mp. Probably there's something there that would be bad for the country if it got out in his opinion. And we hired him to have that opinion.

So my take was that if the guy who's in charge of telling you what you should and should not know tells you, wink wink, there's nothing to see here, that that's why you hired him. Doesn't mean he's telling the truth, but it does mean that you're not going to hear about it, whatever it is.

So I got attacked, of course, on social media for my take. But I wanted to tell you what the dumbest attacks on me were about and the dumbest comments.

Number one, this is from some user called Vox Daiix. I don't know, might be a robot or a bot. And Vox said that Adams is still carrying water for the elites. I'm carrying water for the elites. I don't even know who the elites are. Trump told me I'm the elite. Am I carrying water for myself? And is my net worth high enough to be an elite? What exactly is the entry level for elite? And why would I carry their water? The elites just cancelled me worldwide. Do you think I'm a big fan of the elites, whoever they are? I don't even know who they are.

So no, I would argue that if anybody tells you you're carrying water for anyone, you should block them because they're idiots. Yeah. So I'm not talking about Vox Day. I was hoping that I could say that clearly enough that you would not confuse it with Vox Day. This user is Vox D-A-I-X-X as in A-I-X-X as in artificial intelligence. So it's not Vox Day who is a bigger social media account.

Anyway, then here's another terrible take. This was talking about me. So somebody said today about me that I was totally wrong about COVID. He's about one-tenth as smart as he thinks he is. My Jethro eighth-grade-educated neighbor knew not to get the shot.

All right. I hate to tell you this because some of you are going to fall into this category, but if you're looking at current events in the year 2025 and your opinion is mostly informed by something that happened during the pandemic or in this case something you hallucinated happened during the pandemic, then the pandemic ruined you.

There's a whole bunch of citizens who because they didn't get the shot, it is the most important accomplishment of their life and they need to bring it up no matter what they're disagreeing with. "Well, looks like it's going to be rainy today." "Oh, that's what you would say because you got the shot." Okay, you're idiots.

If you can't let the pandemic go, don't weigh in on anything because there is no modern opinion which is better because you've connected it to the pandemic. Stop doing that. Seek therapy. If the most important part of your life was that you didn't get the shot and now you feel like you're a superstar, don't say anything about anything anymore because you've shown that you have some kind of mental problem.

I get that you had different opinions than other people and you're proud of it, but it's not relevant in 2025. Just let it go. Can you let it go?

And then secondly, I did not promote the COVID vaccination. I in fact predicted it wouldn't work. When it was announced, I predicted that it wouldn't work as a vaccination. When it was released, I predicted again in public and never changed it that it would not work. Now, can you point me to anybody else who predicted at the beginning and during the launch and every day after that that it wouldn't work as a vaccination? I'm the only person I know. I didn't even know one person who was more right than that. That's about as right as you can get.

What people confuse it with is that I got the first two boosters so I could go on my honeymoon because I was overseas. Now that's really different than promoting the vaccination. So let it go. Just let it go, will you?

Then other comments, the dumbest comments. Somebody is pretending this is me and saying, "I'm Scott Adams. I run cover for pedos on the basis of conjecture because it's political convenience." Do you think there was anything in my opinion that was running cover for pedos? That's just such a dumb take. It's just really just attacking somebody that you disagree with. Dumb take.

I'm not running cover for anybody. I'm just telling you what interests me and what I would want to let go and whose job it is to decide. That's not cover for anything. It's literally just talking about the news.

All right. And then somebody else said, "I see people, including Scott Adams, saying..." Now you know that whatever happens after the word "saying" is not something true. Because in order for people to disagree with me, they have to misconstrue what I said because they don't have any disagreement with what I actually said.

So he says, "I see people including Scott Adams saying it's cool the Epstein stuff isn't being released." Did I say it's cool? Really? I don't remember saying that. "Because it could possibly cause social and or political upheaval domestically and possibly worldwide." And then this person says, "I'm sorry, but I don't give a single fuck about what the fallout is. It's not worse than allowing powerful people to continue to fuck children."

Now, is that an adult opinion that you don't care what the fallout is? Or is that a certainty, which would be the worst opinion, that somebody's certain that whatever the fallout is, it wouldn't be that bad? Do you really think that there's no situation in which releasing the information would be worse for the world than not? Do you really think there's no way that that's possible?

