can see exactly what stocks I buy and when.

And if you wanted to copy it, you could.

So, I would say that her reaction uh that she wasn't being treated special by the news tells you something, doesn't it?

She agrees to go on CNN and believe that she had successfully told them what they could and could not ask on a news program.

And then to his credit, um Jake Tapper asked her anyway.

She got mad.

So Brown University is going to settle with the White House for $50 million uh that they're going to give to some workforce development organizations.

So it's a settlement, but you know, the money doesn't go into the into the uh government's coffers.

It goes into some things that the government wanted them to put it into, which is good.

Newsmax is reporting on this.

And uh so that is how many how many colleges that now have decided to fund something that Trump wanted him to fund?

So he's got law firms giving him money uh or giving his campaign money uh or doing some kind of pro bono stuff.

He's got universities lining up to give him millions of dollars or at least put it into things that the Trump administration wants.

So that's working.

Newsmax is also saying that u Elon Musk's uh America party that he threatened he would launch a third party political party appears stalled.

Now, I don't think we can conclude that because there's no super hurry to form it.

So, he might he might still be, you know, asking around and doing some research.

Maybe.

We don't know.

We don't know what he's thinking.

But uh at least some people believe that he may have been threatening it to blow off steam and that he's now just fully committed to working on his companies and probably has no particular interest driving him to do that third party.

I don't know.

I feel like that could go either way.

But if I were to predict, which I will, I predict he will not form the third party.

Um, I think he would prefer having it out there as maybe a risk in case people go after him, but probably he'll hold back.

That's just my guess.

Don't really know.

Julie, Julie, don't be a piece of Julie.

Um, too late.

Well, China has unveiled a humanoid robot.

Another company I haven't mentioned yet with a brain that runs 275 trillion operations per second.

Right?

What do you think you could do with a robot whose brain could do 275 trillion operations per second?

Well, uh, so far all it can do is move boxes from one place to another.

That's all it does.

It just moves boxes.

But they're very proud of the fact that it can tell the difference between a small box and a big box and you know knows what to move where.

All right.

Sure.

Uh Shanghai Electric that's the name of the company.

So I am not impressed by the robot that can move boxes of various sizes.

Um, but then an American company named Figure is also building a humanoid robot and their leader Brett Adcock um showed us a video of one of the robots he has in his home that is uh putting laundry into the washing machine.

So, it's reaching into a laundry bag and putting the laundry into the into the washing machine.

Now, what did the video not show?

Here's what the video did not show.

Could the robot also put um soap in the washing machine and know how to operate the controls and turn it on?

Could it come back later and move that wet laundry into the dryer and then use those controls to dry it?

I'm guessing that if it could do those things that the video would have been edited to show that it can do the entire laundry process.

But I would like to triple down on my prediction that we do not have the technology that would power robots.

Obviously, we all think we can get there, but we're not really even in the right domain.

I don't even think they have the right, you know, approach.

It It looks like it's just sort of not possible.

Now, if I had to bet on it, I would bet that they would, you know, it will be solved at some point in the history.

But if you think that we're a few months away from humanoid robots, which by the way, last year, I believe Elon Musk was saying that the end of this year, which is sort of right around the corner, um that we see our first humanoid robots with general sort of general intelligence, some version of it.

We're not going to see that.

Would you agree?

We're definitely not within a year of having a autonomous robot that you can just give an assignments that has never seen before.

Like imagine a robot where you could say, um, I want you to uh reorganize these shelves, but it's never been taught to do that.

We're not really, we don't have any way to make that happen.

But we can move boxes from one place to another and we can have a robot take laundry out of one one container and put it in another and that's it.

That's apparently that's all they do.

Well, in economic news, the jobless claims numbers came in and um they're just pretty close to estimates.

Um, I guess the stock market like that cuz the market's higher.

Did you see that the gross domestic product was at 3%.

Um, which is better than it was in the spring.

Um, 3% would be a good solid GDP number.

And inflation also is not too bad.

So, I would like to say for the record because I haven't said this and I feel very bad about it.

If you believe the GDP number, that would be a mistake.

I a lot of uh Trump supporters, and I'm one of them, have sort of celebrated that inflation did not go up with tariffs, and they have it hasn't really, and that the GDP, you know, was solid.

But here's why you should not be too happy about that.

The the tariffs haven't even kicked in.

We we have no idea um what impact the tariffs will have on inflation.

Why do you think we already know the answer to that?

We don't know the answer to that.

There have been a few special deals, but probably almost nothing compared to what it will be or could be in terms of the total tariff impact.

So, I'm one of the people who who was doing a little bit of too early celebrating saying, "Whoa, look at this.

Trump's a genius." And he was right.

that tariffs have no no real effect or at least not one that's going to stop us uh on inflation.

We don't know that hasn't even you we're not even in the uh tariffs have happened phase much less the knowing the long-term impact.

Now I'm not opposed to the tariffs.

I'm not opposed to them, but I'm going to retreat to what I keep calling the Dana Parina Parino um view, which is we really don't know.

Maybe it would be the best idea that anybody's ever had.

Maybe it will just cause too much inflation and we'll wish it hadn't happened.

Both of those are still possible, you know, and maybe we'll know by the end of the year, but we don't know yet.

And so I would say with inflation and GDP that they both look good, but there are reasons that they would look good at the moment that would not apply to the rest of the year.

So I I like the optimism.

I like the fact that the Republicans are touting it as a win.

I like the fact that the pundits are touting it as a win.

And I was touting it as an economic win as well.

But I want to just be on record saying I'm not stupid.

It's way too early.

It's way too early to know it's a win.

So I'm not stupid, but I'm optimistic.

So, you know, I don't mind rolling with it a little bit because optimism is what drives the economy.

If you act optimistic, even if you're just acting, it's good for the economy because it makes other people think things are fine and then they invest and spend and do all those things that drive the economy.

All right.

Um, President Trump put a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods.

So that's likely to increase the price of what?

What?

50% increase of tariff on Brazilian goods is likely to lift the price of coffee.

Well, remember I told you it wasn't a perfect world.

The price of coffee might go up.

But Trump is also citing an executive order ending what is called the dimminimous trade loophole for low value packages.

So it used to be that if you sent um ship something into the US, some goods that you were selling to companies in the US um you didn't have to pay a tariff if it was below $800.

But now you will pay a duty or a tariff on all that.

So will that increase inflation?

It should.

It should increase inflation.

I mean that's how things work.

But maybe not.

Maybe not.

We'll see.

Well, the uh this trend that I love to death of Trump being able to announce a new trade deal, you know, like once a week or once every few days.

And once again, he's got another big win, or at least on paper, it looks that way.

South Korea has agreed to a deal, and part of that deal involves them uh putting money into US investments that the US would direct.

So, we would tell them where to invest or at least approve where they invest and they said yes to that.

Now, if you're if you're not catching the pattern yet, it looks like this that it looks like Trump is injecting into the conversations that they need to commit to some kind of, you know, huge multi-billion dollar amount of investments in the United States.

Technically, that would not be part of trade, but also technically I don't believe there's a penalty if they don't do it.

So, I'm not sure how many of these billion dollar investments in the US are really going to happen.

If they don't happen, I suppose Trump could, you know, increase their tariff.

So, he does have a a lever and a stick.

Um, but I'm not sure I believe the numbers.

I suspect most of those companies say to themselves, uh, it would be better to say we're going to do this and then wait for the next president to get in office and maybe he won't push it so much.

So, if we don't do it all in, you know, within Trump's term, we'll say, how about we give you 350 billion in investments over 10 years?

Because then, you know, they can just wait for Trump to be out of office.

So, but on paper and in terms of the news cycle, big win.

South Korea, major trading partner, um came in under the deadline.

But also, we hear from um Howard Lutnik, commerce secretary that uh we also have a deal with Thailand and Cambodia for a trade deal.

Don't know the details of that.

Some say it's not quite done.

Some say it is.

But another great week for Trump and uh Trump has allegedly struck some kind of an oil deal with Pakistan.

Uh that's a big deal, a big deal for deals.

It's days away from finalization.

So it's not done done, but it looks like it's going to happen.

And uh I think what it does is allow a US company that has not been yet named to be the you be a major player in exploiting the oil that Pakistan has.

So that sounds positive.

Every one of these trade deals and that oil deal I say to myself nobody thought of this before.

like it it feels like Trump is just picking up all this free money.

It's like, well, why don't we negotiate with him?

Okay.

And then he got he has this tariff idea that allows him to negotiate effectively and also put a you know artificial time limit on when they have to make a deal.

I believe there's a really good chance assuming that inflation doesn't get out of control.

But if things keep going well, and so far they are, but remember, we don't know yet.

By the end of the year, we'll know a lot more.

If if Trump keeps pushing this approach where the tariffs are used as a lever and a weapon and then he simply proposes deals with all kinds of different countries, he could just keep doing that forever and it will go down in history.

That's probably just the smartest thing any American president ever did.

Um, I don't know if history will ever give him the full weight of a uh of let's say respect for how he's created an asset out of nothing.

He created an asset out of nothing.

The the whole tariff thing was like it didn't exist until he got there.

Now it not only exists, he's made it the biggest thing that our our allies worry about.

So they they better get that fixed otherwise it's going to cost them anyway.

So that's happening.

And then uh according to I saw a post on X by NASA AI which I don't know if is if that's an AI account or somebody who's just involved in AI but anyway it was good summary there of the what the MA make America Healthy Again commission delivered.

Apparently, they've delivered their report and uh they found four root causes that I believe they want to look into more that are causing all the childhood um what do you call it?

Chronic diseases because the chronic diseases are out of control.

uh they've narrowed it down to ultrarocessed foods, environmental toxins, chronic stress and inactivity, and over medicalization of children.

And to me, that feels right.

Again, I remind you that everything we knew about health for the last 1.5 million years, all of it wrong.

But finally, we're right.

I don't know.

We'll see.

And then uh apparently some things are getting done that are good such as uh Trump approved uh waiverss to SNAP.

That's the food that's made available through the government to people who can't afford food.

SNAP.

Um but SNAP will not now you won't be able to buy junk food with your food stamps.

So Nebraska, Indiana, and Iowa have all already signed on to that.

So, you can't buy junk food.

Um, and the FDA is phasing out eight common artificial food dyes.

So, they will no longer be approved by the FDA after the little time has gone by to phase them out.

Um, and then Trump is doing that most favored nation thing with pharmaceutical stocks where he says we won't pay more than the other countries pay.

So, that could be a big saver.

We'll see.

Um, and of course he's he's got that uh tariff club he's using on that too.

Um, and then I guess RFK Jr.

is doing something about institutional capture, which is where the FDA and other approving organizations um, get staffed with people who know they have a job at the very place that they're approving as soon as they're done.

So, you want to get rid of that that conflict of interest.

So, those are good things.

