ely change the power of the United States forever. Or maybe some court will just stop it. Or maybe somebody did the math wrong. That's the other possibility that they haven't done the math right. And we don't really know who comes out ahead.

Apparently, according to the New York Post, Ghislaine Maxwell says that she never saw Trump do anything concerning. So do not expect Ghislaine Maxwell to say anything bad about Trump. And oh, by the way, in a coincidental related story, she would like to be pardoned by Trump. So I'm not sure I would completely believe everything she says about Trump being innocent, although I think he probably is innocent of any of that stuff because she's a little bit conflicted. She needs him to give her a pardon if he's so inclined.

All right, I've got a theme for some of the rest of today's podcast and the theme is two movies on one screen. And I'm going to give you a bunch of examples of news that we already talk about where half of the country has a completely different view of what the movie is that they're watching. And the question will be is one of them always a hoax and is it always the one side who sees things accurately and the other side doesn't because both sides believe they're the ones who see it accurately and the other people are watching a fake movie. Who is watching the real movie and who is watching the hoax?

We'll start with story number one about Russiagate, the movie that I'm watching, which doesn't mean it's the real one. It's just the one I see. I see stories like today's Just the News, John Solomon. And apparently we now have in writing and video documented cases where Obama got ahead of the intelligence reports and said, "Oh yeah, Putin is trying to help Trump get elected." Now, that was prior to there even being an intelligence decision. So that would suggest that Obama was part of the plot to make it look like Trump was guilty of talking to Putin and colluding or whatever.

So in my world, the movie I'm watching and most of you are watching too, we have proven beyond any real doubt that Russiagate and the Russia hoax was coordinated for the purpose of overthrowing the legally elected government and that the people involved were from the top, you know, Brennan and Clapper and Obama and Comey and all those guys. That's the movie I'm watching. But can you believe you live in the same world where tens of millions, maybe more, maybe a hundred million people are watching a different movie and you know what's happening in the other movie? In the other movie, Putin helped Trump get elected and that's the whole story. There's nothing else to see.

Isn't that amazing? Isn't it amazing that those two versions of reality are just sitting there at the same time? And we're not instead of like really wrestling to find out which one's the true one, we don't really have any mechanism to do that. You know, one network will tell their version, the other network will tell their version, and their audiences don't overlap that much. So we just have two completely different versions. And we're not talking about a detail. We're talking about did our government try to overthrow the elected president of the United States? The answer is it looks like it. If I were on a jury, I would say yeah, there's a 100% chance. There's no doubt about it. The evidence is pretty clear.

All right. So would you score that one? Definitely you and I are seeing the right movie and the other people are seeing the hoax. Is that fair? That there are two versions of the movies but one of them is definitely just a hoax and the hoax is very well uncovered and revealed. I think so.

Here's another one. How about climate change? Climate change. So the movie I'm watching is that it might be true that the temperature is going up but we don't have a signal to tell us that it's an existential threat and it might be more good than bad even. We don't even know. But others would say oh it's proven every scientist agrees it's going to be an existential threat.

Well, we have a new story. I saw this from a post by David Shaviv. He's a PhD in molecular biology and he's talking about in 2024, so just last year, a climate scientist published a paper in the journal called Nature. Now, that would be a prestigious, high-end journal to put a paper in. So if something is in that, you would think, well, that's pretty credible. And then we find out that I think there were as many as four peer reviewers and all the peer reviewers had major problems with it. So some said that basically they criticized almost every part of it. And what do you think happened when the paper that said that climate change was even worse than you thought? Oh boy, it's bad. It's bad. And then the reviewer said, "I don't know about this paper. This is not meeting our standards." What do you think happened? And then it got published.

Why would they publish the paper when the whole point of peer review is if the peers are not convinced you shouldn't publish it? But the peers were not convinced it got published anyway. And then because they happened to be in the right direction for the alarmists and they thought, "Aha, not only were we right, it might be worse than we thought because here's this paper and it's in Nature. It's published. It had peer review." So must be true, right? Well, turns out it was one of the most cited papers for the entire year. So not only did it get published by itself, but it became a source for other scientists to base their work upon. And then it just became one of the biggest things in science when it never really even passed peer review. And it's got many references to it from other science.

