My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Hunter Biden Gun Trial, Piers Morgan, WaPo Diversity, Alex Soros, The Atlantic, Epoch Times CFO Guan, James Carville, Smerconish, George Stephanopoulos, Open Border EO, Alexander Bolton, Trump Sentencing Speculation, Free Speech, Kara Swisher, Fauci Testimony, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and aren't you glad you're here?
To those of you who come here every single morning, don't you love our little routine?
I think the fact that we do this every morning makes it extra special.
You never take a day off.
You will be here.
Be here.
Well, if you want to take it up to the next level, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or gel, so it's not in a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And 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 happens now.
go. So good.
Thank you.
I'm feeling sanguine.
All right.
I don't even know what that means, but it's a cool word.
So I guess Hunter Biden's going to court in Delaware on gun charges.
Let's see.
Trump gets tried in the unfriendliest place in the world, and Hunter gets tried in the friendliest place in the world for Hunter.
Delaware, home state.
A Biden-friendly judge, we hear.
Now this is an interesting case.
Because my understanding is the facts of it are completely clear.
There's no question of what happened, which is very interesting.
How do you defend when the law has been broken and there is no question about the details of what happened?
There's no question that he said he was not addicted, but he was when he got the gun.
There's not much you can do with that.
I mean, he's on video being addicted, etc.
But somebody said that his defense would be, it's not his fault because he was high.
So the defense would be, yes, I was a drug addict.
And I said I wasn't when I applied for the gun.
But you have to understand that I was a drug addict.
And therefore, I can't be totally responsible For saying I'm a drug addict.
And I have to say, it's not the worst argument.
It's not the worst argument.
Because the whole point of being... Let me just pull this together for you.
The reason you don't want a drug addict to have a gun is what?
Why do you not want a drug addict to have a gun?
Only one reason.
You don't trust that the drug addict can make smart decisions.
Am I right?
That's the one and only reason.
Am I wrong?
The only reason is that we don't trust a drug addict to make good decisions with a gun.
But yet we do trust the drug addict to make a good decision filling out paperwork.
Seriously?
It's a weirdly good argument, but it can't be accepted.
The reason you can't accept it is because it refutes free will.
So the problem here is that free will is what's on trial, not Hunter.
They're actually trialing free will.
Because if he has free will, well, then he's guilty, and it doesn't matter if he took drugs, because, you know, those were all his choices.
If he doesn't have free will, then not only could you make an argument that on some moral grounds he's not guilty, although the law would say otherwise, but it would also refute all of the legal system.
Like the entire legal system would have to be thrown out if, you know, if you could say, well, it's not what I was thinking at the time, or you could say, I didn't have free will.
So it's an interesting story.
I don't think his argument is wrong on a philosophical sense.
I don't think it'll work as a legal argument, but what else does he have?
And then somebody said that the charge could be up to 25 years in jail.
How many of you think that lying about your drug use to get a gun should put you in jail for 25 years?
Do any of you think that sounds about right?
I mean, it wasn't used in the commission of a crime, didn't have priors.
How in the world is that fair?
I mean, I hate to wake up and have to defend Hunter Biden, but there's no way I think he should be in jail for 25 years for lying on a forum.
And we need to find some kind of perspective.
It is making me wonder if this is political, too.
Is this trial only being pushed for political reasons?
Why would you even do it?
Well, here's another question I'd like to ask you.
If being a drug addict and then getting a gun, which requires you to sign something apparently in whatever state he was, that says you're not a drug addict, don't you think that maybe 25% of all gun owners May have lied on the application in the same way.
In my experience, at least 25% of the adult public is addicted to drugs.
Either alcohol or something else, pills or something.
Wouldn't you say?
25%?
So, can you put somebody in jail for 25 years for doing exactly the same thing, exactly the same thing, that maybe 25% of all gun owners did?
And who gets to say if you're a drug addict, versus you're between usage.
For example, if you were a drug addict but you became clean, do you say you're still not a drug addict?
No.
If you're a drug addict and you haven't had a drug for 20 years, you're still a drug addict.
Am I wrong?
You're just a drug addict who's got it under control.
So if you're a drug addict who hasn't had a drug for a little while, do you get to say that you're not one?
When you fill out your federal form?
Because that would be a lie.
So does everybody who ever used to be drinking too much or used to be on drugs, do they never get to have a gun?
Because they would be lying if they say they're not drug addicts?
They would be.
That would definitely be a lie.
What if, and this is how I would do the defense, here's how I'd do it, I'd say, The standard of, are you or are you not a drug addict, is subjective.
In other words, the day I got the gun, it was, in my honest opinion, a day when I was not a drug addict.
Because that day I wasn't high, and I planned to stay that way.
I planned to stay that high.
So the day I applied for the gun, in my own opinion, which is the only one that matters, because it's not based on a medical standard, It's based on self-reporting.
And my self-reported truth was that day, in my own mind, I believed I was clean and was going to stay clean.
It didn't work out.
I didn't stay clean.
But when I got the gun, I was not a drug addict, in my opinion.
And if it's somebody else's opinion that you are a drug addict, how do you apply that standard?
So there's kind of an interesting question here that I could easily get to the Supreme Court, which is, how do you apply the standard that somebody is a drug addict at the moment of the purchase?
I don't see how that standard could ever work.
So it's interesting.
We'll see.
All right.
Pierce Morgan had some guests on, and it was funny because the panel was four smart people plus a Democrat.
I know that sounds funny, but that's what it was.
