Episode 3017 CWSA 11/13/25

Everybody get in here.

Come on in.

Don't let the cats out.

Oh, I've got some kind of insect that's going to be plaguing me today.

Stop plaguing me, insect.

There's only room for one of us today.

Come on in.

We'll have a show.

Let me make sure I can see all your comments.

Whatever that little gnat thing is is going to be very, very annoying.

Stop it being annoying.

That gonna have to get my salt gun and zap it.

All right, you guys.

All good.

I got comments and you don't.

Perfect.

That didn't work.

Sort of worked.

Close enough.

Close enough.

All right, everybody.

Get ready.

I'm ready if you're ready.

Well, good morning and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

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

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

Well, all you need for that is a copper mugger glass, a tanker jealous stein, a canine jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

The dopamine of the day thing makes everything better.

It's called That's right.

Simultaneous.

It happens now.

Uh, I'm sipping like a Trump.

Well, let's see what else is happening today after we do a reframe from my book, Reframe Your Brain, which is changing lives all over the place.

You can get it on Amazon, and only Amazon, as it turns out, probably.

All right.

Here's one of my favorites.

You could call it the shelf space reframe or you could give it another name.

But the uh the usual frame is that if you have some negative thoughts, you want to stop thinking about them, right?

Some some of you I've completely changed your life with this reframe.

Some of you have heard it before.

It just makes sense, right?

If you have negative thoughts, the obvious solution for negative thoughts is think fewer negative thoughts.

But it turns out that your brain doesn't work that way.

If you try to think fewer negative thoughts, you're probably going to think more more of them, not less of them, because then you're obsessing on it.

So, here's the other way to approach it.

This is the reframe.

Instead of trying to stop thinking about negative thoughts, you you can't subtract negative thoughts, but you can crowd them out.

That's what the shelf space is all about.

If I told you, hey, I'm going to make you think about your favorite thing all day.

You're going to think about petting cats and eating delicious food and having great intimate relationships with people you love.

And and let's just say I got, you know, I got right into your business and just made you think about all those things.

There are only so many hours in a day.

If I make you use some of the hours to think about things you love, there'll be fewer fewer hours left for negative stuff.

So don't try to unthink.

You can't do it.

Don't try to think less of a thing.

You can't do it.

Try to think more of things.

You can do that.

Think more of things that are positive, more of things that you want, more of things you've enjoyed, more of things that inspire you, more of things that you you just love, and you will crowd out that time you wasted with negative thoughts.

That's your reframe for the day.

All right, let's talk about the news.

You might have heard that the government has reopened.

Well, so what the hell was that?

Oh, hold on.

Uh, the fly has landed.

We're going to try.

No, that didn't work.

We're going to be trying some anti-fly.

Oh, hold on.

Hold on.

Hold on.

Hold on.

Damn it.

I'm not as fast as a fly.

What was I thinking?

So, the It really is going to be in my face the entire show.

Wow.

Wow.

Um, government reopened.

Nobody cared.

We all sort of expected it would go the way it went and here it is now it's open and what did we learn and nothing but the uh the best lesson that came out of this I think came from uh Greg Gutfeld you're saying it on the five that if you happen to be on what you consider the winning side of the government reopening and the Republicans probably think they're on the winning side there uh it's a mistake to say the other side caved.

Do you all understand why?

It's it's really important.

If you expect to work with these people ever again and and you get a good outcome from one negotiation, in other words, you get what you want, don't say they caved.

Even if you're just an observer and you want more of whatever they caved to, you don't have to be part of the process.

Don't use that word.

Don't say that they they lost like dogs.

What good is that to you?

It feels good for like a second and then you can never work with them again, but also you can never work with anybody else again because anybody who sees you act like that is going to be like, "Oh, so let me get this straight.

Uh if if I negotiate in good, you know, good faith and I give up a little behind my back or even publicly, they're going to call me some kind of caving loser.

Why would I do anything for you?

So Trump is the champion, as I've often said, of making the largest gap between keeping making him happy and what would happen if he didn't make him happy.

So by reopening the government, in a sense, they made him happy.

And correct me if I'm wrong, will you?

Did Trump ever say they caved?

Cuz I I'll be real disappointed if he did, but I'll bet he didn't.

Can you give me a fact check on that?

It's only the pundits who said he caved, right?

Because I feel like Trump would be way too smart to say that.

All it would do is give up some power.

Why would he just give away some power?

You know, far better would be to reward the people instead of mocking them.

He should reward the people who ended up on his side of this.

So that's what you should learn.

this the shutdown itself was just a another symbol of the total incompetence of our of our system.

Uh no more rumble streams.

I I've heard some people say there's something different on Rumble and I don't know the answer to it, but I believe there might be two Rumble streams that started at the same time and that's sort of a new thing.

One of them maybe isn't real.

So, it's possible that you clicked the wrong rumble stream, but I'm not positive about that.

There's just something going on that I don't know.

X changed this user interface today.

So, uh it was quite a interesting morning.

All right, here's another one.

Another persuasion lesson.

You ready for this?

Um there's a clip of me talking about this.

Jason Cohen did a clip on this and uh it's a clip in where I'm talking about how it's a mistake for the Democrats to say that they need a fighter.

Do you know why?

Like compare these three things.

Make America great again.

Make America healthy again.

Or we need a fighter.

Got to fight.

Fight fight.

Which one of those are useful?

All right, here's the reframe.

This one's actually really important.

If you if you get this and, you know, incorporate it into your future life, you're going to be way better.

These these uh slogans like make America great again and make America healthy again and fight fight.

If it's the Democrats doing the fight thing, what are they going to get?

Their affirmation is fighting.

So if you focus on something and repeat it over and over, what's that called?

It's an affirmation.

An affirmation is uh concentrating on something and really focusing on it because there is something that's semi-agic about that.

Now, I don't know there's real magic.

I just think that you you get better results when you're super focused on what you want.

But just think what the two sides are focused on.

So Trump focuses on make America great again and then you watch and you say, "Oh, our borders are better." And you know, there are a number of things you could put into that category.

Make America healthy again.

That's a good affirmations, isn't it?

That's just like one of the best affirmations you could ever have.

But what about fight?

Okay, this fly is just eating me alive right now.

You just will not stay off me.

It It's going to be me versus the fly in a minute.

Um, so here's here's your lesson.

Don't accidentally do an affirmation.

Affirmations are pretty powerful, even if their only effect is not magic, but rather the psychology effect that has on the person who's doing it.

So, if you're doing the right affirmation, make America healthy, make America great, there's a better chance you'll get that thing or at least move toward it.

If you pick the wrong affirmation, you're gonna still get the thing you affirmed, a fight.

The Democrats are actually asking for fighting.

Do you think they'll get it?

Yes.

Yes, they actually get fights.

And when we look at the protests, somebody said there's another Tesla protest coming.

I don't know about that, but but if there is, I'm sure there'll be a fight, right?

So, there's your lesson.

Don't do accidental affirmations.

And that's what the the Democrats messaging is so broken that they're accidentally asking for the worst thing that anybody could ask for, a fight.

If they had been asking for a victory, I might be all in.

Oh, victory.

But a fight?

Who asked for the fight?

Democrats don't do that.

Well, Cash Patel has excitedly announced, and he's way too excited about this for what I think is reality, that uh China has agreed to turn off the pipeline of fentinel precursors.

Uh cuz Mexico and their cartels, they can't make fentinel unless they have the raw ingredients.

I guess there about 13 potential raw ingredients.

And uh they've been coming from Hold on, hold on.

may have been success.

I may have gotten that fly.

All right.

I don't see him yet.

We'll let you know.

Very exciting.

Um so, and then also part of that deal allegedly according to Cash Patel is that China would I guess watch closer or crack down on several industries that would be relevant to making the precursors.

Now, why would this be different than the other times that China said they would do exactly this?

Wh why do we think this would work?

I have no idea.

I don't even understand the story.

It's not like it's the first time that China said, "Oh, yeah, we're totally going to stop these precursors." Now, do you think we can get through the show without me mentioning Charlie Brown in the football?

I won't do it.

I will not mention Charlie Brown in the football.

But this looks exactly like Charlie Brown in the football.

Damn it.

I couldn't do it.

I couldn't do it.

I just I I couldn't not mention Charlie Brown in the football.

You tell me.

Am I missing something?

Is there some reason I should believe it this time?

Wh Why would they tell the truth this time?

Oh, he's back.

I didn't get the fly.

Damn it.

Or he's brought a friend.

He's in full attack mode now.

Damn it.

I'm going to have to give the fly a name.

We're going to call him Carl.

It'll be Carl the fly.

So that when you hear me kill him, it will be more satisfying because I'll be killing somebody with a name.

Carl, ah, you're dead.

Well, anyway, I saw a post on X also wondering if we offered something to China that's not public.

For example, is it a coincidence?

This is not my original idea, not my original thought, but is it a coincidence that uh we agreed that China can have 600,000 students in the US and then China gets flexible about fentinel?

Do you think that's what we traded?

Oh god, it just went my ear.

Oh man, I want that fly so dead.

Carl, it's you and me now.

Carl the fly, you will not live till lunchtime.

I swear I swear I'll take you down.

You will not ruin my live stream.

You're just a fly.

You're doing a really good job of ruining it so far, but I'll get you.

I'll get you.

Anyway, what do you think?

Do you think that there's a secret ingredient uh a secret arrangement and that that's why the fentinel thing looks real this time?

Because obviously Cash Patel is aware that they've promised before and not delivered, right?

It's not like I know and Cash doesn't know that they've made this promise before.

So something's different or he wouldn't act this confident.

I feel so one one of the good things about having a good reputation for being smart like cash is that I don't automatically start with well you must be an idiot and then reason from there.

I start with the assumption that he's wellinformed and brilliant and then I reason from there.

If you start with him being wellinformed and brilliant, and I think that's fair, uh there must be something that China offered that they've never offered before.

So, we'll see.

Have you seen any of the new clips uh with Katie Kurrick?

Remember her when she was on NBC and she was sort of a credible, you know, one of the top hosts?

Well, she's sort of transformed into some kind of a Gollum and she's just sort of an anti-Trump troll now.

And she even looks like she's turning into a troll.

So, I'm going to do my Katie correct impression.

So, oh my precious.

So, wouldn't you agree that Donald Trump has stolen our democracy?

