My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Climate Change Models, Brain Organoid Computer, China Manufacturing Cost, Alex Jones, Claudia Sheinbaum, Tucker Carlson, Best Criminals Argument, Hoaxocracy, President Biden, Democrat DEI Brand, Two Faces Biden Appearance, President Trump, Alvin Bragg, Tim Pool, Laura Loomer, Deep Fake Propaganda Danger, UFC Trump Standing Ovation, Lawfare Double Standards, Hillary Clinton, David Sacks, Smerconish, Charlamagne Tha God, Alan Dershowitz, Naval Ravikant, Judge Merchan, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Vivek Ramaswamy, George Soros
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better day.
You know, let me tell you, the omens are all lining up for an amazing, amazing day.
Probably the best you've ever seen.
Yeah, let's see.
There I am.
No.
Huh.
I still don't see the feed.
All right.
It would be live.
That's where it would be.
There I am.
We're live.
Well, if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny human smooth brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker chalice, a tiny canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it's going to happen now.
Ah, powering up.
You know what I feel like?
I feel so good.
I feel like an outlaw.
Yeah, that's how good I feel.
How am I feeling?
Felonious.
Yeah, felonious.
It's a great feeling.
All right, let's talk about the news.
Today's Dilbert Reborn shows you in the first panel, I posted it on X, you can see that I designed it with AI.
So the first panel of the Dilbert comic, I used AI to tell me some interesting camera angles or perspectives for a guy on his computer when a dog walks into the room.
Now, AI can't produce my characters because it'll complain about copyright and stuff.
But it can give me a generic guy and a generic dog.
And then when I have the angle of all the furniture, I just replace them with my characters.
So you can see how that worked out.
It gave a new angle that I'd never used before.
So that's my first, I think, my first real live world repeatable, I'll definitely use it again, AI assist to writing my daily comic.
So it's sort of a milestone.
Well, apparently there's a Tesla deal being worked out to give Elon Musk his money that they gave him and then took away from him, the courts took away.
And, uh, the only portion that he would be able to use for five years is to pay the taxes that he would owe if he were to get it right away.
So, so apparently you can't just take the money and run.
Some people were worried about that.
Uh, he'd have to stay there for five years to get his money.
So should make the stockholders a little bit happy if he has to stay there and work for another five years.
So we'll see.
We hope he gets his money.
Um, there's a gigantic wall street journal says there's a huge cost saving technology for making solar panels.
Now you've heard this story a billion times, but this one sounds pretty promising.
I didn't realize that China can make solar panels at roughly half the price of an American manufacturer.
But with this new technology, it should close that gap a lot.
And apparently it's not just theoretical.
It looks like it's ready to put into the system.
Yeah, I won't get into the tactical details, but it reduces the amount of silver they need and makes something thinner than before and would reduce the cost substantially.
And I ask you again, which one of the climate models takes into account technical innovations that totally change the curve?
None!
Because you can't put in a climate model the thing that hasn't been invented yet.
And yet we know there'll be tons of things invented between now and when they imagine the Earth is going to burn up.
So if you don't put human invention in your 100-year model, Is that credible?
Think about how different the world is in any 20 year period.
You know, it's the difference between AI and no AI, computers and no computers, smartphones and no smartphones.
20 years is a long time.
So these climate models are absurd in leaving out probably the biggest variable.
I mean, you think if you're looking at climate change, the biggest variable is the CO2 or the sun.
Or the ocean.
But probably the biggest variable is human innovation.
It's not even in the model.
Right?
Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the models assume that we don't innovate for the rest of humankind.
We just sort of die.
All right.
So that's happening.
Here's the scariest, coolest thing.
There's a Swiss startup.
That has made a computer and a brain organoids.
Now, I don't know what an organoid is, but I'm going to guess it's something like an artificial brain that they built in a Petri dish or a tube or something.
So I don't think it came from a human.
I hope, you know, maybe the cells did or something.
Uh, but they now have in the real world, apparently you can connect to this thing if you're, if you're paying them.
And it consumes a million times less power than regular digital processors and it's fast Let me say that again There will be a data center a data center, this is already real by the way, this is not a speculative this is today Functioning there's human brain parts
That they've somehow connected to a digital interface and they use the human brain part to do the calculating at one million times less power than regular stuff.
Do you think there's any way that if it works and it can be reproduced that it does work as though it's already up and running?
So if it could be reproduced as scale.
Who in the world is going to pay for regular computing when you can have computing at a million times less power?
We are building a human brain slash cyborg, the Borg.
I don't know.
It's super cool, but also super, whoa, because you don't know what could go wrong.
Wait a minute.
How many ways could it go wrong if we start building a human brain organoid Computers?
I don't know.
I guess it raises questions.
I'm not afraid of it per se, but it raises a lot of questions.
Well, NASA had to once again delay its astronaut crewed flight of what would be the Boeing Starliner's, I think, first flight with astronauts.
And I didn't see the reason that the flight was scrubbed, but I have a theory.
It's a Boeing Starliner.
And I think the problem is, you know how jurors sometimes are sequestered?
Yeah.
If the jury is going to go home, sometimes the judge will say, Oh, you can't go home.
You have to stay away from any influence because you don't want them reading the news.
They might act differently.
The jurors, if they read the news, you want them to stick to just the trial data.
And I'm starting to think that the, uh, the astronauts for the Boeing Starliner Maybe they should have been sequestered for the last month to maybe not see any news about Boeing's quality control lately.
So I worry that the reason it's delayed is that the astronauts were watching the news and said, I think I've got a cold or something.
I'm not sure I can go.
Oh, oh, my arm.
Something's going wrong here.
I'll never be able to control it.
Maybe you'd better use the backup.
I don't know.
I'm just joking.
All right.
Did you know that China's labor costs are about double that of Philippines, Malaysia, India, Thailand, and Vietnam?
I'll tell you, you think that the United States has trouble?
You think we have problems?
We do.
But how would you like to be China And your entire situation depends on manufacturing, because it's the backbone of the economy.
And you're twice as expensive as the alternatives.
And everybody has a gigantic incentive to get their business out of there.
What are they going to do?
Now, besides the fact that, you know, these countries have half the cost and the presumably they're building up some infrastructure so they can be serious competitors to China.
But I also haven't heard about Mexico.
I don't know what the cost of labor is in Mexico compared to China.
And I also don't know what's going to happen with robots.
Because if we're making these much cheaper solar panels, and then we get rid of the labor, By putting robots in the factories?
So you use a manufacturing process that drops the price by, I don't know, half?
And then you put in robots that take another 25% off the price?
Or something like that?
I'll tell you that if there's a way to invest in solar, I'm not recommending you invest in it, because I don't make recommendations for investments.
But it does seem like maybe there's something that's going to happen here that can be gigantic.
You don't really think of robots influencing energy, except to use it.
You know, they use a lot of energy, but they're going to be building the solar panels and the solar plants and the solar, everything, and probably the nuclear power plants too soon.
All right.
So there's a story that we don't know what the real story is, but Alex Jones, is going through something that looks bad.
Now he's saying that the feds came to his door and they were trying to lock him out and take all of his stuff and close him down.
But he was also acting, let's say, I'm going to say emotional.
If it were somebody I didn't like, I would use other words.
But since I like him, you know, he was nice to me.
He's had to be on the show.
And when somebody is nice to me in person, I can't really just go in public and then trash him.