And one of the people was Michael Knowles, you know him from Daily Wire, and he said, asked Pierce, Pierce to ask the Democrat, he said, I would challenge her to see if she could articulate what crime Trump committed, because she was going all anti-Trump and he's a felon.
And so Pierce, smelling blood in the water, goes, and what, What crime did Trump commit?
Just in the most non-threatening way, yeah.
And what crime was that?
So she goes, well, it was financial crimes, white-collar crimes.
And then Pierce just calmly goes, I know, but like specifically, like what was the crime?
Well, things and things and complicated financial Things that weren't supposed to be.
Those things that were different than the things.
And Pierce just made her squirm while the other smart people were just smiling with that pleased look.
Oh, I want to see more of this.
Can we please, please just have Democrats on and have somebody ask to describe what the charge was?
Can we please do that?
That'd be great.
There's some kind of melanoma shot that in early trials looks impressive.
So if you had a melanoma cancer, they say this mRNA shot, it's a vaccine they say, could cut the risk of dying in half.
So I don't know why they call it a vaccine because you get it after you got the melanoma.
So I didn't know the word worked that way.
But do you trust the new mRNA vaccine?
If it becomes available, are you going to sign up for that?
Here's the problem.
Are you like me?
You've lost all faith in everything medical?
I just don't believe anything from a doctor or the science.
I've lost all credibility.
It's just gone.
I don't know what to do about that.
Let's talk about the fake news.
So the Washington Post had a big shakeup.
They had a new editor.
And here's the funny part.
So the CEO, Will Lewis, he was having an all-hands meeting, I guess, telling people what the changes would be.
And he was asked at the meeting whether he had interviewed any diverse candidates or women to be the new executive editor.
Because they replaced a woman who was the executive editor.
And I guess they must have picked a white man.
And so the staff said, I don't know about that white man.
Have you talked to anybody who wasn't a white man?
Because we don't really think we're comfortable having a white man there, unless you worked really, really hard to make sure it wasn't a white man and there was just nothing you could do about it.
He was just the only person who could do this job.
And we're kind of, frankly, a little bit, a little bit skeptical that there's not a single diverse candidate in the whole world who could be in this job as editor of the Washington Post.
So I only bring it up because it's funny to watch DEI eat the Washington Post.
Remember, the Washington Post is who started the cancellation of Dilbert.
So that's, you know, they're the ones who made the big difference anyway.
And they're getting eaten by their own philosophy.
So sad.
So Alex Soros, who's now in charge of the big Soros funding, He retweeted or reposted an article in The Atlantic, and the title was, Trump's Plan to Supercharge Inflation.
Now, I didn't read the article, because if you actually read an article in a publication called The Atlantic, well, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry that happened to you.
No, you don't read the articles.
Now, The Atlantic, if you didn't know, Is your biggest signal for fake news, maybe the fakest of all the fake, the Atlantic is going to do the stuff that even MSNBC would be too embarrassed to do.
Right.
So that in terms of the pure propaganda, you know, they're all the way in the pure propaganda, something like, you know, the AP or, you know, even CNN, that they might be biased.
But the Atlantic is not in the category of, hmm, we have a preference.
No, they're just outright propaganda.
Now, if you didn't know that, you would think, oh, this is something to consider.
Maybe Trump will supercharge inflation.
And by the way, I'm not saying he won't, because I don't think any of our leaders have any control of the debt at this point.
But here's the other thing.
I always wondered how the Democrats got their marching orders.
Like, how do they know what to say so that they're all saying the same thing?
And I guess we know.
So what it takes is Alex Soros, who is their main source of funding.
He's like the biggest source of funding for the Democrats.
He simply posts something on social media and points to an article, and then that's the talking point.
So watch for the talking point to be that Trump's going to make inflation worse.
Now, you notice that the the fakest of the fake news will always go after whatever is the Democrats weakest point, and then they'll start a fake news that's, you know, whatever is the counter to the weakest point.
So Biden's weakest point is inflation.
So the Atlantic, predictably, comes up with some article that I'm never going to read, but the title says it all.
Trump's plan to supercharge inflation.
So yes, if you see an Alex Soros post about an Atlantic article, you just saw the signal coming from the funder of what the Democrats need to say to keep the person who gives them money happy.
There it is.
Now, if you didn't know that, you didn't know what the Atlantic is, and you didn't know who Alex Soros is, it would just be a post.
But once you learn the players, you can see that this is the messaging from the top telling everybody what to do.
That that's your real government right there.
The actual government is Alex Soros posting an Atlantic story, because that will change more things than almost anything else the government was doing.
So here's what you need to know about that.
What you need to know is that the Atlantic is like the Adam Schiff of Jamie Raskin's.
I'm going to say it again because it was so clever.
The Atlantic, as a publication, it's like the Adam Schiff of Jamie Raskin's.
There's a small band of propagandists who are always the ones you see when there's like a serious problem with the narrative.
Like they're the narrative doctors or the narrative, you know, maybe killers, assassins.
All right.
Speaking of narrative assassins, The Biden administration, somebody in it, some Department of Justice group, is indicting the Epoch Times chief financial officer for an alleged gigantic money laundering scheme of $67 million.
Now the Gateway Pundit's reporting this.
Now the Epoch, I never know if it's Epoch or Epoch, but they are a right-leaning publication.
And suddenly they're getting closed down.
Do you think it's a coincidence this close to an election that one of the reliably anti-Biden, anti-Democrat publications just suddenly had a big financial allegation?
