Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Soros DA Prosecutors Replaced, Democrats Trump-Proofing Government, Government Teleworkers, Mystery Car-Sized Drone Swarms, Daniel Penny Trial, Mayor Eric Adams, Jack Smith Fani Willis Comms, MSNBC Absurdity, Scott Jennings, Biden's Angola $1 Billion Gift, Tucker Carlson Lavrov Interview, Pete Hegseth, Governor DeSantis, CA Extended Vote Counting, Kash Patel's Investigation List, South Korea Martial Law, Bernie Sanders, Virginia DNC SuperDelegates, Mike Benz, USAID Function, Anti-Populist NGOs, Ukraine War, Trump Nominee FBI Vetting, J6 Committee Witness Suppression, Biden $100 Billion Clean Energy Grants, 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
All right, let me get my comments up here, and then we got a show to do.
Comments coming.
Perfecto.
Do-do-do-do-do-do-do.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
But if you'd like to take this experience, which is already wildly amazing, up to levels that nobody can even understand, with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes...
Everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Well, I can't begin to tell you how distracting the memes were when I was doing that.
You can keep doing distracting memes when I do the sip, but some of them were extra distracting today.
What's happening with Hawk Newsome?
He's leading the murderer chance against Perry.
Of course he is a piece of shit.
Of course he is.
Hawk Newsome.
I once thought he had potential to be a positive force in the world, but apparently not.
Well, let's start with the golden age.
You want to hear the good news?
You probably already heard this, but drinking coffee is good for your liver.
According to No Ridge, I don't know if these are different stories or the same story dressed up, but I feel like that's the third time I've told you that coffee is good for your liver, which is why I soak my liver in coffee overnight.
Also, caffeine seems to block some kind of dopamine effect when you drink alcohol, meaning that if you were to drink a cup of coffee and then have some alcohol, the alcohol would be less fun.
Isn't that weird?
Back when I used to drink on weekends, I was sort of a party drinker.
I would notice that sometimes I would drink and I didn't feel anything much.
And other times I'd have one sip and I'd be like, wow!
And I always wondered, what was behind that?
Like, is it because...
It wasn't always because I hadn't eaten.
It wasn't food.
And I always drank exactly the same thing.
You know, it was never different.
So I wonder...
Now I wonder if it's how recently I'd had coffee.
Coffee, as you say it.
Maybe if I'd had afternoon coffee...
And then I had an early evening drink that maybe one canceled out the other.
Or dehydration.
Somebody says dehydration.
Maybe.
Well, anyway, coffee seems to decrease the dopamine hit you get from alcohol.
In another study where they just could have asked me probably, they found that high blood sugar in healthy adults is linked to lower brain activity.
In other words, sugar makes you dumb, even if you don't have diabetes.
So if your sugar is high, just higher than it should be but not diabetes, it's going to take a few points off your IQ. Now, did all of you know that?
Because I feel like I've known that for a long time, that sugar, even if you're not diabetic, extra sugar makes you extra zombie.
Didn't you all know that?
I kind of thought that was common knowledge, but there's a study, if you believe studies.
Well, there's an FTC commissioner, according to Reclaim the Net, FTC commissioner Andrew Ferguson.
He's warned against what he calls pro-censorship advertising cartels.
In other words, when the Advertising groups and entities of the world when they coordinate to, let's say, put X out of business because they don't like the politics or the messaging, that he's thinking maybe that should be illegal.
What part of illegal would that be?
I guess it would be for being a cartel and suppressing competition and free speech.
So I don't know exactly what count you would get them on, but yes, this is exactly what we need.
We need our FTC to say that you can't put somebody on a business with their advertising model just because you don't like their editorial thing.
Now, I always thought it would be a big advantage to the advertising companies if all the advertising was blind, meaning that nobody could select what advertising is associated with their content.
Wouldn't they be better?
Because once you got used to it and you knew, uh-oh, here's that terrible advertisement that's associated with this content I want to see, but you would know that the person who made the content had nothing to do with the advertising.
It was just unrelated coincidence.
I feel like we'd be better off if you couldn't control that.
But, you know, you'd have to get rid of the Nazi stuff, I suppose.
But, you know, if it's just normal advertising, it seems like you should be blind.
I'm seeing a lot of people disagree with that.
And so you shall.
Apparently we can agree to disagree.
All right, I got something you're really going to disagree with later.
Wait for that.
According to Como News, Ray Lewis says 21 Soros-linked DAs have been replaced.
I'm a tough-on-crime prosecutor since 2022. And my first question was, if 21 Soros-linked DAs, Soros-linked means he probably was a big part of their funding for their campaign, may have even selected them, how many are left?
You know, I always tell you if you know the number without the percentage or the percentage without the number, you don't actually know anything.
So this is where I don't actually know anything.
Is 21 most of them?
Or is 21 just the start?
So this is either really, really good news or it's almost nothing.
Does anybody know what it is?
I think it's a lot of them.
Yeah, I think it might be the majority of them.
And some were replaced by soft on crime, just other non-Soros people, but they might be equally soft on crime.
So I don't have a good picture of this, but I know that the Soros-linked DA in my area got replaced.
Pam Price, I think, was her name.
So I'm happy about that.
All right, that seems like a move in the right direction.
According to Hoodline...
An article by Sandra Hernandez.
There's some kind of...
Genetic booster gene that has been found that might make your plants grow way faster, like double, twice as fast or twice as big.
And it's not fully realized yet, but they've got a pretty good idea that they can make your plants twice as good.
And the question that this asks for me is, well, of course, people reject anything that looks like it's unnatural.
So you got that problem.
But at what point could you make indoor farming economical?
If you could make a plant grow really fast and really thick and have lots of food in it and taste good and all that, doesn't that make indoor farming like if you doubled the amount of food you could produce in the same pot?
