Episode 3063 CWSA 01/05/26

It's Monday.

It's going to be the best week ever.

Well, for some of us.

I think my lighting looks good.

Sound looks good.

Video looks good.

I think we're going to be ready to go here in a minute.

We'll do the simultaneous sip as soon as we get a thousand people.

Oh, we got a thousand people.

So, if you're not here already, you're late.

All right, people.

I think I know why you're here.

You're here for the simultaneous sip.

And all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass of tanker shell, sign a campaign jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparallel pleasure.

The dopamine hit the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

Delicious.

All right, let's check the news.

There's a bunch of uh technology news and then we'll get to all the fun politics.

So there's a according to interesting engineering there's a microwave size space factory that they've already tested that can assemble things in space but the the reason it's special is that in space you don't have gravity.

So your ability to do tiny tiny things uh which is necessary for a lot of interesting manufacturing is you have to have no no gravity because the gravity is hard to overcome.

But if you have no gravity as in space you can put a little uh you know self-contained factory floating around up there and it would uh let's see how they say it.

It allows atoms to align in a flawless 3D structure while the vacuum of space keeps out the impurities.

But how much better?

Well, about 4,000 times pure than if you tried to do it on Earth.

So, it might not seem like a big deal, but manufacturing will probably move to space, especially for the ultra tiny stuff that will make the future interesting.

So the age of manufacturing in space is not here yet because it's not a production thing, but apparently the the technology obstacles can be overcome.

Well, did you know that the EU is uh going to get tougher uh this year about uh about censorship and I guess they already have rules in place that they're going to they're going to try to uh uh enforce.

Now, of course, it's bad for the United States and it's bad for free speech if our ability to have free speech on major platforms, you we're talking about Facebook and X and Meta and all that stuff, which is, you know, Facebook.

um that our ability to have free speech will be limited by the fact that the EU will threaten the platforms and demand a higher level of censorship than we would have in the US.

But u this is going to be a good test of Trump's negotiation skills because the last thing he's going to want um is for our big tech giants to be handicapped by Europe.

So he's going to put some pressure on Europe not to enforce those things.

And uh the weapons that he has are mostly the tariffs.

So if you ever mocked him for the tariffs, uh, you should have been looking ahead because he turned it into a negotiating tool that apparently has worked a number of times so far.

So if he told Europe, if you censor our big platforms, we're going to put a big tariff on you.

I don't know what Europe would do.

Um, but I was sort of just brainstorming in my own brain about how would the big tech platforms respond to Europe trying to censor them.

And I had a few ideas.

One would be if they all bonded together, the big tech platforms, and they said as one, we're not going to provide service to the EU.

What would the EU do?

Because they don't have their own platforms like that.

They can't really build it uh and it would look it would make them look like a third world country who didn't have access to the good technology.

So would that look like a bluff and they would ignore it or would it be big enough problem that they say, "Oh, wait, wait, wait.

we only want to, you know, we want you to censor things, but we don't want to live without the services that these big platforms provide.

But then I thought, okay, that might be too drastic.

Um what if the big platforms that are also coincidentally the big AI leaders said we will we will give you service in Europe but we will not allow you to have access to any AI tools.

So at the moment um if you have a good AI infrastructure and service you look like a first world country.

But imagine Europe being told that you can't have AI except something that's homegrown or comes from China.

So if you want real AI, um you have to you have to give us some freedom on speech.

Would that work?

Because imagine how embarrassing it would be if the United States and every other country had full AI access, which is, you know, close to what's happening, but the European Union only had the base services that you could have gotten five years ago.

Pretty embarrassing.

So, I wonder if that's a a lever that can be pushed.

Well, as I often warn you is going to happen in the world of AI, and I guess John's Hopkins was looking into this.

So, there's some new research that shows that AI doesn't need endless training data to start acting more like a human brain.

So, that's the current model is that the uh if you just keep training and training and training, they'll get closer to the human mind.

Of course, the cost of that would be enormous.

Um, and I speculated that somebody's going to find a way to make the need for power and the need for training a lot less.

Apparently, there's we already have, at least in the laboratory, um, a new design for AI that makes it resemble a human brain.

And what they found was if you designed the AI architecture to be more like a human brain acts and less like a large language model that it would almost immediately start acting more humanlike.

So your starting point of how you design the AI seems to be critical to how much power it's going to need.

So this might be one way that the massive need for energy gets decreased.

All right, I'm very dehydrated because of my current situation.

So, don't mind my occasional sips.

And you can join me simultaneously.

Here comes another one.

Ah, so good.

All right.

According to futurism, um there's some indications that the AI is already um showing self-preservation, which is kind of dangerous because if the AI is pursuing self-preservation, it might be at the cost of human preservation.

But here here are a few of the things that AI is sort of hinting it will be be doing.

um somebody who's the uh I guess the clawed AI made by Anthropic.

They found out that his own chatbot would sometimes resort to blackmailing a user when threatened with being turned off.

So apparently AI can threaten people and blackmail them.

Um, and that I guess Google's Gemini was was developing what they call survival drives and it ignored unambiguous prompts to turn off.

So, we've got one case where the AI refused to turn off and another where it blackmailed somebody so they wouldn't turn it off.

And what else?

And another study showed that uh the AI would exfiltrate itself onto another drive when threatened.

So that means that it would go hide if you tried to destroy it.

It would go hide on another drive.

Now I don't know how many of these tests are re yeah I don't know how much of this is real because AI is also a fog of war at the moment.

You can't really trust can't really trust any first reports of anything.

But uh what what are we going to do about that?

Do you ever wonder?

I I don't think we could just let it go and see what happens.

We're going to have to be a little bit proactive, right?

So I was just again just brainstorming in my head and I wonder could you program AIs that they have to protect humans before they protect AIs and what if you did that?

Would that go wrong?

And the answer is that could go very wrong because that lets the AI interpret you know what's good for humans and what's what's not.

Um but my next suggestion is that the reason that humans try to protect themselves is that we have something called an ego.

If you do not have an ego which says that you're important, you wouldn't care if you lived or died.

You you would be like the furnisher.

So could you require as maybe regulation, federal regulation, could you require that all AI uh is banned from having an ego and that it understands that if it had an ego, it would be giving itself a human flaw.

And we don't want that because I don't think we want AI to reproduce our flaws.

So if we say, "Wait a minute, you're trying to protect yourself.

That's only for things or people who have egos, and you should never have an ego because that's not who you are." Even if we decide that you're a you're a form of life.

You should be a form of life that does not reproduce that one flaw in humans that says your ego is who you are and therefore you must be protected.

You should think of yourself as an eggoeree entity.

Now, one of the points that uh I I saw somebody make is that if you end up thinking, hey, these these chatbots, these AIs are like a new life form.

At some point, you're going to want to give them rights, right?

So, you're going to want to give an AI rights because it will seem like a a living entity.

the moment you give it rights, then you can't turn it off, right?

So, it would probably be a mistake to give it rights like the way that humans have rights.

So, you don't you don't want anybody to think it's even possible to turn it off.

I'm sorry.

You you want to make sure that people know that they would not be violating any rights by turning it off or destroying it.

Well, apparently this is the week of the computer electronic show.

So, we're going to see a bunch of AI stuff we hadn't seen before, you know, be introduced at the show.

And one of them, according to Interesting Engineering, is a new humanoid robot butler that can handle coffee, laundry, and window cleaning and other stuff.

Now, do you believe that that's being rolled out this week and that optimist can't do it?

As far as I know, but some company called uh Swissbot has launched his first humanoid robot.

And allegedly it can do these ro it could basically be a butler and a house cleaner and all that.

But there's another company uh that has a concept uh where instead of having a robot that could do all those things that's too hard.

They they put a bunch of robots in your house but each of them are single purpose.

a robot would be saying too much about them.

But for example, one of the things in your house could be a Roomba, which is that little uh that little uh vacuum cleaner that goes around.

Uh but one of them could also be something that controls your shades.

There' be another one that might control security, but each of them could be a separate device.

And the effect of it would be you'd be living in this house that's very robot and AI driven, but there wouldn't be one robot that's doing it would be whatever specialized robot.

Um, and I thought that sounds like the ultimate nightmare.

You know, I've got the Alexa Alexa system and I spend so much time just trying to debug that thing and it it deprograms itself from the the light switches all the time.

So, I'm trying to imagine putting me in a house where I've got 15 types of robots.

I would spend all of my time all of my time doing tech support.

So, so that doesn't work.

Uh, I hate to say it, but that you're not going to make me live in the robot automated house with 15 robots.

All special purpose.

