God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, DHS Humor, Optimus Grok Robots, AOC Crockett IQ, Anna Paulina Luna, Jerome Powell Speculation, Trump Admin Successes, DEA Drug Seizures, Trump Tariff Successes, US Infrastructure Investments Surge, Climate Alarmism Failure, Anti-Trump Funded Protests, Professional Organized Paid Protests, Autopen Controversy, Trump's Risk Management, Gavin Newsom Jazz Hands, Democrat Curse Word Strategy, Strategic Cursing Strategy, Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine's Father, President Trump, Epstein Files, Epstein Jail Guards, Will Sommer Bulwark, MAGA Epstein Civil War, OMG Covid Lead Scientist, Food Artificial Dyes, Adam Schiff Mortgage Allegations, America Party, Elon Musk, Gazan Hamas Support, Ukraine War, Putin Tariffs Response, AI Drone Warfare, 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.
You are in the best place that anybody could ever be.
Yeah.
Good for you.
Just checking your stocks?
Well, it's mixed.
Bitcoin's up.
Tesla's up.
SPY is flat.
Eh, not bad.
Let's get your comments working.
And then I got a show for you.
Oh, yeah.
We'll get to that.
We got a show.
We got a show.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating this experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass, a tankard, chelterstein, a canteen, junk, or a flask, a vessel of any time, any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dope being the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
go.
So good.
But how good is it?
Hmm, let's see.
Well, according to Eric Dolan, who's writing in SciPost, caffeine may help prevent stress-induced depression.
That's right.
Drinking coffee can reduce your stress-induced depression.
Do you know what else it can do?
It can reduce all of your other depression too.
How many times have I felt, it was the afternoon, and I said to myself, life is, you know, crappy and there's nothing good in the world and I don't have any energy.
And I start to feel a little depressed.
And then I have a cup of coffee and suddenly all my depression is gone.
So you should have just asked me.
Scott, would caffeine make me feel less depressed?
Yes.
All right.
But Scott, is it true that if you feel sick, that having soup could help?
Well, it turns out that there's a study, a meta study, that says that there's a good chance that having soup, which they call eating soup, is that what you call it?
When you have soup, do you eat it or do you drink it?
I don't know.
I just say I have it.
I would not say I eat soup, and I would not say I drink it.
I would say I had some soup for lunch.
But according to an article by Sandra Lucas in the conversation, you don't have to have chicken soup, but soup in general seems to be mildly indicated for helping you recover from things faster.
One study found that people who ate soup recovered up to two and a half days faster from normal respiratory problems than people who didn't.
There was just one study.
So get your soup.
Well, you didn't know that the Department of Homeland Security, when they're not keeping your country safe, are also very funny, very funny.
Case in point, the New York Times had a guest opinion piece by somebody who called himself one of Biden's border advisors.
And the name of the article was, Here's How to Fix Your Immigration System.
Let me say that again.
The New York Times has a guest opinion by one of Biden's border advisors.
And one of Biden's border advisors believes he can tell us how to fix our immigration system.
So what did the Department of Homeland Security say about that?
Well, they reposted it on Acts, the cover, the cover to the article, and the Department of Homeland Security just added this sarcasm, quote, I was Humpty Dumpty.
Here's how to sit on a wall.
I don't know how often the Department of Homeland Security tries to be funny, but that was pretty good.
Pretty good.
I think it's the Trump effect.
Does it seem to you that the Department of Homeland Security would go on social media and say something that's just purely a joke before Trump was president?
I feel like Trump makes it safe for everybody else to joke around a little bit more in the government.
So I like that.
All right, according to Pirate Wires, G.B. Rango is writing that this is weird.
So this is a real business that already exists.
It's a startup that is so exactly what I've been imagining for the cities of the future that it looks like it came right into my head.
It's called Pipe Dream Labs.
And what they're doing is they're trying to put underground robot delivery systems.
So it would be A big pipe underground, and a robot would deliver things that are up to like 40 pounds.
But it would be so efficient because there would be no traffic on the roads, it would just be robots zipping around underneath the ground that you could order stuff that you wouldn't normally even bother.
Like you could order a candy bar and maybe pay 25 or 50 cents to have it delivered.
So anything you wanted would just sort of appear.
Now, at the moment, since they don't have pipes underneath everybody's house, the delivery goes to some central kind of a building so you can go get it.
But the plan is that you would deliver directly to apartment buildings and eventually to your house if you had the foresight to build these little pipes for delivering everything.
So imagine, if you will, that everything you get from DoorDash, everything you get from FedEx, all that local delivery, it just all goes away.
And it just becomes a little door you open to your underground delivery, I guess.
Anyway, I've always thought that having delivery trucks and delivery cars on the surface of the world was the wrong way to go.
Underground delivery pipes.
It's coming.
So this is a real thing.
It's already being built.
Elon Musk has confirmed that his AI, XAI, which would be Grok4, he says it's the smartest AI in the world, and also it's going to be built into Optimus humanoid robots.
But my question is this.
How in the world is a large language model going to be safe to put in a robot?
If the biggest problem with AI is hallucination, how does a robot learn not to do that?
And does the hallucination apply to physical acts?
Now, I understand how AI can work in your fully self-driving car.
If you have a bazillion hours of video of cars from the perspective of the car, then all you need is that visual AI and apparently cars can drive themselves.
But do you think you could have a humanoid robot that had seen enough video of the real world that it could navigate your house?
It would just walk into your house and you'd say, robot, make me a sandwich.
And the robot would know what your refrigerator looks like and where you keep the condiments and stuff.
It would just figure it out.
I don't know.
I feel like that problem of hallucinating is unsolved and maybe unsolvable with any large language model.