I don't know if that's enough, but they're good things.

I was listening to uh RFK Jr.

uh talking at some event and he very cleverly um started his comments by saying that he's been coming to the White House for 65 years.

um you know cuz his relatives were or or JFK was there and he said that the White House has never looked better just you know just the physical look of the inside of it.

Uh apparently he's impressed with how Trump has improved the uh the decorations or the furniture or whatever.

And so he brought that up to sort of compliment Trump in front of a room full of people while the cameras were going.

And it was one of the smartest compliments you'll ever see in your life because you know that Trump cares about that.

He cares that he could make the White House look better than it had ever looked before.

Great compliment.

So if you you know here's one of the things I I try to teach in my my books.

Compliments are free.

If you're thinking of giving somebody a compliment and and it's genuine, you're really impressed by something and you keep it to yourself, that's not exactly something to be proud of.

It didn't cost you anything.

And if you deliver that compliment, there would probably be some great payoff, at least to the person who got the compliment.

So compliments are something you should learn how to give.

You'll never see a better one.

RFK Jr.

knows how to give a compliment.

That was one hell of a well-crafted compliment that came at an unexpected time that which also helps.

By the way, here's the here's the other tip.

A compliment that's not expected and it's not triggered by something in the atmosphere is way more powerful.

if you just drop a compliment, nobody expected like that.

But I also noticed that RFK Jr.'s voice appeared the best it's ever been.

And I wondered if he's continuing to improve or maybe because he's not actually running for election for anything, maybe he's talking less and maybe that, you know, gives his voice some strength.

But have you noticed that his voice isn't perfect, but if you were to compare it to what it was three years ago, it looks really improved.

And my observation, which I'd love to give to him in person, is that it looks it looks like he's figuring out the mechanics of speech.

And every now and then when he tries to speak and he doesn't have enough air, um, it's imperfect.

But when he takes a nice breath and makes everything vibrate when he speaks and speaks up in the mask of his face, it's uh, nearly perfect.

So, I feel like if he's figured out how to produce the perfect voice, all he has to learn is to pause so they can stay perfect because the the temptation is to finish your sentence.

If you're talking in public, you know, if you start a sentence and then you run out of air, you still want to finish the sentence because, you know, you started it and it would be weird if you just stopped in the middle.

But I would advise anybody who has a similar situation to stop in the middle.

People won't even notice.

Watch this.

I'm going to start a sentence and then I'm going to make you wait before I finish the sentence.

All I did was take a breath so that the second part of the sentence is as strong as the first part because I was running out of breath a little bit.

That's it.

So I think uh RFK Jr.

is on he's on the verge of fixing his voice just through his own work.

I think what I saw is Chanel Ryan of O talking about Gina Haspel who was the head of the CIA under uh Trump and um Biden, right?

Um, did you know that she was uh sort of a favorite of John Brennan and he had picked her to be the uh London station um chief of the CIA.

So when Brennan was the head of the CIA, he picked her for one of the, you know, most important assignments.

And she was there in London when the Steel Dossier was created.

And according to Cash Patel, she had also blocked some Russia gate evidence.

So Chanel Ryan is suggesting uh that the the hint is that she might be one of the one of the bad guys.

So I don't think we have proof of that, but more documents are coming out.

And uh so apparently according to just the news there will be some newly declassified evidence coming out that says the FBI conspired with Clinton to legitimize the Russia gate allegations and we expect that the new declassified documents again this is according to just news who has some sources uh the new stuff is going to say that the FBI was a willing partic participant in the plot.

They weren't somebody who was also fooled by Clinton.

They knew exactly what she was doing and they participated.

Now, if that's true, meaning that it's true that we have documentation that demonstrates that clearly, oh my goodness.

Oh my goodness.

Well, Brennan and Clapper apparently did a opinion piece in the New York Times.

um to try to defend themselves.

Their defense is we did not technically say anything wrong.

We said that uh the assessment said that Russia didn't directly change votes with their hacking.

Uh we did not say that Russia um influence things with their influence campaign.

Now, um, so that's what they said.

So they they basically use the complexity of the situation, uh, along with the fact that they know that 99% of the public can't follow this story.

I can just sort of barely keep up by warning you that I probably get some of the details wrong.

you know, I'm smart and it's part of my I guess you'd call it my my job at the moment um to keep up with it and I can barely do it and and you know I have a what would you call it?

Uh imposttor syndrome.

It's it's not really imposttor syndrome if it's true that you're not good at the thing and I'm definitely not good at the thing.

the thing being explaining the story about the Russia hoax.

But luckily, we have Shawn Davis, CEO and co-founder of the Federalist, who is on X, which you might know as the number one news app in the world.

So, if you're not on X, you're probably a little lost about everything.

Honestly, if you're not on X, you really don't know what's going on.

Have you tried to look at news without without X as the explainer?

Oh my god, you wouldn't know anything.

You need X and all the commenters who who have a different angle on stuff before you can actually get a 3D picture of what's going on.

So Shawn Davis is especially good at explaining stuff.

And I just want to read you his counter to Brennan and Clapper saying, "Well, we didn't do anything wrong.

Uh, you just don't understand what we did versus what we're accused of.

And once you understood it, well, then you'd see we didn't do anything wrong." So Shaun Davis says in their latest oped in the New York Times, Brennan Clapper claim that the bogus steel dossier was not included or referenced in the infamous 2016 2017.

That's intelligence an intelligence report the ICA uh falsely alleging that Putin stole the election from Hillary.

So this is what they Brennan Clapper said in their in their oped.

They said we have testified under oath and the reviews the assessments have confirmed that the dossier was not used as a source or taken into account for any of its analysis or conclusions.

Now, that's the most important thing because apparently it's easy to demonstrate that they did not have credibility.

So, we know that the report did not have credibility.

We also know that uh that Brennan and Clapper, I think we know this, didn't think it was credible.

So, they were aware it wasn't credible.

So, if they did not include it in the reports, then that's fine, right?

But what if they just lied about that?

Okay, so here's what Shawn Davis tells us.

He goes, "So, not only did Brendan Clapper use the steel dossier in the A, which would be the opposite of what they just said they did, they produced separate versions of the AA to hide their tracks.

Oh, so they can claim that they didn't do it because there are two and they'll just talk about the one that doesn't have it.

All right.

Um, they produce separate versions of the A to hide their tracks.

They lied to Congress about what they did, knowing that Congress only had access to the version of the document that comported with their lies.

Oh, Sean Davis, good job.

They leaked steel dossier lies to media to inject the claims into the p public bloodstream.

Well, uh I don't know if we know the path of leaking, but that's the accusation.

And then continued to lie about what they did for the next nine years, including in this op-ed.

including in this oped, which means the statute of limitations has not run out because they're still doing it this week.

And the statute of limitations uh starts counting when they stop doing things that are the thing you're accusing them of.

This would suggest that they're still doing the hoax.

If Shawn Davis is correct in his analysis, um, in the secret non-public version of the A, four bullet points were listed in support of the key judgment.

So, there's one version of the report that referred to the steel document, uh, you know, very specifically said, we're looking at these things.

The fourth was sourced directly to the steel dossier annex.

But in the versions of the A provided to Congress and the public, the fourth bullet citing the steel dossier and the annex itself were removed from the document without a trace.

All footnotes to cited material were also removed.

So if you removed all the footnotes to it, it didn't happen by itself.

that that sort of if you see the turtle on the on the fence post, it didn't get there by itself.

And uh Sean Davis says they are clearly engaged in an ongoing criminal conspiracy to cover up their crimes and they deserve to be held accountable um to what they did and continue to do to the country.

All right.

And I guess the Federalist has a uh big story today that a whistleblower who called shenanigans on the claims in the in that A report was threatened for refusing to sign on to the false claims.

So this is what I've been waiting for.

I've been waiting for the whistleblowers because you know there's people there who have their lips up to the whistle and they're just thinking ah oh I so want to talk about this.

I really really want to talk about this but you know my career would be over if I do and it probably will be.

Um well, Maggie Hemingway, also of the Federalist, um says the Obama team is acting uh absolutely terrified about being held accountable for the Russia collusion hoax, and I couldn't be happier about it.

Now, she she has better sources than most of us, so um I don't know that they're being terrified, but when I saw Brennan uh being asked about it on MSNBC, he looked terrified to me.

Now, that may have been my bias because I expected him to be terrified, so maybe I just imagined it.

Could have just imagined it.

Um but I would love to know what they're saying behind closed doors.

I will note that Trump is torturing them um like a cat with a mouse by sending out these memes showing that um showing them behind bars and suggesting that they need to be indicted.

Now, he's not doing those things, but it looks like the mechanism for that to happen isn't isn't an action.

So, I do believe that the Department of Justice is looking into it and may have already come up with a bunch of uh ideas about how to prosecute.

So, I feel like it's going to happen.

And the question I have now is what would happen to the country?

Your common sense tells you that if the prior administration is seriously indicted and put in jail, that that would be just ripping apart the fabric of the country.

And so you shouldn't do it even if you know that justice requires it.

But you know, you don't want to destroy the country just to have that bit of justice that you so desperately want.

Here's what I think.

I don't know what Democrats would say about this.

I feel like it would be a split opinion because the evidence of their crimes appear to be really clear, meaning it's all documented and there almost certainly will be more whistleblowers coming forward.

So, would the Democrats decide that they had to, I don't know, do what?

Take up weapons?

What would they do?

I if if it were proven that their team was behind one of the most destructive hoaxes in the history of humans, what would they do?

Would they say, "Oh, you know, I'm on this team, so I have to fight hard." Or would they do what they're doing now?

I talked about this yesterday.

Half of the Democrats are still scrappy and trying to make something of their bad situation, but half of them are just insulting the other half and saying, "You're idiots.

We got to get rid of the woke stuff.

We don't have any ideas that people like.

We don't have any policies.

We don't have any good leaders.

We don't have any messages." So, I feel as if the Democrats have um through their own actions created a situation where they're not so teamoriented as they were even one year ago and that uh they only have to have a split opinion in order for Trump to be able to get away with um indicting these past leaders.

In other words, if we thought that 98% of Democrats would say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, they did not break any laws, there's no evidence, you're just lawfaring them." Then it wouldn't be a good idea.

It would it would tear the country apart.

And even I would say, "Damn it, you know, maybe we should let this go." But when you have a situation where the Democrats are already already tearing each other apart and saying, you know, we can't we can't act like this anymore.

It doesn't work.

Then you're just throwing more more logs onto the fire that's already burning, which is Democrats blaming themselves or their party for horrible performance and maybe even some crime.

So there probably is no other time when this would work.

Uh but Trump could sell it.

And so, you know, sometimes I sometimes you blame me for sitting on the fence about things.

Usually I don't think that's what's going on.

Sometimes I just don't know the right answer.

So So like with the tariffs, I'm not sitting on the fence with the tariffs.