Uh, no.

But wouldn't you agree he's an authoritarian?

No, not really.

But wouldn't you agree he's probably murdered children?

Probably.

Right.

Right.

So, it all just looks sort of weird and trollike.

So, she made the mistake of inviting uh John Fedman on whatever that podcast is that she's doing, whatever it's called, whatever the f um and she asked Fedman.

Uh repeatedly she tried to get him to say that Trump was a fascist.

Like, I need that I need that clip for my show.

Call him a fascist.

Fed would not take the bait.

and he said a quote, "I think at this point right now, we are not in an autocracy.

We're in a democracy." A well, I'm so sad now.

I'm a sad troll.

I like to hear that it's an autocracy.

Don't say it's a democracy.

That makes me sad.

Make me happy.

But then Kirk said, "But would you concede that some of the things that he is doing talking about Trump are clearly anti-democratic and also are potentially even unconstitutional." Um, and Fedman said, "We happen to have a different view of these things.

I don't call people fascists or Nazis or compare people to Hitler." Boom.

Boom.

Do you know what that's called?

That's what we call the high ground maneuver.

Oh, there's a name for it.

There's a name for it.

And if you can pull off a high ground maneuver in any context, you know, work or politics or your private life, if you can do this, what he just did, you're going to win almost everything.

Because the the high ground approach is unassalable by definition.

It's the one that you can't get higher than.

It's the high ground.

So, what would be a higher high ground than uh refusing to debate whether someone is Hitler?

That's pretty good.

And and he he's inclusive.

He goes, "I don't call people fascist, Nazis, or compare people to Hitler." Now, in a sense, what he did was he compared himself to Katie Kirrick.

He didn't compare Trump to Hillar, but he did compare Katie Kirk to some kind of weird troll who would compare other people to Hillar.

So So that happened.

So Fedman for the win.

It it's weird that Fedman walks into that conversation as the one that we should be mocking as looking like uh I don't know Shrek or something, but but he's done such a good job of redeeming himself that to me he doesn't look like Shrek anymore.

Like that just went away.

Now I just see a guy who looks like it looks like he's trying to help.

Looks like he's just trying to make the country better.

So again, I'm no idiot.

I know that he's not who I want for my next president.

I know that, you know, his his policies would not match up with what my first choices would be.

But that doesn't take away from him the skill that he brings to the game.

So there are some people I talk about because of their skill level and other people I talk about because I like their policies.

So he's he's a skill level guy.

I'm not going to say he doesn't have skill.

I I refuse to act as if one of the most skilled people in the game is not there.

So, I'm going to talk about him.

All right.

Uh, apparently, I didn't know about this, but the Trump administration is cracking down on Oh, by the way, we we'll get to the epic stuff.

Don't worry, we'll get to it.

Um, Trump administration is cracking down on tunnels.

I guess uh there are quite a few tunnels under the border.

No surprise.

Uh but what I didn't know, this is new, is that there's uh some technology referred to as the persistent surveillance and detection system, the PDS.

Persistent surveillance mean persistent meaning it's just always on.

Um and apparently there's a way to upgrade it.

So we have some cool technology for identifying tunnels.

That's kind of cool.

I didn't know how much we already had, but apparently we're in good shape on tunnels, uh, technology wise, but we're going to do even more.

Um, Joe Rogan just had a show.

His guest was Jeff Dye, comedian Jeff Dye.

And, uh, I thought Rogan had one of the best, um, observations or insights that I've seen in a long time.

So just sort of just sort of revel in how smart this is.

And part of the reason I I present it this way is that part of the magic and skill of Joe Rogan is not making you know how much smarter he is than you because it would be off-putting if if he just knew how much smarter he was.

He's really smart, but he, you know, he lives uh what I call the, you know, the everyman life.

Plus, you know, he's like the every man with lots better toys and better cars and stuff.

Uh, but that's part of his magic that he never leaves that frame.

He's just the guy you want to hang out with.

He also is super smart and it comes out in little ways that you're not expecting.

Here's here's the example.

So, he talked about, and I think I'm I'm going to paraphrase this, but I hope I'm doing it right.

And his idea was that in order for uh Obama and his his crowd to sort of divert from the the uh Russia Russia gate hoax, which they were behind, that the fine people hoax was actually the hoax to divert you from the other hoax.

And I never really thought about it that way.

But that does kind of fit, doesn't it?

That the fine people hoax was a hoax to get you off the other hoax.

And that their entire structure is, you know, hoax to hoax to hoax.

And that uh and more importantly, Joe believes that there's no way that Obama was unaware that it was a hoax.

Would you agree with that?

There's no way that Obama thought that was true.

He absolutely knew he was spreading the hoax.

Why else would you do it?

I mean, you do it to win, but it also is the perfect distraction.

So, when you think when you when you think about the fact that Obama personally was probably behind the Russia gate thing and then personally pushed the uh find people hoax to help cover up the other hoax.

That is some of the worst I've ever seen in my life.

Because that wasn't just about him and Trump, which would be bad enough.

That was about us.

When I say us, I mean my audience right now and all the people who are potentially Trump supporters.

That was about us.

He threw us under the bus, right?

You can't just say that the guy you support is a Nazi without that automatically painting every single person who supports him.

So we had to live with that.

We had to live painted as a bunch of neo-Nazi supporters and and we had to like wake up in the morning and know that he had just told half the country that we were neo-Nazi supporters.

And the more prominent you were as a pro.

Trumper, people like me, the more sure the people were that you you were a neo-Nazi because of the hoax.

Um, it really is one of the worst things I've ever seen that didn't directly involve violence.

I mean, I think it inspired violence.

You know, you never know that for sure, but looks like it did.

But am I wrong that the if you add the two hoaxes together, they're unambiguously worse than anything I've ever seen in politics.

Just anything.

Yeah.

I mean, I'm not talking about World War II atrocities and stuff.

We're not comparing that stuff.

But just in the political realm, you know, minus gross over violence, that's the worst thing I've heard.

I I suppose Yeah, I suppose.

All right, let's be fair.

Let's be fair about this.

It's not worse than slavery.

It's not worse than Jim Crow.

So, let me let me be a little more common sensical about it.

It's not worse than those things.

But for the ordinary politics, it's worse.

It's just worse than anything I've seen.

Just unbelievably despicable.

All right, here's another fun story.

Eric Swallwell, who happens to be my representative, I believe, um does not have a California address.

Now, I don't know that that's true.

So, I would wait for a confirmation that the, you know, the fact checkers are agreeing with this.

But according to the Gateway Pundit, Joel Gilbert, uh, nobody nobody has yet found an address for him in California, but they do have an address, I guess he claims, but at that address, some other family has lived there for years.

Um, so it looks like he only has a home in Washington DC or somewhere around there and that he would not actually even be qualified allegedly even to be in office.

How many of you think that's true?

This one's I think I'd wait on this one because the story is based on we can't find something.

What they can't find is a valid address for him in California.

But is that is that a solid argument?

We can't find it.

I I wouldn't automatically believe a story that's based on I can't find it because somebody might find it.

But we can wait and see if he claims he has an address.

If he claims he has a valid address, we can just check the address.

If you want, I can go over and look because uh apparently he claims he lives in Liverour, which is walking distance in that direction.

I I can literally walk to Liverour.

I wouldn't right now, but I could.

Uh so I I could go knock on his door.

I'm not going to do that, of course.

But anyway, um let's talk about the new dust up with the Epstein files.

This feels like Groundhog Day, doesn't it?

every time Epstein files comes up.

All right, so the basic idea is everybody knows who Epstein is.

You all know that Trump doesn't want the files released.

Um, which makes him look guilty of something.

Um, Republicans apparently are trying to back the president on that and not release them, but Democrats want it all released.

And they got enough votes in the House with a few crossovers that would not surprise you.

So, we got Marjgerie Taylor Green voting for uh disclosure, I believe.

Uh, Boowbert voting for disclosure.

And does anybody feel like arguing with either one of those?

If if Bober and Marjgerie Taylor Green say, you know, I've lived a certain life, I don't have to get into the details, right?

I I've experienced a certain life.

You need to make this transparent.

You know what I'm talking about, right?

I feel like those two have every right to ask for maximum transparency.

No matter who the victim is or or no matter who gets hurt, I I think they deserve I think they deserve maximum transparency.

Now, Thomas Massie also wants maximum transparency.

So, he's part of that and and he's got his own drama with Trump.

Trump wants to primary him uh not just for this, but for, you know, not voting for for the same side as much as he should, according to Trump.

So, that's the setup.

The setup is it's it's a it's getting some Republicans to be mad at other Republicans.

If if you find a way to be mad at Bober or MTG over this, you should check your work.

You You have to You have to let them just experience this and act on it the way they feel best and just stay out of it.

they they have they have the right to go hard on us and they are um but there are all kinds of twists and turns.

So, what's new is I guess I found some new emails that uh include a journalist who's an anti-Trump well-known anti-Trump journalist.

Uh Wolf is his name.

WFFF.

Is it Michael Wolf?

Um and he's written anti-Trump books and he's been on TV doing anti-Trump um interviews for years and years and years.

And then there's allegedly um something from one of the victims which we believe is Virginia Guilffrey who allegedly according to one of the emails spent uh hours with Trump.

Now let's look at some of these accusations individually.

How credible are they?

How credible are the organ are the accusations if they involve Epstein, this journalist Wolf, and then one of the victims, Virginia Gilfrey, who is not only deceased tragically, but also was famous for having accused um um what's his name?

She she's made an accusation with of Dersuitz that she later completely reversed and said, "Oh, I just had had you confused with somebody." Now, I of course will never know what is true or what is false of any of the EPS Epstein stuff.

But what we can say if somebody is known and admits that they once made an accusation that they later completely reversed, wouldn't it be fair to say that person has no credibility even if it's true?

They don't have credibility because they've told the story and they've reversed it once.

So you can't trust that person.

So you've got one person who sadly is, you know, a victim of course.

So, she's a victim first, but there's no reason to believe anything that she said about anything.

And I guess the accusation is that one of the victims, which we believe is this Virginia, but we don't know for sure, uh, may have spent a few hours with Trump.

What does that mean?

What does it mean that they spent a few hours together?

There's no accusation that they were doing anything naughty.

And indeed, she has said in public before she passed, she said that he never did anything, that Trump was never even accused by her of doing anything inappropriate.