I'm just not built that way.
So because I've met him in person and he was very generous to me, I'll say that he's having an emotional reaction that we don't quite understand.
Some people say it's mental health.
Some people say it's substance.
Some people say it's both.
Some people say it's an op.
Some people say, and I think his staff has backed him up, by the way.
His staff is on the same page.
So it's not just him.
Whatever is going on, his staff seems to have witnessed as well.
So I don't know who these feds were or what exactly they were trying to do, except that it's in the context of everybody who is pro-Trump getting a hit.
So I don't know what's going on, but keep an eye on it.
He may need some help in any variety of ways.
We don't know what the problem is, but he's clearly in a crisis situation.
And so if you have any interest in In either his operation or him as a human being.
Have a little bit of empathy and keep an eye on that.
Maybe this way you can help one way or another.
All right.
Mexico.
Here's a story that snuck up on me.
Imagine finding this out today.
This is kind of mind blowing.
The next president of Mexico is likely to be a Jewish woman.
Is this the first time you're hearing that?
I heard it today.
So apparently they're having an election.
The sitting president can't run again.
They have one-term presidents, six years.
And the mentor, somebody who's worked closely with the current president, so he's recommending her and that's the reason she's getting her push, Claudia Scheinbaum, a Jewish woman with a PhD in energy engineering, That's about as perfect as you can get, isn't it?
How would you like to be the president of Mexico?
You're coming in with a PhD in energy engineering, but it gets better.
She's bilingual.
She used to live in the Bay Area.
She used to live in the Bay Area.
She's bilingual.
The current president of Mexico is not bilingual.
Do you think that makes a difference?
Hell yes!
Hell yes!
Language is the big uniter, right?
If you can talk to somebody in the same language, it's a whole different experience, right?
That's how you bond.
You don't really bond with Putin if he can't speak your language, or she, but wouldn't it be nice to have somebody we could work with in the same language who's a PhD in energy engineering?
Now, we all assume that the cartels have undue influence on the governments, so there's that.
But are you also surprised that Mexico would be even considering—apparently she's way ahead in the polls.
It looks like it's a lock.
Very popular.
Did you see a female president of Mexico coming anytime soon?
It's kind of interesting and impressive, and this is the DEI you want.
You know what I mean?
This is diversity done correctly.
As far as I can tell, the only reason she's being considered is that she's overwhelmingly qualified.
So how about that?
How about just being overwhelmingly qualified, and then getting the top job?
Okay, I'm good with that.
So at least on paper, she looks like exactly the person that America would want in that job, as well as the Mexicans.
So maybe something good's coming out of that.
And there is talk that Mexico's going to have an economic boom like you've never seen before.
Because remember, the manufacturing is moving toward it.
That's a good sign.
And they've got some major infrastructure things, like maybe a railroad and some other stuff that will connect the resorts and turn it into more of a A well-engineered destination.
So all that's happening.
If the cartels don't derail things, there's something good that could happen.
Now I've said this before, but here's what I think is the only hope for living with Mexico.
I'm seeing somebody mocking me for, quote, believing in solar.
Let's pretend that you know what you're talking about.
Now, did you think I was unaware that there's a wastes problem?
Of course there is.
Of course there is.
Am I unaware that people are not good at calculating, you know, the relative cost and benefits in the future of different technological options?
I used to do that work.
I know it can't be done.
It used to be my job.
To calculate expenses in the future.
You can't really do that.
It was my job, but I couldn't do it and nobody can do it.
So do I think that, do I know what the economics of solar power will be next year?
No, I don't.
You know what else, but do you know what I do know?
That the person who is mocking me, you don't fucking know.
No.
You're an idiot who thinks you know the expenses of technologies you've never been involved with because you read a fucking article somewhere, right?
I'm smart enough to know that I don't know what will be the competing cost structures 20 years from now, which is what you have to think about, right?
It's not what it is today.
It's if you start a project, what does your nuclear power plant cost in 10 years when you're done with it?
You know, what does your solar plant and your giga factory, or your, yeah, your giga storage thing, what does it cost in 10 or 20 years?
Nobody knows that.
If you think you know it, dear troll commenter, well, you're the smartest person in the world, according to you, because you know what can't be known.
Good for you.
Did you know about this story about the technology that would lower the cost of solar?
Did you read that this morning before I did?
All right, enough about you.
Tucker Carlson, being really outspoken, on his video recently said, nothing is ever about our safety and that all the big political stuff is clearly about the interests of the people in power.
He said, this country and the world only changes when we eliminate the CIA.
It'll take someone willing to be assassinated.
He gives examples.
He said, you open the southern border to anyone who wants to come in.
You're not checking IDs.
You're not doing any kind of biometrics.
You're not even screening for COVID.
So clearly you don't care about my safety.
Check.
Correct.
Yes.
There is no evidence that the people in power of our country are interested in the well-being of the citizens.
There is plenty of evidence, the open border, that they're operating against our interests for reasons we don't quite understand.
I don't understand it.
We'll talk about more of that later.
But he's saying directly that the CIA has to be cancelled completely.
I saw an ex-CIA operative, agent, whatever you want to call him, also on Tucker's show, saying that when Trump was the president, He didn't use the CIA as much as he used private intelligence people to tell him what was going on.
Why would he do that?
Why would you pay somebody to do the job of the CIA when the CIA is already being paid?
And therefore it's free, you know, on an incremental basis.
Why would you do that?
I can only think of one reason.
That the President of the United States did not think that the CIA was on the same side as he was.
In other words, Trump, the person who knew the most about the CIA while in office, had the most access, didn't believe that he could trust them with the security of the United States.
You have to eliminate them under that situation.
If a sitting president doesn't think they're even on the same side, Not even on the same side.
You can't live with that.
So if you can buy these services on the open market, and you don't trust the ones in the government, there is an argument for eliminating the CIA.
And it's strong.
You'd have to go to the other side.
And I'm not sure they can tell the other side, because it'd be full of secrets.
But is there a surface-y argument that says getting rid of the CIA, the most, that's a pretty radical thing to do.
Is there an argument for it?
Yeah, there is.
You know, there was a time when the CIA was, you know, overthrowing governments and doing all kinds of things to help America control the world.
And you could have, at that time, said, I don't like America doing all these other things in other countries, so I don't like the CIA.
But there would have been a good argument to keep them.
Let me make the Machiavellian power argument here.
Wouldn't it be nice if the United States left all the other countries alone and left them to pursue their best interests for their people until they become thriving democracies and the allies of us in the future, once they have used their own free will and their own resources To become an independent country that could be like a strong ally for us?
No.
Not in the real world.
In the real world, if we didn't take them over, somebody else would have.
Right?
China would have taken them over.
Because whoever has money can control any small entity.
Whether it's a country, a politician, or another country.
Yeah, any other country.
So it doesn't take much money to overthrow a country. You just bribe the right people and there you go.
Maybe you could bribe 50 people to overthrow any country and they're probably all bribeable. So, you know, the levers are there for controlling other countries.
But here's my argument, the Machiavellian argument for the CIA.
They might be complete bastards who are doing terrible things to other countries every day, but if they didn't, what would happen?
Somebody else would.
And then we would be surrounded by countries that, let's say, China had a lot of control over.
That's no good.
So, the thing is that the worst, or best, let me say the best criminal wins.
We don't live in a world where there's good versus evil.
There's just evil versus evil.
At the government level.