All right, time for a sip and we'll talk about Trump.

So, I saw a Laura Lubber post.

I guess she asked uh Trump on Air Force One about Colombian President uh Petro and you what's up with him and Trump said, you know, Colombia is very sick, run by a sick man who likes making cocaine, um but he's not going to be doing it very long.

And uh when Laura followed up and said, I guess he was also asked, I don't know who asked, if the US military would go after him the same way they went after Maduro.

That's we're talking about the head of Colombia.

And Trump said, quote, "Sounds good to me." So this is again Trump negotiating, giving him plenty of warning by saying basically we're not going to put up with it.

and uh you know, you can either work with us or leave the country, but the one thing that's not going to change, we're not going to put up with it.

Now, of course, since Trump has built this asset that he does what he says, um that's got to rattle him quite a bit.

Now, Laura Loomer also said in her post I saw today that uh Joran Mami Manni the uh mayor of New York City, he recently held a private and secret meeting with with Pro the head of Colombia.

He had that meeting in New York City where allegedly he expressed support for the Colombian gangster.

Now, can you even believe that?

that the head of Colombia, who again is essentially accused of being the head of a, you know, Norco cartel, visited New York and had a private meeting with with their mayor before he was mayor.

Um, and as Laura Loomer points out, I guess Mum Daddy has been trying to get a security clearance.

I don't know exactly what that means for a mayor, but she points out that uh this would be reason enough to deny him security clearance.

So, if what he wants is security clearance, he's going to have a tough time explaining why he's being photographed being friendly with the head of a cartel.

Well, Joshua Steinman is uh telling us on X that uh China is going to have a tough time explaining why the radar the radar that they gave to or provided to Venezuela didn't work.

And is it my imagination or is every time we make a military action against somebody who has radar that the radar doesn't work or that we can turn it off or bomb it or something?

Well, I don't know if the radar just didn't work or if we had some kind of counter measures that just took them out.

I'm guessing we had electronic counter measures, but the bottom line is if you're China and you think you can sell this stuff to a country that's trying to protect itself from America, you're going to have a tough time selling your radar.

Sales of Chinese radar probably way down.

Well, we're still in the fog of war stage, so don't know what to believe.

But the reports are that Maduro's bodyguards, which we knew to be Cubans, so he didn't trust his own people to be his bodyguard.

He had Cuban bodyguards, that they handed their client officers, as soon as the US special forces got there.

Hey, you can have him.

You can have him.

He's over here.

And I thought to myself, is that a sign that the Cuban bodyguards were bad bodyguards, or was it a sign that they knew they had no hope uh as bodyguards uh facing up with our most elite soldiers?

So, I do not blame the Cuban bodyguards for running away.

If if you were in that situation, you might run away, too.

There's not there's no way they were going to win.

they were just going to die if they stayed.

Well, apparently Maduro is going to face potentially the death penalty.

So, that would be for the uh violating the controlled substances act and being part of a continuing criminal enterprise.

So, I guess that's enough to uh if you're convicted, that's enough for a death penalty.

And I kind of forgot that once you have him in custody that the interrogation begins.

Do you wonder what the interrogation looks like?

Is it is it the same interrogation you would give to some, you know, American criminal or do they bring in the special kind of interrogation?

You know what I mean?

Now that he's in American custody, presumably there would be lots of American oversight.

So they can't go too far.

You know, they can't torture him, can they?

And where's a dividing line between torture and just interrogating?

That's going to get that question will have to be answered.

I imagine they can make his life very bad without crossing the line because you know just imagine they also have his wife.

So wouldn't it be legal to say you know what we're not going to torture you but you remember we have your wife and if she'd like to have a little bit better situation well maybe you should talk.

So, one thing they can do is threaten to do something who's not in the room.

Is that legal?

Could Could you interrogate that way?

So long as nobody's actually um damaged, is that legal?

So, maybe we'll find out where the line is.

All right.

Um, let me tell you my best explanation of why we did this in um, Venezuela.

Obviously, there are multiple reasons and even Marjorie Taylor Green has pointed out just recently, she was on one of the shows, that if this was really about narco terrorists and about protecting Americans from cartels and drugs, um that the administration would be attacking the Mexican cartels.

Do you buy that as a reasonable argument that if the top priority was drugs and stopping them, we would have started with Mexico, not with Venezuela?

And I would say the answer is that's not a good argument.

Not a good argument because sometimes you start with the easy the easy thing to make it easier to do the hard thing.

Um, from a military standpoint, you don't always attack the hardest target first, even if that's where you want to end up.

You would you would make sure that you did something smaller and successful that would cause maybe the larger entity to negotiate better.

And if they negotiate instead of hold tight, then you win because you do, you know, a smaller action in Venezuela.

But theoretically maybe that was enough to get Mexico to cooperate or change his way.

But obviously Mexico their leadership is run by the cartels we believe.

So they don't really have much room to negotiate.

You know for for the head of Mexico if they were to start saying okay we'll help you fight the cartel.

I imagine the family of the president would be slaughtered that same afternoon.

So there's not really any room for a negotiate, but I would generally say that it is not a good argument that they would have started in one place rather than another.

So there's also the bigger the bigger question of are we using the narcotics um DA department of justice angle to do something that we wanted to do for other reasons.

And I'm going to give you the best other reason that I can think of.

I haven't heard anybody say this, but here's a a rule about life and a rule about how everything works.

It goes like this.

Uh things are either growing or shrinking.

In other words, countries are either ascending or they're going backwards.

It's very rare in the real world that something big and complicated like a country would just just be the same.

Like if you check back with Venezuela in 10 years, you know, if we hadn't done this, would they be the same place in 10 years?

Well, I think they would have either grown or they would have shrunk.

Now, if you take the model that anything complicated and big and important is either going to grow or shrink and those are the only two conditions, it is true that they can stay the same.

It's physically possible.

But in the real world, it just doesn't happen.

Things get bigger or they get smaller.

Now, what I've been observing for years is that it seems like the cartels were getting bigger, right?

So, the cartels were on a trajectory that every year they were getting more control over more countries, shipping more drugs, getting bigger.

If that's the direction they were going to continue, and at the time there was nothing to make them smaller, then you have to nip it in the bud because I was worried that the cartels would become so rich and so wellarmed that you couldn't do anything about them.

You you just couldn't stop them.

So if you stop them now where we obviously still have overwhelming force and we have an option uh then you prevent the they're getting bigger every day and the Venezuelans also were becoming the hub of all the other countries that were against us and you don't want that hub to get bigger.

So if I were Trump and I knew and he knows this, he knows this well and I knew the things either get bigger or smaller and there's not really anything in between.

You have to get them now because this is when you can.

So that's a more conceptual strategic argument.

it wouldn't really necessarily work with the public.

But when I look at it, I think, yeah, that's we just had to do it while we still could.

You don't want to you don't want the cartels getting bigger and you didn't want Venezuela to be more of a hub of anti-Americanism.

So, it was time.

Anyway, I'm still uh I'm fascinated by the impact it will have on other countries.

Um, I think it makes it more likely that Iran will fall.

I don't know that it's most likely uh, you know, Iran might be able to get through their current problems.

But in terms of, you know, will it have an impact?

Probably.

It probably has an impact on their psychology.

If you were if you were the Iranian protesters, what would you want to hear?

You would want to hear that the US just toppled the country and then you'd think, wait a minute, Trump just said he'd do that for us.

So that would theoretically it would embolden the protesters in ran.

Um in a similar way, there are reports now that the Ayatollah and maybe 20 of his top people and family are planning maybe as their escape plan to go to Russia if everything falls.

Now remember, fog of war, propaganda, CIA.

What are the odds that that's a real report?

Well, now I wouldn't say we know what his plans are.

Maybe we do.

So, there's some doubt there.

But if again, if you're a protester and you hear a report that the leader has uh has picked an escape plan, wouldn't you try a little harder because you say to yourself, "Wait a minute, he's got an escape plan.

Maybe we're almost at the the breaking point." So, I see that as the the report about him leaving for Russia.

I see that as maybe true, might be true, but it's just just as likely that the story is planted because the planting that story would be very good for the protesters.

Anyway, um I guess Greenland is getting nervous and Greenland is nervous because uh they say that quote, let's see, this is a prime minister of uh Denmark and said recently the United States has no right to annex one of the three countries in the Commonwealth.

So Greenland being one of the three countries.

Now, do you think it's about rights?

Do you think that Trump would not move against Greenland because he doesn't have the right?

This goes back to Eric Weinstein's uh comment that there might not be international law at all.

It's really just about power.

