t gets here I'm going to create a digital version of myself. So I'll look into this one but this might be it.

So what I imagine in maybe a year is if you go to Dilbert.com instead of having to read all the text about where my work is and where you can find it you could just call up my bot. Say hey Scott where can I find your comic? Oh well you can look at it on the X platform if you subscribe to me or the Locals platform it's ScottAdams.locals or you could buy my books *Reframe Your Brain* and it will just answer all your questions. Maybe even look for reprints you want, a license and everything else. So one year or less I should have that up and running.

Well of course Trump's in that Stormy Daniels paying to shut her up case. That's so confusing that V did a video. It was two minutes and 40 seconds explaining the complications of that trial and why it's all BS and lawfare. Now if you saw it and it's easy to find just look for V and his video on lawfare and Stormy Daniels it'll pop right up. Here's why I would recommend you watch it. It's a complicated situation which V explains perfectly like really summarizes it just perfectly but that's not why you should watch it. You should watch it because I'm pretty sure now, I don't know this for sure, I think he did it with one take. Watch it again just watch it again and ask yourself did he do that with one take without notes because it doesn't look like he's reading it. I think he did that with one take. You have to see it like we're not used to this. Like we just don't see this one take for that. It's crazy. It's just crazy. I don't think he stumbled over a word. Two minutes and 41 seconds of talking about a super complicated thing off the top of his head. Incredible. Anyway you got to see it.

Elon Musk also weighed in and said it was obviously corruption of justice and lawfare and of course that makes news. And then Jack Posobiec reminds us that in 2022 Hillary Clinton quietly settled a campaign finance violation about the Steele dossier and who funded it and whether it was quote legal services. She paid a fine and was never arrested. And Jack says that's the same thing Trump is on trial for now.

So you got V saying this is a corruption of the system. You got Elon Musk saying this is an obvious corruption of justice. You've got Hillary Clinton who wasn't arrested for some version of the same crime. And even Rachel Maddow asked this question of her audience why are we still talking about something about the 2016 election? Why is that even a thing? It's not about the 2020 election. It's not about 2024. The Stormy Daniels thing is about 2016. Why are we caring about that?

Well as Eric A. responded to Rachel Maddow on X it's because the left is blatantly weaponizing the justice system to take out their top opponent. The only reason it's a thing is because it's bad for Trump. Do you think Rachel Maddow doesn't know that? That the only reason it exists is because it's bad for Trump and that the system is completely corrupt? Well it gets better.

So they're picking the jurors for this trial and the jurors are being asked if they're biased or if they could be impartial. Apparently 50 prospective jurors were dismissed for saying they can't be fair and impartial about Trump but eventually they will find people who said they can be fair and impartial about Trump. In other words the only people on the jury will be liars. I'm not making that up because obviously nobody's impartial about Trump. Can we all agree on that? Literally nobody unless they haven't been paying attention and then they're too stupid to be on a jury. If somebody doesn't have a strong opinion about Trump you don't want them anywhere near a jury because they're so lame that they can't probably find their way home. So you either have the stupidest people in the world or the biggest liars and that's our system of justice.

And by the way they're doing it right in front of you. Right in front of you. Do you think any of you believe that they're going to find impartial jurors? Nobody believes that. Nobody believes that. Not a single citizen of the United States. Not a Democrat, not a Republican. Nobody. And yet they're going to do it anyway. What's up with that? It's exactly what it looks like. It's complete corruption and it's so blatant that they can do it right in front of you.

Now a lot of people are saying and I think I agree with it so far that it's all good for Trump because every day he's in trial on what is obviously corruption. Yeah not on his part but obvious corruption on the part of the Department of Justice. That it should help him. But I don't think we have really an election that elects who the people want to elect. I mean it's obvious that we're pretty far from that standard. But yeah we'll have a jury of idiots and liars and they'll come up with something.

Politico is reporting that a number of the defendants, the January 6 defendants, there are 350 of them that are in jail for something like obstructing justice and interfering with some documents or something. Now there's one judge, a Trump-appointed judge, who basically threw out some cases. So there are currently people in jail while there are other people who were accused of exactly the same thing and the judge threw it out as BS basically. I think he probably just said it's a protest. Now the Supreme Court's taking it on as they should because if the lower court judges can't even decide if it's a crime or not a crime well that's perfect job for the Supreme Court.

And I didn't realize just how much they had to torture the law to make any of this illegal. So apparently it came out of some Enron law. The Enron law was specifically about Enron destroying records so they wanted it to be illegal to destroy records that are part of an official proceeding such as a court case. So does it sound like the January 6 people were destroying records to interfere with an official proceeding? No they were not destroying any records. So they had to stretch it from the original intention which of destroying evidence to simply interfering with an official proceeding because I guess the language of the law is broad enough that they thought they could get away with that.