So I'm going to be a skeptic in saying that Optimus will be successful with just the large language model AI.
They would have to have some other kind of AI or some other kind of programming on top of it.
There's no way that you can just put some large language model AI in there and your robot will come to life.
I don't think so.
But I'd love to be wrong.
Anyway, I do think we'll get there.
I think humanoid robots will be big.
And Musk believes that the value of that robot business will be $10 trillion, bigger than the iPhone.
All right, here's a persuasion lesson, courtesy of President Trump, who was speculating in front of reporters yesterday.
Who had the lower IQ?
Was it AOC or Jasmine Crockett?
So the press is listening to Trump.
He's like, you know, I don't know who's dumber.
We have to give an IQ test to AOC because she's really dumb.
But maybe Jasmine Crockett is dumber.
So we should have them compete to find out which one is the dumbest.
Do you recognize the persuasion technique?
Do you all see it?
Compare to AOC is dumb.
Or compare to, separately, that Jasmine Crockett is dumb.
What he is doing is making you think past the sale.
The sale is, are they dumb?
He's making you think about which one is dumber.
If he can make you think about which one would do better on an IQ test, he's already convinced you to sort of uncritically accept, well, they're both dumb.
The only mystery left is which one is dumber.
I've taught you that so many times.
It's a special trumpet trick that makes you think past the sale.
The sale of, yeah, they're both dumb.
All right.
See, you learn things.
Well, according to Representative Ana Paulina Luna, she posted yesterday that Jerome Powell is going to be fired and firing is imminent.
Now, that would be the end of the Fed.
Now, I have not seen any confirmation of that, but separately, Anna Paulina Luna says that she has a very good source and she's been told that Powell will be fired real soon.
I asked Grok if anybody else is talking about that, and they're not.
So that's the first thing you need to know.
Probably not likely, because Grok explains that although it's true that the president can fire the head at the Fed, they can only do it with cause.
And cause would be something like doing such a terrible job that it's obvious it's not just a difference in judgment, but there's something wrong with you.
Now, does Jerome Powell indicate that there's something just deeply wrong with him or that he has a different opinion with the other governors on the Fed?
There's just different opinion.
So I would say at this point, it looks like a different opinion, but it might be the wrong one.
You know, Bill Pulte is going hard at him, and it could be that Trump wants to test the limit of firing the Fed chief, because that would be a little bit beyond the boundaries of what I would expect him to be able to get away with.
But he might try it.
It's possible.
I'm going to bet against this.
I'm going to say I don't think he'll fire the Fed chief, but we'll see.
Well, there are a number of good things happening in the administration.
And I think Trump's administration does a good job of touting their successes.
Now, if you're looking at them touting their successes, remember that's marketing and you could even call it propaganda.
So there might be some counter argument to a few of these things.
But here are some of the things we're learning just today.
Apparently, the Department of Justice and the DEA have seized an enormous amount of illegal drugs in the country and coming into the country.
So here are some of the numbers.
And these don't even sound like they could be real.
The numbers are so big.
Newsmax is reporting on this today.
Allegedly, since Trump got into the job, they've captured 44 million fentanyl pills.
44 million fentanyl pills.
4,500 pounds of fentanyl powder.
I'm no expert, but it feels like that would make a lot of pills.
Nearly 65,000 pounds of meth.
Really?
65,000 pounds of meth?
Isn't meth just like a little powder?
How much meth is that?
65,000 pounds of doses that would be just like a little line of powder?
Holy cow.
And more than 200,000 pounds of cocaine.
200,000 pounds.
What?
How much cocaine is that?
If you saw it in one big pile, would it be like taller than you?
And they've made more than 2,100 fentanyl-related arrests.
Now, I don't know, and here's the caution here.
I don't know how this compares to the baseline.
Could it be that the DEA and the DOJ routinely catch this much drugs?
We just don't hear about it.
Is that possible?
Because you always hear about the Biden administration was doing a bad job of messaging how successful they were.
And they did do a bad job of that.
Is it possible that what we're seeing is just that the Trump administration is really, really good at taking credit?
And that's all you're seeing?
I don't think so.
I think this is probably a real accomplishment.
But you have to be careful.
You got the documentary effect.
You're only seeing one side of it.
So I don't know if there is another side of it, but this is an awfully big success, or it looks like it.
All right, so that's one thing.
So one thing is big success on the border, big successes capturing illegal drugs.
On top of that, Trump announced yesterday that he got a great trade deal with Indonesia.
New York Post is writing about this.
And I guess it opens up their market to all of our products, and they're going to pay 19% tariff, and we are going to pay nothing, says Trump.
It's a good deal for both.
Now, remember I told you that if things went well with this tariff trade deal stuff, that the thing that the Democrats don't see coming is that since they wouldn't do all the deals in the same day, that Trump will have this nearly endless number of successes,
that every day or every few days, he's going to be able to say, well, we got another amazing trade deal with another major country.
Well, this is one of those.
So how many major trade deals is he going to get with how many countries?
And then, of course, there's the surprising amount of tariff revenue coming into the government.
Trump is winning pretty hard on trade.
The stock market has decided he's not going to destroy the country.
So the stock market is like, oh, we're fine.
And he just is rolling up the winds.
Now, sometimes, I imagine, he'll get ahead of the reality.
So he might claim that they have a deal and then you find out it's not really finalized and stuff like that.
But in terms of taking credit, they're really good at it.
And that's actually a positive statement.
I like it when my government is telling me that things are great and getting better.
That's what I want to feel.
I want to feel that optimism that the government is doing a great job, and that it makes me think, well, I can do things too.
You know, I can contribute, everything's heading the right way.
I sure like being an American.
