they're on our side, oh my God, that's who you want on your side.

Of course they've been doxed because the Democrats have one play, which is, huh, you're smarter than us. Maybe we can kill you. They got that one thing. Huh, you're more capable than we are. Perhaps we can change the laws so you can't do that anymore. Huh, you're really, really good at what you do. Maybe we need some DEI in there to stop that. That's really all they have, is stopping good people from doing good things. That's basically the Democrat Party.

Somebody named Dylan Patel was on a podcast talking about Elon Musk trying to catch up in the AI world. So Elon Musk got, I guess you could call it the late start because he was early with funding OpenAI, but then he pulled out of that effort. And when OpenAI burst on the scene, he tried to be a fast follower but to overtake them as quickly as possible with a better game. And his game is so good that he's already built the world's largest AI cluster, 200,000 GPUs. Those would be Nvidia boxes. And I didn't know this. Apparently he bought a factory in Memphis and he upgraded the substation, tapped into a natural gas line, is burning gas to generate power. Okay, that's impressive. But now he's building his own natural gas plant next door, deploying Tesla megapacks for stable power and using industrial chillers for his water-cooled chips.

So remember I told you that the thing you can't predict about the four geniuses is how fast they can do anything. That's the we don't understand. It's like your dog trying to figure out why the light comes on when you enter the room. The dog will never figure that out. They just, they can't get there. So when you say Elon Musk is starting behind on AI, it's Elon Musk. Of course ahead already. Of course he is because he can do stuff that you can't do. So there it is. And he hires people who can do stuff that you can't do too. So yeah, he's scaling up fast, no doubt about it.

All right, let's talk about USAID. Now on one hand it's the hardest topic in the world to talk about unless somebody's already a little bit up to speed. Like what the hell is it? So it's something that is part of the government, but it's a part of the government that works as a giant money laundering system for Democrats. Now that's not something I could have said with complete confidence until DOGE got in there and found out that it's a giant money laundering thing for Democrats. Now it's not the only thing it does. So what makes it complicated is that it's a mix of maybe some things you like. Maybe we funded some things in other countries and you say, you know, that made sense. That helps us and it's also good for the other country. But it seems like maybe most of it or at least way too much of it was dedicated to absolutely corrupt behavior. Just 100% corrupt.

And one of the things it could do is it could launder money through these NGOs. These would be non-government organizations of which there are thousands. So if you, let's see if I get this right. So if you're a Democrat and you support funding of USAID, the USAID will give some money to let's say an NGO that's doing something you like. And you'd say, oh, okay, there's my tax money. It went to an organization that has a name. At least the name is stuff I like. But then that organization has the ability to give some of their money to another NGO. How can it do that? Well, it can. There's nothing illegal about that. And then that NGO can give money to a campaign of the Democrat who was in favor of funding the USAID.

Now I think I got that right. Now you're going to say to me they can't just donate the money that the government gave them back to a campaign. No, not unless they launder it. They have to launder it through these organizations so that by the time the organization donates to something that helps the, maybe to a PAC or to something that helps the campaign, it looks like it was just ordinary, some kind of ordinary donation. So it does seem at this point that it's a major money laundering thing.

And then you see people like Bill Kristol. He's getting some money from it. Some say that AOC was found by a process that was funded by the USAID where they were looking to find young Democrats and turn them into high-level politicians. She was part of a process. It was like American Idol where they interviewed lots of people and they said, hey, we could turn you into something. So there are countless examples of what appear to be obvious corruption on top of what seems to be obviously bad ideas for funding. But where you see the bad ideas for funding, probably they're just, it's just a way to launder money into something that they really want to do.

So now you might say to yourself, Scott, you don't need to get rid of it. You could just get rid of the parts you don't like. Like fire some managers, you know, do a reorg, get some real Republican leadership in there. But 98% of them appear to be Democrats, which means that they're part of the resistance. Which means, according to O'Keefe Media Group, they just did an undercover thing and they got one of the USAID employees to say on camera, it was a hidden camera, that they were to try to basically burrow in and thwart everything that Trump wants and just wait him out. Exactly what you thought was going to happen because basically the order can be given and then it gets into the bureaucracy and then the bureaucracy just slow walks it and says, oh, we can't do that or it's not in the budget or we don't have people or it's not our top priority or something. So basically the bureaucracy says we're just going to thwart you.