Humans tend to be closer to good.
You know, if you leave them alone, they're more likely to be good to each other.
Because we're sort of tribal.
We grew up that way.
But countries are evil.
As soon as you have a country, it's probably corrupt, no matter who it is.
So, maybe the strongest criminal organization is the one you want to be with.
The strongest criminal organization.
At the moment, America appears to be the strongest criminal organization, which might be your safest situation in a historical sense.
Historically, you just wanted to be in the strongest country, and it didn't matter why they were the strongest, right?
Don't you think you were safer being a Roman citizen when Rome was at its peak, without supporting that Rome were good guys?
They weren't good guys.
But it was probably the safest place to live in those times, you know, to be a Roman citizen.
So we're sort of the Roman citizens, it feels like to me.
So yes, there's an argument that the CIA works against our interests, but I'd like to hear the counter argument.
I just don't know anybody can make it because you'd have to say what I said.
Yeah, we're kind of criminals.
We do terrible things every single day.
You wouldn't even want to know what we're doing in your name, but it keeps you safer because we're the best criminals.
That might be the argument, and I could be convinced by that.
I hate it, but it's a world in which sometimes your best choice is also terrible.
Don't know.
All right, well, but keep in mind that Tucker's father was in the CIA, I believe, and he often thinks that I mean, he has a good window into that world, so I take his opinion seriously.
Oh, trolls.
Being really extra stupid in public is not hurting me.
It's just amusing me.
Yeah, it's just amusing.
So, thanks.
Say some more really dumb things about the future of technology to entertain the rest of the commenters.
They would like to see your stupidity in full flower.
So say some more irrational things, please.
All right.
So let's talk about the hoaxocracy.
As you know, the Biden campaign is built entirely on hoaxes from the fine people hoax to the Trump tear gas, peaceful protesters hoax, and lots more drinking bleach.
It's one hoax after another.
And the Biden Harris headquarters, the X account.
Um, said four years ago today, Trump tear gassed peaceful protesters outside the White House.
Well, it took about a minute before Joel Pollack fact-checked them hard.
And nope, that was all debunked by sources that Democrats trust as well as, as Republicans.
So why is it that the campaign can be so blatant about something that's been fact-checked And very clearly didn't happen.
I mean, absolutely did not happen.
And it's well known.
Their, their, their audience is so under-informed that they really don't know.
They can't tell the difference.
The other possibility is that the Biden campaign doesn't know the difference.
Now you like to tell yourself, of course they know it's a lie, but they know it works.
So they're going to say it anyway.
I'm not so sure.
I'm not so sure.
I think that the Biden-Harris campaign is so DEI crippled that the level of incompetence there, you can't really assume that it's normal.
It's probably extraordinary.
And if you're new to my commentary, let me quickly add, we're not talking about anybody's genes or culture.
That's not in the conversation about DEI.
DEI is a system.
It's not a person.
It's not a person.
It's a system.
And the system moves people around like little chess players, and there aren't enough chess players for what they need to do.
So they meet their diversity targets, whether they have qualified candidates or not, because humans always meet the targets that they're measured on and their performance is judged upon.
And that's a big thing they're judged on.
So if you assume that DEI as a system is guaranteed to fail because the pipeline of qualified people would be smaller than the demand, forcing them to take lesser and lesser qualified people just to meet their diversity goals.
And if you assume that Democrats don't have an option, they have to be diverse.
It's their brand.
So they're forced to be diverse, but they're demonstrating to the rest of the world Through what I would consider the most incompetent administration of all time, and the most incompetent campaign, and the most incompetent spokesperson, and all of those things are permeated with DEI hires, which, if they were qualified to do their jobs, you would see a better job.
I'm not talking about one thing that I'm criticizing that did.
There's a pervasive incompetence in the current government, Like we've never really seen before.
And the campaign is so obviously incompetent, and they're so obviously backing the wrong guy, that this is sort of a... The Biden campaign is basically your canary in the coal mine for every corporation, right?
They just got to diversity faster because they're so public, they really had to.
Companies are also trying to go as fast as they can.
But you can see what happens when you get to DEI diversity goals, when you have a limited pipeline of qualified people.
Again, because of systemic racism at the school level, just not producing enough diverse candidates.
So, yeah, the hoax campaign and the DEI incompetence should bring down the whole house in a few months.
I'm expecting a complete demolition of the Biden campaign.
I think we're close to the point where the whole thing's just going to come off the rails in a way we've never seen before.
Maybe a whistleblower, we'll see.
I was watching a body language expert look at the two faces of Biden, because that's sort of becoming a thing.
And the one face is his angry troll face that looks like a cat's asshole all puckered up.
You know, he's not like, ooh!
His face is all squeezed, like all of his face meets his nose.
You know, one little puckered place.
And then you see his wide-eyed open vessel.
So he's got the demon look, where he looks demon-possessed.
And then in the same talk sometimes, He'll have the empty vessel where his eyes are wide open and his mouth is forming that Hillary Clinton looking at balloons dropping.
And you say to yourself, how in the world is that the same person?
And we still don't know.
I love the fact that he's clearly two different people.
I mean, I think it's the same organic person.
But there's something that causes him to be a different personality.
So much so he doesn't even look the same.
Not even a little bit.
I mean, you can generally recognize his Biden, but it's, you'd think it's a different person if they stood next to each other.
So here are the possibilities.
One is drugs.
One is mental illness.
One is some kind of a deep fake thing, but I don't think so.
And one is maybe there's something about editing.
For example, you've seen all the quick edits they've done on his videos.
Could it be that they have to take so much time off between edits that he takes a nap and just recovers and he wakes up and his eyes are open and he's the morning version?
Could it be that we're seeing Morning Joe?
Hey, Morning Joe!
Get it?
Could it be that when we see Morning Joe, He's a little bit more lucid.
And that when we see, you know, Evening Joe, that he's declined into his dementia, yelling, puckered face.
Something like that.
Whatever's going on is really bad.
It's not good.
Whatever it is.
All right.
I can't wait for the first interview with the imaginary Republican who is not going to vote for Trump.
Because the lawfare got him.
Have any of you met that person yet?
I mean, I'm being told often and reliably by all the polls that people have decided that since Trump got convicted by an unfair trial, that therefore they're not going to vote for him.
So we're all waiting to see the person, right?
You know where I think that person is?
I don't know.
Well, I think the imaginary Republican who's not going to vote for Trump because of lawfare could be hanging out and partying with the black American voter who didn't know how to get an ID.
I think they're together.
Cause we can't find either one of them.
And I think maybe they're helping each other hide.
So somewhere, maybe in cabins, possibly, possibly in the mountains, uh, where the mega supremacists are gathering their imaginary armies.
So it could be that the imaginary mega supremacist armies that are in the hills are creating a sanctuary for the imaginary Republicans who say they won't vote for Trump.
But maybe also, I'd like to say that they're diverse and that they've included the black Americans who want to vote and know enough about the world that they think voting makes sense, yet can't figure out how to get an ID.
Yeah, we know they exist.
We were told they exist.
We've never talked to one.
We've never seen one.
But the Democrats are quite sure the imaginary army in the hill and the imaginary Republicans who don't like Trump now and the imaginary guy who can't get an ID, they're all real.
And what about the imaginary events that they're running on?
Every part of the Democrat Platform is imaginary.
All the hoaxes are imaginary.