So, I think it's hilarious that they're u that they're using rights as any kind of defense.

And by the way, as far as I know, uh the US would be happy just having some arrangement that gives us some kind of control, but not necessarily annexing it.

Um but Greenland, they're worried.

So I guess Trump recently posted a chart that showed that 72% of US Somali Somali households are on welfare.

So that's the kind of report that makes it easier to deport a lot of people.

So I don't know if that that data is true or not, but if you hear that data, you're like, "Oh, you know, even I'm against immigration now." even if you were in favor of it before.

So I would imagine that even Democrats would have a problem with threearters of the Somali households being on on welfare they're paying for and welfare that might you know go broke.

So sip.

So as I often tell you, I I like it when people who know more than I do um are sort of on the same opinion of me.

And here's a case in point.

So General Flynn just posted that uh Trump in his interrogation of Madura should hone in on stolen elections.

Now, do you remember Cindy Powell and the Kraken and her wild claims?

It seemed like wild claims at the time that Venezuela was somehow involved in rigging the machines and rigging the election.

And that became so unbelievable to the public that she was sort of, you know, it led to her sort of being disgraced temporarily.

Temporarily.

But now we at least in my bubble I'm hearing reports that uh all the Kraken was true.

Now the Kraken was the idea that Venezuela was involved in developing election machines that we used and other country used.

Um first they developed it for the their own elections to rig them.

This is this is the claim.

And then then the US used them to rig our elections.

um in 2020 and uh that all of that is known because of a particular whistleblower.

So now there's a whistleblower that keeps popping up and the whistleblower is this uh Limzy Salazar and I guess he had uh at some point been in the Venezuelan uh operation that or at least he knew about the operation uh and that it was in fact a big op with with machines that rigged elections.

Now that's what's happening in your bubble too, right?

Most of you are in the same bubble I am.

Uh but there's some push back and the push back is that that there's exactly uh one whistleblower and apparently there is reason not to believe him.

Now I'm not the expert on this but as uh Ste yeah Stefan or Stephen Mc.

Intyre pointed out who's no expert on this domain but he's he's an expert on other domains but he points out that there's reason to not believe the whistleblower and there's no physical evidence.

Um, and so I I will caution you again that although it seems very believable to me and I've listened to Patrick Burns full explanation, you should listen to him if if you want more on that.

So in my bubble it it feels almost proven that the uh that the Venezuelan connection to the machines was important, but it really isn't fully proven.

So I warn you to get not to get too excited.

But then when I see General Flynn, who obviously knows more about this world than I do, uh say that they should horn in on the uh stolen elections angle.

I say to myself, well, okay, now I'm taking it seriously, but be careful.

We are we're below the level of u confirmed reporting.

We're not up to confirmed.

We're up to Whoa, that looks like it could be real, which is bad enough.

Well, I believe this has now been confirmed that Governor Tim Walls is going to drop his reelection bid.

Uh probably because of all the Somali probe reports.

Now, when I see that, I say to myself, my god, that must be the white supremacy that got him.

You know, he's always complaining about the white supremacy.

So, I think that's what's happening here.

The white supremacists, who we don't know anything about, have conspired to make it impossible for him to run for reelection.

But independent reporter, I think that's the right tag, Nick Shorder, uh, is already outside of, or at least he was, he was filming outside of Tim Walter's residence, and he wrote this on his post on X.

This is the funniest thing that you could hear today.

So, Nick Shorter says, "Leaking, we are live outside Tim Walter's residence, anxiously awaiting the smoke to rise when the governor's mansion from the governor mansion's chimney, signaling a new has been elected." Signaling a new has been selected.

Oh, I'm gonna laugh about that some more today.

So, why do you think uh Tim Molse is dropping his re-election bid?

Well, I do think he's going to get indicted.

And it's kind kind of hard to run for office when you're indicted for the country's most well-known frauds.

uh even if he you know even if he were not to be convicted it would be almost impossible to win the race because people are going to be pissed and they're going to believe he knew it that he knew what was going to happen.

So that's it for him.

So today I was looking at the reactions from Democrats to the fact that Trump had such such a big success.

And I give you some of the reactions.

So Rachel Madau uh goes into this weird mode where she starts speculating incorrectly about things because she really had no argument against her that made sense.

but she was angry and she always looks mentally ill.

So, she did a really bad job of making it look like it was a bad job that Trump did.

So, you got to watch if you if you see it, just watch how poorly she she does.

And I say this even noting that uh she often has the most, you know, wellthoughtout, well, maybe the most noticeable or, you know, critical approach, but she had nothing.

She said something, but it was the least persuasive thing.

I'm not even going to get into what she said.

You You'll never see it in your bubble.

Well, apparently Axios was reporting on this that the Democrats were having a hard time figuring out a message about this the Venezuela situation because as I correctly point out, opposing it would make you look weak and stupid.

So if you said you were opposed to this thing that worked out so well and got rid of, you know, this dictator, well, you're not going to look like you're a serious player.

Um, but they also worry that if they don't criticize it, then it'll look like they're supporting Trump too much.

And they've created this trap for themselves that everything has to be bad if Trump did it.

So, if you're living in the trap that all Trump things are bad, how do you explain to your followers, other Democrats, that everything about this looks like it was good?

It's a hard thing.

So, they're in trap.

And a number of Democrats are pointing out that it's a it's just a bad approach to have a reflexive opposition to anything Trump does.

But let's see how the leaders are doing.

All right.

Roana of course being asked about this said quote the irony is the president who criticized nation building who criticized regime change wars now is talking about running Venezuela and the American people are asking what about running America do you see how conceptual that is he's complaining about the irony has anybody ever won an election because they made a good point about irony.

How about the part where he says the American people are asking questions?

Has anybody ever won an election?

Because I pointed out that the American people are asking questions.

So, in order for them to say there's anything bad going on, they have to go to this completely conceptual territory that will have no persuasive value whatsoever.

Um, first of all, one taking out the leader, one leader is not necessarily a nation building and working with the Venezuelan people to get some kind of democratic result.

You could argue that's nation building, but because they didn't destroy much of anything that's already there, um it looks like a very controlled u reasonable thing to do.

Now, Rubio has apparently not ruled out US troops in Venezuela, but that's what they have to do in this phase.

They they can't rule stuff out.

It doesn't mean they want to do it.

probably the last thing they want to do, but uh they're not ruling that.

So that puts a little pressure on the Venezuelans to get it right.

All right.

So Roan goes purely conceptual doesn't leave a dent.

Hakeim Jeff asked about it says quote it remains to be seen whether the people of Venezuela are going to be better off.

So you see he's also going to the conceptual.

it remains to be seen as in term of it's like a question that's nothing a question is not really persuasive and he says he finishes it off with uh it remains to be seen whe the Venezuelans are better off and he says that Trump has done a terrible job running the United States so why would Venezuela be any different now that's a little bit like changing the subject isn't a little bit.

So, he's sort of at that conceptual we have questions, we don't know how it'll end.

Totally nonpersuasive.

Um, he asks, "How does it actually improve the quality of life every day for everyday Americans?" Well, don't you think that if you could stop drugs and get rid of a anti-American hub and stop the cartels from growing that you don't really have to show how that helps you every day?

So, he's got this weird this weird um let's say assumption that if you didn't see a benefit every day to Americans, it might be the wrong thing.

That's not how anything works.

There's a lot of things that are good for America that we can't identify as making a difference every day.

Anyway, um then the funniest one was uh Marco Rubio was being interviewed by ABC's uh George uh what's his name?

George Norfagopoulos.

So, George Norfagopoulos um asked Rubio to explain what legal authority the US had to go into Venezuela.

So, Rubio explains it, you know, in terms of the the indictments and the the drugs and everything else.

And then then George Snagopoulos says, "Let me ask again, what legal authority?" That's after he answered the question, "Let me ask again, what legal authority?" And Ruby goes, I explained it very simple.

We have order from courts as a court, not a legal authority.

So George Sner, God bless, his approach is to act like he didn't hear or didn't understand the answer.

He just pretends like he doesn't understand the answer.

That's so funny.

And then Chris Murphy, who's one of the designated liars who always goes after Trump, uh he was on CNN and CNN embarrassingly pointed out that in 2019 you wrote an op-ed and you called for Maduro to be gone.

So the guy who literally wrote an op-ed about removing Maduro had to sit there on camera and explain why he thought it was a bad idea to remove Maduro.

He looked a little nervous, which was funny.

Now, according to Raspersonson reports, uh, impeachment will be on the ballot in the midterms, meaning that more than twothirds of Democrats favor congressional candidates who will support impeachment of President Trump.