I just genuinely don't know if it's going to cause inflation or not.

I don't know.

But on this one, I'm going to give you a solid opinion.

They have to go to court.

Now, if the court decides that they're not guilty, I will accept that.

But this has to go to court.

That there's no way that the country can heal or that history will even understand what happened unless we take this through the court system.

So, I think that every one of these people that have been mentioned, uh, they need to be dragged through the court by Trump and he has, um, a free punch.

I mean, what they've done to him has been so grotesqually out of bounds up to this point that uh, he just has the freedom that nobody else would ever have because what he's doing is setting the world straight.

You know, he he has the right to rebalance and things are terribly out of balance.

If the only thing he does is say, "Here's what you did to me and you made up all of this or you exaggerated it or you turned almost nothing into a big something." Um, all I'm going to do is let the courts decide based on these documents and the whistleblowers whether any any crimes were committed.

and uh I'll just watch.

So yeah, I believe that there would not be a civil war and I believe that it would not even necessarily affect us economically or geopolitically.

I feel like the Democrat party is in such disarray and they hate each other as much as they hate Republicans at this point that this is the one time in history Trump can just put the boot down.

And will they say, "Oh, he's acting like a autocrat." Sure.

But that hasn't made any difference yet.

They would say he's acting like a king.

And then we would say, um, this is being handled by the courts and the courts are not doing anything that's illegal.

This is actually what they do.

So yeah, um, I'm going to go in.

I'm all in on the fact that the risk to the country of making this an actual, you know, Department of Justice big deal.

I think the risk to the country is low.

I think it's low.

And I think that this is just the it just has to happen now.

So, uh when I when I think about all the lives that were destroyed by these hoaxes and uh really the country itself was essentially destroyed, we can build back, you know, I think we'll get back, but at the moment, I mean, just think about the fact that people can't even spend time with their own families.

That's what this kind of hoax gets you.

That plus the fine people hoax.

So yeah, I'm all in jail.

Um, apparently there's a report that a number of the worst documents there there might be some bad ones we haven't seen yet were found in a secret locked room in burn bags.

Now, a burn bag is a bag you put a document in if you're planning to have it all burned to get rid of it because you can't just throw classified stuff in the regular garbage.

So, why were there burn bags?

Were they burn bags that simply hadn't yet been burned and there's nothing to see here?

It's just stuff they didn't need.

So, they put them in a burn bag or I think we've already been told that the burn bags have the good stuff in them, which would suggest they knew exactly what they were doing and hid them.

General Flynn notes that those burn bags probably could be fingerprinted.

What did you think of that?

The burn bags probably can be fingerprinted now.

I hope I hope they haven't been touched by too many other hands.

They probably have been, but kind of an interesting thought, isn't it?

That they could be fingerprinted.

Um, and then there's some information about, do you remember, was it Steven Halper, the British spy related guy who was part of that steel dossier?

And I guess he was a big part of making the the fake case against General Flynn.

And so, General Flynn is uh he's going all caps on his ex post today.

Uh, I'll just read you what he posted.

He said, "And as noted many times by Sad Lana Helper," so that was the British spy guy was not even there that night.

He made up the whole story.

He goes, "That fat bastard Helper made the entire story up all in caps.

We've always known this.

The crooked cops inside the FBI and those in the White House and at the CIA all went along.

All done to overthrow the United States of America.

Enough is enough.

Start arresting people." Yep.

General Flynn, I am uh 100% down with that opinion.

It's time to arrest people.

Well, Galileain Maxwell, as you know, has been uh talking with the House Oversight Committee.

Well, actually, she's been invited to talk to them, but she will not consider it unless she gets congressional immunity, which we would be different from um what's that other word?

Uh if she gets clemency, so she wants clemency and also immunity.

Um and she's unlikely to get any of that.

So, do we expect her to tell the truth if she doesn't get something in return?

Well, it it appears um it appears that u she's not going to get those things because it would be politically impossible.

It would be a bad idea for Trump to grant any of that.

So, I'm hoping we can find out what she knows from some other mechanism.

There's a lawyer who represented nine of Epstein victims who was on one of the shows um recent recently and he's questioning what Durit said um about the client Epstein's the the Epstein clients not being real.

Now, I did not see I did not hear Durwood say anything like that.

So, I don't want to characterize what Duroitz said.

I'll just tell you what the other lawyer says.

He says, "I've uh I've represented not only the nine victims, but I've seen the evidence on behalf of the 40 victims that the FBI investigated at the time to prove conclusively that Epstein had trafficked and underage girls, children as young as 14 years old, um for sex.

Not only that, he was using these young children uh blah blah blah, but so was Galain Maxwell.

So, she's accused of being physical as well.

And then he was trading out these favors with these young people to people in Palm Beach and in the Manhattan home as well as transporting people to these to the islands in the Virgin Islands.

So, I think we make too much of a big deal about who went to the island because he had three homes in the United States, right?

New Mexico, New York, and Palm Beach, and he had lots of entertainment and parties and people going back and forth.

So, I don't think that who did or did not go to the island is telling you a lot because it would have been smarter for them all to just visit in one of his homes because you wouldn't have to even be on his airplane to go there.

So, we'll see what happens there.

So it it is kind of amazing that apparently there are maybe dozens of famous people who were credibly accused of very specific horrible crimes and as far as we know none of them are being prosecuted.

Now, I understand that the victims may have settled and there may have been like a gazillion dollar settlements and if if you had already been victimized, you might want to keep your $20 million more than you want to see somebody go to jail.

So, might be tough to ever find out what happened for sure.

In other news, Media Matters.

Um, that horrible publication is sort of a a pit dog for the Democrats.

It's just a way to go after Republicans basically.

Uh, might get shut down.

Rod Martin is writing about this on X.

He's got a nice thread on this, but it was founded by David Brock in 2003.

And uh, now apparently they're drowning in legal bills.

And the main reason would be e uh Elon Musk is is uh going after them for uh what was their claim?

Oh, they they did a fake test where it showed that X was pairing Nazi propaganda next to advertisements, but it was a fake test.

So, they got busted for that.

uh at least in terms of that's why the lawsuit is there, but also they uh would try to organize um advertiser boycots against sex.

So, this is just the worst organization.

They they really should not exist.

And u apparently there's they're really sucking wind on money.

And here's the funniest part.

They got cut off from their law firm for not paying their bills.

The law firm is Mark Elias's firm.

Now, 1% of the world knows why that's funny.

Because Mark Elias and that law firm also like Media Matters, we're just a Democrat pitbull kind of an organization.

Um, so yeah, the Democrats are falling apart entirely.

Well, in good news, there's a new robot for picking mushrooms according to the robot report.

And uh that's important because mushrooms can double in size in like a day.

So, you have to pick them every day.

Now, I saw separately I saw a broccoli picking robot.

Now, these robots don't look like humanoids.

They're just big tractor related things with lots of arms that identify and pick the stuff.

But are we heading rapidly toward a point where farming will be almost no human labor?

Because farming is very predictable.

Like you know exactly what you have to do and it's not that much different.

you know, you know, you have to get rid of the weeds, you have to pick the fruit, you got to plant the seeds, you gota I mean, there's not much to it.

So, it seems that would be exactly the kind of thing you could get robots to do more and more.

Then you don't have to worry about uh uh immigration to pick your food.

Well, in other news, North Carolina State University um says re researchers have divi devised a a way to improve the large climate models, the models that predict what the temperature will be in 50 years.

Um and they demonstrated that their new tool makes the models more accurate.

to which I say, "Wait a minute.

I thought the the models were already accurate or accurate enough." So about once a week I see a story where somebody says, "Oh, here was something wrong with those models.

Oh, they were pretty good, but we're going to make them even better." Really?

How many how many ways do you think you can tweak those models and still have them come up with roughly the same answer?

Because if they come up with wildly different answers every time you tweak a variable or you discover a new way to do it, well then you've proven that they're useless.

However, if you don't prove that they're useless by showing that every time you get new information, the the model is wildly different.

If it turns out that no matter what you do to the model, it still predicts roughly the same thing, that would also tell you the models are fake.

the the the glaring signals that the climate models are going to be next on the chopping block.

Like it'll be the next thing that just blows your freaking mind when you find out what the whistleblowers say about their own climate models.

And that's coming.

That is so coming.

I don't know when.

Might not be this year or next year, but it's definitely coming.

And wait till you find out about climate models.

Um well, Nvidia, who makes those high-end AI chips, uh had been restricting the the type of chip that they were sold to China.

And they had this special chip called the HT that was good enough to do AI, but not as good as the American stuff.

So, America could continue to have its advantage in the technology.

However, um 20 national security experts have suggested that that H2O chip is a little bit too good and that we're putting ourselves in a dangerous situation in allowing China to have access to it.

I don't know, but people don't agree on how much technology China should have.

Uh, Canada has announced it's going to back a Palestinian state and uh Trump says it will be very hard for us to make a trade deal with Canada um now that they're backing a Palestinian state which Israel doesn't back and the US doesn't back at the moment.

Um, to which I say, why would I, as an American, care what Canada says about the Middle East?

And would I be willing to have a worse trade deal, one that maybe increases my inflation to force Canada to have a different opinion about the Palestinian situation?

I don't feel like that's the right place to apply the tariff paddle.

I feel like Canada can have whatever opinion they want.

Why in the world can't they have an opinion about a part of the world that we don't even live in?

What I mean, I I do appreciate and I'm impressed by Trump's ability to create this little weapon, the tariff, and then use it to get better trade deals and decrease fentinel maybe and a bunch of other stuff.

But are we really policing the free speech of Canadians?

Don't you think that the that the people of Canada should be able to say whatever they want about whatever they want?

Why Why are we tamping down on their free speech?

I don't know.

I don't love that.

Um, there's a report that Trump said something privately to some Jewish donor and so who knows if it's true.

Generally speaking, the least credible stories are somebody heard somebody said something to somebody privately.

Those are almost never real, but it's in the news, so I'll tell you about it.

So apparently the the report is that Trump told a Jewish donor that quote, "My supporters are starting to hate Israel." Now, of course, there probably was a whole bunch of context to that, but I went to Grock to see if there had been a change, and sure enough, um, according to polls, uh, hate is too strong a word, but Trump always speaks in hyperbole.

Uh, there is a big difference.

So since October 7th um the uh let's say the support for Israel initially was high because they'd been attacked but now has reached a new low.

So uh it's nowhere near hating Israel.

So that that would be going too far.

But yeah, support for Israel probably probably pretty low even on among Republicans.

Um, now when I say pretty low, I mean pretty low compared to what it was.

It's it's not it's not low low.

It's just going down.

So, let me let me be clear.

It's going down.

It's not that low.

Um, and uh, Trump has said in a truth social post that the fastest way to end the Gaza crisis is for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages.