All the data that they give us about their current performance, completely imaginary.
They say they're controlling the border, everything's fine.
That's imaginary.
What about our money that they're spending?
Is Biden spending real money?
Not anymore.
When you have $35 trillion in debt, whatever it is that you're spending, It's imaginary.
Because whoever lent it to you, they ain't getting it back.
So we've got an imaginary economy, imaginary data.
We've got real problems that they imagine are not.
They've got an imaginary Trump who's in their imagination, tried to take over on January 6th, and they imagined that he would do it again, even though he never did it.
They think he'll do again the thing he never did once.
So you have imaginary policies, imaginary people, imaginary Trump in the future, imaginary data.
Do Republicans do that?
Could you reverse the argument and say, Oh, Scott, I see your point, but look at all the imaginary things that the Republicans believe.
Now, maybe you would go after religion.
If you were not religious, you'd say, oh, they believe in imaginary stuff.
But is it imaginary to think that your nine-month-old fetus is sort of alive?
Is that imaginary?
That doesn't seem imaginary.
You could differ on, you know, what you think about it or what the laws should be, but it's not imaginary.
The debt is not imaginary.
The lawfare is not imaginary.
Even CNN's analysts are saying it's real.
So here's what I think has happened.
I think the Democrats sort of tiptoed into the imaginary world and it worked.
Because they can control the press, for at least their base, they can tell them literally anything.
And once they realize that you can tell them anything and the actual reality won't make any difference because they also control the fact checkers, they realize that going fully imaginary is a better strategy.
And I agree, by the way, it's a better strategy because they don't have anything of substance.
Trump has substance.
He can say, you see all that crime?
I'm going to do the normal things that people normally do to get less of it.
Is that imaginary?
I don't think so.
Seems pretty real.
He says he's going to negotiate with Putin and Zelensky to end the war.
Now, it might be hard, but is it imaginary?
It's not imaginary.
And the entire reason we're in Ukraine.
Do you think the government told you the real reason that we're in Ukraine?
No, they gave you an imaginary reason.
The imaginary reason is that Putin's going to roll up Russia, or that Putin's going to roll up Europe if he gets Ukraine.
You know, with no regard to the fact that some of us know the history of Ukraine, and that, as Mike Benz can explain better, that the whole thing looks like an energy play between two criminal organizations, one United States and the other Russia.
And basically it's like we're stealing their drug stash so we can sell it ourselves, their energy.
That's a better way to look at it.
So I can't think of anything the Democrats are doing that isn't imaginary.
Because once you realize that your imaginary case will always be stronger than the real world one, why would you ever use the real world?
It's unnecessary.
They've actually found a way to depart from all reality Without paying for it.
It's free.
Because as long as their press keeps backing them, their own people will never go read Breitbart.
The Democrats will never go over to Fox News just to see what the other people say.
Although, surprisingly, Fox News does have a lot of Democrat viewers.
But I feel like they might be conservatives.
All right.
Let's go on to some more.
This is going to get better as I go, by the way.
I've organized my materials so that I'm going to reach a crescendo.
So don't leave before the crescendo.
That'd be crazy.
All right.
So Disgraced DA Alvin Bragg.
I like just using Disgraced in front of everything.
All right.
So there seems to be a whole bunch of trolls on YouTube.
All the behavior on social media looks suspicious now.
Like, I don't believe that the trolls are organic anymore, at least not during the election season.
They're really active, and they're yelling.
Well, they're yelling imaginary things.
So the trolls are literally saying imaginary things about me to try to embarrass me on my own livestream.
Let's see, who would do that?
Imaginary things.
What group of people Really, really, really love imaginary stuff.
It's probably exactly what you think it is.
All right.
So here's something I didn't know about Alvin Bragg.
You went to Harvard.
Are you telling me that all the times that people have been ripping on Alvin Bragg, nobody thought to mock him for having a degree from Harvard?
Come on, people.
Improve your game.
It's not for me to help you avoid these mistakes.
No, it's funny.
It's funny you went to Harvard.
Now, to be fair, not recently.
So maybe he went to Harvard back when it made a difference what your credentials were.
If he had just graduated from Harvard, I would be saying, you know, DEI higher, because, you know, Harvard's become ridiculous about their standards.
But maybe when he was there, it was closer to, you know, he belonged there.
So I don't know.
I'm not going to say he didn't belong in Harvard, because there was a time when Harvard was at least a little bit credible.
But according to my digital creature from Amazon, whose name I don't want to say out loud because I'll trigger it, he has a net worth of 41 million dollars.
But I didn't see that explained.
Do you think it's true?
So first of all, I don't know it's true.
It's just coming from, you know, the digital system.
So somebody could have put wrong information on there.
Is he independently wealthy?
And how?
So I guess I would ask for a fact check on that.
I do not assert that to be true.
Just to be clear, I do not assert that it's true, but it's on at least one source of information.
So I'm curious about that.
Did you know that Michigan, they were looking at a law to make it harder to cheat?
But the Democrats had the advantage and they passed laws to make it easier to cheat.
Right.
It's 2024.
And in Michigan, the state, the Democrats unanimously passed legislation that would make it easier to cheat, not harder.
Can you think of a reason why they do that?
Do you think they're planning on an imaginary election?
Where you imagine that you knew the results, but really you don't.
Well, that's what I'd worry about.
That was from the Gateway Pundit.
They're reporting.
Also, Gateway Pundit is saying that there's some poll of Arab American voters and Biden is way off in his popularity.
He had a 60% Arab American vote in 2020, but he's down to about 20% support.
Now, I don't think the Arab American community is big enough that it's going to move the election.
But, wow!
I think it's one more sign of complete collapse.
I don't think we realize how close the Democrat Party is to total collapse.
Because until it happens, it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
You know, nothing happens until something happens.
So, I feel like You know, the major tentpole holding up the Democrats is really creaky right now.
And if that one cracks, the rest go.
Do you know what the tentpole is that holds up the entire Democrat Party?
It's the fine people hoax.
If the fine people hoax can be debunked so that Democrats can see it in a way that's credible, that takes everything away.
And the fact that the Republicans don't go after that, you know, basically just people like me, pundits do.
I never really understood that.
Anyway, Tim Poole abruptly cut his own live stream.
Cause he had Laura Loomer as a guest and Laura Loomer was talking about, you know, getting, getting back at Democrats and that there was enough crimes there that if, you know, Trump got back in office, There would be a number of people who should be dealt with with the legal process.
However, I think her rhetoric reached a point where Tim Poole's entire show was probably at risk if he didn't pull it down himself.
So I'm going to give Tim Poole a big, a big compliment.
Nicely done!
Nicely done!
So, I'll tell you in softer words what Laura Loomer said, so that I also don't get cancelled.
So, Laura Loomer said that the level of the criminal behavior, consistent with the laws on the books for treason, might go to the level of the death penalty.
Now, here's the problem.
If you were to say, hey, people might be guilty of certain crimes.
Here's why we think they are.
The penalty for that could be the death penalty.
It should be on the table.
That's okay.
Because you're just talking about the law.
Here's what I think is too far.
And let's see if you would have spotted it.
Because Tim Poole did.
So he's good at this, right?
If you say, let's get a list of names of people.
And then before you've tried them, you say we want to kill these people?
Then you sort of become Alvin Bragg yourself.
You hear what I'm saying?
You don't want to start with the person and then talk about the death penalty.