Now my take on this, I saw Mike Ben's posting on this and the implication was that it was a BS lawfare thing, but there are details.
The story comes with some details about the allegations, and there are a lot of details for something that's totally made up.
So I'm going to say there's something that happened here, because there are way too many details.
But that doesn't mean the individual who got picked up is guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty.
And in these days of lawfare, you really do have to take seriously that maybe it's completely made up.
I don't think Mike Benz is crazy when his first instinct is it's completely made up.
Because we live in a world where it would be completely within the expected range of behavior to close down an entity entirely just because you didn't like what they were saying.
We do live in that world.
That's not speculative.
That's exactly our current environment.
Anything could happen.
Well, I continue to be amused and entertained by CNN trying to find the middle ground.
And damn it, they did it again.
So I'm going to give them credit again for telling a story exactly the way I want the story told.
And what I mean by that is they showed both sides and they didn't shade it a bit.
So here's what I mean.
So James Carville was on the network and he said, you know, stop making a big deal about the fact that Judge Mershawn once made a $35 donation to some kind of Stop Trump organization.
And he criticized CNN's own, one of their top legal analysts, Eli Honig, who had, you know, pointed out a number of improprieties in the lawfare cases against Trump.
So now you've got Eli Honig doing what I would consider a really solid analysis, exactly the kind of thing that CNN needs to be credible, because you're going to see the other side, so why not see the real one?
And then, just pulling it all together, Smirconish, once Carville had criticized Eli Honig, Smirkatish has Elihona gone to defend himself and his defense was quite strong.
He said, imagine it was the other way around.
Imagine the judge in this case had donated to a anti-Biden, pro-Trump, go MAGA organization, but it was only $35.
Yeah.
Hey, so don't worry people.
It was only $35.
Would that be okay?
Would anybody be complaining about that?
Of course they would.
It would be the biggest complaint in the world.
So without taking sides on the topic itself, Smirkonish is being Smirkonish.
And he's showing you the actual arguments in the real world without the spin.
He's showing both sides.
So I have total respect for that.
All right.
Then, as you're learning who the characters are, another big signal that the Democrat narrative is broken, and they've sent out the repair team, is a fellow on ABC News, and you know him, his name is George Stephanopoulos.
Wait, I think I pronounced that right.
It's George Postaphalopoulos.
Postaphalopoulos?
Postaphalopoulos.
Well, George.
Let's call him George.
So, he had on one of Trump's lawyers, and he was insisting that there is no evidence Come on.
There's no evidence that the prosecution in the New York trial had any coordination with the Biden White House.
I don't know what you're talking about.
And I'm going to make that face of you.
You have to see the photo that's in, at least the one on social media, of the George the Nefalopolis face.
He's just like, I will make this face of you to change how your words are received by my public.
Stop saying those words I don't want to hear.
I will use my face to stop them.
Well, And then I guess, I think it was Will Scharf was the attorney, and he pointed out that the number three person at Biden's Department of Justice stepped down, meaning took a demotion, willingly, voluntarily, to go work on this case.
And that would certainly suggest a strong inference of coordination with the White House.
And then when you add the Foddy Willis' prosecutors meeting at the White House and some other stuff.
It looks kind of obvious.
But no, George Stavopoulos says, no way, fake news, no coordination.
There is no evidence of that.
So here's what you need to know.
If you know the players, you can tell what's true by who they send to tell it's false.
This is really important.
You can tell what's true by which characters specifically they send to say it's false.
If they send Adam Schiff to say it's not true, oh, it's true.
If they send Jamie Raskin to say it's not true, it's definitely true.
If they send George Stenopoulos to say it's not true, oh, it's definitely true.
It's definitely true.
And if the Atlantic says something's true, That's definitely not true.
So those are your strongest signals for fake news.
Raskin, Schiff, and George Stephanopoulos.
And the Atlantic.
And then you can see that Alex Soros seems to be, you know, maybe pushing the narrative from the top.
We're told, I see on Unusual Wales is reporting that there's some expectation that Biden's going to sign an immigration order To temporarily close the border from asylum seekers?
Does that even sound real?
I'm having trouble believing anything these days.
Do you believe it's real that a few months before the election, Biden would suddenly discover that he had the power to close the border, and then he would do it, thus proving that the whole thing was based on either incompetence or a giant scheme to destroy the country?
Or something.
Because at this point, doesn't it seem like he'd be better off acting like it was impossible?
Because if he just turns around and issues an executive order and closes the border, you know, seals it tighter than a baby's butt or something.
I don't know.
There's some kind of old saying like that.
No, that's smoother.
You don't want to say tighter than a baby's butt.
That sounds really bad.
I think the saying is smooth.
No, it's tighter than a gnat's ass.
But smoother than a baby's butt.
You don't want to confuse those.
Never confuse those two.
All right.
My father had a lot of colorful sayings.
Every now and then, you know, you become your father.
You don't want to.
But every now and then I'll dredge up some old saying that I heard when I was, you know, eight years old and never left me.
Tighter than a gnat's ass.
All right.
There's an article in The Hill.
So The Hill has become sort of hilarious, the publication of The Hill.
Because the closer it gets to the election, the more laughably absurd the commentary is.
Let me give you this one.
There's somebody named Alexander Bolton who's writing in The Hill.
Now, how many people have a last name of Bolton?
I mean, I know there are a few.
There's a singer.
But I just wonder if he's, you know, related to any other Boltons in the government.
