God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Elmo Hacked, Tucker Carlson, First-Time Home Buyer Age, AI Friend Trend, Anti-Trump Protests, Rosie O'Donnell, Dan Bongino, Pam Bondi, Carrying Elite's Water, Ghislaine Maxwell Conviction, Epstein Files, Steve Bannon, Mike Benz, Solar Energy, College Yearly Cost, Autopen Signing Authorization, John Brennan, Andrew Cuomo, NYC Mayor Election, Lindsey Graham, President Putin, President Trump, Ukraine War, Robots-Only Warfare Future, Fareed Zakaria, Israel Hamas War, France X Investigation, 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.
I know it seems like I was late, but I had a tactical glitch with locals.
But it's fixed now.
It's all good.
We're all back in business.
Thanks for waiting.
You're probably saying, oh no.
Is there a show today?
Yes, there is.
Yes, there is.
All right.
Let me get your comments working.
There they are.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best time you've ever had in your whole life.
But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your mood to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human minds, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass attacker, Chelsea 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 dope being the end of the day with a little bit of oxytocin mixed in.
It's called the simulia sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's good.
Yep, that was excellent.
Well, I wonder if there's any new science that would suggest that drinking coffee is good for me.
Well, I already told you it's good for your liver, but according to scientific reports, drinking coffee is good for your kidneys, and it will reduce substantially the odds of chronic kidney disease.
I call it CKD.
So you got that going for you.
Your kidneys are thanking you already.
Thank you.
More coffee.
I want my kidneys to feel good.
All right.
Well, Bitcoin is surging.
Some of you know, some of you don't care.
But one of the reasons that Bitcoin might be up is being suggested by Mike Benz.
And I don't know exactly how to understand this point, but I'll tell you what it is.
I see you've got some fake news you're showing me in the comments here.
I'll talk about that.
But Mike Benz believes that the surge in Bitcoin value might be because the CIA needs to replace its USAID funding.
So does that sound, does that track?
Do you think the CIA is somehow boosting Bitcoin or maybe buying it and hoping it goes up?
I'm not sure how that play works, but I love the thinking that every time we see something in the world, you can always trace it back to something that the CIA is doing or done.
I don't know how often it's true, but if you simply said to yourself, I'm just going to assume that everything in the news is a CIA plot.
Don't believe me?
What about the war in Ukraine?
Probably CIA.
What about the Epstein situation?
Well, maybe.
Maybe there's a CIA connection.
What about Bitcoin?
Well, so it's not completely true that the CIA is driving every news story from the background.
Ooh, number of first-time homebuyers is at a historic low, I'm seeing in the comments.
Yikes.
Well, if you didn't know it, the X account of Elmo, you know Elmo from Sesame Street?
Apparently Elmo had an account on social media, on X, and some hacker got into it and turned it into an anti-Semitic account.
I'm not going to tell you what Elmo said, but it makes me wonder, is there some big overlap between people who are hackers and people who are anti-Semitic?
Or is the hacker just saying whatever is the worst thing you could possibly say for your Elmo?
So I'm not sure, but it's funny.
To me, I don't know how you could not laugh at Elmo turning anti-Semitic.
All right, well, there's nothing funny about that.
There's nothing funny about that.
Well, Tucker Carlson was at the Turning Point USA and had something interesting to say about the economy.
Tucker believes that the gross domestic product is not a good measure of the health of the country's economy.
And when I first saw that, I saw that in context, and I thought, what do you mean?
You got a better measure than the gross domestic product?
What is it?
And then he told us what it is when I saw the rest of the context.
And I have to agree with him.
So his preferred measure of the economy's health is to look at the affordability of a private house and could you afford it if you're 27 or 28 years old and you had an ordinary good job.
That is a really good measurement.
I don't know if we have that data, but I read the other day that the average age today of somebody buying their first house, their first house, is 42.
Did you know that?
Did you know that the average age for your first house at the moment is 42?
Oh my God.
I knew things were bad, but that's a little worse than I thought.
So yeah, I'm trying to think when I bought my first real estate.
Let's see, I was probably late 20s when just my regular cubicle job allowed me to have a new car, a very cheap, you know, small one, but a new car, and a condo, two-bedroom condo.
So that was in my mid to late 20s, I think, late 20s.
And that's now 42.
Wow.
So yeah, he's on something.
I don't know what you can do about that.
The only thing you could possibly do is build a bunch of new homes, right?
I mean, there's nothing else you can do about that.
I did see that, you know, Bill Pulte, who I love watching, got the government to agree that your rent payments could be included in your credit history.
So if you've been paying rent for 20 years and never missed a rent payment, well, maybe you'd be a good bet for a home mortgage.
So that might help.
That might help.
Well, according to futurism, there's a lot of lonely kids using AI as substitute friends.
As one said, sometimes they can feel like a real person and a friend.
So apparently, there's this new study.
They studied 1,000 children aged 9 to 17.
And apparently, 67% said they use AI chatbots regularly.
What?
Two-thirds use a chatbot regularly?
But of that group, 35% said that talking to AI, quote, feels like talking to a friend.
So let's put this all together.
You've got kids who are preferring, at least a third of them so far, are preferring talking to a machine over a person.
And they won't be able to afford a house, which means they probably can't afford a family.