Now we only have one person on video, but there were reports and Elon Musk confirmed that that is apparently the dominant opinion. The dominant opinion is that they're going to pretend that they're cooperating but thwart the administration. So what do you do in that situation? Only one thing to do. You got to close the entire thing down. And that's what Trump's going to do. Just close the whole thing. $50 billion, some say 38 billion, but it's many billions of money that they're just going to say we're going to tuck that function temporarily under Marco Rubio. He's got somebody assigned to it. So it's part of the State Department, whereas before it was sort of operating as doing stuff for the State Department, stuff for the Pentagon, and stuff for the CIA. But now it's going to be tucked under Rubio. And he does understand that you can't just reform it. Most of it's just going to have to go away.

So if you didn't have people who understood that the only way to fix it is to break it, you wouldn't have a leadership. If you have leadership that's smart enough and ballsy enough to say we're going to just cut this down to nothing and the only things we're going to put back, because they will put things back, are when the screaming is so loud and the argument is so good. If you got a good argument and there's a lot of energy, we're going to look at it and maybe that one function gets added back. But we'll keep it under the State Department maybe and not under USAID. So it's perfect leadership what you're seeing. It's messy. It's violent, not in the, you know, I'm using that hyperbolically, not violence violence, but it's violent in terms of the rhetoric, the firings, the death threats. The DOGE team I was talking about that got doxed, they already got death threats. But fortunately the Trump DOJ has stepped in and said you're going to jail if you do that again. If we catch anybody making death threats against these DOGE guys, you're going to jail.

And then ActBlue, the group that collects money for the Democrats, somehow they were getting, they were part of the money laundering operation. That's the allegation. I don't know the details on that, but there's an allegation like that.

How are the Democrats taking the loss of USAID, which appears to be the beating heart of most of their corruption? How are they taking it? Well, oh, and then I should add that USAID was also the one, as Mike Benz does a great job of explaining, they funded external entities for the purpose of censoring US domestic people like me. Not cool at all, USAID. So that basically USAID did everything you don't want to happen. If it was something you didn't want and it was corrupt, somewhere in USAID that was happening. So it's like this grab bag of corruption.

The way Elon described it was one of the best descriptions you'll ever hear of anything. He said it would be easy to think it's like an apple that's got a worm in it. So if you get rid of the worm, you know, you still have a pretty good apple. And he says no, it's a bowl of worms. There's no apple. That is one of the best visual persuasive things you'll ever hear because worms are, you can't not see them. If I say a bowl of worms, you can see the bowl of worms. And as soon as I say it's not an apple with one worm, it's a bowl of worms, you'll never forget that for the rest of your life. You'll remember that analogy. That's good. Now that is good.

I like the fact that Elon somehow he's also become an expert in persuasion. And I don't know to what extent he studies it or he's just picking it up by watching it done. If the only thing he did was hang out with Trump, he would become incredible at persuasion. You just have to watch what Trump does. Watch the visual language. Watch the, just watch it all. Yeah, and you'll learn.

There's an account on X called Aesthetica. And this Aesthetica, whoever runs the account, I don't know who it is, apparently has some friends that are connected in the Democrat world. And they're panicking quite a bit about this USAID thing. Now isn't that interesting that most of you never even heard of USAID, didn't even know what it was, but the Democrats are panicked. Why would they be panicked over this thing you never heard of until recently? Well, let me tell you why.

According to Aesthetica, talked to a friend who has connections within the Democratic Party, and he said the level of panic over Trump and Elon shutting down USAID is unlike anything he's ever seen. And it goes on, a direct quote. This is worse than 9/11 for Democrats. Wow. USAID is the primary vessel they use to achieve their political agenda. USAID is and always has been the primary source of funding for their influence peddling schemes and for their indirect source of income. Indirect source of income. Everybody you see going public saying it's a terrible mistake, almost all of them are getting funded by USAID. But it's hard to tell because it might go through a few different stages before it gets to them.

Another text. Based on the reactions from within the party, it seems to me that dismantling USAID is Trump's biggest political victory to date. It was his enemy's golden goose. Yep, it's their bank. And indeed it's a bigger bank than Soros. You thought Soros was their bank. He was their second biggest bank. USAID was the big one. Even including funding the Soros prosecutors, USAID funded twice as much as Soros did for Soros prosecutors. Just imagine that Soros has a multiplier so that he doesn't have to spend all of his money. The USAID is sort of matching his donations, so to speak. Wow.

