Episode 3023 CWSA 11/19/25

Come on in.

We're prepping for the show of shows.

Best thing that will ever happen to you.

There's room up front.

Well, that is a nice shirt you're wearing there.

How did you get more good-looking since the last time?

It's hard to imagine.

Really?

Sure is.

All right.

Stock market's up a little bit, but boy was it down.

Wow.

Come on, stream in here.

I want all of you to enjoy this goodness at the same time.

We don't often have a show like this.

We've got a guest coming in at the halfway mark.

That'll be at the bottom of the hour.

And we've got a persuasion lesson.

It's going to be a good one.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

is cold 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.

All you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tank shell sine canteen jugger flask a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

The dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called simultaneous sip.

And it's probably going to happen right now.

Go.

Extraordinary, delicious, best ever.

Well, here's the kind of story that you depend on me to bring to you.

A very important story.

Let's say first I'm going to put my clock up here so I don't run over the halfway time.

Uh, where would clock be if you were an app named clock?

There you'd be.

Gotcha.

Seriously, the clock doesn't have a clock on it.

All right, we'll take it.

All right.

Well, there's a story about a woman uh who is accused uh she was accused of the first crime in space.

So, you know, they say that men get all the credit for inventing things.

It's not fair because women also invented crime in space or allegedly.

Apparently, uh there's some controversy about whether that was an actual crime, but it was a a woman who was an astronaut who went up in space and I think the her wife uh accused her of I don't know doing something with a check or doing something with a password and stealing some money from the bank.

But here's the funny part and the only reason I'm bringing this up.

It's not because women invented crime in space, although that would be impressive enough.

It's uh it's the last name of the person who's accused of the crime.

Um Oh, no.

I know it's even funnier.

This is not the name of the person who was accused of the crime.

It's the person who accused the other one of the crime.

So, the one who was accused is named Mlan, but the one who did the accusing, and I'm not making this up, her last name is Warden.

W O R DN.

So, the warden accused her wife of stealing in space.

Did you need to know that story?

You probably probably could have gone the whole day without knowing that.

Nope.

wasn't terribly important, but her last name really, it was warden.

Didn't make that up.

All right.

If you were a cursor and you were on my computer, where would you be?

There you are.

Gotcha.

But wait, there are more stories.

Uh you've probably heard that uh the Senate has now approved that Epstein bill via unanimous consent.

So guess what?

It turns out that Congress can pass anything it wants as fast as it wants.

Does that make you happy?

What have we been doing up to this point?

Are you serious?

You're telling me that the Congress can do things really fast and very efficiently sometimes but not all the time.

So this is the thing that we got right in terms of speed.

But the only reason it went fast is because it took us years to get to this point.

Like we we found a way or Congress did to make even an efficient process which if it had been a standalone process probably would impress you how fast it went.

But no, no.

Years later, it goes fast.

So now we have the Senate and the House have approved it.

It's going to go to Trump's desk.

So how many of you think that that means you're going to see some more Epstein files?

Do you think that's what that means?

Or there's always a reason to not see the Epstein files.

One would be if there's a open court case such as the one Trump was just trying to open against the Democrats for their connection to Epstein.

Oh, that's a nice coincidence.

Just the time that everybody agreed to see it, there's this lost there's this legal action.

Well, I guess we're going have to wait till the end of that.

It's going to be another five years.

So, good luck if you're just waiting for all that information that you know is going to come any minute.

Because if there's one thing I can tell you about the Epstein files, it's the only thing I know about them for sure.

There's always a reason to not show you.

Always.

We'll find out what the reason is this time, but not expecting it.

All right.

So, it's on its way to the president's desk.

And if he signs it, it really doesn't mean much, does it?

if he signs it, it doesn't mean it's more likely that people will see the files.

Probably doesn't mean anything because again, it's going to be one of these process things.

All right.

Um, so it wasn't a normal vote.

It went through all kinds of weird things you don't need to know about.

But, uh, what what is the strongest type of denial?

If you were going to deny an accusation, what's the weakest form and the strongest form?

Well, the weak form would be, "No, I didn't do that.

No, no, we didn't do that." Slightly stronger than that would be, "Not only did I not do that, you're the one who did it.

You're the one who did it." And then that, you know, diverts attention from you.

So that's even better than just denying it.

It's like you did it and it was stronger than you did it.

Well, not only did the Democrats, they would be you in this case.

Not only did the Democrats do it, whatever it is, but uh you're going to prove it.

That's kind of what Trump said because if he's if he wants the Department of Justice to look into these top Democrats, he's going after Bill Clinton and Larry Summers and uh Reed Hoffman.

So, those are the ones he's going after.

Now, I'm going to give you a little persuasion lesson on how well uh Trump is handling this.

I know that doesn't sound that doesn't sound possible, does it?

Does it look like he's handled it well up to this point?

No.

No.

If if you're not paying attention to too much, it really doesn't look like he's handled it well.

It looks like he was flailing around a little bit, didn't it?

But he's now settled into a groove that is such a strong groove that I feel like all the rest of the stuff was just testing.

He was just saying, "How about this?

Suppose I said this.

What would happen if I said this?" So his current approach is that it's a Democrat problem and he's going to put three faces on it instead of the hundreds of faces.

He's going to pick three rich guys that probably, you know, even the left doesn't love because they're rich guys and he's just going to paint them over and over again.

Now, what does Trump say about talking about this?

Trump says, uh, well, it's a Democrat problem and we Republicans should stop talking about it because it just takes attention away from all of our accomplishments.

And then because he doesn't want the left to talk about it, what do they do?

Well, everybody on the left asks some questions about it every single time he's out.

Every time.

What does Trump do every time?

Now.

Every time.

Now going forward, he's going to say it's a Democrat problem.

It's Larry Summers.

It's Bill Clinton, uh, as Reed Offen.

Now, I don't have an opinion about what those three people did or did not do.

We're only talking about Trump's persuasion game.

If he continues to do nothing but that, what are you going to think about whenever it comes up?

He could have been you think about three three rich Democrats.

That's what you'll think about.

Now, that's sort of a home run if he can do that.

Now, the only way this could fail is if the Democrat press, you know, the leftleaning press, all got together and said, you know, we're going to kill ourselves in this because every time we bring it up now, he just mentions these three Democrats and says it's a Democrat problem.

Now, if you're a regular consumer of news, not like us, probably none of us are ordinary people, you know, we pay a little more attention about politics, which is why you'd be watching this podcast in the first place.

But think about the average person.

How much do they know about Epstein?

Well, he was at Pedo.

He was on an island.

They know the basics, but they don't know any of the details because it's something that only the the news nerds seem to be involved in.

So now Trump has done something that is brilliant which he's filled in that gap for the low information voters.

If you wanted to have something to say that would sort of capture the whole situation, it would be this.

Well, looks like a Democrat problem.

I don't know why you're even talking to Republicans.

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

But it's kind of a Democrat problem.

So when the Democrats work this out, why don't you get back to us?

Well, but but but but there was that, you know, time and Trump and b and then Trump has the floor.

You know, they've accused him and then he says, "Yeah, it's a Democrat problem.

Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, and every time he repeats it, it gets stronger.

So, they're gonna give him because they can't help themselves.

You know, the news is the news.

They're going to act the way they always act.

They're going to give Trump unlimited opportunities to do the thing that he says, "Please don't do this to me.

Please don't throw me in the brier patch." If you throw me in the brier patch, what am I going to do except talk about endlessly how it's these three Democrats who are the obscene people you need to know about and that maybe the Department of Justice needs to look into them.

No, don't make me talk about that three times a day.

No, he's sort of in a perfect situation now.

As I said when I started, he was kind of flailing in the early stages of, you know, we're going to have to figure out this Epstein thing.

But when he finally went from, no, we don't want to see the files, a complete flip to, yep, let's see them all.

That's when you knew he had he had a grasp of the situation because you can't really reverse show them all.

Now, this would presume that we see anything.

I'm not sure that that's going to happen.

So there a few things are going to happen.

One, we might see some files that tell us something new.

Probably not.

But at the very least, it's going to give Trump endless possibilities for blaming the Democrats and saying Epstein's just a Democrat problem until everybody believes it.

You know, I've told you that persuasion is mostly repetition.

and he's going to have the biggest repetition opportunity anybody ever had and he's just going to lean into it until you're so tired of hearing him say that Epstein is a Democrat problem that you stop asking him questions about Epstein and that's fine too.

So Trump has now created a situation where he kind of wins in every direction, right?

Because now he's for full transparency.

So he's invulnerable on that and he's just repeating over and over the Democrat, you know, it's a Democrat thing.

It's a Democrat hoax.

It's just going to get stronger and stronger as he does it.

So good luck with that, Democrats.

Um let's see what else there there's also the visual part you know how I often say that uh you know if you're looking at the the strongest elements of persuasion repetition is probably the top you know because you could if you repeat enough anybody will believe anything but also visual now the epsene is not a visual story per Okay.

But if you imagine these three specific people, uh, Offman Summers and Bill Clinton, most of you can picture them.

Maybe you don't know Larry Summers, but you know who Bill Clinton is.

So, you've got a uh a little picture to put in your head to place on the island.

That helps Trump, too.

So, if you start imagining the three of them, now the thing I wondered is um I feel like Trump's meme archers are a little slow because you know the next thing that happens is that the the Republican mememers are going to start producing pictures probably AI that would show the three of them together maybe on the islands.

So it's going to turn visual very fast, you know, through memes, etc.

So he's going to have repetition.

He's going to have visual.

He's got now control of the narrative because it's just an interesting thing to talk about.

Is it a Democrat problem or not?

Um, and he's I think he is successfully branding this as a Democrat problem.

Do you feel that if you take Trump out of the equation, he's always a special case.

Do you feel this is a Republican problem at all?

It really doesn't feel like one, does it?

It feels entirely like it's just just that.

Yeah.

Anyway, um so the uh Democrats, they decided to drop a video that looks like some kind of a scop to me.

So there are six of them.

One of them's a senator, Mark Kelly, and then uh Jimmy Panetta, Mikey Cheryl, a woman, Adam Smith, Ruben Ggo, Mark Kelly, and Alyssa Slucken.

So, they do this video sort of came out of nowhere.

Like, it's hard to know what inspired it unless it was just obviously the CIA.

So, it looks like sort of a color revolution thing that you'd get these uh you get people who are in the government, people who are credible to do a video that says, and here's what they said, that uh they're asking the uh they're asking the military to not obey any illegal orders from Trump, but they don't mention what these so-called illegal orders would be.

Why are they even doing this?

Was there was there some illegal order I'm not aware of?

Lindsey Graham is asking the same question and he's smarter.

I mean, he was a JAG guy forever.

And he's saying, "Well, over 30 years, right?

He was a he was a military lawyer for 30 years or so." And he says, "Honestly, what are you talking about?

What's where's this crime that that uh Trump allegedly asks anybody to do?