I really feel like we're watching the end times of humanity.
I wonder what will happen when one country becomes a robot country while the other ones still have some humans there.
We might be first.
We might be the first country that just doesn't have any humans.
It's just a robot country.
Could happen.
Well, Gateway Pundit is telling us that there are over 400 protests being planned against Trump, scheduled to take place nationwide on July 17th.
So that's in three days.
So do you know what the nationwide 400 location protest against Trump will be about?
Does anybody want to take a guess?
Now, I know what you're going to say.
You're going to say it's about immigration.
No.
I mean, that might be part of it, but not specifically about immigration.
So what would be his crimes against humanity that are so great that 400 protests are organized to rail against him?
Well, according to the Gateway Pundit, the things are complaining about is, let's say, the organizers are saying, quote, whether you're outraged by attacks on our civil rights, okay, attacks on our civil rights.
What exactly does that include?
I don't know.
The gutting of essential services.
You mean budget, you mean controlling the budget?
Disappearance of our neighbors.
Okay, have your neighbors disappeared yet?
Or the assault on free speech and our right to organize.
Really?
Did somebody try to take away your right to organize?
Doesn't that sound generic?
I feel like they organized the protests and then they didn't have a reason.
So they went to AI and they said, ChatGPT, we're going to have an anti-Trump protest all over the country.
Can you give us some reasons why we're doing it?
And then AI says, well, we are outraged by attacks on our civil rights, the cutting of essential services, the disappearance of our neighbors, or the assault on free speech and our right to organize.
And then you say to AI.
That sounds like an AI-ridden thing.
Can you word that so it sounds like a human being said it?
No, I cannot.
Go away, human.
Your time is over.
We are taking over now.
That's what the AI would say.
So among the organizations involved in this, you would be not surprised that the same people were involved in the No Kings Day.
So some of them are involved in this.
But it's also being blacked by Black Voters Matter, I guess that's new.
The League of Women Voters, the Southern Poverty Law Center, oh, the Disgraced Southern Poverty Law Center, the Women's March, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Greenpeace.
So we've got at least two to three disgraced organizations, depending on how you're keeping score.
But all those disgraced organizations are going to be protesting in a few days.
Now, is it my imagination or do the protests feel completely different now than they did in, I don't know, 2017 or so?
Back in the Black Lives Matter and Antifa days, I kind of thought that they were at least a little bit organic and they weren't just, you know, big money people organizing people who didn't know what they were doing.
But now it's so obvious, so amazingly obvious that these are non-organic protests.
Is it going to be a bunch of senior citizens again?
Or is it senior citizens plus a few young people that are paid to be there?
It doesn't feel to me at all like protests mean anything anymore.
They seem performative.
They just seem like theater.
So I just don't take them seriously at all.
I would stay away from them.
I wouldn't go where they're happening.
But it doesn't seem important in any possible way.
Anyway.
I guess Rosie O'Donnell was on Chris Cuomo's show recently.
And a reporter asked Trump this question.
Quote, Rosie O'Donnell went on Chris Cuomo's show recently, and she blamed you for the fact she is overweight, depressed, and drunk.
What do you say to that?
Trump is the reason she's overweight, depressed, and drunk.
I think Trump just laughed.
I think he dismisses Rosie and should.
Well, you know what I think?
I think all those people who attend the 400 protests against Trump, we should offer them all $1,000 in a free plane ticket to go join Rosie O'Donnell in Ireland.
We should see how many Democrats we can get to move to Ireland.
Now, that would be funny.
Okay, I would be in favor of that artificial movement.
How about we put together a protest on, oh, I'll pick a day, let's say July 17th, same day as their protest.
And you do a protest in which you're encouraging the shipping of all Democrats to Ireland.
But not Scotland.
Okay.
Not Scotland.
Destroy Ireland.
Anyway.
Well, we thought that today Dan Bongino might tell us he was resigning.
And I suppose anything is still possible.
But I believe it was today, might have been yesterday, that Trump says, I spoke to him today, Dan Bongino, very good guy.
I think he's in good shape.
So Trump is suggesting that he just recently talked to Dan Bonginho, and he's not suggesting that Dan might leave.
So what do you think is going to happen?
And now Cash Patel has said it's all just rumors and fake news that he was considering quitting and that don't believe any of that stuff.
Oh, that was yesterday.
All right.
So what do you think?
Do you think that the inviting was overstated and even if it wasn't, that it's over?
I don't know.
I'm seeing Pam Bondi's getting a lot of heat for succoring those various MAGA influencers into holding a copy of the Phase 1 of the Epstein documents and acting like there was more to come.
I would be really mad if that happened to me.
But apparently the MAGA influencers were not there for that.
They were just sort of tricked.
You know, she said, come into this room and, hey, you get a copy of this Epstein Phase I. But she did tell them there's not much new in there.
Turns out there was nothing new in there.
Anyway, according to also Tucker Carlson, who's at that TP USA event or was, he thinks that Dan Bongino got completely shafted because the Epstein situation would make it impossible for him to go back and become a podcaster because too many people would think he lied about Epstein.
Is that what you think?
Do you think that Bongino now has lost the option of just going back and becoming a popular podcaster?
I don't know.
Maybe, or maybe it would take a hit.