Unless you've really had a lot of conversations and a court case that's, you know, credible about those charges.
But it's real dangerous to go full Fonny Willis and, or who was it?
Leticia James and say, you're, you know, you're running for office to get Trump.
That's too far.
Somehow she's not paying for that, but it's way too far.
So Tim Poole, I think very smartly and very, um, Decisively said, oh shoot, she just gave YouTube a predicate to cancel my whole channel and I'm not going to die on this hill.
It wasn't even my opinion.
This was a guest opinion.
So nice move.
Nice move, Tim Pool, because the information still gets out, you know, the social media picks it up, but he reduces his risk on YouTube and he lives to fight again.
Totally respect for that.
Nicely played.
Good decision making.
And I don't think you could have played that better.
And, you know, I don't mind that Laura Loomer has her opinion.
So it's not about her opinion.
I think that part was fine.
It's just you don't want to give YouTube, you know, this fresh batch of red meat to cancel you because you know they want to.
You know they want to cancel Tim Pool.
So, well played.
Jonathan Turley, still, you know, national treasure, talking about any of the legal elements of politics.
So, he talks about the fact that, you know, the whole situation where The government, or the Republicans, are trying to get a hold of the audio that they only have the transcript of of Biden doing his testimony to her.
H-U-R.
And, of course, the Democrats say, hey, you have the transcript.
That's good enough.
And then the Republicans say, yeah, but we don't trust the transcript.
We think he might have edited it and it might be way worse than the transcript shows.
And we have a right to know, because if Biden is not capable, it's got to be 25th Amendment situation.
So they definitely have a right to know.
I completely support their attempt to get that.
But listen to, according to Turley, the Justice Department is making a new claim for why they can't release the audio of something they've already released the transcript to.
Can you think of any reason why you wouldn't release the audio when they've willingly, and already, and publicly, and everybody's seen it, the transcript?
What reason could there be other than it sounds really terrible?
Like really bad.
It must be awful.
I'm just guessing.
Well, listen to one of the arguments that they just proffered.
They say that the audio tape must be withheld.
This is from Jonathan Turley.
due to the risk that it could be altered by artificial intelligence and passed off as authentic in a deepfake release.
Quote, the passage of time and advancements in audio, artificial intelligence and deepfake technologies only amplify concerns about malicious manipulation of audio files.
Wouldn't that apply to everything that anybody has?
on audio. I'm sorry.
I feel like that is such a stretch, such a stretch, that it's almost just laughable.
But I'm going to surprise you.
It's not a terrible argument.
Like, it strikes you as immediately absurd.
I mean, that's how it struck me.
But let me support it as best I can.
It's somewhat rare that you would have a situation where there's an audio only, because that's easier to deepfake.
If it had been something he'd said in public, it'd be easy to debunk it, because you'd say, OK, here's the real one.
He said this in public.
Now you can see how the deepfake changed it.
Since the only public thing we'd have is an audio that nobody listens to, if somebody were to take a clip out of it and, you know, do a 10-second clip where it sounds like he said the N-word or something ridiculous, then I think people would believe it.
I do.
Because if the headline story said, the audio tape is out, and then you saw a clip, and then you played it, And you heard what you thought was Biden's voice, and he sounded really dementia-ridden and crazy and, you know, saying racist stuff and whatever.
You might believe it.
And we're close enough to the election where a fake audio tape could actually change things.
Remember the audio tape of Trump saying, grab them by the pussy?
People thought that was going to change the election.
It turns out it didn't.
Is it a realistic risk that when you're this close to an election, and it's the president who's running for re-election, and it's audio only, it is actually an unusually big risk.
Wouldn't you agree?
Because I think somebody would alter it immediately.
It's not even a risk it would happen.
It would happen.
I think you could say with complete confidence That there would be at least a parody version, which people would think was real.
At the very least, there would be a parody version where he's just saying crazy stuff.
So I don't think this should be upheld because if you generalize this, it would be devastating to the normal operation of the world.
But it's not crazy.
It's not crazy that it opens the door to a bad thing happening.
But let me suggest this, and I think the people asking for it will say the same thing.
We already have the transcript, and we already have a zillion hours of Biden talking on audio in other places.
AI doesn't need the specific audio from the event.
All you have to do is run the transcript through it on a voice as trained as Biden, and then if that works, you go back in and you edit the transcript, And feed it back into AI again, so instead of saying the real transcript in Biden's voice, it adds, you know, n-word or some crazy thing.
So, I feel as if maybe the lawyers making this ask don't understand how AI works.
Do they not understand that whether we have the transcript or not, whether we have the audio or not, it actually doesn't have any effect on whether somebody would make a deepfake?
Yeah.
The deepfake that they're worried about could be made tomorrow based on what's already publicly available with no research whatsoever.
You know, just Google transcript.
Yeah, actually, you don't even have to have the transcript.
Because if you're going to do a fake one, you can make up the transcript.
Nobody's going to check.
See, the trouble with fakes is that they do their damage before they're debunked.
And the debunk never gets the attention of the original.
So there's nothing that you couldn't do right now to fake that.
Um, okay.
So Trump went to the UFC yesterday, got a standing ovation.
It was crazy.
Do you know what that standing ovation at the UFC sounded like to me?
Well, if you just heard it on the surface, it sounded like, Yay, Trump!
Yay!
But here's what I heard.
We'll take the outlaw.
Did you see the crowd?
Almost all men.
Well, I mean, dominant male audience.
The men there were very clearly by their reaction saying, outlaw, you just made him better.
There's almost nothing you could have done to Trump.
That would have been as good for his brand than becoming an outlaw to the crooked government.
Honestly, I love it.
My honest opinion without the spin, you know, it's the spin season.
So even I, as much as I try to avoid spinning, you know, everybody's going to do it this season.
But honestly, you know, like in my body and my real mind, no spin.
I just love that he's an outlaw.
Because the way he got there.
You know, if he'd robbed a bank, I'd say no.
But the way he got there, oh yeah.
Yeah, I want the outlaw.
Absolutely, positively, no qualms about it.
Give me the outlaw.
And that's what the UFC audience basically said, in their own way.
It gets better.
After UFC fighter Kevin Holland won, he jumped over the ring and went right to President Trump, former President Trump, and shook his hands and said some private words to him in support, obviously.
Trump slapped him on the shoulders, and obviously they're now friends.
You should know that UFC fighter Kevin Holland is black.
Does it matter?
Yes.
Yep.
Because it's public.
And people are very affected by social forces.
So if you see a black superstar going right to President Trump and congratulating him, that's powerful.
And a lot of clips on it.
Likewise, UFC fighter Sean Strickland.
said on the microphone to the crowd, President Trump, you're the man.
It is a damn travesty what they're doing to you.
I'll be donating to you.
I'll be donating to you, is the key phrase.
By the way, I don't know if you have the current data, but in the 48 hours after the felony conviction verdict, Trump had already earned $1.6 million per felony.
you Per felony.
Yeah.
And if you do the math, you know, people say he's not really a good business person.
But by my calculations, he invested $130,000 and he got a return of $53 million.
$30,000 and he got a return of 53 million.
That's some good investing.
You know, he doesn't get credit for that.
So yeah, it's 1.6 million per felony.
His per indictment numbers are not as good, but I think they'll be improving as well.
So I think we should be measuring Trump's, his donation gathering by felonies.