I don't know.
I'm just wondering, I haven't looked it up.
But here's one of the things he said, and I quote, right, now listen to this.
This is a real thing that somebody wrote in a real publication, and it got published, right?
Just try to hold on to your head, and just try to hold your head from exploding.
This is just casually stated like it's a fact, okay?
Mershon, who earned favorable reviews from legal experts for his careful handling of the case.
Judge Mershon, who earned favorable reviews from legal experts for his careful handling of the case.
Which reality did that happen in?
I was very much in the other reality.
The one where all I heard were people like Eli Honig and Dershowitz and Basically, everybody honest said it was a total hit job.
But even if you're going to say they hear unfavorable reviews, because by the way, that's not false.
He did hear unfavorable reviews from all the partisans.
But if you're not going to point out that some of the most respected legal minds in America I've said it's total lawfare and the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in the history of the courts.
I think you left out kind of a key fact there.
Kind of a key fact.
Propaganda!
Anyway, the topic was whether or not there'll be jail time for Trump.
And some people say he might choose it, but it could be house arrest or it could be community service.
It would be highly unusual, say the experts.
I don't think it would be highly unusual to put him in jail.
And the reason is it would be highly unusual that he would be even charged with those crimes.
So if you start with the most highly unusual prosecution in the highly unusual world we live in, it's completely within the realm of expected behavior that they would put him in jail.
If the death sentence was on the table, I would say it might be.
Yeah, maybe.
It's just, you know, luckily it's not one of the options.
So, yeah, let's keep an eye on that.
Now, the interesting thing is that I'm hearing some people say that maybe the judges will be influenced by the fact that if they rule against Trump, it could cause a civil war if they were to put him in jail.
Do you think it would cause a civil war if Trump is put in jail?
The answer is, oh, yes, it would.
But you know what happens?
It's too close to the election now.
Today, if you put Trump in jail, it guarantees his election, and he's already said, bring it on.
If it's jail, it's jail.
You know, it's not going to be like years.
If it's jail, it's only going to be jail until he's president, then he pardons himself, I guess, or something happens.
But I think he's willing to go to jail because it's easier.
It's probably easier than campaigning.
It would be the best campaign of all.
But here's what I think.
Given that he made, you know, allegedly $200 million in campaign donations because of the law fair, if he spent one minute in jail, Do you have any idea the size of his campaign donations?
As soon as like his foot crosses that barrier into a jail cell, it'll be like that foot just enters the jail cell and it's just gonna be ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.
It's gonna rain fucking money like nobody's ever seen in their life.
So he's in this situation which he didn't create for himself.
Trump did not create this situation.
But he sort of has two ways to win and no way to lose, unless they do something really illegal, which is an option.
Because if he's not in jail, he's going to win.
And if he's in jail, he's going to win twice as hard.
And what are they going to do?
Here's the funny part.
38 countries have banned Trump, not specifically, but because he's a felon.
So if you're a felon, did you know that you can't travel to the United States?
If you weren't already a citizen, you couldn't even visit the United States if you're a felon.
I didn't know that, actually.
I don't mind that that's the law, but I wasn't aware of that.
But other countries where you can't go if you're a felon, so imagine if he's president but he's still a felon, he wouldn't be able to travel to China, Australia, Canada, or India.
Now, here's the question.
Do you really think China and India are going to say no if he wants to visit?
Let's take India.
How about Australia?
Australia, too.
If Trump says, I want to visit India or Australia, are they going to say, oh, we'd really love to have you, but we got this law?
No, they would just change the law.
Or they'd do whatever they had to do.
Or they'd just ignore it or something.
Yeah.
No, they'd let him in.
And then some people are thinking that China's social media is really pushing the Trump felon thing.
So the thinking is that China is trying to push us into civil war.
Let me explain something about Republicans that may not be obvious if you're watching from the outside.
If you've seen all the street protests in the past few years, and I said this before but it's worth repeating, the only thing that ever becomes a street protest is something that's organized and funded by some bigger entity.
So there's no such thing as like an organic, you know, Black Lives Matter protest or Antifa.
These are all organized things.
Republicans don't have that.
There's no entity that organizes Republicans for protests.
So short of that, there's nothing that would cause everybody to just sort of pick up sticks and whatever else they have and go out in the street at the same time.
And where would they even go?
So there's no organizational structure that would cause Republicans to hit the streets.
And I don't see it forming.
And if it did form, I would probably tell you to ignore them.
And then you might say to me, but Scott, that's clearly not true, because on the January 6th event that was organized, and that was a big old problem.
And I counter that with saying, no, it wouldn't have even been anything except they were already there for Trump's speech.
If the people weren't there for Trump's speech, and therefore there was already a big crowd for that reason, and they just had someplace else to go after the speech.
So sure, there might have been people who had gone directly to the Capitol if there'd never been any Trump speech, but how many?
I mean, a few hundred?
It would have made no difference at all.
It was only that there was just a massive crush of people, and that was only because of a coincidence that they just happened to be there for Trump's speech.
So no, I see absolutely no possibility that there is a civil war, because even on January 6th, the Republicans left their weapons home.
Now this is where the Democrats go, no they didn't, no they didn't, they brought the weapons.
That was that one time, that one person who had a stick.
All right, so we're going to ignore all the stupid NPCs.
I think I want to make a list of all the NPC comments.
The thing that somebody will definitely say.
I say, the protesters were unarmed on January 6th.
What does the NPC say?
