ome incredibly intelligent and have all these abilities, he says it will not become the center of the human story. Now what he means by that, he said, quote, we're wired to care about people not machines. Now, I saw a quote from Naval the other day. This seemed to me, I think, I'm not sure. I can't read either of their minds, but I think is in the same direction, which is to say that we will care about art that comes from people, but we won't really care about what AI does. AI will just be a tool. So people will always be the thing that absolutely lights us up, gives us our oxytocin, our dopamine, gives us all our meaning in life. It's the only thing we're interested in mostly because it's an extension of our mating impulse. And I think the AI is exciting because it's new, but eventually will sink into the background of our experience as just a tool. And it sounds like that's pretty close to what Sam Altman is saying. And I would mean it's just a prediction. You don't know for sure, but I think that prediction is right on. I think he's got that.

Well, a Danish airport, according to AFP, is closed again because they got a suspicious new drone sighting. And apparently they're going to close their entire airspace from Monday to Friday next week because they're hosting some European summits and they don't have control of their own airspace. Do you know how embarrassing that would be as a nation? It's as embarrassing as all those drones that were over New Jersey. Why don't you go up and take a look and see what they are? What? You can't do that. We don't have any way to just go look at them. Well, how about shooting one down? Shoot one down. You know, they're drones. There's nobody in it. And you know, if they're not acting totally legally and we don't know what they are, shoot one down. We'll find out what it is. Nope. Can't do that. Well, is there anything we can do? Nope. We just wait and they just fly around our restricted airspace and that's where Denmark's at. Nope. They apparently don't have anything like an air defense.

Now, who do you think would do this? On one hand, I feel like it could be just some private drone operators with unusually large drones because I doubt these are the small ones, right? I assume that these are pretty sizable drones. They're not the ones you hold in your hand. I'm guessing I haven't heard either way, but it could be something domestic where somebody's just playing with the government. Could be Russian. But do you think Russia has enough upside benefit for doing that? What would exactly be the play? What would Putin be trying to do? Just sowing doubt about their ability to defend themselves if World War III breaks out. Would that be it? Or do you think it's a false flag maybe to generate an excuse for war? That's not a bad idea. That's not bad. Maybe it's somebody who's at least on paper is on our side just trying to make sure that we really know we got to take care of this Putin problem. Maybe it's not a terrible hypothesis, but it feels like all of the hypotheses are sort of in the category of well, maybe, but that doesn't feel like a good plot. If the most you can get out of it is well maybe it's something bad, does that really affect the world too much? I don't know. It's a good mystery.

At the same time Poland shut some airports and NATO is on high alert because in this case they think that there's some Russian drone activity. Now, if you knew that Russia was definitely behind the drones that are sort of plaguing the airspace over Poland, a NATO country, would that tell you, well, if they're doing it to Poland, you know, probably they're doing it to Denmark, but why would they just pick Denmark of all places?

Sergio, you're so right. Apparently somebody in the comments I saw somebody said that I don't understand the Islamic risk and somebody had to point out that I have a popular book that's very much, I mean it's fiction but it certainly explains the risk. So yeah, I'm quite tuned into that.

All right. So drones aplenty.

According to General Flynn, he says that a bunch of whistleblowers from the FBI are coming forward and that he says that we're being flooded with whistleblowers. Now, I don't know what a flood would be. A flood of FBI whistleblowers. Would that be three? I mean, three would be a lot. Would it be five? So it makes you wonder what is this flood of whistleblowers and has something to do with Comey being indicted seems to have opened some kind of floodgate.

Speaking of floods, and Flynn says that Comey should probably hurry up and flip to get a lighter sentence because every day that goes by, there's going to be a new whistleblower. So it could be that Comey's future depends on how long he waits. If he waits too long, maybe more whistleblowers will come in with information that would increase the charges. But if he flipped today, could he make a deal that says you hold me guiltless even from things you don't know about yet? You know, as long as it was during my job as the FBI director. So that's an interesting prospect.

