g, I don't think you realize what's coming, that he has more persuasive ability than anything you've ever seen before? And here we are.

I don't like to crow about my good predictions, but it is a show in which I make predictions and then crow about them. So you have to put up with it. It is sort of baked into the business model. I make predictions, I tell you how it's going, and if they're wrong, I eat crow.

Apparently there's a very big deal going down between Samsung and Elon Musk. Samsung is building a new Texas facility that will be dedicated entirely to making Tesla's next generation AI6 chip, which I guess is important. Now what's important about this beyond the fact that two big companies are having an agreement to do something big is that I think that Samsung's future in the chip-making business was a little bit uncertain and this big deal with Elon Musk gives them much more stability. So that would put another chip entity in the United States proper. So that's a big deal and it would be related to our most advanced technologies. So that's all good.

But Elon has made it even more interesting because he said on X that Samsung agreed to allow Tesla to assist in maximizing manufacturing efficiency. So apparently Elon Musk personally, and I assume some of his lieutenants, will be able to inspect the Samsung factory for making chips and figure out how to make it more efficient, which is sort of his expertise. Making manufacturing efficient — not sort of, it's his expertise.

And imagine if you were Samsung and Elon Musk said to you, you know that factory you're building, do you mind if I give you some suggestions? If you were Samsung, you wouldn't be able to get the smile off your face. You'd be like, "Really? Are you serious? You personally want to walk the line and make suggestions about how to make this more efficient? Yes. Oh my God." So obviously they said yes to that. Although I suppose you could imagine a world in which they made the wrong decision, but they did not.

So Samsung will be a little more stable. Tesla's got a big source for their chips and something big's happening there. So as we're watching these big businesses, some of them foreign-owned but coming back to America and revitalizing things, it's happening pretty quickly. Pretty quickly.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, whose job it is, among other things, is to get rid of all the racism in the country. Get rid of all of it. That's all she has to do. Get rid of all racism. But one of the things she's calling out is that apparently, I guess it was last night in Cincinnati, there was some kind of a mob that attacked some white tourists. I guess the attackers were Black and the people being attacked were white tourists and they got beaten quite vigorously. And I don't know anything about that specific situation, so I'm not going to wade into the outrage of it. I feel like with these individual crime situations, it's too easy to say this is telling you the story of everything. It might be just something that was very unique to that situation and you don't want to generalize it to the rest of the country. But Harmeet Dhillon says she's got her eye on it. So if it turns out that that was literally a racial hate crime, which it might have been, she's on it. Good.

As you know, Ghislaine Maxwell answered all the questions that were asked of her by the Justice Department and about 100 people were mentioned or talked about and I guess there's some talk of clemency, but Trump has not made any kind of opinion on that yet. So we'll see. That'll be controversial if it happens. It will break apart the MAGA coalition.

You know what's funny is that I totally understand when people get mad about one issue with Trump, but I feel like people ultimately will understand their own best interest. If you thought that Trump did 25 great things and two of them you really thought were ones you would have gone the other way on, but you observe that there are plenty of people who are on your team who think Trump was right about those two that you don't like as well, would you not vote for Republicans because you didn't get your two things? Is that the way you'd play it?

Sorry, my cat's in my coffee. Cats, don't get in the coffee. No. All right, take a look at him. That's scary with the red collar on.

So every time Trump gets another victory like this European Union trade deal, it's going to be harder and harder to say that you won't vote for him because of something about Epstein. And he's back.

Representative Thomas Massie and Democrat Ro Khanna are pushing for some legislation to release all of the government's files on Epstein. And this raises a question to me. Can Congress overrule the president just by passing some legislation that says release all of that stuff? And wouldn't the president need to sign it? So if you need the president to sign the legislation, but also the president could just tell people to release it anyway, what does the legislation do?

So this is yet another one of those situations where if I had an extra minute, I would have used Grok to look into it and say, can you explain why we need legislation for something that the president could just say, yeah, release all that? So I'm missing something.

And by the way, here's a good general rule for you. If someone who is clearly smarter than you has a different opinion about what to do, you should assume that the problem's on your end. And that's what I'm doing on this one. You know, Thomas Massie, he's got an MIT degree. If he and I took an IQ test, I wouldn't like how that would work out for me. He's definitely smarter than me in a lot of obvious ways. So if he thinks this legislation is necessary or useful, he's probably right. So when I tell you I don't understand why we need it, that's pretty much on me. So my assumption is that the problem's on my end. You should always do that. If somebody's smarter than you and you don't get why they're doing what they're doing, don't assume the problem's on their end. They didn't suddenly get dumb.