You know, it makes you feel good.
So, Trump is really good at that.
On top of that, I think this was all happening this morning.
Trump has announced a whole bunch of gigantic investments in the United States.
So, he announced, I think it was today, the $56 billion in new energy infrastructure.
$56 billion.
That's a lot of dollars.
More than $36 billion in new data center projects.
That's a lot.
I don't think we have anything that compares to those numbers in the past.
And he says that 20 leading tech and energy companies are announcing more than $92 billion of investment in Pennsylvania.
Just Pennsylvania?
$92 billion.
Just Pennsylvania.
Now, why Pennsylvania?
Is that because it's close enough to everything, but they have maybe better situation for regulatory problems, maybe?
So I'm guessing that Pennsylvania has her act together enough that they can attract all that investment.
So good job, Pennsylvania, whatever you're doing.
Now, Trump has also claimed, I think this was also today, maybe, that he's already secured $16 trillion in investments in the U.S. economy.
Do you believe that he's already secured $16 trillion in new investment?
Well, I feel like this is the situation where you have to say, that might be a little bit of salesmanship there.
That might be a little bit of hyperbole, a little bit of optimism.
Does that bother me?
Nope.
Nope.
I want my country to tell me that they're bringing in trillions of dollars of new investment so that other people want to invest too, because people like to go where things are working, right?
If you tell the world, hey, everybody's investing in the United States.
I mean, really, the investments in the United States or the AI, the energy, oh yeah, this is really good.
You should get in on this.
Can't lose.
So yes, I like it when they say they're capturing a bunch of drugs.
I like it when they say the investments are big.
And I like it when we get new trade deals.
Now, are there exaggerations involved in all these accomplishments?
Perhaps.
It doesn't bother me a bit because I want a salesman-in-chief who is telling us everything's working out great, because that's exactly what makes things work out great.
You need the optimism to drive the economy.
Nobody does it better.
Trump's the best optimist we've ever had as president.
Although Reagan was pretty good.
There's an article by David Harseny in the Washington Examiner titled Why Climate Change Alarmism Failed.
And he notes that there's a poll that CNN's Harry Ensign is talking about that shows that only 40% of Americans are greatly worried about climate change, which is the same as in 2000.
So in 25 years of trying to scare people, 25 years of trying to scare the public, the number of people who say they're scared, exactly the same as it was before they tried to scare the public.
Now, do you ever just read a story and you sort of uncritically accept the elements of the story?
All right, I'm going to give you one right now.
All right, this will blow your mind.
If it has the same effect on you than it does on me, it's going to blow your mind.
All right, I live in California, as you know, so it's a very blue state.
Presumably, most of my friends in my adult life have been probably more Democrats than Republicans.
You know, obviously I lost most of my friends when I started backing Trump.
So I'm talking about a little bit in the past.
But I realize today that not once in my life have I met anybody who was worried about climate change like ever in my whole life.
Not one person.
Now, are you really telling me that 40% of Americans are, quote, greatly worried about climate change?
That sounds to me like something that people say to pollsters, but is completely disconnected with reality.
How many times in your life have you been at, let's say, I don't know, a party or a barbecue or a family get-together, and somebody brought up climate change as an existential threat?
Has it ever happened?
Because it's never happened where I've been.
I've never even seen anybody interested in climate change, much less afraid of it.
No interest whatsoever.
So is that different than your experience?
Because I'm very skeptical that 40% of the public thinks it's like our biggest problem.
And yet nobody's ever, not once, 40% of the public, and not once has anybody brought it up where I could have heard it in person.
Nobody.
Now, how many of you are having the same mental experience I had this morning?
Which is, oh, yeah, how can it possibly be true if nobody's ever brought it up around me?
Because there's nothing else they haven't brought up, right?
You've heard people say bad things about Trump.
You've heard things about Ukraine and Gaza, the Middle East.
You've heard all kinds of things.
But I'll bet you've never heard anybody complain about climate change.
Yeah, I don't believe it.
Anyway, the Pentagon has announced its removing those National Guardsmen from Los Angeles.
Remember, they were placed there to guard the government facilities because there was a lot of protesting that was getting on hand regarding the ICE stuff.
Well, I guess the protests have wound down, and the National Guardsmen never really had to get directly involved, as far as I know.
But they're being withdrawn.
Would we include that as a Trump success?
I would.
Wouldn't you?
The point of the National Guardsmen was in case they're needed, but also as a deterrent.
So they were there to deter bad actors doing violent things against government properties.
And as far as I know, they succeeded.
So the fact that there was no bloodshed or direct confrontation seems to be another Trump success.
All right.
There was a CEO, according to the post-millennial Thomas Stevenson's writing about this.
There's a CEO of a marketing group that apparently is in the business of organizing protests.
And the CEO of one of them says he was offered about $20 million as a contract to organize anti-Trump protests, and he rejected it.
So he decided not to take it.
But the CEO of the company called Crowds on Demand, and he didn't want to do the protests that are going to happen on the 17th, which would be tomorrow, I guess.
I guess a bunch of protests that are going to kick off nationwide tomorrow.
And how alarmed are you that there is a commercial entity that organizes protests that are meant to look organic?
And he's completely public about it.
I feel that Trump is letting this one, he's going easy on the protests, but maybe because they haven't been that big or that bad for Trump.
But I feel like the protests need to be branded as unnatural or non-organic, or at least paid.
So I don't know how many of the protesters are paid, but if the organizers are paid, like a lot, it's not really a real protest, is it?
It's like it needs some other name.
If you call it a protest, we have a long history in this country of saying, oh, protest.
I'm glad we have free speech.
Everybody gets an opinion.
Protest is good.
