not the only thing to rely on because I don't know how much we could possibly step in in either of these situations without making them far worse. Because if the United States gets involved directly in some obvious way, then the regimes in both cases can get tougher because then it's like they're fighting the United States. So it's a tough place to be. But I think the world is being affected by the Trump example in some way.

Here's some — yeah, I've got a couple of other topics. And that is, oh, let's talk about Lisa Page. You know, I like to update you on my predictions, both good and bad. For example, on the bad side, I predicted a year ago that Kamala Harris would get the nomination for the Democrats. If you had to guess today, you'd probably say, Scott, that might be your worst prediction. But I'm sticking with it because the reason for it didn't change. It just I found out new information, which is she's the worst campaigner in the history of campaigners. But it's also fixable. She has the only problem that could be fixed: get rid of your sister as your campaign manager. Very easy.

Now, I don't know that she'll fix it because firing your sister is pretty tough. But let me say this as clearly as possible. If you can't fire your sister, you can't be our president, Kamala Harris. I'm talking to you. If you can't fire your sister, you don't have what it takes to be president. Fire your sister. Show us you've got at least a little spunk. Show us that you're in charge and not your sister. Because based on the reporting, it's pretty obvious that the sister is the problem.

So that would be an example of what will probably be a wrong prediction. But I'm sticking with it because I think it wouldn't be fair to revise my prediction on that just because there's some new information.

But there was one prediction I made a long time ago that as far as I know I am the only person in the world who made it. So fact-check me on this. This is a prediction I made that I believe I'm literally the only person who ever made this prediction. It had to do with the texts and emails between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok in which they mentioned, they quote, "insurance policy." And you know that everybody on the right said the insurance policy clearly and unambiguously refers to the fact that we need to get rid of Trump with our clever legal machinations as an insurance policy in case he gets elected, right?

And I said it was nothing. I said that once you heard the context of it, you would not think that the meaning was we have to get rid of Trump this way in case he gets elected. So now she has testified, and she said that what the insurance policy referred to is the following: that they had this investigation in which there wasn't much in the way of evidence that there might be some suspicion of Trump campaign colluding with Russia. If we elected Trump and he had that connection to Russia, that'd be a big problem. But since they expressly believed it was very unlikely he would get elected, they were kind of slow-walking the investigation because they thought it would probably not matter. You know, it was just one battery. He just wouldn't get elected. It doesn't matter.

The insurance policy was in case he got elected, in which case you really do need to know if there's a Russian connection. But it wasn't so much about removing him from office. It was simply in the context of doing her job. If you're the president and there's a Russia entanglement, then you better make sure you've looked into it. So the insurance policy was just looking into it in case it was a Russian entanglement.

Somebody says, do you believe her? All right, so that's a fair question. So the fair question is, do you believe her version of it or do you believe that she — well, let's diagram that out. In order to believe — I stay with the "her" — in order to believe that what she meant was we need to remove the president in sort of a coup if he gets elected, in order to believe the coup version of the insurance policy, you would have to believe that Lisa Page thought it would be a good idea to have a discoverable digital record of her coup attempt. Do you believe that? That a lawyer involved in the FBI who was with an FBI guy, her boyfriend, do you believe that she would have written in a discoverable digital text her intention to be part of a coup attempt to overthrow the government? Do you think that? Because you would have to believe that in order to accept the interpretation that she was talking about a coup and she just put it right there in a text message.

Maybe, you know, that falls into the category of anything's possible, right? Now compare that to the interpretation that she was just a government person doing her job. Because her interpretation fits all of the evidence, and it is perfectly within her job description. It is perfectly consistent with how you'd want an employee to act. Would you want her to treat the investigation as her highest priority given that there was, in her opinion, a 91% chance it would never matter? She did exactly what you would want your employee to do. She slow-walked a little bit but made sure that they had — you know, they were looking into it enough just in case there was something to worry about.

Now, I know that some of you are hating this because it's triggering you into cognitive dissonance. If you just spent the last couple of years thinking there was a smoking gun and it was Lisa Page talking about the insurance policy, you have to compare that interpretation. Yeah, I think I'll put my coup attempt in a discoverable digital form. She's a lawyer working with the FBI. Nobody who's a lawyer working for the FBI puts a coup attempt in a discoverable electronic form. Nobody. You know, it'll never happen. I did say anything's possible, but there's nothing less likely than that.

Now, what are the odds that she did her job the way you should do a job, which is she set her priorities, she said what her priorities were, and then she told you how she was working to your priorities? What are the odds that that happened? Most normal thing in the world. So one interpretation is the most normal thing in the world: that you prioritize your work and say, this probably won't matter, but as an insurance policy, let's make sure we're chipping away at it. Most normal thing in the world versus the most unusual thing in the world: that a lawyer working with the FBI would put her coup attempt in a discoverable text message. Seriously. Seriously. I mean, sure, anything's possible, but that's pretty unlikely.

So I believe I am the only person who said that there would emerge an ordinary explanation. Can anybody fact-check me on this? From the very beginning, did I not say — and am I not the only person who said this? Find me one other person who ever said this. I said that there would emerge an ordinary explanation for the insurance policy. There it is. Now, you can disbelieve it, but aren't you — arrogance? Let me talk to Jack Lew, one who is saying with the question mark "arrogance." If you can't handle this Periscope in which I clearly started with an example where I was very wrong and that I gave an example in which I'm right so I could balance it out, and your comment is "arrogance," you need to step up your game there, Jack.

All right, this Periscope, you're allowed to say when you do good things and you are allowed to say when you do bad things. If that looks like arrogance to you, you need to check yourself. Maybe that's something about you that's making you interpret it that way. People can be right about things and people can be wrong. If I only talked about the things I was right about, well, you might have a point there, but you don't. I think you're missing some big pieces of the story.

All right. So Representative Jerrold Nadler's panel is drawing up articles of impeachment. And are you not completely over this impeachment stuff? I feel as if the Democrats have just put a tourniquet around their own necks and they're twisting it. It's like, you know, we'll get him. A couple more twists and we'll get him. I'm just going to twist this tourniquet on my own neck a few more times and then Trump will be in the Oval Office. Oh, I mean a vessel. That's what it looks like.

The arrogance comment was about the lawyer. You think that was it? The arrogance would explain why a lawyer for the FBI would put treason in a discoverable text message? I don't think arrogance quite fits that situation.

Ukrainian President Zelensky continued once again to deny he spoke with President Trump from the position of a quid pro quo. So he gave this interview to some big publication, and he was asked about that. And he said, look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. Zelensky said. And they said that's not my thing. I don't want us to look like beggars.

Now, you ask yourself, how did this comedian become president? And then you see this s