Media & Fake News

orry. If you don't understand the news is and maybe always has been fake, you would be very confused about what you're seeing. Right? So that's number one. And I would say that Trump was the biggest reason that we understand the news to be fake. Not only did he tell us, but we could watch through his experience how often there were hoaxes in the news and you could really learn, oh my god, the news is not even real. That's number one. How confused and lost would we be if Elon Musk had not purchased Twitter and turned it into X? Because I get most of my knowledge from X. If I had to depend on everything else, literally everything else, I wouldn't know what's going on. Now I might be in a bubble, so I have to watch out for the bubble problem. But without X there's so much context that I'd be missing. Now what would have happened if Trump had not won the election? If Trump had not won the election, I think that X would have been destroyed. I think that people would still think the news was real. They would trust their elections were not rigged and they would have an entirely different view of what's real and what's not. And Trump just barely won. Well he would say he won by a lot, but if you consider the allegations of rigging, suppose there had not been some, I don't know if it's real, but the reporting is that there was some Serbian data center that had to be taken offline just in time or Trump would have lost. Now I don't know if that's true, but it does suggest that if it was, we were very close to losing everything and then we would again not know what was going on because we would be in the dark. What would happen if DOGE had never happened? And I'll add Mike Benz to this point. What would happen if there had never been a Mike Benz and there had never been a DOGE? Would you understand how the NGOs and the USAID stuff were distorting everything we knew and everything we were doing? I didn't know about any of that stuff. And what are the odds that you'd be born in a time when both of these things would happen? DOGE and Mike Benz. We were very close to never understanding what was really happening, but now we're getting close. What about the rise of independent media? Do you think we would know anything except for the rise in independent media, which mostly you get to see on X? Nope. Because corporate media will always have a limit on what they can do if they take advertisement for their business model. There's going to be entire domains where you can't trust what they say. And the only way that you would know what's happening is if an independent media grew up and that only was possible recently and mostly because of X. In order for me to understand what's going on and then to try to tell you, I had to use Grok to summarize Mike Benz's posts because his posts are very detailed and it's hard to watch four hours of content and even though he summarizes it and he gets clipped, it's a lot. And so even this morning and really it feels like every morning there'll be some big complicated story about what's wrong with the world and I'll say, Grok, summarize this. And if Grok did not exist I'm not sure I'd be able to totally follow everything that Mike Benz says that puts things in context. So I happen to, you know, you have to be lucky that Elon Musk made Grok. How would you have ever understood what a color revolution was and the fact that the people who were doing it to successfully overthrow other countries had very clearly used those tools against us? How would you know that without X, without DOGE, without Mike Benz? Very specific things had to happen at the same time for us even to understand that that's the world we're living in. How would you have ever known that the censorship industrial complex had found a way to use the international tools and also to partner with Europe mostly to censor people in the United States? That's something we only just recently learned. So think about how sensitive the world was to all of those factors. And if any one of those had not happened, would we have already lost free speech? With the censorship and the color revolution already made it impossible to have a democracy and never get a real Republican elected. We were this close to losing everything. It almost seems like magic that all the right things happened at the same time, right? It's very unlikely that all of those things would happen at the same time, but they did. They did. Kind of amazing. Speaking of Mike Benz and Grok and censorship, here's another one of those stories that you would not understand unless we had been given this new context and these new set of assets to understand the world. So there's this guy, Imran Ahmed, and I might have this wrong, but I think he's a Brit, and he's allegedly was part of the effort to, and apparently there's documentation that he said this directly, that he was in charge of trying to kill Elon Musk's Twitter for censorship reasons and that he was running quote black ops against RFK. So would you have known that there's this guy in another country who was part of a big industrial censorship complex that was working with the United States to essentially get rid of free speech in the United States? Well, there's this guy named Norm Eisen who's an attorney who is associated with Democrats, but he's also associated with that entire foreign and now domestic color revolution. So