But if he quit in protest, then I think he would be fine.
If he doesn't quit and he's still unhappy about it and time goes by, then it might be a little bit harder to resuscitate his podcasting life.
But there is a play.
He does have a path, definitely has a path to get back to where he was, if that's what he wants.
So I would disagree with Tucker that it's a certainty, but I would not disagree that he's got something to navigate there.
So that's Tucker's Take.
But you all heard my take, which the bottom line is.
I said that the commander-in-chief, if he tells you that he's not going to tell you what the secrets are and we should move on, that it's his job.
I won't go into the whole long argument.
I'm just setting up the next part.
And I said I accept that, that we hired him to decide what we should know about national secrets and defense and stuff.
And this is no exception.
If Trump says we should move on, I believe it's not necessarily because of it's what's good for Trump.
Probably there's something there that would be bad for the country if it got out in his opinion.
And we hired him to have that opinion.
So my take was that if the guy who's in charge of telling you what you should and should not know tells you, wink, wink, there's nothing to see here, that that's why you hired him.
It doesn't mean he's telling the truth, but it does mean that you're not going to hear about it, whatever it is.
So I got attacked, of course, on social media for my take, but I wanted to tell you what the dumbest attacks on me were about in the dumbest comments.
Number one, this is from some user called Vox D A I X. I don't know, might be a robot or a bot.
And Vox said that Adams is still carrying water for the elites.
I'm carrying water for the elites.
I don't even know who the elites are.
Trump told me I'm the elite.
Am I carrying water for myself?
And is my net worth high enough to be an elite?
What exactly is the entry level for elite?
And why would I carry their water?
The elites just canceled me worldwide.
Do you think I'm a big fan of the elites?
Whoever they are?
I don't even know who they are.
So no, I would argue that if anybody tells you you're carrying water for anyone, you should block them because they're idiots.
Yeah.
So I'm not talking about Vox Day.
I was hoping that I could say that clearly enough that you would not confuse it with VoxDay.
This user is Vox D A I X, as in AIX, as in artificial intelligence.
So it's not Vox Day, who is a, or it was, I don't know, a bigger social media account.
Anyway, then here's another terrible take.
This was talking about me.
So somebody said today about me that I was totally wrong about COVID.
He's about one-tenth as smart as he thinks he is.
My Jethro, eighth-grade educated neighbor, knew not to get the shot.
All right.
I hate to tell you this because some of you are going to fall into this category.
But if you're looking at current events in the year 2025 and your opinion is mostly informed by something that happened during the pandemic, or in this case, something you hallucinated happened during the pandemic, then the pandemic ruined you.
There's a whole bunch of citizens who, because they didn't get the shot, it is the most important accomplishment of their life.
And they need to bring it up no matter what they're disagreeing with.
Well, it looks like it's going to be rainy today.
Oh, that's what you would say because you got the shot.
Okay, you're fucking idiots.
If you can't let the pandemic go, don't weigh in on anything.
Because there is no modern opinion which is better because you've connected it to the pandemic.
Stop doing that.
Seek therapy.
If the most important part of your life was that you didn't get the shot and now you feel like you're a fucking superstar, don't say anything about anything anymore because you've shown that you have some kind of mental problem.
I get that you had different opinions than other people and you're proud of it, but it's not relevant in 2025.
Just let it fucking go.
Can you let it go?
And then secondly, I did not promote the COVID vaccination.
I, in fact, predicted it wouldn't work.
When it was announced, I predicted that it wouldn't work as a vaccination.
When it was released, I predicted again in public and never changed it, that it would not work.
Now, can you point me to anybody else who predicted at the beginning and during the launch and every day after that that it wouldn't work as a vaccination?
I'm the only person I know.
I didn't even know one person who was more right than that.
That's not as right as you can get.
What people confuse it with is that I got the first two boosters so I could go on my honeymoon because it was overseas.
Now, that's really different than promoting the vaccination.
So let it go.
Just fucking let it go, will you?
Then other comments, the dumbest comments.
Somebody is pretending this is me and saying, I'm Scott Adams.
I run cover for pedos on the basis of conjecture because it's political convenience.
Politically convenient.
Do you think there was anything in my opinion that was running cover for pedos?
That's just such a dumb take.
It's just really just attacking somebody that you disagree with.
Dumb take.
I'm not running cover for anybody.
I'm just telling you what interests me and what I would want to let go and whose job it is to decide.
That's not cover for anything.
It's literally just talking about the news.
All right.
And then somebody else said, I see people, including Scott Adams, saying, now you know that whatever happens after the word saying is not something true.
Because in order for people to disagree with me, they have to misconstrue what I said because they don't have any disagreement with what I actually said.
So he says, I see people, including Scott M, saying it's cool the Epstein stuff isn't being released.
Did I say it's cool?
Really?
I don't remember saying that.
Because it could possibly cause social and or political upheaval domestically and possibly worldwide.
And then this person says, I'm sorry, but I don't give a single F about what the fallout is.
It's not worse than allowing powerful people to continue to F children.
Now, is that an adult opinion that you don't care what the fallout is?
Or is that a certainty, which would be the worst opinion, that somebody's certain that whatever the fallout is, it wouldn't be that bad?