Now, that of course is what Israel's been saying for a long time.

You know, that you got to do those things.

But I do love Trump's framing of it.

Um, he should just repeat that sentence every time it comes up.

God's a crisis can be settled immediately if Hamas surrenders and releases the hostages.

That's it.

Just say that over and over again because the debate acts like Israel has the option of just putting Hamas back in charge and then going on with their day.

I don't feel like they think that's an option.

I feel like they think that Hamas has to be 100% gone and all of the hostages have to be released or or there's just nothing you can do.

You just got to make that happen.

So, I remind you that I'm not pro or anti-Israel.

It's not my country.

I'm simply observing and anything that I think they should do is irrelevant.

Anything that I think is more or less ethical or moral, irrelevant.

It's not my country.

I just observe that all countries do what seems to be good for their country and Israel is doing a really good job of that.

Um, however, it does seem to me that things keep going in the direction they're going that uh Israel will have spent their Holocaust premium.

What I mean by that is the narrative of the Holocaust gives Israel some superpowers because when that's in your mind, you automatically will side with them when they do something to defend their country because you don't want another Holocaust.

Never again.

So if you if you've you know completely internalized and accepted the Holocaust as the way to understand Israel, it's a real powerful weapon for persuasion.

So you know once they bring up that Holocaust, it's impossible to be on the other side because it would be like you're doubting the Holocaust or you're supporting another one or something.

So it's really powerful that that narrative exists.

However, my observation is that that goodwill or that power that they get from that historical narrative um is being used spent to uh get control of Gaza.

Now that might be a good expense if you know if if they can somehow get rid of all the bad elements in the Palestinian properties and they don't create a second state that becomes you know their new threat and they continue being the ones who provide the security the defense for all that area.

I feel like they would be they would get a good deal even if what they did was greatly degraded the power of the Holocaust narrative because then people who don't like Israel would say well yeah the Holocaust was plenty bad for sure but look what you did and you again I'm not taking that point of view I'm just telling you that people will take that point of view so It's expensive what Israel wants to do with Gaza, but I'm not sure they have a choice.

And the way I look at it is what would we do if it if it were your country and you knew that reconstituting Gaza and putting Hamas back in charge guaranteed that there would be more missile attacks and more October 7ths and you know an endless number of future problems.

What would you do?

What would Trump do?

Yeah.

So, I don't judge anybody over there.

They're everybody's just pursuing their their best self-interest as they see it.

Um, so according to the Vigilant Fox, a great account on X with lots of good summaries of what's happening in the world.

Um, they're talking about, you probably knew that You.

Tube now can monitor the behavior of a user and it will know just by the behavior and what you visited and how you click and stuff that you're probably under 18 and then they would restrict you from things you should not see if you're a child.

But Australia is trying to get uh other products like Google Maps and Apple Maps and Bing and more.

Uh wants to get them all powered so that they can really tell who you are and what age you are.

Um the the fast version of this is that Apple apparently has a patent that can verify your identity based on your body, your clothes, and your movements.

So there are a bunch of ways to identify who you are based on what you do online.

So that would suggest that you would lose all privacy for going to naughty sites or whatever it is you're going to because they they'll know who you are.

Now that is not fully implemented, but there's a good chance it will be.

So don't do anything online that you wouldn't do in front of people.

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

Sorry I went a little bit long.

Uh, locals, I'm going to say hi to you, my beloved locals, subscribers.

The rest of you someday I'll tell you why locals are so awesome.

So that you might want to join, too.

Um, but thanks for joining everybody.

I'll see you same time tomorrow, same place.

And locals coming to you private.

There you are. Come on in. I'm checking

the stock market,

which appears to be up.

So far so good. Not Tesla. Tesla's down

a little bit. All right, we'll put that

on hold while we do a show

that you deserve. Yeah, you deserve it.

[Music]

All right, let's make sure this is all

working.

It's all working.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to

the highlight of Human Civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And

if you'd like to take this experience

that's already the best thing that ever

happened to you up to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains.

Well, all you need for that would be a

copper mug or a glass, a tankered shell,

a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit

of the day, the thing that makes

everything better. ever it's called the

simultaneous happens now go

ah

so very good

well here's a little uh a little tip for

you

um you might know that my book Loser

Think was one of the books that got

cancelled when I got cancelled

So, if you tried to buy this, you would

not be able to, but we are going to

reissue it. So, there'll be a second

edition. It'll be on Amazon and maybe a

month or two.

I will let you know. But there's a uh

chapter here. This was written in 2019.

And the chapter is called the golden age

filter. And in it, I made a bunch of

predictions about how the golden age

would unfold.

And you might say to yourself, huh, I

wonder if those predictions are anything

like what's actually happened now that

uh the predictions were actually before

the pandemic, right before. So, you

might want to check that out. I think

you'll be amused.

See what I got right, see what I got

wrong.

Well, I would like to get your brains

ready for the rest of the show with a

little bit of an exercise. All right.

Uh, those of you who are my regular

viewers, I would like you to give me the

answer to the question I haven't asked

yet. Go.

If you're new, boy, are you going to be

impressed. Watch this. All right,

everybody. The answer to the question

before I ask the question. Go. There it

is. That is the correct answer 25.

Well, Rasmus said in the polling company

says that 73% of likely US voters

believe that requiring a photo ID to

vote is a reasonable measure to protect

the integrity of elections. So, let's

see. If 73%

think it's a good idea, and there are a

few people who don't know what they're

doing, but uh 21% disagree, 21% think

it's not reasonable to check ID,

but I will give you full credit for 25%

because, you know, margin of error.

Well, according to New Atlas, uh, one

diet of soda a day increases type 2

diabetes risk by 38%. According to a new

landmark study, 14-year study.

So, let's see. Um, if a diet soda

can give you type 2 diabetes or make

your risk of it much higher. Um, let me

check. Okay. Yes. Yes. 100% of the

things I was told as a kid have turned

out to be wrong. All of it.

I don't know about you, but I learned

you can't eat a sandwich and go swimming

for an hour. Totally made up. I don't

know about you, but I learned you have

to drink how how many glasses of water

every day? Totally made up. Totally made

up. I learned that the safest thing you

could do for your health is put on

sunscreen before you go out in the sun.

Well, maybe the jury is still out on

that, but the smartest people I know are

not using sunscreen because apparently

it's just a chemical that gets in your

body. Then, of course, there was the

food pyramid. You all remember that,

right? Completely upside down and wrong

and probably still is.

Let's see what else. Uh then there was

uh what we believed about carbohydrates.

There was uh uh alcohol is good for you

in moderation which turned out not to be

true. So yes, 100%

of everything I was taught as a young

person was made up.

All of it. But my my whole uh first part

of my life was just fake.

But thank God that you're here and I'm

here at this time when finally we have

all the correct answers to all the

scientific questions.

Am I right? Yeah. Just think about how

lucky that is that after I don't know,

let's say the last 1.5 million years of

evolution where we were completely wrong

about reality. Just totally wrong.

didn't didn't have a clue. And then

during my childhood, we were still

wrong. During my life, still wrong about

everything.

But thank goodness I had I'm still alive

when we figured out everything and now

we're not wrong about anything.

Right.

Wait. Right.

How many of you have fallen for the

illusion

that we used to be wrong in the past,

but but now we've got things pretty well

figured out.

I used to believe that. I used to

believe that that humans were

fundamentally

desperately wrong about all the

important questions for 1.5 million

years in a row. But thank goodness,

thank goodness I was born in the time

when we finally got everything right.

There's almost no chance that the things

you believe are true and right are true

and right. There's almost no chance.

It's never been true. We've never been

right about anything important.

But you it would make you crazy to

imagine that we were just wrong about

everything. So you you tell yourself

this weird little story that well we

were wrong for 1.5 million years in a

row but finally got it right just when

you were born. Uhhuh. Uhhuh.

Uh well CJ Pearson has a opinion piece

in Fox News. CJ's talking about the war

on hot women.

I could tell you what month it is

by telling you what stories are the top

stories.

It's summertime, people. It's

summertime. So, the big story is the war

on hot women.

And somehow the uh the pundits have

managed to turn it into an actual story

by uh

uh by pretending that Sydney Sweeney,

who did the uh advertisement, the sexy

advertisement for American Eagle, which

apparently worked really well and they

sold out of their jeans. They sold out.

If you wanted to buy some of those

jeans, couldn't do it. It was so

successful.

And uh finally we're allowed to be

common sensical again even if it hurts

people's feelings.

So apparently the uh the ugliest people

are very unhappy

that uh that Sydney Sweeney and American

Eagle would be talking about jeans. Even

though it was a joke and even though we

can clearly see that that young woman

has good genes, we're not allowed to say

that anybody has good genes. You're not

allowed to say it cuz if you did, it

would sort of change all of society

because then you might say, "Well,

you know, maybe maybe things are the way

they ought to be cuz the people had the

good genes did the best." Uh-oh. Can't

say that. Cannot say that. You know how

I always tease the billionaires when

billionaires are asked what's the secret

of their success?

Do you know what they never say? Well,

to be perfectly honest, I'm just smarter

than the people who didn't do as well.

Because that plus hard work

will explain a lot. Mark Zuckerberg, was

he successful just because he tried

hard? No. Although he did try hard, he's

really smart. Elon Musk, is it because

he worked hard? Well, he did work hard.

Still does, but he's smarter than the

average person. And that could go down

the line and you would find that all

these super successful people are

unusually smart.

And we're supposed to ignore that,

right? And act like none of that

mattered.

All right. All right. Fine. But the uh

Sydney Sweeney thing does show that

apparently there's a little bit of

common sense that's coming back. But if

you were one of those people who is um

let's say jealous and angry

that Sydney Sweeny's getting attention

for you know being attractive and being

born that way mostly.

I would give you this following

consolation.

There has never been an easier time to

be in the top 10% of attractive adults.

still hard to do it if you're young

because you know that's just what you're

born with. But if you want to be in the

top 10% of attractive adults, all you

have to do is eat right and go to the

gym. That's it. You know, maybe put a

little of attention, a little bit of

attention in what you do with your

haircut and, you know, maybe learn a

little bit about how to dress, but oh my

god, it's never been easier to be in the

top 10%.

So, if you're not in the top 10%,

maybe you put a little bit of work into

it and you could get there.

Uh Elon Musk, speaking of Elon, is

bragging that uh X is now the number one

news app in the USA.

Do you remember uh all the smart dumb

people, you know, the people with high

IQ's who told you that uh X had no

chance of success and that uh it was a

terrible move by Musk. Uh he's he he's

only good at building cars and rockets.

There's no reason to think he would be

good at running a social media company.

And then he fired 80% of his staff. And

then all the smart dumb people said,

"Well, told you. Look, you had to fire

everybody." And and then and then the

advertisers started uh joining together

to boycott it. And then you said, "Well,

there you go. There's no way that's ever

going to work."