Do you think that Comey would flip with or without the whistleblowers? But the whistleblowers do add some pressure to the potential flipping. I'm going to say that it would be too dangerous to flip on these people. The people that he could flip on are the people that can kill you. Doesn't mean they've ever killed anybody, but definitely the people who have had the jobs where you decide who gets to live or die. So I don't know. I'm not sure the whistleblowers are going to have any goods, but I don't think that Comey is going to flip. What do you think? I feel like he would go to jail before he would flip if he had anything to flip on. We don't know that.

Well, Michael Cohen, you all know him, the disgraced ex-lawyer, handler, fixer for Trump, who went to jail himself. And so because he was so anti-Trump after his legal problem started, especially, he's been a regular guest on MSNBC. But MSNBC may be having a little second thoughts about that because Cohen is not only somebody who knows everything about this situation, but a lawyer. So he's not just some guy. He's a lawyer as well. And he believes that James Comey did in fact weaponize the government against Trump and that the evidence will show it and President Trump will be proven right and that Comey will be convicted and that the evidence will quote validate the vendetta of Trump. Validate the vendetta because it's not really a vendetta. If they show that he was trying to overthrow the government, Comey, it's not a vendetta then it's justice. So I love the fact that Michael Cohen got all this credibility on MSNBC and then goes on and just pisses in their punch bowl and they have to sit there and just take it. It's like yeah, this punch is delicious. Now, all right, that was too visual.

John Brennan has done a deep dive into his own accusations against him and he's decided that I just don't see any case against me. Now, I'd like to give you my impression of John Brennan saying that there doesn't seem to be a case against him because I don't know what drugs he's on or because I've seen him talk a lot of times. I've never seen him talk that way. Here's him just talking about his own charges. Well, I'll tell you the things about me are well there doesn't seem to be anything about me. Looks like I'm completely innocent and no evidence whatsoever that anything is going to get me in trouble. Did you see it? Did you see the video live? There's something going on with that man.

In the comments, somebody says cocaine. I'm not going to accuse him of that because I have no reason to believe he's on cocaine. But if you said, can you describe what it looked like? Yeah, it looked like he was on cocaine. He had the Gavin Newsom little bit too much jumpiness. Now it sticks out if you've watched this same person for years and he's not always like that. If he was always like that, you would either say, well, that's just the way he is. Or maybe every single time he goes on TV does cocaine, but that seems unlikely. Adderall. I know a lot of people on Adderall. I've never seen them act like that. They just have a lot of energy. What he was doing was a different thing. He was like fidgeting uncontrollably. Yeah.

Bernie Sanders saying in a speech, he says, we got to figure out a way to stop ICE from what they are doing as soon as possible. Is it my imagination or is the entire Democrat party dedicated to find out what works and then stopping it? Is that am I just making that up? You're seeing it too, right? They figure out what works, such as having a police force. Hey, that looks like that works. Let's see if we can get rid of that. Then there's capitalism. They say, look, it looks like that capitalism made us the strongest country. Let's get rid of that. And then they look at the border. They say, closed border seems to be keeping us very safe. Let's get rid of that. Let's get rid of that. Then they know that homeschooling would be very helpful. Make a little more competitive situation, improve everything. Let's get rid of that. Yeah, let's get rid of that. How about high school sports? High school sports seems to be working really well. You got the boys playing with boys. You got the women playing with women. Let's get rid of that. Yeah, let's get rid of that. Right. Am I making this up? That literally they just look at what is working best to keep us safe and prosperous and then they go hm I think we should get rid of that right away as soon as possible.

Well, Mike Benz has a take on the Epstein situation that is fairly complete. Now, I don't know how accurate it is because there's still some mysteries about Epstein. But if Mike Benz has landed on a point of view on this, I would take that very seriously because he's very credible. And he believes that Epstein brokered deals between the US, Israeli, British and Saudi intelligence, probably secretly financed some political activities and thinks that Israeli prime minister ex-prime minister Ehud Barak visited his island without security. Now, does that seem like a good idea? On one hand, you could say you don't need security on Epstein Island because it's such a controlled environment. You know, the odds of somehow some terrorist knowing he was there and getting all the way there and getting to him, pretty low. So on one hand, you wouldn't really need any security if you went to the island. You know, you could imagine that you'd feel that way if you were an ex-prime minister, not a current prime minister. But the other reason that you might want to have no security would be you don't want them to be witnesses to whatever it is you're up to.