I also wonder has Trump ever disobeyed the Supreme Court um in any meaningful way?

I don't think so.

So, so this is a really good SC up because if you again if you're a lowinformation voter, you would think there's no reason in the world they would make this video unless what what would be the only one reason Democrats would make this video that makes sense that there's something happening that's illegal and they're trying to stop it.

And that would be what what illegal thing are you trying to stop?

We don't know.

Do not know.

All right.

And the other question is who gets to decide what's legal and what isn't.

Now obviously the courts ultimately get to decide, but there's always a lot of stuff that happens before that where the government says, "Oh, gone too far or you haven't." All right.

So, it seems to me there's kind of a scup by the Democrats to create this frame where Republicans are, wait for it, insurrectionists.

And the way that they're insurrectionists, according to this completely madeup narrative, is that Trump will give them illegal orders, the military, and then the military, despite all evidence to the contrary, would just start executing uh illegal orders.

Do you think there's any real chance that's going to happen?

I mean, I suppose anything's possible, but it doesn't seem like that's imminent or anything.

Anyway, so, uh, as Lindsey Graham points out, the hatred for Trump is they're really going too far.

And Steven Miller is pointing out that the video itself seems to qualify as an insurrection.

meaning that it looks like, and I would agree with Steven Miller's take on this, it looks like these six people are part of a larger group that's trying to create a narrative to literally overthrow the current government.

Well, what else would it be?

What what's the other explanation for why they would go through all this trouble and expense to create this product?

What's the other reason?

Um, again, if there were some specific crimes that they thought were being uh violated by the military on orders of Trump, shouldn't we be talking about those?

Wouldn't that be already getting wrapped up into a court case?

Don't we have a system that handles that fairly fairly efficiently actually because we've we've had what hundreds of court cases that got solved.

So seems to me that uh this is nothing but a up and I would say that the the origin of this is almost certainly intelligence entity.

Now I'm guessing it's ours.

So, I'm not making any accusation there's some foreign country behind it, but this is not this is not Democrat stuff, is it?

You know, I I want to hear what Mike Ben says about this.

But if Mike Ben tells you, oh, this is totally grassroots.

Yeah, I think they they just maybe they were having dinner, somebody had this idea and then he put it together, right?

If Mike Benz tells me that's probably what happened, maybe I'd change my opinion, but I don't think he's going to say that.

You know, I he hasn't weighed in yet that I've seen, but I'll probably see it by this afternoon.

So, go check out whatever Mike Ben says about the Democratic lawmaker video.

Yeah, every bit of that looks like something suspicious is happening in the wings.

Um, and and then the the language that they use in the video, quote, "We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community." There it is.

They're trying to get the intelligence community and the military to join them in an insurrection against the current government.

What else is this?

You can't even tell me that there's some other reason for this.

Uh, and Steve Miller says, "Democrat lawmakers now openly calling for insurrection." That's what it looks like.

I mean, it legitimately looks like that to me.

Not, you know, not uh making some political point or, you know, you you can always twist things to into your narrative.

It doesn't feel like that at all.

It feels like it's exactly what it looks like, which is shocking.

It's shocking.

Um, and then then there's this weird story.

We'll talk about this and then it might be about time for my guest.

Um, so this is funny, but Trump was asked on Air Force One a question, and it's hard to tell from the audio, but it sounded like he called one of the female reporters Peggy, as in pi GY.

Uh, now some people said, "No, no, no.

Her name is Peggy." Peggy.

But the early reporting is that there's nobody named Peggy on the on the plane.

I don't know if there's anybody named Piggy on the plane, but if you're trying to figure out did he really say that?

And if he did, what was he thinking and why did he say it?

I have no idea.

I don't have the slightest idea.

I I don't think that he just decided to call her a pig, but I'm going to have to see a picture of the reporter.

You know what I mean?

Is there any chance at all?

I don't know which reporter it was.

I haven't seen a name.

Is there any chance at all that if I were to look at a picture of that reporter, an image of a particular animal would jump in my head?

Is it possible that he wasn't doing it intentionally, but he looked at her and she just reminded him of some animal more than others, which would be terrible.

It would be terrible.

It would be funny.

And if it seems like I'm laughing, well, that's on you because I wouldn't laugh at such a terrible thing.

But everything about this story is weird and funny.

I'm not sure I care.

Do you?

Because we know he's not the kind of guy who just sort of randomly attacks somebody.

That doesn't seem like what he do.

So, there's there's either some backstory or it sounded like something else or or there's some other word that sounds like that.

I don't know.

It could be anything.

We'll find out later, but we'll keep an eye on that.

All right.

It looks like my guest has entered the green room.

And let me let me make sure uh I'm going to accept him.

Boom.

You will be accepted.

And then can I make you appear?

Nope.

Oh, there you are.

Hey, Chris.

>> Hey, can you hear me?

Okay, Scott, >> I can.

Let's make sure the audience can hear.

This is Chris Mc.

Kenna, uh, Freedom Press, the maker of, can you believe it?

The amazing Dilbert calendar.

and we're gonna ask him some questions about making calendars in the United States.

So, I'll be looking at your comments, but uh where where are you located?

What part of the country?

You you can be general.

>> Yeah, just north of Dallas.

>> Just north of Dallas.

So, you're American and you did the calendar last year, correct?

>> Did.

Yeah.

>> So, as far as I know, um this is the only daily desk calendar that's being made in mass being made in the United States of America.

If you go to Barnes & Noble, and I have I'm obsessed with this product.

When you look at where all of those are made, they're always almost always made in Asia, actually.

So, >> so if you're Yeah.

If you're wondering at home, how hard is it to manufacture one of these?

Think about the design alone.

Just the design alone because you need this outside box, right?

So, you got to you got to get all these specifications.

And of course, there's things like I Well, everything you just you got to make sure you've got everything on the box.

It's got to be the right size.

And then you've got to figure out in our case, the calendar pages have a comic on the front and the back, which is also new because other the cheap calendar companies don't do that.

Uh so we had to figure out how to do that.

You have to have the right kind of paper.

It's really difficult to get the the binding just right.

>> Yeah.

No, that that's right, Scott.

So I think the biggest improvement from last year's calendar is the binder.

And so last year we were a little afraid to make the binding too tight because we know a lot most of the customers like to tear through as they go through the year.

However, we also found out that some don't like to tear through as they go through the year and some like to actually keep it as a collectible item and never open it at all.

Right.

And so I think we learned some lessons uh from last year.

So thank you everyone for your patience on that.

And so uh we do think the binder is better.

It's still not so tight to where you can't tear through.

I'm very happy with this year's calendar.

I think the Perf lines on the top are easier to tear than last year's, too, which are also a challenge.

And so, um, yeah.

Yeah, we're really happy with this year's product.

>> Now, where's the only place you can buy it this year?

>> The only place you can buy it this year is amazon.com.

And if you type in the 2026 uh Dilbert desk calendar, this will come up.

Um, so make sure that you find this one.

And so on Amazon, one of the challenges on Amazon is there are fakes and Scott and I are battling those uh on a weekly basis, but with how well the sales are going, thanks to you all, uh the fakes are being left in the dust.

So I I really don't think it's going to be a big problem.

But um just make sure and I'm sure Scott will link it in the in the show notes and it's also available in his background on this XX page as well.

So, >> yeah, it's easy to find if you just do Dilbert 2026 calendar and it it'll it'll pop up.

Just just make sure it's the orange one and has my name.

If if it has Dilbert spelled wrong, that's the wrong calendar.

And as funny as that sounds, that's how they do it.

So they would spelled Dilbert with a space in the word where there's no space and that would be enough for the >> Yeah, it's it's kind of like a fishing exercise with all the trainings if somebody's in it.

There's just always one little thing off that they do to try to get away with it and so be careful of that.

>> All right, so I've got some really nerdy questions.

>> Um, how many specialty machines does it take to make this one calendar?

Like there's something that cuts, there's something that Yeah.

Ju just run through like how many machines are there?

There's special.

>> Yeah.

>> So I I would say um off the top of my head around eight.

>> Wow.

>> Right.

This is a very complex calendar.

And so the daily desk calendar just from the sheer number of pages alone in the middle is a big challenge.

And that's why it's hard to be made in the United States.

And then you add in the cover, the wraparound cover with the PF lines on top or there has to be the lines to help you tear through.

That also requires a commercial bindary piece, right?

And that we use multiple web presses uh that are rollfed as well as uh an offset press as well um and an inkjet.

And so um just off the top of my head around eight, um probably the coolest thing that I think would be the easel that we've done.

And so in the past, um, it had been a black plastic easel and, uh, those are almost always sourced overseas.

And once again, we were trying to make this 100% in the United States, >> right?

>> I went on a tour looking for a plastic manufacturer in the Dallas area.

And I actually found one um, where the black plastic easels could be made, but the cost was a little bit prohibitive.

We're trying to keep the calendar um, within reason.

And then just the timing of how long they it would take to make those because they had to order a new mold.

And so we came up with an alternative solution um of chipboard.

So using chipboard.

So this is 48 point chipboard.

And as you can see with made in America stamp on the on the back here, which we're proud of.

And so it's just as sturdy as the plastic.

Obviously, it's more environmentally friendly for those that that's important, too.

>> And uh we're proud of that.

And so I'd like to get some video of that being made.

And so we have a partner on that.

And so one of the al another point uh that people might not know would be um no no printer can make this on their own, right?

And they might pretend they can, we don't.

And we were always honest with Scott about that.

And so we have a couple partners locally as well that help us with this that are always just as grateful and just as excited now to get the Dilbert calendar.

And so one of them is uh performance specialy.

I'll go ahead and name them in Dallas.

And so they convert both uh the easel as well as the box.

And so the box is actually printed on a flat sheet as well.

I believe four to eight up.

I I forget exactly.

And then that that is trimmed and then converted as well.

Uh just like the easels.

So there's a lot of work that goes into these.

And um it really just illustrates American crafts craftsmanship, you know, to a tea.

And so we're really proud about that.

>> All right, Chris.

Mostly we want people just to know that it's available now and they can go to Amazon, they can buy it, and it was made in America and you're you're the genius behind it.

And uh I'm not entirely sure if I'd tried to do this with somebody else, they could have gotten it done cuz as I watched the complexity of this and you watched you chug through all the problems like, "All right, got this problem.

I'll fix it.

Got a problem, we'll fix it." It was just endless little problems that you figured out how to fix.

So you're like the ultimate fixer.

So >> yeah, I appreciate that.

>> So uh I don't want to keep you too long.

the some of the audience cares deeply about the calendar and some of them want to move on.

>> So, so just notice there.

So, just go to Amazon, go to the 2026 Dilbert calendar.

You'll find it easily.

And uh I'll I'll talk to you later, Chris.

>> Yeah, I appreciate Scott if you don't mind one more thing.

Um I do want to tell the audience, and I'm sure they know this, but my favorite question to get at that I get asked when people know I do these calendars is what does Scott like to work with?

