arjorie Taylor Greene and the president are involvement in foreign wars such as Gaza, the Epstein files, healthcare. She thinks he should do more in healthcare as do all of us and inflation and prices and stuff like that. But I don't know what else he could be doing. Frankly, don't know what he could be doing. But here's my take on all that. I feel like I'm not going to take sides on any of that. I just don't like taking sides when I like both sides. I like President Trump and I like Marjorie Taylor Greene and I like a lot of the people who are battling each other, you know, Candace against whoever and Tucker against whoever and you know, so it's hard for me to get past especially the ones I've met. You know, there are a few of them I've met personally. Once you meet somebody personally and they're nice to you and they're warm and they're completely open to you, it's really hard to slam them in public. I know that's you could argue that's sort of what I should be doing, but I don't know. I just can't do it. Just can't do it. So I'm just going to say of all the personal drama, you might want to pay attention to it for fun, but I wouldn't take it too seriously. It just weakens your own team. So don't take it too seriously.

Do you know who Kelly Means is? I guess he would be an activist. I hope that's the right word. He wouldn't mind. An activist against big pharma and big food and some of their abuses. Anyway, here's a claim he made. He was talking to Megyn Kelly at some event about the Make America Healthy Again movement. He said that there's this is unbelievable. I mean, I believe it because of the source, but he says there's a CIA manual is being sent to all employees in the Make America Healthy sort of world. And they're suddenly around this CIA manual called I can't believe this is true. It's a little too on the nose, but the source is good. So but it is too on the nose. This allegedly the CIA manual is how to be a bad bureaucrat and subvert an institution from within. Okay, I think I'm talking myself out of believing this. Isn't that a little bit too perfect. All right. So I'm going to put a question mark on this. I do believe that Kelly Means has high credibility. I don't believe that he would mislead you intentionally. That's not his thing at all. So but he could have some bad information. Anybody could. And apparently people are saying that 90% of the employees at Health and Human Services are talking about this thing and they're afraid that RFK Jr. and Trump are anti-science so they have to save the planet from these anti-science guys. I don't know. So I guess I'm going to put a question mark on this one. And the question mark is not about the people involved. I think they're all high credibility and high value added people. I just don't know if the document is real. It might exist, but it doesn't mean it came from the CIA. I don't know if they would even deny it.

Anyway, as you know, there's a whole bunch of Epstein files got released. 20,000 files with 1,500 Trump mentions. 1,500 Trump mentions. Now, I realize people talk about Trump a lot, but even my emails don't have 1,500 Trump messages, and I talk about him all the time. 1,500. I don't know.

And Alan Dershowitz was saying on a podcast that the media is intentionally twisting the facts of the Epstein case to smear Trump. And he gives an example. He said that the newly surfaced emails there's one detail that the press leaves out. Now when I tell you what the press leaves out, you're going to shake your head and some of you are lost in the confusopoly of this story. So you may have missed this little point here. Here's just a minor point. One of the most damning and provocative things so far is the claim that Virginia Giuffre, she was one of the known victims of Epstein, that there's a claim that Trump spent hours with her. It's also true that Virginia Giuffre has said publicly that she never met Trump. So her claim before she passed away tragically recently is her claim is that she never met him, but apparently there's something in some document that said they spent hours together. Who do you believe? I feel like I believe her or at least it adds enough doubt into the story that you should put that in there. But can you believe that the media doesn't mention that she's denied ever meeting him, much less spending hours with him. So I mean, it's not like you would forget if you'd met Trump and spent several hours with him. You wouldn't forget. So I agree with Dershowitz. That sounds like an intentional smearing of Trump.

I saw PJ Media saying, "This says it all that the Democrats blocked the release of the Epstein files." Matt Margolis is writing about this. What do you think that's telling you? The fact that the Democrats didn't want it released? Is it telling you that there's nothing damning about Trump? Because if they release it, you could see there's nothing damning or what? Like why would they not release it? They would be better off with the uncertainty that there's something in there if they knew for sure there was nothing in there. And as many have pointed out, I think Matt does too, that if there was anything in there that was bad for Trump, you think the Democrats wouldn't have already found it and released it? So there's a strong suggestion that there's nothing about Trump that's bad. So why would Trump want it not to be released? Well, Dershowitz gives you the perfect reason. According to Dershowitz, if you release real information, the illegitimate press will just change it and act like it's something it's not. That's what they did with the Virginia Giuffre thing. They took a real thing and they just changed it to a fake thing. And nobody's going to research it. So they're just going to turn on the news. They're going to hear MSNBC's version of it. They're going to turn it off and think that's the reality, but not. So yeah. So why would the Democrats block it unless they were up to no good? They wouldn't block it to protect Trump. So therefore, there must be nothing in there that would hurt him. But there might be things in there that would hurt other people, and there might be things in there that could be misinterpreted easily, which would be just as much a problem.