So were people who were protesting interfering with an official proceeding? Well yes they were. They were intentionally trying to interfere with the proceeding but they were specifically trying to improve it which somehow gets left out of the conversation. Yes they did want to interfere with it to make sure that the system was working not to break the system. They wanted to delay to make sure that the count was accurate and they just said hey two days. And then at the same time Trump was organizing the so-called fake electors. But what do we know? If Trump's lawyers go to jail for the fake elector scheme what can you determine from that? Number one that a court said it was illegal to try to organize these fake electors. Number two the lawyers went to jail for it or not jail. Eastman got disbarred or something.

So if the lawyers get in trouble for it what does that tell you about Trump? Let me connect the dots for you. If the lawyers got in trouble for it it means that Trump was operating under legal advice. Under legal advice. That's why the lawyers are in trouble. So how in the world does the principal get in trouble for following the advice of lawyers? And how can you say that that's interfering with an official proceeding if the lawyers thought it was legal? There's no indication that Trump thought it was illegal because it all came from his lawyers. He didn't make up any of it. It was all stuff his lawyers said you know I think we could maybe make this work. So the fact that the lawyers are in trouble tells you Trump should not be because it means it was a lawyer-organized concept and he just said yes.

So apparently this law is complete BS that they stretched it from some Enron thing into a slightly delaying a process to improve it. So they went from destroying records that would be necessary in a court case, very bad, to protesting and using your First Amendment but too aggressively. You know the trespassing was over the line. And to improve a process publicly, transparently. They wanted to transparently and publicly improve a process that appeared to them to be broken at the moment. And they're going to try to torture that until you should be in jail and they are in jail.

So what's going to happen if the Supreme Court rules that all of these people who are in jail for these charges, these obstruction of justice charges, what happens if they all get freed? What does that do to the narrative? Well as Politico points out that's not necessarily going to mean Trump is off the hook because Trump was part of organizing these fake electors whereas the protesters didn't organize any fake electors. So this Enron rule about falsifying documents and stuff they're going to torture that thing into falsifying and destroying documents as the same as getting a fake slate of electors which by the way we know from the documentation at the time was to preserve their legal challenge. It was just to preserve the legal challenge basically just the legal strategy.

So I don't think that's such a thin charge. It seems to me if the 350 people get out even though they're not exactly in the same situation as Trump that the whole obstruction of justice thing is going to look like BS for Trump too. That the glow from the Supreme Court kicking out the other cases should end up giving Trump a little advantage.

Yeah so right now we're watching protesters block bridges. You know the anti-Israel protesters. But the people who are blocking bridges are they stopping some kind of a legal process? Are they stopping a legal process or just traffic? So they're probably okay because it's just traffic. But suppose it was Republicans who were doing it. Do you think they could torture the law to turn it into a crime? Sure. They'll say somebody on that bridge was going to some official event and you stop them from doing it so you stop the government from working so you got to go to jail. You obstructed justice somehow. I know I feel like they could torture anything into anything at this point.

So speaking of those people on the bridges, did you see that Tom Cotton, Senator Tom Cotton, said that the citizens should take matters into their own hands and don't wait for the police. Basically he was in favor of getting out of your car and dragging people out of the road. Now I would stop. He didn't say violence. He did not say violence. People sort of read that between the lines but he didn't say that. He said take matters into your own hands. I think take matters into your own hands should be limited to physically dragging them out of the way which I agree with.

Does it seem to you that some kind of limit has been reached? Yes I think the Supreme Court's going to find the limit on the obstruction of justice stuff and reverse it. I think Tom Cotton is telling people to take matters into their own hands. I think maybe they will. I don't know. You're seeing some stories in the press of people taking matters into their own hands more than you expected. Maybe that's a thing. And generally everywhere you look there's something like a limit that's been reached.

Now I'll say it again because as part of our fantasy politics Democrats like to talk about the day that Trump goes to jail. So that's their fantasy politics. And I want to say as clearly as possible because clarity really helps. You know the one thing that can get you in serious trouble is not understanding the room. Like if you do something you don't think it's going to cause a revolution but then it does because you didn't understand the room.

