arly on in this process that the bank isn't going to complain because the bank always does their own checking. No exceptions. You can't be a lender and sometimes take their word for it. That's not a thing. There is no loan ever, ever, anywhere in a traditional bank, ever, not once, where the lender said, you know what, you look like an honest guy, I'm going to take your word for that. Literally never. Now a venture capitalist might, if you're a venture capitalist, or especially an angel. More an angel than a venture capitalist because venture capitalists are practically bankers. But an angel might say, you know what, I don't know exactly even what you're talking about but you're such a good manager, I'll just take your word for it. That does happen. But not in a bank. Not ever in a bank. It just doesn't happen.

So now the public knows that. But here's the interesting question. How many criminals do you believe, according to this judge who says if you exaggerate or lie to your bank you've committed a crime, if you were to look at the bank loan files, how often would you find that the person asking for the loan had grossly exaggerated the value of one of their assets? How often? A lot. And that's why the bankers were completely unconcerned, because it's actually routine, completely normal. And trust me, I'm not guessing. I've looked at a lot of loans. And the first thing you do is you take their estimate and you cut it by half. That's just the most basic banking thing you do. Everybody does it.

So isn't this a case of unequal justice? So you've got, let's say you've got a filing cabinet full of loans—obviously it's digital, but just imagine it—and in maybe two-thirds of those loans the bank didn't believe the asset value and the bank was probably right. The asset value was overstated. Are all those people going to be tried? Are they all going to be put out of business by this judge? How in the world, how in any world could this stand a Supreme Court review? Like I'm not even a lawyer or even close to a lawyer, and to me it's obvious this can't possibly get through any kind of higher court approval. How could it? How in the world do you think the Supreme Court is going to say yes, the banker and Trump acted in the most routine way that anybody acts, exactly like two-thirds of their other lenders or their other customers, just like two-thirds of all the customers, but one of them is going to go to jail or one of them is going to lose their business, not go to jail. How's that work? There's not any chance that this can hold up. This is so political. This judge is—how embarrassing.

And as you know, Laura Loomer discovered that the judge's wife was posting F Trump memes and showing him with a shaved head in a prison suit well long before the trial. How in the world does this pass any kind of Supreme Court review? I mean that alone. Well, I don't know how the Supreme Court works on that, but if the Supreme Court knew that his wife was unambiguously biased against him, how in the world does the court say yes, justice was served there? How in the world? It's absurd. And Trump posted about the judge's wife posting that stuff on Truth Social.

All right. In 2018 my stepson died of a fentanyl overdose and I publicly vowed that I would get even with China and the cartels too. And I told you in 2018 I was going to persuade the world that China was unsafe to do business because I believed it was unsafe to do business, but I didn't think people could see it the way I saw it. So I started saying that over and over and over again. And the news today from The Wall Street Journal is that five years later China is unsafe for business. And I'll bet you every single company that invested in China, a long-term investment in 2018, is kind of unhappy that that happened.

So do you think, how was my prediction? So I made a prediction about the trial, you know the banking trial with Trump. That was right. And I didn't hear anyone else make that argument, did you? Did you hear anyone else in the public domain make that argument that the bankers would say there's no problem here? I didn't hear it. I think I was the only one. Now it's not because I'm smart. It's because I was a banker. I always teach you that having a good talent stack, you know, a combination of talents gives you extra vision on things. I happen to be a person who talks about the news every day, but I was also a lending officer so I could see this before people could see it. It was obvious.

Let's take another one. Montana tried to ban TikTok in their state, but of course a US District Judge has blocked the ban so it will not be banned. What did Montana do wrong? And does it look like something I could have warned them about? If they had listened to me, would they have made this mistake? Well let me tell you what they got wrong. The reason that Montana gave is data security. Their argument for banning it was not the influence part, which is the actual risk. It was over data security. And the judge just said, they say they can handle the data security. It's kind of an overreach. Free speech. Totally. Montana totally botched this. They should have gone for the influence because it can be demonstrated quite easily that China controls Chinese companies and the Chinese company has a heat button. And even at this moment there's great concern that they may have pushed the heat button on the Gaza situation. And it's not even legal in China. I mean the argument was so good, so easy. And instead they went for the weakest, dumbest diversion that is really about the data security. Now the data security is not nothing, but it's the least important part of the story by far.

So if Montana had followed my advice, would they do better? Well they couldn't do worse. At least they would have had a chance of doing better.