But it's not really a protest because that one is, you know, protest kind of implies that people had this opinion and they felt so strongly that they had to just band together.
But if you're organized by paid, people are paid to do it, that's not exactly a protest.
What would you call it?
Somebody says mercenary mobs.
Oh, that's not bad.
Mercenary mobs.
But that sounds like you're killing somebody.
What would you call it?
It needs some kind of persuasive nickname, kind of a Trumpism.
It needs something we can call it that makes you not want to do it.
So we'll work on that.
I don't have an idea for that, but maybe Trump does.
I've just been calling them organized and non-organic, but those are not really catchy.
Those are just descriptive.
We need something catchy.
All right.
Inorganic, inorganic protests.
No, it's catchy enough.
We could do better.
Well, this Autopen story refuses to die.
To me, this is a summertime story where there's not enough regular news, although there's more regular news under Trump than I've ever seen before in the summer.
But you always need a little extra for political purposes.
So I guess this Autopen story, the White House is going to review more than a million documents under the Biden administration.
And they just want transparency.
But to me, all they're doing is making sure the Autopen stays in the news because it's really sort of a winner for Republicans, wouldn't you say?
It reminds you that the Democrats fooled you into thinking that Biden was functional.
And that's one of the biggest hoaxes, if not the biggest, in the history of the United States.
So as long as Trump can make you think about Biden and how that was covered up and how that wasn't a real government, Trump wins.
So I would argue that nobody really cares about the Autopen.
Probably I doubt that Trump really cares.
But it keeps it in the news.
So Autopen is More about making you think Democrats are bad people, I guess.
It's working.
CNDC's Rick Santelli on the TV.
He says that Trump's tariffs are not dooming the economy, according to the Daily Color News Foundation.
So there might be a little bit of inflation, but it's too small that you can even know for sure.
And I guess the CPI numbers were pretty close to expectation, the inflation numbers.
So some say we're still waiting for the inflation that will come from these tariffs.
And some say enough time has already gone by to conclude that we're not going to see that inflation.
I don't know.
But I will tell you this.
And I'm going to credit Dana Perino for this thought, because I agreed with it completely, but she said it first, which is the right take on the tariffs was always, I don't know.
That was the only honest and kind of useful opinion on the tariffs, because there were people who were absolutely positive it would destroy the country.
Well, it's not the opinion that's the problem.
It's the certainty.
If you had certainty that the trade wars and the tariffs were going to tank our economy, well, you were wrong.
I mean, whatever happens, it's not going to be gigantic or destroy the economy.
I think we can rule that out now, right?
So if you were sure that it was a disaster, your certainty was sort of revealing that you're not good at this.
But likewise, if you were just as sure that because Trump said it would make everything right, if you were just as sure that it would, and it would, you know, replace maybe income taxes and all these other good things, well, that wasn't a good take either.
The only take that I respect is, I don't know.
You know, we can reverse it.
You know, it's the sort of thing that is a really big ask.
And if it worked, it would be a really big deal.
If it didn't work, there would be some discombobulation in the economy, but probably you could just reverse it in a week.
All you'd have to do is say, all right, all right, that didn't work.
I changed my mind.
Tariffs are dropped.
So from a risk reward perspective, was it worth trying it, knowing that if it didn't work, you could just sort of reverse it.
And if it did work, it would really change America forever in a positive way.
So I'm going to give Trump an A plus plus plus for risk management on our behalf.
It was exactly the right risk management because the upside was really good if everything worked out.
And the downside was all manageable.
If it didn't work, well, reverse it.
You will be fine in about a week.
Well, Governor Newsom was on the Sean Ryan podcast.
And if you haven't watched Governor Newsom speak on a podcast or in public lately, you have to see what's going on with his jazz hands.
Do you know what I mean by jazz hands?
So jazz hands is sort of a comical way to refer to dancers who are doing jazz dancing and their hands get involved a lot.
So, you know, if you're watching me on video, jazz dancers like, ta-da, ta-da, ta-da, ta-da, ta-da.
So their hands are really involved.
But when you watch Newsom talk, I do not recall him being that animated as he is now.
And his hand motions are not only far bigger than they used to be, but they're a little bit creepy.
Like he was talking about some nuance of the bill, and he does the piano playing.
Well, nuance.
All of some nuance.
And it is weird.
I'm going to be honest, it looks like drugs.
If you've known anybody who was on any kind of uppers, I don't know what it could be.
I'm not going to make a specific accusation.
But he acts like somebody who's on some kind of an upper.
But again, I don't have any evidence of that.
It's just that his behavior is different.
And if you've ever been around it, you know, around people who are using some form of stimulant, you would say to yourself, oh, that looks familiar.
I think I've seen that before.
And I hate to say it, but it's hard for me to imagine it just happened sort of on its own and that he just decided to change his method of speaking or something.
I don't know.
I feel like there's something going on there.
But just to be clear, I don't have any factual evidence that would suggest that's what's going on.
It's just how it strikes me.
So as an impression, it gives me that impression.
But then also, I forget who it was.
Was it Mark Cuban or maybe somebody else who was talking about how Democrats need to swear more and do more cursing?
And I thought to myself, is that real advice?
Like, really?
The Democrats feel that in order to get the male vote or to be a little bit more manly or maybe just a little more powerful looking, that they could match Trump's use of curse words.
To which I would give them this advice.
You know when you should use curse words in public?
When you're Trump.
You can't just take that strategy and apply it to somebody who's not Trump.
The reason Trump could get away with it is that he's always in character, meaning it's who he really is.
It's not in character.
It's genuine.
When Trump curses, which isn't that often, you can tell how strategic it is.
And you know that he knows he's giving you the sound bite for the next 24 hours.