he's sort of one of the architects of how to do a color revolution. And he's now the lawyer representing Imran Ahmed. So if you don't know the players, you don't really know what's going on. And as soon as you see that he's the lawyer for Imran Ahmed and then you see Mike Benz explaining the connection and the history and what both of them have been doing, all of a sudden it clicks in place. Click, click, click. Oh, all right. So as Mike says, Norm Eisen specifically made internet censorship a cornerstone of his domestic color revolution playbook published in 2015. He literally published the technique for doing this. So we're not guessing what he's thinking. He wrote it down. And that playbook, the Norm Eisen playbook, called for state governments to set up social media censorship regulatory regimes, and we've seen this in California, New York, and Michigan try to do it, to specifically instruct his networks to quote find partners in Brazil's censorship apparatus. So I think the point here is that this color revolution thing is very obviously being used in countries that we're trying to control and Brazil was on that list I guess and that all of these efforts are staffed with ex-Obama people and there's no doubt about what side they're on. They're not trying to make things good for America. They're trying to make things good for the Democrats basically. So there you go. Now here's another question I have. You know, we all live in a news bubble. So even as much improved as things are today, I would say things are much improved as I mentioned, the free speech and the context and all that. In my bubble, the allegation that our elections have been rigged, and you could pick any year, but let's just say rigging probably happens every year, sometimes more successfully than others. In my world, that's a proven fact. Not proven in court, but because of my bubble I've seen so many stories that are at least high credibility. I don't know how true they are, but they're high credibility about rigging that I would just say it's a fact now. But if you're not in my bubble, how much of that do you ever see? I feel like the left never sees it. And what they see is the times when the claims are debunked because there are a lot of claims that do not check out. So I'm going to name a few things in my bubble. So in my bubble that Serbian data center thing is true. In my bubble there was Chinese technology in the voting machines. In my bubble there are credible reports of duplicate ballots that all look the same and widespread. There's a lot of it. In my bubble there were whistleblowers and undercover video proving that there was ballot stuffing and illegal stuff. In my bubble there's plenty of evidence that ballots should not have been counted in massive ways either because they didn't have the signatures, because they were sketchy looking, etc. And that's just a fact. And we have whistleblowers and we have multiple reports. Even people under penalty of perjury are claiming they saw it firsthand. We've got that warehouse that's been locked for years because allegedly it's full of fake ballots. And all we'd have to do is get to it. And I think that's happening actually. We've got all kinds of allegations about Arizona. Too many to mention. We've got that video of Ruby Freeman, is it, who allegedly is doing something sketchy. I think she's being accused of counting the ballots three times. Now she won a court case for being accused of that. So the courts did not confirm that she's done anything illegal. So she's not indicted or anything, but if you're in my bubble she's accused of all kinds of things. There's the

Episode 3056 CWSA 12/28/25

in the entire US. Now that kind of makes sense. If you live in California, you know that your odds of surviving outdoors are much better than most places. You know, there are places that are warmer and they would be too warm, you know, like Arizona, for example. But the place you would most likely survive on the sidewalk would be California. And then you add on top of that all the friendly policies toward the homeless. Of course we have 30%. It's amazing that we don't have 100%. Actually, probably the only reason we don't have 100% of the homeless is that they can't get here. They haven't had to travel here. But why would anybody go anywhere else? So that looks like a problem that's not going to get solved anytime soon. So I guess the state auditor of California according to Kevin Kiley, he's a congressman from California, they issued this scathing report and they identified eight separate state agencies just in California as quote high risk which means they exhibit serious waste fraud abuse or mismanagement costing taxpayers billions. So have you ever heard the word auditor as much as you have in the last 30 days? How many of you remember that I started hitting that word like crazy? Audit, audit, audit, audit. But audits are boring. So it doesn't really catch on with the public so much. But I kept hammering on it. Audit, audit. And now I don't know if I had any influence in causing anything, but you will note that the number of times you hear the word audit and the number of times you hear somebody suggest auditing. I think Chamath from the All-In pod did a post on this just yesterday or so and you mentioned the needs for audits and most of the stories are now audit related if they have to do with