So if he could get, I feel like he's only maybe 12 to 17 felonies away from having all the money he needs for the rest of the campaign.
So I think we're like three or four felonies away from being really rich with cash.
So there's that.
Trump also at the UFC announced that he's getting on TikTok.
Now you might know that I think that TikTok needs to be cancelled or divested into the US.
But as long as it's there, I guess I gotta agree with Vivek and with Trump.
If it's there, and it matters, and it's a big way to reach voters, sure.
Why not?
All right.
David Sachs and others are pointing out the lawfare double standard here that Hillary Clinton did similar things without penalty.
So here's how David Sachs explains it.
He calls it the business records double standard.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton's campaign was fined $8,000.
That was it.
A fine of $8,000 for the following.
For violating federal campaign finance laws.
Huh.
Why?
Her team falsely reported the funding of the Steele dossier as legal services and legal and compliance consulting.
Well, what does that sound like?
Huh.
This sounds exactly like what Trump did.
Exactly.
What else do we know?
According to Sachs, actually this opposition research was an attempt to smear her opponent with false and salacious allegations.
Obviously it was also intended to influence the election.
Huh.
So she recorded it as a lawyer expense.
But really, no matter what she was thinking, because as Megyn Kelly explained on her video the other day, That it doesn't matter what anybody was thinking when they did the expense.
It only matters that a reasonable person could look at it and say, well, there's more than one reason you would do that.
So when Trump did his payments, it didn't matter that he was thinking it was mostly about the election.
This is Megyn Kelly's take.
It had more to do with the fact that a reasonable person would say, well, there's more than one reason you would want that information not to get out.
One's your family, one's your business reputation, and the other is political.
So if everybody agrees that there are three reasons, that should have been reason enough that he can't be convicted.
You need one reason.
If there's three, it's just sort of automatically you're not guilty.
So Hillary obviously was putting this into legal expenses to hide her Contribution to the hoax, of course.
Moreover, says Sachs, Hillary's campaign was headquartered in New York State.
Huh.
And in Brooklyn, New York, which would make it fall under the jurisdiction of New York Penal Law 175.1, the state law, which makes it a felony to falsify business records with the intent to conceal the commission of a crime.
Huh.
I feel like that Steele dossier thing was a crime.
Wasn't it?
It should have been.
Maybe it wasn't technically, but it should have been.
And then Sacks asks, what is the key distinction between Hillary's campaign violation versus recent news?
And he concludes with Hillary's violation, there wasn't a Manhattan prosecutor politically motivated to bring an unprecedented case to trial.
Now, As you know, people who in the past may have leaned left in their politics, like Elon Musk.
And I'm not sure where David Sachs was, but he's clearly on the anti-Biden train at the moment.
So you see some people that you wouldn't expect to be anti-Biden, who are clearly anti-Biden.
But let's look at the rest of them, because it's a growing thing.
And I think the dam is about to burst.
ABC News says this, and they post, like any other American found guilty of a crime, Donald Trump is likely to face new restrictions and lose a number of rights due to his newfound felon status.
What about this choice of words?
Found guilty of a crime.
Isn't that an interesting phrase?
He was found guilty.
Why wouldn't you just say guilty?
Why wouldn't you just say, now that he's a felon, or now that the jury has concluded he's a felon, why would you say that he was found guilty instead of guilty?
Well, let me put the hypnotist filter on it.
As a hypnotist, I was trained that people's choice of words reveals their thoughts in all the time.
It's really reliable.
The choice of the words found guilty instead of just guilty.
Now, I do understand that found guilty is a common phrase, and it wouldn't be surprising to see it used in other contexts.
But where you have a choice, and they obviously had a choice of any words that would tell the story, why would you put found guilty?
Because found guilty has the odor of, we know he's not really guilty, but it is true that he was found guilty.
It suggests that the ABC News person who wrote that post doesn't believe that he was guilty because they're watching the same thing we watched, and that it was lawfare.
So look for that.
Look for words that you say to yourself, they had a choice of words, and within all the words they could have chosen, they picked the one that sends a flag.
It's sort of quite a signal.
But is there more?
Well, as you know, Eli Honig, who is one of the main Legal Minds on CNN said the trial blew his mind and it's an unjustified mess and basically he, Eli Hoenig, dumped on the lawfare of it exactly as Republicans do.
In other words, in a purely factual way, he just said it's lawfare garbage and it wouldn't have happened to anybody else.
Now that's a big deal because he says that on CNN.
He said it several times on CNN.
And they're not taking him off the air.
So CNN, I'm going to give them credit again.
They do seem to be pivoting towards something like a reasonable middle.
We don't want to get ahead of ourselves and say that, you know, it's going to be a completely clean situation.
But I see the effort.
I mean, to me, it looks like they're trying.
Because remember, also Fareed Zakaria said directly, That unless your name was Donald Trump, you never would have been charged with this crime.
Now that is really clear.
There's no vagueness in that.
Fareed is saying, all right, if you look at the situation, this is dirty.
I mean, that's just, that's as clear as you can be.
But it gets better.
Uh, you know how many times I've told you that Samir Khanesh is the least biased person on CNN?
Well, true to his brand, he had Charlemagne the god on.
You know, Charlemagne's doing a book tour.
And, but Charlemagne is also famous for not being pro-Biden at the moment.
You know, he's not a lover of Trump, but he's very clearly saying, you know, Biden's a mess.
So Smirkonish has him on there and asked if the verdict would change the outcome of the election.
And here's what Charlemagne said.
He said, so it's really which candidate can energize their base.
In situations like this, it does energize Trump's base.
I see Biden's base upset with him over a number of things.
I do think a situation like this gives them something to fight for, meaning the Trumpers.
Now, I saw somebody say that they thought that Smirkonish's face and body language suggested that he was going to explode Like he didn't like seeing it.
I would suggest that you're reading him completely wrong.
Smirkonish knew exactly what Charlemagne was going to say.
I mean, not exactly, but he knew what Charlemagne's message was.
He invited him on the show.
No, he wasn't surprised.
He wanted his audience to hear Charlemagne's point of view.
Just think about that.
He intentionally invited somebody he knew was going to trash Biden.
Somebody who's black and is influential.
Smirconish did that.
Here's what I saw.
When I looked at Smirconish's face, and this is just subjective, right?
But remember, I have the perspective that I'm already biased, that he's unbiased.
The look that I saw on his face was just sort of like shock and Amazement, like the rest of us.
So I think he was just trying to keep a poker face, but I think he was having a reaction to it, but not the reaction that, you know, he hated hearing it.
I think it was a reaction of the moment we're in.
It was a big moment.
So what happens when all of those people associated with CNN turn completely on this story and agree with the Republicans?
Well, they're not the only ones.
Ellen Dershowitz, a famous Democrat, says Trump was unjustly convicted.
This worst case in 60 years should never have been brought, and the public should see the judge's outrageous behavior.
Now, that's pretty clear.
Dershowitz is not saying, I don't know, you could see this both ways.
Nope.
One of the most experienced and capable legal minds in the country, a Democrat, No, this is totally crooked.
Totally crooked, obviously crooked, every part of this is crooked.
Now, I've taught you before that if one of the major networks, let's say CNN or MSNBC, say something is a fact, but then you go to the conservative outlets, let's say Breitbart or Fox News, and they say it's not a fact, or vice versa.
One of them says it's true and the other one says not.
It's usually not.
Usually not.
Or let me put it a better way.