Now so there's your two movies. One is that the whole climate change thing is just a bunch of frauds and bad assumptions. Maybe sometime some of them might be well-intended but you know they got just dragged into the groupthink. So my view is that one movie is that it's just a bunch of people scamming us for money and some people just afraid of going against the established belief. And then the other movie is that it's a big existential threat and although almost all of their predictions have been wrong, they're going to get one of these days. Oh, the next time they're going to be right. So what's your vote? Are they two reasonable views or is one of them clearly obviously true and the other one's a hoax?

Well, in my world, the one that says there's no way you can predict the temperature, and there doesn't seem to be a way even to know what the temperature is, much less predict it. I'm not even sure that we can measure it. So to me, it's super obvious that it's more a hoax than it is anything else. But part of the world believes that the science has proven that they're all going to die from this climate change thing and the Republicans are part of the reason they're all going to die. So that's different.

Apparently Trump had just learned while he was at some precedent that the Ukrainian military is now enlisting citizens over the age of 60. Now they say citizens so that would suggest men and women. So are they really going to enlist like 70-year-old women in the military because they're running out of young people? That's what it looks like. And but I do wonder, you know, if they're looking for mostly drone operators and stuff, I don't know, maybe if you're 70 and you played a lot of games, maybe. But it doesn't look good for Zelensky.

Trump has slapped India with a 25% tariff on top of their 25% tariff for continuing to buy Russian oil. Now I don't know that India had any fast way to buy anybody else's oil. Did they? Did India have an option of just saying, "Oh yeah, well we'll stop tomorrow, no more of this Russian oil and just buy it in other places." I don't know. So I don't know if there's enough oil or enough fungibility that you can just say turn this spigot off and turn this one on. Maybe you might be able to but that'll cause some friction with India.

However, that seems maybe it's not a coincidence that Putin has now seemingly agreed to meet with Trump. Now, it would just be the two of them. It wouldn't be Zelensky. It wouldn't be Europe. And Trump's model is if he can come up with some model that the US and Russia think is worth selling, then they can try to get Ukraine in there to agree with it, etc. But they got to see if they're close first of all. Now, do you believe they're close? Because if nothing has changed, why would Putin be interested in peace talks? Is Putin just playing a game where he's postponing sanctions? So he's going to do the Iranian thing where you keep talking like you want peace, but you keep acting like you don't and just see how long you get away with it because America loves the story that peace is about to break out. Oh yeah, look at that Trump. He got us some peace. So we want to believe that Trump could make peace happen. As long as we really want to believe that Putin can just tap us down the highway forever. Oh, yeah. Almost there. Oh, yeah. We're probably close. I don't know. Maybe just tweak a few more things and we'll be right there.

So I don't believe anything about it, but it might not be coincidence that this new secondary tariff thing is kicking in. That's what the India tariff is. So is it possible that Putin thinks that he might be heading down a one-way path to destroying his energy industry in his country? Or is Putin unworried because he could just sell twice as much to China and China has an insatiable demand for oil. So maybe I don't know. So I don't think these secondary tariffs would have scared Putin so quickly that he would say oh never mind never mind. I totally want peace now. So I'm going to predict that it does not lead to a real peace deal. It might lead to a fake one where Trump comes back and says, "We've got a deal. We've agreed on a ceasefire." And then a day later you find out, well, it's a ceasefire if Ukraine gives us all this land and agrees that we own it. And then Ukraine will be, we didn't agree to that. And then Putin will be, well then no ceasefire for you. So I feel like it's just tapping us down the road there. We'll find out.

Another one of these two movies on one screen is the January 6 insurrection hoax. Now, half of the country or more believes that Republicans left their guns home and tried to take over the country by walking around in a public building for an afternoon. And that that's how Republicans try to conquer a country. Leave their guns home and then trespass in a public place for an afternoon. And somehow half of the idiots in the world came to believe that that's a real thing and that there was an actual insurrection attempt as opposed to what I think you and I saw which is a bunch of people who were sure the election was being stolen right in front of them because they could look at the weird pattern of the vote counting towards the end and they just wanted to delay long enough to find if a coup had happened to them.