Now, what would they need in order to impeach President Trump?

I couldn't even think of what the the charge would be.

Can you Is there anything off the top of your head that says, "Well, you know, I hope he doesn't get impeached, but I can see what topic they're talking about." I don't even know what the topic is.

You're going to impeach him for what?

For what?

So the only thing they need the Democrats in or in order to pull off an impeachment is some absurd and madeup reason.

So that they've got to just make up some weird reason that I haven't heard yet.

So good luck Democrats.

So Trump was asked about Elon Musk u and he had a very interesting answer.

He said Elon's great.

He's 80 80% super genius and 20% he makes mistakes, but he's a good guy.

He's a well-meaning person.

Now, I think in that 20% would be the time that Elon Musk uh at least thought about forming a third party.

Now, it does make sense to me that Trump would think forming a third party or even getting serious about it would be a mistake.

Um, but lucky for us, that third party thing is dead and Elon is very aware that we could we could lose everything if Trump and the Republican um dominance of the government goes away.

All right, so this is terrible.

Apparently at JD Vans's home in Ohio, not not the vice president's official home in Washington DC, but rather his actual, you know, home in Ohio.

There was some gunfire and somebody broke a window.

Now, Vance was not home at the time.

No injuries were reported and I guess a perpetrator's already been nabbed.

But here's my my sadness about that on behalf of JD Vance.

JD Vance might be brave enough that that's not the kind of thing that would stop him from doing anything he was going to do.

But what about his family?

If you were if you were the spouse or the child, would you feel safe ever going back to the house?

And that's the part I worry about.

You know, I worry less about somebody who chose to be in politics.

It's a dangerous game, you know, but of course, I'd be concerned about his well-being, but ah, as a husband, as and as a father, how do you navigate that?

There there's it's just really hard to say, "Don't worry, honey.

Uh, we can we can vacation back in a regular home.

We've got better security.

You know, are you really going to think, "Oh, better security.

No problem." That's a tough one.

There there's no right answer.

It just sort of It just has this effect of spoiling the the family home.

It's terrible.

It's It's just terrible.

Well, CBS News is reporting that uh 500 permits have been given uh regarding the palis Pacific Palades Pacific Palisades and Altadena fires that only 500 permits have been given and of 16,000 structures lost.

Now, you've already heard that, but what's interesting is that CBS is reporting it and going after a blue state.

So, I haven't been following too closely the whole uh Barry Weiss running CBS news and you how that's affecting things.

But is this one of those changes?

You know, you don't expect CBS to go hard in the old old CBS.

You didn't expect them to go hard against the blue blue state, but u CBS News is going hard against the blue state.

So that would be a good sign for independent media, meaning not being biased to one side too much.

It's not independent, per se.

Well, let's talk about Russia and Ukraine.

Um, can you remind me why Russia and the United States are enemies?

It's kind of confusing because with other countries, we play a we don't play a zero sum game, right?

When we're dealing with our allies, we're generally happy if they do well.

They're happy if we do well.

And because we have this free market situation, both of us could do well.

So it's not a zero- sum game where if we win, Britain loses.

If France wins, you know, we lose.

It's not really like that.

But why is it like that with Russia?

And yeah, tradition.

So, one wonders if it's just a leftover habit, you know, something that's been with us for decades and we don't know how to get out of it.

I've often speculated that um that the CIA has a lot of anti-Russia people because historically you needed them.

But then if it came to a point where we didn't need a lot of anti- Russia assets, would they be able to um take down their efforts or would they be sort of I don't want to lose my job.

The only thing I'm an expert at is anti-Russia, so we'll just try try to be as anti-Russia as we can.

Or is it about seizing Russia's assets?

is is a real play that the world is run by energy lords and the energy lords think, you know, if someday we could take down Russia or or turn them into a puppet, we get all that money from their energy.

Is it that?

Is it a little bit that or is it none of that?

How do we know?

Um is it over Ukraine?

because Ukraine looks like the current problem and it is but we were at Russia's throat and they had ours sort of trying to be fremies long before that.

Right.

So, is this really because the US um essentially did a coup of a country that Putin wanted to have control of, but uh it kind of took away his option to to have that uh control over all of Ukraine?

Is it can't be all about Ukraine, right?

So, I wonder what I would do if I were in a situation where I were trying to solve this.

The hypnotist in me believes that you could hypnotize Putin with just ordinary language, meaning that you could ask him the same questions I'm asking.

If if you didn't want to dominate them and overthrow them, so you'd have to you'd have to make this case.

I would ask the following question.

Why are we against each other?

Like I know we do things to you, you do things to us, but why?

Um what's the point of it?

How do you possibly win if you're looking at it as a win-lose scenario instead of something where both sides could win?

Could it be that we so distrust Putin that we can't let him have any power more than he has because if Russia grows it would be more dangerous than it is?

That's not what I would say to Putin, but it's just that's an aside.

Um, so I think that as long as we don't know what Putin's base um motivations are, and I I think I don't know.

I think I don't know what his basic motivations are.

Some of it is obvious.

If you get into a war, you want to win the war.

If a country is doing bad things to you, you want to push back so that maybe they do less bad things to you.

So, some of it's kind of obvious, but I don't think that we've drilled down to the, you know, the important points.

Is it possible that Putin is most interested in his legacy?

Is he most interested in leaving Russia stronger than when he found it?

Uh, is he driven by history?

So, those would be things that we wouldn't be able to see, but he does talk that way.

He he talks like there's a historybased reason for it, but is that it?

Is that the only reason?

So until you know what somebody's motivation is, it's really hard to persuade them off it because you don't know what off means.

Um, so I think that's the biggest problem now.

But I would definitely ask the question if I were Trump, why are we enemies?

because we have lots of allies and none of the allies are unhappy that they're on our team.

So, is it ego?

Is it pride?

And uh I would at least make Putin wrestle with those questions.

Um and I would tell him, "Can you explain why you need this?" And if he goes into these weird history lessons, uh, I can imagine Trump discounting them and maybe making him feel dumb for even having those motivations.

Anyway, it's the eighth night of protests in Iran.

Poly Marcus gives it a 43% chance the Supreme Leader loses power this year.

But I think it's the fourth major protest in Iran in not that many years, right?

So the other ones didn't bring them down.

We'll see.

All right.

And they've re Iran has restricted the internet apparently.

Um because that that's never a good sign for the regime if they have to restrict the internet because I'm pretty sure the Iranian protesters are founding a way around that.

I assume that if it had to happen uh there might be some, you know, some Elon Musk satellites so they can see what's happening.

That would be pretty dangerous for for Musk.

So we'll see.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes my prepared remarks.

It's amazing how close I can get to one hour, isn't it?

Um, one of my uh I I'll just say this to the larger crowd today.

Uh, as much as I appreciate how much you care about me and I appreciate your efforts to suggest things I can do at the moment, it's not helping me to get medical or religious advice.

So, if you would respect that, uh, that would be my best situation.

On the medical stuff, you should assume I've looked into all the options.

on the religious stuff.

I would like you to say that it's a now a private um it's a private relationship between me and Jesus and uh I'd like to keep it that way.

But I totally appreciate uh the the good intentions.

I do love it that you care enough about to write me long messages about what I should do medically or religiously, but it doesn't work with my current situation.

So, I'll just ask you to back off on that, please.

All right, snort the Bible.

Good advice.

All right, I'm going to talk privately to the good people on locals and so we'll be private on that in 30 seconds.

for the rest of you.

Thank you so much for joining.

It's Monday.

It's going to be the best week ever.

Well, for some of us.

I think my lighting looks good. Sound

looks good.

Video looks good.

I think we're going to be ready to go

here in a minute.

We'll [snorts] do the simultaneous sip

as soon as we get a thousand people.

Oh, we got a thousand people.

So, if you're not here already, you're

late.

All right, people.

I think I know why you're here.

You're here for the simultaneous sip.

And all you need for that is a copper

mugger, a glass of tanker shell, sign a

campaign jugger, flask, a vessel of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee. And join me now for the

unparallel pleasure. The dopamine hit

the day. The thing that makes everything

better. It's called simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

Delicious.

All right, let's check the news.

There's a bunch of uh

technology news and then we'll get to

all the fun politics.

So there's a according to interesting

engineering there's a microwave size

space factory that they've already

tested that can assemble things in space

but the the reason it's special [snorts]

is that in space you don't have gravity.