I definitely understand if you think I don't—I think they're lying. I think they're just probably protecting some rich people. I'm not ruling that out. They might be just protecting some rich people. If we knew that for sure that the only reason we're not seeing it is that they're protecting some rich people, I would be in favor of releasing it because I don't need to protect any rich people. I mean, I'm not on the list. So nobody I know is on the list as far as I know.

No. If you can't deal with the idea that there might be something that's worse than what you think is the worst thing ever, you're not really a serious person. Nuclear war is worse than not finding out about the Epstein files.

All right. Then I saw Elon Musk say that if there's no client list then what is Ghislaine Maxwell in prison for? So Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison for the following things according to Grok: sex trafficking of a minor, conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors. So basically it's all trafficking of minors for sex.

As far as I know none of her charges depended on anybody except Epstein and her to exist in the world. My understanding is that her conviction was entirely about what she was doing for Epstein for his own consumption. Do you have a different opinion of that?

Now, we've also heard that there are all these videos. So Pam Bondi said, "Oh, there's all these videos. We're not going to show you because it's all this illegal underage sex stuff." Do you believe that the government has in its possession adults who are not Epstein doing illegal sex acts with underage people and that they just decided not to share that with you? Do you believe that?

Because some people believe that they just have the videos and they told you they had the videos and you could see—presumably you could tell the identity of the perpetrators—and that all they'd have to do is show them to you and you know maybe redact anything that's illegal to show you. But you could certainly show, let's say, the face of the billionaire if that's what was happening. You could say, "All right, we have to block out everything else here, but you can see this happy face of this billionaire." And trust us, if you saw the rest of the video, you wouldn't like it.

But we don't see that, right? So it seems to me that if there was anything that implicated powerful rich people, that would have already been either released or hidden on day one, removed from the vaults or whatever.

So I do not believe that Bondi and Patel and Bongino have in their possession something as obvious as a bunch of videos of billionaires doing criminal acts. I doubt it. I can't say for sure, but that would be the most surprising outcome.

All right. And Musk and Steve Bannon are on the same page about this, weirdly, because Bannon has decided that Elon Musk is the most evil person in the country and Bannon says it's his job to take him down and destroy him and have him deported to South Africa.

Anyway, Steve Bannon thinks that the GOP could lose 40 House seats just over the Epstein stuff. How many of you would vote for a Democrat over, let's say, a senator or a House member that was Republican? How many of you—and by the way, these Republicans that would be in the midterms would have nothing to do with the decision to release or not release the Epstein files.

Does it seem reasonable to you that Trump could have the best presidency you've ever seen of any president, deliver to people exactly what they wanted, but the only problem would be this Epstein situation, which none of us know what the underlying truth is? We'd have to speculate. But you'd be willing, according to Steve Bannon, the voters who love Trump would be willing to sacrifice their own Republican representative for just their local area. They would punish that guy or that woman who had nothing to do with this. They had no power, maybe not even an opinion. And yet you believe that 40 of them would lose their job because of something that Trump and Bongino and Bondi and Patel did.

Does that sound real to you? I don't know.

Musk is on the same page. He says, "What the hell kind of system are we living in if thousands of kids were abused, the government has videos of the abusers?" Now that's the part I don't believe is true. I don't think they have videos of the abusers, but they could. It's not 100% true that it doesn't exist. And yet none of the abusers were even facing charges.

So I guess here's the question that nobody has asked Trump or Bondi or Patel or Bongino, and it goes like this: We know you have lots of videos. Do any of those videos show somebody who is an adult and not Epstein doing illegal things with underage people or any illegal things at all? Why has nobody asked that question? Isn't that sort of the big one? Is there any video that clearly shows the crime?

And then related to that, would there be any documents about it? Now I would think there would not be documents because it seems very unlikely that Epstein would keep a diary of all of his crimes. I don't think it works that way. But if there's video that had been used maybe for blackmail, I could imagine that existing. I could imagine that.

But nobody's asked, "Do you have a video that shows the face of a powerful adult who is not Epstein?" Very simple question. I think Pam Bondi would say, "No, we have a whole bunch of disgusting video with underage people, but none of it involves any famous billionaires or anything like that." Not that they didn't do it. I'm not saying that they weren't guilty. I'm saying it's very unlikely they have that video. Very unlikely.