What about the ones who use flagpoles to hit people?
Okay, that did happen.
What about somebody had a gun in their car?
Well, okay, that probably happened too.
But really, are those your counter to a 99% peaceful protest?
All right.
The 11th Circuit Court has upheld a ruling that said the venture capital firm can't be racist.
Well, that's good.
Something called the Fearless Fund, they were trying to have some kind of grants that were race-based, and they got sued, and apparently now they can't be race-based.
So apparently DEI is dying in a thousand cuts.
Meanwhile, over at Harvard, the faculty has dropped the mandatory diversity statement.
Can you believe that ever existed?
I remember hearing stories about the McCarthy hearings.
I was too young to remember them.
But the McCarthy hearings were famous as like a dark day in American history that people had to show their loyalty to the country and act like they don't have any bad political ideas or you'll be blacklisted forever.
But to know that you were alive when Harvard forced you to make a DEI diversity statement And if you didn't say the right stuff and forcefully enough, you couldn't get hired.
It just amazes me that a like a political pledge to diversity had to be made before he could get a job.
Unbelievable, but at least they backed off on that wisely because of the pressure.
Bill Maher, who is 99% Um, rational, but everything he says about Trump is actually just batshit crazy.
I mean, Bill Maher is basically just a 20-year-old college girl when it comes to Trump.
Oh no!
He's under the bed!
I think he's gonna climb up on the bed and rape me!
Now, Bill Maher is a 20-year-old college student female, and he thinks that MAGA would go nuts if Trump is jailed.
Yes, we will go nuts.
With our wallets.
Do you know why we'd go nuts with our wallets?
As opposed to our guns?
Because we're not crazy.
We're not crazy.
Wallets will work.
Guns would be a big mistake.
So we'll use the thing that works.
Yeah, put him in jail for one day.
He will become more of a legend than ever.
If you want to turn him into, you know, the greatest martyr of all time in America, go ahead!
Go ahead.
I'm going to say the same thing that Trump said.
Don't beg for anything.
If it's going to happen, it's going to happen.
And then we'll take that variable and we'll work with it.
And we can work with it.
We can guarantee his election.
And you know what else is funny?
I'm assuming there's no way he'd ever be in general population.
We're clear on that, right?
I mean, even if they tried the most ridiculous thing of getting rid of all the security and put him to the general population to be killed, I don't think there's really any chance of that happening.
So you know what the interesting thing is?
If their plan was to assassinate him before he got into office, before the election, He'd be too protected, because he would be in the safest place that a president could ever be.
As long as he's away from the other prisoners, which I imagine he would be, it's the safest place he could be.
So they might find the one way to guarantee he becomes president.
And I'm not sure I would have a civil war over that.
Right?
Trump gets some rest, wins the election.
It would reveal the other side for exactly what they are.
And then when he gets out, he's going to be really mad.
And I like that.
So I have to say, I'm feeling a weird bit of optimism for all the wrong reasons.
So Rasmussen has her first poll since the felony conviction, and it shows that Trump's support went down a little bit.
I don't think it went down enough that it's outside the margin of error, but it's a little bit down.
Surprise me.
But he still handily wins in a three-way matchup, which is what it looks like it will be.
45 to 40.
But he had a bigger lead, according to them.
Now, was it, I think it was in the Hill also, the reporting that there are now There are polls that show Biden is even or ahead.
Do you believe the polls that say that Biden pulled even or is ahead?
I don't.
I do not believe those polls.
All right.
Let's see.
Here's the biggest story of the day.
And it's one, two, three, four, five, six words.
Here's the most important six words to tell you everything you need to know about the next four months.
You ready?
Six words that tell you everything you need to know for the next four months.
It's safe to back Trump now.
It's safe to back Trump now.
Examples, please.
Colin Rugg had a good list of examples on X. Doug Leone, Sequoia Capital, big billionaire guy.
He said, yep, I've become increasingly concerned about the general direction of the country, blah, blah, blah.
Therefore, I'm supporting President Trump.
That's a big, big deal.
If somebody's the head of a Sequoia Capital or a big member of a big VC firm, it's a big deal because they're very visible.
Sean McGuire, Sequoia Capital also, announced on X he was donating $300,000.
And prior to that, he donated to Hillary Clinton.
These are some big flips.
David Sachs, as you know, Kraft Ventures.
He's got a fundraiser going on for Trump.
Chamath, Chamath Pallapadia.
Social Capital, he's also hosting a fundraiser.
Both of those guys were not at least prominent Republicans before.
Bill Ackman always voted Democrat, Pershing Square.
He says he's likely to back Trump after supporting Democrats forever.
And then Steve Schwarzman of Blackstone, he's a super rich guy, he'll be backing Trump for 2024.
Now, there are probably a number of reasons for this.
Number one, you saw that CNN was starting to cover the Trump-Biden situation, at least with some balance.
That makes it a lot safer for ordinary, normal people to say, all right, it looks like both sides are out there and people are not getting killed for it, so I guess I can jump in.
The other thing is that I think people genuinely think another term of Biden could be the end of America.
I think that.
I think another term of Biden could be, might not be, but it could be the end of America as you know it.
I think that's legitimately a real thing.
And they're probably a little panicked about holding on to their situation, which is the best situation in the world.
Being a rich person in America, pretty good deal.
They'd probably like to stay that way.
So I like to think that, um, My contribution to any of this is to make it safe.
So I think I made it safe to, safer, to criticize DEI.
Would you agree?