All right, here's my next prediction. Since I'm so good at predicting, let me tell you what's going to happen with AI and movies. And everybody else's opinion is wrong. Mine is right. It goes like this. So I guess Ridley Scott was saying AI would just change everything and he probably thinks that everybody would lose their jobs. I think not. I think what's going to happen is all the same people who make movies—you know you've got your directors and producers and costumers and your actors and whatnot, so you've got dozens of trades that come together for it. And here's what I think. I think each of those entities will just use AI to do their part better.

Now the obvious question is why do you need the human? Even if you imagine AI is not good enough yet, will it not obviously be good enough very soon? And I say nope. Because here's what you're missing if you're not—this is one of those talent stack things again, right? I had a good prediction about banking because I was in that job. That's the only reason I had that visibility. I'm also a creator who writes and creates and does artistic things. So I'm going to tell you that AI, when it comes to artistic things, has a disadvantage that humans have. And I don't know how AI would overcome it just by getting smarter. And it's this: Humans have two brains minimum. They have several personalities going on in their head all the time. But the two that matter to this conversation are somebody who's pitching an idea—this is you to yourself. You're pitching an idea to yourself but you're also evaluating it instantly. So you're the pitcher and the catcher. You're the buyer and the seller. You're the artist and the art critic. So everything you do you instantly evaluate. But you do it based on this instrument which is your physical body. And it's the only one that matters because having a physical body which includes your brain allows you to estimate what somebody else would enjoy. And you can estimate it in real time in a zeitgeisty, in a current way. Those are my douchebag words.

What that means is something that's funny today—and I mean literally today as in December 1st, 2023—won't be the same as what's funny in a month. Do you get that? They won't be the same. What's funny in a month isn't the same as what's funny now. The reason I can guess what's funny today is because I have an instrument. My body is my instrument. I feel it. I feel the zeitgeist. The zeitgeist is the thing everybody's thinking but maybe nobody has said it yet. How in the world could AI know the zeitgeist when by definition it's the thing that people are thinking but they haven't said? AI learns from what people have said. It literally is trained on things you said. It is not trained on things you haven't said yet.

What's the difference between a good joke and a bad joke? You know, let's say a dad joke. A bad dad joke is based on like classical humor things which, yeah I get it, it had the form of a joke, it had an unexpected punchline, it met the criteria of a joke. That was pretty good. That's a good dad joke. But to tell a Chappelle joke—I'll just use him as top of the game—a Chappelle joke, you think you see it coming and he says something that you were thinking kind of but you never even put it into words. Right? Hey, I can't do that. There's no way I can do that. And I don't know how it ever could because it can't solve the timing problem of having a human body that's instantly evaluating.

So people always ask Elon Musk what's going on in your head. He says it's basically terrible. There's just too much happening in there and you wouldn't want it if you could. And I can tell you that in my own creative world, since my job is to create, on some days I create 12 jokes in one day. I might have one or two in a Dilbert comic. I might write six different jokes in one of my Robot Reads the News comics. It's a daily comic just for the people on Locals. And then I might make three jokes on the X platform. And then I might be writing something separately that makes jokes. Do you know how hard it is to come up with 12 commercial-grade jokes a day? It's crazy. That's crazy level of productivity artistically. And the reason I can do it is that there's a hurricane going on in my head and my head is always pitching and criticizing, pitching and criticizing. Never stops. I couldn't turn it off if I wanted to. Right? It's just always on.

So I don't know how you build an AI to do that. An AI would have to put it out there in the real world and have people react to it, but it wouldn't be able to start with the intuition of how you feel. I start with the intuition of how I feel. How does an AI do that? So I think everybody will have their own little AI. I think the costume creator, if AI created the costumes, you might say wow that was pretty good for AI. But a costume expert, a human, is going to know if it looks like an Academy Award-winning costume. The AI is just going to stop when it's good enough. Okay, this is definitely a costume. This fit all the criteria. But the artist is going to push it a little further. The artist is going to say, you know this isn't what it really would look like in the real world, but I'm just going to tweak this a little bit so it's real but accentuated in a way. And that's what makes it special. Same with directing.

Let's take the simplest thing. Let's take the simplest thing of editing. You think oh but for sure my AI will do the editing for me. No way. You're going to need a human to tell it if it did it right because they have the attention span that AI doesn't have.

All right. Dick Durbin, according to Jesse Waters, either is covering up the motion to have a subpoena to get the Epstein flight logs or maybe they were just too busy. So the excuse is they didn't have time. But we'll see if it gets done today. But does it seem weird to you that the Epstein flight logs are not public years after he's dead? Yeah, makes you wonder.

Now I've told you that when it comes t