e're going to put all of our terms in public. Everything we want, we're going to publicize. We're going to explain why. And we're going to tell you what the context is. Will you do the same? And put them in a position where they simply have to defend their position. Because right now if you say China is giving us bad trade deals, maybe somebody knows what a tariff is, maybe they don't. Maybe some people know how bad the theft of IP is, maybe they don't. Maybe people know that if you went to China and tried to use their justice system to fix an IP theft, you wouldn't even get a phone call returned. There's no process at all. And if you looked at other restrictions and other risks and if you looked at the surveillance that they do of any American who goes over there, you can't even bring your phone. I mean imagine a country where you can't even bring your phone or your laptop because there's a 100% chance they're going to hack into it. Imagine dealing with a company that if you make a product that's successful but you're making it in China, the very first thing they're going to do is steal it and they're going to run the factory all night to make more of the fake one than you're paying them to make the real one. And then they're going to compete with you and you're going to say, "Hey, it looks like you just ran my own factory that I was paying you to make my stuff. It looks like you just ran it for extra hours and then put it on Amazon and you're just competing with me with my own stuff against me." And you know what China would say? Take it up with our courts that don't return your phone calls ever. Not sometimes. Ever. There's no path. So how many people know that? How many people know how unsafe it is to do business in China? Well some people know it. Let's do it in public. Let's put it all in public. Now if they fight the idea of doing it in public, that would be kind of embarrassing. And it would also sort of force us to be the ones who described their practices in public without their defense. They wouldn't have any defense to it.

Here's another one. We could tell China, "China, I think we've been maybe unnecessarily disrespectful to you." Wait for it. Just wait for it. "We've been a little bit insulting and we've been a little bit disrespectful. And I think that we've been trying to get you to change in ways that you don't want to change. And we're not the boss of you, China. China is a great nation with a great future and a great history. And China should be allowed to be China." So this would be the let China be China approach and you say to them we think you should be China and just be China any way you want to be China. Just continue to be exactly like you are. However, we'd like to announce that our long-term position is to do a friendly, respectful unwinding of all association with China. We'd like to unwind all of our business, but some of it's going to take years, such as the pharmaceuticals and the drugs business, and some of it might happen a little faster. But there's no offense. We're going to do this with complete respect. We agree that your position is one that you can take. So rather than trying to embarrass you or bully you or negotiate you into a compromised position that you don't want to do, we think that was a big mistake because it didn't really understand the power and the interests of China. And from now on, we'd like to let China be China alone without us. And if you don't mind, we'll continue buying things from you where it makes sense. But we're going to unwind as much of the business as possible as quickly as possible in the friendliest way possible. So we'd like to remain good relations but without any trade because let's let China be China. China is an aggressive, tough, highly respected country and if you would like to be China without any pushback from the rest of the world we accept that. So we accept your terms and we hope you don't mind if we unwind completely.

So two possibilities that are not on the table. Negotiate in public or agree to a friendly, completely respectful, complete unwinding of business over time. So that's how a hypnotist would approach it. So you'd give them some options that were never on the table. Because if you deal with the options that are on the table, you're going to get the same result everybody ever got, which is do you want to do a deal? No, we don't have to. But please, no, but it's bad for us. We know. But it's super good for you while being bad for us. Do you understand that? Yeah, we got it. You can't live in that frame. You have to change the frame. So if China wants to be China, let's let China be China. We don't need to change them.

All right, let's get back to America here. I'm loving watching the news people explain why they were so bad at doing their jobs. And the best example of course is the Biden brain situation where they pretended they couldn't notice. So now we've got Chris Cillizza, who used to be on CNN. He's not anymore, but he was what I'd call an anti-Trump specialist. I used to talk about him all the time in the first term in the first election. And he said that the reason that he didn't cover the Biden brain story was it wasn't any kind of intentional activism. He said we simply didn't push hard enough to get around the smoke screen from the Biden people. What smoke screen? You and I and everybody with a television set could see Biden was falling apart from I think I started saying it in 2019 and I wasn't alone. There were plenty of other people saying what are we seeing there? That doesn't look right. And then they started hiding him. I don't think that could have been any more obvious. And his schedule was basically he's not doing any work today. He's going to go to the beach again. It could not have been more obvious to everybody watching. And you're telling me that the only people who couldn't notice were the people who quote didn't push hard enough to get through the smoke screen. The fact that the news is trying to blame the insiders for protecting them is unbelievable. I mean I wonder how much of this they believe on their own. Like in their own minds, do they think that's true or do they know that it's like a ridiculous rationalization? I don't know.

So Trump had a cabinet meeting yesterday and I saw a summary by Insurrection Barbie on X about some of the good news out there and there was some pretty big news. So Brooke Rollins talked about the terrible position that the Biden administration left the farmers in. She explained that there's been a 30% increase in input costs and that the previous administration left them with a $50 billion trade deficit even though that was zero when Biden took office. $50 billion deficit when it started at zero. And so they're working on overcoming those issues. So basically the Biden administration with Biden's broken brain just let our food supply be in tatters by the time he was done and the Trump administration is working hard to fix that. Brooke Rollins appears to be a superstar in the administration. So that's looking good.

