Now if I'm doing the performance review for my staff, that's going to come up. I'll be there, you know, given the performance review like, all right, all right, Bob, let's see, looking at your performance over the year. There was, yeah, you were very punctual. That's a plus for you, Bob. Good job in that punctuality. I like a lot of your writing. You know, you did some good writing and some projects, a plus there. There was really just one thing, just one thing that I have a little problem with, and I think this will have to be reflected on your permanent record. There was a time you confirmed to the press that I was having sex with a Chinese spy. That was suboptimal, Bob, and I'm going to have to give you a below expectation for that. You did not exceed my expectations. So marking me out for having sex, allegedly, with a Chinese, allegedly, spy, not such good performance. Not such a good performance. You did not get a raise.

All right. Now let me ask you this. Now that this Swalwell story is gaining some credibility and we know, we all know about it, does it not explain everything that you saw with Swalwell? What was there not some point you said to yourself, I feel like he's getting ahead of himself running for president. Didn't you? Didn't you say to yourself, why is he running for president? I get that he's on TV a lot, but I don't feel like he's quite ready to run for president. And sure enough the public agreed. But you say to yourself, why does somebody go too soon? You know, maybe later he'd be more groomed or maybe he'd be a senator by then. Who knows? But the first thing I had a question about is he seemed too ambitious for what his potential was at the moment. Could have been more later. So that was sort of a little flag. I've always wondered about that. So that seems a little bit too ambitious. I like ambitious people, but it just seemed a little, you know, it's not like he was Obama. He wasn't a superstar. So that was weird.

And then of course watching his entire act in which he was trying to paint President Trump as a Russian puppet never looked even slightly real. It never looked like he believed it. It never looked like he was even American, honestly. He gave the opinion, he gave the look, Swalwell did, as not somebody who was just anti-Republican and not even somebody who was a Democrat. He gave the look of somebody who wasn't even on the side of America. I mean, that's what it looked like, because he was so far over the edge into that Russia collusion thing it didn't even look like he was trying to be helpful, right? It looked like he was literally on some other team. And now we know that there was a connection to the other team that may have been pretty deep, including financial support, etc. So I think we could say at this point that certainly Swalwell should not have any kind of job in the government after that. I can't imagine it would just be ridiculous to re-elect him. You should certainly shouldn't be on any kind of committee. And again, it doesn't even matter if he's guilty. It doesn't matter if he's guilty. If you lose that much trust, that's all you need to know. You don't know if he's actually guilty of these things. You just need to know that the situation is such that you shouldn't trust it by its setup, right? You don't need to know the details.

So after seeing this completely explaining Swalwell's behavior, it looked like he was a Chinese agent. Right now I'm not saying he was a Chinese agent. I'm not alleging he was a Chinese agent. I'm just saying his behavior looked exactly like one, which doesn't mean he was one, because he could have been just a partisan Democrat, right? But then I say to myself, if this is some kind of massive Chinese plot to influence politicians who they find when they're minor politicians and then they elevate them beyond, you know, maybe a little too early, is there anybody else who fits the same pattern as Swalwell? In other words, if you thought there was a signal given out by the Swalwell situation that said, oh, now that we know there was some Chinese spy involvement, maybe you could see the tells for that, the signals in it. And one of the signals was somebody who is, let's say, not the strongest politician is getting a lot of attention. So that's one of the tells, right? If you see somebody like Trump getting a lot of attention, you say to yourself, well, that makes sense. He's a very substantial politician. Of course you should get lots of attention. But when you see an Adam Schiff or a Swalwell get a lot of attention, it seems a little weird, doesn't it? Because they don't seem like substantial people. They both seem amazingly unsubstantial. Am I right?

So if you're looking for the tells, look for an unsubstantial politician, somebody who could be molded and moved, someone who is not their own man or woman, and someone who gets way more attention than the amount of substance they bring demands. And here's the third thing. The claims are so over the top that they don't look like a Republican. They don't look like even a Democrat. They look like they're on the other team, meaning not Team America. Right? Am I right? Does somebody, somebody is throwing AOC in the mix and I disagree. I think AOC is just young, but I would say she has substance unlike the other two. She has some X factor native thing, you know, meaning that she was born a powerful person, will always be. So I don't see that with Schiff and I don't see that with Swalwell. So I wouldn't put her in that list of having those same characteristics. I think she's her own thing. And indeed even, you know, the Green New Deal and stuff with AOC may be right, may be wrong. I think it's wrong, but it doesn't look exactly like a Chinese plot, although you could argue that it might destroy the country, so maybe it was anyway.