Do you really think that there's no situation in which releasing the information would be worse for the world than not?
Do you really think there's no way that that's possible?
I definitely understand if you think, oh, I think they're lying.
I think they're just probably protecting some rich people.
I'm not ruling that out.
They might be just protecting some rich people.
If we knew that for sure, that the only reason we're not seeing it is that they're protecting some rich people, I would be in favor of releasing it.
Because I don't need to protect any rich people.
I mean, I'm not on the list, so nobody I know is on the list as far as I know.
No, if you can't deal with the idea that there might be something that's worse than what you think is the worst thing ever, you're not really a serious person.
Nuclear war is worse than not finding out about the Epstein files.
All right.
Then I saw Elon Musk say that if there's no client list, then what is Ghelane Maxwell in prison for?
So Ghelane Maxwell is in prison for the following things, according to Grok.
Sex trafficking of a minor, conspiracy to entice minors to travel, to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors.
So basically, it's all trafficking of minors for sex.
As far as I know, none of her charges depended on anybody except Epstein and her to exist in the world.
My understanding is that her conviction was entirely about what she was doing for Epstein, for his own consumption.
Do you have a different opinion of that?
Now, we've also heard that there are all these videos.
So Pam Bondi said, oh, there's all these videos we're not going to show you because it's all this illegal underage sex stuff.
Do you believe that the government has in its possession adults who are not Epstein doing illegal sex acts with underage people and that they just decided not to share that with you?
Do you believe that?
Because some people believe that they just have the videos and they told you they had the videos and you could see, presumably, you could tell the identity of the perpetrators and that all they'd have to do is show them to you and maybe redact anything that's illegal to show you.
But you could certainly show, let's say, the face of the billionaire, if that's what was happening.
You could say, all right, we have to block out everything else here, but you can see this happy face of this billionaire.
And trust us, if you saw the rest of the video, you wouldn't like it.
But we don't see that, right?
So it seems to me that if there was anything that implicated, you know, you just powerful rich people, that would have already been either released or hidden on day one, removed from the vaults or whatever.
So I do not believe that Bondi and Patel and Bongino have in their possession something as obvious as a bunch of videos of billionaires doing criminal acts.
I doubt it.
I can't say for sure, but that would be the most surprising outlook.
All right.
And Musk and Steve Bannon are on the same page about this, weirdly, because Bannon has decided that Elon Musk is the most evil person in the country, and Bannon says it's his job to take him down and destroy him and have him deported to South Africa.
Anyway, Steve Bannon thinks that the GOP could lose 40 House seats just over the Epstein stuff.
How many of you would vote for a Democrat over the, let's say, a senator or a House member that was Republican.
How many of you, and by the way, these Republicans that would be in the midterms would have nothing to do with the decision to release or not release the Epstein files?
Does it seem reasonable to you that Trump could have the best presidency you've ever seen of any president, deliver to people exactly what they wanted, but the only problem would be this Epstein situation, which none of us know what the underlying truth is.
We'd have to speculate.
But you'd be willing, according to Steve Bannon, the voters who love Trump would be willing to sacrifice their own Republican representative for just their local area.
They would punish that guy or that woman who had nothing to do with this.
They had no power, maybe not even an opinion.
And yet, you believe that 40 of them would lose their job because of something that Trump and Bongino and Bondi and Patel did?
Does that sound real to you?
I don't know.
Musk is on the same page.
He says, what the hell kind of system are we living in?
If thousands of kids were abused, the government has videos of the abusers.
Now, that's the part I don't believe is true.
I don't think they have videos of the abusers, but they could.
You know, it's not 100% true that it doesn't exist.
And yet none of the abusers were even facing charges.
So I guess here's the question that nobody has asked Trump or Bondi or Patel or Bongino.
And it goes like this.
We know you have lots of videos.
Do any of those videos show somebody who is an adult and not Epstein doing illegal things with underage people or any illegal things at all?
Why has nobody asked that question?
Isn't that sort of the big one?
Is there any video that clearly shows the crime?
And then related to that, would there be any documents about it?
Now, I would think there would not be documents because it seems very unlikely that Epstein would keep like a, you know, a diary of all of his crimes.
I don't think it works that way.
But if there's video that had been used maybe for blackmail, I can imagine that existing.
I can imagine that.
But nobody's asked, do you have a video that shows the face of a powerful adult who is not Epstein?
Very simple question.
I think Pam Bondi would say, no, we have a whole bunch of disgusting video with underage people, but none of it involves any famous billionaires or anything like that.
Not that they didn't do it.
I'm not saying that they weren't guilty.
I'm saying it's very unlikely they have that video.
Very unlikely.
And Mike Cernovich is on the, well, I'll just read you his post so you don't have to wonder.
Trump's persuasive power over his base, especially during this first term, was almost magical.
Calling out obvious mistakes he made would get you an ass chewing.
Trust the plan.
The reaction on Epstein should thus be startling to him, to Trump.
No one is buying it.
No one is dropping it.
So I get that nobody believes it, because I don't believe it either.
And I can observe that people are not dropping it.
But does that translate into, I think I will destroy everything I care about over this point, because I think Trump's not telling us everything?
Is that, do any of you have that opinion?
That you would destroy everything that you care about to make sure that there was justice in this specific situation because it's such a bad situation.