money. So that is a step in the right direction. But I'll tell you what, maybe you know the answer to this question. So a couple of days ago, I saw a video that I don't know if it's AI or not. And that's what's funny about it. So it was a video of someone asking Governor Newsom about his waste of federal money, I guess. And Newsom starts talking and gesticulating as he does and it was so word salad but yet the sentences might have made sense but it was insanely incomprehensible. Did anybody see that? Was that an AI or was that actually him being presumably stoned out of his mind on something trying to answer a question and just word salad his way through it for like a minute and a half and it didn't end like he starts with the well this and that that it just kept going and going and going and going. So I'm curious. Did any of you see that? You would know exactly what I'm talking about if you saw it. And was that real? Because it looked like it should have been AI. Well, I'm more interested in the AI technology than I am in his answer. Is it so good that I was wondering if it's AI and I couldn't tell? All right. Well, you might know this. Steve Hilton. You remember him from Fox News. He had a show on Fox. He's running for governor of California. And he notes that Californians pay double the national average for electricity and that it's all based on bad policies and climate crisis stuff. And if he becomes governor, he will cut in half your electric bill in California. Now that's a pretty strong pitch because it has an actual number, 50%. And he gives an actual way that he can do it, which sounds quite doable. You know, just cut out the things that California has been doing wrong, which everybody can identify. So I saw a poll where he was actually leading. Do you believe that a Republican could be leading in the polls to become governor of California? I would have said no until this year. And I think that the way Hilton is doing it is the way to do it because the big thing that Democrats are going to ask for is affordability. So it's one thing to say, "Oh, vote for me. I'll give you some affordability." It's another thing to tell them exactly how much you're going to save. You know, half of your electric bill and tell you exactly how he's going to do it. And you look at it, you go, "Yeah, that would work. That would work." So the more ways that Steve Hilton can find to do that, this is what I'll save you. This is how I'm going to do it, he might actually become governor. So he's smart enough. It's just whether the machine will crush him or not. So are we still talking about that Bari Weiss CBS 60 Minutes piece about that got squashed or is that too boring? I saw that Hillary Clinton weighed in on and then Bukele, the head of El Salvador, said, "Sure, we'll send back your p

Episode 3052 CWSA 12/24/25

r assets, the possibility that they've been stolen and sold is pretty high or just in general, if you can't account for your assets, we don't know that that signals gigantic fraud, but it does signal that we don't know if there's gigantic fraud. So again, I would say the problem might not be the Pentagon. The problem might be that the way we audit either doesn't have any teeth or we're doing it the wrong way or it's the wrong people doing it or some combination of all those things. So I would look at auditing the auditing. It could be, and I'm starting to form this opinion, that it's not that something is or is not audited. It's that the auditing doesn't work because it's also corrupt or incompetent or we don't do anything about it. Now let me ask you this. Do you think anybody got fired or demoted because they failed that? Well, Hegseth says that they're improving and that they might pass their first audit by 2028. That's their goal. I am in favor of having a goal in this case. It makes sense to have a target for when you got it fixed. But it coincidentally is when they'll be out of office. So I've got an idea. How about we promise to have everything fixed when I'm no longer here? Oh, when would that be? 2028. So are you happy that they have a plan that it will be fixed when they're no longer here? Because you really don't need to fix it if you're not really going to be there. So I would say I'm not happy with the excuse that we'll get it done by 2028. There's something far more aggressive has to happen before then. Now I will wait to 2028 if something happened that was aggressive. So if for example they said we just shake up our entire audit process or we just put a general in jail something like that like a big shocking change. If you give me a big shocking change that clearly is directionally correct I might wait. Yeah I might hold my opinion to 2028. But if you're not showing me that anything is going to be different and it's going to be the same people doing the audit as did it last time and the same people hiding the assets I hid it last time. I don't want to wait. I do not find that acceptable. You know, somebody criticized me the other day on social media says I would be more credible if I ever criticized the Trump administration. To which I say, that's true. I would be way more credible if I ever criticized the Trump administration. I've definitely criticized the Trump administration. I'm doing it right here. Are they doing enough? No. No, they're not doing enough. Are they satisfying me that they're even capable of