He knows he's doing it.
And he's really good at it.
His cursing never seems gratuitous.
It feels so, I mean, it feels like dropping one of those bunker buster bombs right down the ventilation shaft twice in a row.
That's what it feels like.
He lands the curse word just perfectly.
And he's done it so many times that you know it's not an accident.
But then I watch Newsom on this podcast.
And when he was told that, told that Joe Rogan had texted in a question for Sean Ryan to ask Newsom, Newsom says, motherfucker, you know, just because he thinks it might be a tough question.
So he uses the mother effer.
And then later when he was questioned about how he handled the pandemic, he said, everybody's a GD genius.
I know some of you hated to hear the Lord's name used in vain.
So I'll just say GD genius, but he used the whole world.
And I'm thinking to myself, were those strategic uses?
Did he do what Trump would do, which was guarantee that that would be the sound bite and that you would laugh a little bit when you heard it?
Not really, because I didn't laugh when I heard it.
And it's not just because he's not my favorite politician or anything like that.
It just, it wasn't funny.
It wasn't strategically placed.
It just looked like he's somebody who uses some foul language on a podcast.
It didn't have any effect.
In fact, maybe it was a little negative.
I thought to myself, well, why would you use those words without using them strategically?
I mean, you know, so no, you can't take people who are not known for this kind of behavior, you know, breaking the bounds of civility, because that's what Trump is known for.
Trump's entire persona is very linked to, you know, violating the social boundaries.
So it makes sense when he does it.
Well, we have to talk about Epstein because, again, it's a summer kind of topic.
But Alan Dershowitz continues to be one of the most interesting people on this topic because he was Epstein's lawyer.
And he tells us he knows what names are redacted and who accused who and all that stuff.
But he also says that he's sure that Epstein was not an intelligence asset for anybody because he was his lawyer.
And he says if he had been an intelligence asset, the first person he would have told would be his lawyer because you would tell the lawyer so that the lawyer could negotiate a sweetheart deal.
Now, he did get a sweetheart deal.
And some say it's because the prosecutor knew he was an intelligence asset.
But apparently, Dershowitz never used that argument because he was never told that he was an intelligence asset.
But here's my question.
Dershowitz didn't ask him?
Are you telling me that everybody in the world suspected he was an intelligence asset except for Alan Dershowitz?
Is he the only person who didn't suspect it?
Really?
And then I present you with this confuser.
You know I'm a big fan of Alan Dershowitz's public opinions about everything, basically.
He just has a smarter, more reasoned, more experienced opinion on everything that's legal.
But here's the thing you need to know.
If Alan Dershowitz himself were working for some intelligence unit, wouldn't it be perfectly appropriate for him to lie about it?
Because if you work for an intelligence agency, aren't you sort of encouraged not to tell people?
Isn't it a better play if you don't mention it?
And if somebody asks, aren't you supposed to say, nah, not me?
And then there's also that gray area, which is, well, you don't have to be on the payroll of an intelligence agency.
You could just be in favor of what they're doing.
Maybe lend them a hand now and then.
Maybe they do you a favor later.
Maybe you were just afraid of what they would do if you didn't help them.
But isn't there a lot of gray area that would push Epstein and maybe even his lawyer into a, not necessarily an employee of any intelligence agency, but Possibly on their side.
Possibly.
So, as fascinating as that point is, that Epstein would have told him if he was an intelligence asset, the part that I'm missing is I asked him if he was.
Isn't that kind of missing?
I don't know.
And since we know Dershowitz is very pro-Israel, if there was any kind of Israel connection, would we expect that Alan Dershowitz would be the person who would let us know about that?
I would say, not if it's bad for Israel.
He's very open about being highly supportive of Israel.
He's an American first, but still, I don't know if he's the one we should believe when it comes to intelligence assets, but highly credible on other topics.
And by the way, that has nothing to do with Dershowitz.
I would say that's the same for anybody, right?
If you put anybody else in the position of being Epstein's lawyer, I would say, yeah, I mean, if you know something you're not supposed to tell people, we get it.
Glenn Greenwald found an old New York Times article that said that Ghelane Maxwell's father's publishing group, you remember Ghelane Maxwell's father was a big publisher, that his publishing group admitted in court that Seymour Hirsch,
who wrote about the Ghelane Maxwell and the father situation, I guess mostly about the father, was, quote, fully justified in accusing Robert Maxwell of working for Israeli intelligence.
So, and we also know that when Maxwell died, he was given a official state funeral in Israel, even though he was not an Israeli citizen.
And that multiple former heads of the Mossad attended his Israel state funeral.
Again, he was not Israeli, and they gave him an Israel state funeral.
So I would say the evidence that Ghelane Maxwell's father worked for the Mossad is pretty darn good.
Not confirmed, but certainly the breadcrumbs are there.
Does that mean that Ghelane Maxwell was a spy?
No, doesn't mean that.
So we're short of any kind of a confirmation there, but we got our suspicions.
Then you probably saw some fake news yesterday.
People asked me why I didn't talk about it.
It was because when I saw it, I didn't trust it.
So my hunch that it was fake news was right.
So Marjorie Taylor Greene is explaining that if you saw something that said that there were several House Republicans who voted to block the release of the Epstein files, that was fake news.
It's true in some form, but the reason they blocked it had nothing to do with the Epstein stuff.
It had to do with the, it was a procedural thing.
You know, it was either wrapped up with something they didn't want it wrapped up with, or there was some procedural problem.
But no, there were no Republicans who voted to not show the Epstein files to the public.
That didn't happen.
There was something that might have headed in that direction that they thought had some flaws that had nothing to do with Epstein.
So that did happen.