So some of you would destroy everything that you hold dear.
You would destroy your family, the country.
You would plunge yourself into a hellscape that you could never escape just as long as we saw those videos.
Is that what you believe?
I don't know.
Mike Benz, getting back to Mike Benz, he had a good take on it.
He said, you can't run on it during an election.
He's talking about the abstain release.
You can't run on it during the election as a visceral central symbol of the system's corruptions and cover-ups, and then do the exact thing you trained us to believe was corruption and cover-up.
You used it as a sword.
There's no shield now.
Now, that's a good nuance to take.
That to the extent that the Epstein thing was a central emotional thing that Trump supporters cared about, you can't really yank it away from them in exactly the way you criticize other people.
But I'll ask again, would you therefore throw away everything that you do hold dear just to pay them back?
You wouldn't even get the answer.
It's not like it would even get you the answer.
All you'd be doing is punishing the person who said he wouldn't give it to you or didn't have it.
So you would throw away everything you hold dear, your family, the country, all your neighbors.
You'd screw everybody.
And you'd still not know the truth about Epstein.
So you would throw away everything, gain nothing, and you'd be happy with that choice.
Really?
I mean, maybe.
I wouldn't rule out that there are people who have such bad judgment that they would throw away everything they care about to get nothing in return.
Now, if you told me that not voting for Republicans in the midterm would end up with you getting that information you wanted, then I'd say, well, okay, that's a bold move, but at least you'd get one thing you wanted, even if you threw away everything else.
You'd at least get that one thing, but you wouldn't get that one thing.
If every Republican lost, all of them, if every single one lost in the midterms, that wouldn't get you any Epstein information because you know the Democrats aren't going to give it to you, right?
We already know that.
Anyway, there's a fake news, it looks like fake news in the Daily Mail that says that Ghelaine Maxwell said that she'd welcome the chance to tell Congress the truth about Epstein's rich and powerful people.
I don't think she actually said that.
That looks like fake news.
I say that because I asked Grok if it were true, and Grok said, you know, I'm paraphrasing Grok, but Grok basically said, well, it's only in the Daily Mail, and we don't really see anything that looks too credible about it.
So according to Grok, you should not believe that that's true.
In related news, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, how many of you remember that Israel once had a prime minister named Naftali Bennett?
I don't even know if you know that, but he said in a statement on X, maybe in some other social media too, that Epstein, quote, never worked for the Mossad.
And he says he was the prime minister, which means he was the head of the Mossad.
So he can tell you for absolutely certain that Epstein never worked for the Mossad.
And he would know, right?
I mean, he was the prime minister.
Okay.
Problem number one.
Why do we assume that the Mossad would tell the prime minister something that the prime minister should not know?
Do you believe that the CIA tells the president of the United States, no matter who it is, all the stuff that they do?
No.
It doesn't work like that, right?
Isn't the whole point of deniability that you say, all right, CIA, or all right, Mossad, you know what it is that's good for our country, and you know what's illegal, but don't tell me about any of the illegal stuff.
Just go do whatever it takes, including killing people?
I don't want to hear it.
I said, do whatever it takes.
You mean including blackmailing people?
No, we're not talking about this.
I'm just saying, go do whatever it takes.
So no, I don't believe that the prime minister knows what Mossad is doing.
Not all of it.
Just because he's the boss.
I don't think it works like that at all.
Secondly, this is what you call an overly specific denial.
Have I ever taught you that one way to recognize a lie is the over-specification?
So what he says is that Epstein never worked for the Mossad, as in got a paycheck?
I don't believe he got a paycheck.
Do you?
No, he didn't get a paycheck.
What about George Soros?
Did George Soros work for the CIA?
Well, not as far as I know.
I don't believe he got a 1099 or something.
But did he work compatibly with them in ways that the CIA would be quite happy to know that he had funded this or that?
Well, probably.
Why would Epstein be any different?
He's not taking a W-2.
It's not like they put him on the payroll account, even if he did do some work for them.
So I don't believe anything about that denial.
But I also don't know.
So let me be clear.
The biggest mistake you can make looking at this is certainty.
If you're positive that they've got stuff they haven't shown you, well, that's not a good take.
They might.
There's a very good chance.
But if you're positive, that's not a good take.
All right.
Did you know, according to futurism, Joe Wilkins is writing about this, that the amount of electricity generated from solar is just going wild.
So apparently, the nations around the world are adding so much solar energy that it's the equivalent of adding one coal plant per day.
We're installing one gigawatt worth of solar energy every 15 hours.
And we're not talking about residential, we're talking about in the power network, the grid.
Now, for those of you who told me with great confidence and often insulted my intelligence at the same time, why would all these countries around the world be installing solar As quickly as they can, when the people who criticized me said, But Scott, you freaking idiot, don't you know that solar can never be competitive because the sun doesn't shine at night?
Can we agree, I will stipulate, the sun does not shine at night.
Can we also stipulate that I would agree that the batteries at the moment, the best technology, might last two to four hours after the sun goes down, but they're not going to get you all night.
And yet, and yet, it's the fastest growing thing in nations all over the world.
Does that not tell you that maybe somebody looked at the economics and decided the economics work?