And a lot of other people are doing the same.
So a lot of notable people who have reputations to protect are also coming out and saying, you know what?
It's a bunch of garbage here.
But I'll tell you one thing that most of these people have in common, or if not all of them, Have you detected the one thing that all the people have in common, who are now feeling safe, that they can say Trump would be a better option?
What is it about them?
Well, a lot of them are rich.
But it's not that.
It's something better.
It's something more telling.
We don't have bosses.
That's the key variable.
I don't have a boss.
I used to have, you know, customers that could cancel me, and then they did.
They did.
Primarily for being a Trump supporter.
They had an excuse, but mostly it was that.
So I don't have a boss, and I'm not worried about getting fired, I guess, again.
So I can tell you what I actually think.
What do Sean McGuire, David Sachs, John Muth, Bill Ackman, Doug Leone, and Steve Schwarzman have in common?
No fucking bosses.
No bosses.
Only people with no bosses have freedom of speech.
And there's a reason.
Because big companies don't have the option of being provocative.
Big companies have to stick with the most common narrative, because that's the safest thing.
So if you have a boss who works for a big company, Let's say, let me use an example that might resonate with you.
Let's say you are a doctor, but you don't have a private practice and work for yourself, because that's actually kind of rare these days.
You work for a big hospital or a big medical group.
You have a boss, and then a pandemic comes along, and the official word is, get these vaccinations, and your company says, You know, we're going to make a ton of money if you get everybody vaccinated.
So if I hear you saying that maybe you shouldn't get a vaccination, you're fired.
So as long as we basically have a situation in the United States where free speech is limited to people who don't have a boss, because if you have a boss, the agents of censorship will get to the boss because that's your weak spot.
The boss will cave first, because they're not about politics.
The boss is about money, and should be.
So as soon as they say, ooh, my money is threatened, I'll do whatever you say.
So you can always make the big entity the government, the big organization, the big company.
They're too embarrassed to not go full diversity, full narrative, full Democrat view of life.
So I'd like to suggest that an interesting framing for the coming months is that free speech exists only for people who don't have bosses, because that's the truth.
Everybody who has a boss is lying.
That's just the truth.
Everybody who has a boss and is talking about politics in public, they're probably lying, because they have to.
They literally have to lie or they'll get fired.
Now, that doesn't mean that some of them don't believe what they're saying, but I'm just saying... Yeah, all right.
Let's do a little less of that in the comments, please, over on Locals.
Yeah, I get it that it's a real book and that's the title of the book, but you're not helping out.
Let's have some kind of a standard that is, don't make it easy for people to close down the channel.
Don't make it easy.
Don't make it easy.
By the way, I'm not offended by what you did.
It's just the cover of a book.
It's a book on the market.
I just wouldn't do that here.
Okay, I appreciate it.
Apology accepted.
See, that's how it's done.
Did you watch that?
That's how adults do it.
Saw something I didn't like, said why I didn't like it.
He says, sorry.
I say, apology accepted.
Now we move on.
The whole world should be like that.
That's a perfect transaction right there.
Everything's good now.
Have I ever told you that apologies are like a superpower for men?
Because men, unlike women, accept apologies.
Did you know that?
Did you know that men, only men, accept apologies?
And I've explained this to women and they don't understand it.
Like I'll explain that once there's an apology and then an acceptance of apology, I'll never think about it again.
For the rest of my life, I'll never think about it once.
It's completely flushed.
But it's like a superpower.
So men can work with other men, because as soon as you get, you know, you get checked on something, it's like, hmm, too far.
And if that makes sense, like you have to make your case, you can't be just random, then another man will say, oh, you're right.
Sorry.
Apology accepted.
Moving on.
So good little moment there.
All right.
Let's see.
What else?
Kara Swisher.
It might be one of the dumbest people in all of politics, so I love watching her just to find the dumb parts.
But she said about Trump, she was talking to Bill Maher, and she believes that there's a silent majority of Americans that will come out for Biden on voting day.
A silent majority?
Is there somebody who is afraid to be in favor of Biden?
That might be the worst political analysis I've ever heard in my life.
And then she said, we don't want chaos again, talking about electing Trump.
We don't want chaos again.
Chaos?
Chaos?
Did you have more chaos under the Trump administration than we have now?
How do you measure the chaos?
I think inflation is chaos.
I think Ukraine is chaos.
I think the way Biden handled the Middle East is chaos.
I think an open border is chaos.
I think a lawfare against your opponents is chaos.
What the fuck do you think is chaos, you stupid piece of shit?
You are so dumb, you should not be talking in public, Kara Swisher.
Kara Swisher is the Alex Soros of Rosie O'Donnell.
Speaking of Rosie O'Donnell, have you ever seen her in the same room with Michael Cohen?
It was only today I found out that Michael Cohen and Rosie O'Donnell are different people.
I was confused about that for a while.
Anyway, I'm just making fun of all the ridiculous people.
But Kara Swisher might be the dumbest person who talks about politics in person.
And there's a lot of competition for that.
So apparently Trump and some other smart people are saying that The New York Stormy Daniels case, the felony case against Trump, should skip the appellate process and go directly to the Supreme Court.
I have a mixed feeling about that, but I would defer to the smarter legal experts that that's a better strategy.
I guess it's available as a strategy.
But I have to admit, I would love to see the lower courts deal with the imperfections of the case.
Because I'd like to see them say, yeah, look good to me.
Because I want to see how rotten the system is.