And he's been unbelievable.

And so he's been so supportive.

It feels like we're on one team and we're truly grateful for that, Scott.

And I always enjoy our calls.

Um we always have a few laughs and we always do.

>> We grind through all the problems together and uh I just want to thank you for the opportunity and then just thank all the fans for the support as well.

So thank you.

>> Thank you.

Great seeing you again.

>> You too.

We'll talk soon.

Catch >> up to you later.

All right, we're back to me.

Boom.

All right, ladies and gentlemen.

Thanks for uh that little diversion.

We'll go back to the news.

Back to the news.

Um anyway, let's see.

Uh we talked about Trump calling somebody piggy.

Or maybe he didn't.

I I haven't heard his explanation.

Has anybody heard Trump's explanation of why he seems to have called somebody piggy?

Does he even have an explanation?

He's just say that didn't happen.

I don't know.

We'll wait for that.

All right.

Uh, apparently the SNAP program, where the government helps people buy groceries, was just massively fraudulent.

I saw a post by Nick Sorder on X.

I guess Secretary Rollins was out there saying they're they're going to have to destruct the entire thing.

So, how big is it?

I had no idea that SNAP was this enormous program that had become more enormous by by fraud.

So now they'll all be required to reapply, which seems like a good idea.

But I do ask myself this question of the subset of Americans who couldn't figure out how to feed themselves without the government, are they going to be able to reapply?

I did reply in the f how do they apply in the first place?

Applying for stuff isn't easy.

You got to fill out a bunch of forms.

You got to know where to go, where to send them, where to email them.

I don't know.

I'm not entirely sure.

People will know how to sign up for Snap.

But not my problem.

Not my problem.

Um, and I didn't say the number, but it's like some god-awful number of the total SNAP recipients were frauds and duplicates.

Just an enormous number.

Unbelievable.

I saw Tucker Carlson.

He was at some event and he was sort of wondering aloud why Jeffrey Epstein is capturing our anger.

Have you thought about that?

Have you thought why why is this one person, you know, getting all our attention?

And is that telling us anything that one person is getting all this attention?

Well, I saw Wall Street apes do a post about this.

And uh so this is what Tucker said.

We'll see if you agree with this and I'll have some comments.

What is it about Jeffrey Epstein that's so infuriating to people?

So infuriating it's actually causing seismic political problems.

What is it?

I'll tell you what it is.

Tucker says it's the frustration of normal people watching a certain class of people get away with everything every single time.

That's what it is.

We've had enough.

Now, does that remind you of a Nor Mc.

Donald joke about Bill Cosby?

You know the Nor Mc.

Donald joke about Bill Cosby, don't you?

Where he's talking about somebody said that the worst thing about the the worst thing about the Bill Cosby situation is the hypocrisy.

And then Norm's punchline is, you know, I don't think it's the hypocrisy that's the worst part.

I'm thinking it's all they're raping.

Now, don't you get that same vibe from this?

Do you think that what is infuriating people is that they're watching a certain class of people get away with everything every single time?

Or could it be thousands of rapes?

If if you're going to be infuriated, I think thousands of rapes systematically run through one island and a few other properties.

Ah, that's sort of the problem more than the gosh, rich people seem to be getting away with a lot.

How many of you are sitting here just thinking, man, those rich people getting away with stuff?

That's the problem.

Not the thousands of sex crimes.

No.

Well, it was the sex crimes I'm here to tell you, but also it's a story about sex and money and Trump and uh attractive females and underage people and it just has everything that a story that's going to make you angry would have.

So, there's not much of an mystery about that.

Um, so Red Wave Press, we're showing this uh clip on X.

Um, the word implicated is going to start taking some extra meaning lately.

Implicated because I've got a feeling that some people don't know the difference between implicated and indicted, which is kind of convenient if you want to if you want to accuse somebody of something.

Well, he was uh implicated.

What do you mean he was implicated?

Well, his name was on the documents.

I don't see his name on the documents.

Well, it was redacted, but we're pretty sure it's there under those redactions.

Implicated.

Anyway, Abby Phillip on CNN was saying if uh I think she was saying this to Scott Jennings, if Trump has nothing to hide and he's totally intentioned to say that and to believe that he should be clamoring for these documents, this is before he said everybody could have them, I guess.

Then Scott Jennings did a Scott Jennings which is he goes so you believe after 10 years of this of him Trump being on the public stage that if there was something to know we wouldn't know it by now.

Now if you watch Scott Jennings a lot and I recommend you do because he's got a lot of game in the persuasion world.

Um, it's so powerful to put this in the form of a question because it makes the person stop and think how they would answer the question and it makes the people listening home wonder how they would answer the question.

So, it's a very engaging form of persuasion rather than just making a statement.

All right?

So, you believe that?

Now, usually I mock people for putting so at the end of a sentence, but he didn't use it in the wrong way.

he, you know, he used it just to introduce his point, which is fine.

And then Abby Phillip had actually pretty good response to that.

She said, "I mean, you can make that argument about every single person who's implicated in these documents." Oh, implicated.

Implicated.

Every single person who's implicated.

Yes, you could make the argument that anybody who has not yet been accused must be more likely innocent, but that wouldn't apply to Trump.

So, as soon as you compare any normal person or even a CEO to Trump, you're in weird territory because there's no comparison.

If one of the CEOs had done a terrible crime on the island and 10 years had passed, do you think you necessarily would have heard about it?

You can't know for sure, but I feel like maybe not.

But what if somebody like Elvis or or or Trump had done some bad thing and then 10 years go by and and the the stakes are so high, do you think you wouldn't know about Trump?

So that that's a good question from Scott Jennings.

And then Scott points out very cleverly, he says, "You use you use the word implicated." So he he caught that.

He goes, "If someone's name appears on these documents, it doesn't necessarily mean they did anything wrong, but I'm sure this is going to lead people to say, "Oh, they've been implicated." And so, we'll see what comes out.

Implicated.

You're going to hear implicated a lot.

Um, all right.

Um, breaking.

Let's see.

So now, uh, Representative Stacy Plascet, apparently she was caught on video.

I think the video was from some time ago.

It had to be some time ago because Epstein was still live.

And it was uh she was in Congress in a 2019 oversight hearing.

And there's evidence on the text messages that she was messaging Epstein to ask him for advice on how to ask a question or answer a question in a live hearing.

Now, a bunch of people went, "Oh, oh my god, no.

We must censor her or something because she talked to a convicted PTO." But I have a different take on that, which is she's a elected representative.

She can talk to anybody that she represents no matter what crime they committed and no matter what reason she gives.

There is no reason and never will be that an elected representative should be denied in any way the ability to communicate with somebody in their own district.

And apparently that's that's where Epstein lived.

You know, the island was in her her area.

So, no, I completely disagree with this and I don't care about it at all.

Does it affect anyone?

Now, does it give me confidence in her as a representative?

No, not really.

But it's not like the biggest problem in the world.

I mean, if she's getting the job done otherwise, you know, it's fine.

Don't care about it at all.

Well, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia visited and that's always a big day for President Trump.

He likes it.

My favorite part is when he he took MBS, the crown prince.

He took him for a little I don't know if it was a tour or they're just walking from one place, but he takes him down that uh hallway of uh paintings of all the president's faces that includes the autopen of Biden.

Now, it's one thing that he would blame that Trump would blame uh it's one thing that he'd blame Biden for the automat.

It's a whole other thing that he would have a a picture put up to replace him in the hallway of presidents.

That's a whole different level.

But I think he took it yet to another level that I didn't even know was possible when he brings the head of >> >> He brings one of our strongest allies and a head of state to take to take a tour of the autopend of the art of the autopen just just so NBS can see uh how he's humiliating his predecessor.

Well, Trump says that uh Saudi Arabia is going to invest a trillion dollars in the US in the next one year and that uh uh we're now the hottest country in the world.

And he predicted that we would have $21 trillion in future investments.

He get Trump says we've done things nobody can believe.

Oh, that's true.

21 trillion will be the amount invested in the US or committed to invest in one year.

Well, there's a big difference between invested and committed to invest.

One is money and one is talk.

How much talk do you want for my money?

Um, so I guess I don't have to tell you that there's some possibility that uh Trump has used a little hyperbole.

There's some possibility.

He's just talking like a salesperson.

Maybe maybe 21 trillion won't happen right away.

But I don't mind this at all.

You know, no matter how accurate or not accurate it is, it's all fine because if it makes people think, hey, the US is the hottest country.

We should invest there.

That's all I want.

If the real number, and I'll just pick a number out of the air.

If the real number was 10 trillion, that's a god-awful amount of numbers or amount of money.

So if it's 10 trillion and there's a commitment for some unspecified amount more, I would call that a huge win.

I I wouldn't peck him to death over the exact numbers.

So once you learn how to how to navigate the Trump world where a claim is sometimes a statement of fact that you could fact check and sometimes the claim is just part of running the country.

It's basically branding the country, making sure everybody knows where the hottest country and you know showing that there's a an investment mechanism that they all have available to them to put money into this hottest country.

So, as long as he's doing all that, that's what I want.

I don't need any super accuracy on the numbers.

What difference would it make to me?

So, but I think the world is getting used to Trump now.

All right.

Um, Marjorie Taylor Green got a little quieter today.

I don't know if she was quieter or just the other news stuff took over, but uh she's not too happy that she's being called a traitor.

I think Trump called her Marjgery Trader Green.

That's pretty rugged.

Uh she says she fought for six years and gave him uh her loyalty for free.

Um so yeah, I I do I do worry about that relationship in the sense that we don't want it to affect us.

But if I were Marjorie Taylor Green, who I like by the way, um then you should hope that maybe the next president is a Republican, whoever that is, and maybe it's someone who wouldn't mind you in a cabinet position that would give you some serious power that was equ, you know, equivalent and made sense for your background and experience.

But if she goes to the cabinet and just does a good job and comes out the other side, I think we're all going to be happy with her.

And if she wanted to run for some other office, president would be tough.

But if she wanted to run for senator or something after that, I think people would start feeling that made sense.

So she does have a path, but probably maybe not through her the normal course.

So, I I hope her uh I hope she stays in public life.

I think it would be Let Let me get a Let me get a feel from you.

Even if you hated some of her recent opinions because they were opposite of Trump's.

Don't you think she's uh an important asset for the country and that we're better off when she's in the fight?

Even if she's on the other side, we're just better off when she's in the fight.

The same thing I say about Massie.

Same thing I say about Rand Paul.

Yeah.

All right.

I see some disagreement and nothing wrong with that.

We are allowed to disagree on this podcast.

All right.

I see your your comments.

Well, uh, the Trump DOE is going to give Microsoft a 1 billion or Microsoft partner $1 billion loan to restart Three Mile Island.

How would you like to take on that?

you know, all all the uh big companies, they rushed to, you know, grab a hold of some kind of nuclear asset when they knew they would need it for AI.