Well, it turns out that Elon Musk had

one thing that other people didn't have.

He is way smarter than you are. He's

smarter than I am. And apparently he

knew how to make it work and he has.

It's now the number one news app in the

USA.

Well, Kla Harris has announced that she

will not be running for California

governor.

Now, I would like to announce that I

will also not be running to be governor

of California. Now, my reason is that I

wouldn't have a chance in hell of

winning. I wonder what her reason would

be. H could it be that she doesn't have

a chance in hell of winning and it would

end all of her prospects forever if she

ran for that and lost, which she

probably would, the smart people say.

Um, however, I would like to suggest

there might be one other reason. I mean,

maybe she's planning to run for

president yet. Maybe she hasn't ruled it

out. I don't know.

Uh but she may have some personal

reasons for doing it. We don't know.

Well, uh Jerome Powell did and the Fed

did not cut interest rates yesterday at

their meeting where they told us their

decisions. They did not cut interest

rates. Now, of course, uh Trump is not

too happy about that.

Um he said that uh Jerome Powell is too

late, too angry, too stupid, and too

political. Total loser.

Now, you know how I always compliment

Trump for being um able to read the room

and being persuasive and especially

one-on-one like with individuals.

But it's hard for me to imagine that

Jerome Powell could ever give Trump what

he wants knowing that Jerome Powell's

contract is up in May. If my contract

were up in May and uh my political enemy

had been absolutely savaging me for

months, I wouldn't give them what they

wanted. even if it were really important

to the country,

I would be just so mad that I would just

say, "Oh, I guess I won't be cutting

your interest rates

cuz people are humans." So, I think that

uh there's probably no chance that the

government could browbe Jerome Powell

into doing that and he didn't. We'll

talk about that some more. Apparently in

2024, which would be if you're keeping

track of your calendar, last year. Last

year, uh, Democrat Elizabeth Warren,

Senator Warren, um, was on TV saying

that Jerome Powell needs to cut interest

rates. What does she say now that Trump

is president?

Now she says 2025, Trump needs to stop

calling for Jerome Powell to cut

interest rates.

Yes, Elizabeth Warren is one of the

designated liars.

There are there's a handful of people

Democrats who I always tell you if you

see them go on TV that means that

they've decided they have to go with a

lie. And it's not just an ordinary lie.

It's a big one. One that you could

easily debunk with, you know, a few

minutes of effort.

But there are several people from

Swallwell to Rascin to Elizabeth Warren

who you could pretty much depend on will

say whatever lie needs to be said at the

time. So, Elizabeth Warren.

Um,

so Senator Josh Holly has introduced

legislation

to ban members of Congress from owning

or trading individual stocks. The

problem is that they have inside

information. So if they were to trade

stocks,

um

they would be tempted to cheat or we'd

expect that they might cheat. So it's a

ugly situation. And of course, uh people

blame Nancy Pelosi for insider trading,

which she denies uh even though it would

be totally legal. Congress is the one

entity that has legal right to do

insider trading. Um and President Trump

was asked about that and apparently even

Republicans don't like the idea that uh

Holly is putting forward the idea of uh

banning Congress members from addit from

owning stock.

But Trump was asked about it and he

said, "Well, I like it conceptually." He

said, "I don't know about it, but I like

it conceptually."

Um,

I'm going to surprise you probably by

saying I'm opposed to Holly's

legislation

because people in Congress are not

exactly overpaid.

You know, if anything, they're probably

underpaid. And I understand that they

have advantages,

but I would handle it with transparency.

Now there are already I think there's

already a website or a startup or

something there reports whenever

Congress makes a a trade so that you can

match it. Now, there might be a timing

problem that Congress, you know, can get

in a few days before you know about the

trade or something like that, but you

you basically know what the trade is.

And if you wanted, you could match your

own investments to be the same as the

politicians and then you can if they

make money, you make money.

Um, I don't like

I don't like taking a basic right away

from politicians who are trying to serve

the country. That's, you know, best case

scenario. Um, do you think we should

deny them the right to do the most basic

financial thing that anybody does? It's

pretty basic.

If the if the legislation says that they

can own stocks, but only if they're in

funds. So, it's not about individual

companies. It's about funds like the

whole stock market.

I definitely wouldn't have any problem

with that because then they would they

would have some skin in the game of

America. But, uh, no, I don't like this.

Um, I would rather have transparency and

if they have some insider information,

you would have it too because you'd say,

"Oh, that one always uses insider

information," which is legal.

and that if you see the move, you just

copy the move if it bothers you.

Um Nancy Pelosi agreed to go on CNN. She

thought she was going to be asked

questions about the 60th anniversary of

Medicaid and that would give her, I

don't know, I guess an excuse to say bad

things about Republicans and Trump. So,

she goes on and Jake Tapper

um asked her about the idea of uh

insider trading

and uh she had a bit of a meltdown over

that and she said, "Why do you have to

read that? That's not what I agreed to

come and talk about." So, she got mad at

the question.

Don't you think

that getting mad at that question is

sort of a tell?

Because if you put me in that position,

I would say is something like, well, I

leave all my investing to my husband and

we don't talk about work,

you know, which I'm sure is not true,

but it'd be an easy way to defend

yourself. And then you could say

something like, well, you know, it's all

public, it's all transparent. you can

see exactly what stocks I buy and when.

And if you wanted to copy it,

you could.

So,

I would say that her reaction uh that

she wasn't being treated special by the

news

tells you something, doesn't it? She

agrees to go on CNN and believe that she

had successfully told them what they

could and could not ask on a news

program. And then to his credit, um Jake

Tapper asked her anyway. She got mad. So

Brown University is going to settle with

the White House for $50 million

uh that they're going to give to some

workforce development organizations.

So it's a settlement, but you know, the

money doesn't go into the into the uh

government's coffers. It goes into some

things that the government wanted them

to put it into, which is good.

Newsmax is reporting on this. And uh so

that is how many how many colleges that

now have decided to fund something that

Trump wanted him to fund? So he's got

law firms giving him money

uh or giving his campaign money uh or

doing some kind of pro bono stuff. He's

got universities lining up to give him

millions of dollars or at least put it

into things that the Trump

administration wants.

So that's working.

Newsmax is also saying that u Elon

Musk's

uh America party that he threatened he

would launch a third party political

party appears stalled. Now, I don't

think we can conclude that because

there's no super hurry to form it. So,

he might he might still be, you know,

asking around and doing some research.

Maybe. We don't know. We don't know what

he's thinking.

But uh at least some people believe that

he may have been threatening it to blow

off steam and that he's now just fully

committed to working on his companies

and probably has no particular interest

driving him to do that third party. I

don't know. I feel like that could go

either way. But if I were to predict,

which I will, I predict he will not form

the third party.

Um, I think he would prefer having it

out there as maybe a risk in case people

go after him, but probably he'll hold

back. That's just my guess. Don't really

know.

Julie,

Julie, don't be a piece of Julie.

Um, too late.

Well, China has unveiled a humanoid

robot. Another company I haven't

mentioned yet with a brain that runs 275

trillion operations per second. Right?

What do you think you could do with a

robot whose brain could do 275

trillion operations per second?

Well, uh, so far all it can do is move

boxes from one place to another.

That's all it does. It just moves boxes.

But they're very proud of the fact that

it can tell the difference between a

small box and a big box and you know

knows what to move where. All right.

Sure. Uh Shanghai Electric that's the

name of the company. So I am not

impressed by the robot that can move

boxes of various sizes.

Um, but then an American company named

Figure

is also building a humanoid robot and

their leader Brett Adcock

um showed us a video of one of the

robots he has in his home that is uh

putting laundry into the washing

machine. So, it's reaching into a

laundry bag and putting the laundry into

the into the washing machine. Now, what

did the video not show?

Here's what the video did not show.

Could the robot also put um soap in the

washing machine and know how to operate

the controls and turn it on? Could it

come back later and move that wet

laundry into the dryer and then use

those controls to dry it? I'm guessing

that if it could do those things that

the video would have been edited to show

that it can do the entire laundry

process.

But I would like to triple down on my

prediction

that we do not have the technology that

would power robots.

Obviously, we all think we can get

there, but we're not really even in the

right domain. I don't even think they

have the right,

you know, approach.

It It looks like it's just sort of not

possible.

Now, if I had to bet on it, I would bet

that they would, you know, it will be

solved at some point in the history. But

if you think that we're a few months

away from humanoid robots, which by the

way, last year, I believe Elon Musk was

saying that the end of this year, which

is sort of right around the corner, um

that we see our first humanoid robots

with general sort of general

intelligence, some version of it. We're

not going to see that.

Would you agree? We're definitely not

within a year of having a autonomous

robot that you can just give an

assignments that has never seen before.

Like imagine a robot where you could

say, um, I want you to uh reorganize

these shelves, but it's never been

taught to do that. We're not really,

we don't have any way to make that

happen.

But we can move boxes from one place to

another and we can have a robot take

laundry out of one one container and put

it in another and that's it. That's

apparently that's all they do.

Well, in economic news, the jobless

claims numbers came in and

um they're just pretty close to

estimates.

Um, I guess the stock market like that

cuz the market's higher. Did you see

that the gross domestic product

was at 3%.

Um, which is better than it was in the

spring.

Um, 3% would be a good solid GDP number.

And inflation also is not too bad.

So, I would like to say for the record

because I haven't said this and I feel

very bad about it. If you believe the

GDP number, that would be a mistake.

I a lot of uh Trump supporters, and I'm

one of them, have sort of celebrated

that inflation did not go up with

tariffs, and they have it hasn't really,

and that the GDP,

you know, was solid.

But here's why you should not be too

happy about that. The the tariffs

haven't even kicked in.

We we have no idea

um what impact the tariffs will have on

inflation.

Why do you think we already know the

answer to that? We don't know the answer

to that. There have been a few special

deals, but probably almost nothing

compared to what it will be or could be

in terms of the total tariff impact. So,

I'm one of the people who who was doing

a little bit of too early celebrating

saying, "Whoa, look at this. Trump's a

genius." And he was right. that tariffs

have no no real effect or at least not

one that's going to stop us uh on

inflation. We don't know that

hasn't even you we're not even in the uh

tariffs have happened phase much less

the knowing the long-term impact.

Now I'm not opposed to the tariffs. I'm

not opposed to them, but I'm going to

retreat to what I keep calling the Dana

Parina Parino um view, which is we

really don't know.

Maybe it would be the best idea that

anybody's ever had.

Maybe it will just cause too much

inflation and we'll wish it hadn't

happened. Both of those are still

possible, you know, and maybe we'll know

by the end of the year, but we don't

know yet.

And so I would say with inflation and

GDP that they both look good,

but there are reasons that they would

look good at the moment that would not

apply to the rest of the year. So I I

like the optimism. I like the fact that

the Republicans are touting it as a win.