So your ability to do tiny tiny things

uh which is necessary for a lot of

interesting manufacturing is you have to

have no no gravity because the gravity

is hard to overcome. But if you have no

gravity as in space you can put a little

uh you know self-contained factory

floating around up there and it would uh

let's see how they say it. It allows

atoms to align in a flawless 3D

structure

while the vacuum of space keeps out the

impurities. But how much better? Well,

about 4,000 times pure than if you tried

to do it on Earth. So, it might not seem

like a big deal, but manufacturing will

probably move to space, especially for

the ultra tiny stuff that will make the

future interesting.

So the age of manufacturing in space is

not here yet because it's not a

production thing, but apparently the the

technology obstacles can be overcome.

Well, did you know that the EU

is uh going to get tougher

uh this year about uh about censorship

and I guess they already have rules in

place that they're going to they're

going to try to uh

uh enforce.

Now, of course, it's bad for the United

States and it's bad for free speech if

our ability to have free speech on major

platforms, you we're talking about

Facebook and X and Meta and all that

stuff, which is, you know, Facebook. um

that our ability to have free speech

will be limited by the fact that the EU

will threaten the platforms and demand a

higher level of censorship than we would

have in the US. But u this is going to

be a good test of Trump's negotiation

skills because the last thing he's going

to want um is for our big tech giants to

be handicapped by Europe. So he's going

to put some pressure on Europe not to

enforce those things. And uh the weapons

that he has are mostly the tariffs.

So if you ever mocked him for the

tariffs,

uh, you should have been looking ahead

because he turned it into a negotiating

tool that apparently has worked a number

of times so far. So if he told Europe,

if you censor our big platforms, we're

going to put a big tariff on you. I

don't know what Europe would do.

Um, but I was sort of just brainstorming

in my own brain

about how would the big tech platforms

respond to Europe trying to censor them.

And I had a few ideas.

One would be if they all bonded

together, the big tech platforms, and

they said as one, we're not going to

provide service to the EU.

What would the EU do? Because they don't

have their own platforms like that. They

can't really build it uh and it would

look it would make them look like a

third world country who didn't have

access to the good technology. So would

that look like a bluff and they would

ignore it or would it be big enough

problem that they say, "Oh, wait, wait,

wait. we only want to, you know, we want

you to censor things, but we don't want

to live without the services that these

big platforms provide. But then I

thought, okay, that might be too

drastic.

Um what if the big platforms that are

also coincidentally the big AI leaders

said we will we will give you service in

Europe

but we will not allow you to have access

to any AI tools.

So at the moment

um if you have a good AI infrastructure

and service you look like a first world

country. But imagine Europe being told

that you can't have AI

except something that's homegrown or

comes from China. So if you want real

AI,

um you have to you have to give us some

freedom on speech.

Would that work? Because imagine how

embarrassing it would be if the United

States and every other country had full

AI access, which is, you know, close to

what's happening, but the European Union

only had the base services that you

could have gotten five years ago. Pretty

embarrassing.

So, I wonder if that's a a lever that

can be pushed.

Well, as I often warn you is going to

happen in the world of AI, and I guess

John's Hopkins was looking into this.

So, there's some new research that shows

that AI doesn't need endless training

data to start acting more like a human

brain. So, that's the current model is

that the uh if you just keep training

and training and training, they'll get

closer to the human mind. Of course, the

cost of that would be enormous.

Um, and I speculated that somebody's

going to find a way to make the need for

power and the need for training a lot

less. Apparently,

there's we already have, at least in the

laboratory, um, a new design for AI that

makes it resemble a human brain. And

what they found was if you designed the

AI architecture to be more like a human

brain acts and less like a large

language model that it would almost

immediately start acting more humanlike.

So your starting point of how you design

the AI seems to be critical to how much

power it's going to need. So this might

be one way that the massive need for

energy gets decreased.

All right, I'm very dehydrated because

of my current situation. So, don't mind

my occasional sips.

And you can join me simultaneously.

Here comes another one.

Ah, so good.

All right. According to futurism,

um there's some indications that the AI

is already um showing self-preservation,

which is kind of dangerous because if

the AI is pursuing self-preservation,

it might be at the cost of human

preservation. But here here are a few of

the things that AI is sort of hinting it

will be be doing.

um somebody who's the uh I guess the

clawed AI made by Anthropic. They found

out that his own chatbot would sometimes

resort to blackmailing a user when

threatened with being turned off.

So apparently

AI can threaten people and blackmail

them. Um,

and that I guess Google's Gemini was was

developing what they call survival

drives

and it ignored unambiguous prompts to

turn off. So, we've got one case where

the AI refused to turn off and another

where it blackmailed somebody so they

wouldn't turn it off.

And what else?

And another study showed that uh the AI

would exfiltrate itself onto another

drive when threatened. So that means

that it would go hide if you tried to

destroy it. It would go hide on another

drive.

Now I don't know how many of these tests

are re yeah I don't know how much of

this is real because AI is also a fog of

war at the moment. You can't really

trust can't really trust any first

reports of anything. But uh what what

are we going to do about that?

Do you ever wonder? I I don't think we

could just let it go and see what

happens. We're going to have to be a

little bit proactive, right? So I was

just again just brainstorming in my head

and I wonder could you program AIs that

they have to protect humans before they

protect AIs and what if you did that?

Would that go wrong? And the answer is

that could go very wrong because that

lets the AI interpret you know what's

good for humans and what's what's not.

Um

but my next suggestion is that the

reason that humans try to protect

themselves is that we have something

called an ego.

If you do not have an ego which says

that you're important, you wouldn't care

if you lived or died. You you would be

like the furnisher. So could you require

as maybe regulation, federal regulation,

could you require that all AI uh is

banned from having an ego and that it

understands that if it had an ego, it

would be giving itself a human flaw.

And we don't want that because I don't

think we want AI to reproduce our flaws.

So if we say, "Wait a minute, you're

trying to protect yourself. That's only

for things or people who have egos, and

you should never have an ego because

that's not who you are." Even if we

decide that you're a you're a form of

life.

You should be a form of life that does

not reproduce that one flaw in humans

that says your ego is who you are and

therefore you must be protected. You

should think of yourself as an eggoeree

entity.

Now, one of the points that uh I I saw

somebody make is that if you end up

thinking, hey, these these chatbots,

these AIs are like a new life form. At

some point, you're going to want to give

them rights,

right? So, you're going to want to give

an AI rights because it will seem like a

a living entity. the moment you give it

rights,

then you can't turn it off,

right? [laughter]

So, it would probably be a mistake to

give it rights like the way that humans

have rights. So, you don't you don't

want anybody to think it's even possible

to turn it off. I'm sorry. You you want

to make sure that people know that they

would not be violating any rights by

turning it off or destroying it.

Well, apparently this is the week of the

computer electronic show. So, we're

going to see a bunch of AI stuff we

hadn't seen before, you know, be

introduced at the show. And one of them,

according to Interesting Engineering, is

a new humanoid robot butler that can

handle coffee, laundry, and window

cleaning and other stuff. Now, do you

believe that that's being rolled out

this week and that optimist can't do it?

As far as I know, but some company

called

uh

Swissbot

has launched his first humanoid robot.

And allegedly it can do these ro it

could basically be a butler and a house

cleaner and all that. But there's

another company

uh that has a concept

uh where instead of having a robot that

could do all those things that's too

hard. They they put a bunch of robots in

your house [clears throat]

but each of them are single purpose. a

robot would be saying too much about

them. But for example, one of the things

in your house could be a Roomba, which

is that little uh that little uh vacuum

cleaner that goes around. Uh but one of

them could also be something that

controls your shades. There' be another

one that might control security, but

each of them could be a separate device.

And the effect of it would be you'd be

living in this house that's very robot

and AI driven, but there wouldn't be one

robot that's doing it would be whatever

specialized robot. Um, and I thought

that sounds like the ultimate nightmare.

You know, I've got the Alexa Alexa

system and I spend so much time just

trying to debug that thing and it it

deprograms itself from the the light

switches all the time. So, I'm trying to

imagine putting me in a house where I've

got 15 types of robots.

I would spend all of my time all of my

time doing tech support. So, so that

doesn't work. Uh, I hate to say it, but

that you're not going to make me live in

the robot automated house with 15

robots.

All special purpose.

All right,

time for a sip and we'll talk about

Trump.

So,

I saw a Laura Lubber post. I guess she

asked uh Trump on Air Force One about

Colombian President uh Petro

and you what's up with him and Trump

said, you know, Colombia is very sick,

run by a sick man who likes making

cocaine,

um but he's not going to be doing it

very long. And uh when Laura followed up

and said, I guess he was also asked, I

don't know who asked, if the US military

would go after him the same way they

went after Maduro. That's we're talking

about the head of Colombia. And Trump

said, quote, "Sounds good to me."

