h the warmonger and then he's not as bad as the warmonger he's going to look like the good cop. So for negotiating purposes it's kind of perfect to have one warmonger in the room. You just so you're not that warmonger yourself. So that's exactly what Trump said. And I think everybody who understands negotiations, I think everybody understood it. But now he says it directly. And I do believe that this is not just an excuse. If this were a normal politician if Trump were normal I would have said oh you made a big mistake with him and now you're trying to explain your big mistake. I don't think so. I think he knew that Bolton was a negotiating asset and he was going to use him like that right from the start. And only Trump would do that. There's nobody else who would even have had that idea.

But here's my take. I love the fact that Trump is rebranding Bolton as the dumbest guy in America at least on foreign policy. Because if you're Iran just think about this. If you're Iran and you were mad at him because you thought he was going to push America to bomb your country and now he's been branded by the actual commander in chief as the dumbest guy in the country, would your adversary want to kill the dumbest guy on your side? No no that would be the last thing. You want to kill the smart ones. I mean if you're going to kill anybody at all you pick out their smartest guy. Remember when Trump put the hit on Soleimani? It's because Soleimani was their best guy. Killing their best guy makes complete sense if you're an adversary. Killing their dumbest guy doesn't buy you a thing. You'd rather they keep their dumbest guy no matter how dumb it is. So it's kind of funny that Trump both removed his Secret Service at the same time he made it completely unnecessary to kill him. It's kind of perfect. Only Trump.

All right here's I'm going to take another victory lap on this next story as one does. So apparently Alex Soros gave an interview to the Financial Times. Now the first thing that should be noted is wait a minute Alex Soros gave an interview. I've never seen him do that. Because if he got interviewed how would he explain what he's doing? Like it's not really possible to explain what they're doing in any way that sounds non-evil. So I always thought he just avoided interviews because he couldn't possibly explain what they were doing. But he does one and then I immediately looked up who owns the Financial Times and turns out the Financial Times is owned by a Japanese holding company. Japanese holding company. So who would be the least confrontational media if you're going to pick of all the world who would be the least dangerous media? I got to think something owned by a Japanese holding company is not going to ask you the hard questions. I feel like you're going to get the easy questions. Am I wrong? I mean maybe I'm making some kind of stereotype that's unfair but are the Japanese news people world famous for being extra aggressive? Because I know the British are aggressive. French press pretty aggressive. American press very aggressive. And none of them seem to be able to talk to Soros but the one owned by a Japanese holding company, well so I don't think they asked him any tough questions. But still it made news.

So the first question is is Alex Soros intentionally avoiding any serious news interviews? I think the answer is yes obviously. Remember when Elon Musk said he wanted to talk to him and Soros said yes but I'll bet they can't schedule it. Elon can probably make it any time but I bet Alex just he's busy. Maybe we could do that later. It's never going to happen. I don't think ever Elon Musk and Alex Soros will sit in the same room alone. I don't think it'll ever happen because he wouldn't put himself in that position.

But anyway here's the interesting part. This is being reported by the Washington Free Beacon. So according to Alex his father George is angry that the money is going to, well that his own organization has too many employees. Rent seekers you might say. And so apparently George Soros said quote I didn't want to create an employment agency. Now that's what his son says the dad said. Meaning that he didn't want the nonprofit Open Society to just be hiring people like crazy but apparently they did. He said that George was very upset by the massive number of employees and quote amount of bureaucracy at his liberal nonprofit the Open Society Foundations. And furthermore he says his only regret, this is what Alex the younger one says, he says his only regret since taking over is that he didn't slash the nonprofit's workforce sooner.

Now it gets more interesting. Part of the interview Alex considers himself a Zionist meaning that he's very pro-Israel and Israel's existence as you know a Jewish state. Now at the same time his society the Open Society has been funding millions of dollars to self-declared anti-Zionist organizations. How do you square that? He's massively funding anti-Israel organizations who are, and it's not just an interpretation these are organizations who say it directly, but that's the opposite of his view. And this is not a random view because he's Jewish right? So if you're actually Jewish and you say in an interview you know I'm a Zionist or words to that effect but you're funding the exact opposite the exact opposite how do you explain it?

Do you remember who had