doing enough? No. No. I see no signal that the Trump administration is fixing this problem. So that is a criticism. I think I'd say almost exactly the same thing if Democrats were in charge. So the next time you say to me, "Hey, you never criticize your own team." I say, "Well, that's what this is." My own, by the way, let me be clear. My team is not Republicans. My team is not MAGA. My team is America. Right? If you're on team America, which would include all of us, you need to get this fixed. This is not about one side versus the other. This is America versus the end of America, right? It's an existential problem. It's do you exist or don't you exist? It's way beyond Democrat or Republican. All right. Well, apparently the US is putting more pressure on these so-called dark fleet of tankers coming out of Venezuela. So I guess some tankers that were incorrectly flagged, I think that's the false flag, are being subject to a seizure. And I believe that now the third one has been seized. We already had two. And some people said, "Hey, those particular tankers are exempt because they're a different flag." Well, it looks like the flags were fake. So the US is taking the position, I don't know if it's valid or not, but they're taking the position that these can be seized. And apparently we're going to escort them to American ports and just take the oil. Now that is a very Trumpian way to handle this, which is I'll just take your oil. Thank you. Now if some of that oil, if we take it, would we use it to offset the military cost of controlling or the military cost of leaning on Venezuela? If we do, that would be a very Trumpian thing to do. Well, thank you for the free oil. You know, I always say that Trump picks up free money. If you leave free money on a table and everybody walks by it, Trump is the only one who's saying, "Does anybody own that? Whose free money is that?" And after he asks maybe the second time, and nobody says it's theirs, he takes it. He just takes it. So clearly this is theft, but it's also free money. So very Trumpian. Now the big mystery about the whole Venezuelan operation is does it have one purpose or does it have multiple purposes and what would they be? And I don't know the answer to this question but it could be a three meaning that if you think of it in terms of trying to accomplish any one thing then you would be confused because it's really meant to accomplish more than one thing. So the possible things, some people say, some people who are not me but are smarter than me about this topic say that really leaning on Venezuela is also a way to lean on Cuba because Cuba and Venezuela have an economic relationship that if you hurt one you would hurt the other especially if you hurt Venezuela's oil business I think that would hurt Cuba the most. So question number one is our actions at the moment, are they designed to take down or control two countries via the Monroe Doctrine idea that you know we're the dominant or the big dog and that if you don't do what we want and you happen to live in our part of the world we're going to come for you. So I would say maybe or maybe it just makes the anti-Cuban people happy, but it's not part of the primary goal. But I guess I would argue obviously it does put pressure on Cuba, but what do we expect will happen from that? Do we expect that Cuba will have a regime change? Have we not been expecting that for six, well how many years have we assumed that if we put pressure on Cuba, they'll have a regime change? So I don't know what we're trying to accomplish other than making Cubans poorer. Then of course the stated objective is to put pressure on the drug cartels. Well, it does that, but as many people have pointed out, fentanyl will probably just find another way. And by the way, Venezuela is not the big fentanyl producer in the first place. So yeah. Yeah, it's bad for the cartels, but is that why we're doing it? I do agree with this thinking that the cartels have become so powerful that you risk them becoming like a major military. Now you could argue they're already a major military, but they're not any match for the American military. At some point they might become so powerful that you couldn't really directly attack them because it would just be too much catastrophe. So it could be that we're thinking ahead to make sure that the drug cartels don't reach a certain scale and power and we're worried that they're coming to some kind of crossover point. So I don't think we're doing it only for that. Well here's the fourth possible thing. The fourth possible reason is that the big money people, I don't know, the big energy money billionaires may have decided that if we can just steal the oil from Venezuela, they will make enormous profits, which presumably would happen, right? If Venezuela crumbled but we captured their energy assets, would that make any American companies richer or any billionaires from anywhere richer? The answer is maybe. Maybe. So we've got at least four possible reasons that Venezuela itself is a problem and they want a regime change. That doing that will take down Cuba somehow, but I don't see how. That the drug cartels got too powerful. It was time to knock them down. Or that some rich people have some enormous financial gain. It's kind of a weird one. So I do not believe that our full military will move in and just occupy the country, but I do