that's just a weird coincidence.

Anyway, Trump has signed some executive order to require cities to remove homeless people from the streets. So it's not that simple. I think there's a process they're putting together where the attorney general, Bondi, will work with the other secretaries, some other secretaries in the government to prioritize cities for funding if they take people off the street. So the federal government won't be as generous with federal funding for cities that don't get rid of their homeless off the streets, but that would also require having some kind of institutionalizing option. So right now, you could take people off the street, but where are you going to put them? There's no treatment, there's no facility, there's no institution. But Trump would like to change that. He would like to have institutions where those people can go.

Now here's my question. Has Trump come up with yet another 8020? He's the genius being a populist type. He's brilliant at coming up with issues that the public will agree about 80% to 20%. And I feel like he did it again. Do you imagine that there could be more than 20% of the people who say, you know, I kind of prefer keeping all those people on the sidewalk? Maybe. I mean, there might be 20%. But I wouldn't want to spend time with those people. So yet again, Trump is managing the summer brilliantly.

Now, I don't know if you know this, but August is coming and Congress will be in recess and a lot of the people in the news business will also take that time off. So it will look temporarily if unless Trump manages the situation, which he will, it would look like there's no news because all the news making people would be on vacation for a month in August. But watch what Trump does. Trump is going to generate news like a mofo so he can just own the summer like he already is. So you ain't seen nothing yet there. There's going to be a whole bunch of stuff like this. Like who saw this coming? Like how many of you thought oh I think Trump will do an executive order about telling cities to clear up the sidewalks. I didn't see it coming. So he probably has a whole bunch of ideas like that that are just in the hopper waiting for the news to be slow and then they can say, "All right, launch."

Meanwhile, Ghislaine Maxwell, she met with the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche inside some secure facility in Tallahassee. So sounds like they're going to have one more meeting at least. And Maxwell went back to her prison cell carrying a box of what we don't know. So somehow she ended up with a box of stuff and went back to her prison cell. What do you imagine was in the box that the prison would allow her to take back with her to her prison cell? Can you just get presents and take them back to yourself? I don't think you can. Can you? So my best guess would be that she said, "I need to look at your documents and then I'll tell you if there's anything to add to that," something like that. I feel like it's something about documents that were relevant to her case.

But I'll say it again. Remember I told you that you don't have to be a lawyer if you understand the basic concepts. So here's a prediction in which my skill stack that includes persuasion and not being a lawyer but sort of understanding how anything works in the legal field. I believe that Ghislaine would obviously have an attorney that she's talking to. So she would have good legal advice. And any attorney of hers should be saying, "I would definitely like to help you, government, but you're going to have to work me a deal, and I will give you everything, but you have to let me out of prison. You got to pardon me." Now, notice the way that I make that prediction is based on something that if you knew a little bit about how lawyers negotiate and you know that you can work out deals to get out of prison and you know that she has the magic information that we all want. Well, it's not hard to predict that she's going to use that as a lever and she's not going to give it away for free. So just like the TikTok prediction, if you assume that people will use their leverage, then you can predict better. She will definitely use her leverage. We'll see where that takes her.

Meanwhile, the UK has limited access to porn sites if you're in the UK. So now UK residents would have to put in some kind of identification before they would have access to porn. The question you might ask yourself is how many people would be willing to identify themselves with specific porn sites. Now, it would be one thing if all porn followed the model of look, it's two beautiful naked people having ordinary missionary sex. And then if somebody found out that you like looking at that, they'd say, "Oh, well, yeah, I guess most people like looking at that." But how many people go to their porn site and say, "Well, you know what? I really like to look at and I can't tell anybody in my real world, but I can click on it." Well, I've got a feeling that they just killed the porn business because nobody's going to want to click on anything that's a little bit off the ordinary path. And I suspect that's mostly what people look at. And off the path would be anything from MILFs to GILFs to you know where I'm going with this. So we'll see what happens with that. But apparently the reasons to go to the UK have now decreased even more. That story is from the Independent.

Well, if you've seen the compilation clips of the mainstream media, not just the hosts of the news, but their guests, Democrats, saying that Russia cyber hacked the election and they affected the election by cyber hacking it. They hacked the election. They hacked the election. And it's just person after person from probably 2016 and beyond just claiming without being corrected claiming that Russia hacked the election and it's a fact. The best part about it is that now that we know that the intelligence people saw no indication that any of that was happening, now watch the attitude of the people who were claiming it in the compilation clips. You can find them on X pretty easily. They all look really judgy about people who didn't believe that Russia hacked it. And then my favorite was the ex-CNN guy who said, I'm paraphrasing now. He said, "In order for you to believe, just listen to this. This is precious." He says, was it Sissa? I can't remember who it was. Tell me in the comments who said this because I know some of you saw the compilation clip at the end. One of the ex no longer working there CNN guys said in order for you to believe that Russia did not hack the election and change the election. In order for you to believe that you would have to believe that all these elements of the intelligence community were all in on a plot to get Trump. Oh my god. And now what do we know now? That all those people were in on the plot to get Trump. He used that as his best argument for how it couldn't possibly be untrue that Russia had hacked because all the intelligence people said so. Now, we have learned since then that it wasn't necessarily all the intelligence people. There were just a lot of them that are willing to shut up and let Brennan use some very small group. I think five people had access to it. Claimed that that was the official word.