I feel like that gets pretty close to making indoor farming work economically.
So maybe that's the big story.
Who knows?
Meanwhile, in battery technology, there's something called a proton battery.
So, according to the University of New South Wales, I guess they're working on this.
And I don't know how you store a proton and turn it into electricity, but the idea is that lithium...
It is not the ideal battery type for the big industrial network kind of batteries.
It might work great in your car and in your drone, the lithium batteries.
But if you want to have a big one that's for your whole network to provide electricity to buildings, Then you might not want lithium.
And so some of these other storage technologies might be the way to go.
So maybe there'll be a protein battery in your network coming up.
So I guess Biden is doing all this Trump-proofing of government, trying to spend all their money and tie Trump up in ways that he can't reverse it when he gets in there.
And one of the things is he granted protection and secured permanent telework for 42,000 Social Security bureaucrats until after Trump leaves office.
Now, what would be the possible reason for even doing that?
I mean, the ridiculousness of trying to stop the people who just want to get rid of the unnecessary fat in the process, how is that even a Republican or a Democrat issue?
You can't let people even look to get rid of the unnecessary people.
I mean, Biden...
To say that he's the worst president, it just feels like an understatement.
He doesn't seem like he's even on our side, does he?
He opened the borders.
That's not my team.
He bankrupted the country with the spending.
That's not my team.
And now he's not going to let the Doge effort fire people who probably need to get fired?
That's not on my team.
Started a war with Ukraine for what reasons?
Is that on my team?
I'm not even seeing Biden doing things that appear to be in America's best interest.
It's just weird how amazingly bad he is.
However, my guess is that there will still be ways to get rid of those 42,000 people.
One way would be to turn off their connection to the network.
Do you think they can do that?
Just turn off their connection to the network and then fire them for not doing their work.
So they can't fire them for not coming into the office, but they can certainly fire them for not doing their job, right?
I mean, did Biden say, no matter what you do, you can't get fired?
Well, he didn't say that, did he?
So all you have to do is turn off their access to the internal systems, just block their things unless they come into work, and none of them could do their work, and then you fire them.
So I feel like there's a workaround there.
Just when you think human beings are as bad as they can possibly be, The Steam network, that's where video games are put on that network to be downloaded and played, Steam.
Now there's a video game on there where you can reenact October 7th Massacre, and apparently you can be on the side of the massacre people, so you can play Hamas and massacre innocent people.
That's a video game that was made in the real world.
This is actual real thing.
Yikes!
Now, on one hand, I say the same thing that most of you are saying, which is, yikes!
How in the world is that legal, and who would want to do that, and blah, blah, blah.
But it raises a bigger question.
Can you make imagination illegal?
Because playing the game is sort of an imaginary process.
Suppose you had virtual reality that allowed you to do things that would be illegal and As a regular person, but it would be fantasy within the virtual reality, such as murdering citizens.
You could argue that the Hamas thing was in the context of a larger war or something.
But suppose you had a video game that allowed you just to murder innocent people.
Should that be illegal?
How about if it were something that allowed you to engage in what looked like virtual sex crimes, but nobody's involved except you and your imagination?
Should that be legal?
Well, there's certainly a commercial element to it, which is, are people going to boycott Steam because it's on there and all that?
But I don't know if you should ever make anything that's in your imagination, even if the imagination is aided by some virtual process, as long as it's private.
I think I'm in favor of making sure that nobody can mess with your imagination.
I don't know that imagining these things make you more likely to do them.
It might.
If you're, let's say, already have a propensity to violence, I could see if you played video games with violence every day, it might push you over the edge.
The average person isn't going to become violent from a video game.
We know that for sure, because too many people have played video games.
So here's another asshole that I need to get rid of.
So here's what you should never say, Matt.
Scott has no idea about Steam.
If the game is still there in 24 hours, I'll be amazed.
Now, I've used Steam.
I've downloaded games from it.
And I do understand that it's a commercial process.
So anybody in the world understands that if it's still there in 24 hours, it would be pretty surprising.
So, fuck you for assuming that I don't know something as obvious as that and then making a comment in public about it.
So, how about less reading of minds and less insulting me and maybe have an opinion that's worth a shit.
So, how about that?
All right.
It's probably the same troll that I got rid of yesterday.
I've noticed that there are some people who would not consider themselves trolls who can nonetheless find the most toxic thing to say on every topic.
And I don't even know if they're doing it intentionally.
I think they are.
But, yeah, it would be a little less toxic.
It might be good for you.
There are now mysterious car-sized drones over New Jersey.
For multiple days, I guess, several weeks, drone swarms, not just single drones, but swarms, they say, over the skies of New Jersey.
Can I show you a picture of it?
Would you like to see a picture of it?
Okay, here you go.
There you go.
See that picture?
You got it?
Very clear.
You can clearly see the drones.
And you can tell they're drones because you can so clearly see inside them.
You can see that there's no pilot.
And you can tell the size of them very easily.
No, you can't see anything.
The pictures are dots.
They're dots against the night sky.
So I think it's kind of obvious what they are.
They're not drones.
Duh.
They're winged Bigfoots, I think.
Because, you know, the Bigfoots are hard to photograph.
And if they've been there for weeks and nobody's got a good photograph of them, I'm thinking Bigfoot, but they're flying, so I'm going to go with the obvious, sort of a tribe of winged Bigfoots, possibly.
No, I'm going to make a better guess.
Here's my better guess.
Why are we saying that they're unpiloted?
So we can't get a picture of them.
But we know there's not a human being in each one of them.
Can you explain that?
I can.
It's because we talk about drones so much that if you see something in the sky that you don't recognize, it's either a UFO or a drone.
Wouldn't it make more sense if it were, let's say, a car-sized helicopter?
Wouldn't it make more sense if they were testing a one-person military flying device?
Which would be pretty awesome.