Let me explain the room. Trump in court is very, very bothersome. Like his supporters don't like it at all but so far they can handle it meaning they think he'll probably prevail so they don't need to get involved. But if Trump goes to jail for one day all bets are off. Now I never recommend violence of course so don't do anything violent or illegal but I'm just saying that the social contract will be gone at that point and in my opinion it should be at that point. All options are on the table. I don't recommend violence but all options would be on the table. So if the Democrats want to push it to the breaking point that's the breaking point. And I want to be as clear as possible about that. One day in jail is going to make me feel like you put me in jail. If you put Trump through the legal process it feels like that's about Trump. If you put him in jail for one day, one hour, one hour, that's personal because I know they're going to do it to me. And I would say that I would pull out, I would remove all controls at that point. At that point there wouldn't be anything I wouldn't be willing to do. The social contract would be gone. I don't recommend violence. I'm just saying that whatever you thought was the limit on other people's behavior, one hour in jail, the limit will be gone. And I can't predict what happens after that. If you want that situation, complete unpredictability, put him in jail for one hour. You're not going to like it. You're definitely not going to like it. But again no violence.

All right there's an NGO in Mexico that's handing out flyers to tell people that they need to vote for Joe Biden once they come to this country illegally so that more illegal people can be let into the country like them. So yeah it's exactly what you thought. That the migration situation is a political process and I think we're done with it. I think we've reached the limit.

You know what else we've reached the limit to? I feel there's a very high chance that the election will be rigged and really obviously and really right in front of us. I'm not sure we're going to be able to put up with it this time. I mean there was a protest last time that turned into you know the insurrection but I don't think you want to do it this time. I feel like this time things would go differently and I don't think that people would be dumb enough to attack the Capitol or anything like that but don't do it right in front of us. Don't make it obvious. I mean I think the limit has been reached.

So Iran's talking about they have some secret weapon unspecified which is just a good thing to say if you think you're going to get attacked. We don't know if Israel yet is going to make a direct attack on Iran but there's a lot of talk about that and some say that secret weapon could be a nuclear dirty bomb. Well here's what I know for sure. If Iran ever used a nuclear dirty bomb anywhere I'm pretty sure we'd have to put them out of business. Would you agree? Like that would be a limit. That would be the limit. The limit is if you nuke anything you can't be a country anymore at least with the leadership they have.

So I love the Iranian people. If you're lucky enough to know any, you know anybody who was born and raised in Iran I think you'd agree with me. Amazing people. Amazing people. Just the nicest, warmest, friendliest, smart, usually well educated, looking to make a difference kind of people. So the Iranian people are amazing and I definitely don't want to get in a fight with them but their leadership might make themselves a target if they did a dirty bomb.

So here's what I think Israel's options are now. Now I remind you that I don't support Israel because the ADL has labeled me a Holocaust denier. Obviously I'm not a Holocaust denier but the ADL of course is not directly reporting to Israel. They're a separate American entity. However that's not my problem because Israel could turn them off if they want to. They would just have to disavow them and it'd be hard for them to raise money. So given that the ADL is an enemy of mine I can't support Israel while the ADL's after me. Is that fair? And trust me I understand that they're separate entities but I don't care. That's not my problem.

So anyway so I'm not supporting Israel. I'm just describing their options. Option one, there will never be a better time to do a decapitation strike on Iran. I'm not recommending it. I'm not recommending it. I'm saying if they ever wanted to there'll never be a better chance because they've got a free punch right now. It's a free punch. If they go too far this would be the only time they could come back from that because too doesn't look the same as it did before October 7th does it? What you would have considered as going too far on October 6 would not look like too far today. And if time goes by and let's say things normalized it would be impossible to take out their leadership and think you could get away with it. But in the context of having them funding October 7th everybody assumes it seems obvious and the ongoing attacks. Hezbollah continues to send missiles and that's Iranian-backed and Hamas is not giving up the hostages, Iranian-backed. And then Iran did that massive missile and drone attack on Israel which fortunately was mostly thwarted. But under that context Israel can take out the leadership of Iran and probably no other time that could have been possible. So if they don't do it I doubt they'll ever get another chance because everything that's happening now is just so unique. It just doesn't, it's not likely they'll ever get another shot. So again not recommending it but if it happened don't be surprised and it would be the only time they could get away with it.

Also they could get away with it because Biden is so weak. Again that's more of an impression. It might be that the Biden administration is plenty tough and I don't know. You maybe they're playing it right. I don't know. But he's perceived as weak and probably perceived as a lame duck in the sense that it doesn't look like he would win. If you're outside the country you probably think he's not going to win. So if you've got a weak president and then the other fact is that Israel in my opinion has already spent their Holocaust chip. So what they're doing in Gaza will forever be called by their enemies as a genocide and that just essentially kneecaps the whole Holocaust