like the fact that Trump never takes that off the table. All right, let's talk about Ukraine and Russia. There's something interesting going on here. So apparently there's been yet more meetings with Witkoff and Jared and Russian, Ukraine and mostly Ukraine and they're working on their 20-point plan for a multilateral security agreement. So what Witkoff said is an interesting hint of where we're at. He said that negotiators focused in the recent talks on quote timeliness and sequencing of next steps. Now it doesn't seem to me that you would talk about the timing of steps unless you thought you were close to agreeing on what the steps were. And I don't believe that we've been close to that before. So is his choice of words, timeliness and sequencing, is that telling us we've achieved some kind of minimum negotiation minimum state where we're close to agreeing on the content but not the timing? Because if it comes down to timing that would suggest we're close to something that could work. And I'm not suggesting we are, but his choice of words does suggest that and I've not seen that before. So that's my persuasion-related observation. So now US, Ukrainian and European officials earlier this week they said that the problem is security guarantees for Kyiv. And here's what Lindsey Graham said. Now remember, Lindsey Graham is a very anti-Russian guy and he said recently on Meet the Press, I guess this weekend, that it was unclear if Putin would accept the current deal. So the negotiations were with Ukraine to tighten up the 20 points, but we don't know if Putin would accept it. And he says if he doesn't accept it that the approach should be to start seizing oil tankers that are carrying Russian oil and then to label Russia a state sponsor of terrorism for what he says kidnapping 20,000 Ukrainian kids. Now you know one of the problems with getting a deal is that Trump will be accused of making a deal that's pro-Putin, right? That's a big problem. How does Trump avoid the accusation that he's just working for Putin? He's a puppet of Putin and he's not trying to protect Ukraine. He's not trying to protect Europe. He's just trying to make Putin happy. Well, it's a tough one because we're at a point where Putin's going to get something out of this deal that a lot of people don't want him to get out of the deal. So one way you could address that, which is not a total answer, is you could send the most anti-Putin guy onto the TV to say that he would be willing to support some kind of a deal that looks like what we have now. So if Lindsey Graham, the most anti-Russian guy, and nobody doubts that, so there's nobody in the world who doubts that he's anti-Russian. If he says this deal works for us, meaning America, wouldn't that be a pretty good signal that we're not doing it for Putin's benefit if Lindsey Graham says yes? Now I'm not a giant fan of Lindsey Graham's military-first kind of approach to things. I'm simply observing that if he has a long, long track

Episode 3050 CWSA 12/22/25

e would only need to say, you think we're going to make a hundred billion dollars? No, we're going to make a trillion dollars. So if you could create a picture where the US could get to a trillion dollars of economic benefit just for investing in Ukraine. It might take a while, but you throw the trillion in there and people's eyes open. Do you think that the US would employ military might if Russia tried to encroach on our trillion dollar economic opportunity? And the answer is of course we would. You might not like it. You know, a lot of people might disagree with it, but yes. Yes, you could guarantee that if we had a trillion dollars at stake that our richest people would say, "Uh, you know how I have a lot of influence over the government? Well, this is where you pay me back. This is where you go to war with Putin." So I think there's some possibility that if we could tell a story where the US has a trillion dollars to benefit that Putin would know that attacking it had nothing to do with Europe and had nothing to do with NATO, that the US would unilaterally say, "Okay, we're going to fuck you up bad." So maybe we're getting close. Well, apparently Trump has tapped, I like how they say tapped. He chose Louisiana governor as a special Greenland envoy. New York Post is reporting this. So in addition to being governor of Louisiana, this gentleman whose name I forgot to write down, governor of Louisiana will be the special envoy to Greenland. I guess we didn't have one. We had no special envoy. Now Denmark of course is objecting because they think, "Oh no, there's one more step toward you trying to strongarm us out of owning Greenland." To which I say, you know, Trump has already established that he's going to go strong on what looks to me like Monroe Doctrine times three. And if you're in our part of the world, you don't get to say no if we have a legitimate security interest. And do we have a legitimate security interest in having at least a military strong association with Greenland. And I would argue that if they don't give it to us, we're going to take it. Not right away, but that is what I like about Trump. He's very clear. You're either gonna work with us or we're gonna take it. And that's the Monroe Doctrine right there. In my opinion, that's the Monroe Doctrine. So in the context of Trump leaning on Venezuela, that surely gives Denmark some pause because I don't think they expected our navy to surround Venezuela. Now even though Venezuela has nothing to do with Greenland, it suggests what level of military might Trump might employ if we have an economic slash security reason to do it. So it's got to rattle them. So I would say the current context is good for Trump. He's kind of taken down the verbal pressure. But it suddenly puts a little more pressure on them. Now here's what the New York Post says. It says that behind closed doors, administration officials have mapped out a plan for the island, Greenland, to become independent and then enter into a compact of free association with the US, giving Washington a role in

