quite understand that being technically right about something doesn't help them at all. It doesn't help at all. What matters to politics and to the country is what Trump understands perfectly, which is how does it make you feel? If you feel better because this individual is captive, then Republicans win. If you feel better because some process got followed with this one guy and by the way the mistake was only temporary because it's already been corrected, well not much of a feeling associated with that. So they always get the feeling part wrong.

Meanwhile in the UK where freedom of speech is an illusion, it is now I think illegal. They have something called the Prevent program in the UK government that if you speak positively about something called cultural nationalism I think you can be put in jail and that would be believing that mass migration threatens Western culture and it's being called a subcategory of terrorism. Now can you believe that the UK is not allowed to say that if we increase our immigration it will change the culture of our country? And maybe not in a way that we intended or wanted. Right to jail.

But how many of you would ever travel to the UK? I think it's too dangerous. I've never I don't think I've ever said anything that would get me put in jail but I also don't know. Wouldn't that be weird? Imagine you just take a vacation and you're over there in London and you're just I think I'll send out a little post and you send out a little post and you don't realize that you just broke their speech laws and next thing you know you're in jail in the UK just because you posted something that you could have posted anytime you wanted in the United States. Well good luck with them.

There's a rare I think it's rare nine to nothing Supreme Court decision that sided with an Ohio woman. I guess she claimed that she was denied a job or a promotion actually and it went to an LGBTQ colleague instead. And the court was trying to decide if somebody who's in a majority category, because it was a straight white woman, whether or not she could sue for discrimination using the same burden of proof as for those of a minority group. Well it turns out that by a vote of nine to nothing the Supreme Court decided that straight white women are people too. Yeah. They're also people. So they get to play by the same rules as people. Yeah. They're not special. They're people. And so they get to be treated the same. Good.

Then Kathy Griffin was on a Don Lemon podcast and she said quote I do not think Trump won in a free and fair election. I believe there was tampering. I don't know if it was the Elon connection. My gut is telling me that something was up with that. So perfect. So now Rosie O'Donnell and Kathy Griffin have both come out saying the exact same thing that a lot of Republicans were saying about the 2020 election and they get to say it without any consequence. Well I recommend that they storm the Capitol immediately and try to push their way in.

So I love the fact that it seems like everything is going the Republicans' way, you know, except the big beautiful bill. That may be a little hiccup. But every time I see a Democrat doubting an election result I think to myself well if you believe that it's possible for Trump or his allies to have rigged an election without getting caught by any court, because no court has ruled anything of the type, then what would make you think that it was impossible for that to have happened the other way in 2020? What would be the argument that only Trump supporters could rig an election? It's either riggable or it's not. Now I don't have any evidence that either of those elections were rigged. But if you think that one of them can rig and the other cannot, and the reason that you know that one cannot is because the court cases didn't support it, that's not much of an argument. You've kind of lost that argument. So thank you, Kathy Griffin.

If you didn't notice or watch, Kash Patel, the head of the FBI, was on Joe Rogan just recently and broke some news. One of the pieces of news he broke is that he'd been swatted. So the head of the FBI got swatted. Now I assume that means that they actually showed up at the door. It seems to me far more likely they would have just said oh that's the FBI director's house so it's obviously not real. But maybe they have rules that say they can't act as though something's not real until they get there and they find out for sure. So that's why the swatting works. But if you can't get rid of the swatting when you're the director of the FBI, I don't think you and I are going to be able to stop it. So that's pretty awful.

As you know, both Dan Bongino and Kash Patel have maintained that they've seen the Epstein files and it was definitely a suicide. Now my question would be this. If the only thing you've seen are the files, what would make you think the files are complete and real? How would you know that? Well they would know better than I would whether a document's real. And I'm sure it's all been looked at. But don't you think if someone had the ability to kill Epstein and make it look like suicide, hypothetically, would they not also have the access to make sure the file didn't show that they killed him? It feels like a little bit incomplete. Meaning yeah I hear you. And I believe Bongino and Patel are telling the truth. Meaning in their opinion based on everything they've seen it's a slam dunk, definitely a suicide. But would they know? Do you think that just their experience plus looking at the files would that be enough that they have the right answer? I don't know. It's a little bit short for me.

But anyway, so he made some more news. He said that anybody expecting video evidence from Epstein's private island might be disappointed as no such footage exists to his knowledge. Really? What exactly does he mean by that? There's no video footage of a celebrity or he's saying there's no video footage of anything. Now suppose he said Epstein definitely killed himself and also there are no videos and then nobody has any. Now I don't know if he's saying that. It's a little unclear. But if he did say that, wouldn't you disbelieve the entire package? Because if he tells me there's no videos and there never have been and nobody's had any, I'm not going to believe anything he ever says again.

Now my current opinion is that they're straight shooters and they're looking out for the American public. But I also believe that we live in a world where sometimes the security apparatus, the fate of the country can depend on not telling the public everything. So if they had to choose, and I'm not saying they are, but if they had to choose between keeping a secret that was so dark it would destroy the country versus telling you the truth because they're truth tellers, which would they do? Which would a patriot do? Because I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I think they've earned that they're both patriots.

So the thing I worry about is not that they're honest, because I think they are. It's just that if you live in a world where keeping secrets is part of the operational expectation of what you do, I don't know if you can ever trust anybody whose job it is to make sure we don't find out things we're not supposed to find out. Right? If somebody is a journalist and they have accessed all the files and maybe you let a few journalists run free, if they all came back and said all right we've looked at everything. Somehow they would know that would be a problem, would they? And they come back and they say all right we've looked at everything and it looks like it was a suicide and there's no videotapes. We