put your own panels in space and then you can have infinite energy like we do. But we're going to charge you way more than we charge our own companies. So it's still going to cost you way more to do AI than it does us.

So it feels to me like while the FTC is chasing Meta and losing, Meta actually won, that the company that has the greatest chance of completely capturing the only industry that matters, AI and robots, is just one company, Tesla. Because if you have a great technology, but you don't have access to infinite energy, you don't really have anything. So Tesla might be the only ones who have the right technology theoretically and infinite access to energy. There might only be one company that can do that. So would you say that they would have a monopoly?

Well, obviously Musk would be completely aware of that risk. So if he is smart, of course he's smart, he will organize his company in a way that competing AIs have a genuine chance of getting into the infinite energy business even if they don't own their own rocket companies. So that's coming.

There's a new poll by Fox News about how many of the people think that to disapprove of the job that Trump is doing. So most voters believe the White House is doing more harm than good on the economy. Is that what you think? How many of you think the White House current administration is currently doing more harm than good to the economy? Does that track with what you observe? Where exactly is the harm? I don't know. I'm not even sure what the argument is that they're doing more harm than good.

But let's see. And they shut down, drag down the approval of both parties. None of that matters in the short run. It'll matter by midterms, but 58% of voters disapprove of the job Trump is doing, which is four points more than two months ago. Do you think that matters?

I feel like the least important statistics in politics would be the public's opinion of Trump's economic policies between now and the end of his second term because he's sort of going to just do what he needs to do, isn't he? He has the freedom to do what he thinks will be the right thing and maybe three years is long enough to find out he was right or wrong and probably will be right. I mean that would be his track record so far. So I think I wouldn't worry too much about public opinion polls of Trump on economics. I would expect them to be historically low, even if he did better than anybody's ever done.

All right, I'm seeing you trying to get my attention in the comments, but I'm going to stay on track.

Well, Mike Johnson explained one reason why it was incredibly dangerous to release those Epstein files. And part of the argument is that the only ones who should declassify something is the same entity that classified it in the first place. Do you understand why that's important? Let's say the CIA said, "Oh yeah, this has to be classified," but then some other entity was in charge of declassifying it. Would the other entity necessarily have a full appreciation of why the other entity, let's say the CIA, wanted it to be secret? Not necessarily. So it is a good process to make sure that the one who classified in the first place is the only one that declassifies it. But that also guarantees the things stay classified. Because if you're in control of your own little domain, you just say, "Ah, keep it classified. Then I have to worry about it. I'll never have to worry about it. It will never be my problem. Just keep it classified." So you wouldn't get full disclosure if you kept the rule that only the classifying group could be the unclassifier.

So but Mike Johnson was saying it's dangerous. It's dangerous. And then there's also the question about if there's an ongoing investigation. That would be yet another reason why we can't see the good stuff, if there's any good stuff. And of course, there will be ongoing investigations, as there might be into at least three Democrats. So we'll see how that goes.

All right. And I wonder, it makes me wonder how many of the people who voted to release the Epstein files. You hear I'm talking about Congress. How many of the Congress critters believe that even if they had all voted to release it and even if the president signed it, how many of them believe that they really would have secrets coming out? Because if I were in Congress, I'll tell you what I would think by now. By now, I would think that all the good stuff's been removed. So you're not going to see anything big and surprising. So I'd say to myself, well, I might as well look as if I might as well appear as if I want more full disclosure than anybody else because there's nothing that's going to happen. It'll either be state secrets or it'll be some damn thing. Somebody will say they lost it. Somebody will say that's the missing box. We've got a missing box. But what I would not expect is that I would vote to release it and then a bunch of stuff would get released and then it would have significance. Well, I don't think so.

But what if this is just for fun because the Epstein stuff, you know, it's as much about entertainment as it is seeking justice. What if all the people who said yes to release it thought they were not releasing it because in other words they thought something would stop the good stuff no matter what. Are they just waking up to the fact that they just voted to release it and it's actually going to get released? Will it? I don't know. I still don't believe that it will all be released. That seems ridiculous to me, but maybe, who knows?

Then Trump, of course, he immediately signed it. Here's what I love that Trump has found a way to shake the box, as he does, and then shake it some more and shake it some more until he's the last person standing. Because one of the things about Trump is that he can handle chaos better than everybody. So if you put Trump and then all the other players into this big box, you said, "I don't know what's going to happen, but watch this." And you just start shaking that thing. And when you're done, everybody's like wandering around like a bunch of drunks like, "Whoa, what was that?" But if you keep doing it day after day after day, the only person who will be left alive is Trump because he can just handle more chaos. He uses it as basically a beacon to shine on anything he wants.

So when you see Trump say stuff like, "No, let's not release it." Okay, let's release it. Maybe not release it. Let's release some of it. Let's have somebody release it. As long as he's shaking that box, he's winning. And I've told you this a million times. It's not like the one time I've said he shakes the box. As long as he's creating uncertainty and chaos in this little domain that doesn't affect most people, frankly, he's heading toward dominating the whole domain.

And I've told you before, it's kind of brilliant that he's created this situation where every time the topic comes up, his enemies will think that they're winning like, "Ah, we're going to bring up this topic again." And then he's going to look at them, he's going to make them sit there in silence while the cameras are running. And he says, "This is a Democrat problem." Which is one of the all-time great framings. It's not like it's the only person who said it or the first time it's been said, but once you decide, okay, this is going to be our branding. It's a really strong one. And then he says there are three names associated with it, as if Epstein wasn't actually more like 1500 names or some huge number. If the three are the only ones you remember, then it's a Democrat problem because you only remember three people and they happen to be famous Democrats. So you got your Larry Summers, you got your Bill Clinton, and you got your Reid Hoffman.

Now, let me be very clear. I'm aware of no crimes whatsoever that any of them are accused of that have anything to do with Epstein. I'm not aware of any crimes. I'm just talking about the fact that Trump has decided to brand this as, you know, those three faces are going to be the faces of this scandal forever. Or at least as long as you decide to keep it in the news and ask Trump about it every single day. Hey Trump, is there anything you want to tell us about this Epstein scandal? It's a hoax. It's a Democrat problem. It's a Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman problem. And then he moves on. That's not going to change. You've got three more years of him saying that every single time this comes up.

And the one weird thing about Trump, which is weird and powerful, is that he can say something he's said before as if it's the first time he's ever thought of it and then he can do it a thousand times in a row. Am I right? When he talks about it being a Democrat problem and he goes through his reasoning like I did, he acts like it's the first time you ever thought of it or the first time you've ever heard it. He makes it interesting even though it couldn't possibly be interesting in a thousandth telling, but he makes it that way. He's got that power.

Anyway, apparently the Clintons have not responded to the request for depositions. If they don't respond, does that mean that both the Clintons will be subject to legal consequences? How many of you think that the Clintons will have to obey the same laws that Steve Bannon and others have had to obey or else go to jail? Is it possible that the Clintons could literally just defy the law and just say, "Nope." Well, now you have to at least give us a deposition. Nope. Okay. If you don't give us a deposition, we might send the sheriffs or whoever they send. Nope. Okay, we're totally sending the sheriff. Nope. What would happen? Would the law actually drag them away? Can you imagine Bill Clinton being put in handcuffs? I don't think that would fly. I feel like the left of the country would just go nuts. And it wouldn't matter how much e