So here's my question. I'm not going to say there's any evidence that Adam Schiff has anything going on with China. There's no evidence. There's nothing in evidence, period. But if you're looking for patterns, he really fits that pattern. And if I had to place a bet, like with actual money, on this question, does Adam Schiff or has he ever had a boyfriend or girlfriend who were a Chinese spy, I would probably place a bet on that because I could probably get good odds, right? Doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't mean it's more likely to be true than not. But based on just the smell of it, I'd place a bet on it. You know, I'd put a thousand dollars on it if I could. I would put a thousand dollar bet that you could find someday that Adam Schiff had a Chinese spy connection just because the way he acts. And I want to be as clear as possible. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that Adam Schiff has any kind of an external foreign connection. I'm just saying he acts exactly like a guy who does, because we just saw a guy who has that connection. We don't know how much it influenced him if it did, but we know that somebody looks just like that. And I can't explain it with other explanations.

I'll just put it out there. I have to hang my head in shame today because I'm a professional humorist, and if I miss a joke that's just right there for me and I miss it, I just feel embarrassed. And that's how I felt when I saw my Twitter feed this morning and non-professional humorist Alex Guevara said, and I quote about this story, "That's what she said," except he spelled she "Xi" as in President Xi of China. "That's what Xi said." And when I read it, and of course it's one of these jokes that you have to read, it doesn't work if you say it out loud, but when I read it I said to myself, I quit. I quit. I can't be a professional humorist anymore. How in the hell did I not say that joke before Alex Guevara said it on Twitter? How the hell can I live with myself now? It was right there. It was right there. It was right in front of me glowing and big. Didn't see it. Did not see it. But Alex did. That's what Xi said.

All right. Will rapid testing for coronavirus get approved under Biden? I tweeted that later today. There's an online event about this idea of doing rapid testing. So this is a virtual event. Today's the 10th, right? Today's the 10th, yeah. It's a virtual event about the topic of rapid COVID tests. Now if you're new to this, there is very little in common with doing regular testing for coronavirus and this idea of rapid testing. You should think of it as just a completely different animal with a completely different way of working than just testing people like we do now. And the reason it's different is the proposal is to use paper strips, which we just heard word actually today there's news that somebody developed a good paper strip that would be cheap for testing. So this event which we'll talk about, this idea, this is the Michael Mina idea I think of using cheap test strips that you can do as many tests as you want at home. Maybe it's two or five dollars for each test. You don't need a doctor. You just get a bunch of them, test yourself every few days just because you want to know. And then they're not perfect tests. And here's the part people don't understand. The idea of doing rapid cheap tests that are ubiquitous and everybody can test like crazy uses cheap tests that are not quite as accurate as these really expensive tests that we have now. So the point is if you do enough cheap tests, you get a better result than a fewer number of high-quality tests. So that's what's different.

The proposal is that doing a small number, whatever we can do with our current technology, it never gets you to the point where the testing cures the coronavirus. It just tells you if you need to be treated. The cheap test thing with the cheap test strips is meant to stop the virus. The other testing isn't even meant to do that, right? So they're not similar. They just both have the words "coronavirus test," and those two words basically the only thing they have in common. Otherwise it's a completely different idea. And the reason, part of the reason that it hasn't been going anywhere fast so far is that people can't understand that difference. And people will say, we already have tests, and then they're done. But they don't understand it's different.

All right, so that's today. I tweeted it so you can add it to your calendar directly from the tweet when you see it. That's worth looking at. And the question I have is whether the Biden administration might get more interested in this than the Trump administration was. In my opinion, the lack of the Trump administration dealing with this idea, specifically this idea, is either a gigantic, gigantic failure or they should have communicated to us why they're not doing it. So I would have been happy with, we looked into this deeply, there's a problem here that maybe they didn't tell you, but because of this problem we're not going to pursue this aggressively. If I'd heard that, even if they were wrong, you know, maybe they're wrong, but at least I'd say okay, they dealt with the very promising idea. They dealt with it. They dismissed it right or wrong. At least I feel like it was handled in some way. But it's just sort of ignored. I know that this idea has reached the administration multiple times and through multiple outlets. It's not that they haven't heard it. They've heard it lots of times, but they don't respond to it. They don't say it's a good idea. They don't say we're looking into it. And to me that's an enormous failure of the Trump administration's coronavirus task force. Enormous. I'm talking about a 10 out of 10 in terms of mistake. I mean just a serious, serious mistake. Well, again, I could be wrong. I just need to hear a reason. And the fact that they don't give the public a reason for not doing it or even to tell us if they are doing it, we don't know about it, that's just an enormous mistake. There's no way around that. There's no way to soften that. There is no way to soften that. It's an enormous, enormous mistake that could have killed a hundred thousand people. That's just a fact. And that's not, I don't think you can put that on Trump because the entire task force could talk about it. Fauci could bring it up. Fauci could bring it up just to debunk it, which would be fine. He's not even brought it up as far as I know. Does the news bring it up? No.

All right, here's the other thing that's fun. The FTC said that Facebook is engaged in quote "a systemic strategy to eliminate its competition." So they're be