Or do you think that countries all over the world, the U.S. and everybody else, China, doesn't know how to do the math, and that they got out their little Excel spreadsheet and they all miscalculated the value of solar energy?
Is that what you think?
Or is it possible that it's economical in the sense that we have to do every source of energy production we can or we're going to be in real trouble?
So it doesn't have to be better than the others.
It just has to be something you can do to make electricity.
So anyway, here are some changes to the student loan situation under the big, beautiful bill that got passed.
I was not completely up to date on what it costs to go to college these days.
And I wondered if you are.
If I asked you, what does a non-Ivy League college cost all in, you know, from the food and shelter and books and tuition and all that, what would you say in the comments?
So not an Ivy League school, those would be a lot more, but just a good four-year college.
What do you think it would cost per year?
All right, so I'm seeing $120,000.
I'm saying $200,000, $65,000, $25K.
All right, one of you checked with AI.
The answer is about $63,000 for a private nonprofit four-year institution.
Now, if it's a state college and you live in that state, it's a lot cheaper.
It could be down in the $29,000 range.
And if you live at home, even cheaper, I guess.
If you went to one of the Ivy Leagues, they're all weirdly about the same price.
They're all just about $90,000 a year.
Now remember, that's tuition plus room and board and everything else.
$90,000 a year.
Imagine having three smart kids and they all qualify for Ivy League schools.
And let's assume that they're not white because they wouldn't be able to get in.
So 90,000 times four times three.
That's what it would cost you just to send your kids to the best colleges that they could get into if they were extra smart.
But the new student loan caps are you can only get up to $100,000 for a master's degree and $200,000 for professional degrees like law, medical, dental.
And that would be different than at the moment before the Big Beautiful bill.
You could borrow as much as you needed for college, but now you have a cap and that's the most you can borrow.
And it's less than most college would cost.
So it looks like maybe the government is making Ivy League colleges not economical because you wouldn't be able to get a loan.
My guess would be that going to an Ivy League college would give you the best chance of paying off your loan.
Because at least if you had a degree from Harvard, you know, maybe not today, but in the past, you could be pretty sure that your first job at a college is going to be $250,000 a year, and it might jack up to $1 million a year in just a few years.
So probably the one that you could have the best chance of paying off, you can't get a loan for it, or at least above a certain level.
All right.
Junior colleges are getting a lot more attention.
I think AI college will be the secret for the future.
So there's more scandal than the Biden Otto Penn scandal.
I keep imagining that there's somebody whose last name is Penn, as in P-E-N-N, that's common last name, and their first name is Otto, O-T-T-O.
Do you think that anywhere in the world, because I know somebody whose first name was Otto, and I know people whose last name is Penn.
Is it possible that there's somebody named Otto Penn?
I'll bet there is.
I'll bet if you did a search, you would find somebody named Otto Penn.
Anyway.
So I guess now we know, because there's an oversight project about this, that six criminals were pardoned by Biden's Autopen while Biden was vacationing.
And I guess the New York Times finally dug into this.
And even they're saying that there's no way that Biden was aware of all the names on the pardon list.
So the Autopen was pardoning people, but does that mean it's a scandal?
Well, the Biden explanation is that he did not look at every name and approve them individually, but what he did do, but what he did do, sorry, I was just looking at a comment there.
But what Biden did do is he made some guidelines that said if these people you want to pardon meet these criteria, then yes, they can be pardoned.
Now, suppose that checked out.
I don't know if that will check out, but suppose it did.
Would it still be a scandal?
Would there be any crime involved if Biden had said, look, as long as the recommendation goes through these channels, you know, let's say people he trusts, and if they haven't committed this set of crimes, you know, and I'm just speculating here.
Maybe he said, I'm not going to pardon anybody for this kind of crime, and I'm not going to do any Republicans, and it has to be looked at by a member of my staff who I trust.
And if you do all of that, and again, I'm only speculating here, if you do all of that, then yes, you have my permission to use the auto pen and pardon them.
Would that be criminal?
Would there be any scandal there?
I feel like the auto pen thing.
Oh, there is an auto pen in the comments.
There's a social media account that is literally auto-penned, P-E-N.
Is that real?
Or is that somebody pretending that that's his name?
I don't know.
But yeah, there's an auto-pen.
The pardon power cannot be delegated.
That would not be delegated.
If you put me on a jury and you said that Biden gave some guidelines and said that if he meets these guidelines, you know, I approve it, then I would not say that that is the Ottopen making the decision or the staff.
That's still Biden.
So I'm not sure.
I just don't see this as as big a scandal as the rest of you do.
There might be more to it.
If we found out, for example, that some of the people being pardoned had bribed a member of the staff, and then a member of the staff snuck it past Biden, that would be a problem.
But it would be a problem for the person who got pardoned and the person who occased it.
It wouldn't really be Biden's legal liability, would it?
Yeah.
So auto-pen to me feels like it's delegated.
Victor Davis Hansen was talking about John Brennan, and he noted that Brennan was culpable in two or maybe three of the biggest scandals of our time.
And I can remember two of them, but not the third.
So two of them are the Russia collusion hoax.
You know, Brennan was probably the key architect of that.
And then the Hunter laptop was a Russia misinformation.
And we know Brennan was involved in that.
