escribe it. It's a porcupine. What the hell? What kind of dumbasses listen to "there's no other way to describe it"? Let me see if I can dig deep into my creative powers to find some other way to describe it. Oh, how about putting a capable team in charge of auditing our expenses? How about the legally elected president of the United States gets to pick his staff and tell them what to do? Oh, amazing, Jen. Did you see that? Look at that. You said there was no other way to describe it, and yet I found a couple. It turns out there's more than one way to describe it. But I'm going to start using that excuse that there's only one way to describe it. It just sounds so dumb that I kind of like it because it's so absurd anyway.

Harry Enten, who's the data guy at CNN, says that only 39% of the public support Musk having a key role in the administration. Well, this has more to do with how the question is asked. Yeah, so key role, if you thought key role means that he gets to make decisions, that's not what's happening. Both Musk and Trump are very clear. They both say it publicly and as often as you want to, that Trump's in charge. Trump can hire anybody as his chief of staff. Do you know who else is not elected? The chief of staff. So who's bitching about that? Is anybody bitching about his chief of staff? Oh wait, Susie Wiles. She's just an unelected person who's got a key role in the administration. She's got a key role. Yeah, she does. Do you know how important the chief of staff is? The chief of staff is damn near as important as the president. You just don't realize it because it's behind the scenes. But the chief of staff even decides who gets to see Trump and how much time they spend with him and what he pays attention to and then solves problems for him. Susie Wiles is probably in the same category as Elon Musk in the sense that they're very capable, but they're not elected. They just work for Trump.

So now I act like it's an argument and that the dumb people have the wrong argument and if I only present the correct argument everybody will correct. No, it's obvious they're just lying and making up stuff and that they're part of, presumably part of the deep state, you know, bad part of the world.

All right, well, what is DOGE doing now? They're getting into the Medicare and Medicaid systems. So one of the things that Musk teased on X is that there might be enormous fraud in our Medicare and Medicaid systems. Now the fraud would be people making claims that are fake claims. So I have this hypothesis that the amount of government fraud, not necessarily by the government but by people stealing from the government with fake claims for everything from the pandemic to you name it, I've got a feeling that the fraud, if you eliminated it, would balance the entire budget like actually literally. Because when we talk about things like, oh, we're never going to cut the military, well, what if we only cut the fraud? Oh, we're never going to cut Medicare, but what if we only cut the fraud? Oh, we're never going to cut welfare. What if we only cut the fraud? Oh, we're never going to cut Social Security. Well, we could probably fix Social Security. I don't know that Social Security is a fraud. It might be, but that would be harder to do, I guess. No, it probably isn't hard to do. There probably are, I'll bet there are a bunch of dead people collecting Social Security. Yeah. So I'll bet if you just got rid of the fraud, which would be impossible, you're not going to get rid of all of it, how about you can balance the budget. That's how big it is. And I never would have said that until I saw just how bad the problem is after DOGE got going. Now I believe that the fraud could be large enough that it's the entire deficit.

Now we're learning, this is also from Daily Caller News Foundation, that the Biden administration was giving money to terrorists or people who help the terrorists. Now it's allegedly $1.3 billion that the Biden administration collectively gave to things that are more like terrorists and enemies than they are like people we should be helping. But most of that, a billion of it, went to one group, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, which claimed it was helping the poor Palestinians. But it turns out that 10% of the workers were actually Hamas. So a thousand of them, a thousand of the employees were just Hamas or Hamas backers or Hamas oriented. So even Biden shut that down. But that tells you how bad it is.

All right, so let me see if I can connect the dots. Jen Psaki supported Biden. Biden funded people who support terrorists. Connect the dots. That would make Jen Psaki a terrorist. You know, there's no other way to describe it. See how that works? There's just no other way to describe it. No, there is another way to describe it, but if you say there's no other way to describe it, apparently that works on MSNBC. No other way.

So Elon Musk is posting a few minutes ago that the treasury officials are breaking the law every day by approving payments that are fraudulent or do not match the funding laws passed by Congress. I'll bet that's true.

All right, what else? Did you know the Politico, so this one's a fake news, real news, fake news, real news. Here's why it never pays to have one person on a podcast. So if you had one person on a podcast, you'd say, hey, we just found out the USAID gave $8 million to Politico and Politico often says bad things about Trump. So really, is that the reason that you're funding Politico? And then the one guest would say, oh no, you got that story wrong. No, no, you're thinking of Politico the publication. This also went to Politico, but Politico has a separate division that does some professional thing with data. And what the people are buying is that professional data service. It's not about the publication Politico. And then you're on a podcast and there's only one guest and that one guest calls the news fake news and then you're done, right? And that's the last you'll hear about it. That's why the worst way to find out what's true is one person on the podcast talking to a host who doesn't know what question to ask.