And you wouldn't know about it if it was military.
And it seems to be only in the proximity of a military base.
Do you think that our U.S. military would allow something that they didn't control to be flying over their base every night for weeks and that there wouldn't be no exploding things happening, like shooting them down or at least telling us what's going on?
I think the fact that it's near something that looks like a military base and it's a car-sized thing kind of suggests...
I mean, it might be drones...
But I imagine there's people in them.
And I think they're probably just experimental crafts.
Just guessing.
It's also possible that the whole, they're the size of a car, is probably just not true.
Because nobody got a good picture of it, and you can't really judge the size of it, and everything's misleading in space.
Or it's winged Bigfoots.
According to unusual whales, the accountant acts...
Google has now been ordered to sell its Chrome browser and share data and search results with competitors and make a range of other measures to end its monopoly on searching the internet.
Isn't it weird that Google lost its monopoly on search at the same time its search feature became kind of worthless?
Is that a coincidence?
Like at the same time I decided there's so many sponsored and fake news and the news is just so obviously propagandized that I just stop using it.
I just use perplexity or an AI if I think it's not going to hallucinate.
But perplexity doesn't do nearly the things that Google does.
So, kind of a weird coincidence that just when it wasn't really a product, that's the first time it became illegal.
Weird.
Well, tragically, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare walked outside in Midtown, Today, just maybe an hour ago, and was murdered outside of the Hilton Hotel.
And I believe the murderer was apparently waiting for him, so it was a planned attack.
It was an assassination, not a random thing.
And he apparently did die.
He was shot multiple times.
And the attacker escaped on a bicycle.
Yeah.
So...
Alright.
Maybe we need a little less of this in the comments to quote.
Maybe a little less of that, okay?
You know what I'm talking about.
Just a little less of that.
All right, well, the Daniel Penny trial is still on.
I guess there's no verdict yet, right?
Has any verdict been announced in the Daniel Penny thing?
Because it's going on right now, the verdictizing.
The deliberations.
Okay.
Well, here's the only hint we have.
Apparently, one of the jurors asked, or let's just say the jurors, asked for, they wanted a little more information.
They wanted a second read-through of what is considered justifiable.
So they need a better definition of what is justifiable.
Okay.
Now, if you knew that a jury of 12 people were asking for a better definition of the most important part of the trial, was it justifiable?
Doesn't that tell you that there's a reasonable doubt?
How in the world could you go through the entire trial And you're sitting there trying to decide whether this guy goes to prison, and you can't decide, the 12 of you can't decide on the same definition of the word that is the most important word to the trial?
I feel like that's somebody who's trying to hang the jury.
In other words, I feel like somebody's stalling.
It feels like a play by a patriot.
As in, somebody's going to make sure that there's something they can hold onto to claim reasonable doubt.
I'm going to say a hung jury.
What do you say?
Because I think the people who want to convict him are never going to change their minds, because they'd just be racists.
And the people who think that the jury itself is racist are not going to change their mind, because it's obviously a racist case.
So I think that you might find people who are willing to be flexible on the argument of whether somebody did a crime.
I don't think you're going to find flexibility on whether to be a racist or not.
The people who are racist are going to be racist, and that's going to be their vote.
They're going to vote against him because he's white.
And those in the trial who recognize it as a racial prosecution are going to say, I don't even care if he did murder him.
If it's a racist prosecution, nope.
That's what I would do.
I wouldn't even care about the details of the case.
If I knew it was only being only a case because of the race of the alleged, not good enough.
Yeah, I wouldn't participate in that in any way.
So, I can't say...
I don't have a prediction yet, but I would say the fact that they asked for this specific thing suggests a hung jury to come.
So I guess that is my prediction.
Hung jury means that they could do it again, so it might not be over.
We'll see.
Meanwhile, Democrat New York City Mayor Eric Adams, according to the Daily Wire, is totally on Daniel Penny's side.
Okay.
Thank you, Eric Adams.
You said, quote, you have someone on the subway who is responding, doing what we should have done.
Perfect way to put it, doing what we should have done.
Strongly defended him.
You know, I don't know if Eric Adams is angling for some kind of a federal pardon, but he's definitely on my good side.
So he agrees with Holman about helping to remove, you know, the dangerous migrants.
And he agrees that we should be able to protect ourselves in his city.
Now, he's got some allegations against them that look pretty serious to me.
Look pretty serious.
But, God, I'd hate to lose him.
I mean, he's the only Democrat who seems to be willing to say what is obvious and makes sense, as opposed to just, you know, team play.
But...
The allegations, pretty serious sounding, so we'll see what happens with that.
But I definitely appreciate it, Mayor Adams.
No relation.
Meanwhile, Southwest Airlines has said it's going to end its DEI employment practices.
Another one checked off.
So good work, all activists.
I don't know if that was just Robbie Starbuck or Christopher Ruffo or everybody.
I'm not sure how many people were on that case, but another one falls.
California lawmaker.
He introduced the most ridiculous bill I think I've heard in a long time.
He wants to give admission priority in the form of reparations.
He wants to give admission priority to the descendants of slaves at the University of California and California State University.
So he wants to make a change to give admission priority to descendants of slaves in California.
Can I weigh in here in a minute?
I have just a slight context to note.
That has been the current situation for every year I've lived in California, my entire adult life.
There has never been a single second when a California college did not overtly prefer Black candidates.
They always have.
Whether you're descended from a slave or not.
What are they talking about?
Have I been hallucinating the last 30 years of my life that a black candidate who qualifies, has the right qualifications, is largely guaranteed to get into any college in California?
Let me say that again.
A black candidate who has good credentials, did well on tests, etc., can get into every college in California.
This is the current situation and has been for decades.
Do we really need a bill?
Now, maybe it's a pushback against the anti-DEI stuff because Trump might do away with that stuff.