And this is one of those test cases where you could know for sure if the appellate court is just political and rotten.
So I'd love to test them just to see if they're as rotten as we think.
It would be interesting to know.
But it would also be good to get her off the plate and, you know, move on and get rid of the felony and all that.
So I could see both ways, but I would miss it if we didn't get to condemn the appellate court as part of this process.
All right.
Now, I need a fact check on this, but I understand the Supreme Court is in the process of soon will be ruling on the question of what presidential immunity is and is not.
And the fact check I need is that that would have a potential impact on the New York Stormy Daniels verdict.
Now is that because the felony charge depended on there being a alleged felony or if it depended on a federal offense, right?
So even though it was a state charge, the state charge was elevated to a felony Because it was pointing to the covering up of a illegality in a federal charge.
But since they weren't charging the federal charge, he wasn't guilty of the federal charge, only the state charge for covering up the federal charge, or something like that.
I don't know.
I can't do any better than the Democrat they had, because it's so weird.
But I guess I need to know, is that real?
That if the Supreme Court ruled That there's a lot of immunity.
Could that reverse the trial verdict?
Can I get a yes or no from that, from anybody who's actually in that field of work?
I'm seeing some yeses, but I don't know if those are yeses because people in the news said it, or are you saying it based on your own analysis?
It will impact the Georgia case of election interference.
Okay, so it could affect some of his cases.
We'll see how that works out.
Attorney General Andrew Bailey, he's the AG from Missouri.
I guess they're challenging the student loan debt cancellation thing.
And that makes sense.
The strong argument that why would you take money from poor people and give it to rich people, which is at least partly what happens with student loan forgiveness, because a lot of the student loans are for people who had money, or at least came from families that did have money.
I guess we'll have to talk about the Fauci hearing.
I just hate the whole Fauci situation, but I guess I got to talk about it in a minute.
But first, Biden is at some kind of fundraiser, and this is what he said about Trump.
Here's what's becoming clearer and clearer every day.
This is Biden talking.
The threat that Trump poses Would be greater in the second term than it was in his first term.
You mean the zero risk of his first term, where we observed nothing happening of any consequence, might be worse than zero?
It could be two times zero, if you know what I mean.
Twice as bad as zero.
Wait, two times zero?
That's still zero!
All right.
He says, this isn't the same Trump who got elected in 2016.
He's worse.
Oh, this is new.
The argument is that he's a new, worse Trump.
I wonder what it would have made Trump so angry.
Did anything happen to Trump between 2016 and now that would make him angry?
And then he says, something snapped in him when he lost in 2020.
He can't accept he lost.
Now this is more of what I call the imaginary campaign.
and he's not only obsessed with losing in 2020, he is clearly unhinged. Call them a convicted felon.
Now this is more of what I call the imaginary campaign. So we've got a president that's probably imaginary, meaning he's probably not the one making any decisions, and the imaginary president is saying he should be re-elected to another imaginary term because there's a greater risk of his imagination of what a second term of Trump would look like, and that he imagines what
Trump is thinking, and he imagines that there's bad stuff in his head, and he imagined that he snapped, and he imagined that he's unhinged.
It literally is a campaign all about Biden's imagination.
So, the imagination of a dementia patient Is now the main planks of the Democratic Party.
And do you know who thinks that's a good idea?
Apparently, Alex Soros.
He thinks the imaginary campaign is the way to go.
Yeah, because of all the chaos.
Is it imaginary?
Oh, let's ask the smartest person in politics, Kara Swisher.
Oh no, the chaos!
Oh no, he's going to steal my democracy!
He already took my norms.
He's got my norms.
He's going to steal my democracy.
And he's going to bring his chaos.
Are there any people who are Democrats who are living in the real world?
The actual world where the borders open and inflation is high?
Can they see that one?
No, it's the chaos.
He's stealing my democracy.
He took my norms.
I think he's snapping.
I think he's unhinged.
Could it be worse than the first term?
Well, it's Congress versus Dr. Fauci.
Here's what we know about it.
David Sachs had a great summary of it, but I'll summarize his summary.
The Fauci-funded gain of function, when he was in Wuhan, That he knew and wrote about that it was a very risky proposition, but he thought it was worth the risk.
Sure enough, that risk happened.
The virus got out, and then when pressed about it, he's allegedly lied about it, and he attacked his critics for claiming it's true.
Now these are things which he would say never happened, of course.
He would have his own version of that.
He says he's not the one who came up with that six-foot distancing rule that was the CDC, but some would say, well, maybe you didn't come up with it, but you certainly seem to be a little too happy about it.
He claims that the unvaccinated are responsible for 200,000 to 300,000 deaths.
So there.
Believe the science.
S. So there, believe the science. Case closed. Literally nobody in the room believed that, at least not the Republicans.
And Representative Jim Jordan asked him, quote, you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory?
Fauci looked at him directly and said, not on my part.
I kept an open mind through the whole process.
Now, as others have said, That's not how we remembered it.
But I'm going to push back on that's not how we remembered it.
We don't have a good memory of this.
Do you think that your memory of what Fauci did or did not do is accurate?
Probably not.
This is based on hypnosis experience.
If you go through a situation exactly like this, The most predictable thing I could tell you is you'll have massive false memories of what Fauci did or did not do.
Because he's sort of the receptacle of all your hate.
You know, all the bad experience that you had during the pandemic ends up getting you focused, because we like to blame a person, and he's kind of a handy one to blame.