So, what would it mean that they spend several hours together?

Well, I don't know the answer to the question, but one of the ways that these hoaxes get created is if the audience can't understand what other explanation there would be.

So when you hear, well, Trump might have spent hours with this, you know, underage female in some context, where does your brain automatically go?

It automatically goes to the worst case scenario.

Fly is back.

But and that's how the hoaxes work.

If you can't even imagine, what would be another reason that those two would spend time together?

So, I'm just going to give you a an easy obvious alternative explanation.

Doesn't mean it's true.

I'm just demonstrating that it would be easy to imagine something that would be hard to imagine.

Once you hear it once, you know, I'm going to tell you what it is.

You'll just always be able to imagine it.

All right.

Uh Epstein had a private plane.

We know that people like Trump and other people sometimes took his private plane uh to go where they were going to go anyway.

So, it's just sort of a convenience, something rich people do.

Hey, take my plane.

It is not uncommon, and I know this from actual experience, that if you're going to take somebody's private plane somewhere, often there's someone else who needs to go there at the same time, and somebody will say, "Do you mind?" uh if somebody else is on the plane.

This is literally something that happened to me.

Do you mind if somebody else is on the plane?

Of course not.

It's not even my plane.

Of course.

What would happen if Trump said, "Can I take your plane?

You know, mine's mine's being serviced.

Do you mind if I take your plane to New Jersey?" Imagine Epstein says, "Yes." And then an hour later, Virginia Guilffrey comes and says, "Um, I need to like visit my sister in New York or something.

Can I take the plane?" And then Epstein would say, "Oh, yeah.

Um, Trump's going to be taking the plane to New Jersey.

Uh, we'll just pick an airport that's right for both of you and you can take the plane." Now imagine that both of them are on the private plane and uh Trump's just minding his own business or who he's with whoever he's with and she's just another passenger on the plane and it's a several hour plane trip.

Would they talk?

Probably.

Would it be a scandal if he chatted with somebody else who happened to be on the plane for completely innocent reasons or just going to the sameish destination?

there would be no problem with that at all.

He would just be friendly like he always is and just talking to who's on the plane.

Now, I'm not I'm not claiming that that's what happened.

But can't you so easily imagine that they would spend time together that neither of them planned to do because they were just sort of in that little universe and maybe the plane was a convenience, etc.

So, the first thing you need to know is that if you're missing all the details of who the person is and why they spend time and what they were doing together, it's not really a story.

The the most basic things you would need to know to know if there's a problem are missing from the story.

Is he accused of doing anything?

No.

Was there a perfectly good alternative reason for why they were talking?

Probably.

All right.

The other thing, let's see what else is the new accusation.

Uh oh, I guess somewhere Michael Wolf uh suggested to Epstein that they blackmail Trump.

So if you wondered, is Wolf a dependable, nice guy?

He's literally in writing suggested that Epstein use leverage against Trump based on I don't know something that Trump knew or did.

And then there's an accusation that Trump knew about some some bad behavior, but the bad behavior that he allegedly knew about is not specified.

So what are we talking about?

So there was something about women.

So we know the domain has something about women, which might mean underage.

And apparently Trump was complaining about something that Epstein was done doing with with females.

and uh they were going to try to use that against him somehow.

Now, what exactly is the crime there?

It depends how much he knew, right?

It also makes me wonder where does your responsibility begin if you heard a rumor but you don't know for sure.

Have you ever thought about that?

Have you I I remember once many years ago there was somebody I worked with who started suspecting their own husband of being a a serial killer, like actually a literal one and a specific one who had killed some children and and she actually had some suspicion based on some items that she found in a house or something that he was the one who had killed the children.

Now, what was her responsibility?

It's her husband and she has no proof, but she has sort of these suggestive little things that make her think, "Huh, I can't really rule out that my husband might be the serial killer." Now, is it her responsibility to turn in her husband?

Cuz there cuz he might be he might be a serial killer.

I don't know.

Now, let's take that same thinking to Trump.

Suppose people had said to Trump, and I'm sure there were whisperers, you know, you better watch out for this guy.

He he likes him too young.

Well, what's that mean?

Does that mean he's having sex with them too young or that he's just spending too much time with people who are too young or that he's trafficking them?

Suppose you didn't know what that meant, but somebody had told you, somebody credible, had told you, you know, you watch out for that guy there.

There's something in that domain.

We don't know the specifics, but he's doing something in that domain that you want to stay away from.

Let's say that's all Trump knew.

Would he have a responsibility to do what?

turn him into authorities or should he just ban him from his own operation which apparently he did uh so that it's not his problem.

What do you think?

So that's a real question because I don't think there's any sort of standard for when you have enough suspicion to publicly blame somebody of being a pedophile.

Like that's got to be right at the top of the list of you better have some real good proof before that comes out of your mouth.

If I seem perched, it's cuz one of my meds makes me dehydrated.

Anyway, so if you look at the things that Trump is being accused of with these new emails, they're it's sort of a lot of nothing.

But the uh Democrats can make it sound like something.

And it does make you wonder, is it a coincidence that this pops up right around the time that Trump seems to have this victory with opening the government and things seem to be going his way and then oh, suddenly suddenly there's baseless accusations and hoaxes again.

Surprise.

All right.

Um, so I would say I if you didn't know that Michael Wolf is an anti-Trumper who was in favor of blackmail according to the emails and hung around with Jeffrey Epstein, shouldn't that be enough to not trust him?

Uh, and the other person who would know enough has passed away.

So um, and uh, Byron York had a similar observation.

and he said on X, "Perhaps the most interesting news out of the Epstein releases today is that anti-Trump author Michael Wolf was an Epstein adviser and strategist." So, as as much as Michael Wolf might want to use this situation to shmear uh Trump reputationally, how do you how do you get past being Epstein's adviser and strategist?

How do you explain that away?

How do you put that on your Wikipedia page?

I don't know.

I feel like I feel like a wolf is not going to come out of this very well.

All right.

So, I would uh I'm going to frame this.

I'm going to reframe this.

Okay.

I would say that the new information uh the new emails do not have legal weight.

In other words, they there's nothing there that would trigger any kind of a legal process.

They do not have legal weight.

What they do have is gossip weight, meaning that they will trigger gossip and they will trigger hoaxes and they will trigger false beliefs and everything else.

So, this is a gossip level story.

It's not a it's not a Department of Justice level story.

This is gossip level.

And once you realize it's gossip level and you realize that the timing is kind of convenient, you know, takes a little the glow off of Trump's recent successes, now you can sort of see it in its proper context.

Um, I don't know if you noticed that the story seemed to have been ignored by the right leaning media this morning.

So, I you know, when I first turned on, uh the news, I saw CNN and they were talking about Epstein and I thought, "Oh my goodness, there's another Epstein thing." So, since I prefer my news from other sources, although I I like sampling CNN, they're doing a better job lately.

Uh I jump over to Fox News because I'm thinking, well, obviously, you know, they're they're going to have to cover this as a big story.

And it wasn't.

Yeah, I'm sure they talked about it before and after, but did anybody notice that the bubbles formed?

And I would think that a whole lot of pro.

Trump people realized that if they had given this um actual weight or credibility that Trump would come after them so hard, it would be a big mistake.

So, it could be that we're seeing a signal that Trump has now so much influence over the the right leaning media that they completely stayed away from the uh the ticking time bomb of another Epstein story.

And by the way, it doesn't seem like it's higher than gossip level.

So, you know, you you can understand why they would deemphasize something that's only gossip level.

Uh, but the left will be all over it.

Thomas Massie is all over it.

You can see why Thomas Massie and Trump will probably not become friends anytime soon.

Can you imagine being Trump and then seeing a guy pushing this?

Like I say, it's a completely different story when Bober and MTG push a story about a, you know, a male potential abuser, accused abuser, convicted abuser.

Um, they have every right, like they have every ethical, moral right, but uh I don't I don't know what uh what Massie and Trump are going to do in the future.

All right.

Apparently, Trump would have to sign the bill.

This is the funny part.

Don't we assume that no matter what happens, we're not going to see the files because the Senate would have to agree?

I don't know if that's possible and then Trump would have to sign it uh because they don't have enough votes to overcome a, you know, presidential veto.

So, as long as you know for sure that Trump's going to veto it and you know for sure they don't have votes to get past the veto, I don't think, right?

Am I wrong about that?

Oh, I could be wrong about that.

Huh?

There there's some possibility that the Republicans will just say, "All right, screw it.

We can't deal with this every day for the rest of our lives.

We're just going to overcome the veto and let's just see what's there." Now, the real question is, why would Trump want you not to see these files?

That's the thing we most want to know, right?

And unfortunately, there are too many reasons that it could be.

So, what are what are the reasons?

One one is that, you know, there's something bad in there about him.

That's the obvious one.

Um, but what if the only bad part is that he knew more than um you knew he knew about what Epstein was up to?

How much would that bother you?

Let's say he knew more than you knew he knew, but he still didn't know.

Like he didn't have any he didn't witness anything.

He didn't have any perfect source that he knew was true.

It's just he just sort of knew cuz if you're smart and you're worldly and you're around things, you sort of know, right?

So it might be that he just doesn't want people to know that uh a reasonable person could have deduced that there's a bigger problem than maybe was obvious on the service.

Um could it be that the it's some kind of intel connection thing and there's some intel agency that doesn't want this to come out.

So Trump might be just uh supporting his CIA or maybe there's maybe they blackmailed him too.

Uh could be some foreign intel.

Could be protecting some foreign leaders.

Could be protecting Great Britain.

You know, if Prince Andrew has been, you know, named as one of the per Great Britain said, "Here's the deal.

We will die on this hill." There's no reason to believe they said this, but could you imagine the conversation that uh let's say the royal family or Great Britain would have with Trump privately privately uh if they knew there was more to come out, let's say with Prince Andrew in particular, would they possibly say, "Look, we will give you anything to not let this out.

You tell us what you need.

You want a better tariff?

You got it.

Yeah, you you want us to fund more of Ukraine so you don't have to.

You got it.

Just do not let this come out.

Is that possible?

Maybe.

I mean, Trump's a dealmaker.

If you handed him the leverage to win a bunch of negotiations with Great Britain, you know, you're going to you're going to ask about Israel, right?

But so in your own mind, you could throw that in there if you want.