And how would you like to be the slowest one?

And by the time you get there, they like, "All right, we're going to grab some nuclear assets that didn't used to be great, but we're going to, you know, now people thinking about it differently.

They're not as anti-uclear.

So, we're going to take that nuclear asset and we're going to turn it into something valuable." Well, which one is it?

Well, we got there a little late.

Um, maybe the the recently closed nuclear power plants, they they got snatched up pretty quickly.

Okay.

Okay.

But which one did you get?

Well, as I said, a lot of the good ones were snatched up right away.

Okay, you're not answering the question.

Which one did you get?

My Wait, what?

Three, three mile island.

Three mile island.

Yeah, three mile island.

Never go less.

All right.

Um, and this story this story made me laugh.

So apparently there's a story about how Jeffrey Epstein was unhappy with Google's search engine optimization uh because it kept surf surfacing negative stories about him according to the Verge.

Mia Sato was writing about this.

Now, weren't we supposed to believe that Jeffrey Epstein was part of some, you know, giant running the entire world, you know, backdoor thing that uh he had all the power of all the intelligence agencies and he had, you know, unlimited money and he couldn't get his SEO to work and he didn't know who to call.

He's like allegedly we're thinking he's the most powerful man in the world between his blackmail and his money and the contacts he has and the the most powerful man in the world has exactly the same problem you do which is I don't think this search algorithm is right.

Who do I call there's nobody to call?

To me that's funny that even Jeffrey Epstein had nobody to call to fix this.

Not that they would have fixed it, but uh this problem just like yours.

All right.

And I guess uh now we know George Soros gave a quarter million dollars to some British group that was working to censor conservative news sites and kill kill Musk's ex.

Chuck Ross is writing about that.

Well, yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

Here here's the uh the last story in the news.

There's nothing to say about that except George Soros is in fact trying to destroy free speech, but only yours.

Yeah.

Not his.

Um, so Chris Matthews was recently on News.

Nation with Leland Vit.

News Nation's doing a good job lately, by the way.

And uh, I saw it on a Jason Cohen um, post.

And uh so what Chris Matthews says is that if the political left um teams up with MS Now, they used to be MSNBC, but MS Now that uh their their audience will not be able to elect them in any important federal office.

there's sort of a losing it's a losing frame if they enter the far-left frame and they they embrace the things that MS now is embracing that they'll just lose and it will split the party and they'll all be in trouble and he says Chris Matthews says this is a problem and I look at them lining up and when they make these statements I go that's for MSNBC that's not for the electorate and that's a problem and it made me Think about where real power lies.

Here, here's a little mental experiment, a thought experiment.

You ready?

Thought experiment.

All right.

What if the talent, you know, the on-air talent of MS Now was way better than it is?

What would happen?

Just regular talent.

There there's nothing magic or special.

they're just way better at it.

Well, their audience would zoom because they would be more entertaining and uh their power in terms of their influence over the electorate would go up probably in roughly the same ratio as their audience.

So, who's running the country?

Who's running the country?

If if Rachel Matto could do better work and that would cause a bigger audience and that would cause him to have more power and that would cause the MS now point of view to get more weight.

Who's running the country?

The elected people or Rachel Maddo right now let me take that to the other side.

You know, as I've often said, that uh the the producers for Fox News are so much better than the producers for the other shows that it just jumps off the page.

Now, you'd have to be in the business as I am to maybe even notice it, but they have such better producers.

Now, how much power does that give to Rupert Murdoch or Fox News just because they're better at it?

they can just put it on a show that looks better, sounds better, and then more people will watch it.

A lot.

It gives them a lot of power.

So, even the producers, the people you've never heard of, even they have power more than you think.

But now, here's where it gets interesting.

If you're looking at Fox News, let's say prime time where where everything important happens.

And you're looking at, you know, Greg Guffeld's on Twice, you know, he's on the five and then he's on Guffeld.

And uh you know, Jesse Waters is on Twice.

Uh I'm not sure where Dana is now, but she I think she has a second show.

I may have lost track of her other one.

But you're talking about the best people, in my opinion, the best people in the business, and they all happen to be in the same network.

How much power does that give Fox News simply because they have more talent in their host lineup?

Probably a lot.

Probably a lot.

And we don't really think of power that way, do we?

We We think of the people I'm talking about as people who are talking about the power.

They're not the power, the people talking about it.

Are they?

Are they just the ones talking about it or are they the ones who decide by their by their quality of their actions?

How many people are going to watch?

And then if a lot of people watch, don't they have power?

Right.

I'm watching your comments.

you get a little bit quiet when I when I venture into new territory.

But um yeah, talent I would say that talent is the invisible variable that people don't necessarily recognize and call out, but there's a specific theme within talent.

Let's see if you can tell what it is.

There's something that Fox News hosts have as a talent that I don't believe anybody on MSNBC has and maybe I'm thinking nobody on CNN.

So So there's a talent, a specific talent that you'll see on Fox News hosts, several of them.

I I'll name them in a minute, but you'll see none of it and the others.

What's the talent?

You tell me.

What talent do the Fox News hosts have?

It might be more than one, but there's one I'm thinking of.

The answer is humor.

The answer is humor.

If if you have not discovered that Guffield and Waters are hilarious and you haven't discovered that if you you know throw in Kennedy and you throw in Dana and you you know throw in Emily compo that you have this whole humor kind of a structure that lives within the structure of the show and it travels not not to every show but it does travel from show to show you know wherever one of those character is you going to see humor.

Now, am I wrong?

As soon as you think about it, it changes how you see the whole thing, isn't it?

The the Fox News people, and again, none of this happens unless you've got the right producers.

Because the producers are the ones who say, you know, do more of that, do less of that.

At least until the host is so successful, they don't have to take advice.

Eventually, that happens.

But am I wrong?

I'm not wrong.

Right.

So, the the humor talent that apparently Fox News um either got by luck, I don't think it was luck, I think they got it by looking for it and then finding it and promoting it.

Um obviously, if you look at the show Gutfeld, obviously they were thinking of humor.

So, it's not like you snuck up on them or something.

They knew what they were doing.

So, I don't think you want to overlook the power of that part of their talent stack and the fact that the the competitors who don't seem to be in their class, you could very easily identify what they're missing.

It's humor.

It's what they're missing.

All right, here's a story I don't believe.

Uh Joe Ha is reporting that Dominion voting machines have been found to have phone chips on their motherboards like you could just make a phone call to your election machine.

Now maybe I I don't have evidence that it's not true.

But do you believe that we just learned just learned that Dominion had phone chips on all their motherboards?

That doesn't sound right, does it?

So, I'm gonna I'm gonna have to back uh Dominion on this one so I don't get sued.

I'm going to say it doesn't strike me as likely, and I don't see proof of it.

So, I'm going to say you better bring a little bit more evidence than that.

And it's going to take something like a demonstration of multiple boards before you could ever convince me that they were just sitting out there the whole time with phone chips on them.

and we just now figured it out.

There's something wrong with that story.

All right.

Uh, North Korean workers are going to be making Russian drones according to Matt Ha ha in the Long War Journal.

That's what they say.

So, that's the war.

It's going to be a robot war, mostly drones, and it's going to be North Koreans pounding them out.

and the three remaining living Russians will be flying them.

I guess uh Trump wants to have a unified federal standards for AI so that all the states don't have their own standards.

Now, I don't know much about this domain, but doesn't it make sense that you would just have federal standards and then everybody could know what they've got?

They wouldn't have to worry about every state having their own AI standard.

Yes.

Um, but the reason I brought it up is not because it's a good idea probably.

It's that for the first time I feel that the administration understands the topic.

Meaning that in the first Trump administration, maybe they had the right people to make a decision like this.

I don't know.

Certainly in the Biden administration, I don't think they had the people who could make this decision.

But then you fast forward into the current administration and you've got your, you know, David Sachs and I, you know, I could go down the line.

There are people actually understand the domain.

So we're finally at a place where I don't have to think about it.

I just say to myself, all right, who's in the administration?

This one, this one, this one.

Oh, they got that.

Yeah.

I'm not going to I'm not going to tell Sachs that he got it wrong.

He obviously knows more than I do about that domain.

So, I feel good about that, that we have the right people in the right places.

All right.

Um, and the Trump administration, this feels like it's happened so many times before.

Oh, no.

This is funny.

There's, uh, apparently, according to Briana Mel, the Biden regime was allowing illegal aliens into the country who were convicted of sex crimes.

Do you believe that the people convicted, not just accused, but convicted of sex crimes were allowed into our country?

But it gets better, and by that I mean worse.

What kind of ID do you think they had to show if they were a convicted sex offender and they wanted to enter the country?

What What would be the burden of proof on their ID?

Turns out that the TSA accepted the sex offender paperwork.

So if they had documentation that proved they were sexual offenders, come right in.

And I think that's real.

I mean, it sounds like something fake, doesn't it?

It doesn't really doesn't sound like it's real, but I feel like it might be might be real.

All right.

And the Trump administration has plans to unveil the education department.

How many times have we done that?

I I feel like every month or so there's a story that says, "Oh, and we're going to dismantle the Department of Education and then nothing happens and a week month later we do it again." But when they say dismantle it, what they really mean is just take its functions and put it in six other places.

I'm not even sure if anything would change except the names on the doors.

That's all I know.

And ladies and gentlemen, that is your show for the day.

I believe I have uh I've now I've now satisfied all your needs.

Does anybody have any needs that are unsatisfied?

You?

You?

No.

All right.

All right.

I'm going to talk uh privately to the beloved members of Locals and the rest of you.

I sure hope to see you tomorrow, same time, same place, and get your Dilbert calendar if you have a chance at Amazon.

Come on in. We're prepping for the show

of shows. Best thing that will ever

happen to you. There's room up front.

Well, that is a nice shirt you're

wearing there.

How did you get more good-looking since

the last time? It's hard to imagine.

Really?

Sure is. All right. Stock market's up a

little bit,

but boy was it down. Wow.

Come on, stream in here. I want all of

you to enjoy this goodness at the same

time. We don't often have a show like

this. We've got a guest coming in at the

halfway mark. That'll be at the bottom

of the hour. And

we've got a persuasion lesson. It's

going to be a good one.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization. is

cold 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. All you need for that is a

copper mug or a glass of tank shell sine

canteen jugger flask a vessel of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee. Join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine of

the day, the thing that makes everything

better is called simultaneous sip. And

it's probably going to happen right now.

Go.

Extraordinary,

delicious, best ever. Well, here's the

kind of story that

you depend on me to bring to you. A very

important story. Let's say first I'm

going to put my clock up here so I don't

run over the halfway time.

Uh, where would clock be if you were an

app named clock? There you'd be.

Gotcha.

Seriously,

the clock doesn't have a clock on it.

All right, we'll take it.

All right. Well, there's a story about a

woman

uh who is accused

uh she was accused of the first crime in

space. So, you know, they say that men

get all the credit for inventing things.