You can't tell if it's true.
It's just two versions.
Now if you could, you know, there's some objective facts that they show you that you can make up your own mind, that's different.
But you don't really know if something's true if they disagree in their normal way they disagree.
But it's unusual that CNN and Fox News, for example, would be on the same page about anything.
And they're on the same page that this was lawfare and it was a completely rigged system, which is phenomenal.
But here's the best part.
Some of you know the name Naval Ravikant, founder of AngelList and one of the most prominent investors and thinkers in Silicon Valley.
What you might not know about him is that he's famously non-political.
Famously.
He does a lot of tweeting.
Um, you know, he's one of the most quoted people in, uh, in, well, most quoted people in philosophy and technology at the moment.
Success.
A lot of, a lot of different domains.
So he's generally considered, uh, I've actually called him the smartest person I've ever met.
So let me say that again.
The smartest person I've ever met.
Do you know how many smart people I've met?
Quite a few.
I'll stay with that.
He might be the smartest person I've ever met.
Now, here I'm calling smart not just depth, but breadth.
He can tell you the better take on more topics than any human being I've ever met.
And it'll be a different take, and it'll be better than the one you had on so many different topics.
It's crazy.
So when he talks, There are enough people, certainly in the investment world, in the technical world, he's well known.
So when he says anything that kind of strays from his non-political stance, your ears just go, wait, what did I just hear?
And here's what he said.
He put two of Biden's posts next to each other.
And one of them was about Biden bragging that he ignored the Supreme Court to get student loans canceled.
And then the next one was where he was saying that nobody's above the law.
After the one where he said he got around the law.
So, Naval quotes a famous quote from I think some South American dictator type.
And he said just this, and nothing else.
Quote, for my friends, everything.
For my enemies, the law.
Now, the way that quote is taken is that when he says, for my enemies, the law, he doesn't mean just if they broke the law.
That's the important part.
He means you can use the law to get rid of enemies, and that's just the tool you use.
That is what we are observing.
So now, CNN has made it safe for the least political person in all of public life to tell you that the former President of the United States is getting law-fired right in front of you.
Now, to you this might seem like a small deal.
But I don't think you quite understand how much persuasive influence Naval has on the smartest people in Silicon Valley.
He is so respected that when he puts down a stake, and I would say that he put down a stake, that this is too far.
To get him to talk about anything in the political domain and to make a direct statement about it, this is pretty direct, is extraordinary.
I think the dam is about to break.
I think CNN's already broken.
I think the investors in Silicon Valley, they're all going to turn.
The All In podcast is all in.
Elon Musk, he's all in.
He just broke a long tradition, and I'm sure he thought about it for a long time before he did it.
Something's happening that's bigger than anything you can imagine.
It's not obvious yet, but wow, you can feel it.
The feeling that things have gone too far is so strong right now.
Yeah, the energy is very different.
And here's the part that I was saving for you.
Do you know what Judge Mershon's first name is?
How many of you know his first name, just off the top of your head?
Have you ever heard it?
His first name is Juan.
Yeah, Juan Mershon.
That's the judge that's gonna jail Trump, probably.
Do you know where he was born?
Colombia.
The country of Colombia.
Yeah.
Judge Mershon, who was born in Columbia.
He's an immigrant.
The judge that's judging Trump is an immigrant from below the border.
Does that sound like the right choice?
The most famous build-the-wall, keep-the-South-Americans-where-they-are of all time.
And his judge is one of the people that would have, you know, presumably the biggest problem with that kind of attitude.
Gets better.
His father was a military officer in Columbia.
Military officer.
For a while.
And then he later served in Columbia's intelligence services.
Huh.
Columbia?
What do we know about Columbia?
What do we know about their military?
What do we know about the Colombian intelligence services?
Let's see.
Some people would say that Colombia and the government and the military are tightly connected with the cartels.
Some would say.
And some would say that the cartels are tightly linked with the American CIA.
Some would say.
So let me ask you this.
If you were the CIA and you knew that Trump didn't even use your services for intelligence, And you knew that he was talking about, and other Republicans like Tucker, were talking about eliminating the CIA and all of your jobs.
And you wanted to stop him.
Who would be the best pick to do that?
Well, I would go with Juan Merchan, father military officer from Colombia, who once worked in their intelligence services, somehow made it to the United States as an immigrant, And build quite a good life.
That's who I'd pick.
So... Now, I'm not going to make an allegation, because I don't know anything about his father.
But why does it look exactly like you would think it would look if the worst-case scenario were true, and that the whole thing is the CIA and it's all fixed?
Why does it look exactly like that?
Is that a coincidence?
Can we write that off to coincidence?
That it looks exactly like a CIA operation?
Now again, I'm only making unfair inferences about people who are known to be the types of people who associate with other types of people.
So that's a big, you know, I don't want to go further than that because that would be defamation.
So I'm not going to make a claim that I know it's true.
I'm just asking.
Just asking.
Don't you hate that?
I'm curious why there's such a big coincidence involved, especially when we know that his selection was supposed to be random, but clearly wasn't, because he got three Trump cases in a row.
All three.
So, is it exactly what it looks like?
In the meantime, we hear the people who are part of the deep state saying that this merchant is going to recommend jail time.
Despite the fact that nobody would get jail time for this if they were not Trump.
And the argument was because Trump was sort of had a bad attitude and violated the gag order.
So therefore they would send him to jail.
That's the argument.
And on CNN, one of the legal guys was testing that argument out.
That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
At the same time, there's A movement to change the law so he can't get a Secret Service protection while he's in jail, so he can be killed.
Now, I was talking with one of my online buddies just before I went live, and I mentioned that it looked like, on the surface, it looks like they're trying to kill him.
And he didn't understand that I meant that literally.
He thought I meant figuratively.
No, literally.
Now, I'm not going to say I know that that's the case.
I'm going to say if I were going to put odds on it, I'd say it's a 50% chance that there's an active plan by our government to kill Trump.
I think it's at least a 50% chance.
And the reason I say that is that we live through Epstein.
If there had never been an Epstein, if there had never been a Kennedy who got assassinated, If we didn't see that RFK Jr.
also doesn't get Secret Service protection for no good reason, I would have said, okay, our government doesn't do things like that, but clearly they do things like that.
So yes, they have an existential risk to their jobs if Trump becomes the president again.
And what would they do if they are the dirty tricks group of the country?
The people who are selected by their willingness to break rules.
The CIA is selected by their willingness to do illegal things, at least the operators are, because they're doing illegal things in other countries.
You could argue that it's still legal in our country if they do illegal things and it's authorized by our country, but that's sort of cutting it fine.
I mean, they're basically people who signed up for, yeah, I'll go do super illegal things, that'll be my job.
And now we would assume that they wouldn't do super illegal things when it's the very group that's been selected because they like to do, or at least are willing to do, super illegal things.
No, it's at least a 50% chance that they're trying to kill him.
Don Jr.
says the same thing.
It's not crazy.
It is well within the parameters of what we've seen.
If I'd never seen the law fair happen, Then I'd say, well, you know, but the courts are fair.
No, they're not.
To me, it looks like the court case is driven by the same people who are apparently, if you look at it on the surface, on the surface, it looks exactly like a murder plot with a statistical element, which is maybe they don't know for sure he'll be killed in prison, but they think there's a good chance.
So anyway, that's scary.
So over on MSNBC, the stupid network representative Bowman's on there.