So, it could be that Trump knows that if he doesn't give away the secrets, then he gets to use them as his own leverage, which might be, and again, this is just speculation.

I'm just showing you that there's a wide range of what could be behind all this.

Some of it's good, some of it's bad.

We may never know.

But uh Trump would definitely have an advantage if he was the only one who knew or the only politician who knew what the real situation was and who was involved.

All right.

Um let's see what else.

Now this is fun.

Let's see how many of you think this is a complete coincidence.

So does this have anything to do with Epstein?

that the next thing I'm going to talk about does have anything to do with Epstein or is this just total coincidence?

Trump has written a letter to the Israeli president asking him to pardon Netanyahu from what he thinks is a lawfare kind of unjustified prosecution which has been going on for years.

Uh Washington Examiner is writing about this Emily Halis.

Um, and it was a long well-ritten letter in which Trump made his argument of why they were, you know, treating Netanyahu unfairly.

And a big part of the argument is that Trump and Netanyahu are such a good team that they could accomplish unprecedented things, but not if not if Netanyahu is in jail.

So, a pardon would be a good thing for us allegedly.

But certainly you would see this as Trump doing a favor, wouldn't you?

It looks like Trump doing a favor for Netanyahu.

Now, he doesn't do favors just to do favors.

Well, that's not true.

Sometimes he does.

He did favors to me just just to do a favor.

Um, so there's some reason he's doing it now.

And it could be that the reason is it's just the right time to do it because you know Gaza is moving forward in a productive way.

Things worked out.

Netanyahu's reputation probably isn't going to get better.

This would be a good time to good time to strike.

But then I I was curious what exactly is he being accused of?

And I'm still not entirely sure.

But apparently there were $200,000 worth of what they call extravagant gifts that he accepted while in office.

Netanyahu did extravagant gifts.

Now when Trump talked about the extravagant gifts, he was minimizing it and he said uh you were talking about uh champagne and cigars and and Trump was acting like, you know, come on.

They're basically just quality champagne and cigars and stuff like that.

And we're not talking about giving somebody a pile of cash.

Now, that is very different.

You know, what you would do for a pile of cash would be completely different than what you do for a little extra good champagne.

>> >> So the first thing I'd like to know to understand this topic is Netanyahu really being accused of real crimes.

Are these real crimes?

And and even if it's a real crime, let's say he took let's say he took a I don't know some champagne.

Let's say he accepted some of the best cigars in the world.

Do you really care?

Do you really care?

I mean that's what Trump asked.

Do you care?

I mean, I get how it would be technically illegal, but who cares?

Now, if it if they gave him a luxury car, well, yeah, I get that.

You know, you should care about that and find out if there was anything they gave in return.

I haven't heard the accusation of that.

But, uh, we're we're flying a little bit blind here in the US because we don't know if the accusations are are, uh, credible or not.

But the real question is, is it a coincidence that the Epstein stuff popped up the same time as the Israel stuff?

Probably is.

Probably is a coincidence.

All right, here's another persuasion lesson.

Uh, Mom Donnie, the new mayor of uh, New York City, he says that he does plan, if he can do it, he wants to speak to President Trump.

and he says uh calling his relationship with Trump quote critical to the success of the city.

Uh O is reporting on this Blake Wolf Differ Wolf.

A lot of wolves in the news today.

Anyway, um so he does.

So, Mom Davi plans to speak with Trump.

And the way he worded it was, quote, "If President Trump wants to speak about lowering the cost of living or delivering cheaper groceries like he ran on in 2024, I'm there to have that conversation." Mami stated, "Now, do you ever hear Republicans use that phrase?

I'm here to have that conversation." Remember what I said about fight, fight, fight?

If what you're affirming is fight, you get a fight.

If what you're affirming is health, you get health.

If what you're affirming is greatness, you get greatness.

But he's affirming a conversation.

Like, why?

Why would you affirm a conversation?

It's like the lowest level of accomplishment.

I'll tell you, I worked all year on this and I got myself a conversation.

I know.

I know.

A lot of people would never be able to have a conversation, but I got myself a conversation.

Carl, Carl just won't leave me alone this morning.

Uh, so never use the word conversation if you're trying to be a person who gets stuff done.

He started really well, which is Mom Dami's secret sauce, that he's a good communicator.

So he started out by talking about lowering the cost of living, delivering cheaper groceries, and pointing out that Trump had asked about those same things.

But then he he falls into Democrat talk, which is we have to have a conversation about this.

That's a nothing.

That's a nothing.

So we'll see.

Good luck, Mom Dummy.

I'm sure that'll be a great conversation with Trump.

Um I saw this story today from the history of behavioral sciences.

So you all know what cognitive dissonances, right?

So cognitive dissonance most you know totally well documented psychological phenomenon and it happens when somebody is in a situation where they do something that's sort of counter to who they know they are.

And if you do something that's opposite of who you are, let's say you're a nice person, but you do something cruel, you don't say to yourself, "Oh, I guess I was wrong.

I guess I'm cruel." Cognitive dissonance would cause you to redefine that situation in some way that's good for you so that you don't your ego is not damaged.

So you'd imagine, oh, that's not that's that's not what's happening.

It's really complicated.

So, cognitive dissonance is when you concoct or your brain sort of automatically concocts a story that makes you look good, even if the reality is you shouldn't look good in this story.

But here's the background.

Apparently, there was a that the whole concept of cognitive distance was brought about because there was this cult.

So years ago there's this cult and I guess they said that uh the world was going to end at a certain time and it didn't.

1954 there was no apocalyptic flood.

So there was a book written that suggested that uh once they saw that all of their predictions were wrong instead of saying oh I guess we don't know what we're talking about.

We're all wrong.

that they came up with uh completely weird cognitive dissonance explanations for why there wasn't a big flood that killed everything and that that became like the trigger for understanding that cognitive dissonance is a real thing.

And today I found out that uh the book was uh apparently a fraud and that the cult existed.

But when they found out that their prediction didn't work, they did what normal people would do and say, "Oh, okay.

Let's do something else." That didn't work.

Apparently, we can't predict the future.

So, they were actually the opposite of cognitive dissonance.

They they took the new information.

Oh, I guess our prediction was wrong.

And then they just built a world view that was based on reality that they can't predict things.

However, for apparently years, people believed that that cult was the best example of this new thing called cognitive dissonance.

And so, it became a well-known psychological phenomenon, which is real.

Cognitive dissonance is real.

But what's funny about it is that the way we, you know, learned about it and understood it was fraudulent.

Anyway, according to Reuters, the US Army is going to buy a million drones.

I've told you so many times that the future of warfare is who can get the most and best drones.

So, if we can't get ourselves a million drones, mostly I think that we make ourselves uh we're not going to be dominant in any way militarily.

And a million might not be enough.

Like the the number of drones, that's the right number.

I don't know because we just have to be way more than anybody else.

So if it turns out that China figures out how to make 10 million drones a year, even if they don't use them, we're going to have to figure out how to make 20 million drones a year.

So we're in the drone making contest situation.

Yeah.

So we'll see.

Um, and then allegedly, and I don't believe this either, that Russia is signaling some interest in restarting peace talks.

Do you believe that, the Washington Times is reporting this?

Now, I don't know exactly how they know if Russia is serious about any of this.

Doesn't doesn't seem like something that we could know for sure, but it's possible that since both sides are just slamming each other with drones and missiles that neither of them wants to go through the winter.

So, it could be that uh Putin is aware that even if he's winning, and a lot of smart people say, "Oh, Russia is definitely winning." It's a war of attrition.

I feel like the war of attrition is over and that now we're in the war of robots.

It's almost like a second war.

So, you could almost argue that the Ukrainians lost the first war.

So they lost the one that depends on humans, you know, dying less than the other side.

They just lost that.

But in the meantime, they had built up a robot army that they have not lost.

So I think two things can be true that Russia has the, you know, big advantage in human human capital that they're using up at the same time that it might not be a human war anymore.

might be just a robot war.

That's what it looks like.

But I would not be surprised if both the Russians and the Ukrainians are a little bit panicked because both of them are going to turn the lights off on the other and winter is coming and I don't know if you can turn on that many lights.

Somebody said that Ukrainian can Ukraine can uh survive a power outage better because they have so many trees and they can just burn firewood and have fireplaces and stuff.

I don't know if that's enough, but it'd be better than if you couldn't.

So, so it's entirely possible that Putin is a little worried about getting through the winter because Ukraine is going to make it very cold for a lot of Russians and he knows that.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is all I had to talk about today.

I nailed it.

It's exactly top of the hour.

How do I do it?

And Carl the Fly would like to thank you for joining in.

He is my new sidekick.

I believe he'll be dead by tomorrow.

I'm not sure I'll be alive tomorrow, but Carl the Fly and I will be back.

Uh, I'm going to say some words privately to privately to my beloved members of locals.

And uh, you can say hi to Carl, too.

I'm sure he wants to talk to you.

Free Carl.

Free Carl.

Free Carl the fly.

Oh my god.

Carl, get off my forehead.

Ow.

Get off my head, Carl.

All right, I'm going to have to hire a staff member just to keep that fly off my head.

All right, everybody.

I'll see you tomorrow.

Locals, I'm coming at you privately.

Coming at you harder than a French man.

Everybody get in here. Come on in.

Don't let the cats out.

Oh, I've got some kind of insect that's

going to be plaguing me today. Stop

plaguing me, insect.

There's only room for one of us today.

Come on in. We'll have a show.

Let me make sure I can see all your

comments.

Whatever that little gnat thing is is

going to be

very, very annoying.

Stop it being annoying. That

gonna have to get my salt gun and zap

it.

All right, you guys. All good. I got

comments and you don't.

Perfect.

That didn't work. Sort of worked. Close

enough. Close enough. All right,

everybody.

Get ready. I'm [snorts] ready if you're

ready.

Well, good morning and welcome to the

highlight of human civilization. It's

called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains. Well, all you need

for that is a copper mugger glass, a

tanker jealous stein, a canine jugger

flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it

with your favorite liquid like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure. The dopamine of the day thing

makes everything better. It's called

That's right. Simultaneous. It happens

now.

Uh, I'm sipping like a Trump.

Well, let's see what else is happening

today after we do a reframe from my

book, Reframe Your Brain, which is

changing lives all over the place. You

can get it on Amazon, and only Amazon,

as it turns out, probably.