So if that's what it is, then it makes a little more sense.
But I think you should be noted that this is the current situation and has been for decades.
Well, meanwhile...
District Attorney Fannie Willis, some call her Fannie, has to release all of her communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith and the January 6th Committee.
ALX is talking about this on the X platform.
Yeah.
And the thinking is, if we find out that Fannie, Fannie Willis has been coordinating with them, it would look more like a RICO, you know, coordinated lawfare situation than if she were just doing her own job and unconnected to anybody at a federal level.
What do you think we're going to find?
Do you think that Fannie was dumb enough To do something that would be coordinated with the feds that she would have to know could be discoverable at some point for some reason.
Do you think any of that would be in writing?
I feel like the only thing that might be in writing would be something like, hey, can we have lunch?
Or do you have a minute to talk or something like that?
I feel like they would be too smart to put anything, especially a lawyer.
If you're an attorney, if you're a district attorney, don't you know not to put any illegal stuff in your messages?
That's just sort of, you know, district attorney 101 stuff.
So I don't know that we'll find anything, but I'm glad they're looking.
I love the fact that MSNBC has now completely transformed from being what we thought was a news network that just made us mad because it didn't agree with us all the time to nothing but comedy.
So every single day now, I go into Acts and I look at the clips where somebody on MSNBC is acting stupid.
And it's always funny.
So today's stupidity...
There's a compilation by Grabien, G-R-A-B-I-E-N. I always see their compilations and I just want to give them a shout out.
So somebody, Grabien or Grabien, so I wish I could give them a better plug because they do good work.
Some of the best compilation clips that are funny come with this label on it.
But in 2019, MSNBC, the compilation is they're talking about whistleblowers.
And it sounds like this.
I'm making this up.
It's like, whistleblowers are the heroes of the country.
Oh, those whistleblowers.
Thank goodness for the brave, brave whistleblowers who are taking a risk to help the country.
It's part of democracy.
That was 2019. That's when the whistleblowers are saying things they want them to say.
What do they call the whistleblowers...
When the whistleblowers are opposite their interests and whistleblowing on things that are on their team.
Well, I've told you that MSNBC is not just humorous, it's theater.
And I swear they all act like they're professional actors or actresses in a play.
You know how a play is always overacted?
Like a movie could be sometimes subtle because the camera can get right in there.
But if you're in a play, sometimes you go big and it's just a little bit more theatrical.
That's what MSNBC did with the whistleblowers.
So as soon as the whistleblowers were not...
Positive for their narrative.
They all did the same thing, the way they talk about it.
And then they've got the so-called whistleblowers, what they're calling whistleblowers, or some people that some people are saying are whistleblowers.
The whistleblowers, so-called, All right.
Apparently I don't do a good imitation.
So you have to watch it.
MSNBC as a humor source is pretty rich.
It looks like clown college.
And then, of course, Scott Jennings continues to embarrass his CNN co-workers by simply being a voice of reason and being good at what he does.
So Jennings does the...
He's their rare, right-leaning Republican type of voice.
Now, I give them credit.
So again, I'll give CNN credit.
They give a very capable person who very much disagrees with their panelists full time.
They don't cut him off.
They let him do his thing.
And I very much appreciate it.
Because then it turns CNN into also a comedy show.
Because you have to watch the reactions of the panel when Scott Jennings is laying down the truth.
And look at all their faces.
And they all do this kind of Where their mouth is kind of pinched.
Because they're hearing things that just make them look like idiots, but they don't want to break in yet.
They're like...
So today I saw a clip where Scott used the really technique.
Now, this is one I teach you on my live streams.
Now, he didn't use the word really, but he uses the same technique.
The technique is this.
When somebody makes a claim that it's preposterous, rather than going through all the work of explaining why it's preposterous, you simply restate it and you go, really?
So that's what you think.
So you think...
That the President of the United States, with full forethought, stood in front of the American people on video with millions of witnesses and called neo-Nazis fine people.
Really?
Really?
You think that actually happened?
So that's how it really works.
You don't have to even make your argument.
You just have to say, really?
Because it's embarrassing that anybody would have that thought.
So, Scott used that about a different technique.
He didn't use the word really, but he simply described what they believed.
And made them agree to it, which was devastating.
He simply described their own opinion and then asked them if they were committing to it.
It was just marvelous to watch.
Excellent technique.
So he was talking to somebody who was talking about the idea of Trump wanting to use the military in the United States.
So somebody named McGowan said, I don't want to be bringing back waterboarding.
What?
Was somebody talking about that?
Was that on the table?
Was somebody talking about bringing back waterboarding?
I don't want to be a country that tortures people, especially for the kind of country that's going to be using the military against our own citizens.
And then Jones says, somebody named Jones says, we're talking about the American people.
We're talking about taking up arms against them with the military that's supposed to be protecting them.
This is not right.
And so you have to watch this clip just to see Scott Jennings' face where they do the split screen.
You can just see him looking at them when he's saying that they're going to use the military against our own citizens.
And he's like, you know that The illegal migrants are not our own citizens, right?
It's wonderful.
It's wonderful.
Good comedy.
Meanwhile, Biden is in Angola, and he promised to give them a billion dollars in aid for African victims of natural disasters.
Now, here's what he says about it.
You know, that's the right thing for the wealthiest nation in the world to do.
Blah, blah, blah.
Mr. Biden...
I don't know how to explain this to you.
Angola has a much higher net worth than the United States.
Like, a lot.
Like, it's not even close.
The United States is $35-36 trillion in debt.
Angola probably also has some debt.
A few billion?
A few billion in debt?
So which country is worth more?
The one that owes a few billion?
More than it has.
Or the one that owes 36 trillion?
More than it has.
Angola is richer than the United States, and that's not a joke.
They're far richer.
They just, you know, it's in a different form.