It's not fair because women also

invented crime in space or allegedly.

Apparently, uh there's some controversy

about whether that was an actual crime,

but it was a a woman who was an

astronaut who went up in space and I

think the her wife uh accused her of I

don't know doing something with a check

or doing something with a password and

stealing some money from the bank. But

here's the funny part and the only

reason I'm bringing this up. It's not

because women invented crime in space,

although that would be impressive

enough. It's uh it's the last name of

the person who's accused of the crime.

Um

Oh, no. I know it's even funnier. This

is not the name of the person who was

accused of the crime. It's the person

who accused the other one of the crime.

So, the one who was accused is named

Mlan, but the one who did the accusing,

and I'm not making this up, her last

name is Warden.

W O R DN.

So, the warden

accused her wife of stealing in space.

Did you need to know that story? You

probably probably could have gone the

whole day without knowing that. Nope.

wasn't terribly important, but her last

name really, it was warden.

Didn't make that up. All right. If you

were a cursor and you were on my

computer, where would you be? There you

are. Gotcha.

But wait, there are more stories.

Uh you've probably heard that uh the

Senate has now approved that Epstein

bill via unanimous consent. So guess

what? It turns out that Congress can

pass anything it wants as fast as it

wants. Does that make you happy?

What have we been doing up to this

point? Are you serious? You're telling

me that the Congress can do things

really fast and very efficiently

sometimes

but not all the time. So this is the

thing that we got right in terms of

speed. But the only reason it went fast

is because it took us years to get to

this point. Like we we found a way or

Congress did to make even an efficient

process which if it had been a

standalone process probably would

impress you how fast it went. But no,

no. Years later, it goes fast. So now we

have the Senate and the House have

approved it. It's going to go to Trump's

desk. So how many of you think that that

means you're going to see some more

Epstein files?

Do you think that's what that means? Or

there's always a reason to not see the

Epstein files. One would be if there's a

open court case such as the one Trump

was just trying to open against the

Democrats for their connection to

Epstein. Oh, that's a nice coincidence.

Just the time that everybody agreed to

see it, there's this lost there's this

legal action. Well, I guess we're going

have to wait till the end of that. It's

going to be another five years. So, good

luck if you're just waiting for all that

information that you know is going to

come any minute. Because if there's one

thing I can tell you about the Epstein

files, it's the only thing I know about

them for sure. There's always a reason

to not show you.

Always. We'll find out what the reason

is this time, but not expecting it. All

right.

So, it's on its way to the president's

desk. And if he signs it, it really

doesn't mean much, does it? [laughter]

if he signs it, it doesn't mean it's

more likely that people will see the

files.

Probably doesn't mean anything because

again, it's going to be one of these

process things. All right.

Um, so it wasn't a normal vote. It went

through all kinds of weird things you

don't need to know about. But, uh, what

what is the strongest type of denial?

If you were going to deny an accusation,

what's the weakest form and the

strongest form? Well, the weak form

would be, "No, I didn't do that. No, no,

we didn't do that." Slightly stronger

than that would be, "Not only did I not

do that, you're the one who did it.

You're the one who did it." And then

that, you know, diverts attention from

you. So that's even better than just

denying it. It's like you did it and it

was stronger than you did it. Well, not

only did the Democrats, they would be

you in this case. Not only did the

Democrats do it, whatever it is, but uh

you're going to prove it. That's kind of

what Trump said because if he's if he

wants the Department of Justice to look

into these top Democrats, he's going

after Bill Clinton and Larry Summers

and uh Reed Hoffman.

So, those are the ones he's going after.

Now, I'm going to give you a little

persuasion lesson on how well uh Trump

is handling this. I know that doesn't

sound that doesn't sound possible, does

it? Does it look like he's handled it

well up to this point? No. No. If if

you're not paying attention to too much,

it really doesn't look like he's handled

it well.

It looks like he was flailing around a

little bit, didn't it? But he's now

settled into a groove

that is such a strong groove that I feel

like all the rest of the stuff was just

testing. He was just saying, "How about

this? Suppose I said this. What would

happen if I said this?" So his current

approach

is that it's a Democrat problem and he's

going to put three faces on it instead

of the hundreds of faces. He's going to

pick three rich guys that probably, you

know, even the left doesn't love because

they're rich guys and he's just going to

paint them over and over again. Now,

what does Trump say about talking about

this?

Trump says, uh, well, it's a Democrat

problem and we Republicans should stop

talking about it because it just takes

attention away from all of our

accomplishments.

And then because he doesn't want the

left to talk about it, what do they do?

Well, everybody on the left asks some

questions about it every single time

he's out. Every time. What does Trump do

every time? Now. Every time. Now going

forward, he's going to say it's a

Democrat problem. It's Larry Summers.

It's Bill Clinton,

uh, as Reed Offen. Now, I don't have an

opinion about what those three people

did or did not do. We're only talking

about Trump's persuasion game. If he

continues to do nothing but that,

what are you going to think about

whenever it comes up? He could have been

[clears throat] you think about three

three rich Democrats. That's what you'll

think about.

Now, that's sort of a home run if he can

do that. Now, the only way this could

fail is if the Democrat press, you know,

the leftleaning press, all got together

and said, you know, we're going to kill

ourselves in this because every time we

bring it up now, he just mentions these

three Democrats and says it's a Democrat

problem. Now, if you're a regular

consumer of news, not like us, probably

none of us are ordinary people, you

know, we pay a little more attention

about politics, which is why you'd be

watching this podcast in the first

place. But think about the average

person. How much do they know about

Epstein? Well, he was at Pedo. He was on

an island.

They know the basics, but they don't

know any of the details because it's

something that only the the news nerds

seem to be involved in. So now Trump has

done something that is brilliant which

he's filled in that gap for the low

information voters. If you wanted to

have something to say that would sort of

capture the whole situation,

it would be this. Well, looks like a

Democrat problem. [laughter]

I don't know why you're even talking to

Republicans. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Yeah. But

it's kind of a Democrat problem. So when

the Democrats work this out, why don't

you get back to us? Well, but but but

but there was that, you know, time and

Trump and b and then Trump has the

floor. You know, they've accused him and

then he says, "Yeah, it's a Democrat

problem. Larry Summers, [laughter]

Bill Clinton,

and every time he repeats it, it gets

stronger. So, they're gonna give him

because they can't help themselves. You

know, the news is the news. They're

going to act the way they always act.

They're going to give Trump unlimited

opportunities

to do the thing that he says, "Please

don't do this to me. Please don't throw

me in the brier patch." If you throw me

in the brier patch, what am I going to

do except talk about endlessly how it's

these three Democrats who are the

obscene people you need to know about

and that maybe the Department of Justice

needs to look into them. No, don't make

me talk about that three times a day.

No,

he's sort of in a perfect situation now.

As I said when I started, he was kind of

flailing in the early stages of, you

know, we're going to have to figure out

this Epstein thing. But when he finally

went from, no, we don't want to see the

files, a complete flip to, yep, let's

see them all.

That's when you knew he had he had a

grasp of the situation because you can't

really reverse

show them all. Now, this would presume

that we see anything. I'm not sure that

that's going to happen. So there a few

things are going to happen.

One, we might see some files that tell

us something new. Probably not.

But at the very least, it's going to

give Trump endless possibilities for

blaming the Democrats and saying

Epstein's just a Democrat problem until

everybody believes it. You know, I've

told you that persuasion is mostly

repetition.

and he's going to have the biggest

repetition opportunity anybody ever had

and he's just going to lean into it

until you're so tired of hearing him say

that Epstein is a Democrat problem that

you stop asking him questions about

Epstein and that's fine too.

So [clears throat] Trump has now created

a situation where he kind of wins in

every direction,

right? Because now he's for full

transparency. So he's invulnerable on

that and he's just repeating over and

over the Democrat, you know, it's a

Democrat thing. It's a Democrat hoax.

It's just going to get stronger and

stronger as he does it. So good luck

with that, Democrats.

Um

let's see what else

there there's also the visual part

you know how I often say that uh you

know if you're looking at the the

strongest elements of persuasion

repetition is probably the top you know

because you could if you repeat enough

anybody will believe anything but also

visual now the epsene is not a visual

story per Okay. But if you imagine these

three specific people,

uh, Offman Summers and Bill Clinton,

most of you can picture them. Maybe you

don't know Larry Summers, but you know

who Bill Clinton is. So, you've got a uh

a little picture to put in your head to

place on the island.

That helps Trump, too. So, if you start

imagining the three of them, now the

thing I wondered is um I feel like

Trump's meme archers are a little slow

because you know the next thing that

happens is that the the Republican

mememers are going to start producing

pictures probably AI that would show the

three of them

together

maybe on the islands. So it's going to

turn visual very fast, you know, through

memes, etc. So he's going to have

repetition. He's going to have visual.

He's got now control of the narrative

because

it's just an interesting thing to talk

about. Is it a Democrat problem or not?

Um, and he's I think he is successfully

branding this as a Democrat problem.

Do you feel that if you take Trump out

of the equation, he's always a special

case. Do you feel this is a Republican

problem at all? It really doesn't feel

like one, does it? It feels entirely

like it's just

just that. Yeah. Anyway, um

so the uh Democrats, they decided to

drop a video that looks like some kind

of a scop to me. So there are six of

them. One of them's a senator, Mark

Kelly, and then uh Jimmy Panetta, Mikey

Cheryl, a woman, Adam Smith, Ruben Ggo,

Mark Kelly, and Alyssa Slucken. So, they

do this video

sort of came out of nowhere. Like, it's

hard to know what inspired it unless it

was just obviously the CIA. So, it looks

like sort of a color revolution thing

that you'd get these uh you get people

who are in the government, people who

are credible to do a video that says,

and here's what they said,

that uh they're asking the uh they're

asking the military to not obey any

illegal orders from Trump,

but they don't mention what these

so-called illegal orders would be.

Why are they even doing this? Was there

was there some illegal order I'm not

aware of? Lindsey Graham is asking the

same question and he's smarter. I mean,

he was a JAG guy forever. And he's

saying, "Well, over 30 years, right? He

was a he was a military lawyer for 30

years or so." And he says, "Honestly,

what are you talking about? What's

where's this crime

that that uh Trump allegedly asks

anybody to do?

I also wonder has Trump ever disobeyed

the Supreme Court

um in any meaningful way? I don't think

so. So, so this is a really good SC up

because if you again if you're a

lowinformation voter, you would think

there's no reason in the world they

would make this video unless

what what would be the only one reason

Democrats would make this video that

makes sense

that there's something happening that's

illegal and they're trying to stop it.

And that would be

what [laughter]

what illegal thing are you trying to

stop?

We don't know.

Do not know.

All right. And the other question is who

gets to decide

what's legal and what isn't. Now

obviously the courts ultimately get to

decide, but there's always a lot of

stuff that happens before that where the

government says, "Oh, gone too far or

you haven't." All right.