And Mike Cernovich is on—well, I'll just read you his post so you don't have to wonder. Trump's persuasive power over his base, especially during this first term, was almost magical. Calling out obvious mistakes he made would get you an ass chewing. Trust the plan. The reaction on Epstein should thus be startling to him, to Trump. No one is buying it. No one is dropping it.

So I get that nobody believes it because I don't believe it either. And I can observe that people are not dropping it. But does that translate into I think I will destroy everything I care about over this point because I think Trump's not telling us everything? Do any of you have that opinion that you would destroy everything that you care about to make sure that there was justice in this specific situation because it's such a bad situation?

So some of you would destroy everything that you hold dear. You would destroy your family, the country. You would plunge yourself into a hellscape that you could never escape just as long as we saw those videos. Is that what you believe? I don't know.

Mike Benz, getting back to Mike Benz, he had a good take on it. He said you can't run on it during an election. He's talking about the Epstein release. You can't run on it during the election as the visceral central symbol of the system's corruptions and cover-ups and then do the exact thing you trained us to believe was corruption and cover-up. You used it as a sword. There's no shield now.

Now that's a good nuanced take that to the extent that the Epstein thing was a central emotional thing that Trump supporters cared about, you can't really yank it away from them in exactly the way you criticized other people.

But I'll ask again. Would you therefore throw away everything that you do hold dear just to get it? Just to pay them back? You wouldn't even get the answer. It's not like it would even get you the answer. All you'd be doing is punishing the person who said he wouldn't give it to you or didn't have it. So you would throw away everything you hold dear, gain nothing, and you'd be happy with that choice. Really?

I mean, maybe. I wouldn't rule out that there are people who have such bad judgment that they would throw away everything they care about to get nothing in return.

Now if you told me that not voting for Republicans in the midterm would end up with you getting that information you wanted, then I'd say, "Well, okay, that's a bold move, but at least you'd get one thing you wanted. Even if you threw away everything else, you at least get that one thing." But you wouldn't get that one thing. You could if every Republican lost, all of them, if every single one lost in the midterms, that wouldn't get you any Epstein information because you know the Democrats aren't going to give it to you, right? We already know that.

Anyway, there's a fake news—it looks like fake news in the *Daily Mail*—that says that Ghislaine Maxwell said that she'd welcome the chance to tell Congress the truth about Epstein's rich and powerful people. I don't think she actually said that. That looks like fake news. I say that because I asked Grok if it were true and Grok said—you know, I'm paraphrasing Grok—but Grok basically said, "Well, it's only in the *Daily Mail* and we don't really see anything that looks too credible about it." So according to Grok, you should not believe that that's true.

In related news, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett—how many of you remember that Israel once had a prime minister named Naftali Bennett? I don't even know if you know that—but he said in a statement on X, maybe in some other social media too, that Epstein, quote, "never worked for the Mossad." And he says he was the prime minister, which means he was the head of the Mossad. So he can tell you for absolutely certain that Epstein never worked for the Mossad. And he would know, right? I mean, he was the prime minister. Okay.

Problem number one: Why do we assume that the Mossad would tell the prime minister something that the prime minister should not know? Do you believe that the CIA tells the president of the United States, no matter who it is, all the stuff that they do? No. It doesn't work like that, right? Isn't the whole point of deniability that you say, "All right, CIA, or all right, Mossad, you know what it is that's good for our country, and you know what's illegal, but don't tell me about any of the illegal stuff. Just go do whatever it takes, including killing people." "Uh, I don't want to hear it. I said do whatever it takes." "You mean including blackmailing people?" "Uh-huh. No, we're not talking about this. I'm just saying go do whatever it takes."

So no, I don't believe that the prime minister knows what Mossad is doing. Not all of it. Just because he's the boss. I don't think it works like that at all.

Secondly, this is what you call an overly specific denial. Have I ever taught you that one way to recognize a lie is the over-specification? So what he says is Epstein never worked for the Mossad as in got a paycheck. I don't believe he got a paycheck. Do you? No, he didn't get a paycheck.

What about George Soros? Did George Soros work for the CIA? Well, not as far as I know. I don't believe he got a 1099 or something, but did he w