here's a lot of bad behavior that I don't know if it's criminal. It's just really, really bad and unethical behavior. So if they get a preemptive pardon, we don't have to watch the trial and talk about it. But also it would label them forever as felons because who gets a preemptive pardon? I would like to ask the following question. In the history of pardons, how many times has a completely innocent person got a preemptive pardon? Is there even one time that's ever happened where somebody who was legitimately innocent got a preemptive pardon? Can you think of any time that's ever happened? No. You give a preemptive pardon to somebody you know is damn guilty.

So now to be fair, they might be more worried about some illegitimate lawfare being used against them. And if that's the only thing they're thinking, well, you know, if they think there was no real crime, maybe. But the way we're going to read it is that they've just declared themselves guilty if they accept a preemptive pardon for something they didn't do. I'm not going to believe they didn't do it. I'm just going to believe, oh, you know, you're dirty, you lucky guy and lucky woman.

All right. The Mexican president, what's her name? Claudia Sheinbaum. I will never get tired of saying this. The Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum. I'm going to say it another time because it's funny. So the Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum, the Jewish woman. I just love that that she, you know, I have to give Mexico credit because you think of Mexico as, you know, they're going to be kind of a patriarchy, you presume. If most of the residents are Mexican, they're going to vote for somebody who's as Mexican as possible. But they elected Claudia Sheinbaum, and I give them credit for that. If she does a good job, good work.

Anyway, so she's responding to Trump saying that he wants the gulf to be called the Gulf of America instead of the Gulf of Mexico. And she's shooting back, and she says the US should be called America Mexicana. Let's see how long it takes me to forget her framing. One, two, three. Wait, what did she say? What did she call it? Do you see how special Trump is? Trump says extinct fish once, and I'll remember it for the rest of my life. The Mexican president, as capable as she probably is, I imagine she's very good in general to get where she got, but she tries to match him. He's like, ah, how about, I got it, I'm going to zing you. How about we call it America Mexicana? Why isn't everybody clapping? Clap please. The difference in persuasion and communication skill is just so striking. Like you don't realize how good Trump is at the what I'll call the little stuff, you know, just the ordinary communication. You don't realize how good he is until you see somebody else try it, and then they just do a total face plant. I had to read it again. America Mexicana? No, that's not a good try.

Well, Russia's introducing these land robot tank things. It looks like a little miniature tank, and it could have wheels or tracks, but it's loaded with all kinds of weapons. And they're going to make a bunch of them, they say, and send them at Ukraine. Here's my question. Can Russia manufacture? Now I know they have manufacturing, and I know they make weapons, and this is a weapon. But if their outcome of the war depends on making a lot of these robots that they've never made before, how good are they going to be? Now it could be that even if Russia is not a massively good manufacturing company, it could be that they put their best people in the military stuff, which would make sense. And maybe this is good work, and maybe they can crank them out like crazy. But the thing I'd be looking for is whether they can manufacture well enough to put working models in the field that make a difference.

Now the other thing is that even the ground robots like these, the ones on wheels or running dogs or whatever, they will soon be programmed to swarm just like the drones in the air. So if you organize the drones so that they operate as one and they swarm, there's almost no defense. But likewise if you were on the front line and you're a human being and you get swarmed by these robots, you're going to be in a lot of trouble. The robots on the ground, because it probably takes a little bit of planning and work and strange execution to even take out one of them. If six of them are bearing down on you, you've got to run, and it will run faster than you. So it's going to get real interesting in Ukraine. I would look to see if they can manufacture well and quickly.

Well, I'm going to do something that you don't like. I'm going to defend Dan Crenshaw. Dan Crenshaw is often reported for having very high, relative to other people, really good gains on his stock picks. So there's another story today mentioning that he's a top five investor among Congress. You're like, top five? Did he do that because of insider information? And the implication is that it's because he has insider information so that he and other members who trade are just beating people because they're inside information. And it was pointing out that he had a high percentage gain. So if you look at his gain, I think it was over 40% for the year or something, that would put him in the top five.

Now what do I teach you about spotting fake news? If you know the percentage of gain he made but they don't tell you the dollar amount, is it real news or fake news? The answer is it's fake news. If they told you both the percentage and the dollar amount, it might be real. If they told you only the dollar amount without the percentage, that would be fake. And if they told you the percentage without the dollar amount, which is what they did, that's fake. So the first thing you need to know is that you got abused when you read the story. You got abused. Somebody's trying to pull one over on you.

Turns out his portfolio is not very big. He's not a rich guy. And he said directly that one of the few ways that he can get ahead and still afford to be in Congress, because it doesn't pay that much relative to the cost of being there, that he absolutely needs to augment his income, and he does it by trading. Now how did you rule out the possibility that he told you he needs it, he told you he focuses on it? That's different than most of the people in Congress. Most of the people in Congress don't need it. A lot of them are rich. I don't know what percentage, but a lot of them are rich. And some of them are not concentrating on it. They're concentrating on other things. He's concentrating on it. If you knew his educational background, it's really good. Do you know how much formal education he's had plus the military? I don't think people understand how academically trained he is. So you've got somebody who's got higher academic training than most of Congress. Unlike Congress, he's really paying attention, which means he's learning how to do it right. And there's very little dollar amount. So if he had one good pick, he would have had that gain.