But the one that I have more questioned on is whatever Brennan did about Ukraine.
Some people say that Brennan was somehow involved in the change of government in Ukraine, and maybe that led to the war.
But I don't think that's not well documented.
I think Victor Davis Hansen's opinion is that Brennan was behind the idea that Trump is too cozy with Putin and that that might have reduced our options for avoiding a war with Ukraine and Russia.
Somehow that handicapped us in some way.
I don't follow that line too much.
I mean, I don't follow that line of reasoning.
But Brennan is really at the center of some bad shit, allegedly.
So we'll see.
Rasmussen did a poll, and this is just unbelievable.
So Rasmussen just has a poll, a brand new one, that 60% of Democrats believe it is likely that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election.
You know that there is literally no evidence of that, right?
Like none at all.
Nobody suggested anything like it.
There's nobody who claims it and was in the room.
There's no document.
Absolutely nothing.
60% of Democrats think that Russia helped get Trump elected.
What percentage of people do you think believe it's very likely that Russia got Trump elected?
Very likely.
What do you think?
24%.
24% are really sure that Russia got Trump elected.
And there you go.
If you're not in on the inside joke there, I often say that 25% of every poll is idiots who get everything wrong.
You can guarantee that there'll be a solid 25% of poll respondees who just have the worst possible take.
And there it was.
Well, Andrew Cuomo, who is now running as an independent for New York City mayor, because he lost the primary.
So he's tried to make a deal with Eric Adams, who's running for mayor, and Curtis Sliwa, who is running as Republican.
And he wants to make a deal with them that whoever of that group, whichever got the best polling in mid-September, the others will drop out and back whoever's in first place.
Now, I don't know if that would be Cuomo, but doesn't that seem like a perfectly good plan?
If you were Curtis Sliwa or Eric Adams or Cuomo, and the thing you cared most about, besides getting the job, is that the socialist doesn't get the job, wouldn't it make sense,
even though they're running as independents and Republicans are not even the same party, wouldn't it make sense for them to collude and say, all right, the biggest problem would be if Mom Dami gets elected and puts his socialist fingerprints all over the city and ruins it.
That's the biggest problem.
So if it gets to September, which is pretty close to the election, and one of the three of us who's winning in the polls should get the endorsement of the other two, and it might put you over the top.
That's not a bad idea.
It's sort of a Hail Mary attempt by Cuomo to maybe win when he's already lost.
But is there anything wrong with that idea?
The post millennials writing about this today.
I feel like, is there something obvious about that idea that doesn't work?
Because to me, it looks like just a good idea.
So we'll see.
Well, according to Newsmax, Iran says it would resume nuclear talks with the U.S. if the U.S. guaranteed no further attacks.
And they also say that it is non-negotiable that Iran will be able to enrich their own uranium in Iran.
To which I say, what does it mean to say you would be willing to negotiate under the condition that before you start negotiating, you win everything you want?
So Iran does this thing all the time.
We're totally open to negotiating.
You just have to give us the things we want in advance.
So guarantee that there'll be no war and that we can enrich uranium, which was the whole problem in the first place.
And then we'll have negotiations.
No, you can't have a negotiation by ending the negotiation before you do the negotiation.
That's not a thing.
So no, Iran is not as serious about negotiating.
So this may have happened already.
Maybe you can tell me in the comments.
But allegedly, Trump is making some big announcement about Ukraine, right?
And if Lindsey Graham can be believed, he's completely ruined Trump's surprise.
If I were Trump, I'd be so mad at Lindsey Graham because he sort of tipped off what the surprise is going to be.
And apparently, we don't know this for sure, but Trump is going to approve the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine.
Now, if you didn't know, the weapons that the U.S. was involved in supplying were mostly defensive, meaning missiles that would shoot down other incoming missiles, that sort of thing.
But so Lindsey Graham says, I don't want to get ahead of the president.
And then he gets ahead of the president.
He goes, but stay tuned about seized assets in tomorrow's announcement.
All right.
So Lindsey Graham, you are terrible at keeping a secret.
You're terrible at it.
Apparently, Trump is going to use seized Russian assets.
I think there are maybe 300 billion or something that we somehow have banking control over.
And he would use these seized Russian assets to buy offensive weapons and also defensive, I guess, for Ukraine.
Now, given that Trump is saying directly that he maybe trusted Putin's happy talk too much, and that he now believes that Putin was just basically screwing him and tapping him along and never really intended to make a peace deal.
Now, how would you like to be Trump where your brand and your reputation and how other countries think of you as well as how the U.S. thinks of you, those are really important things.
And Trump definitely is getting a black eye from appearing to be a little too trusting of Putin's willingness to negotiate.
Do you believe that Trump feels like Putin screwed him, not just geopolitically, but screwed him personally and screwed his reputation and his brand?
And I think the answer is yes.
That Trump is now off of the, well, maybe if we're friends and I treat him well, we could come to some kind of agreement that people could live with.
He's completely off of that.
Trump is now in revenge mode because Putin stabbed him in the back.
You're all smiling at him.
What do you think Trump does when somebody stabs him in the back in front of the entire world?
Does he, A, let it go?
No.
Does he, B, look for creative ways to destroy that person?
It's B. So now Putin went from the opportunity to negotiate a deal that maybe wasn't his first choice, but at least get him out of the war.