Then Tulsi Gabbard had some updates which were all individually interesting especially about things like the RFK files and the JFK assassination files. Those are being prepped for release. I don't know when, but that's interesting. But the most interesting part and this is from Tulsi Gabbard. So this is your government talking. This is not a podcaster. This is not some rogue person with an opinion. This is your government. Your sitting government says that the electronic voting machines have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time and that they've been vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation of election results and they're continuing to investigate. That's the government saying that voting machines were vulnerable and have been for a very long time. And I think there was something said about they were not even designed to modern cybersecurity standards.

Now that does not mean that they've identified any problems with prior elections. So one of the questions you can say but wait, the voting machine people have sued people who said that there were problems. They've sued people who said there were specific problems, like there was a specific manipulation. That's not what Tulsi Gabbard is saying. Tulsi Gabbard is saying that by their nature, by their design, they would have some vulnerabilities. So it's not about a specific claim. And she puts it in the context of working toward Trump's goal of having a paper ballot, same-day election because if you don't debunk the safety of voting machines, it's going to be hard to talk anybody into getting rid of them. So to me that's a big deal. It's a really big deal.

Now how long have I been telling you that there's no way to protect a cyber device like that? To me it just seems obvious. You wouldn't have to be some expert in cybersecurity to know that these older machines that have been hacked by hackers in a variety of different forums. You wouldn't have to know the specifics if you knew anything about technology. You would say I don't think they've invented anything you can't hack if you had access. A lot of hacking involves a physical person being let in to do a physical thing or an insider who just has access as an insider. So whenever you've got insiders or the possibility of physical access, it just seems like you have a hackable situation. It wouldn't matter if you're talking about election machines or ATMs or any other machine.

RFK Jr. at the same meeting said that he's going to have an answer on the likely cause of the spike in autism by September. He points out that the autism rate when he was a kid was 1 in 10,000 but now it's 1 in 31. Oh my god. One in 31. I've been tracking this issue forever. But one in 31, there's clearly something in the air or the water or the food or the medicines or something clearly. But his promise that we'll know by September what is the likely cause of it? I don't know about that. Because that would assume that we have the right kind of data. Do you believe we have or that we could have by September the right kind of data?

I'll tell you based on the totality of my experience working with data because I used to do that before I did this. I think there are too many variables. It might be possible to tease out the right answer, but by September I don't know. It's pretty aggressive. So he might think he already knows the answer, and maybe there's a domain in which there is data if you just took the time to look at it. I have a high degree of trust that RFK Jr. wouldn't say it unless he meant it and that he really believed that we could do that. So that would be a hell of a thing. Just imagine that. Honestly, that would be one of the greatest achievements in American history if he pulls that off. Do you think he will? He might. By far it would be the most useful thing anybody in the Kennedy family had ever done. Would you agree with that? That there would be nothing in the entire Kennedy legacy from the Cuban missile crisis, pick whatever you want, that would be the most important thing that any Kennedy had ever done. So I'm rooting for him. Rooting hard.

He also wants to get soda out of the SNAP program so that poor people can't use your tax money on soda. He wants to get fluoride out of the water. Apparently there's evidence that it lowers IQ. And he wants to improve school lunches. Those all sound pretty good to me. So that's going on.

According to Just the News, they've got some good article there on some new declassified material about that Russia collusion hoax from long ago that Kash Patel just gave to Congress. Now I don't know how much of this is new and how much of it is telling us what we already knew, but I didn't know about this. So apparently Grok was asked to summarize it. So here's what Grok said about it. One of the documents contains handwritten notes by former CIA director John Brennan in July 2016. So carefully note the date, July 2016. And it details a briefing to Obama and senior officials. So what Brennan knew in 2016, Obama knew because he got briefed and the senior officials did. So they all knew this and it suggested that Hillary Clinton's campaign approved a plan to tie Trump to Russian interference in the election, allegedly to distract from her email scandal. And the notes outline the concerns about Russian knowledge of this strategy and indicate discussions within the intelligence community about its implications.

So in 2016 Brennan, Obama, and their closest top advisers knew that Hillary Clinton was running an op. And the thing they were worried about is that Russia would find out about the op. Brain exploding. Really, the thing they were worried about is that Russia would find out about the op. They weren't worried about the op. They weren't worried about an insurrection to remove or to change the election. I don't even know what to say about that. It's exactly what you thought it was. From the very beginning I said to myself that John Brennan guy, there's something wrong there. Does he really think the Russia collusion thing is real? And the answer was apparently not.