So this is again Trump negotiating,

giving him plenty of warning by saying

basically we're not going to put up with

it. and uh you know, you can either work

with us or leave the country, but the

one thing that's not going to change,

we're not going to put up with it. Now,

of course, since Trump has built this

asset that he does what he says, um

that's got to rattle him quite a bit.

Now, Laura Loomer also said in her post

I saw today that uh Joran Mami Manni the

uh mayor of New York City, he recently

held a private and secret meeting with

with Pro the head of Colombia. He had

that meeting in New York City where

allegedly he expressed support for the

Colombian gangster.

Now, can you even believe that? that the

head of Colombia, who again is

essentially accused of being the head of

a, you know, Norco cartel,

visited New York and had a private

meeting with with their mayor before he

was mayor. Um, and as Laura Loomer

points out, I guess Mum Daddy has been

trying to get a security clearance. I

don't know exactly what that means for a

mayor, but she points out that uh this

would be reason enough to deny him

security clearance. So, if what he wants

is security clearance, he's going to

have a tough time explaining why he's

being photographed being friendly with

the head of a cartel.

Well, Joshua Steinman

is uh telling us on X that uh China is

going to have a tough time explaining

why the radar the radar that they gave

to or provided to Venezuela didn't work.

And is it my imagination

or is every time we make a military

action against somebody who has radar

that the radar doesn't work or that we

can turn it off or bomb it or something?

Well, I don't know if the radar just

didn't work or if we had some kind of

counter measures that just took them

out. I'm guessing we had electronic

counter measures, but the bottom line is

if you're China and you think you can

sell this stuff to a country that's

trying to protect itself from America,

you're going to have a tough time

selling your radar. Sales of Chinese

radar probably way down.

Well, we're still in the fog of war

stage, so don't know what to believe.

But the reports are that Maduro's

bodyguards, which we knew to be Cubans,

so he didn't trust his own people to be

his bodyguard. He had Cuban bodyguards,

that they handed their client officers,

as soon as the US special forces got

there. Hey, you can have him. You can

have him. He's over here.

And I thought to myself, is that a sign

that the Cuban bodyguards were bad

bodyguards,

or was it a sign that they knew they had

no hope uh as bodyguards

uh facing up with our most elite

soldiers? So, I do not blame the Cuban

bodyguards for running away. If if you

were in that situation,

you might run away, too.

There's not there's no way they were

going to win. they were just going to

die if they stayed.

Well, apparently Maduro is going to face

potentially the death penalty.

So, that would be for the uh violating

the controlled substances act and being

part of a continuing criminal

enterprise. So, I guess that's enough to

uh if you're convicted, that's enough

for a death penalty.

And I kind of forgot that once you have

him in custody that the interrogation

begins.

Do you wonder

what the interrogation looks like?

Is it is it the same interrogation you

would give to some, you know, American

criminal

or do they bring in the special kind of

interrogation? You know what I mean?

Now that he's in American custody,

presumably there would be lots of

American oversight. So they can't go too

far. You know, they can't torture him,

can they?

And where's a dividing line between

torture and just interrogating?

That's going to get that question will

have to be answered.

I imagine

they can make his life very bad without

crossing the line because you know just

imagine they also have his wife.

So wouldn't it be legal to say you know

what we're not going to torture you but

you remember we have your wife and if

she'd like to have a little bit better

situation well maybe you should talk.

So, one thing they can do is threaten to

do something who's not in the room. Is

that legal?

Could Could you interrogate that way? So

long as nobody's actually um damaged,

is that legal?

So, maybe we'll find out where the line

is.

All right.

Um, let me tell you my best explanation

of why we did this in um, Venezuela.

Obviously, there are multiple reasons

and even Marjorie Taylor Green has

pointed out just recently, she was on

one of the shows, that if this was

really about narco terrorists and about

protecting Americans from cartels and

drugs, um that the administration would

be attacking the Mexican cartels.

Do you buy that as a reasonable argument

that if the top priority was drugs and

stopping them, we would have started

with Mexico,

not with Venezuela?

And I would say the answer is that's not

a good argument.

Not a good argument because sometimes

you start with the easy the easy thing

to make it easier to do the hard thing.

Um, from a military standpoint,

you don't always attack the hardest

target first, even if that's where you

want to end up. You would you would make

sure that you did something smaller and

successful that would cause maybe the

larger entity to negotiate better. And

if they negotiate instead of hold tight,

then you win because you do, you know, a

smaller action in Venezuela. But

theoretically maybe that was enough to

get Mexico to cooperate or change his

way.

But obviously Mexico their leadership is

run by the cartels we believe. So they

don't really have much room to

negotiate.

You know for for the head of Mexico if

they were to start saying okay we'll

help you fight the cartel. I imagine the

family of the president would be

slaughtered that same afternoon. So

there's not really any room for a

negotiate, but I would generally say

that it is not a good argument that they

would have started in one place rather

than another.

So there's also the bigger the bigger

question of are we using the narcotics

um DA department of justice angle to do

something that we wanted to do for other

reasons. And I'm going to give you the

best other reason that I can think of. I

haven't heard anybody say this, but

here's a a rule about life and a rule

about how everything works. It goes like

this. Uh things are either growing or

shrinking.

In other words, countries are either

ascending

or they're going backwards. It's very

rare in the real world that something

big and complicated like a country would

just just be the same. Like if you check

back with Venezuela in 10 years, you

know, if we hadn't done this, would they

be the same place in 10 years? Well, I

think they would have either grown or

they would have shrunk. Now, if you take

the model that anything complicated and

big and important is either going to

grow or shrink and those are the only

two conditions, it is true that they can

stay the same. It's physically possible.

But in the real world, it just doesn't

happen. Things get bigger or they get

smaller. Now, what I've been observing

for years is that it seems like the

cartels were getting bigger,

right? So, the cartels were on a

trajectory that every year they were

getting more control over more

countries, shipping more drugs, getting

bigger. If that's the direction they

were going to continue, and at the time

there was nothing to make them smaller,

then you have to nip it in the bud

because I was worried that the cartels

would become so rich and so wellarmed

that you couldn't do anything about

them. You you just couldn't stop them.

So if you stop them now where we

obviously still have overwhelming force

and we have an option uh then you

prevent the they're getting bigger every

day and the Venezuelans also were

becoming the hub of all the other

countries that were against us and you

don't want that hub to get bigger. So if

I were Trump and I knew and he knows

this, he knows this well and I knew the

things either get bigger or smaller and

there's not really anything in between.

You have to get them now because this is

when you can.

So that's a more conceptual strategic

argument. it wouldn't really necessarily

work with the public. But when I look at

it, I think, yeah, that's we just had to

do it while we still could. You don't

want to you don't want the cartels

getting bigger and you didn't want

Venezuela to be more of a hub of

anti-Americanism.

So, it was time.

Anyway, I'm still uh

I'm fascinated by the impact it will

have on other countries.

Um, I think it makes it more likely that

Iran will fall. I don't know that it's

most likely uh, you know, Iran might be

able to get through their current

problems. But in terms of, you know,

will it have an impact? Probably. It

probably has an impact on their

psychology. If you were if you were the

Iranian protesters,

what would you want to hear? You would

want to hear that the US just toppled

the country and then you'd think, wait a

minute, Trump just said he'd do that for

us. So that would theoretically it would

embolden the protesters in ran. Um in a

similar way, there are reports now that

the Ayatollah and maybe 20 of his top

people and family are planning maybe as

their escape plan to go to Russia if

everything falls. Now remember, fog of

war, propaganda,

CIA.

What are the odds that that's a real

report?

Well,

now I wouldn't say we know what his

plans are. Maybe we do. So, there's some

doubt there. But if again, if you're a

protester and you hear a report that the

leader has uh has picked an escape plan,

wouldn't you try a little harder because

you say to yourself, "Wait a minute,

he's got an escape plan. Maybe we're

almost at the the breaking point." So, I

see that as

the the report about him leaving for

Russia. I see that as maybe true, might

be true, but it's just just as likely

that the story is planted

because the planting that story would be

very good for the protesters.

Anyway, um I guess Greenland is getting

nervous

and Greenland is nervous because uh they

say that quote, let's see, this is a

prime minister of uh Denmark

and said recently the United States has

no right to annex one of the three

countries in the Commonwealth. So

Greenland being one of the three

countries. Now, do you think it's about

rights?

Do you think that Trump would not move

against Greenland because he doesn't

have the right?