I like the fact that the pundits are

touting it as a win. And I was touting

it as an economic

win as well.

But I want to just be on record saying

I'm not stupid.

It's way too early. It's way too early

to know it's a win. So I'm not stupid,

but I'm optimistic.

So, you know, I don't mind rolling with

it a little bit because optimism is what

drives the economy. If you act

optimistic, even if you're just acting,

it's good for the economy because it

makes other people think things are fine

and then they invest and spend and do

all those things that drive the economy.

All right. Um, President Trump put a 50%

tariff on Brazilian goods. So that's

likely to increase the price of what?

What?

50%

increase of tariff on Brazilian goods is

likely to lift the price of

coffee.

Well, remember I told you it wasn't a

perfect world.

The price of coffee might go up.

But Trump is also citing an executive

order ending what is called the

dimminimous trade loophole for low value

packages. So it used to be that if you

sent um ship something into the US, some

goods that you were selling to companies

in the US um you didn't have to pay a

tariff if it was below $800.

But now you will pay a duty or a tariff

on all that. So will that increase

inflation?

It should.

It should increase inflation. I mean

that's how things work. But maybe not.

Maybe not. We'll see.

Well, the uh this trend that I love to

death of Trump being able to announce a

new trade deal, you know, like once a

week or once every few days. And once

again, he's got another big win, or at

least on paper, it looks that way. South

Korea has agreed to a deal, and part of

that deal involves them uh putting money

into US investments that the US would

direct. So, we would tell them where to

invest or at least approve where they

invest and they said yes to that. Now,

if you're if you're not catching the

pattern yet, it looks like this

that it looks like Trump is injecting

into the conversations that they need to

commit to some kind of, you know, huge

multi-billion dollar amount of

investments in the United States.

Technically, that would not be part of

trade,

but also technically I don't believe

there's a penalty if they don't do it.

So, I'm not sure how many of these

billion dollar investments in the US are

really going to happen. If they don't

happen, I suppose Trump could, you know,

increase their tariff.

So, he does have a a lever and a stick.

Um, but I'm not sure I believe the

numbers. I suspect most of those

companies say to themselves, uh, it

would be better to say we're going to do

this and then wait for the next

president to get in office and maybe he

won't push it so much. So, if we don't

do it all in, you know, within Trump's

term, we'll say, how about we give you

350 billion in investments over 10

years? Because then, you know, they can

just wait for Trump to be out of office.

So, but on paper and in terms of the

news cycle, big win. South Korea, major

trading partner, um came in under the

deadline. But also, we hear from um

Howard Lutnik, commerce secretary

that uh we also have a deal with

Thailand and Cambodia for a trade deal.

Don't know the details of that. Some say

it's not quite done. Some say it is.

But another great week for Trump

and uh Trump has allegedly struck some

kind of an oil deal with Pakistan.

Uh that's a big deal, a big deal for

deals. It's days away from finalization.

So it's not done done, but it looks like

it's going to happen. And uh

I think what it does is allow a US

company that has not been yet named to

be the you be a major player in

exploiting the oil that Pakistan has. So

that sounds positive.

Every one of these trade deals and that

oil deal I say to myself nobody thought

of this before.

like it it feels like Trump is just

picking up all this free money. It's

like, well, why don't we negotiate with

him?

Okay.

And then he got he has this tariff idea

that allows him to negotiate effectively

and also put a you know artificial time

limit on when they have to make a deal.

I believe there's a really good chance

assuming that inflation doesn't get out

of control. But if things keep going

well, and so far they are, but remember,

we don't know yet. By the end of the

year, we'll know a lot more. If if Trump

keeps pushing this approach where the

tariffs are used as a lever and a weapon

and then he simply

proposes deals with all kinds of

different countries, he could just keep

doing that forever and it will go down

in history.

That's probably just the smartest thing

any American president ever did.

Um, I don't know if history will ever

give him the full weight of a uh of

let's say respect

for how he's created an asset out of

nothing. He created an asset out of

nothing. The the whole tariff thing was

like it didn't exist until he got there.

Now it not only exists, he's made it the

biggest thing that our our allies worry

about. So they they better get that

fixed otherwise

it's going to cost them

anyway. So that's happening. And then uh

according to I saw a post on X by NASA

AI which I don't know if is if that's an

AI account or somebody who's just

involved in AI but anyway it was good

summary there of the what the MA make

America Healthy Again commission

delivered.

Apparently, they've delivered their

report and uh they found four root

causes that I believe they want to look

into more that are causing all the

childhood

um what do you call it? Chronic diseases

because the chronic diseases are out of

control. uh they've narrowed it down to

ultrarocessed foods, environmental

toxins, chronic stress and inactivity,

and over medicalization of children. And

to me, that feels right. Again, I remind

you that everything we knew about health

for the last 1.5 million years, all of

it wrong.

But finally, we're right. I don't know.

We'll see.

And then uh

apparently some things are getting done

that are good such as uh Trump approved

uh waiverss to SNAP. That's the food

that's made available through the

government to people who can't afford

food. SNAP. Um but SNAP will not now you

won't be able to buy junk food

with your food stamps. So Nebraska,

Indiana, and Iowa have all already

signed on to that. So, you can't buy

junk food. Um, and the FDA is phasing

out eight common artificial food dyes.

So, they will no longer be approved by

the FDA after the little time has gone

by to phase them out. Um, and then Trump

is doing that most favored nation thing

with pharmaceutical stocks where he says

we won't pay more than the other

countries pay. So, that could be a big

saver. We'll see.

Um, and of course he's he's got that uh

tariff club he's using on that too. Um,

and then I guess RFK Jr. is doing

something about institutional capture,

which is where the FDA and other

approving organizations

um, get staffed with people who know

they have a job at the very place that

they're approving as soon as they're

done. So, you want to get rid of that

that conflict of interest.

So, those are good things.

I don't know if that's enough,

but they're good things. I was listening

to uh RFK Jr. uh talking at some event

and he very cleverly

um started his comments by saying that

he's been coming to the White House for

65 years.

um you know cuz his relatives were or or

JFK was there and he said that the White

House has never looked better just you

know just the physical look of the

inside of it. Uh apparently he's

impressed

with how Trump has improved the uh the

decorations or the furniture or

whatever. And so he brought that up to

sort of compliment Trump in front of a

room full of people while the cameras

were going. And it was one of the

smartest compliments you'll ever see in

your life because you know that Trump

cares about that.

He cares that he could make the White

House look better than it had ever

looked before. Great compliment. So if

you you know here's one of the things I

I try to teach in my my books.

Compliments are free.

If you're thinking of giving somebody a

compliment and and it's genuine, you're

really impressed by something and you

keep it to yourself,

that's not exactly something to be proud

of. It didn't cost you anything. And if

you deliver that compliment, there would

probably be some great payoff, at least

to the person who got the compliment. So

compliments are something you should

learn how to give. You'll never see a

better one. RFK Jr. knows how to give a

compliment. That was one hell of a

well-crafted compliment that came at an

unexpected time that which also helps.

By the way, here's the here's the other

tip. A compliment that's not expected

and it's not triggered by something in

the atmosphere is way more powerful. if

you just drop a compliment, nobody

expected

like that. But I also noticed

that RFK Jr.'s voice appeared the best

it's ever been.

And I wondered if he's continuing to

improve or maybe because he's not

actually running for election for

anything, maybe he's talking less and

maybe that, you know, gives his voice

some strength. But have you noticed that

his voice isn't perfect,

but if you were to compare it to what it

was three years ago,

it looks really improved. And my

observation, which I'd love to give to

him in person, is that it looks it looks

like he's figuring out the mechanics of

speech.

And every now and then when he tries to

speak and he doesn't have enough air,

um, it's imperfect. But when he takes a

nice breath and makes everything vibrate

when he speaks and speaks up in the mask

of his face, it's uh, nearly perfect.

So, I feel like if he's figured out how

to produce the perfect voice, all he has

to learn is to pause so they can stay

perfect because the the temptation is to

finish your sentence. If you're talking

in public, you know, if you start a

sentence and then you run out of air,

you still want to finish the sentence

because, you know, you started it and it

would be weird if you just stopped in

the middle. But I would advise anybody

who has a similar situation to stop in

the middle. People won't even notice.

Watch this. I'm going to start a

sentence

and then I'm going to make you wait

before I finish the sentence.

All I did was take a breath so that the

second part of the sentence

is as strong as the first part

because I was running out of breath a

little bit. That's it. So I think uh RFK

Jr. is on he's on the verge

of fixing his voice just through his own

work. I think

what I saw is Chanel Ryan of O talking

about Gina Haspel who was the head of

the CIA under uh Trump and um Biden,

right? Um, did you know that she was uh

sort of a favorite of John Brennan and

he had picked her to be the uh London

station um chief of the CIA.

So when Brennan was the head of the CIA,

he picked her for one of the, you know,

most important assignments.

And she was there in London when the

Steel Dossier was created.

And according to Cash Patel, she had

also blocked some Russia gate evidence.

So Chanel Ryan is suggesting

uh that the the hint is

that she might be one of the one of the

bad guys. So I don't think we have proof

of that, but more documents are coming

out. And uh so apparently according to

just the news there will be some newly

declassified evidence coming out that

says the FBI conspired with Clinton to

legitimize the Russia gate allegations

and

we expect that the new declassified

documents again this is according to

just news who has some sources uh the

new stuff is going to say that the FBI

was a willing partic participant in the

plot.

They weren't somebody who was also

fooled by Clinton. They knew exactly

what she was doing and they

participated.

Now, if that's true, meaning that it's

true that we have documentation that

demonstrates that clearly, oh my

goodness.

Oh my goodness. Well, Brennan and

Clapper apparently did a opinion piece

in the New York Times.

um to try to defend themselves.

Their defense is we did not technically

say anything wrong. We said that uh the

assessment said that Russia didn't

directly change votes with their

hacking. Uh we did not say that Russia

um influence things with their influence

campaign.

Now,

um, so that's what they said. So they

they basically use the complexity of the

situation,

uh, along with the fact that they know

that 99% of the public can't follow this

story. I can just sort of barely keep up

by warning you that I probably get some

of the details wrong. you know, I'm

smart and it's part of my I guess you'd

call it my my job at the moment um to

keep up with it and I can barely do it

and and you know I have a what would you

call it? Uh imposttor syndrome.

It's it's not really imposttor syndrome

if it's true that you're not good at the

thing and I'm definitely not good at the

thing. the thing being explaining the

story about the Russia hoax. But

luckily, we have Shawn Davis, CEO and

co-founder of the Federalist, who is on

X, which you might know as the number

one news app in the world. So, if you're

not on X, you're probably a little lost

about everything. Honestly, if you're

not on X, you really don't know what's

going on. Have you tried to look at news

without without X as the explainer?