And I won't get into the rest of it but let's say some of the highlights are they knew that the Carter Page thing they went too far and they knew this stuff was left out trying to drag him in there. They knew that the case that they were trying to put together about General Flynn, they knew early on that there was no evidence that he had done anything whatsoever. None. And yet they talked about continuing it based on no evidence. Not a little bit of evidence but based on none they continued to say maybe they should keep looking, which suggests that they were just trying to jail him as opposed to worried about actually any crime. Unfreakingbelievable. So that was exactly what you thought.

Yeah, there were notes from some FBI official expressing concern about the FBI's approach with Flynn suggesting internal unease about the investigation's tactics. Yeah, there was a little unease about that. There should have been.

In other news, you remember the Central Park 5 story? I won't give you the whole background there but you remember that long before Trump was in politics he bought a page of the New York Times and said that the death penalty should be brought back. Now he didn't mention the Central Park 5 but the news assumed that that's what he meant and they acted like he had essentially blamed them for being guilty when they were later cleared by the courts. Now when I say they were cleared by the courts that doesn't mean that I know that they were guilty or innocent. I wouldn't know. I wasn't there. But there was not evidence according to the court to convict them.

So the lawsuit is about what Trump said during a debate in 2024. And the courts have ruled that the lawsuit can go forward because Trump said something about this situation during the debate that can be objectively determined to be false. Now that doesn't mean that you broke a law or anything but it suggests there's enough meat there to have a trial.

So here's what Trump said when Kamala brought up the Central Park 5. Trump said during the debate, quote, "They admitted they said they plead guilty." Now that never happened. They never pled guilty. And I said well if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person. Ultimately the person was not killed but was badly injured. And if they pled guilty and they were not guilty. Anyway, so he was basically just riffing on it and it sounds like he didn't remember the details.

Can you be sued for defamation if you're just honestly wrong about the details of a thing that happened? I think you have to have intent, don't you? Or if it's not intent you have to show some kind of seriousness about not defaming somebody, basically some seriousness that you're trying to be accurate and you're not haphazardly just throwing things around. I don't think they're going to be able to show that anything happened other than he remembered it wrong because it doesn't even sound like his normal hyperbole. It literally just sounds like he remembered it wrong. So I can't believe that he would lose that. But again, lawsuits are endless. The lawfare.

According to Sky News, Tom Clark is writing that the amount of electricity needed to power the world's data centers, mostly because of the AI load, is expected to double in five years. Do you think we're going to have twice as much electricity in five years? Well probably not. So what are we going to do? I'm going to add my prediction to this. I predict that there will be sufficient innovations in energy reduction for AI specifically. In other words the technologists will find ways to not need nearly as much energy for AI and that will be fine.

Do you know the law of slow-moving disasters? It's called the Adams law of slow-moving disasters because I named it after myself. It says that if you can see a disaster and everybody can see it, it's not like some secret two people see it. But if we can all see the problem coming, we have a really good record of dealing with it. Really good. 100%. We're still here. So this would be on the border of an existential threat if we didn't have enough energy to run AI because even if you said Scott we'll just turn off the AI and everything will be fine, well then you lose to China and somebody else has AI and you know that's an existential threat. So the fact that we have at least five years suggests to me that we'll be fine. How? I don't know specifically but I think I've told you maybe 10 different stories recently about some breakthrough or some potential breakthrough to lower the energy needed to do AI. And then DeepSeek apparently found some workarounds too. So I think that if you just straight line how much energy we'll need, that's misleading because it's hard to know how many innovations will be in lowering energy need.

Nagoya University discovered that they can instantly cure motion sickness with a 100 hertz sound which is well within normal hearing levels. So it wouldn't hurt you. And apparently it's been tested. So this is after you already have the motion sickness. All they do is strap on the headphones and play this sound and it just instantly takes away your motion sickness. Now that's the claim but obviously they do some more testing, but wouldn't that be cool? I don't have motion sickness but I've always said I'm so lucky because how many times have you gotten in a car or a vehicle with somebody who does and you know they're not happy at all. It's pretty common. A lot of people have motion sickness. So even though I don't, this seems like a big deal to me if they could fix it with a sound because then you could just put it on your phone and put your headphones in and instantly feel better. Wow.

The New York Post says there's some new footage but it's from 2023 of another Tic Tac-shaped UFO that's on military radar. So do you think they found another UFO that looks like a Tic Tac? I don't know. I'm going to say no. I don't believe the Tic Tac stuff are UFOs. I don't know what they are but I'm going to guess anything but a UFO or at least anything but an alien ship. They might be unidentified but I don't think there are any alien ships that look like Tic Tacs. I might be wrong. You never know.

The Trump administration is not going to crack down on Nvidia's H20 chip. That's their advanced chip for AI. And there was some thought that they would limit their ability to sell it to China, for example. China is a big market for these chips. But apparently Nvidia was smart enough to develop a crippled version of the chip. So there's a lesser powered one that they've already developed that they would sell to China instead of the best one for America. So I guess that would be good enough