He says, if you stay home and you do not exercise the power of your vote, you're giving your power to white supremacist MAGA individuals.
You know where the white supremacist MAGA individuals are?
Because I've never really seen one on the news, but I'm going to take a guess.
I think they're up in the mountains with the white supremacist militia that's forming.
They're hiding away with the black guy who can't figure out how to get an ID to vote.
And, well, you get it.
You get the idea.
Vivek had an interesting legal take.
I don't know if I'm buying it yet, but it's interesting.
He says that Trump can be pardoned by a president for his New York conviction, even though it's a state matter.
Normally, a president can only, what would it be, pardon or commute for something that was a federal offense.
You can't do it for a state charge.
And Trump was charged and convicted by the state.
However, the state's charges depended entirely Upon the fact that there were also federal violations per their case.
So if you were to pardon Trump from the federal part of it, it would make the state part of it dissolve because the state part of it depended on the federal part.
So even though the federal part was not really what the state found, they still relied on the jury thinking a federal thing had been violated so that they could apply the state thing to the higher level crime of felony because it supported the other charge or vice versa.
One supported the other.
I forget which way it went.
But I don't know if I buy that.
It sounds right.
But I feel like there might be an alternative legal theory about whether that's practical.
I like the thinking.
And once again, if it's true, if it's true, how did we get this far?
And why did Vivek have to be the one to bring it up?
Because he went to a little bit of law school?
So he's the only one who figured it out?
Man, do we need him in the government.
We need him so much.
Even if he's wrong on this, at least he came up with this, and that's pretty good.
Anyway, I do think Vivek is the primary thing that could keep Trump alive, if Vivek wanted to be vice president and got nominated for that.
Because he's the one that I think the CIA would be most afraid of, who's not named Trump.
So I think he's the way to keep Trump alive.
Um, it would be wild if Trump nominated Vivek for Vice President and said directly, you know what?
Some other people were my top choice, but Vivek will keep me alive.
Can you imagine that?
Because it was real.
It's real.
But he could say that directly.
You know, Vivek didn't want the job.
He wanted to have a different role.
I had somebody else in mind, but honestly, he's the one who's going to keep me alive.
I'd love to hear him say that directly.
All right, getting back into the Soros mystery.
I asked why is it that Soros is doing what he's doing, and I wanted other people to explain it to me like I'm an idiot, so I could understand why Soros would be funding so many things that seem like disastrous for the country, That he lives in, right?
Why would you destroy the country that you live in?
Now, I'm being called naive and uninformed, and here's what I heard from a user online, that Soros supports anarcho-tyranny, all the things we're seeing in the country, because he believes, now this is the mind-reading part, because he believes in a globalist agenda
That transcends national borders, and it wouldn't matter that he's a citizen of the United States, because Soros's preference would be that states go away and he'll do fine because he's rich.
That ain't it.
That ain't it.
I feel like this is an analysis that comes from people who have never been rich.
May I give you my rich guy analysis?
It's the only one you should listen to, because Soros is rich.
If you're not hearing the opinion from somebody also rich, I mean, I don't have anything like his money, but I've experienced going from poor to being wealthy, it changes you.
And here's the thing you want the least.
If you're on top, so right now he's sitting at like the pinnacle of human beings.
You don't want that to change.
If you're at the top, the last thing you want in a risk-reward world, the last thing you want is to change the whole system that you're dominating at the top.
That introduces a risk of total collapse that would take him from the top to not the top.
It could make every dollar he owns worth nothing.
So being in the top 1%, Let me tell you for sure, because I'm in it, I don't want the whole system to change dramatically in any way.
Now, do I think that the whole system should be changed dramatically?
Yeah, I can think of lots of ways, but I would want to do them carefully and without changing the general structure of what got me to where I am.
The last thing I want is to have the country thrown into chaos and then I have to figure out how to create a good situation from scratch.
I'm already in a good situation.
If you've never experienced going from uncertainty and economic low income to a place where you would call yourself wealthy, when you get there, the last thing you want to do is change the whole world into something you don't even know what will happen.
Nobody does that and among the group of the nobodies who would do that, the top, top, top, the very number one person who wouldn't do that is the person who's famous for being good at risk analysis.
you That's what Suarez is famous for.
He's apparently unusually good at risk analysis.
Nobody with risk analysis ability destroys the whole system without a replacement, you know, that's right on line.
Nobody does that.
So the idea that he's in favor of Destroying all the borders and forming a global network is crazy.
Now here's the other thing.
If a globalist one-world government were to be formed, have you thought through who would be in charge?
Have you lived in the real world at all?
If you form a real-world government of the top richest people, like actually an official government, They would just fight with each other.
It would be like the Democrats and the Republicans.
They would be buying the fight of all fights when none of them need a fight.
All the billionaires are already the champions of the world.
They can do whatever they want.
They can affect governments easily.
Why would they change their situation dramatically?
And if they did, why do you think Soros would be the top billionaire?
Don't you think you would get demoted as likely as promoted?
It would be the craziest, riskiest, chaotic thing to ever do if you're already at the top.
The next thing is that people say he's doing it for money.
Scott, you don't understand.
You know, he destroys countries, and then he bets against their currencies, and then he makes a whole bunch of money.
Now, I did a fact check on this, but am I crazy?
Or is Soros Trying to give away his money.
My understanding is he's trying to donate most of it.
In the context of trying to give away most of your money, you're not doing gigantic, terrible, illegal things to make more money.
Like, it doesn't even make sense.
Like, how does any of that make sense?
So whatever is going on here, I have no idea.
I have no idea.
I just know that the simplistic explanations of a globalist one-world government don't track at all with who Soros is.
And I'm not reading his mind.
I'm saying that nobody in that situation would want that choice.
Nor have you ever heard anybody.
Show me a billionaire who really wants governments to go away and have one-world government.
I don't think there are any.
And definitely not him.
Because he's good at risk management.
And nobody would do that.
It would be crazy.
Anyway, so that's still a mystery.
Let's talk about the Israel peace deal.
As I told you on day one, it was always fake.
So there's not really a peace deal that anybody's going to take too seriously.
But it looks like Israel's going to buy some time.
I don't know how long it will take to get whatever they need done in Rafa, but it's probably a few months.
You don't think that they can stall negotiations for two months?
Of course they can.
Of course they can.
The World Economic Forum is even the more ridiculous theory.
I think Elon Musk is right about that being a club for rich people.
If Elon Musk isn't worried, and he's about as close to the inside of the world as anybody could be, and he seems totally unconvinced there's any danger there, and I agree with him completely.
I think it's just a club for rich people.
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, Russia's trying to, they say, bomb Kirkov.
What is the second biggest city?
It's not Kiev, it's Kirkov or something.
I forget.
Anyway, it looks like the Russians are trying to take out their vital services and depopulate it before they do anything bigger.
So it looks like the current method of taking over a city in a military way The American and Israeli version has a little more boots on the ground.
The Russian version is, we'll go in when there's nothing left.
Kharkov.
Kharkov, thank you.
The city is Kharkov.
Kharkov?
Kharkov or Kharkov, one of those.
Anyway, not much happening there besides the usual badness.
That, by the way, Concludes my comments for today.
Sorry I ran long again.
I'm going to say bye to YouTube and Rumble and X. I'm going to talk to the good folks on Locals privately, the subscribers, and I'll see the rest of you tomorrow.