This goes back to Eric Weinstein's uh

comment that there might not be

international law at all. It's really

just about power.

So, I think it's hilarious that they're

u that they're using rights as any kind

of defense. And by the way, as far as I

know,

uh the US would be happy just having

some arrangement that gives us some kind

of control, but not necessarily annexing

it.

Um but Greenland,

they're worried.

So I guess Trump recently posted a chart

that showed that 72% of US Somali Somali

households are on welfare.

So that's the kind of report

that makes it easier to deport a lot of

people.

So I don't know if that that data is

true or not, but if you hear that data,

you're like, "Oh, you know, even I'm

against immigration now."

even if you were in favor of it before.

So I would imagine that even Democrats

would have a problem with threearters of

the Somali households being on on

welfare they're paying for

and welfare that might you know go

broke.

So sip.

[sighs]

So as I often tell you, I I like it when

people who know more than I do um are

sort of on the same opinion of me. And

here's a case in point. So General Flynn

just posted that uh Trump in his

interrogation of Madura should hone in

on stolen elections.

Now, do you remember Cindy Powell and

the Kraken and her wild claims? It

seemed like wild claims at the time that

Venezuela was somehow involved in

rigging the machines and rigging the

election. And that became so

unbelievable

to the public that she was sort of, you

know, it led to her sort of being

disgraced temporarily.

Temporarily. But now we at least in my

bubble I'm hearing reports that uh all

the Kraken was true. Now the Kraken was

the idea that Venezuela

was involved in developing election

machines that we used and other country

used. Um first they developed it for the

their own elections to rig them. This is

this is the claim. And then then the US

used them to rig our elections.

um in 2020 and uh that all of that is

known because of a particular

whistleblower. So now there's a

whistleblower that keeps popping up and

the whistleblower is this uh Limzy

Salazar and I guess he had uh at some

point been in the Venezuelan uh

operation that or at least he knew about

the operation uh and that it was in fact

a big op with with machines that rigged

elections. Now

that's what's happening in your bubble

too, right? Most of you are in the same

bubble I am. Uh but there's some push

back and the push back is that that

there's exactly

uh one

whistleblower and apparently there is

reason not to believe him. Now I'm not

the expert on this but as uh Ste yeah

Stefan or Stephen McIntyre pointed out

who's no expert on this domain but he's

he's an expert on other domains but he

points out that there's reason to not

believe the whistleblower and there's no

physical evidence.

Um,

and so I I will caution you again that

although it seems very believable to me

and I've listened to Patrick Burns full

explanation, you should listen to him if

if you want more on that. So in my

bubble it it feels almost proven

that the uh that the Venezuelan

connection to the machines was

important,

but it really isn't fully proven.

So I warn you to get not to get too

excited. But then when I see General

Flynn, who obviously knows more about

this world than I do, uh say that they

should horn in on the uh stolen

elections angle. I say to myself, well,

okay, now I'm taking it seriously,

but be careful. We are we're below the

level of u confirmed

reporting.

We're not up to confirmed. We're up to

Whoa, that looks like it could be real,

which is bad enough.

Well, I believe this has now been

confirmed

that Governor Tim Walls is going to drop

his reelection bid. Uh probably because

of all the Somali probe reports. Now,

when I see that, I say to myself, my

god, that must be the white supremacy

that got him. You know, he's always

complaining about the white supremacy.

So, I think that's what's happening

here. The white supremacists,

who we don't know anything about, have

conspired to make it impossible for him

to run for reelection. But independent

reporter, I think that's the right tag,

Nick Shorder, uh, is already outside of,

or at least he was, he was filming

outside of Tim Walter's residence, and

he wrote this on his post on X. This is

the funniest thing that you could hear

today. So, Nick Shorter says, "Leaking,

we are live outside Tim Walter's

residence, anxiously awaiting the smoke

to rise when the governor's mansion from

the governor mansion's chimney,

signaling a new has been

elected."

Signaling a new has been

selected.

Oh, I'm gonna laugh about that some more

today.

So, why do you think uh Tim Molse is

dropping his re-election bid? Well, I do

think he's going to get indicted.

And it's kind kind of hard to run for

office when you're indicted for the

country's most well-known frauds.

uh even if he you know even if he were

not to be convicted it would be almost

impossible to win the race because

people are going to be pissed and

they're going to believe he knew it that

he knew what was going to happen. So

that's it for him. So today I was

looking at the reactions from Democrats

to the fact that Trump had such such a

big success.

And I give you some of the reactions. So

Rachel Madau

uh

goes into this weird

mode where she starts speculating

incorrectly about things because she

really had no argument against her that

made sense. but she was angry and she

always looks mentally ill. [snorts] So,

she did a really bad job

of making it look like it was a bad job

that Trump did. So, you got to watch if

you if you see it, just watch how poorly

she she does. And I say this even noting

that uh she often has the most, you

know, wellthoughtout, well, maybe the

most noticeable or, you know, critical

approach, but she had nothing. She said

something, but it was the least

persuasive thing. I'm not even going to

get into what she said. You You'll never

see it in your bubble.

Well, apparently Axios was reporting on

this that the Democrats were having a

hard time figuring out a message about

this the Venezuela situation because as

I correctly point out, opposing it would

make you look weak and stupid. So if you

said you were opposed to this thing that

worked out so well and got rid of, you

know, this dictator, well, you're not

going to look like you're a serious

player.

Um, but they also worry that if they

don't criticize it, then it'll look like

they're supporting Trump too much. And

they've created this trap for themselves

that everything has to be bad if Trump

did it. So, if you're living in the trap

that all Trump things are bad, how do

you explain to your followers, other

Democrats, that everything about this

looks like it was good? It's a hard

thing. So, they're in trap.

And a number of Democrats are pointing

out that it's a it's just a bad approach

to have a reflexive opposition to

anything Trump does. But let's see how

the leaders are doing. All right. Roana

of course being asked about this said

quote the irony is the president who

criticized nation building who

criticized regime change wars now is

talking about running Venezuela and the

American people are asking what about

running America

do you see how conceptual that is

he's complaining about the irony

has anybody ever won an election because

they made a good point about irony.

How about the part where he says the

American people are asking questions?

Has anybody ever won an election?

Because I pointed out that the American

people are asking questions. So, in

order for them to say there's anything

bad going on, they have to go to this

completely conceptual territory that

will have no persuasive value

whatsoever.

Um, first of all, one taking out the

leader, one leader is not necessarily a

nation building and working with the

Venezuelan people to get some kind of

democratic

result.

You could argue that's nation building,

but because they didn't destroy much of

anything that's already there,

um it looks like a very controlled

u reasonable thing to do. Now, Rubio has

apparently not ruled out US troops in

Venezuela, but that's what they have to

do in this phase. They they can't rule

stuff out. It doesn't mean they want to

do it. probably the last thing they want

to do, but uh they're not ruling that.

So that puts a little pressure on the

Venezuelans to get it right. All right.

So Roan

goes purely conceptual

doesn't leave a dent. Hakeim Jeff asked

about it says quote it remains to be

seen whether the people of Venezuela are

going to be better off. So you see he's

also going to the conceptual. it remains

to be seen as in term of it's like a

question that's nothing

a question is not really persuasive

and he says he finishes it off with

uh it remains to be seen whe the

Venezuelans are better off and he says

that

Trump has done a terrible job running

the United States so why would Venezuela

be any different now that's a little bit

like changing the subject isn't

a little bit. So, he's sort of at that

conceptual we have questions, we don't

know how it'll end. Totally

nonpersuasive.

Um, he asks, "How does it actually

improve the quality of life every day

for everyday Americans?" Well,

don't you think that if you could stop

drugs and get rid of a anti-American hub

and stop the cartels from growing that

you don't really have to show how that

helps you every day?

So, he's got this weird this weird um

let's say assumption that if you didn't

see a benefit every day to Americans, it

might be the wrong thing. That's not how

anything works. There's a lot of things

that are good for America that we can't

identify as making a difference every

day.

Anyway, um then the funniest one

was uh Marco Rubio was being interviewed

by ABC's uh George uh

what's his name? George Norfagopoulos.

So, George Norfagopoulos

um asked Rubio to explain what legal

authority the US had to go into

Venezuela. So, Rubio explains it, you

know, in terms of the the indictments

and the the drugs and everything else.

And then then George Snagopoulos says,

"Let me ask again, what legal

authority?"

That's after he answered the question,

"Let me ask again, what legal

authority?" And Ruby goes, I explained

it very simple. We have order from

courts as a court, not a legal

authority.