So yes, it means absolutely nothing to learn that all of the people you trust were on the same side. Have you ever seen any example where all the people you should be trusting were on the same side, but it was? Well, there's this one, the Russia collusion. All the smart people seem to be shutting up or on the same side. And then there was something you may have heard of called the pandemic where all the experts seem to be on one side but often wrong. And let's see what else. Oh, then there's climate change. Climate change argument is, well, how could you possibly believe that scientists all over the world are just on the same conspiracy just because it's good for their careers or to make money or something? How could you possibly believe? Well, let me tell you how I do the predicting. Number one, we're back to my talent stack. If you understand economics and follow the money and you understand how big organizations operate and you understand persuasion, what drives people to do what they do, it's completely understandable that the vast majority of scientists in climate are lying. It's completely easy to believe. The fact that they even ask you to believe that the climate models are dependable. Well, that too is something that if you had big company experience, you probably watched your own big company use models that they knew weren't true, but they would tell a story that they wanted to tell. So if you put together your talent stack just right, the climate models are just so obviously fake. Just so obviously fake. But you wouldn't know that if you had a different background or experience.

So I saw on X somebody was pointing out that New York Times and Washington Post are not even treating the latest information we've learned about the Russia collusion or Russia hacking hoax and they're not treating it as big news. So you say to yourself, but that's okay. People will see it in other sources. No, they won't. The only people who will even know that more information came out and they'll be able to put it together would be the 2% of the world that really follows this kind of story. So how many people do you think understand the complexity of what Brennan and Clapper and Obama allegedly did? How many could follow that whole story? Not more than 2%. So if you're the New York Times and Washington Post, you could just ignore it and make sure that it stays that way and it will never affect any elections because the people who understand it have already made up their mind. I would be willing to guess that there are zero people watching this podcast right now and you would be in the top 2%, the ones following stories like this. But there's not one of you who's going to change your mind about who to vote for. You're all locked in.

So you've got two parts of the world. The people who do follow things in minute detail and they can understand the story, but they're already locked in. Their vote won't change based on this or anything else. And then there's all the rest of the world that would find it the story to be a what? What would be the one word to describe this complicated story that people have trouble following? It's a confusopoly. Wherever there is complexity, there is fraud and corruption. This would be the perfect example.

Now if you think I'm exaggerating when I say almost nobody can understand this story. I mean, I struggled to try to what like what's new? What part didn't we know already? And are we just more convinced or is this really new? I mean, I struggled with it and I do this basically for a living, I guess. But just to put that in perspective, I saw a clip from Fox News. I think it was Jesse Watters on his show. He was talking to people on the street who were Colbert fans who were protesting the firing of Colbert or the ending of the show that'll end in May. And so Jesse was asking people if they were aware that the Colbert show lost $40 million a year for its owner. How many of them did not know the most basic thing about the simplest story in the news? Could there be any story that's more simple than Colbert show is going to end because it's not profitable? That's it. That's the whole story. And then if you want to add a layer of complexity, you'd say, but some say it's Trump was pushing for him to be fired so that the merger would be approved, but that's it. You would know everything about that story now. And the people who thought it was important enough to actually go down there, stand on the sidewalk with signs and chant and protest were not aware that a show was losing $40 million a year. How in the world do you not know that? If you decided this is your cause, you don't know that. And then when they were told that, they immediately changed their opinions like, "Oh, well, yeah, obviously that's just a business decision."

So here's another example. I saw a post by Mike Cernovich, and I'm going to read you just exactly what Mike says in the post, and then ask yourself, what percentage of the public would understand this? How many would understand this? All right, I'll just read it. Brennan snuck the hoax Steele dossier into an intelligence report by giving it a TS/SCI label. Only 10 to 20 people could have seen that hoax documents were slipped in. By classifying it as TS/SCI, no one was able to debunk it. Brennan belongs in prison. Now, I don't know what a TS/SCI label is. I mean, in context, I understand it in context. He found a workaround so that not many people knew that the Steele dossier was part of the fake opinion. So I get the idea, but how many people would sort of understand what that was and what story it was attached to and how Brennan fits in? Well, let me ask you this. If you stopped people on the streets of America and said, "Tell me who John Brennan is and what was his last government job." How many would know he was the head of the CIA? 2%. It's so easy to convince ourselves because we're in that 2%, you know, we're really paying attention that other people have no idea what's going on. Just no idea. Top secret confidential information. People are saying that's what TS/SCI is. All right. So I guess that means that even people in the business weren't necessarily allowed to see it because it was too top secret. Clever.

Here's another example of how the public doesn't understand complexity and neither do the Democrats. I'd like to spend a few minutes telling you how pathetic the Democrats are. Starting with they embarrassingly put a graph of food prices, grocery prices on the internet to blame Trump because at the end of the graph was the highest price for food and that was when Trump was in office. However, the graph only was labeled from 2019 to Octob