All right. Here's

one of my favorites. You could call it

the shelf space reframe or you could

give it another name. But the uh the

usual frame is that if you have some

negative thoughts, you want to stop

thinking about them, right?

Some some of you I've completely changed

your life with this reframe. Some of you

have heard it before.

It just makes sense, right? If you have

negative thoughts, the obvious solution

for negative thoughts is think fewer

negative thoughts. But it turns out that

your brain doesn't work that way. If you

try to think fewer negative thoughts,

you're probably going to think more more

of them, not less of them, because then

you're obsessing on it. So, here's the

other way to approach it. This is the

reframe. Instead of trying to stop

thinking about negative thoughts,

you you can't subtract negative

thoughts, but you can crowd them out.

That's what the shelf space is all

about. If I told you, hey, I'm going to

make you think about your favorite thing

all day. You're going to think about

petting cats and eating delicious food

and having great intimate relationships

with people you love. And and let's just

say I got, you know, I got right into

your business and just made you think

about all those things. There are only

so many hours in a day. If I make you

use some of the hours to think about

things you love, there'll be fewer fewer

hours left for negative stuff. So don't

try to unthink. You can't do it. Don't

try to think less of a thing. You can't

do it. Try to think more of things. You

can do that. Think more of things that

are positive, more of things that you

want, more of things you've enjoyed,

more of things that inspire you, more of

things that you you just love, and you

will crowd out that time you wasted with

negative thoughts. That's your reframe

for the day. All right, let's talk about

the news. You might have heard that the

government has reopened. Well, so what

the hell was that? Oh, hold on.

Uh, the fly has landed.

We're going to try. No, that didn't

work.

We're going to be trying some anti-fly.

Oh, hold on. Hold on.

Hold on. Hold on.

Damn it. I'm not as fast as a fly. What

was I thinking? So, the

It really is going to be in my face the

entire show. Wow. Wow. Um, government

reopened. Nobody cared.

We all sort of expected it would go the

way it went and here it is now it's open

and what did we learn and nothing but

the uh the best lesson that came out of

this I think came from uh Greg Gutfeld

you're saying it on the five that if you

happen to be on what you consider the

winning side of the government reopening

and the Republicans probably think

they're on the winning side there uh

it's a mistake to say the other side

caved.

Do you all understand why?

It's it's really important. If you

expect to work with these people ever

again and and you get a good outcome

from one negotiation, in other words,

you get what you want, don't say they

caved.

Even if you're just an observer and you

want more of whatever they caved to,

you don't have to be part of the

process. Don't use that word. Don't say

that they they lost like dogs.

What good is that to you? It feels good

for like a second and then you can never

work with them again, but also you can

never work with anybody else again

because anybody who sees you act like

that is going to be like, "Oh, so let me

get this straight.

Uh if if I negotiate in good, you know,

good faith and I give up a little behind

my back or even publicly, they're going

to call me some kind of caving loser.

Why would I do anything for you? So

Trump is the champion, as I've often

said, of making the largest gap between

keeping making him happy and what would

happen if he didn't make him happy. So

by reopening the government, in a sense,

they made him happy. And correct me if

I'm wrong, will you? Did Trump ever say

they caved?

Cuz I I'll be real disappointed if he

did, but I'll bet he didn't. Can you

give me a fact check on that? It's only

the pundits who said he caved, right?

Because I feel like Trump would be way

too smart to say that. All it would do

is give up some power. Why would he just

give away some power? You know, far

better would be to reward the people

instead of mocking them. He should

reward the people who ended up on his

side of this. So that's what you should

learn. this the shutdown itself was just

a another symbol of the total

incompetence of our of our system.

Uh no more rumble streams. I I've heard

some people say there's something

different on Rumble and I don't know the

answer to it, but I believe there might

be two Rumble streams that started at

the same time

and that's sort of a new thing. One of

them maybe isn't real. So, it's possible

that you clicked the wrong rumble

stream, but I'm not positive about that.

There's just something going on that I

don't know. X changed this user

interface today. So, uh it was quite a

interesting morning. All right, here's

another one.

Another persuasion lesson. You ready for

this? Um

there's a clip of me talking about this.

Jason Cohen did a clip on this and uh

it's a clip in where I'm talking about

how it's a mistake for the Democrats to

say that they need a fighter.

Do you know why? Like compare these

three things. Make America great again.

Make America healthy again.

Or we need a fighter. Got to fight.

Fight fight.

Which one of those are useful? All

right, here's the reframe. This one's

actually really important. If you if you

get this and, you know, incorporate it

into your future life, you're going to

be way better.

These these uh slogans like make America

great again and make America healthy

again and fight fight. If it's the

Democrats doing the fight thing, what

are they going to get? Their affirmation

is fighting.

So if you focus on something and repeat

it over and over, what's that called?

It's an affirmation. An affirmation is

uh concentrating on something and really

focusing on it because there is

something that's semi-agic about that.

Now, I don't know there's real magic. I

just think that you you get better

results when you're super focused on

what you want. But just think what the

two sides are focused on.

So Trump focuses on make America great

again and then you watch and you say,

"Oh, our borders are better." And you

know, there are a number of things you

could put into that category. Make

America healthy again. That's a good

affirmations,

isn't it? That's just like one of the

best affirmations you could ever have.

But what about fight? Okay, this fly is

just eating me alive right now. You just

will not stay off me. It It's going to

be me versus the fly in a minute.

Um, so here's here's your lesson. Don't

accidentally do an affirmation.

Affirmations are pretty powerful, even

if their only effect is not magic, but

rather the psychology effect that has on

the person who's doing it. So, if you're

doing the right affirmation, make

America healthy, make America great,

there's a better chance you'll get that

thing or at least move toward it. If you

pick the wrong affirmation, you're gonna

still get the thing you affirmed, a

fight.

The Democrats are actually asking for

fighting.

Do you think they'll get it? Yes. Yes,

they actually get fights. And when we

look at the protests, somebody said

there's another Tesla protest coming. I

don't know about that, but but if there

is, I'm sure there'll be a fight, right?

So, there's your lesson.

Don't do accidental affirmations. And

that's what the the Democrats messaging

is so broken that they're accidentally

asking for the worst thing that anybody

could ask for, a fight.

If they had been asking for a victory,

I might be all in. Oh, victory. But a

fight? Who asked for the fight?

Democrats

don't do that. Well, Cash Patel has

excitedly announced, and he's way too

excited about this for what I think is

reality, that uh China has agreed to

turn off the pipeline of fentinel

precursors.

Uh cuz Mexico and their cartels, they

can't make fentinel unless they have the

raw ingredients. I guess there about 13

potential raw ingredients. And uh

they've been coming from

Hold on, hold on.

may have been success. I may have gotten

that fly.

All right. I don't see him yet. We'll

let you know. Very exciting. Um

so, and then also part of that deal

allegedly according to Cash Patel is

that China would I guess watch closer or

crack down on several industries that

would be relevant to making the

precursors. Now, why would this be

different than the other times that

China said they would do exactly this?

Wh why do we think this would work?

I have no idea. I don't even understand

the story. It's not like it's the first

time that China said, "Oh, yeah, we're

totally going to stop these precursors."

Now, do you think we can get through the

show without me mentioning Charlie Brown

in the football?

I won't do it. I will not mention

Charlie Brown in the football. But this

looks exactly like Charlie Brown in the

football. Damn it. I couldn't do it. I

couldn't do it.

I just I I couldn't not mention Charlie

Brown in the football. You tell me. Am I

missing something?

Is there some reason I should believe it

this time? Wh Why would they tell the

truth this time?

Oh, he's back. I didn't get the fly.

Damn it. Or he's brought a friend.

He's in full attack mode now.

Damn it. I'm going to have to give the

fly a name.

We're going to call him Carl.

It'll be Carl the fly.

So that when you hear me kill him, it

will be more satisfying because I'll be

killing somebody with a name. Carl, ah,

you're dead. Well, anyway, I saw a post

on X

also wondering if we offered something

to China that's not public. For example,

is it a coincidence? [clears throat]

This is not my original idea,

not my original thought, but is it a

coincidence

that uh we agreed that China can have

600,000

students in the US

and then

China gets flexible about fentinel?

Do you think that's what we traded? Oh

god, it just went my ear.

Oh man,

I want that fly so dead. Carl, it's you

and me now.

Carl the fly, you will not live till

lunchtime. I swear I swear I'll take you

down. You will not ruin my live stream.

You're just a fly.

You're doing a really good job of

ruining it so far, but I'll get you.

I'll get you. Anyway, what do you think?

Do you think that there's a secret

ingredient uh a secret arrangement

and that that's why the fentinel thing

looks real this time? Because obviously

Cash Patel is aware that they've

promised before and not delivered,

right? [laughter]

It's not like I know and Cash doesn't

know that they've made this promise

before. So something's different or he

wouldn't act this confident. I feel so

one one of the good things about having

a good reputation

for being smart like cash is that I

don't automatically start with well you

must be an idiot

and then reason [clears throat] from

there. I start with the assumption that

he's wellinformed and brilliant and then

I reason from there. If you start with

him being wellinformed and brilliant,

and I think that's fair, uh there must

be something that China offered that

they've never offered before. So, we'll

see.

Have you seen any of the new clips uh

with Katie Kurrick? Remember her when

she was on NBC and she was sort of a

credible, you know, one of the top

hosts? Well, she's sort of transformed

into some kind of a Gollum [laughter]

and she's just sort of an anti-Trump

troll now.

And she even looks like she's turning

into a troll.

So, I'm going to do my Katie correct

impression.

So,

oh my [clears throat] precious.

So, wouldn't you agree that Donald Trump

has stolen our democracy? Uh, no. But

wouldn't you agree he's an

authoritarian?

No, not really. But wouldn't you agree

he's probably murdered children?

Probably.

Right. Right. So, it all just looks sort

of weird and trollike.

So, she made the mistake of inviting uh

John Fedman on

whatever that podcast is that she's

doing, whatever it's called, whatever

the f

um and she asked Fedman.

Uh repeatedly she tried to get him to

say that Trump was a fascist.

Like, I need that I need that clip for

my show. Call him a fascist. Fed would

not take the bait. and he said a quote,

"I think at this point right now, we are

not in an autocracy. We're in a

democracy." A

well, I'm so sad now. I'm a sad troll. I

like to hear that it's an autocracy.