Episode 3050 CWSA 12/22/25

itive. However, I'm going to add this little bit of skepticism. It goes like this. It's not just that that was a non-controlled experiment because it was a natural experiment, not a controlled, you know, placebo type of experiment. If it were true that the events happened as reported, then I would agree that the odds are a trillion trillion to one that it was an accident and that that would be quite definitive that Ivermectin was a good solution. However, when it's not a controlled experiment, even if it is, because a lot of controlled experiments turn out to be fraudulent, it's possible that it was simply reported wrong. Meaning that the people who said, "Uh oh, in my hospital, we got this result" could be lying. They could have made up the whole thing. Or if it were only known because the press looked into it, somebody could be lying. So you can't rule out the fact that if it were a natural experiment and you got all the data correct, that would be very definitive. But if it was a natural experiment and that's the very reason that you can't know for sure if somebody made up the data or lied to you or just came up with a story, you can never really know. And that actually is the reason that a lot of the scientific studies are debunked eventually is because if the data were true, it would tell you something, but you can't be sure it's true. So I would say the Ivermectin story is highly likely that it made a difference in a positive way. But not 100 percent. Can't really get to 100 percent on that one in my opinion because I don't trust whoever told whoever says it happened. Yeah. But if I were Joe Rogan, I'd sure be mad at the way they treated me. Are the fine? Yep. Never saw a horse with COVID. All right. How about UAPs and UFOs? I do not believe that there are any aliens. I wouldn't rule it out. I mean maybe, but I would say at this point we cannot convincingly say there are aliens. Yeah, I have a good track record but obviously did not have a pandemic track record until recently. Anyway, so that's what I think at the moment. Let's see what other stories. But it's so weird that it's now just a fact that the election was stolen and that there was a coup attempt and the coup plotters are free and they will never be punished. So did you see my predictions yesterday about the Epstein files? So even as we had hours to go for the release of the files, I was posting on X skeptically saying, "You're not going to see the files." And what happened? Sure enough, we got some files. And if you get some files and not all the files, it makes it worse, not better. Would you agree with that take? Would you agree that getting some of the Epstein files but heavily redacted, that it made it worse? It almost confirms that there's something that we should know that we don't know. So I would say I don't know who is the guilty party but obviously the Thomas Massie and Luna bill had a big loophole in it which allowed somebody we don't trust to block out stuff, to redact stuff. Yeah. But would you agree that the bill ultimately made things worse because if it allowed any redactions, you will never trust the redactions. True. You will never trust the redactions because you don't know who made them. And even if they told you why, you wouldn't believe them, would you? So Massie and Luna trying to do the right thing, genuinely trying to do the right thing. And also both of them, I would say, very capable and very bipartisan, but they made it worse. They did not mean to do that, but they made it worse. Now, here's the most surprising thing, and don't get mad at me, all right? If you're going to get mad at somebody, get mad at Alan Dershowitz. So I saw his reaction to the partial release and as usual, Dershowitz had the most interesting argument that I'd never heard. So he argued that there should be no redactions, including the victims. And his argument was that if you showed the people who were accused, but you didn't give the names of the people who were accusing them, that was not a fair situation. And I thought to myself, wait a minute, he's right. The argument is right. It doesn't mean I agree with him. It doesn't mean I agree with him, but his argument is solid that it would be a crime to show the people accused but keep hidden the people who accused them. Would you agree? Imagine if Trump had been accused by E. Jean Carroll of some sex crime and she was allowed to be anonymous forever, but he was not allowed to be anonymous. Would that be fair? No. In our system, you get to know who is accusing you. And ultimately, if it goes to a trial or something, you would know who the accuser is. Then somebody got mad at me online because they said, "You animal, are you saying that you should throw the victims under the bus a second time?" To which I say, "What is the alternative?" Keep in mind that everyone who is an underage victim is now in their probably 30s. So none of them would be children. There'd be no children involved even if they were children when the crime happened. So forget about children. This would be adults being outed or not. Now some of them might not care, some of them might. But apparently Massie knows the names of 20 or so accused famous people. I think as soon as he said we'll out everybody accused but we won'