And then it goes on. He said initial plans by the Democrats is to have their people at USAID hide the partisan funding under unimpeachable initiatives. So in other words, funding AIDS prevention and then people go, oh, I can't get rid of that. So they will push back really hard on certain line items that on the face look like reasonable USAID expenditures. So the thing you have to get rid of is the things that look the most like something you'd want to keep because that's where they're going to hide the good stuff. So that's where they'll hide their political spending. Exactly what I said.

Now how do you fix that? If you know the insiders say they're going to try to hide their funding so that they can keep their influence budget intact, you have to get rid of the whole thing. There's no other way to play it. You got to get rid of the whole thing. And that's what's going to happen.

Now I do worry, and Mike Benz warns against this too, I do worry that we celebrate too soon because every part of this octopus is going to be fighting like every arm is going to be. And they're not started yet. They haven't started yet.

Now let's see who's against it. Now the beauty of the USAID thing like nothing I've ever seen before is that the people who are the most corrupt are the ones who are going to raise their head like prairie dogs and take the lead in saying it's a bad idea to close USAID. And you're going to be able to identify all of the bad guys, meaning the people who are either literally corrupt or at least strong backers of a corrupt system.

So Joy Reid claims that Trump adding any oversight to USAID is equivalent to staging a coup. Okay, there you go. So Joy Reid and MSNBC are part of the corruption. That's all you need to know. Anybody who's taking the side of USAID now that we know it's a bowl of worms is a bowl of worms. So all the worms in the bowl are like, oh, don't do it, don't do it. I'm a good worm. I'm a good worm. No, Joy Reid.

All right, so you've made yourself obvious. Jen Psaki also on MSNBC suggests that Musk targeting USAID because he was uncomfortable how the agency combats corruption. Oh yeah, it's not the corruption of the agency. It's that they combat corruption. Yes. What does that sound like? It sounds like everything the Democrats ever say about everything. Whatever you accuse them of, they go, that's exactly what you're doing. That's what you're doing. It's all they do, projection. So yes, Jen Psaki is part of the worms.

And then was it Van Jones, I think on CNN, said that Donald Trump is saying by cutting USAID for all these valuable services that he's saying basically we don't care, you go die. That's the message from the United States government according to Van Jones. Do you think Van Jones gets any indirect funding from USAID? I don't know, but that would be my assumption. Or at least friends of his do or important interests do. So Van Jones, we're adding you to the prairie dogs who raised their head and wanted to back USAID. See, see how useful this is? This is the most useful thing you've ever seen.

I tell you all the time that if you know what happened, you don't know anything because the what happened always has some context that's missing. The narrative is always magical spinning anyway. So if you only know what happened, in this case several public figures said cutting USAID is a bad idea. That's what happened. You wouldn't know anything. But if I told you who did it, well now you know everything. As soon as you know who the players are, well now you know everything.

I'll go on. Jamie Raskin is taking the lead. Raskin is like the symbol of the worst parts of the Democrat lying corrupt machine. If he's involved, then anybody else who's taking his side, bowl of worms. Bowl of worms. AOC is taking a strong stand against cutting the USAID. Huh. Bowl of worms.

Anyway, so there's also a possibility that Congress, especially some Republicans, and this is something Mike Benz warns about, might not vote to close USAID because there's some conversation about whether Trump has the right to do what he's doing. But I say it's within the executive branch, so yes he does. But if Congress needs to vote on it or if they just vote on it, they could override the president. So they could vote to keep it open, for example, and then he'd have a problem. But it wouldn't happen unless some Republicans voted to keep it open. So what's going to happen if some Republicans vote to keep it open now that we know it's a bowl of worms? Well, it would certainly identify those Republicans as part of the corruption.

Do you agree that there is no way any Republican can be in favor of keeping USAID at this point unless they're part of the corruption? So what happens if they do? What happens if they pop up and there's a few Republicans who say, oh, it's so important we got to keep it? Well, you're going to have to do something about that because this is way too big to just say, well, that's their opinion. That's the way our system works. So we didn't get the votes. All right, too bad. Not in this one. Way too big. If some Republicans break ranks on this, Trump's going to have to finish them. He's just going to have to put them into retirement or into jail. Now jail only if they broke some law, but pretty much all of them are breaking some law. I wouldn't want to start with a person that looked for the crime, but probably in every case everybody already knows the crime and they just have to pursue it if they feel like it.