But it's more fake news than real news.
All right, here's Trump talking about the Epstein files.
And he said to reporters yesterday, quote, I would say that these files were made up by Comey.
They were made up by Obama.
They were made up by Biden.
And we went through years of that with the Russia-Russia hoax.
Now, let me give you some advice.
If you ever find yourself in a position of having to cover up something and you want to tell a lie about it, never start your lie with these words.
I would say.
Trump literally started with, I would say that these files were made up by Comey and the others.
I would say, if you start your explanation with, I would say, you're basically saying I'm making this shit up.
Do you remember when OJ wrote his book, If I Did It?
If I Did It, what?
If you see if I did it on OJ's book, you say to yourself, he's telling us he did it.
If your president say, I would say that these files were made up, that doesn't mean he believes that.
If he believed it, he would say, well, you know, the files were made up by Democrats, so you can't trust them.
He wouldn't say, I would say it.
Well, I would say it.
I would.
No, that's bad lying.
Yeah, never do that.
And then he said that he was asked about releasing more of the Epstein stuff, and he said, yes.
And that any credible Epstein information should be released.
Why do you have to add the credible part?
Well, I mean, credible is sort of assumed in all information, right?
That you wouldn't present it unless it was credible.
But he sort of drops that word in there, like it gives you a little out.
It's like, well, there is more information, but it wasn't credible.
So we didn't release it.
Now, if he had started with that, that might have been an easier sale.
If he'd said, You know what?
We looked at everything, and the only things you don't know about that matter look to be low credibility.
So we think it would just make things worse if we release it.
Because you remember what happened when the steel dossier got out?
That was low credibility.
Wouldn't the country have been better off if nobody had ever seen the steel dossier?
Yeah, of course.
So we don't want to make the same mistake as the steel dossier.
So since it's low credibility, according to our experts, I know we told you we would give you everything we had, but that doesn't mean the low credibility stuff, right?
That's not going to help you.
So probably that would have been a better way to start.
I don't know if it would have made other people happy, but it would have sounded at least like, oh, that's a real reason.
The other thing that I would have bought completely is if instead of saying that the files were made up, I would have said, we really thought there was going to be some stuff there.
But if it was ever there, it was already removed.
So, yes, you have every right to suspect that there's more to this Epstein situation.
We suspect it too.
But when we look at the files, we have to conclude that either there isn't anything there or that whatever was there was removed.
Now, I would have believed that.
If they said we were sure there was going to be some stuff there, but when we dug down, when we dug down, there was nothing credible, or there was nothing there at all, because it looks like it might have been removed, and we don't know how or when.
I would have bought that.
To me, that sounds like exactly the sort of thing that would happen in the real world.
What are other people saying?
Well, Dick Durbin was on CNN, and he says that Republicans must be hiding something because they're not as forthcoming as they could be with the Epstein files.
Now, that's a really good political attack, and it looks like a little bit like what even Republicans think is true, which makes it a good political attack.
I don't know if there's any truth to it, but it's a good political attack.
Speaker Mike Johnson says he supports the idea of Ghelane Maxwell testifying to Congress.
So I guess that's an option that got floated.
He was talking to Betty Johnson.
So Betty Johnson got an exclusive on that.
And Mike Johnson said, I'm for transparency.
We should put everything out there and let the people decide.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
So that's always the right answer.
You have to say you're for transparency.
Thomas Massey introduced a discharge petition to compel the Department of Justice to release all relevant Epstein documents.
So that's happening.
I don't know if that's going to get any purchase, but at least there's a motion to release everything.
Here's what I would like to see.
And ask yourself why you haven't seen this yet.
I would like to see all the guards, just the regular guards, not the management, not the warden, but just the regular guards who worked in that area of the jail when Epstein died.
Why have we never seen them in public?
Because I did hear through a source, which I think is probably credible, that there would be at least one of those guards who would tell you that the FBI took the video away and there was nothing wrong with the cameras, and they told them to shut up about it.
Now, I can't guarantee that that's true.
I'm just saying that I heard it through a source that I don't have any reason to question that there is a guard who has told somebody in person, yeah, I was there, the FBI took the video, there was nothing wrong with the cameras.
Now, I'll say it again.
I don't know that that's true, right?
Because I'm not, I didn't talk to a source directly.
But why have we never heard from the other guards?
There must be, what, maybe a dozen guards who were there or have, you know, direct or indirect knowledge of what happened.
Because there's no way you could keep all of that from all the guards.
So there might be somebody who has something to talk about.
Well, of course, the Democrats would like to make a big deal about the division in the MAGA base because some people are mad at Trump.
And so there's a publication, a left-leaning publication called The Bulwark, where somebody called Will Sommer was writing an article about the, quote, Epstein Civil War and MAGA.
And it listed on the cover five MAGA, I guess, MAGA personalities who were in this alleged Epstein Civil War.
So the names that they said are in this civil war are Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and me.
So there were only four figures who were mentioned, you know, on the cover anyways.
So my picture is on the cover of the story, et cetera.
Now, did you know there's an Epstein Civil War?
I feel like I'm in a civil war and nobody told me.
I thought I was just talking about it and speculating what could be true and Letting my audience know.
Am I in some kind of civil war?
Have I ever said, you know, don't vote for Trump because of this?
No, absolutely not.
I think that it's trivial.
And that whatever the reason is, even if it's the wrong reason, are you going to throw everything that you've gained away because of the one thing?
Well, some people say yes, and that would be your privilege to do that.
I would say don't.
But I don't know that any of these people, Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, or Scott Adams, would any of those people say you shouldn't vote for Republicans in the midterm?
I don't think we would.
Would any of them say you should stop supporting Trump in all the other things he might want to get done?