Dan Bongino left a cryptic message on X that I think is just wonderful. So I'm going to read it to you because the whole thing is pretty interesting. It's a little bit long, but Dan Bongino posts, "During my tenure here as the deputy director of the FBI, I have repeatedly related to you that things are happening that might not be immediately visible but they are happening."

All right. So the first thing we need to know is that there might be a bunch of things that are really a big deal that are coming our way but we don't know when. The director and I are committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponization of both law enforcement and intelligence operations. It is a priority for us.

But now it gets to the good stuff. "But what I have learned in the course of our properly predicated and necessary investigations into these aforementioned matters has shocked me down to my core." Wait, listen to this. "We cannot run a republic like this. I'll never be the same after learning what I've learned."

Wow. I'll never be the same after learning what I've learned. Now, might I point out that Dan Bongino has seen a few things in his life? How hard would it be to shock him? Wouldn't it be really hard? I mean, unlike the public that's not paying attention, he's watched everything. He's seen behind the curtain. He's seen the ugliest political shenanigans. He's seen crimes, the kind that you and I, you know, we're lucky that we haven't seen. What in the world would change him permanently? I'll never be the same after learning what I've learned. What in the world could that be?

The only thing I can imagine is maybe an Epstein thing or maybe he learned that the way the government is really being run nobody really understands. Maybe that, I don't know, but wow he knows how to tease us. So he says we can't go on like this which clearly indicates that we're going to find out what he knows, at least at that summary level. Do you think it's aliens? No, it's not aliens. He's clearly telling you that you're going to find out.

Yeah, I mean the obvious guess would be something Epstein and child related, but I don't know. I also feel like, well, maybe he learned that the entire governments of the world are all run by blackmail. That's possible. I don't know.

I saw a post yesterday I guess by Joel Pollak of Breitbart and he said this is the sum of Tulsi Gabbard's revelations. Now, I think there's more coming, so we might see some more stuff. Maybe it's already dropped this morning, but here are the three things that Joel summarizes of what we've learned from Tulsi.

Number one, Obama ordered a new intelligence assessment after the first one said Russia did not help Trump. Right, that's a good summary. So we know that Obama had an intelligence assessment that said that Russia did not change any votes but that Obama ordered a new one that would mention that Russia was meddling in the election.

Number two, the Russians expected Hillary Clinton to win and had dirt on her. So we did learn that and that's new and that does change the narrative because if you know that the Russians were not really even taking seriously that Trump could win, that makes everything look different. Obviously they weren't trying to help him win. They were just trying to weaken Hillary Clinton's inevitable government, they assumed. And the Steele dossier was part of the new report, the new thing that Obama ordered. And Brennan lied to Congress when he said it wasn't. And this part I told you about the other day. I guess Brennan found a clever way to include the Steele dossier but put it in the top secret area so that people couldn't tell that it was in there. Oh, just trust us. There's also some top secret stuff that goes into this analysis.

Well, separately, there's more coming. So CIA director Ratcliffe says there's more evidence coming. And there's at least some people who are speculating that whatever is new is coming implicates Hillary Clinton even more than she's already implicated. I think Gunther Eagleman had that take today.

Devin Nunes, who you know was the hero who took all the arrows going after the Russia collusion hoax when it was brand new and he was in the government — he's not part of the government now, but he's very relevant. So he's been on a lot of podcasts and stuff, news reports, and Devin Nunes says that the raid on Mar-a-Lago might be an important element of the whole Russia hoax conspiracy story, even though you thought they were completely unrelated because it could be that they were raiding Mar-a-Lago just to make sure that Trump had not taken some of the Russia hoax documents with him. For what? I don't know, blackmail or something. And that maybe the point of the Mar-a-Lago raid was to look for Russia collusion hoax evidence that they could then hide.

I guess I'm not so sure that I would jump to assume that those stories are connected. I think it would be just as likely, maybe more likely, that the bad guys were just doing everything they could to get Trump in every way, every possible way.

There's a pollster named Matt Towery who the Daily Caller News Foundation is talking about. He was on somebody's show recently. I guess he was on Fox News on Friday and he says that the pollsters are sort of full of BS and that he believes that Trump's actual approval rating is far bigger than what the media claims. Now the media looks at the pollsters and both of them are fake news apparently. So not every pollster. There are some pollsters that are let's say assertively saying that the other pollsters are fake. So Rasmussen would be one of the ones who asserts that the other pollsters may not be as accurate as people think. But they've got a great track record with presidential stuff especially.