Don't say it's a democracy. That makes

me sad.

Make me happy. But then Kirk said, "But

would you concede that some of the

things that he is doing talking about

Trump are clearly anti-democratic

and also are potentially even

unconstitutional."

Um, and Fedman said, "We happen to have

a different view of these things. I

don't call people fascists or Nazis or

compare people to Hitler."

Boom. Boom. Do you know what that's

called?

That's what we call the high ground

maneuver.

Oh, there's a name for it. There's a

name for it. And if you can pull off a

high ground maneuver in any context, you

know, work or politics or your private

life, if you can do this, what he just

did, you're going to win almost

everything. Because the the high ground

approach is unassalable by definition.

It's the one that you can't get higher

than. It's the high ground. So, what

would be a higher high ground than uh

refusing to debate whether someone is

Hitler? That's pretty good. [laughter]

And and [clears throat] he he's

inclusive. He goes, "I don't call people

fascist, Nazis, or compare people to

Hitler." Now, in a sense, what he did

was he compared himself to Katie

Kirrick.

He didn't compare Trump to Hillar,

but he did compare Katie Kirk to some

kind of weird troll who would compare

other people to Hillar.

So So that happened. So Fedman for the

win. It it's weird that Fedman walks

into that conversation as the one that

we should be mocking as looking like uh

I don't know Shrek or something, but but

he's done [clears throat] such a good

job of redeeming himself that to me he

doesn't look like Shrek anymore. Like

that just went away. Now I just see a

guy who looks like it looks like he's

trying to help. Looks like he's just

trying to make the country better. So

again, I'm no idiot. I know that he's

not who I want for my next president. I

know that, you know, his his policies

would not match up with what my first

choices would be. But that doesn't take

away from him the skill that he brings

to the game. So there are some people I

talk about because of their skill level

and other people I talk about because I

like their policies. So he's he's a

skill level guy. I'm not going to say he

doesn't have skill. I I refuse to act as

if one of the most skilled people in the

game is not there. So, I'm going to talk

about him. All right. Uh, apparently, I

didn't know about this, but the Trump

administration is cracking down on Oh,

by the way, we we'll get to the epic

stuff. Don't worry, we'll get to it. Um,

Trump administration is cracking down on

tunnels. I guess uh there are quite a

few tunnels under the border. No

surprise. Uh but what I didn't know,

this is new, is that there's uh some

technology

referred to as the persistent

surveillance and detection system, the

PDS. Persistent

surveillance mean persistent meaning

it's just always on. Um and apparently

there's a way to upgrade it. So we have

some cool technology for identifying

tunnels.

That's kind of cool. I didn't know how

much we already had, but apparently

we're in good shape on tunnels, uh,

technology wise, but we're going to do

even more.

Um,

Joe Rogan just had a show. His guest was

Jeff Dye, comedian Jeff Dye. And, uh, I

thought Rogan had one of the best,

um, observations or insights

that I've seen in a long time. So just

sort of just sort of revel in how smart

this is. And part of the reason I I

present it this way is that part of the

magic and skill of Joe Rogan is not

making you know how much smarter he is

than you [laughter]

because it [clears throat] would be

off-putting if if he just knew how much

smarter he was. He's really smart, but

he, you know, he lives uh what I call

the, you know, the everyman life. Plus,

you know, he's like the every man with

lots better toys and better cars and

stuff. Uh, but that's part of his magic

that he never leaves that frame. He's

just the guy you want to hang out with.

He also is super smart and it comes out

in little ways that you're not

expecting. Here's here's the example.

So, he talked about, and I think I'm I'm

going to paraphrase this, but I hope I'm

doing it right. And his idea was that in

order for

uh Obama and his his crowd

to sort of divert from the the uh Russia

Russia gate hoax, which they were

behind, that the fine people hoax was

actually the hoax to divert you from the

other hoax. And I never really thought

about it that way.

But that does kind of fit, doesn't it?

That the fine people hoax was a hoax to

get you off the other hoax. And that

their entire structure is, you know,

hoax to hoax to hoax. And that uh

and more importantly, Joe believes that

there's no way that Obama was unaware

that it was a hoax. Would you agree with

that? There's no way that Obama thought

that was true. He absolutely knew he was

spreading the hoax. Why else would you

do it? I mean, you do it to win, but it

also is the perfect distraction. So,

when you think when you when you think

about the fact that Obama personally

was probably behind the Russia gate

thing and then personally

pushed the uh find people hoax to help

cover up the other hoax. That is some of

the worst I've ever seen in my

life.

Because that wasn't just about him and

Trump, which would be bad enough. That

was about us.

When I say us, I mean my audience right

now and all the people who are

potentially Trump supporters. That was

about us. He threw us under the bus,

right? You can't just say that the guy

you support is a Nazi without that

automatically painting every single

person who supports him. So we had to

live with that.

We had to live painted as a bunch of

neo-Nazi supporters and and we had to

like wake up in the morning and know

that he had just told half the country

that we were neo-Nazi supporters.

And the more prominent you were as a

proTrumper, people like me, the more

sure the people were that you you were a

neo-Nazi because of the hoax.

Um, it really is one of the worst things

I've ever seen that didn't directly

involve violence. I mean, I think it

inspired violence. You know, you never

know that for sure, but looks like it

did.

But am I wrong that the if you add the

two hoaxes together,

they're unambiguously worse than

anything I've ever seen in politics.

Just anything. Yeah. I mean, I'm not

talking about World War II atrocities

and stuff. We're not comparing that

stuff. But just in the political realm,

you know, minus gross over violence,

that's the worst thing I've heard. I I

suppose Yeah, I suppose. All right,

let's be fair.

Let's be fair about this. It's not worse

than slavery. [laughter]

It's not worse than Jim Crow. So, let me

let me be a little more common sensical

about it. It's not worse than those

things. But for the ordinary politics,

it's worse. It's just worse than

anything I've seen. Just unbelievably

despicable. All right, here's another

fun story. Eric Swallwell, who happens

to be my representative, I believe, um

does not have a California address.

[laughter]

Now, I don't know that that's true. So,

I would wait for a confirmation that

the, you know, the fact checkers are

agreeing with this. But according to the

Gateway Pundit, Joel Gilbert, uh, nobody

nobody has yet found an address for him

in California, but they do have an

address, I guess he claims, but at that

address, some other family has lived

there for years.

Um, so it looks like he only has a home

in Washington DC or somewhere around

there and that he would not actually

even be qualified

allegedly

[clears throat] even to be in office.

How many of you think that's true?

This one's I think I'd wait on this one

because the story is based on we can't

find something.

What they can't find is a valid address

for him in California. But is that is

that a solid argument? We can't find it.

I I wouldn't automatically believe a

story that's based on I can't find it

because somebody might find it. But we

can wait and see if he claims he has an

address. If he claims he has a valid

address, we can just check the address.

If you want, I can go over and look

because uh apparently he claims he lives

in Liverour, which is walking distance

in that direction. I I can literally

walk to Liverour. I wouldn't right now,

but I could. Uh so I I could go knock on

his door. I'm not going to do that, of

course. But

anyway, um let's talk about the new dust

up with the Epstein files. This feels

like Groundhog Day, doesn't it? every

time Epstein files comes up. All right,

so the basic idea is everybody knows who

Epstein is. You all know that Trump

doesn't want the files released. Um,

which makes him look guilty of

something.

Um, Republicans apparently are trying to

back the president on that and not

release them, but Democrats want it all

released. And they got enough votes in

the House with a few crossovers that

would not surprise you. So, we got

Marjgerie Taylor Green voting for uh

disclosure, I believe. Uh, Boowbert

voting for disclosure. And does anybody

feel like arguing with either one of

those? If if Bober and Marjgerie Taylor

Green say, you know, I've lived a

certain life, I don't have to get into

the details, right? I I've experienced a

certain life. You need to make this

transparent.

You know what I'm talking about, right?

I feel like those two have every right

to ask for maximum transparency. No

matter who the victim is or or no matter

who gets hurt,

I I think they deserve

I think they deserve maximum

transparency. Now, Thomas Massie also

wants maximum transparency. So, he's

part of that and and he's got his own

drama with Trump. Trump wants to primary

him uh not just for this, but for, you

know, not voting for for the same side

as much as he should, according to

Trump. So, that's the setup. The setup

is it's it's a it's getting some

Republicans to be mad at other

Republicans. If if you find a way to be

mad at Bober or MTG over this, you

should check your work.

You You have to You have to let them

just experience this and act on it the

way they feel best and just stay out of

it. they they have they have the right

to go hard on us and they are um but

there are all kinds of twists and turns.

So, what's new is I guess I found some

new emails that uh include a journalist

who's an anti-Trump

well-known anti-Trump journalist. Uh

Wolf is his name. WFFF.

Is it Michael Wolf? Um and he's written

anti-Trump books and he's been on TV

doing anti-Trump

um interviews for years and years and

years.

And then there's allegedly um something

from one of the victims which we believe

is Virginia Guilffrey

who allegedly according to one of the

emails spent uh hours with Trump. Now

let's look at some of these accusations

individually. How credible are they? How

credible are the organ are the

accusations if they involve Epstein,

this journalist Wolf, and then one of

the victims, Virginia Gilfrey, who is

not only deceased

tragically,

but also was famous for having accused

um

um what's his name?

She she's made an accusation with of

Dersuitz that she later completely

reversed and said, "Oh, I just had had

you confused with somebody." Now, I of

course will never know what is true or

what is false of any of the EPS Epstein

stuff. But what we can say if somebody

is known and admits that they once made

an accusation that they later completely

reversed,

wouldn't it be fair to say that person

has no credibility

even if it's true? They don't have

credibility because they've told the

story and they've reversed it once. So

you can't trust that person. So you've

got one person who sadly is, you know, a

victim of course. So, she's a victim

first, but there's no reason to believe

anything that she said about anything.

And I guess the accusation is that one

of the victims, which we believe is this

Virginia, but we don't know for sure,

uh, may have spent a few hours with

Trump. What does that mean?

What does it mean that they spent a few

hours together? There's no accusation

that they were doing anything naughty.

And indeed, she has said in public

before she passed, she said that he

never did anything, that Trump was never

even accused by her of doing anything

inappropriate.