But no, we don't have money to give them.
We literally have no money.
All we did is move forward by a few minutes the time that we're completely bankrupt.
We didn't give them any money.
We gave them some debt or something.
Or we created some debt to replace some of their debt, I guess.
Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson's over in Russia.
Doesn't look like he's going to talk to Putin, but maybe he's still trying.
But he did interview Lavrov.
If you don't know who Lavrov is, he's the English-speaking one that you see whenever something about Russia is going on.
So he's the mouthpiece for Russia, sort of Putin's guy.
So we haven't seen that yet, but it has been recorded.
Again, this caused a lot of people to be talking about World War III and how close we are to a nuclear confrontation because Russia's doing things that look like they're teasing a nuclear preparation and we're doing things back that look like, you know, if you nuke us, we'll nuke you.
And I remind you again...
You've never been safer.
You're in the safest moment of all of American history.
Because waiting for Trump, nobody's going to mess around.
Nobody's going to mess around while we've got a few weeks before Trump gets there and just sorts things out.
Now, even if you say, but Scott, Scott, Scott, Trump is not Superman.
He can't make everything go away in a week.
Maybe.
But at the moment, most people think he can.
Most reasonable people think he actually can make most of our problems go away in a week.
I mean, he can make DEI go away in a week, right?
He could probably get our hostages released.
I don't know if he'll do that, but it's within reason that it could happen within a week.
And he could definitely...
Get at least something like a ceasefire and some talks going with Ukraine in a week.
So if Putin is not insane, then he just waits a little while and gets most of or everything he wants.
Why would he nuke us?
And why would we nuke them?
When if we just wait a few weeks, we'll probably wrap it up and get at least some of what we want.
So I remind you, it always looks the darkest before the dawn, as they say.
And I get all the things you're seeing, all the scary saber rattling.
But that's just what happens before you do the serious peace talks.
So we have never, ever been safer from an intentional nuclear war.
An accidental one?
I don't know.
Maybe there's something that makes that a little more likely.
But, yeah, now we're nowhere near any kind of nuclear war.
You can stop worrying about that.
You have like a million things that are a bigger problem than that.
That's not the one you need to worry about.
I promise you that you will not be nuked between now and January 20th.
I don't know about after that.
But you're good for now.
Well, let's talk about the nominee.
So P. Hegseth, of course, said 10 anonymous people say that they think he drinks too much and has some bad behaviors, but they were all anonymous.
Huh.
But then I've never seen any one person have more supporters weigh in with their name.
Pretty much...
Well, I don't know if it's all of them, but a whole bunch of people who worked with him every day, like actually sat on the couch next to him in his segments, you know, worked just the two of them for years sometimes.
Everyone who weighed in With their name, said these stories are complete bullshit.
He's totally professional.
He's never smelled of alcohol, never looked like he's had alcohol during the job.
Everybody agrees he's had some drinks a night.
He's had some fun, maybe more fun than he wanted to have.
But not a single one of his co-workers who know him really, really well for years Not one of them who gives their name says that any of this is real.
And there are...
So let me give you a strong opinion on this.
Yesterday I was saying, hmm, how do you weigh, you know, 10 or so anonymous accusations?
If there were only one anonymous accusation, I'd rule it down completely.
If there are 10, you have to at least treat it a little bit seriously.
But once you have 10 people who are in exactly the right place to observe this behavior, and they say clearly and unambiguously and strongly, absolute 100% bullshit.
I think I'm going to go with the Fox News co-workers.
So, you know, I don't know them.
I don't have any personal experience.
But I would say, given the names and the reputations of the people who backed them, I think I'm going to go with them.
Now, I can't know everything, so I don't know what's true.
But if I had to choose, in terms of credibility, the Fox News people who went on the record, strongly, including Bongino, ex-Fox News person, I feel like I trust them.
So I'm going to say that that should not be the reason that he might not get it.
However, there are several senators who have not committed.
Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John Curtis, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, and John Thune.
Does that group of people worry you at all?
Is there anything about that group of people that they have in common?
Because Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, John Thune...
I don't know.
I feel like maybe they're trying to protect the defense people more than they're looking to reform things.
So I don't trust those senators.
And I don't trust anonymous sources.
But I do trust the people from Fox News and the people who worked with them, including a producer who had tons of exposure and are putting their names, they're putting their own reputations on the line for another person.
That's a pretty gutsy thing to do.
So I'm going to go with the guts.
I'm going to go with the brave people of Fox News who said, I'm going to put my reputation on the line and I'm going to back this guy because he's been solid the whole time I've known him.
So, can't know for sure.
That's where I think it's going.
However, of course, there's some worry within the campaign.
Not campaign, but within the future Trump administration.
And according to Just the News and also CNN, people are saying that Ron DeSantis' name has been raised as maybe a safer, easier nominee for Secretary of Defense.
And other names are floating are Bill Hagerty, Senator, and somebody else.
Maybe somebody else.
Here's my take.
Ron DeSantis, have you noticed that he seems capable for almost every job?
Have you noticed that?
When he was running for president, I remember thinking, well, I prefer Trump.
But, you know, clearly DeSantis is qualified.
When we talk about, you know, being a senator or something, of course, of course.
If we talk about him to be the Secretary of Defense, yeah.
We talk about him if he had been nominated for Attorney General.
Yeah.
Yeah.
How about if he had been nominated to be the head of the FBI? Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, I think I have to give a shout out to DeSantis for his talent stack.
Because he's got the military, he's got the legal, and now he has the management of being a governor and succeeded on all fronts.
He basically succeeded in everything he touched, and they were the exact right things to touch.
So he's got a hell of a good package there.
So, I don't know.
If he became the nominee, I don't think we'd be moving backwards.
Maybe Florida would, but I don't think the nominee would be worse.
But I also think P. Hegseth, I like his dedication to getting rid of DEI, and I think that's really important.