How do you know that the reason he's up is some kind of secret insider information? What if, and this is not in the story, this should be in the story, what if he bought stock in Nvidia? Do you know who bought stock in Nvidia? I did, and a lot of my followers did because I mentioned it once in a while as sort of a unique situation. So most of my followers probably had the same return he did because if the only thing you did was buy the one most obvious stock, Nvidia, you would beat all the other members of Congress. Is that what happened? If he had just bought Tesla, he would have beat most of the members of Congress. If he had just invested in one of the atomic stocks that I mentioned that I'm not going to mention today, he would have beat everybody. It only took one. Just one good stock in his whole portfolio is up 40%. So if you see a story that says he did better than the other people in Congress and therefore the implication is that he broke some law or did something not, he wouldn't break a law because it's legal for them to use to be insider traders. That if you believe that it was like some secret unethical thing he did to get those gains, there's no evidence of that in the story. There's no evidence of it in the story.

Now if there is evidence of any bad behavior or you know it wouldn't be illegal so I guess it wouldn't even be necessarily unethical but you wouldn't like it, you're going to have to give me a lot more than he did a good job. Because if your complaint about the guy is he's good at investing, that just pisses me off. That just pisses me off because that's punishing somebody for competence. And that might be the only thing that's happening.

Now again, let me be very clear. I don't know if there's any valid insider trading that helped his returns. I don't know. But what I do know is you don't know. You don't know. So if you're going to go from he's a good investor to he did something sketchy that you hate, that's a leap I can't support. And it pisses me off when somebody does a good job and there's no evidence that he did it unethically that we criticize him for competence and for making it affordable to do the job for the people.

Now before you give me a hard time because I know you want to, you're going to say but Scott, what about those other unrelated things that we don't like about his policies? Fine. I'm not arguing that. If you don't think he's doing the job you want, I'm not even in that conversation. I don't know enough frankly about him. But my, and I'll also tell you just for full disclosure that I have had conversations with him because I did his podcast a while ago. So I've interacted with him at least on a Zoom kind of a way. And he's a really nice guy. I don't know if you know that, but he's a really nice guy. And so I'm influenced by that. And then I see him being attacked for something that if there's any basis to this, nobody's revealing it. So let's calm down on that. You're certainly makes sense to go after him for the other stuff. But let me sum that up with a little bit of context.

Sometimes you wonder what's it like to be a public figure such as Dan Crenshaw and such as me. What's it like to be a public figure? Well, like Dan Crenshaw, one thing I have in common with him is that I've had several scandals in my career. Some of them you haven't heard of or you forgot about because they're so long. One of the things that all of my scandals have in common is that none of them have actually happened. None of them happened. For example, let's say I'm being criticized for being an H1B supporter. So that's late. That didn't happen. Not once. No. I have said we need to bring in only the best people who make sense. But the H1B process apparently doesn't do that. So I've never said it does that. I've never said I was in favor of it. And it's the biggest thing I'm being criticized for.

Let's see. I'm also being criticized for recommending that people get vaccinated during the pandemic, which never happened. And I forcefully always said the opposite very frequently. Probably said it over and over again. I'm not your doctor. I'm not telling you to get it. I'm not telling you not to get it. It's a personal decision. Opposite, literally the opposite of what I'm blamed for.

Do you remember, some of you might remember the thing that first derailed my career. This was years ago where I had an argument where I predicted that evolution, the theory of evolution, would be debunked in my lifetime. And that it would be debunked not necessarily in classic ways, but it would be debunked because we would understand the nature of reality so differently that evolution would stop making sense. And that happened. That's called the simulation. Now you could argue that the simulation is not real, but the argument is it's a trillion to one likely that it is. And if we're a simulation, then the past is actually created on demand. Now I could be right about that or I could be wrong about that, and I don't know. But what I will tell you is that 100% of the pushback to my opinion was based on stuff I didn't say. So again this major thing, I probably lost, I bet I lost 30% of the Dilbert fans over this, something I was right about, at least in terms of knowing that some rethinking of reality would cause us to rethink evolution. That was one hell of a good prediction. I mean that was a crazy good prediction. Like beyond. If it's right, and I think it is, then does anybody remember, this will be a good test. How many of you remember the sock puppet scandal about me? The accusation was that I sock puppeted, which is a very specific act. Do anybody remember that? Which never happened. It never happened.

Now did I go online with a fake identity and have what I thought was a hilarious conversation with somebody who wanted to argue about the intelligence of Scott Adams? Yes, I did. Why did I do it? I was just debunking some hoaxes that were told about me. One of the hoaxes was that I was a Holocaust denier. Do you see the pattern yet? I'm not a Holocaust denier, but the public had decided I was. You see the pattern, right? 100% of all of my scandals never happened. None of them. Not a single one.

So when I look at Dan Crenshaw and you see this about his investing, do you think that's real? You just heard my resume. All of the claims against me are fake. We add a context to the point that they're reversed. So I don't know the truth about the Dan Crenshaw investment stuff. But with what I know, if I had to place a bet, especially knowing that people have been watching his investments really closely because this is sort of an evergreen thing that they say about him, you don't have one example. You can't give us one example of a company that he had special knowledge about and that's the reason he made money. Because if you've got even one example, you better lead with that. How about he made this investment with insider information on this company, and here's the name of the company, and that caused him to have a 40% gain. You tell me that and you have my attention. Then I'm going to say, oh, still legal, completely legal, but I'd say maybe we should look at changing that law.

So just put it in context. Most stories like this one, the investment one, they don't play out. They're fake. So again, I'm not defending Dan Crenshaw for any other opinions. They might be excellent. They might not be. But that's not my topic to