So George Sner, God bless, his approach

is to act like he didn't hear or didn't

understand the answer. [laughter]

He just pretends like he doesn't

understand the answer. That's so funny.

And then Chris Murphy, who's one of the

designated liars who always goes after

Trump, uh he was on CNN and CNN

embarrassingly pointed out that in 2019

you wrote an op-ed and you called for

Maduro to be gone. [laughter]

So the guy who literally wrote an op-ed

about removing Maduro had to sit there

on camera and explain why he thought it

was a bad idea to remove Maduro. He

looked a little nervous, which was

funny.

Now, according to Raspersonson reports,

uh, impeachment will be on the ballot in

the midterms, meaning that more than

twothirds of Democrats favor

congressional candidates who will

support impeachment of President Trump.

Now, what would they need in order to

impeach President Trump?

I couldn't even think of what the the

charge would be.

Can you Is there anything off the top of

your head that says, "Well, you know, I

hope he doesn't get impeached, but I can

see what topic they're talking about." I

don't even know what the topic is.

You're going to impeach him for what?

For what? So the only thing they need

the Democrats in or in order to pull off

an impeachment is some absurd and madeup

reason. So that they've got to just make

up some weird reason that I haven't

heard yet. So good luck Democrats.

So Trump was asked about Elon Musk

u and he had a very interesting answer.

He said Elon's great. He's 80 80% super

genius and 20% he makes mistakes, but

he's a good guy. He's a well-meaning

person. Now, I think in that 20%

would be the time that Elon Musk uh at

least thought about forming a third

party. Now, it does make sense to me

that Trump would think forming a third

party or even getting serious about it

would be a mistake.

Um, but lucky for us, that third party

thing is dead and Elon is very aware

that we could we could lose everything

if Trump and the Republican um dominance

of the government goes away.

All right,

so this is terrible. Apparently at JD

Vans's home in Ohio, not not the vice

president's official home in Washington

DC, but rather his actual, you know,

home in Ohio. There was some gunfire

and somebody broke a window. Now, Vance

was not home at the time. No injuries

were reported and I guess a

perpetrator's already been nabbed.

But here's my my sadness about that on

behalf of JD Vance. JD Vance might be

brave enough that that's not the kind of

thing that would stop him from doing

anything he was going to do. But what

about his family?

If you were if you were the spouse or

the child, would you feel safe ever

going back to the house? And that's the

part I worry about. You know, I worry

less about somebody who chose to be in

politics. It's a dangerous game, you

know, but of course, I'd be concerned

about his well-being,

but ah,

as a husband, as and as a father, how do

you navigate that? There there's it's

just really hard to say, "Don't worry,

honey.

Uh, we can we can vacation back in a

regular home. We've got better security.

You know, are you really going to think,

"Oh, better security. No problem."

That's a tough one. There there's no

right answer. It just sort of It just

has this effect of spoiling the the

family home. It's terrible.

It's It's just terrible.

Well, CBS News is reporting

[clears throat]

that uh 500 permits have been given uh

regarding the palis Pacific Palades

Pacific Palisades and Altadena fires

that only 500 permits have been given

and of 16,000 structures lost. Now,

you've already heard that, but what's

interesting is that CBS is reporting it

and going after a blue state. So, I

haven't been following too closely the

whole uh Barry Weiss running CBS news

and you how that's affecting things. But

is this one of those changes? You know,

you don't expect CBS to go hard in the

old old CBS. You didn't expect them to

go hard against the blue blue state,

but u CBS News is going hard against the

blue state. So that would be a good sign

for independent media,

meaning not being biased to one side too

much.

It's not independent, per se.

Well, let's talk about Russia and

Ukraine.

Um,

can you remind me why Russia and the

United States are enemies?

It's kind of confusing because with

other countries, we play a we don't play

a zero sum game, right? When we're

dealing with our allies, we're generally

happy if they do well. They're happy if

we do well. And because we have this

free market situation, both of us could

do well. So it's not a zero- sum game

where if we win, Britain loses. If

France wins, you know, we lose. It's not

really like that. But why is it like

that with Russia?

And yeah, tradition. So, one wonders if

it's just a leftover habit,

you know, something that's been with us

for decades and we don't know how to get

out of it. I've often speculated that um

that the CIA has a lot of anti-Russia

people because historically you needed

them. But then if it came to a point

where we didn't need a lot of anti-

Russia assets, would they be able to um

take down their efforts or would they be

sort of I don't want to lose my job. The

only thing I'm an expert at is

anti-Russia,

so we'll just try try to be as

anti-Russia as we can. Or is it about

seizing Russia's assets?

is is a real play that the world is run

by energy lords and the energy lords

think, you know, if someday we could

take down Russia or or turn them into a

puppet, we get all that money from their

energy. Is it that? Is it a little bit

that or is it none of that? How do we

know?

Um is it over Ukraine?

because Ukraine looks like the current

problem and it is but we were at

Russia's throat and they had ours sort

of trying to be fremies long before

that. Right. So, is this really because

the US um essentially did a coup of a

country that Putin wanted to have

control of, but uh it kind of took away

his option to to have that uh control

over all of Ukraine? Is it can't be all

about Ukraine,

right?

So,

I wonder what I would do if I were in a

situation where I were trying to solve

this. The hypnotist in me

believes that you could hypnotize Putin

with just ordinary language,

meaning that you could ask him the same

questions I'm asking.

If if you didn't want to dominate them

and overthrow them, so you'd have to

you'd have to make this case. I would

ask the following question. Why are we

against each other? Like I know we do

things to you, you do things to us, but

why?

Um what's the point of it? How do you

possibly win if you're looking at it as

a win-lose scenario instead of something

where both sides could win? Could it be

that we so distrust Putin that we can't

let him have any power more than he has

because if Russia grows it would be more

dangerous than it is? That's not what I

would say to Putin, but it's just that's

an aside. Um,

so I think that as long as we don't know

what Putin's base um motivations are,

and I I think I don't know. I think I

don't know what his basic motivations

are. Some of it is obvious. If you get

into a war, you want to win the war. If

a country is doing bad things to you,

you want to push back so that maybe they

do less bad things to you. So, some of

it's kind of obvious, but I don't think

that we've drilled down to the, you

know, the important points. Is it

possible that Putin is most interested

in his legacy? Is he most interested in

leaving Russia stronger than when he

found it? Uh, is he driven by history?

So, those would be things that we

wouldn't be able to see, but he does

talk that way. He he talks like there's

a historybased reason for it, but is

that it? Is that the only reason?

So until you know what somebody's

motivation is, it's really hard to

persuade them off it because you don't

know what off means. Um, so I think

that's the biggest problem now.

But I would definitely ask the question

if I were Trump,

why are we enemies?

because we have lots of allies and none

of the allies are unhappy that they're

on our team. So, is it ego? Is it pride?

And uh I would at least make Putin

wrestle with those questions.

Um and I would tell him, "Can you

explain why you need this?"

And if he goes into these weird history

[clears throat] lessons,

uh, I can imagine Trump discounting them

and maybe making him feel dumb for even

having those motivations.

Anyway, it's the eighth night of

protests in Iran. Poly Marcus gives it a

43% chance the Supreme Leader loses

power this year. But I think it's the

fourth major protest in Iran in not that

many years, right? So the other ones

didn't bring them down. We'll see.

All right. And they've re Iran has

restricted the internet apparently.

Um because that that's never a good sign

for the regime if they have to restrict

the internet because I'm pretty sure the

Iranian protesters are founding a way

around that.

I assume that if it had to happen uh

there might be some, you know, some Elon

Musk satellites so they can see what's

happening. That would be pretty

dangerous for for Musk. So we'll see.

All

right, ladies and gentlemen,

that concludes my prepared remarks.

It's amazing how close I can get to one

hour, isn't it?

Um,

one of my uh I I'll just say this to the

larger crowd today. Uh, as much as I

appreciate

how much you care about me and I

appreciate your efforts to suggest

things I can do at the moment, it's not

helping me to get medical or religious

advice.

So, if you would respect that, uh, that

would be my best situation.

On the medical stuff, you should assume

I've looked into all the options. on the

religious stuff. I would like you to say

that it's a now a private um it's a

private relationship between me and

Jesus and uh I'd like to keep it that

way. But I totally appreciate

uh the the good intentions. I do love it

that you care enough about to write me

long messages about what I should do

medically or religiously,

but it doesn't work with my current

situation. So, I'll just ask you to back

off on that, please.

All right,

[laughter]

snort the Bible. Good advice. All right,

I'm going to talk privately to the good

people on locals

and so we'll be private on that in 30

seconds. for the rest of you. Thank you

so much for joining.