So if you're a Republican and you're thinking of voting to keep USAID at this point with as much as we know about it, you better plan for retirement or at least lawyering up because it's going to get real expensive. And it would be the worst decision you ever made in your life. So we hope that doesn't happen. But it would reveal who on the Republican side is corrupt. So we're just waiting for the little prairie dog heads to pop up so we can add them to the Raskin, AOC, MSNBC bowl of worms.

All right, I know I'm going to get taken out of context for calling people worms. Let me just be clear. People are not worms. Even the people I don't like are not worms. It's just a good analogy. So when I say they're in the bowl of worms, they're not worms. They're people I deeply disagree with who may or may not be corrupt. But people are not worms.

All right, confirmation update. So the ones we're waiting on to see if they get confirmed would be RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi. At the moment the betting markets have all of them looking good. Do you think the betting markets are an accurate representation? I don't think so in this case because I think that if any Republicans break ranks on any of these candidates, they'd be doing it for kind of personal corrupt reasons. And I don't think the betting markets can identify people who have personal corrupt reasons. So I worry that the betting market is in no way predictive. We'll see.

All I can say is to remind people that if RFK Jr. gets voted down by some Republicans, again those are some Republicans who better be planning to retire right away because life's going to get really hard after that. This one we're not going to take like normal business. Saving children from chronic illnesses, I'm sorry, that's a little bit bigger than politics. We're not going to treat it like politics. You're just going to have to leave the public scene if you're going to vote against this. You can't be any part of the public conversation again. That's the end of your role in public one way or the other. No violence, of course, obviously no violence, but the pushback's going to be brutal reputation-wise.

All right, I saw a meme that I laughed about for I think 45 minutes straight. I tried to get some work done but I couldn't. I couldn't stop laughing about it. And you've seen the meme where there's somebody nervously looking at two buttons and they only have two buttons. And the meme gets repurposed for lots of different topics, but it always makes me laugh. But I saw one where it was the Democrats who only had two buttons. And one of the buttons is labeled bring up eggs and the other one is labeled bring up Hitler. Now one of my favorite things in the realm of humor is when somebody summarizes something so well that the summary is hilarious. This is a perfect summary. The Democrats have so little left in the tank. Like they don't have anything to run on. They literally bring up eggs or Hitler no matter what you're talking about. Huh, eggs, eggs or Hitler or eggs, eggs or Hitler. I can't decide. Now that's funny and it's not too far off.

Greg Gutfeld on The Five yesterday was talking about how hard it's going to be for the Democrats to distinguish themselves from the party of common sense. It's the ultimate high ground. So Trump just owns common sense. It's why you won. It's the ultimate meet in the middle. How about we just do the things that make sense and we can argue about the other things separately. Common sense. Now in order to run against common sense, you're either going to have to make some weird argument that only you have common sense and they don't, but nobody's going to believe that. Or you're going to have to argue that, as Gutfeld said, if you're trying to find some distance between common sense and the Democrats, the Democrats are going to have to start embracing bestiality and voodoo sacrifice because if you're trying to make some contrast with common sense, it's going to be a tough task anyway.

I would argue that all of the smart people are on the same side at this point. The smart people who are not on the same side are corrupt or hypnotized. Now some of them, like I always talk about my smartest Democrat friend, he is clearly just hypnotized. He's clearly hypnotized. Would you like a test to know if you're hypnotized? All right. Do you believe that Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute? If you believe it, you're hypnotized. Like actually literally hypnotized because that's not something any reasonable person would believe. That's so far outside the bounds of reasonable. If you ever believed, if you ever believed that Trump said in public knowingly and intentionally those neo-Nazis are fine people, if you ever thought that really happened in the real world, you're easily hypnotized. And you are hypnotized if you believe that Trump once said maybe we should drink some bleach or inject some household disinfectants into our body. If you think he ever said any of those things or anything like it, you're hypnotized.

Those are things that you are more associated with cognitive dissonance. You don't really need an argument to learn that those things didn't happen. Do you know why I said all those things didn't happen the moment the rumor came up? Because if you're not hypnotized, you don't even need to look at the details. You just say, oh no, he wouldn't give a Nazi salute. No, nobody's complimenting Nazis in public as from the presidency. That never happened. No, nobody's sugges