So, it seems to me there's kind of a

scup by the Democrats to create this

frame where Republicans are, wait for

it, insurrectionists.

And the way that they're

insurrectionists, according to this

completely madeup narrative, is that

Trump will give them illegal orders, the

military, and then the military,

despite all evidence to the contrary,

would just start executing uh illegal

orders.

Do you think there's any real chance

that's going to happen?

I mean, I suppose anything's possible,

but it doesn't seem like that's imminent

or anything.

Anyway, so, uh, as Lindsey Graham points

out, the hatred for Trump is they're

really going too far. And Steven Miller

is pointing out that the video itself

seems to qualify as an insurrection.

meaning that it looks like, and I would

agree with Steven Miller's take on this,

it looks like these six people are part

of a larger group that's trying to

create a narrative to literally

overthrow the current government.

Well, what else would it be? What what's

the other explanation for why they would

go through all this trouble and expense

to create this product? What's the other

reason? Um, again, if there were some

specific crimes

that they thought were being uh violated

by the military on orders of Trump,

shouldn't we be talking about those?

Wouldn't that be already getting wrapped

up into a court case?

Don't we have a system that handles that

fairly fairly efficiently actually

because we've we've had what hundreds of

court cases that got solved.

So seems to me

that uh this is nothing but a up and I

would say that the the origin of this is

almost certainly intelligence entity.

Now I'm guessing it's ours. [laughter]

So, I'm not making any accusation

there's some foreign country behind it,

but this is not this is not Democrat

stuff, is it?

You know, I I want to hear what Mike Ben

says about this. But if Mike Ben tells

you, oh, this is totally grassroots.

Yeah, I think they they just maybe they

were having dinner, somebody had this

idea and then he put it together, right?

If Mike Benz tells me that's probably

what happened,

maybe I'd change my opinion, but I don't

think he's going to say that. You know,

I he hasn't weighed in yet that I've

seen, but I'll probably see it by this

afternoon. So, go check out whatever

Mike Ben says about the Democratic

lawmaker video.

Yeah, every bit of that looks like

something suspicious is happening in the

wings.

Um,

and and then the the language that they

use in the video, quote, "We want to

speak directly to members of the

military and the intelligence

community." There it is.

They're trying to get the intelligence

community and the military to join them

in an insurrection against the current

government. What else is this?

You can't even tell me that there's some

other reason for this.

Uh, and Steve Miller says, "Democrat

lawmakers now openly calling for

insurrection." That's what it looks

like.

I mean, it legitimately looks like that

to me. Not, you know, not uh making some

political point or, you know, you you

can always twist things to into your

narrative. It doesn't feel like that at

all. It feels like it's exactly what it

looks like,

which is shocking. It's shocking.

Um,

and then then there's this weird story.

[gasps] We'll talk about this and then

it might be about time for my guest. Um,

so this is funny, but Trump was asked on

Air Force One a question, and it's hard

to tell from the audio, but it sounded

like he called one of the female

reporters Peggy, as in pi GY. Uh, now

some people said, "No, no, no. Her name

is Peggy." Peggy. But the early

reporting is that there's nobody named

Peggy on the on the plane.

I don't know if [clears throat] there's

anybody named Piggy on the plane, but if

you're trying to figure out did he

really say that? And if he did, what was

he thinking and why did he say it? I

have no idea. [laughter]

I don't have the slightest idea. I I

don't think

that he just decided to call her a pig,

but I'm going to have to see a picture

of the reporter. You know what I mean?

Is there any chance at all? I don't know

which reporter it was. I haven't seen a

name. Is there any chance at all that if

I were to look at a picture of that

reporter,

an image of a particular animal would

jump in my head? Is it possible that he

wasn't doing it intentionally, but he

looked at her and she just reminded

[clears throat] him of some animal more

than others, [laughter]

which [clears throat] would be terrible.

It would be terrible. It would be funny.

And if it seems like I'm laughing, well,

that's on you because I wouldn't laugh

at such a terrible thing. But [laughter]

[clears throat] everything about this

story is weird and funny. I'm not sure I

care. Do you? Because we know he's not

the kind of guy

who just sort of randomly attacks

somebody. That doesn't seem like what he

do. So, there's there's either some

backstory or it sounded like something

else or or there's some other word that

sounds like that. I don't know. It could

be anything. We'll find out later, but

we'll keep an eye on that. All right. It

looks like my guest has entered the

green room.

And let me let me make sure

uh I'm going to accept him.

Boom. You will be accepted.

And then

can I make you appear?

Nope.

Oh, there you are. Hey, Chris.

>> Hey, can you hear me? Okay, Scott,

>> I can. Let's make sure the audience can

hear. This is Chris McKenna, uh, Freedom

Press, the maker of, can you believe it?

The amazing Dilbert calendar. and we're

gonna ask him some questions about

making calendars in the United States.

So, I'll be looking at your comments,

but uh where where are you located? What

part of the country? You you can be

general.

>> Yeah, just north of Dallas.

>> Just north of Dallas. So, you're

American and you did the calendar last

year, correct?

>> Did. Yeah.

>> So, as far as I know, um this is the

only daily desk calendar that's being

made in mass being made in the United

States of America. If you go to Barnes &

Noble, and I have I'm obsessed with this

product. When you look at where all of

those are made, they're always almost

always made in Asia, actually. So,

>> so if you're Yeah. If you're wondering

at home, how hard is it to manufacture

one of these? Think about the design

alone. Just the design alone because you

need this outside box,

right? So, you got to you got to get all

these specifications. And of course,

there's things like I

Well, everything [laughter] you just

[clears throat] you got to make sure

you've got everything on the box. It's

got to be the right size. And then

you've got to figure out in our case,

the calendar pages have a comic on the

front and the back, which is also new

because other the cheap calendar

companies don't do that. Uh so we had to

figure out how to do that. You have to

have the right kind of paper. It's

really difficult to get the the binding

just right.

>> Yeah. No, that that's right, Scott. So I

think the biggest improvement from last

year's calendar is the binder. And so

last year we were a little afraid to

make the binding too tight because we

know a lot most of the customers like to

tear through as they go through the

year. However, we also found out that

some don't like to tear through as they

go through the year and some like to

actually keep it as a collectible item

and never open it at all. Right. And so

I think we learned some lessons uh from

last year. So thank you everyone for

your patience on that. And so uh we do

think the binder is better. It's still

not so tight to where you can't tear

through. I'm very happy with this year's

calendar. I think the Perf lines on the

top are easier to tear than last year's,

too, which are also a challenge. And so,

um, yeah. Yeah, we're really happy with

this year's product.

>> Now, where's the only place you can buy

it this year?

>> The only place you can buy it this year

is amazon.com. And if you type in the

2026 uh Dilbert desk calendar, this will

come up. Um, so make sure that you find

this one. And so on Amazon, one of the

challenges on Amazon is there are fakes

and Scott and I are battling those uh on

a weekly basis, but with how well the

sales are going, thanks to you all, uh

the fakes are being left in the dust. So

I I really don't think it's going to be

a big problem. But um just make sure and

I'm sure Scott will link it in the in

the show notes and it's also available

in his background on this XX page as

well. So,

>> yeah, it's easy to find if you just do

Dilbert 2026 calendar and it it'll it'll

pop up. Just just make sure it's the

orange one and has my name. If if it has

Dilbert spelled wrong, that's the wrong

calendar.

[clears throat] And as funny as that

sounds, that's how they do it. So they

would spelled Dilbert with a space in

the word where there's no space and that

would be enough for the

>> Yeah, it's it's kind of like a fishing

exercise with all the trainings if

somebody's in it. There's just always

one little thing off that they do to try

to get away with it and so be careful of

that.

>> All right, so I've got some really nerdy

questions.

>> Um, how many specialty machines does it

take to make this one calendar? Like

there's something that cuts, there's

something that Yeah. Ju just run through

like how many machines are there?

There's special.

>> Yeah.

>> So I I would say um off the top of my

head around eight.

>> Wow.

>> Right. This is a very complex calendar.

And so the daily desk calendar just from

the sheer number of pages alone in the

middle is a big challenge. And that's

why it's hard to be made in the United

States. And then you add in the cover,

the wraparound cover with the PF lines

on top or there has to be the lines to

help you tear through. That also

requires a commercial bindary piece,

right? And that we use multiple web

presses uh that are rollfed as well as

uh an offset press as well um and an

inkjet. And so um just off the top of my

head around eight, um probably the

coolest thing that I think would be the

easel that we've done. And so in the

past, um, it had been a black plastic

easel and, uh, those are almost always

sourced overseas. And once again, we

were trying to make this 100% in the

United States,

>> right?

>> I went on a tour looking for a plastic

manufacturer in the Dallas area. And I

actually found one um, where the black

plastic easels could be made, but the

cost was a little bit prohibitive. We're

trying to keep the calendar um, within

reason. And then just the timing of how

long they it would take to make those

because they had to order a new mold.

And so we came up with an alternative

solution um of chipboard. So using

chipboard. So this is 48 point

chipboard. And as you can see with made

in America stamp on the on the back

here, which we're proud of. And so it's

just as sturdy as the plastic.

Obviously, it's more environmentally

friendly for those that that's

important, too.

>> And uh we're proud of that. And so I'd

like to get some video of that being

made. And so we have a partner on that.

And so one of the al another point uh

that people might not know would be um

no no printer can make this on their

own, right? And they might pretend they

can, we don't. And we were always honest

with Scott about that. And so we have a

couple partners locally as well that

help us with this that are always just

as grateful and just as excited now to

get the Dilbert calendar. And so one of

them is uh performance specialy. I'll go

ahead and name them in Dallas. And so

they convert both uh the easel as well

as the box. And so the box is actually

printed on a flat sheet as well. I

believe four to eight up. I I forget

exactly. And then that that is trimmed

and then converted as well. Uh just like

the easels. So there's a lot of work

that goes into these. And um it really

just illustrates American crafts

craftsmanship, you know, to a tea. And

so we're really proud about that.

>> All right, Chris. Mostly we want people

just to know that it's available now and

they can go to Amazon, they can buy it,

and it was made in America and you're

you're the genius behind it. And uh I'm

not entirely sure if I'd tried to do

this with somebody else, they could have

gotten it done cuz as I watched the

complexity of this and you watched you

chug through all the problems like, "All

right, got this problem. I'll fix it.

Got a problem, we'll fix it." It was

just endless little problems that you

figured out how to fix. So you're like

the ultimate fixer. So

>> yeah, I appreciate that. [laughter]

>> So uh I don't want to keep you too long.

the some of the audience cares deeply

about the calendar and some of them want

to move on.

>> So, so just notice there. So, just go to

Amazon, go to the 2026 Dilbert calendar.

You'll find it easily. And uh I'll I'll

talk to you later, Chris.

