t them. So I would say don't assume he's telling the truth. He might be. He might be. But I wouldn't assume it. There's not really enough there to assume it. So we'll find out.

All right, I'm going to say one of the best magic tricks that the press has ever played on me. This is the hall of fame magic trick. You know I get how the press can fool people with videos that are edited to make them misleading. So we all understand that, right? I've been fooled by videos that were misleadingly edited. You know the Covington kids. So that one fooled me for about a day. You know I got over it but it fooled me for about a day.

So it's really easy. It's easy to be fooled by video. You'd agree, right? Now so if I see that the news has fooled the public about a video, I'm not that impressed because that's sort of an easy thing to pull off.

But you know what's really impressive? When you simply make somebody think that something they're seeing or hearing isn't happening. And they did that with the Trump phone call in which he asked, was it the Secretary of State, to find you know find X number of votes. In the context of thinking the election was fixed or rigged and in the context of asking for a recount.

The news actually convinced something like 40% of the public or more that the normal word "find" means to lie and steal and rig the election. When the most obvious context is that if at least two-thirds of Republicans believe that the election was rigged, that's not in question, is it? Does anybody question I'm not making up the number? But somewhere in that neighborhood at least probably two-thirds of Republicans believe the election was rigged.

Now that may have changed since then but certainly on January 6 maybe two-thirds thought there was a problem. And certainly at the day of the election two-thirds thought there was a problem. So why would you assume that Trump would not agree with two-thirds of Republicans that it looks like and smells like something's wrong? Why would you assume he would think differently when two-thirds of Republicans were thinking this looks wrong?

So if you start out by thinking that Trump disagreed with two-thirds of Republicans who are saying the same thing he was saying, that's not reasonable, is it? Is it reasonable to imagine he had a minority opinion when in fact everything he said agreed with the majority? That he actually believed the election was rigged. And I believe he still believes it but you can't know for sure, right?

So the most reasonable explanation of "find the votes" in the context of believing, you know massively believing within the Republican party that the vote was miscounted, asking somebody to find votes in that context, and then imagining that that meant mafia talk, that is the greatest gaslighting I've seen yet. I mean you really have to work at that.

It turns out that the people who are most easily fooled would be what type of person or profession would most easily believe that the reasonable explanation of "find the votes" is mafia talk? It's writers, right? So even this morning two people with writer in their bio told me the most clearly the most obvious explanation is that it's mafia talk. Is that the most likely explanation? That it is mafia talk? Is that not a signaling that something's wrong with the analytical ability of the person?

Now it could have been mafia talk but is that the most likely explanation? That feels like the least likely explanation to me given that so many people were listening. There were witnesses and he knew it. There were multiple witnesses including the person he called. And you think he went all mafia talk on them?

If you believe that life is like movies that is actually a reasonable assumption. If you believe that movies are not like life and if they were we wouldn't watch them, then you say no that's just in movies. People don't really do mafia talk in that context, right? They really don't.

So I heard yesterday that author Morgan Housel, who has a gigantic book, I think he sold two million copies of it, and I don't know if I have the name right. Is it The Psychology of Money? Could somebody do a check on that? Because I was just operating from memory just before I got on live here. It's Morgan Housel, The Psychology of Money, right? It's apparently massive. I don't know if you know how big a book is if it sells two million copies. My biggest book was a million and a half, you know The Dilbert Future. So that's big.

And I heard on an interview that he mentioned the systems over goals as being something that influenced him. So my book How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big. So my book he mentioned as an influence for some of his thinking about how to at least explain personal finance.

Now also Atomic Habits, the biggest business book at the moment, also the author says that some of those ideas, the key ideas, actually are from me. So I was asking you the other day who's the most influential person in the world right now? It's definitely me. It's not even close. But I know you don't believe it. I know you don't believe that. But if you look