work. And I think I said that but MSNBC's Nicole Wallace called it one of the bleakest days of her entire anchoring career.

How many of you think that the temporary handcuffing of one senator who was causing trouble and nobody recognized, how many of you think that was one of the bleakest days of her entire anchoring career? Do you think she took it a little too far? Well the game we're playing is that the dramacrats have to almost compete with each other to see who can make it sound like it was worse. Oh my god if they could take down a senator what will they do to me next? Oh well once you realize that the entire game is drama theater and when they get a new script they all have to adapt to it. It's like oh god. Oh no the Maryland dad. No. Okay we're done with him. Do you have the new script? Okay new script. Alex Padilla. Senator. Oh senator. Oh.

Anyway according to the New York Post there was some kind of USAID bribery for contract scheme that got busted and it was a 550 million bribery scheme. Now the bribery was only I think a million dollars which is still a lot of bribery but one individual is charged with getting a one million dollar bribe in return for directing USAID money to specific consulting companies, Apprio and Vistant. Now does that sound like exactly what you thought was going on with these NGOs? I won't say I always knew it. I'll just say that recently it became obvious and Elon Musk has indicated this might be just the top of the iceberg but that the USAID thing was just a perfect money laundering situation that nobody was watching. You know there was nobody in charge it looked like and the entire thing was about people receiving large amounts of money from the government and then redirecting that money.

Now how does that not go wrong? You're really just begging for money laundering and corruption and theft and you know why would anybody direct a contract anywhere unless they were getting a huge bribe and they could easily hide the bribe in the web of NGOs connected to other NGOs. So of course and I think we're going to be shocked by the size of the fraud. We may never get to the bottom of it but my god the amount that our government was sending to people who were sending to people who were sending to people, it's just crazy. And there was just no control.

Speaking of crazy, remember how we used to laugh and say if a news story started with a Florida man because Florida was it seemed like Florida was being a little ridiculous for a while. A Florida man and then there would be some crazy thing that Florida man did. Well California's got a version of that now. So now we've got a representative Norma Torres, Democrat, and she just said that President Trump needs to reimburse Los Angeles for the anti-ICE riots. What? So Trump is supposed to be responsible financially meaning the government for the anti-government protests. As if they don't have financial backers.

Don't you think the financial backers of the protest should be paying for any extra expense? Maybe that's the treatment. Maybe if you were financially backing a protest and the protest created an extra expense you know police expense and cleanup of graffiti and repairs and stuff. Maybe the people who funded it would be on the hook for that. I'm loving this idea even as I'm having it because that would be pretty expensive. Now the people who are funding it apparently are billionaires in China in some case. So it'd be hard to get to them but they should be paying for it. Even the increase in police they should be paying for all that. So we'll see.

Meanwhile the Post Millennial is reporting that a judge has blocked the Trump administration's executive order. How many times have you heard this? A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration executive order and then fill in the blank. It's like there's a hundred of them. And this one is for citizenship verification in federal elections. So Trump's executive order had a few things in it but one of them was that you had to check ID and make sure somebody was a citizen before they could vote. And a judge has blocked that.

Now the reason given anyway is that the Constitution does not give the president that authority. Now the argument that's coming from the Trump administration why they do have that authority is weak because their argument is that it's just common sense that you check IDs. Well it is. It is common sense that you just check IDs and make sure somebody's a citizen but you don't have the constitutional authority to mandate that common sense. So unfortunately the judge I think has the right decision in terms of the law there. There's no authority that would support that executive order but we'll see. I don't think it's done. I think there's going to be more appeals to that. So maybe there's more to come. We'll see.

Well in the what I call the photo op competition where the anti-ICE people are trying to get the best photograph. They did pull ahead with that Senator Padilla thing but we've already forgotten it. So it's closer to a tie again. But here's according to The Hill the most exciting thing that happened in the anti-ICE protests that I call the photo op competition. One Marine detained one guy temporarily and then handed him over to Homeland Security. Now apparently the Marines can't arrest anybody but they can temporarily detain somebody and then turn them over to non-military authority which is what they did. So the best we got in the photo op competition and I didn't even see a photo was one Marine detaining one guy temporarily. That's the best I got. That one Marine detaining one guy temporarily.