But I think DeSantis would do it too.
Meanwhile, it looks like California has finally settled all its voting stuff.
And four weeks after the election, there's another result, which, oh, guess what?
It was too close to call, but they counted until all five of the ones who were too close to call went Democrat.
Now the last one just went Democrat.
Huh.
Five out of five.
Now what are the odds?
That there would be five races when the entire House of Representatives is so close, so close, and all five races, the ones that took a long time, all five went in the same direction.
I'm going to call it rigged.
So let me explain this again.
Do I know for sure that that was rigged?
No.
Is there a court case that suggests that anything here was rigged?
No.
Is it likely that there will be a court case that proves anything was rigged?
No.
I mean, because the court case probably won't happen.
Here's why I say it's rigged.
If you act exactly like it's rigged, I get to say it's rigged.
Those are the rules.
I'm sorry, those are the rules.
If you do everything to make it look rigged, I get to say, well, that looks rigged to me, and I'm going to treat it that way.
So that looks rigged to me, so I'm going to treat it this way.
If you can't count the fucking votes in a month, don't expect me to believe the result when it goes coincidentally, coincidentally like the whistleblowers, coincidentally all in one direction.
No, rigged.
Rigged.
And I'm sorry, that has to be a firm and undeniable opinion.
The truth of it, don't know.
But I know if you act like you're rigging it, and you're acting exactly like you're rigging it, and everything you do looks like it's rigging it, I get to call it rigged.
There's not going to be a debate on that.
Because I get to call it what I get to call it, and you gave me every reason to call it rigged, so I call it rigged.
That's my take.
Do I know?
No.
Don't need to.
It's as bad as if it had been rigged, even if it wasn't.
Because we can't live like this.
We can't have races that we don't know who won.
Alright, here's the part where you're not going to like me.
I know that almost all of you like Kash Patel as a nominee for FBI. Part of why you like him is that he's tough and he's experienced and he's loyal to Trump.
And you know he's going to go after the worst of the bad guys.
I like all of that.
He's definitely smart enough.
And he has all the right, you know, his brain is in the right direction and everything.
But did you know Mediate, which is not a reputable entity, but they've got 60 people that apparently are on Kash Patel's enemies list.
And I think some of them are, some or most of them are listed in the appendix of one of his books.
Now, I'll just read you some of the names.
So these are the ones that Kash Patel thinks needs to be investigated because there's enough evidence that they've done some bad stuff.
Some of these you don't know, but Lloyd Austin, James Baker, Bill Barr, John Bolton...
Joe Biden, John Brennan, Eric Ciarmella, Pat Cipollone, James Clapper, Hillary Clinton, James Comey.
I'm skipping some names that may be less familiar to you.
Mark Esper, Alyssa Farah, Merrick Garland, Stephanie Grisham, Kamala Harris, Gina Haspel, former CIA, Eric Holder, Cassidy Hutchins, Nina Jankiewicz, Loretta Lynch, there's some general, General Kenneth McKenzie, Andrew McCabe.
Man, it's a long list.
I'm skipping a lot.
Ryan McCarthy, General Milley, Robert Mueller.
Bruce Orr, Nellie Orr, Lisa Page, you remember these names from Russia Collusion.
John Podesta, Susan Rice, Rod Rosenstein, Peter Strzok, Jake Sullivan, Andrew Weissman, Alexander Vindman, Christopher Wray, Sally Yates, Adam Schiff.
Now, I think every person whose name I read It feels like a little bit of shifty to me.
But I told you that I'm not going to tolerate lawfare.
I mean, what can I do about it?
It's not like I have anything to do about it.
But I don't have to be in favor of it.
I'm not comfortable.
I'm not comfortable with the head of the FBI having an enemies list.
Nope.
Now, if he'd kept his shit to himself and shared it with the president and said, you know, if you nominate me, I get a long list here and going after them, that'd be fine.
I'd actually be fine with that.
But they better find real crimes.
I am not fine with somebody who has an enemies list that doesn't come paired with what they did wrong.
If this is a real list, and by the way, the first thing you need to know is that this is from Mediaite.
It's not from him, but they say it comes from sources from cash.
So I'll take a fact check on that.
If I got any of the facts wrong, let me know.
But do you want somebody to come in to be the head of the FBI who has a list of people that he's going after?
You okay with that?
I'm going to say no.
I'm going to say no on that.
And by the way, I do think that most of the people that I read have a lot to explain.
But you're going to have to come up with a lot more of a crime before I'm okay putting their names out there and saying that the FBI is going to go after them.
Do I believe that he's done his homework and he has reason to believe that each of them have something to explain?
Yes, probably.
I think he probably did his homework.
But this is not the way to present it to the public.
The public can't see a list of people first because that looks like Stalin.
Show me the list of people.
Oh, it's all your enemies.
Isn't that coincidence?
I'll bet we can find a crime that all of my enemies did.
Nope.
Not cool.
So, I'm going to keep my opinion open for a while.
Open meaning I'm not closing down the idea of supporting cash for that job.
I'm not closing it down.
I'm saying that I need to know more about this.
If in his book, these are the same names in the book, I don't know if this is true, but if the book has, say, a paragraph on each one and a specific list of crimes that are somewhat publicly obviously true, well then okay.
Then it's not really like an enemies list.
It's a description of the situation.
So I'll wait for that because I don't trust Mediaite to just show me the names and have the right names and that he necessarily agrees with all those names.
So I'm undecided on Kash Patel.
No, it doesn't matter because they're not going to make the decision based on what I think.
I think all of you guys need to have the same standard.
I think the standard needs to be that you need to know what the crime is first and then give me the name.
But if you give me the name first and I haven't seen the crime yet, I got questions for you before I have questions for the person you're naming.
Because you're doing something that bothers me and I know you're doing something that I don't like.