Now, how many times do I have to point this out before your head explodes? The following thing, as far as I know, no news program on the left or the right has ever pulled together a handful of the January 6 protesters and said, "All right, tell me the truth. Did you believe that Trump had lost fair and square, but you were trying to get him installed as like the president anyway, which would have been a coup." How many people would say, "Yeah, that's sort of what I wanted. Yeah, I knew he lost, but I thought we could get him in there anyway." You won't find one. In my opinion, how many people were there? 20,000 or some big number. I don't think you'll find one person who would say, "Yeah, oh yeah, I know he lost fair and square, but we tried to get him in there anyway." I'll bet not one. It's just not what a Republican is. It's just not who they are. It's an identity thing. It's not even an opinion thing. Their identity is we like the Constitution. So you people don't go against their identity. They can have different opinions that fit within their identity, but you don't just throw away your identity if you're the pro-Constitution person. You don't throw that away. So no.

I'm going to target that as the last remaining tent pole hoax. It's really the only thing that keeps people from supporting Trump at this point because they kind of like his policies even if they don't admit it. But they really don't like that he may have been trying to take over the country. It just never really happened.

Remember Dr. Robert Malone. He was one of the co-inventors of the mRNA platform and he says that RFK Jr. was briefed on UFOs and was told that all of this stuff is true. Now, do you believe that? Because Malone would know RFK Jr. So he would know the people who are in that world because he's in that world. And here's what he said. I saw this on a post by the Vigilant Fox which is a really good follow if you're on X. Follow the Vigilant Fox. A lot of good summaries of the news. And Malone said quote, "I'm talking to my friend and he says oh Bobby had a briefing all this stuff is true Roswell all those things the reverse engineering of night vision whole bunch of this tech comes out of the reverse engineering of recovered materials and we can look forward to learning a lot more about what the heck is going on with these whether they're time travelers and they're humans coming back or they're from another dimension or they're whatever fill in the blank, but apparently it's real."

All right, I would like to add my opinion on this topic. I'm quite certain that there's nothing real, meaning that there are no space aliens or time travelers or early humans who are living in the core of the earth or whatever. I don't believe any of this is true. Not any of it. What I do believe is that there are ongoing ops being run against RFK Jr., not by Malone. Not by Malone. I'm not blaming him. He seems like a good and smart egg. But doesn't it seem to you that if you were going to try to discredit RFK Jr. because you're big pharma. So let's say you're big pharma and you know that the longer he's in the job, the worse it is for you. How would you discredit RFK Jr.? Well, if it were me, I would get him to believe something that clearly is not true and to go public with it. If you could get him to do that, then you could add that to the list of, well, look at this guy. He believes in magic. Oh, he's so anti-science. He's just decided that oh, time travelers. He believes in time travelers now.

So to me, I do believe that he may have been briefed by somebody who said it was all real, but whoever briefed him, I would suspect, would not be on his side and was trying to hoax him into ruining his credibility. So he'd have to leave the job. So to me it looks like an op.

Rasmussen did a poll on 2020 election denial. So this is 2020 election denial and 48% of Democrats support punishment for questioning the 2020 election. How can that be true? Do you believe we live in a world where 48% almost half of Democrats support punishment for people who question the 2020 election? Can you even believe that that's real? Like I would not even have thought to ask the question because it's so ridiculously absurdly out of bounds. Punish people for questioning an election. But 48% of Democrats.

This next story, let's add this to the how in the world did I not know this was the case already. All right, if you haven't heard this story, this might blow your mind a little bit. If you're watching this podcast, you probably believe that Brennan and Clapper and Comey were part of a major Russia collusion hoax, right? Did you know according to Tulsi Gabbard that James Clapper this wasn't his first hoax? Apparently, he was on the team that said that Iraq had WMDs. So the Iraq war was in part caused by James Clapper and his analysis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Do you think he knew that that was fake when he did it? I mean, he wasn't the only one. He was part of the team. But how does this one guy destroy our country with a war that we didn't need to be in? And then he's behind he's one of the key players behind the Russia collusion hoax which ripped the country apart again. Unbelievable that he was involved in two of our biggest most damaging hoaxes in American history. Same guy. And how in the world did I not know that until yesterday? What? I would think that would be right at the top of things that we should have all known. Well, this information is coming from somebody who told you Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I would have wanted to know that. I would have wanted to know that.