Oh my god, you wouldn't know anything.

You need X and all the commenters who

who have a different angle on stuff

before you can actually get a 3D picture

of what's going on. So Shawn Davis is

especially good at explaining stuff. And

I just want to read you his counter to

Brennan and Clapper saying, "Well, we

didn't do anything wrong. Uh, you just

don't understand what we did versus what

we're accused of. And once you

understood it, well, then you'd see we

didn't do anything wrong." So Shaun

Davis says in their latest oped in the

New York Times, Brennan Clapper claim

that the bogus steel dossier was not

included or referenced in the infamous

2016 2017.

That's intelligence an intelligence

report the ICA uh falsely alleging that

Putin stole the election from Hillary.

So this is what they Brennan Clapper

said in their in their oped. They said

we have testified under oath and the

reviews the assessments have confirmed

that the dossier was not used as a

source or taken into account for any of

its analysis or conclusions.

Now, that's the most important thing

because apparently it's easy to

demonstrate that they did not have

credibility. So, we know that the report

did not have credibility. We also know

that uh that Brennan and Clapper, I

think we know this, didn't think it was

credible. So, they were aware it wasn't

credible. So, if they did not include it

in the reports, then that's fine, right?

But what if they just lied about that?

Okay, so here's what Shawn Davis tells

us. He goes, "So, not only did Brendan

Clapper use the steel dossier in the A,

which would be the opposite of what they

just said they did, they produced

separate versions of the AA to hide

their tracks. Oh,

so they can claim that they didn't do it

because there are two

and they'll just talk about the one that

doesn't have it. All right. Um, they

produce separate versions of the A to

hide their tracks. They lied to Congress

about what they did, knowing that

Congress only had access to the version

of the document that comported with

their lies. Oh, Sean Davis, good job.

They leaked steel dossier lies to media

to inject the claims into the p public

bloodstream. Well, uh I don't know if we

know the path of leaking, but that's the

accusation.

And then continued to lie about what

they did for the next nine years,

including in this op-ed.

including in this oped,

which means

the statute of limitations

has not run out because they're still

doing it this week. And the statute of

limitations

uh starts counting when they stop doing

things that are the thing you're

accusing them of. This would suggest

that they're still doing the hoax.

If Shawn Davis is correct in his

analysis,

um, in the secret non-public version of

the A, four bullet points were listed in

support of the key judgment. So, there's

one version of the report that referred

to the steel document,

uh, you know, very specifically said,

we're looking at these things. The

fourth was sourced directly to the steel

dossier annex. But in the versions of

the A provided to Congress and the

public, the fourth bullet citing the

steel dossier and the annex itself

were removed from the document without a

trace. All footnotes to cited material

were also removed.

So if you removed all the footnotes to

it, it didn't happen by itself.

that that sort of if you see the turtle

on the on the fence post, it didn't get

there by itself.

And uh Sean Davis says they are clearly

engaged in an ongoing criminal

conspiracy to cover up their crimes and

they deserve to be held accountable um

to what they did and continue to do to

the country.

All right. And I guess the Federalist

has a uh big story today that a

whistleblower who called shenanigans on

the claims in the in that A report was

threatened for refusing to sign on to

the false claims.

So this is what I've been waiting for.

I've been waiting for the whistleblowers

because you know there's people there

who have their lips up to the whistle

and they're just thinking ah oh I so

want to talk about this. I really really

want to talk about this but you know my

career would be over if I do and it

probably will be.

Um well, Maggie Hemingway,

also of the Federalist, um says the

Obama team is acting uh absolutely

terrified about being held accountable

for the Russia collusion hoax, and I

couldn't be happier about it. Now, she

she has better sources than most of us,

so um I don't know that they're being

terrified, but when I saw Brennan uh

being asked about it on MSNBC,

he looked terrified to me.

Now, that may have been my bias because

I expected him to be terrified, so maybe

I just imagined it. Could have just

imagined it. Um but I would love to know

what they're saying behind closed doors.

I will note that Trump is torturing them

um like a cat with a mouse by sending

out these memes showing that um showing

them behind bars and suggesting that

they need to be indicted.

Now, he's not doing those things, but it

looks like the mechanism for that to

happen isn't isn't an action. So, I do

believe that the Department of Justice

is looking into it and may have already

come up with a bunch of uh ideas about

how to prosecute. So,

I feel like it's going to happen. And

the question I have now is what would

happen to the country?

Your common sense tells you that if the

prior administration is seriously

indicted and put in jail, that that

would be just ripping apart the fabric

of the country. And so you shouldn't do

it even if you know that justice

requires it. But you know, you don't

want to destroy the country just to have

that bit of justice that you so

desperately want. Here's what I think.

I don't know what Democrats would say

about this. I feel like it would be a

split opinion because the evidence of

their crimes

appear to be really clear, meaning it's

all documented and there almost

certainly will be more whistleblowers

coming forward.

So, would the Democrats

decide that they had to, I don't know,

do what? Take up weapons?

What would they do?

I if if it were proven that their team

was behind one of the most destructive

hoaxes in the history of humans,

what would they do? Would they say, "Oh,

you know, I'm on this team, so I have to

fight hard."

Or would they do what they're doing now?

I talked about this yesterday. Half of

the Democrats are still scrappy and

trying to make something of their bad

situation, but half of them are just

insulting the other half and saying,

"You're idiots. We got to get rid of the

woke stuff. We don't have any ideas that

people like. We don't have any policies.

We don't have any good leaders. We don't

have any messages."

So, I feel as if the Democrats have um

through their own actions created a

situation where they're not so

teamoriented as they were even one year

ago and that uh they only have to have a

split opinion in order for Trump to be

able to get away with um indicting these

past leaders. In other words,

if we thought that 98% of Democrats

would say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, they did

not break any laws, there's no evidence,

you're just lawfaring them." Then it

wouldn't be a good idea. It would it

would tear the country apart. And even I

would say, "Damn it, you know, maybe we

should let this go." But when you have a

situation where the Democrats are

already already tearing each other apart

and saying, you know, we can't we can't

act like this anymore. It doesn't work.

Then you're just throwing more more logs

onto the fire that's already burning,

which is Democrats blaming themselves

or their party for horrible performance

and maybe even some crime.

So there probably is no other time when

this would work.

Uh but Trump could sell it. And so, you

know, sometimes I sometimes you blame me

for sitting on the fence about things.

Usually I don't think that's what's

going on. Sometimes I just don't know

the right answer. So So like with the

tariffs, I'm not sitting on the fence

with the tariffs. I just genuinely don't

know if it's going to cause inflation or

not. I don't know. But on this one, I'm

going to give you a solid opinion.

They have to go to court. Now, if the

court decides that they're not guilty, I

will accept that.

But this has to go to court. That

there's no way that the country can heal

or that history will even understand

what happened unless we take this

through the court system. So, I think

that every one of these people that have

been mentioned, uh, they need to be

dragged through the court by Trump and

he has, um, a free punch. I mean, what

they've done to him has been so

grotesqually

out of bounds up to this point that uh,

he just has the freedom that nobody else

would ever have because what he's doing

is setting the world straight.

You know, he he has the right to

rebalance

and things are terribly out of balance.

If the only thing he does is say,

"Here's what you did to me and you made

up all of this or you exaggerated

it or you turned almost nothing into a

big something." Um, all I'm going to do

is let the courts decide based on these

documents and the whistleblowers whether

any any crimes were committed. and uh

I'll just watch. So yeah, I believe that

there would not be a civil war and I

believe that it would not even

necessarily affect us economically or

geopolitically.

I feel like the Democrat party is in

such disarray and they hate each other

as much as they hate Republicans at this

point that this is the one time in

history

Trump can just put the boot down.

And will they say, "Oh, he's acting like

a

autocrat." Sure. But that hasn't made

any difference yet. They would say he's

acting like a king.

And then we would say, um, this is being

handled by the courts and the courts are

not doing anything that's illegal. This

is actually what they do. So yeah, um,

I'm going to go in. I'm all in on the

fact that the risk to the country of

making this an actual, you know,

Department of Justice big deal. I think

the risk to the country is low. I think

it's low. And I think that this is just

the it just has to happen now. So, uh

when I when I think about all the lives

that were destroyed

by these hoaxes and uh really the

country itself was essentially

destroyed, we can build back, you know,

I think we'll get back, but at the

moment,

I mean, just think about the fact that

people can't even spend time with their

own families.

That's what this kind of hoax gets you.

That plus the fine people hoax.

So yeah, I'm all in jail.

Um, apparently there's a report that a

number of the worst documents there

there might be some bad ones we haven't

seen yet were found in a secret locked

room in burn bags. Now, a burn bag is a

bag you put a document in if you're

planning to have it all burned to get

rid of it because you can't just throw

classified stuff in the regular garbage.

So, why were there burn bags? Were they

burn bags that simply hadn't yet been

burned and there's nothing to see here?

It's just stuff they didn't need. So,

they put them in a burn bag or I think

we've already been told that the burn

bags have the good stuff in them, which

would suggest they knew exactly what

they were doing and hid them. General

Flynn notes that those burn bags

probably could be fingerprinted.

What

did you think of that? The burn bags

probably can be fingerprinted

now. I hope I hope they haven't been

touched by too many other hands. They

probably have been, but kind of an

interesting thought, isn't it? That they

could be fingerprinted.

Um,

and then there's some information about,

do you remember, was it Steven Halper,

the British spy related guy who was part

of that steel dossier? And I guess he

was a big part of making the the fake

case against General Flynn. And so,

General Flynn is uh he's going all caps

on his ex post today. Uh, I'll just read

you what he posted. He said, "And as

noted many times by Sad Lana Helper," so

that was the British spy guy was not

even there that night. He made up the

whole story. He goes, "That fat bastard

Helper made the entire story up all in

caps. We've always known this. The

crooked cops inside the FBI and those in

the White House and at the CIA all went

along. All done to overthrow the United

States of America. Enough is enough.

Start arresting people."

Yep. General Flynn, I am uh 100% down

with that opinion.

It's time to arrest people.

Well, Galileain Maxwell, as you know,

has been uh talking with the House

Oversight Committee. Well, actually,

she's been invited to talk to them, but

she will not consider it unless she gets

congressional immunity, which we would

be different from

um what's that other word?

Uh

if she gets clemency,

so she wants clemency and also immunity.

Um and she's unlikely to get any of

that. So, do we expect her to tell the

truth if she doesn't get something in

return? Well, it it appears

um

it appears that u

she's not going to get those things

because it would be politically

impossible. It would be a bad idea for

Trump to grant any of that. So, I'm

hoping we can find out what she knows

from some other mechanism. There's a

lawyer who represented nine of Epstein

victims who was on one of the shows um

recent recently

and he's questioning what Durit said

um about the client Epstein's the the

Epstein clients not being real. Now, I

did not see I did not hear Durwood say

anything like that. So, I don't want to

characterize what Duroitz said.