So, what would it mean that they spend

several hours together? Well, I don't

know the answer to the question, but one

of the ways that these hoaxes get

created is if the audience can't

understand what other explanation there

would be. So when you hear, well, Trump

might have spent hours with this, you

know, underage female in some context,

where does your brain automatically go?

It automatically goes to the worst case

scenario.

Fly is back. But and that's how the

hoaxes work. If you can't even imagine,

what would be another reason that those

two would spend time together? So, I'm

just going to give you a an easy obvious

alternative explanation. Doesn't mean

it's true. I'm just demonstrating

that it would be easy to imagine

something that would be hard to imagine.

Once you hear it once, you know, I'm

going to tell you what it is. You'll

just always be able to imagine it. All

right. Uh Epstein had a private plane.

We know that people like Trump and other

people sometimes took his private plane

uh to go where they were going to go

anyway. So, it's just sort of a

convenience,

something rich people do. Hey, take my

plane. It is not uncommon, and I know

this from actual experience, that if

you're going to take somebody's private

plane somewhere,

often there's someone else who needs to

go there at the same time,

and somebody will say, "Do you mind?" uh

if somebody else is on the plane. This

is literally something that happened to

me. Do you mind if somebody else is on

the plane? Of course not. It's not even

my plane. Of course. What would happen

if Trump said, "Can I take your plane?

You know, mine's mine's being serviced.

Do you mind if I take your plane to New

Jersey?" Imagine Epstein says, "Yes."

And then an hour later, Virginia

Guilffrey comes and says, "Um, I need to

like visit my sister in New York or

something. Can I take the plane?" And

then Epstein would say, "Oh, yeah. Um,

Trump's going to be taking the plane to

New Jersey. Uh, we'll just pick an

airport that's right for both of you and

you can take the plane." Now imagine

that both of them are on the private

plane

and uh Trump's just minding his own

business or who he's with whoever he's

with and she's just another passenger on

the plane and it's a several hour plane

trip.

Would they talk? Probably.

Would it be a scandal if he chatted with

somebody else who happened to be on the

plane for completely innocent reasons or

just going to the sameish destination?

there would be no problem with that at

all. He would just be friendly like he

always is and just talking to who's on

the plane. Now, I'm not I'm not claiming

that that's what happened.

But can't you so easily imagine

that they would spend time together that

neither of them planned to do because

they were just sort of in that little

universe and maybe the plane was a

convenience, etc. So, the first thing

you need to know is that if you're

missing all the details of who the

person is and why they spend time and

what they were doing together, it's not

really a story.

The the most basic things you would need

to know to know if there's a problem are

missing from the story. Is he accused of

doing anything? No.

Was there a perfectly good alternative

reason for why they were talking?

Probably.

All right. The other thing, let's see

what else is the new accusation.

Uh

oh, I guess somewhere Michael Wolf uh

suggested to Epstein that they blackmail

Trump. So if you wondered, is Wolf a

dependable, nice guy? He's literally in

writing suggested that Epstein use

leverage

against Trump based on I don't know

something that Trump knew or did. And

then there's an accusation that Trump

knew about

some some bad behavior, but the bad

behavior that he allegedly knew about is

not specified.

So what are we talking about? So there

was something about women. So we know

the domain has something about women,

which might mean underage.

And apparently Trump was complaining

about something that Epstein was done

doing with with females.

and uh they were going to try to use

that against him somehow.

Now, what exactly is the crime there?

It depends how much he knew, right? It

also makes me wonder where does your

responsibility begin

if you heard a rumor but you don't know

for sure. Have you ever thought about

that? Have you I I remember once many

years ago there was somebody I worked

with who started suspecting their own

husband of being a a serial killer,

like actually a literal one and a

specific one who had killed some

children and and she actually had some

suspicion

based on some items that she found in a

house or something that he was the one

who had killed the children.

Now, what was her responsibility?

It's her husband and she has no proof,

but she has sort of these suggestive

little things that make her think, "Huh,

I can't really rule out that my husband

might be the serial killer." Now, is it

her responsibility to turn in her

husband? Cuz there cuz he might be he

might be a serial killer. I don't know.

Now, let's take that same thinking to

Trump. Suppose people had said to Trump,

and I'm sure there were whisperers, you

know, you better watch out for this guy.

He he likes him too young. Well, what's

that mean?

Does that mean he's having sex with them

too young or that he's just spending too

much time with people who are too young

or that he's trafficking them? Suppose

you didn't know what that meant, but

somebody had told you, somebody

credible, had told you, you know, you

watch out for that guy there. There's

something in that domain.

We don't know the specifics, but he's

doing something in that domain that you

want to stay away from.

Let's say that's all Trump knew.

Would he have a responsibility to do

what? turn him into authorities

or should he just ban him from his own

operation which apparently he did uh so

that it's not his problem.

What do you think? [laughter]

So that's a real question because I

don't think there's any sort of standard

for when you have enough suspicion to

publicly blame somebody of being a

pedophile.

Like that's got to be right at the top

of the list of you better have some real

good proof before that comes out of your

mouth.

If I seem perched, it's cuz one of my

meds makes me dehydrated.

Anyway, so if you look at the things

that Trump is being accused of with

these new emails, they're it's sort of a

lot of nothing.

But the uh Democrats can make it sound

like something. And it does make you

wonder, is it a coincidence that this

pops up right around the time that Trump

seems to have this victory with opening

the government and things seem to be

going his way and then oh, suddenly

suddenly there's baseless accusations

and hoaxes again.

Surprise.

All right. Um, so I would say I if you

didn't know that Michael Wolf is an

anti-Trumper who was in favor of

blackmail according to the emails and

hung around with Jeffrey Epstein,

shouldn't that be enough [laughter]

to not trust him? Uh, and the other

person who would know enough has passed

away. So

um, and uh, Byron York had a similar

observation. and he said on X, "Perhaps

the most interesting news out of the

Epstein releases today is that

anti-Trump author Michael Wolf was an

Epstein adviser and strategist."

So, as as much as Michael Wolf might

want to use this situation to shmear uh

Trump reputationally,

how do you how do you get past being

Epstein's adviser and strategist?

How do you explain that away?

[laughter]

[clears throat] How do you put that on

your Wikipedia page? I don't know. I

feel like I feel like a wolf is not

going to come out of this very well.

All right. So, I would uh I'm going to

frame this. I'm going to reframe this.

Okay. I would say that the new

information

uh the new emails do not have legal

weight.

In other words, they there's nothing

there that would trigger any kind of a

legal process. They do not have legal

weight. What they do have is gossip

weight,

meaning that they will trigger gossip

and they will trigger hoaxes and they

will trigger false beliefs and

everything else. So, this is a gossip

level story.

It's not a it's not a Department of

Justice level story. This is gossip

level. And once you realize it's gossip

level and you realize that the timing is

kind of convenient, you know, takes a

little the glow off of Trump's recent

successes,

now you can sort of see it in its proper

context. Um, I don't know if you noticed

that the story seemed to have been

ignored by the right leaning media this

morning.

So, I you know, when I first turned on,

uh the news, I saw CNN and they were

talking about Epstein and I thought, "Oh

my goodness, there's another Epstein

thing." So, since I prefer my news from

other sources, although I I like

sampling CNN, they're doing a better job

lately. Uh I jump over to Fox News

because I'm thinking, well, obviously,

you know, they're they're going to have

to cover this as a big story. And it

wasn't. Yeah, I'm sure they talked about

it before and after, but did anybody

notice that the bubbles formed?

And I would think that a whole lot of

proTrump people realized that if they

had given this um actual weight or

credibility that Trump would come after

them so hard,

[clears throat] it would be a big

mistake.

So, it could be that we're seeing a

signal that Trump has now so much

influence over the the right leaning

media that they completely stayed away

from the uh the ticking time bomb of

another Epstein story. And by the way,

it doesn't seem like it's higher than

gossip level. So, you know, you you can

understand why they would deemphasize

something that's only gossip level. Uh,

but the left will be all over it. Thomas

Massie is all over it. You can see why

Thomas Massie and Trump will probably

not become friends anytime soon.

Can you imagine being Trump and then

seeing a guy pushing this?

Like I say, it's a completely different

story when Bober and MTG

push a story about a, you know, a male

potential abuser, accused abuser,

convicted abuser. Um, they have every

right, like they have every ethical,

moral right, but uh I don't I don't know

what uh what Massie and Trump are going

to do in the future. All right.

Apparently, Trump would have to sign the

bill. [laughter]

This is the funny part. Don't we assume

that no matter what happens, we're not

going to see the files because the

Senate would have to agree? I don't know

if that's possible and then Trump would

have to sign it

uh because they don't have enough votes

to overcome a, you know, presidential

veto. So, as long as you know for sure

that Trump's going to veto it and you

know for sure they don't have votes to

get past the veto, I don't think, right?

Am I wrong about that? Oh, I could be

wrong about that. Huh? There there's

some possibility that the Republicans

will just say, "All right, screw it. We

can't deal with this every day for the

rest of our lives. We're just going to

overcome the veto and let's just see

what's there." Now, the real question

is, why would Trump want you not to see

these files?

That's the thing we most want to know,

right? And unfortunately, there are too

many reasons that it could be. So, what

are what are the reasons? One one is

that, you know, there's something bad in

there about him. That's the obvious one.

Um, but what if the only bad part is

that he knew more than

um you knew he knew about what Epstein

was up to? How much would that bother

you? Let's say he knew more than you

knew he knew, but he still didn't know.

Like he didn't have any he didn't

witness anything. He didn't have any

perfect source that he knew was true.

It's just he just sort of knew cuz if

you're smart and you're worldly and

you're around things, you sort of know,

right? So it might be that he just

doesn't want people to know that uh a

reasonable person could have deduced

that there's a bigger problem than maybe

was obvious on the service.