I don't know about that person you're talking about.
I'll listen to it.
I'm open to the argument.
And I want to say again, there are people on that list that he's targeted that I really think do need to get targeted.
Some of them.
But I don't know the whole story beyond most of them.
So no lawfare, please.
That would be my take.
You heard that there was a little disruption in South Korea.
Here's what's funny about South Korea.
I always feel like South Korea is held up as an example of a highly functioning democracy, and with a really, real good free market, and their economy is amazing, and so therefore their government must be pretty good, otherwise they couldn't be functioning so well.
Well, so their current president declared martial law, but I guess the parliament tried to get in the building to vote it out.
The military tried to stop them from getting in, but they climbed over the fence and got in and quickly voted on it.
And now the president is obligated to remove it because they voted on it.
And the military has decided to say, alright, we're out.
We're out.
You voted on it.
You said it's the end.
So the military, apparently, gets some credit for not only keeping some kind of stability...
But when there was a democratic process, even though they tried to stop it, it looks like they're just obeying orders at this point and trying to do the right thing.
But here's what I didn't know.
I saw this list from a few different accounts.
Insurrection Barbie had it and some others.
Here are some of the past presidents of South Korea.
Now, I won't mention all their names because you've never heard of them.
So there are 13 of them.
And all I'm going to tell you is what happened to them.
All right?
So the first one, Syngman Rhee, he was overthrown.
The next one was overthrown.
Then the next one was assassinated.
And I'll just go down the list.
Removed by military coup.
Sentenced to death after his presidency.
Sentenced to 22 years in prison after his presidency.
Imprisoned during the term of president number three.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Convictions, blah, blah, blah.
Imprisoned under President No.
3 and sentenced to death under President No.
5, later pardoned and winning a Nobel Prize.
Impeached, later overturned.
Investigated for corruption.
Committed suicide.
Arrested for corruption.
Sentenced to 15 years.
Impeached and arrested for corruption.
Sentenced to 24 years.
Recent president.
Oh, not bad.
So Moon Jae-in, recent president, no imprisonment.
Well, good for you.
And then Yoon Suk-yeol, must be the new one, the current one.
Impeachment likely.
Now, look at the state of their government, which looks like a hot mess and always has been.
And somehow they're rocking the best economy short of, what, Japan or something?
I mean, the stability of their society and their lifestyle and everything.
How in the world does any of that work when their government is such a hot mess?
Maybe it tells us the government is not part of the solution.
Anyway, I saw a clip on this.
You know, we all know that Bernie got cheated by Hillary Clinton when he was running for 2016. But did you know that Bernie won every county in West Virginia?
And he won every county.
And then West Virginia went to Hillary.
Did you know that?
Let me say that again.
It's a fact that nobody disputes, so that there's no dispute, that West Virginia, 100% of the counties voted for Bernie, but the superdelegates decided they'd just give it to Hillary Clinton instead.
That's the actual real thing that happened while we were all watching.
Now, the rules allow that because they have these things called superdelegates that can just overrule the regular people.
But if you have superdelegates, then the actual primary is just for show because the superdelegates will decide who the candidate is.
So I wouldn't call the Democrat Party a Democratic Party.
The Democrats are more like a, I don't know, some kind of a...
I'd call them sort of a face for some large entities that need the government to do what they want them to do.
Certainly not democratic in nature.
Well, if you haven't seen the entire Mike Benz appearance on Joe Rogan, I can't even recommend it high enough.
Because a lot of the bad things that are happening that you don't understand is because they're hidden in complexity.
The complexity of all the different funded organizations and how they're related and who's on what and who told who to do what and what they want out of it and all that.
It's amazingly complicated.
But But Benz has that exact kind of brain where he can dig into it and explain it to you.
And when he does, your head will just explode.
And by the way, I don't think there's anything that Mike Benz presents that isn't documented.
In other words, he'll show you the official government document.
He'll show you their budget.
He'll show you their mission statement.
He'll show you a video of them talking.
It's all...
None of it's made up.
But the basic idea is that the US always has been.
Well, at least in modern history.
We have apparently learned that since we have the most money, We don't have to conquer other countries with our military because that's the expensive way to do it.
If you have enough money, you can just buy enough support to control any country if it's smaller than you.
So it doesn't work with Russia.
So that's why you end up with a big Ukraine war.
But with anybody smaller, we can just bribe them, blackmail them, just do all the CIA stuff that they do, murder somebody, that sort of thing.
We can fund the rebels, make sure they have better weapons.
So...
I didn't realize that there's a group called USAID, which is cleverly named so you think it's something about helping other countries, but the AID has nothing to do with aiding other countries.
It's literally an enormous $50 billion budget situation for influencing other countries.
And when I say influencing, I mean controlling, right?
I'm not talking about nudging.
We're talking about just outright controlling them.
And the entire intelligence community is only at 72 billion.
And some people say the 50 billion is understated because there might be other things that contribute to what they're doing.
So we have this enormous, enormous expense, sort of this black box of bad behavior that's basically a CIA asset to control other countries.
And I think a lot of these tools got turned back internally because they had to stop anything that was a populist movement.
And when you hear Ben describe how the idea of democracy...
And changed from being what you would expect a populist would be.
You think Trump is the ultimate democracy person because he's backed by the most people.
And it's what the people want as opposed to the big moneyed interests and the elites.
That's about as democratic as you can get.
People vote for you and you do stuff for people.
The Democrats apparently have redefined democracy as supporting democratic institutions, meaning if you complain about the COVID shot, You're complaining against the healthcare institutions, and that's anti-democratic.
So anything you complain about that's a function or a department or any part of our democratic process makes you anti-democratic.
So when Trump wants to come in and doge the government and get rid of stuff, he's getting rid of departments.
But to Democrats, that's the same as getting rid of democracy.