Maybe now there's no evidence that Ehud Barak did anything illegal or did anything with women there. There's no evidence of that. But he does look like given the vast number of contacts it does seem that he might have been a handler of some kind or possibly Israel's contact with him but not the only contact. You know the thinking here is that Epstein probably worked with whoever had money and wherever it made sense as long as they were allies of the US it looks like. So what do you think?

So I guess Bill Clinton, Epstein visited the Bill Clinton White House at least 17 times. So here's the picture that's emerging. The emerging picture is that Trump did not do anything illegal, at least in front of anybody who's a witness. But that Bill Clinton probably was on the plane when there was a rape. I think that they would call rape in this context, specifically underage females. It doesn't necessarily mean that it was against their will. But you know, the argument is that under a certain age, it doesn't mean anything to say that you're willing. It's still a crime.

All right. So it looks like certainly the Clintons have something to explain. Probably a dozen other important people have something to explain, but probably Trump doesn't. And that Epstein was certainly connected to some intelligence agencies and Israel was almost certainly one of them because of course. So I don't know. We don't know this. These are not confirmed things. But the thinking now is that what Trump is doing is protecting other powerful people. You know what would be the most interesting if you had to write the movie and you had to figure out what's the most interesting thing that we don't know about yet. To me, the most interesting thing would be if Trump is protecting Bill Clinton. I don't think you beat that for an interesting movie.

Now, why Bill Clinton might be worth protecting? Like, he might have some secrets of his own. And it's entirely possible that Trump doesn't hate Bill Clinton. He might have a different opinion about Hillary, but he might just say, you know what? I can't take down the ex-president. Maybe, you know, or I can't take down an ex-president who wasn't acting against me. You know, Obama was acting against Trump, but Bill Clinton wasn't acting against Trump. And even his words are not nearly the kinds of things that Hillary says. So it could be at one time I think Bill Clinton and Trump were kind of friendly, right? It could be that that's who he's protecting, which would be wild, wouldn't it? That would be absolutely wild. Would it make you like Trump more or dislike him? I can't decide. It might make me like him more because if the reason he's doing it is that he doesn't want to take down a president who wasn't acting against him directly, that's not the worst impulse in the world, even if he's guilty of something, you know, because that would at least establish some kind of a boundary, some kind of a precedent. You know, you might not like it, but it would establish a precedent.

Well, Stephen Miller was talking about all the let's call them the Trump enemy list that included Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Obama, Lisa Monaco, etc. He said that they all conspired together to try to sabotage the democratic institutions of this country. This is Stephen Miller again saying this. He says, I cannot find words harsh enough to condemn the conduct of these conspirators, these insurrectionists. And I said, oh, there it is. You need to call them insurrectionists. If you have the goods, you know, if the evidence shows that that's what they were doing, you need to call them insurrectionists all day long. You need to take that word away from them so that it makes it a little bit easier to debunk the January 6 thing.

By the way, I think that Bill Maher is one hoax away and it's the January 6 hoax. He's one hoax away from completely giving up on Democrats. Once he realized that he's been hoaxed and he goes in public once a week and acts like somebody who's been bamboozled by his own team, I don't know if he's going to put up with that once he realizes that. Number one, give me a fact check on this. Number one, the Republicans more or less didn't bring weapons to an insurrection. Number two, there is no known way that anybody has ever suggested that you can take over the United States by trespassing in one building. No, nobody has an idea how you could make that turn into overcoming the country. And number three, and I need a fact check on this, is it true that nobody involved was charged with the crime of insurrection? Right. As far as I know, nobody was even charged. And given that they were looking for every charge you could throw at them, they were looking at charges that you wouldn't even think were charges. So if they had anything that could go to insurrection, don't you think they'd be charged? At least one person. Nothing.

There is no I believe there is no documentation, no email, no messages, no testimony that says anybody was thinking in those terms. Now there might have been some you know a few crazies that who knows what they were saying but in terms of the general crowd the 95% of them I don't believe there's any evidence of any planning that would look like an insurrection. And then lastly, the dog not barking. Is that why don't we see every day a new January 6 person telling us why they were there? Because it's not an insurrection if the people there don't think it is, right? It doesn't matter if you think it's an insurrection. If the people involved had no inte