I don't think anybody said that.
So a lot of people are sure that voters will decide to stay home, and they might.
But I just would disagree with the Civil War part.
What I think is that the Democrats convinced themselves that Trump supporters were a cult and that we agreed on everything no matter what it was.
And then when they see quite obviously that that's not the case, instead of going back to their own assumption and saying, oh, I guess we've been wrong for years, they were never a cult.
It's just that they were on the same page, that the followers and Trump were in favor of strong borders.
We weren't in favor of it because Trump told us to be in favor of it, and we were part of a cult.
No, we just had the same opinion.
So when it got to Epstein and the opinions legitimately were different, well, then everybody could see, oh, it's not a cult.
So the way this story should have been written is, you thought MAGA was a cult.
You're totally wrong.
Here's why.
But instead, it turned into Epstein Civil War.
As if I couldn't have a conversation with Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson, or Steve Bannon, and somehow it wouldn't go well.
Of course it would.
We probably wouldn't even disagree on much if we were really hammering it down.
All right, in other news, OMG, the O'Keeffe Media Group, got a hidden video camera conversation with a Johnson Johnson lead scientist.
Now, let me give some advice to the other lead scientists involved in COVID vaccinations.
If you go on a date, don't talk about the things you got away with in your day job.
Don't do it because there's a good chance your date works for James O'Keefe.
But apparently, this lead scientist for J ⁇ J, COVID vaccine area, said that the vaccine was, quote, not safe and effective, and it lacked research, and it was rushed.
And he said people wanted it, so we gave it to them.
And he said, quote, do you have any idea the lack of research that was done on those products?
He was talking about the vaccines.
That's a lead scientist who basically threw his company completely under the bus.
So there's that.
He said, I mean, we basically just had a race to figure out who could solve it best, meaning the various companies trying to make a vaccine.
He goes, at one point, we just canned it, meaning we canned the appropriate process.
So then James Akeef shows up like he does in these situations, and he says, are you so-and-so?
And the guy tried to say that he had the identity wrong.
So that didn't work out.
According to Breitbart, the Make America Healthy Again thing is working a little bit because 35% of U.S. food industry is committed to removing artificial dyes from the food.
You know, I have the following question.
Were artificial dyes like right at the top of the list of things that were maybe killing us?
Because the artificial dyes, you know, I'd always heard the issue, but I never really thought that was a top three, top five health concern.
But maybe it was.
Maybe it was much worse than I imagined.
So 35% is a good start, but it makes me wonder, is there something we should have been focusing on a little bit more, like just processed foods in general?
Yeah.
Anyway, and I'm a skeptic on the seed oil stuff.
I've seen arguments on both sides.
I don't know how to create a winner from that.
Anyway, Trump is also going after Adam Schiff for his alleged mortgage fraud, which involved having a house in Maryland.
So that would be close to DC.
So that's where he would stay most of the time.
But also having a condo in California, which allows him to say he's a resident of California.
So that's how he can be our senator.
But the problem is that he told the banks or the IRS or both that they were both primary residents.
But legally, you can only have one primary residence.
So Trump is calling him out for claiming that he had two primary residents, which is not legal.
And I guess the documentation is pretty clear.
So there's not much question on the factual part.
I believe we have the documents that show that he claimed they were both primary residents.
Now, that would be a problem.
So, but Schiff responded to Trump, and he said this.
So the president today is accusing me of fraud.
And the basis of his accusation is that I own a home in Maryland, and I own my home in California.
Big surprise, members of Congress, almost all of them, own more than one home or rent more than one home because we're required to be on both coasts.
So he is using my ownership of two homes to make a false claim of mortgage fraud.
So do you see what shifted there?
He acted as though the complaint is that he has two homes.
That's not the complaint.
That was never even an issue.
Of course, Trump knows, as I know and probably most of you know, that if you're an elected official from some state that's far away from Washington, D.C., you almost certainly have to have a place to stay where you live and a place to stay where you work because you're going to be there most of the year.
So, no, it's not about having two homes.
It's about specifying that both of them are your primary residence because that allows you to save money.
So it's a, is it a tax savings?
I think it's a tax savings thing.
So the designated liar, as I call him, Adam Schiff, does it again.
According to the Daily Caller News Foundation, Marianne Angela is writing that according to one pollster, GOP pollster, if you throw in Elon Musk's America Party, which we think will be formed because Musk says he's going to form it, the Republicans would lose the midterms.
So if Elon Musk does not create a third party, Republicans have a narrow advantage in the midterms.
I think other pollsters have it the other way.
But whatever it is, it's going to be close, you know, narrow advantage one way or the other.
But if you throw in the third party, the America Party, it looks like that gives the Democrats closer to something like a clean win in the midterms.
So, do you believe that Elon Musk would finalize that party and knowing that it would cost the control of the Congress, would he do that?
Would there be a principle involved or some bigger risk-reward benefit that I'm not aware of?
I have some trouble believing that he would really do that because I don't think he could recover from that reputationally.
If Elon Musk personally, through his own efforts, created that third party and what the public came to believe is that that's the only reason that the Democrats had a great midterm, even if it's not true, that would be very bad for Elon Musk's brand going forward, because everybody can see it coming.
If it were a surprise and nobody could have seen it coming, then you say to yourself, all right, well, he gambled, he got that one wrong, we wish it hadn't happened.
But if you know what the impact is, you're going to have to own that impact.
Do you think he wants to do that?
I'm going to bet against it.
You know, anything's possible, but I'm going to say 65% chance that he decides it would be too much of a cost to the country, as well as to him and his colours.