>> Yeah, I appreciate Scott if you don't

mind one more thing. Um I do want to

tell the audience, and I'm sure they

know this, but my favorite question to

get at that I get asked when people know

I do these calendars is what does Scott

like to work with? And he's been

unbelievable. And so he's been

[clears throat] so supportive. It feels

like we're on one team and we're truly

grateful for that, Scott. And I always

enjoy our calls. Um we always have a few

laughs and we always do.

>> We grind through all the problems

together and uh I just want to thank you

for the opportunity and then just thank

all the fans for the support as well. So

thank you.

>> Thank you. Great seeing you again.

>> You too. We'll talk soon. Catch

>> up to you later.

All right, we're back to me. Boom. All

right, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for

uh that little diversion. We'll go back

to the news.

Back to the news.

Um

anyway, let's see. Uh we talked about

Trump calling somebody piggy. Or maybe

he didn't. I I haven't heard his

explanation. Has anybody heard Trump's

explanation of why he seems to have

called somebody piggy?

Does he even have an explanation? He's

just say that didn't happen. I don't

know. We'll wait for that.

All right. Uh,

apparently the SNAP program, where the

government helps people buy groceries,

was just massively fraudulent. I saw a

post by Nick Sorder on X. I guess

Secretary Rollins was out there saying

they're they're going to have to

destruct the entire thing. So, how big

is it? I had no idea that SNAP was this

enormous program that had become more

enormous by by fraud. So now they'll all

be required to reapply,

which seems like a good idea. But I do

ask myself this question of the subset

of Americans who couldn't figure out how

to feed themselves without the

government, are they going to be able to

reapply? I did reply in the f how do

they apply in the first place? Applying

for stuff isn't easy. You got to fill

out a bunch of forms. You got to know

where to go, where to send them, where

to email them. I don't know. I'm not

entirely sure. People will know how to

sign up for Snap. But not my problem.

Not my problem.

Um, and I didn't say the number, but

it's like some god-awful number of the

total SNAP recipients were frauds and

duplicates. Just an enormous number.

Unbelievable.

I saw Tucker Carlson. He was at some

event and he was sort of wondering aloud

why Jeffrey Epstein is capturing our

anger.

Have you thought about that? Have you

thought why why is this one person, you

know, getting all our attention? And is

that telling us anything that one person

is getting all this attention? Well, I

saw Wall Street apes do a post about

this. And uh so this is what Tucker

said. We'll see if you agree with this

and I'll have some comments. What is it

about Jeffrey Epstein that's so

infuriating to people? So infuriating

it's actually causing seismic political

problems. What is it? I'll tell you what

it is. Tucker says it's the frustration

of normal people watching a certain

class of people get away with everything

every single time. That's what it is.

We've had enough.

Now, does that remind you of a Nor

McDonald joke about Bill Cosby?

You know the Nor McDonald joke about

Bill Cosby, don't you? Where he's

talking about somebody said that the

worst thing about the

the worst thing about the Bill Cosby

situation is the hypocrisy.

And then Norm's punchline is, you know,

I don't think it's the hypocrisy that's

the worst part.

I'm thinking it's all they're raping.

Now, don't you get that same vibe from

this? Do you think that what is

infuriating people is that they're

watching a certain class of people get

away with everything every single time?

Or could it be thousands of rapes?

If if you're going to be infuriated, I

think thousands of rapes systematically

run through one island and a few other

properties. Ah, that's sort of the

problem more than the gosh, rich people

seem to be getting away with a lot.

How many of you are sitting here just

thinking, man, those rich people getting

away with stuff? That's the problem. Not

the thousands of sex crimes. No.

Well, it was the sex crimes I'm here to

tell you,

but also it's a story about sex and

money and

Trump and uh attractive females and

underage people and it just has

everything that a story that's going to

make you angry would have. So, there's

not much of an mystery about that.

Um,

so Red Wave Press,

we're showing this uh clip on X. Um, the

word implicated is going to start taking

some extra meaning lately. Implicated

because I've got a feeling that some

people don't know the difference between

implicated and indicted,

which is kind of convenient if you want

to if you want to accuse somebody of

something. Well, he was uh implicated.

What do you mean he was implicated?

Well, his name was on the documents.

I don't see his name on the documents.

Well, it was redacted,

but we're pretty sure it's there under

those redactions.

Implicated. Anyway, Abby Phillip on CNN

was saying if uh I think she was saying

this to Scott Jennings, if Trump has

nothing to hide and he's totally

intentioned to say that and to believe

that he should be clamoring for these

documents, this is before he said

everybody could have them, I guess. Then

Scott Jennings did a Scott Jennings

which is he goes so you believe after 10

years of this of him Trump being on the

public stage that if there was something

to know we wouldn't know it by now.

Now if you watch Scott Jennings a lot

and I recommend you do because he's got

a lot of game in the persuasion world.

Um, it's so powerful to put this in the

form of a question because it makes the

person stop and think how they would

answer the question and it makes the

people listening home wonder how they

would answer the question. So, it's a

very engaging form of persuasion rather

than just making a statement. All right?

So, you believe that? Now, usually I

mock people for putting so at the end of

a sentence, but he didn't use it in the

wrong way. he, you know, he used it just

to introduce his point, which is fine.

And then Abby Phillip had actually

pretty good response to that. She said,

"I mean, you can make that argument

about every single person who's

implicated in these documents." Oh,

implicated. Implicated. Every single

person who's implicated. Yes, you could

make the argument that anybody who has

not yet been accused

must be more likely innocent, but that

wouldn't apply to Trump.

So, as soon as you compare any normal

person or even a CEO to Trump, you're in

weird territory because there's no

comparison.

If one of the CEOs had done a terrible

crime on the island and 10 years had

passed, do you think you necessarily

would have heard about it?

You can't know for sure, but I feel like

maybe not. But what if somebody like

Elvis or or or Trump had done some bad

thing and then 10 years go by and and

the the stakes are so high, do you think

you wouldn't know about Trump?

So that that's a good question from

Scott Jennings. And then Scott points

out very cleverly, he says, "You use you

use the word implicated." So he he

caught that. He goes, "If someone's name

appears on these documents, it doesn't

necessarily mean they did anything

wrong, but I'm sure this is going to

lead people to say, "Oh, they've been

implicated."

And so, we'll see what comes out.

Implicated.

You're going to hear implicated a lot.

Um,

all right.

Um,

breaking. Let's see. So now, uh,

Representative Stacy Plascet,

apparently she was caught on video. I

think the video was from some time ago.

It had to be some time ago because

Epstein was still live. And it was uh

she was in Congress in a 2019

oversight hearing. And there's evidence

on the text messages that she was

messaging Epstein to ask him for advice

on how to ask a question or answer a

question in a live hearing. Now, a bunch

of people went, "Oh, oh my god, no. We

must censor her or something because she

talked to a convicted PTO."

But I have a different take on that,

which is she's a elected representative.

She can talk to anybody that she

represents

no matter what crime they committed and

no matter what reason she gives. There

is no reason and never will be that an

elected representative

should be denied in any way the ability

to communicate with somebody in their

own district. And apparently that's

that's where Epstein lived. You know,

the island was in her her area. So, no,

I completely disagree with this and I

don't care about it at all. Does it

affect anyone? Now, does it give me

confidence in her as a representative?

No, not really.

But it's not like the biggest problem in

the world. I mean, if she's getting the

job done otherwise, you know, it's fine.

Don't care about it at all. Well, the

crown prince of Saudi Arabia visited and

that's always a big day for President

Trump. He likes it. My favorite part is

when he he took [clears throat] MBS, the

crown prince. He took him for a little I

don't know if it was a tour or they're

just walking from one place, but he

takes him down that uh hallway of uh

paintings of all the president's faces

that includes the autopen of Biden.

[laughter]

Now, it's one thing that he would blame

that Trump would blame uh [laughter]

it's one thing that he'd blame Biden for

the automat. It's a whole other thing

that he would have a a picture put up to

replace him in the hallway of

presidents. That's a whole different

level. But I think he took it yet to

another level that I didn't even know

was possible when he brings the head of

>> [laughter]

>> He brings one of our strongest allies

and a head of state to take to take a

tour of the autopend [laughter]

of the art of the autopen just just so

NBS can see uh how he's humiliating his

predecessor.

Well, Trump says that uh Saudi Arabia is

going to invest a trillion dollars in

the US in the next one year and that uh

uh we're now the hottest country in the

world. And he predicted that we would

have $21 trillion in future investments.

He get Trump says we've done things

nobody can believe.

Oh, that's true. 21 trillion will be the

amount invested in the US or committed

to invest in one year. Well, there's a

big difference between invested and

committed to invest. One is money and

one is talk.

How much talk do you want for my money?

Um, so I guess I don't have to tell you

that there's some possibility

that uh Trump has used a little

hyperbole. There's some possibility.

He's just talking like a salesperson.

Maybe maybe 21 trillion won't happen

right away.

But I don't mind this at all. You know,

no matter how accurate or not accurate

it is, it's all fine because if it makes

people think, hey, the US is the hottest

country. We should invest there. That's

all I want.

If the real number, and I'll just pick a

number out of the air. If the real

number was 10 trillion,

that's a god-awful amount of numbers or

amount of money. So if it's 10 trillion

and there's a commitment for some

unspecified amount more, I would call

that a huge win. I I wouldn't peck him

to death over the exact numbers. So once

you learn how to how to navigate the

Trump world where a claim is sometimes a

statement of fact that you could fact

check and sometimes the claim is just

part of running the country. It's

basically branding the country, making

sure everybody knows where the hottest

country and you know showing that

there's a an investment mechanism that

they all have available to them to put

money into this hottest country. So, as

long as he's doing all that, that's what

I want. I don't need any super accuracy

on the numbers. What difference would it

make to me?

So, but I think the world is getting

used to Trump now.

All right. Um, Marjorie Taylor Green got

a little quieter today. I don't know if

she was quieter or just the other news

stuff took over, but uh she's not too

happy that she's being called a traitor.

I think Trump called her Marjgery Trader

Green. That's pretty [clears throat]

rugged. Uh she says she fought for six

years and gave him uh her loyalty for

free.

Um

so yeah, I I do I do worry about that

relationship

in the sense that we don't want it to

affect us. But if I were Marjorie Taylor

Green, who I like by the way, um then

you should hope that maybe the next

president is a Republican,

whoever that is, and maybe it's someone

who wouldn't mind you in a cabinet

position that would give you some

serious power that was equ, you know,

equivalent and made sense for your

background and experience. But if she

goes to the cabinet

and just does a good job and comes out

the other side, I think we're all going

to be happy with her. And if she wanted

to run for some other office, president

would be tough. But if she wanted to run

for senator or something after that, I

think people would start feeling that

made sense. So she does have a path, but

probably maybe not through her the

normal course. So, I I hope her uh I

hope she stays in public life. I think

it would be Let Let me get a Let me get

a feel from you. Even if you hated

some of her recent opinions because they

were opposite of Trump's.