General Flynn tells us that there might be more to know about October 7th and the IDF, the Israeli military's suspicious inability to detect it or to repel it as soon as it started. And here's what General Flynn says: something broke down and it wasn't because of mistakes, it was an inside thing. Now, he was talking to Steve Bannon at the War Room and Bannon had to stop him and Bannon was like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa." I may have missed a few whoas, but he said whoa a lot. Hang on. He said, "You can't drop a bomb like that. You're saying that you're hearing there's testimony or documents." So Steve cleverly is making sure that there's some real meat behind this or actual evidence that certain elements of the Israeli military were told to stand down on October 7th. And Flynn replied, "Steve, I have personally walked that border. I've been down at those areas and I know the details of how the Israelis, one of the most secure borders in the world, how they do their operations. So I know that. So something broke down and it wasn't because of mistakes."

Now, I don't know if he has more specifics to it or if he just knows that the story is wrong. Could be either one, you know. It could be that he knows enough more than we know about the situation that he knows it doesn't add up, but doesn't know what's missing. But the other possibility is he knows what's missing.

Here's the problem I'm having with new conspiracy theories. I guess that's an old one. There were a lot of conspiracy theories that I immediately discarded because there were just so many of them. You have to sometimes you just have to discard them without looking into them. But now it's hard to discard anything. Like I'm not really inclined or biased to believe that Israel allowed their citizens to be brutally attacked and kidnapped and all that because it was some long-term plan for gaining territory or something. Like there's nothing in my body or experience or brain that feels that's true. I know a lot of you feel there might be something to it and I get that and I'm not ruling it out. So what I'm saying is even though every fiber of my being says that's not real, there's no way that they intentionally allowed that attack. On the other hand, the things that I've seen that are apparently true just in the last six months, especially the Russia collusion stuff, it kind of opens up the door that I can't tell what's real. And if I don't have any ability to determine what's real and what isn't, why should my instincts and hunches about what Israel would or would not do, why would I depend on my own opinion? Why would I even believe it?

I see in the comments, of course, people are yelling 9/11, 9/11, as in don't believe the story about how the Twin Towers came down. I will give you this much. This is as far as I'll go. I don't think there's any chance that we know the real story of 9/11. I don't think any chance. Just none. Now, there are a number of possibilities of what really happened compared to what we're told that happened, and I don't know which ones are true, but I'll meet you halfway. The official story, I don't believe that one. Now, it might be that there's nothing horrible there. Maybe we just got the story wrong. You know, maybe there are just some things that we don't know about. But I can tell you that the official story, there's no chance. There's no chance that's all real. Some of it almost certainly is real, but not all of it.

And then on another two movies, one screen. This one is the most fascinating to me, and I know you hate this topic, so I'll make it short. There's a user on X who goes by Cremieux. I don't know how to pronounce it. C R E M as in Mary I E U X. So you can look him up. And he is real good with data and analysis. And he says this. Now this is him. Don't get mad at me. Do not get mad at me. This is somebody who is smarter than both of us who says the following. More than 5.6 billion people took the COVID vaccines. If there was a mass dying wave, miscarriages and still births, cardiac issues, or anything else, we have more than enough data to show those things, but they never happened. How you feeling so far? They're not real. They're a neurotic delusion. We have so many person years of data that if there's any issue with the vaccinations causing health problems, we almost certainly would have already detected it. Couple this with the fact that this is the first time I've seen this word, but pharmacovigilance and I guess that means the actively watching the pharma side effects. The fact that pharmacovigilance has gotten much better over time and big side effects are just a laughable proposition. So a laughable proposition because the system is such that there's a 100% chance you would see any big effect to people dying.