If you were a stockholder, well, I am, a stockholder in Tesla, and you knew that the head of Tesla was going to do something that would permanently piss off at least half of the country, would you be okay with that as a stockholder?
I'm not okay with it.
I'm not okay with it.
I mean, he's got free speech and he has the right to do it, but I'm not okay with it.
Not even a little bit.
All right.
I saw an article by Daniel Greenfield who talked about some polling in Gaza.
And let me see if you can guess what the answer is before I tell you.
You ready for this?
How many Palestinians, well, actually, how many residents of Gaza, and I guess resident means that you had lived there or you are living there.
I don't know how many people are still there.
But how many residents of Gaza, the Gazans, believe that Hamas is winning the war so far?
Believe that Hamas is winning the war right now?
23%.
23% of the residents of Gaza believe that Hamas is winning the war with the IGF.
How?
You know, we always joke, if you're new to the podcast here, there's a running joke that doesn't matter what the topic of the poll is, roughly one in four people will have the wrong answer, no matter what.
Now, how in the world could you be a resident of Gaza that's completely leveled and Hamas is hiding underground and getting wiped out a little by, you know, every day?
How in the world do you conclude that they're winning?
Amazing.
But apparently 58% of people in or from Gaza acknowledge that October 7th was a mistake.
And that's way down.
After October 7th, when it was fresh, 72% of the residents thought that the Hamas attack was a good idea.
What?
What?
You would think at this point it would be obvious that was a bad idea, but no.
All right.
Zelensky has said that Biden couldn't end the war with Ukraine and Russia, but he says, quote, I'm confident President Trump can.
To which I say, oh, Zelensky finally figured out how to play this.
Zelensky, you don't go to the Oval Office and try to embarrass our president.
That's not going to work out.
And it didn't.
Here's what you need to be doing.
Biden couldn't get it done, but I'm confident President Trump can.
All right, now we're talking.
You should be flattering him.
You should be complimenting his successes so far.
You should be saying that nobody in the world but Donald Trump would be the right person to end this war.
Why?
Because that's what gets you some cooperation.
Show some respect.
You're going to get some back.
And at the moment, he's going to get a bunch of weapons that the U.S. is sending him.
And he also uses the Trump idea.
Remember when Trump would threaten Xi and threaten Putin and say, well, they only have to believe there's a 10% chance they'll go through with it.
And Zelensky is borrowing that technique, talking about the offensive weapons that Trump is going to give them.
He says, any offensive weapons provided by the U.S. could force Putin to come to the negotiating table.
Here's the important part: even if those weapons are never used.
That's a Trumpism.
Trump is the one who says, I don't have to do the threat.
You just have to think there's a 10% chance I might.
And then you're going to get real serious about negotiating.
Zelensky's borrowing his technique.
We don't have to use the weapons.
It might be enough that Putin knows we could.
There you go.
Yeah, he's pacing Trump in just the right way, at least that day.
Trump was asked about the report that he seemed to be in favor of Zelensky bombing Moscow, not bombing, but sending missiles into Moscow using the better weapons that Trump and America are planning to provide.
But Trump says no, that Zelensky should not bomb Moscow, despite the fact that Trump did say he wanted Putin to feel some pain.
So the Daily Mail, Emily Goodin, is writing about this.
But there was a conversation in which Trump may have asked Zelensky if he could bomb, if he could attack Moscow with the American weapons.
And I think that Zelensky said yes, but it was more of a what's possible, you know, what's doable.
It wasn't a suggestion to do it.
So Trump does not support attacking Moscow.
But if Zelensky did attack Moscow, I don't know if Trump would be unhappy, would he?
He's just saying he's not in favor of it.
But if somebody did it anyway, could it put enough pressure on Putin that he'd want to end the war?
I don't think so.
I don't think that Zelensky could destroy enough of Moscow that would do anything except increase Putin's support.
Because once you attack somebody's capital, well, people are going to back whoever's in charge of their country.
So it's not going to, I don't think it's going to hurt Putin, even if Zelensky took out part of Moscow.
So probably a bad idea.
Putin responded to Trump's threats that they would put 100% tariffs on anybody who was doing business with Russia.
Putin's response to that was that a Kremlin official says Trump's threats of tariffs are serious, and Putin will comment if necessary.
He'll comment if necessary.
Isn't that really Putin just dismissing the whole risk of tariffs?
I'll comment if necessary, but honestly, it doesn't look like it's going to be necessary.
So he's sort of brushing that off.
And then OAN was talking about how the chief Pentagon correspondent.
Oh, looking at my own notes here.
Apparently the Department of Defense has contracts with some big AI companies, at least three of them.
So Google OpenAI and XAI and I think Anthropic.
So they have these gigantic contracts for AI that I believe is tied to their drone plans.
So remember I told you that within three years, the Ukraine front line with Russia will be an all-robot war.
There won't be people because the people will be killed instantly by all the drones that have AI and are making their own decisions about who to attack and when.
So apparently the U.S. is trying to sort of leapfrog the other drone makers where you need a person to control each one.
And if we could build a whole bunch of drones in the U.S. and provide them to Ukraine, and those drones had AI built in, so you didn't need a human operator for every moment of its flight, that could change the war.
Now, what I don't know is if Russia, with the help of China, presumably, could match all the unguided AI drones that the U.S. is likely to provide.
They could probably beat us in quantity, but could they beat us in AI plus drones?
And that's where I think we might have an advantage.
And that's why I think it'll turn into just a drone war.
So that's my prediction.
Within three years, no humans on the front lines.
It'll be the first robot war in the history of humanity.
All right.
People, that's all I had to say today.
I'm going to talk to the beloved subscribers on locals because they're the best.
You're pretty awesome, too.
But the local subscribers, oh man, they're the best.