Here's the next question. Do those entities report to the same structure? If they do, this is how you launder money. If you wanted to give money to influence the publication part of it, you wouldn't give it to them directly because then it would be a paper trail of you bribing a news source. So instead you say, huh, you have this other line of business over here. Very interesting. Yeah, it's very expensive, but we'd like to buy as much of it as you can give us. So we'll give you $8 million of it. Now, how much extra did Politico have to spend to satisfy this new request for $8 million worth of this service? Probably nothing, because it sounds like a service that just existed and they could just say, oh, now you're subscribing. So probably they just had to enter the government emails or passwords and then they had access. So it could be that the government or the USAID really needed that data, but I don't think so. It seems far more likely that that's just the ordinary way that you bribe somebody. You don't bribe the person. You fund the startup for the person's brother-in-law. You don't fund the person. You fund the thing that the person was going to spend money on but now they don't have to. You don't fund the person. You hire the relative who couldn't get a job for a no-show job. So the most typical way that you bribe people is not by giving them money but giving money to something that will benefit them in an indirect way.

All right, and by the way, I don't know that Politico has one entity and they both connect to it, but that's what you should be asking. So if we don't know that, then we don't know the story. And so I guess I would say I don't know the story.

Let's see what I'm seeing. Something according to the Financial Times, half of Politico's $200 million revenue comes from its Pro subscription business, which capitalizes on the US lobbying industry. So it's something lobbyists pay for. Now, if it's something lobbyists pay for, why would USAID need to pay for it? It's described as Bloomberg for politics. So it's basically data that lobbyists would like, such as what's the name of the person in charge of this thing, who's voting for this thing. It sells data directories and detailed coverage of the legislative and policymaking process for as much as $10,000 a pop. Now, how many of those subscriptions do you think USAID needed to buy? And why is the government figuring out ways to lobby the government? The government is the government. They have to buy an external source to find out who to talk to in the government.

All right, Google is allegedly ending their DEI. But I saw a little nuance to that. So it might be they're ending some kind of affirmative action goals but maybe not completely getting rid of the letters DEI. But it's moving in the right direction. And Robby Starbuck's talking about this. I don't know that he targeted Google yet, but I think you'll see companies not want to get targeted because it's very bad for business. So you should be seeing companies trying to get ahead of it. And I think that's maybe what this is.

But the NFL is sticking with DEI and they're sticking with it hard because the NFL wants to end discrimination finally. I'm glad the NFL wants to end discrimination because this spring I plan to try out for a quarterback position on one of the NFL teams. I pick quarterback because I think that position pays the most usually. So I want the good position. And it wasn't long ago I would have worried about ageism. Like if I showed up they would just say, are you serious? No, you should probably be in your late teens or maybe early 20s. And I would say, I'm sorry, I thought you were in favor of DEI. Well, yeah, yeah, but we were thinking more like black people. And I would say, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm the only white person here. Oh no, there's one. Oh no, that's a coach. There's one. Okay, that seems to be a reporter. Okay, but I'm sure there's some white people here. And then I'd say, but you should not be ageist. I need some DEI. Please give me some DEI. And then they say, but you know you're also kind of small. And I would say, oh, I see where you're going. So now it's about how tall I am. So you don't like the little people. What do you call me behind my back? I think I'm going to sue you. So ageism, sizeism, you guys are like a ball of worms. You're a ball of worms of racism and discrimination and bigotry. And I'd say, are you discriminating against me because I'm heterosexual? No, that's stupid. Why would we discriminate against you for being heterosexual? And then I'd say I'm trans. And they'd say, what? Yeah, I'm trans. Can you prove it? No, I don't have to. I mean, how would I prove it? Take my pants off? No, no, I'm trans. And then they'd say, all right, you can stay for the workout. And then I'd be a quarterback because they're not going to judge me on skill. You know, in the old days my lack of skill would have really held me back. But now that they are going for the biggest possible net and they want to make sure that they've got people from all walks of life represented in the NFL, a good goal by the way, I like every bit of that. Now they probably should just ignore my complete lack of talent. And it's good that the NFL is holding tight on DEI.

Well, Stephen A. Smith is considering running for president as a Democrat because he's sure he could beat all the clowns that are being talked about. And he's not serious yet, but his name will probably get thrown in there because Democrats fail to learn. There's nothing better than watching Democrats not be able to learn because they watch Trump and they can't figure out what he's doing. Like why are you making that work? So they say to themselves stuff like, I got it, I got it. We need an entertainer. We'll get a TV guy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We'll get a TV guy who talks good on TV because that's what Trump has. If we can match the TV guy skills, then we're in good shape. Wrong, wrong. What Trump has is a skill stack that we've never seen. Yes, he has TV experience. Yes, he can persuade like nobody's business. Yes, he's been involved in dozens or hundreds of different businesses so he's seen every business model in the world.

By the way, here's a little side note. When I visited Trump in the Oval Office in 2018, and I told you before how he was interested in me like he actually asked penetrating questions about the cartoon business. So in five minutes I described to him the nature of the cartoon business and how syndication works and things like that. And when I was done in five minutes, he had added to his talent stack just because he asked the right question. He asked exactly the right questions so he understood how that business model of cartooning works. Boop, add it to the model. He adds knowledge to his model like a vacuum cleaner. I mean he's just sucking up. How's this work? How's this work? How do you do that? Why do that work? Why do this work? What's the mechanism? All day long he's just getting smarter and smarter. You put him in the room with Stephen A. Smith, they would both talk really well, but one of them wouldn't know a thing. Stephen A. Smith, he's probably great at what he does. Like he has a real good personality for what he does and he might know tons about sports and things. I'm sure. I mean obviously. But he is no Trump. And if they think they can just get a smooth talker with bonus he's