Anyway, so Trump apparently going on the offense as he likes to. He's asking the Department of Justice to look into a few billionaires and other just rich people who had connections to Epstein. He actually named names. Now, I wouldn't talk about this except the president named the names. To me, this sounds totally inappropriate to accuse them because as far as I know, there's no evidence of specific wrongdoing. So Trump named Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers, and he called and he says JP Morgan Chase. So I guess that means some executives unnamed. And he says the records show they spent a lot of time on the island. I don't know if that's true. They might have spent more time on the plane than the island, but as far as I know, none of them have specific claims of wrongdoing. Right. There are people who speculate, but I don't believe there's any like witness or whistleblower or anything like that. So I'm always uncomfortable naming names when there's just no criminal evidence or anything.

Now, I'm not comfortable with the president asking the Department of Justice to look for a crime when there's not some smoking gun there. And I don't know, is it a smoking gun enough that they spend time together? Well, it would if you were in a cartel, right? If you were a cartel member, or let's say somebody discovered you were in a cartel, you don't think that maybe they'd get a little extra scrutiny? Yeah. So it makes sense that your associations might raise a red flag, but is this enough of a red flag? Now, I'm curious. So I would like to know the answer, too. But I don't know. This gets mighty close to violating some kind of basic right, but I'm no lawyer. So we don't know if Trump's going strictly for revenge. It's a distraction. It'd be a good distraction. Or is it a warning to other people who might be in the file that you better help me keep that sealed? It might be a warning to the people in the file. It might be his way to tell these three or four people on this particular issue, we're sort of on the same page. And if you don't want to be the one who's investigated, you might want to join me in saying these should not be released.

But what did Reid Hoffman do? Cleverly Reid Hoffman said today Trump should release all the Epstein files, every person in every document. And he sort of suggested that Trump was using these rich Democrats as sort of a stalling technique. So he was just stalling maybe. Maybe. So I think Reid Hoffman played it right because he might know that they're not going to be released which would be playing it right because then he looks innocent because he's calling for full transparency. Whoever it is who calls for full transparency, you just assume they must be innocent. So if he knows then no matter what he says or does they're not going to be released anyway and he might know that then the best play you could ever make is to say release those files. They should all be released. That would be a good play. But again, I say there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the people named, including Reid Hoffman, did anything inappropriate or illegal on the island.

All right. Apparently some prison staffers at wherever Ghislaine Maxwell is being held at the moment, they hacked into her emails. I guess that would be prison emails. And then gave the copies of her emails to Representative Raskin. Have you noticed that wherever Raskin is, there's something sketchy happening, every time you see his name, you're like, "Oh god, this is going to be sketchy." And sure enough, he claimed to be a whistleblower. I don't know if that's a legitimate claim, but under that umbrella, he got these emails. And what did it say? And I guess the staffers who did this were fired, the ones who leaked it. And it said something that was interesting. The release was there was nothing in the emails? Maybe the emails were so uninteresting that I didn't care. I guess the emails sort of suggested according to Raskin that she was angling for a pardon or to have her sentence commuted. To which I say, how's that a story? If you were in jail for lots of years and lots of years to go, aren't you always angling for a commutation or a pardon? Wouldn't it be more of a story if she were not?

Now, I'm going to use my George Carlin example again where he says, "You don't have to actually say the words to somebody you're colluding with if they know what you need." Obviously, the Trump administration knows she would like a pardon or a commutation, right? Obviously, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Would they have to say it? Would it be necessary that she said it directly? Not really. We all know that she wants one. Why wouldn't she? There's no argument in the other direction. So yeah, of course she wants one. So that's a nothing story except for the Raskin part being a weasel.

Germany's buying $150 million of weapons to give to Ukraine. It makes me wonder if the cost of warfare is coming down over time. Because we're in a weird phase of history where we're shifting from tanks and artillery to more drones. Are the drones cheaper? Are we getting as much of war done? Ukraine, I guess. Are they getting as much war done as they would if they spent more