Episode 3048 CWSA 12/20/25

t out the people who accuse them, we can redact that, there was no chance any of this would work out. So I believe unfortunately as smart as Thomas Massie is he created a system with Luna that guarantees that we will never see the stuff that you think is important. So unfortunately yesterday I predicted that the bad people would resist even at the risk of going to jail, even at the risk of jail, that we would not see the full stuff because it's just too easy to redact it. But I saw somebody ask online, why doesn't Thomas Massie release it? If he knows the names, why doesn't he tell us? Apparently, there are a number of people who know the names. However, you also don't know if there's some other reason they're not telling you stuff. Because imagine if what would happen if the CIA came in and said, "All right, this is not protecting the guilty, but there's a whole bunch of stuff that you cannot know because it would be a national security problem." Let's say, and I don't believe this is true, but let's say Epstein was at least partially a CIA asset and he had done some things that we don't want our adversaries to know or even the domestic audience to know. Yeah. So Bannon knows the names, correct? Do you think that Bannon quitting has anything to do with the non-release of the Epstein files? What do you think? It could be a coincidence because it's the end of the year so people make big changes at the end of years. So I know that Bannon wanted to quit, but we don't know why. So at the moment, I would say that's a maybe. Maybe it had something to do with Epstein. And maybe, but it could be that he just hated the job, couldn't hack it anymore. Seems likely. Too on the nose. Yeah, it was too on the nose to say that that's why he quit. I think family and end of the year probably. Bunch of you quit in the summer. Well, I don't think he made it official in the summer, but I think he decided in the summer. That would be pretty tough on your marriage if you're just never home. All right. Yes, Stefanik. Elise Stefanik is dropping out of politics and not running for governor. You saw what Elon saw. All right. What other stories are there? Let's see. There's new interceptor aircraft that can kill drones. Cool. While you do that, what's going to happen? The world's first humanoid robot-led EV battery production begins in China. So the one, if I'm saying it right, it's a humanoid robot. Delivers over 99 percent connection success, matches skilled worker cycle times, and detects wiring faults in real time. So I guess China is actually implementing some robots. We also know, I'll add this into the definite fact. Some of you remember that I was speculating the only way our deficits could be so bad is if somebody was stealing trillions of dollars and somehow we were not stopping it. I now believe that's a fact that the reason for our deficit, not 100 percent of the reason, but a large part of our total deficit is absolutely just crime. Would you agree that that's essentially a fact now? Like look, you don't have to speculate if our tax money is being stolen. It is being stolen at probably something in the half a trillion to a trillion dollar a year range. Would you buy that? Would you buy that estimate that every year probably for several years at least when the deficits exploded that probably half a trillion to a trillion is just pure fraud? And that is probably in most of the states. I'm pretty sure California has even more fraud than Minnesota, but there's no way it's just happening in Minnesota. You know, there might be a few states like Florida where it's not that bad. We can also say with confidence that the NGOs which are being dismantled at least a little bit are primarily for the purpose of Democrat fraud primarily. So those are essentially just criminal organizations disguised as legitimate charities. So I would say we can move that to the fact pile. Hey, happy birthday. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Yeah, anything run by family members is some form of fraud, even if it's not technically illegal. All right, everybody say happy birthday to Owen. Yeah, the California bullet train. My god. Wow. Japan is trialing a, this is also on Owen's X, Japan trials 100 kilowatt laser weapon that can cut through metal and drones mid-flight. Oh, that's so cool. Do you remember the shadow ships from Babylon 5? And they had these cool laser weapons that was a sci-fi show many years ago. And the laser weapons would make this cool sound like and slice through the other spaceships. Well, we're almost there with our laser defensive weapons. All right. So what do you think about the way Trump apparently used the threat of tariffs to get all the big pharma companies to drastically lower th

Episode 3048 CWSA 12/20/25