Don't you think she's uh an important

asset for the country and that we're

better off when she's in the fight? Even

if she's on the other side, we're just

better off when she's in the fight. The

same thing I say about Massie. Same

thing I say about Rand Paul.

Yeah. All right. I see some disagreement

and nothing wrong with that. We are

allowed to disagree on this podcast.

All right. I see your your comments.

Well, uh, the Trump DOE is going to give

Microsoft a 1 billion or Microsoft

partner $1 billion loan to restart Three

Mile Island.

How would you like to take on that?

you know, all all the uh big companies,

they rushed to, you know, grab a hold of

some kind of nuclear asset when they

knew they would need it for AI. And how

would you like to be the slowest one?

And by the time you get there, they

like, "All right, we're going to grab

some nuclear assets that didn't used to

be great, but we're going to, you know,

now people thinking about it

differently. They're not as anti-uclear.

So, we're going to take that nuclear

asset and we're going to turn it into

something valuable." Well, which one is

it? Well, we got there a little late.

Um, maybe the the recently closed

nuclear power plants, they they got

snatched up pretty quickly. Okay. Okay.

But which one did you get? Well, as I

said, a lot of the good ones were

snatched up right away.

Okay, you're not answering the question.

Which one did you get?

My Wait, what?

Three, three mile island. Three

mile island. Yeah, three mile island.

Never go less.

All right. Um,

and this story this story made me laugh.

So apparently there's a story about how

Jeffrey Epstein was unhappy with

Google's search engine optimization

uh because it kept surf surfacing

negative stories about him according to

the Verge. Mia Sato was writing about

this. Now,

weren't we supposed to believe that

Jeffrey Epstein was part of some, you

know, giant running the entire world,

you know, backdoor thing that uh he had

all the power of all the intelligence

agencies and he had, you know, unlimited

money and he couldn't get his SEO to

work [laughter]

and he didn't know who to call.

[laughter]

He's like allegedly we're thinking he's

the most powerful man in the world

between his blackmail and his money and

the contacts he has and the the most

powerful man in the world has exactly

the same problem you do which is I don't

think this search algorithm is right.

Who do I call there's nobody to call?

[laughter]

To me [clears throat] that's funny that

even Jeffrey Epstein had nobody to call

to fix this. Not that they would have

fixed it, but uh this problem just like

yours.

All right. And I guess uh now we know

George Soros gave a quarter million

dollars to some British group that was

working to censor conservative news

sites and kill kill Musk's ex. Chuck

Ross is writing about that. Well, yeah.

Yeah. All right. Here here's the uh the

last story in the news. There's nothing

to say about that except George Soros is

in fact trying to destroy free speech,

but only yours. Yeah. Not his.

Um,

so Chris Matthews was recently on

NewsNation with Leland Vit. News

Nation's doing a good job lately, by the

way. And uh, I saw it on a Jason Cohen

um, post. And uh

so what Chris Matthews says is that if

the political left um teams up with MS

Now, they used to be MSNBC, but MS Now

that uh their their audience will not be

able to elect them in any important

federal office. there's sort of a losing

it's a losing frame if they enter the

far-left frame and they they embrace the

things that MS now is embracing that

they'll just lose and it will split the

party and they'll all be in trouble and

he says Chris Matthews says this is a

problem and I look at them lining up and

when they make these statements I go

that's for MSNBC that's not for the

electorate and that's a problem

and it made me Think about where real

power lies.

Here, here's a little mental experiment,

a thought experiment. You ready? Thought

experiment.

All right.

What if the talent, you know, the on-air

talent of MS Now was way better than it

is?

What would happen? Just regular talent.

There there's nothing magic or special.

they're just way better at it. Well,

their audience would zoom because they

would be more entertaining and uh their

power in terms of their influence over

the electorate would go up probably in

roughly the same ratio as their

audience. So, who's running the country?

Who's running the country? If if Rachel

Matto could do better work and that

would cause a bigger audience and that

would cause him to have more power and

that would cause the MS now point of

view to get more

weight. Who's running the country? The

elected people or Rachel Maddo

right now let me take that to the other

side.

You know, as I've often said, that uh

the the producers for Fox News are so

much better than the producers for the

other shows

that it just jumps off the page. Now,

you'd have to be in the business as I am

to maybe even notice it, but they have

such better producers.

Now, how much power does that give to

Rupert Murdoch or Fox News just because

they're better at it? they can just put

it on a show that looks better, sounds

better, and then more people will watch

it. A lot. It gives them a lot of power.

So, even the producers,

the people you've never heard of, even

they have power more than you think. But

now, here's where it gets interesting.

If you're looking at Fox News, let's say

prime time where where everything

important happens. And you're looking

at, you know, Greg Guffeld's on Twice,

you know, he's on the five and then he's

on Guffeld. And uh you know, Jesse

Waters is on Twice. Uh I'm not sure

where Dana is now, but she I think she

has a second show. I may have lost track

of her other one. But you're talking

about the best people, in my opinion,

the best people in the business, and

they all happen to be in the same

network.

How much power does that give Fox News

simply because they have more talent in

their host lineup? Probably a lot.

Probably a lot. And we don't really

think of power that way, do we? We We

think of the people I'm talking about as

people who are talking about the power.

They're not the power, the people

talking about it. Are they? Are they

just the ones talking about it or are

they the ones who decide

by their by their quality of their

actions? How many people are going to

watch? And then if a lot of people

watch,

don't they have power?

Right. I'm watching your comments. you

get a little bit quiet when I when I

venture into new territory. But um yeah,

talent I would say that talent is the

invisible variable that people don't

necessarily recognize and call out, but

there's a specific

theme within talent. Let's see if you

can tell what it is. There's something

that Fox News hosts have

as a talent

that I don't believe anybody on MSNBC

has and maybe

I'm thinking nobody on CNN.

So So there's a talent, a specific

talent that you'll see on Fox News

hosts, several of them. I I'll name them

in a minute, but you'll see none of it

and the others. What's the talent? You

tell me. What talent do the Fox News

hosts have? It might be more than one,

but there's one I'm thinking of. The

answer is humor.

The answer is humor. If if you have not

discovered that Guffield and Waters are

hilarious and you haven't discovered

that if you you know throw in Kennedy

and you throw in Dana and you you know

throw in Emily compo

that you have this whole humor kind of a

structure that lives within the

structure of the show and it travels not

not to every show but it does travel

from show to show you know wherever one

of those character is you going to see

humor. Now, am I wrong?

As soon as you think about it, it

changes how you see the whole thing,

isn't it? The the Fox News people, and

again, [clears throat]

none of this happens unless you've got

the right producers. Because the

producers are the ones who say, you

know, do more of that, do less of that.

At least until the host is so

successful, they don't have to take

advice. [laughter] Eventually, that

happens. But am I wrong? I'm not wrong.

Right. So, the the humor talent

that apparently Fox News um either got

by luck, I don't think it was luck, I

think they got it by looking for it and

then finding it and promoting it. Um

obviously, if you look at the show

Gutfeld, obviously they were thinking of

humor. So, it's not like you snuck up on

them or something. They knew what they

were doing. So,

I don't think you want to overlook

the power of that part of their talent

stack and the fact that the the

competitors who don't seem to be in

their class, you could very easily

identify what they're missing. It's

humor. It's what they're missing.

[snorts] All right,

here's a story I don't believe. Uh Joe

Ha is reporting that Dominion voting

machines have been found to have phone

chips on their motherboards [laughter]

like you could just make a phone call to

your election machine. Now maybe

I I don't have evidence that it's not

true. But do you believe that we just

learned just learned that Dominion had

phone chips on all their motherboards?

That doesn't sound right, does it? So,

I'm gonna I'm gonna have to back uh

Dominion on this one so I don't get

sued. I'm going to say it doesn't strike

me as likely, and I don't see proof of

it. So, I'm going to say you better

bring a little bit more evidence than

that. And it's going to take something

like a demonstration of multiple boards

before you could ever convince me that

they were just sitting out there the

whole time with phone chips on them. and

we just now figured it out. There's

something wrong with that story.

All right. Uh, North Korean workers are

going to be making Russian drones

according to Matt Ha ha in the Long War

Journal. That's what they say. So,

that's the war. It's going to be a robot

war, mostly drones, and it's going to be

North Koreans pounding them out. and the

three remaining living Russians will be

flying them. I guess

uh Trump wants to have a unified federal

standards for AI so that all the states

don't have their own standards. Now, I

don't know much about this domain, but

doesn't it make sense that you would

just have federal standards and then

everybody could know what they've got?

They wouldn't have to worry about every

state having their own AI standard. Yes.

Um, but the reason I brought it up is

not because it's a good idea

probably. It's that for the first time I

feel that the administration understands

the topic.

Meaning that in the first Trump

administration,

maybe they had the right people to make

a decision like this. I don't know.

Certainly in the Biden administration, I

don't think they had the people who

could make this decision. But then you

fast forward into the current

administration and you've got your, you

know, David Sachs and I, you know, I

could go down the line. There are people

actually understand the domain.

So we're finally at a place where I

don't have to think about it. I just say

to myself, all right, who's in the

administration? This one, this one, this

one. Oh, they got that. Yeah. I'm not

going to I'm not going to tell Sachs

that he got it wrong. He obviously knows

more than I do about that domain. So, I

feel good about that, that we have the

right people in the right places.

All right. Um,

and the Trump administration, this feels

like it's happened so many times before.

Oh, no. This is funny. There's, uh,

apparently, according to Briana Mel, the

Biden regime was allowing illegal aliens

into the country who were convicted of

sex crimes.

Do you believe that the people

convicted, not just accused, but

convicted of sex crimes were allowed

into our country? But it gets better,

and by that I mean worse. What kind of

ID do you think they had to show if they

were a convicted sex offender and they

wanted to enter the country?

What What would be the burden of proof

on their ID? Turns out that the TSA

accepted the sex offender paperwork.

So if [clears throat] they had

documentation that proved they were

sexual offenders,

come right in.

And I think that's real. I mean, it

sounds like something fake, doesn't it?

It doesn't really doesn't sound like

it's real, but I feel like it might be

might be real.

All right. And the Trump administration

has plans to unveil the education

department. How many times have we done

that? I I feel like every month or so

there's a story that says, "Oh, and

we're going to dismantle the Department

of Education and then nothing happens

and a week month later we do it again."

But when they say dismantle it, what

they really mean is just take its

functions and put it in six other

places.

I'm not even sure if anything would

change except the names on the doors.

That's all I know. And ladies and

gentlemen, that is your show for the

day.

I believe I have uh

I've now I've now satisfied all your

needs. Does anybody have any needs that

are unsatisfied? You? You? No.

All right.

All right. I'm going to talk uh

privately to the beloved members of

Locals and the rest of you. I sure hope

to see you tomorrow,

same time, same place, and get your

Dilbert calendar if you have a chance

at Amazon.