I'll just tell you what the other lawyer

says.

He says, "I've uh I've represented not

only the nine victims, but I've seen the

evidence on behalf of the 40 victims

that the FBI investigated at the time to

prove conclusively that Epstein had

trafficked and underage girls, children

as young as 14 years old,

um for sex. Not only that, he was using

these young children uh blah blah blah,

but so was Galain Maxwell.

So, she's accused of being physical as

well. And then he was trading out these

favors with these young people to people

in Palm Beach and in the Manhattan home

as well as transporting people to these

to the islands in the Virgin Islands.

So, I think we make too much of a big

deal about who went to the island

because

he had three homes in the United States,

right? New Mexico, New York, and Palm

Beach, and he had lots of entertainment

and parties and people going back and

forth. So, I don't think that who did or

did not go to the island is telling you

a lot

because it would have been smarter for

them all to just visit in one of his

homes because you wouldn't have to even

be on his airplane to go there.

So,

we'll see what happens there. So it it

is kind of amazing

that apparently there are maybe dozens

of famous people who were credibly

accused of very specific horrible crimes

and as far as we know none of them are

being prosecuted.

Now, I understand that the victims may

have settled and there may have been

like a gazillion dollar settlements and

if if you had already been victimized,

you might want to keep your $20 million

more than you want to see somebody go to

jail. So, might be tough to ever find

out what happened for sure. In other

news, Media Matters. Um, that horrible

publication is sort of a a pit dog for

the Democrats. It's just a way to go

after Republicans basically. Uh, might

get shut down. Rod Martin is writing

about this on X. He's got a nice thread

on this, but it was founded by David

Brock in 2003.

And uh, now apparently they're drowning

in legal bills. And the main reason

would be e uh Elon Musk is is uh going

after them for uh what was their claim?

Oh, they they did a fake test where it

showed that X was pairing Nazi

propaganda next to advertisements,

but it was a fake test. So, they got

busted for that. uh at least in terms of

that's why the lawsuit is there, but

also they

uh would try to organize um advertiser

boycots against sex. So, this is just

the worst organization. They they really

should not exist. And u apparently

there's they're really sucking wind on

money. And here's the funniest part.

They got cut off from their law firm for

not paying their bills. The law firm is

Mark Elias's firm. Now, 1% of the world

knows why that's funny. Because Mark

Elias and that law firm also like Media

Matters, we're just a Democrat pitbull

kind of an organization.

Um, so yeah, the Democrats are falling

apart entirely.

Well, in good news, there's a new robot

for picking mushrooms according to the

robot report. And uh

that's important because mushrooms can

double in size in like a day. So, you

have to pick them every day. Now, I saw

separately I saw a broccoli picking

robot. Now, these robots don't look like

humanoids. They're just big tractor

related things with lots of arms that

identify and pick the stuff. But are we

heading rapidly toward a point where

farming will be almost no human labor?

Because farming is very predictable.

Like you know exactly what you have to

do and it's not that much different. you

know, you know, you have to get rid of

the weeds, you have to pick the fruit,

you got to plant the seeds, you gota I

mean, there's not much to it. So, it

seems that would be exactly the kind of

thing you could get robots to do more

and more. Then you don't have to worry

about uh uh immigration to pick your

food.

Well, in other news,

North Carolina State University

um says re researchers have divi devised

a a way to improve the large climate

models, the models that predict what the

temperature will be in 50 years. Um and

they demonstrated that their new tool

makes the models more accurate.

to which I say, "Wait a minute. I

thought the the models were already

accurate or accurate enough."

So about once a week I see a story where

somebody says, "Oh, here was something

wrong with those models. Oh, they were

pretty good, but we're going to make

them even better."

Really? How many how many ways do you

think you can tweak those models and

still have them come up with roughly the

same answer?

Because if they come up with wildly

different answers every time you tweak a

variable or you discover a new way to do

it, well then you've proven that they're

useless.

However, if you don't prove that they're

useless by showing that every time you

get new information, the the model is

wildly different. If it turns out that

no matter what you do to the model, it

still predicts roughly the same thing,

that would also tell you the models are

fake.

the the the glaring signals

that the climate models are going to be

next on the chopping block. Like it'll

be the next thing that just blows your

freaking mind when you find out what the

whistleblowers say about their own

climate models. And that's coming. That

is so coming. I don't know when. Might

not be this year or next year, but it's

definitely coming. And wait till you

find out about climate models.

Um

well, Nvidia, who makes those high-end

AI chips, uh had been restricting the

the type of chip that they were sold to

China. And they had this special chip

called the HT

that was good enough to do AI, but not

as good as the American stuff. So,

America could continue to have its

advantage in the technology. However, um

20 national security experts have

suggested that that H2O chip is a little

bit too good and that we're putting

ourselves in a dangerous situation in

allowing China to have access to it.

I don't know, but people don't agree on

how much technology China should have.

Uh, Canada has announced it's going to

back a Palestinian state

and uh Trump says it will be very hard

for us to make a trade deal with Canada

um now that they're backing a

Palestinian state which Israel doesn't

back and the US doesn't back at the

moment. Um,

to which I say, why would I, as an

American,

care what Canada says about the Middle

East?

And would I be willing to have a worse

trade deal, one that maybe increases my

inflation to force Canada to have a

different opinion about the Palestinian

situation?

I don't feel like that's the right place

to apply the tariff paddle.

I feel like Canada can have whatever

opinion they want.

Why in the world can't they have an

opinion about a part of the world that

we don't even live in? What I mean, I I

do appreciate and I'm impressed by

Trump's ability to create this little

weapon, the tariff, and then use it to

get better trade deals and decrease

fentinel maybe and a bunch of other

stuff. But are we really policing the

free speech of Canadians?

Don't you think that the

that the people of Canada should be able

to say whatever they want about whatever

they want?

Why Why are we tamping down on their

free speech? I don't know. I don't love

that. Um,

there's a report that Trump said

something privately to some Jewish donor

and

so who knows if it's true. Generally

speaking, the least credible stories are

somebody heard somebody said something

to somebody privately.

Those are almost never real, but it's in

the news, so I'll tell you about it. So

apparently the the report is that Trump

told a Jewish donor that quote, "My

supporters are starting to hate Israel."

Now, of course, there probably was a

whole bunch of context to that, but I

went to Grock to see if there had been a

change, and sure enough, um, according

to polls, uh, hate is too strong a word,

but Trump always speaks in hyperbole.

Uh, there is a big difference. So since

October 7th

um the uh let's say the support for

Israel initially was high because they'd

been attacked but now has reached a new

low. So uh it's nowhere near hating

Israel.

So that that would be going too far. But

yeah, support for Israel

probably probably pretty low even on

among Republicans.

Um, now when I say pretty low, I mean

pretty low compared to what it was.

It's it's not it's not low low. It's

just going down. So, let me let me be

clear. It's going down. It's not that

low.

Um,

and uh, Trump has said in a truth social

post that the fastest way to end the

Gaza crisis is for Hamas to surrender

and release the hostages. Now, that of

course is what Israel's been saying for

a long time. You know, that you got to

do those things. But I do love Trump's

framing of it.

Um, he should just repeat that sentence

every time it comes up. God's a crisis

can be settled immediately if Hamas

surrenders and releases the hostages.

That's it. Just say that over and over

again because the debate acts like

Israel has the option of just putting

Hamas back in charge and then going on

with their day.

I don't feel like they think that's an

option. I feel like they think that

Hamas has to be 100% gone and all of the

hostages have to be released or

or there's just nothing you can do. You

just got to make that happen.

So, I remind you that I'm not pro or

anti-Israel. It's not my country. I'm

simply observing and anything that I

think they should do is irrelevant.

Anything that I think is more or less

ethical or moral, irrelevant. It's not

my country. I just observe that all

countries do what seems to be good for

their country and Israel is doing a

really good job of that. Um, however, it

does seem to me that things keep going

in the direction they're going that uh

Israel will have spent their Holocaust

premium.

What I mean by that is the narrative of

the Holocaust gives Israel some

superpowers

because when that's in your mind, you

automatically will side with them when

they do something to defend their

country because you don't want another

Holocaust. Never again. So if you if

you've you know completely internalized

and accepted the Holocaust as the way to

understand Israel,

it's a real powerful weapon for

persuasion.

So you know once they bring up that

Holocaust, it's impossible to be on the

other side because it would be like

you're doubting the Holocaust or you're

supporting another one or something. So

it's really powerful that that narrative

exists. However, my observation is that

that goodwill or that power that they

get from that historical narrative

um is being used spent

to uh get control of Gaza.

Now that might be

a good expense if you know if if they

can somehow get rid of all the bad

elements in the Palestinian properties

and they don't create a second state

that becomes you know their new threat

and they continue being the ones who

provide the security the defense for all

that area. I feel like they would be

they would get a good deal even if what

they did was greatly degraded the power

of the Holocaust narrative because then

people who don't like Israel would say

well yeah the Holocaust was plenty bad

for sure but look what you did

and you again I'm not taking that point

of view I'm just telling you that people

will take that point of view so It's

expensive what Israel wants to do with

Gaza, but I'm not sure they have a

choice.

And the way I look at it is what would

we do

if it if it were your country and you

knew that reconstituting Gaza and

putting Hamas back in charge guaranteed

that there would be more missile attacks

and more October 7ths and you know an

endless number of future problems. What

would you do? What would Trump do?

Yeah.

So, I don't judge anybody over there.

They're everybody's just pursuing their

their best self-interest as they see it.

Um,

so according to the Vigilant Fox, a

great account on X with lots of good

summaries of what's happening in the

world. Um, they're talking about,

you probably knew that YouTube now can

monitor the behavior of a user and it

will know just by the behavior and what

you visited and how you click and stuff

that you're probably under 18 and then

they would restrict you from things you

should not see if you're a child. But

Australia

is trying to get uh other products like

Google Maps and Apple Maps and Bing and

more. Uh wants to get them all powered

so that they can really tell who you are

and what age you are. Um the the fast

version of this is that Apple apparently

has a patent that can verify your

identity

based on your body, your clothes, and

your movements.

So there are a bunch of ways to identify

who you are based on what you do online.

So that would suggest that you would

lose all privacy for going to naughty

sites or whatever it is you're going to

because they they'll know who you are.

Now that is not fully implemented, but

there's a good chance it will be. So

don't do anything online that you

wouldn't do in front of people. All

right, that's all I got for today. Sorry

I went a little bit long. Uh, locals,

I'm going to say hi to you, my beloved

locals, subscribers.

The rest of you someday I'll tell you

why locals are so awesome. So that you

might want to join, too. Um, but thanks

for joining everybody. I'll see you same

time tomorrow, same place. And locals

coming to you private.