Anyway, so somebody who's in the business, professional pollster Matt Towery, believes that the polls are just sort of rigged and fixed, that Trump is way more popular than the polling shows. Do you believe that? Does that line up with your, let's say, anecdotal lived life experience? I can't tell because I'm definitely in a bubble. I just don't know what the average person thinks. I just don't spend time with the average person, I guess. So I don't know.

Pollster Frank Luntz says that Gavin Newsom and the Democrats are doing a bad job on the attacking Trump stuff. Now, other people have said it, but when Frank Luntz says it, it's a little bit more of a professional opinion than when people like me say it. So apparently Frank Luntz is saying that attacking Trump is just bad. And if the way you're attacking Trump is by acting like him, you can't out-Trump Trump. So he's sort of mocking and criticizing the Democrats who say, "Well, we just have to fight harder." And he says, quote, "And so we need to punch them in the face harder than they're punching us." And Luntz said, "You cannot out-Trump Donald Trump. It will not work." It's why the Democratic Party has its lowest numbers nationwide that it's ever had.

So he says the negativity just isn't working. Now, the "you can't out-Trump" — you've heard me say that as well, right? And this is where that authenticity thing happens. The reason that Trump can be the way he is is that that's who he is. It's authentic. That's who he is. He's literally being the way he's always been and he's just being Trump. So you can accept a lot when people are transparent and consistent. You just get used to him. So we've now sort of gotten used to Trump.

But you can't suddenly be the person who is nothing like that and then try to just layer that over your existing personality and sell it. That's going to look the opposite of authentic. Why would it look the opposite of authentic? Because it literally is by design. They're literally telling Democrats that they should act. They should act. Nobody tells Trump he should act. Because you're getting full, you know, full unadulterated Trump all day long. He doesn't need to act anything. You know, sometimes he could be full of hyperbole, so to speak, but that's who he is. That's who he is.

Harry Enten of CNN points out that Democrat favorability has in fact hit a new low. CNN is recording them at negative 26 points in favorability and the Wall Street Journal has them at -30. And these are numbers that we haven't seen for 35 years or some very long time. So yeah they are completely falling apart.

There's a Princeton political scientist I saw I think on Fox News, Dr. Lauren Wright, who says that Democrats are abandoning the party in part because they don't like being lied to and that the whole episode about Biden's brain might have turned off Democrats. I have not seen that. Have you? But again, I'm in a bubble, so what I see is not really a guide to anything.

But do you believe that people are turning on Democrats like the existing Democrats, not Biden? Biden is already everybody knows this is out of the picture. So are Democrats, just Democrat voters who are casually paying attention to politics, do you think they really cared about the Biden brain coverup and that their own team was lying to them the whole time? I don't know that people really care about that. I think they really care about capability and personality and who can get something done that they want done. I don't believe that they're activated by that. It might be a little bit, but I'm not even sure the average voter could even describe to you the whole autopen story. I mean, that's something that the political right is feasting on, but I don't know if the political left even sees the story or cares about it or, you know, they saw it once on CNN but didn't follow up on it. I don't know.

And then the other lie according to Dr. Lauren Wright is that when Trump got in office democracy would die but that we don't observe any democracy dying. So the Democrats are losing credibility. To which I say again are they? Because the Democrats would say you can see with your own eyes that he's destroyed our democracy. Now that wouldn't be true, but they believe it. So I don't think that they've wised up and seen that their party is a bunch of hoaxers and liars. And I don't think they're affected by the Russia collusion hoax and knowing that the top people in the party were probably colluding to run a coup in the country and that January 6 was a total projection sort of play that they always do, that they would run coups and then accuse the other side of running a coup and there's no evidence that happened.

So yeah, I just think that the lack of having any policy ideas and the lack of a charismatic national candidate is all you need to explain why the Democrats aren't looking good. They lost everything. So people don't like losers and they don't have anybody who has a positive message that they could turn that around. So you don't want to be associated with somebody who number one lost everything and number two has absolutely no idea what to do about it and basically tells you that by the way they basically tell you we have no idea what to do about it. We think we have to punch people in the nose harder. So yeah, I guess I understand why they're not so popular anymore.

Here's another story. I don't know if I believe this one, but what's the word for luxury belief? So I'm going to make this one of my luxury beliefs. I think I'm using the term wrong. But the idea is I want to believe this is true.

So the story is that Trump got Thailand and Cambodia to drop their very brief war against each other. I guess they went to war and the story is that Trump convinced them to have an unconditional ceasefire which they've done and that he may have done it by threatening to give them tariffs. Isn't that a little bit too n