Um could it be

that the it's some kind of intel

connection thing and there's some intel

agency that doesn't want this to come

out. So Trump might be just uh

supporting his CIA or maybe there's

maybe they blackmailed him too. Uh could

be some foreign intel. Could be

protecting some foreign leaders. Could

be protecting Great Britain. You know,

if Prince Andrew has been, you know,

named as one of the per

Great Britain said, "Here's the deal. We

will die on this hill." [laughter]

There's no reason to believe they said

this, but could you imagine the

conversation

that uh let's say the royal family or

Great Britain would have with Trump

privately privately uh if they knew

there was more to come out, let's say

with Prince Andrew in particular,

would they possibly say, "Look, we will

give you anything

to not let this out. You tell us what

you need. You want a better tariff? You

got it. [laughter]

Yeah, you you want us to fund more of

Ukraine so you don't have to. You got

it. Just do not let this come out. Is

that possible? Maybe. I mean, Trump's a

dealmaker. If you handed him the

leverage to win a bunch of negotiations

with Great Britain, you know, you're

going to you're going to ask about

Israel, right? But so in your own mind,

you could throw that in there if you

want. So, it could be that Trump knows

that if he doesn't give away the

secrets, then he gets to use them as his

own leverage, which might be, and again,

this is just speculation. I'm just

showing you that there's a wide range

of what could be behind all this. Some

of it's good, some of it's bad. We may

never know. [snorts] But uh Trump would

definitely have an advantage if he was

the only one who knew or the only

politician who knew what the real

situation was and who was involved.

All right. Um

let's see what else.

Now this is fun. Let's see how many of

you think this is a complete

coincidence.

So does this have anything to do with

Epstein? that the next thing I'm going

to talk about does have anything to do

with Epstein or is this just total

coincidence?

Trump has written a letter to the

Israeli president asking him to pardon

Netanyahu

from what he thinks is a lawfare kind of

unjustified prosecution

which has been going on for years. Uh

Washington Examiner is writing about

this Emily Halis.

Um, and it was a long well-ritten letter

in which Trump made his argument of why

they were, you know, treating Netanyahu

unfairly. And a big part of the argument

is that Trump and Netanyahu are such a

good team that they could accomplish

unprecedented things, but not if not if

Netanyahu is in jail. So, a pardon would

be a good thing for us allegedly.

But [clears throat]

certainly you would see this as Trump

doing a favor, wouldn't you? It looks

like Trump doing a favor for Netanyahu.

Now, he doesn't do favors just to do

favors. Well, that's not true. Sometimes

he does. He did favors to me just just

to do a favor.

Um,

so there's some reason he's doing it

now. And it could be that the reason is

it's just the right time to do it

because you know Gaza is moving forward

in a productive way. Things worked out.

Netanyahu's reputation probably isn't

going to get better. This would be a

good time to good time to strike. But

then I I was curious what exactly is he

being accused of? And I'm still not

entirely sure. But apparently there were

$200,000 worth of what they call

extravagant gifts that he accepted while

in office. Netanyahu did extravagant

gifts. Now when Trump talked about the

extravagant gifts, he was minimizing it

and he said uh you were talking about uh

champagne and cigars and and Trump was

acting like, you know, come on. They're

basically just quality champagne and

cigars and stuff like that. And we're

not talking about giving somebody a pile

of cash.

Now, that is very different. You know,

what you would do for a pile of cash

would be completely different than what

you do for a little extra good

champagne. [laughter]

>> [gasps]

>> So the first thing I'd like to know to

understand this topic is Netanyahu

really being accused of real crimes. Are

these real crimes? And and even if it's

a real crime, let's say he took let's

say he took a I don't know some

champagne.

Let's say he accepted some of the best

cigars in the world. Do you really care?

Do you really care? I mean that's what

Trump asked. Do you care?

I mean, I get how it would be

technically illegal, but who cares?

Now, if it if they gave him a luxury

car, well, yeah, I get that. You know,

you should care about that and find out

if there was anything they gave in

return. I haven't heard the accusation

of that. But, uh, we're we're flying a

little bit blind here in the US because

we don't know if the accusations are

are, uh, credible or not.

But the real question is, is it a

coincidence

that the Epstein stuff popped up the

same time as the Israel stuff? Probably

is. Probably is a coincidence. All

right, here's another persuasion lesson.

Uh, Mom Donnie,

the new mayor of uh, New York City, he

says that he does plan, if he can do it,

he wants to speak to President Trump.

and he says uh calling his relationship

with Trump quote critical to the success

of the city.

Uh O is reporting on this Blake Wolf

Differ Wolf. A lot of wolves in the news

today. Anyway, um so he does. So, Mom

Davi plans to speak with Trump. And the

way he worded it was, quote, "If

President Trump wants to speak about

lowering the cost of living or

delivering cheaper groceries like he ran

on in 2024, I'm there to have that

conversation." Mami stated, "Now, do you

ever hear Republicans use that phrase?

I'm here to have that conversation."

Remember what I said about fight, fight,

fight?

If what you're affirming is fight, you

get a fight. If what you're affirming is

health, you get health. If what you're

affirming is greatness, you get

greatness.

But he's affirming a conversation.

Like, why? Why would you affirm a

conversation? It's like the lowest level

of accomplishment. I'll tell you, I

worked all year on this and I got myself

a conversation.

I know. I know. A lot of people would

never be able to have a conversation,

but I got myself a conversation. Carl,

Carl just won't leave me alone this

morning.

Uh, so never use the word conversation

if you're trying to be a person who gets

stuff done. He started really well,

which is Mom Dami's secret sauce, that

he's a good communicator. So he started

out by talking about lowering the cost

of living, delivering cheaper groceries,

and pointing out that Trump had asked

about those same things. But then he he

falls into Democrat talk, which is we

have to have a conversation about this.

That's a nothing.

That's a nothing.

So we'll see. Good luck, Mom Dummy. I'm

sure that'll be a great conversation

with Trump.

Um

I saw this story today from the history

of behavioral sciences.

So you all know what cognitive

dissonances, right? So cognitive

dissonance most you know totally well

documented psychological phenomenon and

it happens when somebody is in a

situation where they do something that's

sort of counter to who they know they

are.

And if you do something that's opposite

of who you are, let's say you're a nice

person, but you do something cruel, you

don't say to yourself, "Oh, I guess I

was wrong. I guess I'm cruel."

Cognitive dissonance would cause you to

redefine that situation in some way

that's good for you so that you don't

your ego is not damaged. So you'd

imagine, oh, that's not that's that's

not what's happening. It's really

complicated. So, cognitive dissonance is

when you concoct or your brain sort of

automatically concocts a story that

makes you look good, even if the reality

is you shouldn't look good in this

story. But here's the background.

Apparently, there was a that the whole

concept of cognitive distance was

brought about because there was this

cult. So years ago there's this cult and

I guess they said that uh the world was

going to end at a certain time and it

didn't. 1954 there was no apocalyptic

flood. So there was a book written that

suggested that uh once they saw that all

of their predictions were wrong instead

of saying oh I guess we don't know what

we're talking about. We're all wrong.

that they came up with uh completely

weird cognitive dissonance explanations

for why there wasn't a big flood that

killed everything and that that became

like the trigger for understanding that

cognitive dissonance is a real thing.

And today I found out that uh the book

was uh apparently a fraud [laughter]

and that the cult existed. But when they

found out that their prediction didn't

work, they did what normal people would

do and say, "Oh, okay. Let's do

something else." That didn't work.

Apparently, we can't predict the future.

So, they were actually the opposite of

cognitive dissonance. They they took the

new information. Oh, I guess our

prediction was wrong. And then they just

built a world view that was based on

reality that they can't predict things.

However,

for apparently years, people believed

that that cult was the best example of

this new thing called cognitive

dissonance. And so, it became a

well-known psychological phenomenon,

which is real.

Cognitive dissonance is real. But what's

funny about it is that the way we, you

know, learned about it and understood it

was fraudulent.

Anyway, according to Reuters, the US

Army is going to buy a million drones.

I've told you so many times that the

future of warfare is who can get the

most and best drones. So, if we can't

get ourselves a million drones, mostly I

think that we make ourselves

uh we're not going to be dominant in any

way militarily. And a million might not

be enough. Like the the number of

drones, that's the right number.

I don't know because we just have to be

way more than anybody else. So if it

turns out that China figures out how to

make 10 million drones a year, even if

they don't use them, we're going to have

to figure out how to make 20 million

drones a year. So we're in the drone

making contest situation.

Yeah. So we'll see. Um, and then

allegedly, and I don't believe this

either, that Russia is signaling some

interest in restarting peace talks. Do

you believe that, the Washington Times

is reporting this? Now, I don't know

exactly how they know if Russia is

serious about any of this.

Doesn't doesn't seem like something that

we could know for sure, but it's

possible that since both sides are just

slamming each other with drones and

missiles that neither of them wants to

go through the winter. So, it could be

that uh Putin is aware that even if he's

winning, and a lot of smart people say,

"Oh, Russia is definitely winning." It's

a war of attrition. I feel like the war

of attrition is over and that now we're

in the war of robots.

It's almost like a second war. So, you

could almost argue that the Ukrainians

lost the first war. So they lost the one

that depends on humans, you know, dying

less than the other side. They just lost

that. But

in the meantime, they had built up a

robot army that they have not lost.

So I think two things can be true

that Russia has the, you know, big

advantage in human human capital that

they're using up at the same time that

it might not be a human war anymore.

might be just a robot war. That's what

it looks like. But I would not be

surprised

if both the Russians and the Ukrainians

are a little bit panicked because both

of them are going to turn the lights off

on the other and winter is coming and I

don't know if you can turn on that many

lights. Somebody said that Ukrainian can

Ukraine can uh survive a power outage

better because they have so many trees

and they can just burn firewood and have

fireplaces and stuff. I don't know if

that's enough, but it'd be better than

if you couldn't. So, so it's entirely

possible that Putin is a little worried

about getting through the winter because

Ukraine is going to make it very cold

for a lot of Russians and he knows that.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is

all I had to talk about today. I nailed

it. It's exactly top of the hour. How do

I do it? And Carl the Fly would like to

thank you for joining in. He is my new

sidekick. I believe he'll be dead by

tomorrow.

I'm not sure I'll be alive tomorrow, but

Carl the Fly and I will be back. Uh, I'm

going to say some words privately to

privately to my beloved

members of locals. And uh, you can say

hi to Carl, too. I'm sure he wants to

talk to you.

Free Carl. Free Carl. Free Carl the fly.

Oh my god. Carl, get off my forehead.

Ow. Get off my head, Carl.

All right, I'm going to have to hire a

staff member just to keep that fly off

my head.

All right, everybody. I'll see you

tomorrow. Locals, I'm coming at you

privately.

Coming at you harder than a French man.