Now some of you would say but Scott look at the data from a user called Ethical Skeptic. How many of you have seen the data from Ethical Skeptic who appears to show charts and data that would suggest there's a gigantic problem of people dying who got vaccinated? How many of you have seen it? Because he's been operating since the pandemic and he's just got tons of charts and data and it all points in the same direction that there's this enormous problem of side effects and people dying and every other thing. Well, Cremieux was asked about Ethical Skeptic and he debunked him as being a credible source of anything. I had the same reaction but without the backup. All I knew is that whenever Ethical Skeptic posted something I couldn't understand it and I thought to myself what are the odds that 100% of the time he posts something I don't understand it. What are the odds that that's somebody who knows what he's talking about? My experience is anybody who can't simplify their point and say, "Here's the point. All right, here's the data that proves it," they're probably not credible. So I think he's not credible. Even if everything he says is real, I wouldn't know.

So now you've got two people who are really, really, really looking at the data and they see two completely different worlds. Which one do you see? Do you see a world I think most of you see a world where it's been proven beyond a doubt that there's way more deaths attributed to people who got vaccinated. It's obvious it's because of the vaccination. How many of you live in that version of reality where it's just obvious and you've seen so much data to prove it. You know people who have been injured by the vaccination. So you've proven it with your experience. You've proven it with all the data. How many of you think you're in that world? I'm not in that world, which doesn't mean you're wrong. Which doesn't mean you're wrong. I just don't know anybody who was injured by the vax. And I've only seen data that says that it worked and saved lives. I haven't seen any of the other stuff. Where are you even looking? And if you saw data that said the opposite then and you believed it, then I would call you gullible. Not because you believe the wrong stuff, but because you're believing in experts in a domain in which all the data is questionable. So I don't believe the people who say there's no damage whatsoever. But I also don't believe the people who say, "Oh, there's plenty of damage. Here's my data." So if you decided that one part of these people are right and they've got data and studies to prove it, then I would call you gullible because why would you believe anybody in this domain? You know that whatever is true, you know for sure that people are making stuff up in both directions, right? So even if we somehow could find out what was real, and I don't know that we ever will, we would still know that there were people on both sides who just made stuff up. That part I'm sure about. So before you say, Scott, why are you so gullible that you believe the official word? I've never said that. I've never believed the official word, but I have a question for you. Why do you believe the unofficial scientists? What makes them credible? Nothing. Nothing. So I'm way more suspicious than you are. I believe that it's unknowable and I wouldn't look at the data or the experts to tell me it was true. I will tell you that none of it is credible looking to me in either direction.

What about inflation? President said that the price of everything is down. Eggs are down, gas prices down. Beef prices are through the roof, right? So Trump of course does a great job of selling and convincing us everything's going to be fine, which is important. I like it when he does that. But no, it is not true that everything is down. There are some things that are way up.

Here's a new phrase that Jake Tapper has added to the conversation. Apparently he's acknowledging that the government was weaponizing the Department of Justice against Trump. So I believe that even Jake Tapper would agree, yeah, there was some weaponization going there. But he believes that Trump has taken that to a new level, which he calls turbocharging the weaponization of government. So yeah, sure, maybe the Democrats did weaponize the government against conservatives and against Trump. Yeah, maybe they did weaponize a little bit, but they didn't turbo weaponize it. I mean, Trump is turbocharging that weaponization, so that's much worse. So here's what you should look for. See if turbocharged weaponization becomes the thing they all say. If you don't hear anyone else use it, then it was just something that came to Jake's mind. But if they all start saying, "Well, there was a little weaponization before, but not turbocharged." Then you'll know that some consultant came up with that, and they're all going to use it.

Project Veritas has a whistleblower. I don't know if I'm believing this one or not. That says that former US Attorney General Bill Barr and some other partner he's working with are running some kind of fraud scheme to get elites and billionaires visas to the US and it involves fake companies that they can say they're working for the fake companies so that they can get their fake visas. Now Project Veritas is the James O'Keefe was the founder of that but then they forced him out now he does his own thing at OMG. But I don't know about this one. Do you believe that the whistleblower is telling the truth and that Bill Barr is just running this big overt visa scam? I'm going to say I'm a little bit skeptical of this one. I'd have to know a lot more about this alleged whistleblower. Or there'd have to be some other evidence. I guess I would say I wouldn't believe it based on the whistleblower. I could believe it if there's some investigation or some other independent report, but with one whistleblower, no. Not good enough.