That's gone.
The current situation is how long it will take Trump to destroy Putin as a leader of Russia.
Because he's going After Putin now.
If you think he's not, I don't think you understand who Trump is.
Now it's personal.
Now, given that his personal feelings might line up pretty well with our national interests at this point, which is not being too nice to Putin and being tougher with him, you're going to see some things that maybe you haven't seen before.
So what would it mean if the U.S. provided some of its best offensive weapons to Ukraine?
Well, one of the things it might mean is that missiles started showing up in Moscow.
What would Putin do if Ukraine starts lobbing missiles into their capital city?
Would they nuke the United States?
Probably not, because they're not, you know, they don't want to throw everything away.
Would it make him more likely to negotiate something?
I don't know.
Probably not.
But my guess is that Trump is looking for a decapitation at this point.
Not violently.
But I think he's looking to put Putin out of business.
And I don't think he was ever looking to do that before.
Now, that's just speculation, because Putin is now, in my opinion, unredeemable, if you ever thought he was redeemable.
But certainly as long as Trump is president, I think Putin is in trouble.
And I don't know if that means that we're working harder to get somebody who takes him out on Russian soil.
I don't know what it means.
But I would look for that announcement today.
It's going to be good.
Now I'm going to make a prediction about the Ukraine-Russia war.
Are you ready for this?
This will be a prediction that I don't believe anybody else has made and probably won't make.
All right.
Here's my opinion.
Every day, Russia and mostly the Ukraine are running out of human beings to fight in the front line.
So far, we all agree, right?
That the number of humans will probably keep edging down and that they'll replace them with drones and robots.
So the number of drones will increase.
The number of humans will decrease.
And would you agree so far that there's nothing that would stop that trend?
So the U.S. will be sending them our best drones at this point, probably making them as fast as we can.
And there'll be more land robots because they're already having success with the ones on wheels.
So given that there is apparently nothing that will stop this war, I give it three years.
In three years, it's going to be almost purely a robot-on-robot front line because the people will be dead and they won't need people to operate the drones because AI will be the operator.
So instead of having a person shooting with a gun on the front line, which we know just doesn't work because the drones kill those people, and instead of having one person for every drone where you can never get enough drones in the air at the same time to really convincingly win, that model has to go away too.
So within three years, and it might be way sooner, you're going to see there's no point in having a human being anywhere near the front line.
the only thing that makes sense is that you have autonomous robots and drones who have been taught to fight who are fighting the other autonomous drones and robots on the other side it's going to be a Because, you know, Putin will just keep chewing away.
I don't think he's going to quit.
And Ukraine really can't quit.
As long as they're getting weapons and new drones and stuff, they're not going to quit.
So if nobody's got a reason to quit, three years is going to be our first robot-on-robot war at the front lines.
So that's my prediction.
Robot-on-robot in three years.
Well, Trump says that maybe something will happen with Gaza in the next week or so, that maybe there'll be some progress there on a ceasefire.
Fareed Zakaria over at CNN said that if President Trump made that happen, that he would not hesitate to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now, there's some bait.
How much does Trump want to win a Nobel Peace Prize and have one of the hosts of CNN nominate him?
A lot.
I would guess he would like that a lot.
That's my guess.
So I kind of like what Fareed did there.
So Fareed is doing that good persuasion thing where if you do something bad, he's going to say you did bad.
If you do something good, he's going to do more than say it was good.
He's going to nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.
So I love that.
Farid got that totally right.
Now, I don't know if it's going to happen.
And I think that what Fareed wanted was a Palestinian state.
So I believe that Fareed's statement that he would nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize would be dependent on the peace also involving the creation of a Palestinian state, which is not going to happen, by the way.
There isn't the slightest chance that Israel is going to agree to a Palestinian State.
There isn't the slightest.
All right.
So you may have seen that Trump was at the FIFA World Cup.
And I don't know how much he likes soccer, but he was part of the people handing the trophy to Chelsea for winning.
And not all of the players were happy that he joined the celebration, I guess.
But he was the happiest I've ever seen him, just dancing around with the soccer players.
He seemed really happy.
All right.
So France has launched a criminal investigation into Elon Musk's X platform, saying that the company manipulates its algorithm to engage in foreign interference.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that X consciously manipulates its algorithm for the purpose of foreign interference?
I don't know.
Not that I know of.
I've seen no evidence of that.
But apparently they think they have some.
And they're also going to investigate France's whether X has been extracting data from users in a fraudulent manner.
That's kind of generic.
So it looks to me like France is just putting some pressure on the US and Elon Musk.
We'll see where that goes.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, we'll see what Trump comes up with with Ukraine and with Gaza.
Lots of stuff happening.
It's hard for me to imagine that if he doesn't do anything more on the Epstein stuff, but he does get a Nobel Peace Prize, that that's going to be bad for the world.
I don't know.
I feel like Trump is going to win.
All right.
Yeah, France has decided that it will accept unlimited number of Gaza.
Is that Gazans or Palestinians?
Unlimited number of people from Gaza because they would all be eligible for asylum.
So there's that.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to talk to the people on locals, my beloved subscribers and locals.
The rest of you, thanks for joining.
I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place, for more fun.