And most of these Marines if not all of them are there to protect federal property and personnel. So in theory there shouldn't be too many photographs of that.

Anyway there's a survey that The College Fix is writing about in which they tried to see how many colleges got rid of DEI versus just rebranded it and kept it. And they found—this is very unscientific—but they found 87 schools simply renamed their DEI offices and kept them. But 78 schools it looks like they got rid of DEI as they were legally obligated to do. Now of the ones who got rid of DEI they tended to be located in Republican strongholds as we call them. So roughly the same number cheated actually more and renamed their DEI offices compared to those that closed.

It makes me wonder how those colleges that kept it are certified. Is there any federal government certification right? They can't decertify a college because it seems like you'd want to know that. Like if you were interviewing a graduate from one of those colleges wouldn't you rather know if they kept their DEI office and renamed it or if they got rid of it? I'd kind of want to know that because it would tell me what I'm getting with the graduate.

But I don't think the government has much leverage there.

Apparently according to CBS News Barbie maker Mattel and OpenAI have formed some kind of agreement to develop AI-powered toys. Do you think that's a good idea? Do you want your child to have AI-powered toys? Well on one hand it's inevitable and it's legal and of course it's coming. On the other hand does it seem to you that your child would be raised by his own toys? Because if your toys can talk to you and they have some form of intelligence they will be programmed so that at least the child version of them is as helpful as possible. So will your dolls tell you to brush your teeth? Will your GI Joe tell you—I mean that's probably not Mattel—but will your Barbie tell you that you only have five more minutes before you have to head off to school?

Because you might. I mean this literally. Those of you who have kids you've probably experienced that you have a lot of influence over the child when they're young, when they're very young. But the minute they go to school the school is raising your kid because whatever it is you're giving them at home gets harder and harder and whatever they're picking up at school is stickier and stickier. So in effect you raise your kids for the first six years and then they go to school and then I'd say the state raises them. Now you can do as much as you want when they come home but there's just something about that going to school experience and that peer association that effectively the state and their peers are raising them. Don't you think that's going to happen with toys? If they have AI your toys will actually raise your kid because that's where they'll get all their tips and encouragement and compliments and things that parents forget to do, you know even their love maybe. So it's inevitable but a little bit unpredictable.

According to NBC News there's some Philadelphia postal workers who were charged with stealing 80 million in US Treasury checks. Now they didn't manage to get them all cashed through some third party mechanism but they did cash 11 million of them. So the US postal workers were just looking for these government checks and whenever they found them they just stole them. Now how many times have I told you that if you have a situation where it's possible for fraud that over time you always get it? Well here's one of those situations. Now they didn't get away with it but they got away with stealing 80 million dollars before they got caught.

And then in a related story New York Post there's an ex-Illinois House speaker who was the longest serving legislative leader in US history was sentenced in a corruption case. So are you surprised that the longest serving legislative leader in the US was involved in corruption? No. You should not be surprised by that because in my opinion if you were to list all the legislative leaders by how long they've been in office the corruption would be perfectly aligned with how long they've been in office. Because you know why they stay in office until they're 100 years old? To cover up their corruption. Is it a coincidence that it's an ex-Illinois House speaker? Because I feel like if this person had still been in power that maybe there never would have been any investigation.

So I think and this is just the Scott Adams opinion that when you see somebody like Schumer or any of the ones who are way too old to still be in office even Joe Biden that the reason that they stay in office, Nancy Pelosi, is because they have to maintain power so they don't get prosecuted. Now there obviously would be exceptions to this rule but I'll bet there's a really direct correlation between how old you are, how long you've been in office, and how corrupt you are. I'll bet it's connected. I'd be surprised if it's not.

All right. So here's a new study. I want you to see if this study was necessary or could they have just asked me? Could they have just asked Scott?

So according to The Conversation premenstrual