Trump wants to sign an executive order to allow you to hold Bitcoin in your 401k as well as buildings and real estate and other private deals. So in case you want to do that. Now, that might juice the economy a little bit because it would open up around 12.5 trillion dollars for nonstock investments.

Trump says that the Biden-Harris administration pushed banks to quote destroy him and to debank conservatives. Now, I didn't know about that. I didn't realize that Trump was being debanked. I know that they've been debanking, but he's been debanked. And so I'm completely in favor of Trump getting revenge for the debanking stuff. But even if it's a turbocharged lawfare, yeah, he needs to set things right. People should understand that if they debank an ex-president and that ex-president or any of his allies or children in the future get a shot to take you down, they're going to do it. They're going to do it. That's the kind of a mutually assured destruction that keeps the society running. So I do think Trump needs to absolutely just savage the banking industry that tried to debank him. Absolutely savage them. It should be really expensive and they should remember forever that when they got political even though they kind of had to because the government at the time was kind of pushing them into it but they need to know that they're looking at an existential threat if they debank somebody for political reasons even if they're being pushed to do it has to be an existential threat to them. So if Trump put a major bank out of business because of it, so long as we didn't lose our entire banking industry, I'd be okay with that. That this is so bad that just destroying an entire bank would be about the right price to pay. That would be about the right price.

I guess ICE is doing raids on Home Depot because there's a bunch of people trying to work. Now, how many of you have a problem with the fact that the Trump administration apparently lied to us about the worst first? Because they're not looking for the worst standing at the Home Depot parking lot. They're very clearly trying to hit their numbers, which you might like, but it's not what they told us. Even if you love what they're doing, how do you rationalize the fact that they lied to you and said that they wouldn't do that? Even if you like it that they're doing it. So I've got a problem. I would call them liars. And I don't like it a bit.

Trump is calling for the resignation of Intel CEO because he has extensive ties to China, which everybody assumes means to their government as well. So I guess the CEO of Intel has some investment platform that made a whole bunch of Chinese investments. So I don't think there's quite a smoking gun that says that he's done anything wrong. We don't have that. But his connections and his past activities make him look really cozy with China. So I can see why Trump's pushing him on that.

Trump is ordering a new census, which I don't understand at all because he doesn't have the power to order a new census. So there's something about the story that I need to find out. I guess Congress could vote to do an early census instead of doing it every 10 years as is currently the technique. And so I guess I need to catch up on this one because I tried to figure out why does he think he can make this happen when he doesn't have that authority. So there must be more of a trick to it than I'm aware of. Maybe it just means Congress will approve it. But why does he need an executive order? I don't know. So he's trying to get that done. I don't know if that's real.

China's solar industry, they got rid of 31% of the workforce because they're so overbuilt and prices are down. And so remember how you were all worried that China would own the solar panel market and the only thing that happened was we got cheap solar panels and they got themselves a big industry that doesn't make money. We're not really good at predicting where things go, are we?

Here's an update. Apparently Netanyahu's security cabinet is going to meet about Gaza and about the idea to resettle all the residents so that Israel just owns Gaza from now on. And I will remind you because it's useful for this podcasting model that I think I'm the only public figure who told you on day one of that war or roughly around that that Israel wasn't going to just beat them up and then let them go that they were going to essentially take control of Gaza forever and make it part of Israel. And I'm right so far. Looks like I'm right now. How do you explain that I have no expertise in that region or no expertise in that domain whatsoever and that I'm the only person who was right about what would happen? How do you explain that?

Well, before you answer, I should remind you that at the beginning of the pandemic when Trump announced he was going to do Project Warp Speed, I predicted in public that the vaccinations would not work. And then when it was rolled out and they said, "It works, it works. We're rolling it out." I said in public again, "I predict it won't work." Now, how much did I know about virology and vaccinations? And what was my expertise? And the answer was none. I had none. But as far as I know, I was the only public figure that I'm aware of who said on day one of the vaccinations that I predict they won't work. So how'd I get that right with no exper