So I've listened to all the accusations against him, and I've heard his, you know, weaselly excuses for why he's now guilty.
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle on this one.
Somewhere in the middle.
I think there's some things he's being blamed about that maybe He's got an argument for.
There are things he's blamed for that he definitely doesn't have an argument for.
Apparently he'd been trying to dice this whole question about gain of function.
I guess he got redefined at some point.
And the redefinition was pushed by the people who wanted to do the work.
So the people who wanted to do the work in the Wuhan lab, the stuff that got out, They couldn't have done it under an old definition of gain of function, so they worked to change the definition.
And the definition was, well, it could gain a function, but it can't be worse for humans, or it can't be more than 10 times worse, which seems like the stupidest standard in the world.
If you make a gain of function that's 10 times worse, I don't want that.
I don't want that at all.
And then the allegation is that what they made Even after changing the definition, it was something that would still be gain-of-function under any definition, that it was way more spready.
Yeah, let's see.
So, the bottom line is that the Republicans were trying to make hay out of, you know, insulting the public and blaming them for it all.
Yeah, let's see.
And then I guess there were some things that he represented as settled science that were far from settled.
Anyway, so everything about that is exactly what you thought it would be.
It's Fauci claiming he wasn't so bad and Republicans saying, you're twice as bad as anybody knows.
Marjorie Taylor Greene kept that interesting.
I continue to enjoy the show she puts on.
There's a National Institute of Health, this American entity.
That I don't understand this, so maybe somebody can help me.
Apparently the National Institute of Health somehow has a deal where they can get royalties from drugs and drug companies that they have some influence on.
And the story sort of skips the important part.
So I don't know the important part of the story.
I'll tell you what I know.
Apparently there were seven, somebody figured out there were 710 million in royalties during the pandemic that went, I don't know, all or some to American officials in the National Institute of Health.
Here's the part I don't know.
Why did they get royalties?
Wait, what?
Can anybody explain how that came about?
What was the path?
By which people who are part of some American institution that has some influence over what we do in health, that they're getting paid by the drug companies?
Paid indirectly through the royalties.
How in the world did that ever come about in the first place?
Like, we're arguing that it shouldn't happen, but shouldn't we be arguing How did it happen in the first place?
Like, what mechanism even allowed that to even be a possibility?
It's the craziest story.
There's something about it I don't know.
And it's not in the news.
So the most important part seems to be missing.
How'd that happen in the first place?
I don't know.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes my comments for today.
Um, I think the biggest story of the day is that you're going to see more people who don't have bosses, don't have bosses, say that, uh, they're going to go Trump.
And I think the, the impetus is that with great power comes great responsibility.
What I mean by that is if you're a Bill Ackman or you're, you're ahead of one of these big companies, the David Sachs, uh, Chamath.
The people who have that much influence, both because they have money, but they're in positions where people listen to their opinions, they have great power.
And they're sitting on the sidelines, or had been sitting on the sidelines, just saying, oh, let me do my business thing and make my money and take care of my family, and you guys handle the politics.
But now you see what happens.
If the adults leave the politicians to politics, It doesn't turn into an adult game anymore.
It turns into this weird, criminal-looking... I don't know what it is.
So you're seeing the adults re-enter the room.
They're the people who have the power, but until now, had chosen to use it, you know, for capitalism and family reasons.
And now they realize that with that great power comes great responsibility.
Do you think that David Sachs wants to be in politics?
Like, wants to be doing this every day?
I don't know, because I'm not a mind reader, but probably not.
Probably would rather be doing almost anything else.
But with great power comes great responsibility.
And by the way, that's exactly what drives me.
I don't know if you knew that.
But the thing that drives me is the Spider-Man problem.
I'm well aware that I have the ability to get attention that other people don't have.
It's just a power.
Now, it's because of my job and something about learning how to deal in the public realm, but it is what it is.
And so if I've got this power, I feel the pull.
I feel that I have to do something personally, even if it's hard, even if it's dangerous, because I have the power.
Let me give you an example.
You're a man and a woman.
You're married.
And a crazy guy comes running at you with, I don't know, a knife or a club or something.
What do you do instantly?
Well, if you're like most people, instantly the woman backs up and the man stands between the assailant and the woman and does whatever he needs to do.
It might not work out well, but he's going to do it anyway.
Why do both the woman and the man automatically know, without any conversation, that she needs to back the fuck up and he needs to go forward?
It's because with great power comes responsibility.
If the woman could beat that assailant, well, you do it the other way.
But she can't.
Her odds are low.
And, you know, we also want to protect female entities that can create babies and be mothers and stuff like that.
So there's a natural impulse to protect women if you're a man.
But I think that we're wired for power will stay dormant until it's called.
So there's gigantic power pockets in the United States that are dormant.
Because they're just doing their own business.
You know, they're doing great things, but it's their own business.
Elon Musk would be a perfect example.
Someone doing amazing things and changing the world in the business realm.
But I don't think he wanted to be commenting on politics.
I think he realized that the country was coming off the rails.
And if he talked, people would listen.
And he probably knew that he can communicate better than most people.
And so you got drawn in.
It's the Spider-Man problem.
So you're going to watch the Spider-Man problem start.
Just, it's going to be this big sucking sound.
It's going to be sucking every person who doesn't have a boss.
This is very important.
Doesn't have a boss.
You're going to see more and more of them coming into the game.
And that will be the big, I think that's going to be the big story going into the election is the number of power pockets that came online.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have today.
So I'm going to say some words to the local subscribers.