Because to the Democrats, the democracy is the big organizations.
That's what's keeping things together.
So I'd never heard that framing of it, but it's pretty interesting.
And once you learn that the entire Ukraine situation is nothing at all like the news has told you, But rather, the entire operation was a way to steal energy.
Essentially, the economy of Russia depends on energy.
And a lot of it runs through Ukraine.
So the idea was, this is according to Ben's, the idea was that Ukraine also has its own large stores of energy.
It's like the third biggest or something.
But it's unexploited.
So if we could, the West and the U.S., could control Ukraine, They already have the pipelines, but if you could get them also to produce the energy, then you don't need Russia.
So Russia needed the access and the pipelines in Ukraine, and the US thought, hmm, wouldn't it be good if we had the access and the pipelines so Europe could get all of its supplies, but wouldn't it be great if the country that we control, like Ukraine, was the one with all the energy?
So you can see why Putin's not going to give up.
And you can see why we didn't give up.
Because it's a trillion dollar thing.
And a lot of the people involved have their beak in it.
So people are getting a taste.
So anytime you can move a trillion dollars around, you can have all these people who are figuring out how to carve out their billion from the trillion.
And they're not going to want to stop it.
So you should see Ukraine as nothing but an energy deal for a bunch of rich people that might get you killed and got 600,000 Ukrainians killed, maybe the same number of Russians killed,
and that The people involved are pretending that this is about something else, you know, national defense and NATO and all that, but really it's about who gets to produce the oil and the gas and collect the checks.
And Burisma apparently was key, central to the whole plan of the US controlling Ukraine, and they would boost Burisma to be the main You know, main energy company that we would control, and that that was why Hunter was part of it.
So Hunter then, under this telling, would be an important part of the CIA's mission, and probably there was never any chance he could have gone to jail, whether Biden had pardoned him or not.
If he was working for the CIA, I'm pretty sure they would have found some way that he wasn't going to go to jail.
Because it does look like he was genuinely working for the CIA. Now, he was also trying to line his own pockets, and the CIA probably knew that the Biden crime family was a perfect fit for their plans.
But, yeah, I don't think there was any chance he was ever going to go to jail.
So, you just have to listen to those clips.
It's the most mind-blowing thing you'll hear.
According to the Amuse account on X, Trump made a big mistake by agreeing to let the FBI vet his appointees.
Now, vetting means checking their background, and that does give the FBI the ability to say or not say things that they find, which gives the FBI a lot of control over whether the nominees go forward.
Do you think that that feels comfortable to you?
The FBI, the very entity that will be most targeted by his nominees, are going to be the ones who tell you who the nominee can be?
What?
I don't know how that possibly works.
So, I'll keep an eye on that, but I agree with the Amuse account that that doesn't look good.
Let's see.
According to, speaking of Kash Patel, he noted on a recent video I saw that the January 6th committee, when they took his deposition, he put five government reports into his testimony, and then when he saw what they had later, they had eliminated them.
Two of the documents were exonerating, would have exonerated Trump.
Because they involved Mayor Bowser and Pelosi and what they were saying about the National Guard.
Basically, you can see that Trump always wanted the National Guard.
Trump always wanted peace.
No indication that he wanted trouble.
In fact, he wanted the opposite.
He wanted peace and he wanted to make sure there was enough security.
And that Bowser and Pelosi may have not been on the same page.
Meaning it was more their fault than his.
And this is why I think all the January Sixers need to be pardoned without regard to how bad their crimes were.
Because...
If you don't know that the government was behind instigating the trouble, and this clearly indicates that there were two people who could have increased the security to the point where nobody got hurt, or fewer people got hurt, and decided not to, for whatever reason, don't know yet.
Presumably to make it look worse for Trump, but we don't know that.
So, Assuming it's true that the January 6th committee intentionally essentially altered his testimony by removing big parts of it, that feels jailable, doesn't it?
I don't know exactly what law that would be violating, but if somebody testifies under oath in an official proceeding and then you decide to hide some of the good stuff, the stuff that would be opposite of your narrative, There must be some law against that, isn't there?
So that's the sort of thing where I don't necessarily want to put the names of the people on a hit list, but you certainly start with the January 6th committee if you're going to be asking some questions as the new head of the FBI. All right.
According to...
Project Veritas, as I told you, you know, Biden is trying to Trump-proof the administration.
But there's some guy who works for the EPA, and Project Veritas caught him on a hidden camera.
And he's saying that they've got an insurance policy against Trump and that they're funneling billions to climate organizations.
And he said, quote, we're throwing gold bars off the Titanic.
To get the money out as fast as possible.
Now, do you think that the reason they're trying to get this money out as fast as possible, especially for the green initiatives, is because they want to save the planet and they know they have to hurry.
And if Trump gets in there, they won't be able to save the planet.
I don't think so.
There may be some people thinking that way.
But no, my guess is that when you have lots of money to throw around, that there are a bunch of Democrats waiting to get their beak wet and get their cut.
And if you don't allocate the money, they won't get their cut.
So this is everything about getting the cut and nothing about the economy.
So it's theft.
Not basically, it's just theft.
It might not be illegal, but But I don't see it as anything but theft.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I wanted to tell you today.
Besides, have you purchased your Dilbert calendar?
There's still time to get it before Christmas.
If you order it now, the only place you can find the place to order it is on Dilbert.com.
You won't find it online anywhere else.
Go to Dilbert.com and right at the top, just click on the calendar.
It'll take you to the sales page.
And I remind you, it's twice as many comics and made in America now.
For the first time, made in America.
And there are comics on the back of each page in the front.
And on the back, there's all the spicy ones that have never been published outside of subscription services.
So they're going like crazy.
So I would make sure that you get your order in so you can make sure you get it by Christmas.
You still have time.
All right, I'm going to say hi to the local subscribers, all five, how many of you?
