God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, NPR CEO, Senator Kennedy, Grok Meme Making, Dana Bash, Joy Reid, Alcatraz Reopening Possible, President Trump, Chronic Venous Insufficiency, Trump Popularity Increase, Scott Jennings, Democrat Theater Kids, WSJ Anti-Trump Hit-piece, Trump Epstein Birthday Card Hoax, Epstein Files, Mike Benz, Alex Acosta. Jeffrey Epstein, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Tariff Successes, Gavin Newsom Jesse Watters, Medicaid Illegals Tracking, Migrant Deportations, 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.
But first, I want to make sure I can see all your comments.
And come on.
Come on, locals.
There we go.
I can see you.
Pum pum pum pum pum.
Pum pum pum pum pum.
Pum pum.
you Good morning, everybody.
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 in elevating this experience to levels that no one can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper among her glass attacker, chalices, dina, canteen, joker flask, a vessel of a kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dope meeting of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Ah.
Delicious.
Well, if you're a fan of Akira the Don, who makes music by taking social media influencers' voices and turning it into popular music.
Well, he has another one that features me talking about what if laziness is a habit and Akira the Dawn.
So look for that on my X feed today or at the Akira the Dawn X feed.
You're going to love it.
Some people say it's the best thing they've ever heard.
Some people use it to fall asleep, but you might like it.
Speaking of music, while Akira the Dawn is rising, the Steve Miller band canceled their U.S. tour, not because the ticket sales were soft, although they were.
What would be the real reason they canceled their 31-city tour?
Well, according to the band, it's because of climate change.
So it's probably a coincidence that the ticket sales were anemic.
The real reason is because of the weather.
Not just the weather today, but the weather forever.
Yeah.
So it'll be a little bit embarrassing if next year they try to do another tour, because I would ask, what happened to climate change?
Did it get solved?
And what about all those other touring acts?
Are they going to take their chances?
Will Paul McCartney's tour be destroyed by climate?
Maybe.
Or maybe the Steve Miller band is not as popular as they hoped.
Well, I wonder if there's any news about science that they didn't need to do any research.
Well, yes.
According to Medscape, Carla Cantor is writing that it looks like it might be possible, according to a large observational study, to analyze the activity of a user with their smartphone and determine patterns of psychopathology.
In other words, they've determined that they can tell how crazy you are and what form of crazy you are, you might call it mental health, based on your changes in your phone's activity or changes in your activity with your phone.
Now, how many of you did not know that if you had access to somebody's phone usage, you could determine what their psychopathology is?
Is there anybody who didn't already know that if you knew what they were doing privately with their phone, you could pretty much tell who's bash crazy and who's not, and probably even specifically what's wrong?
Well, they don't know that for sure, but they're planning a big study to find out.
But they don't need it.
They could just ask Scott.
Scott, would we be able to determine the mental health of a person by their phone usage?
Yes.
Big yes.
Yes, you can.
Well, according to Interesting Engineering, Chris Young writes that there are several firms trying to make it cheaper to launch rockets into space.
One of them is a centrifuge, a massive centrifuge.
So it would spin the rocket.
And when the speed is really high, it would release it.
So it would basically just toss it in the air.
And then once the hard part of the liftoff is over, because the closer you are to Earth, the more fuel you need, then some fuel would kick in after it reached a certain height.
So that's in the works startup.
And there's a company that's looking to use a space cannon to blast payloads into low orbit so that they don't need as much fuel.
But now there's a new one called Auriga Space.
And they're trying to develop a maglev track so they can shoot a space module into space with much less fuel.
And they've been Funded.
So I don't know if Elon Musk is ever going to use any of these.
I feel like none of them would work if he had a human on board, because you would have to accelerate it so fast that it would probably kill all people.
But, you know, maybe if you're launching a, I don't know, a space weapon or some kind of intercontinental ballistic weapon, might be very useful.
So we'll see.
Meanwhile, the CEO of NPR, she went back on CNN because, as you know, the federal funding for NPR was voted away.
And on CNN, Senator John Kennedy is commenting on a clip of her on CNN in which she claims the NPR is, quote, a nonpartisan organization.
The funding was cut because they're a partisan organization.
But she says, no, we're nonpartisan.
Always have been.
So Senator Kennedy forwarded your clip on X and added his comment.
So why did a former NPR editor find that their $200 and million dollar DC newsroom had 87 Democrats in editorial positions and zero Republicans?
So the CEO of NPR wants us to believe that they're nonpartisan, but 100% of their editors, and there are a lot of them, 87 of them, every one of them is a Democrat.
I'm not sure I believe her.
Well, let's see if you can find a pattern in this next story.
Does this story sound like anything you've ever heard before?
Does it remind you of anything else that's happened in the news?
New York Post is reporting that Biden pushed for $10 billion worth of electric mail delivery trucks.
So he wanted to build a fleet of electric, you know, green energy trucks for the post office.
How many of them did they make?
They've only made 250 electric mail trucks in two years.
So it appears that the pattern of Democrats being very good at voting money for things is really bad at making anything happen, such as a high-speed rail, such as everything else they've tried to fund, such as their rural Wi-Fi.
They built nothing.
How many times do you have to see a story about Democrats allocating billions of dollars to a construction project that didn't happen?
And probably it didn't happen because Democrats always have so many rules, you know, environmental rules and people got to comment on it.
So once again, Democrats are the ones who can't build anything.
Yeah, Solyndra, another example.
So allegedly, there are big protests this weekend.
Is it happening today yet?
So it's called Good Trouble protest.
Good trouble referring to the kind of protest that's trouble, but there's a good reason for it.
And Newsmax reporting about this.
And then Newsmax was doing a person on the street interview with some of the good trouble protesters.
And I can't get enough of this.
You know what's going to happen, right?
So the reporter puts the microphone in the face of the protester who is happy to talk.
How old is the protester?
If you guessed senior citizen, you were correct.
So when asked why the senior citizen was citizen, was asked, what are you protesting against?
And I'd like to do my impression of the senior citizen who thought it was important to go protest when asked, why are you protesting?
It goes something like this.
Oh, well, the Trump things and all the autocracy, and there's the stealing of the democracy.
What kind of democracy is he stealing?
Well, all kinds of things.
So many things I can't think of one.
But, you know, he's autocratic and the oligarchs, and they're stealing the democracy.
Oh, my God.
I want to see as many of those as I can.
I want to see if anyone can come up with anything because they are protesters, not protesters.
They're protesters.
They're pests.
All right.
Somebody asked, somebody named Defiant Ells on X, it's an X account, said, you know, why isn't there more of a meme generator built into Grok?
Now, Grok can create images, but wouldn't you like to add your own text to it and turn it into a meme?
Well, Elon Musk saw that comment and said something very cool is brewing.
And later he said, working on a new way to make creative viral videos fast.
It's being called Imagine.
So maybe Grok will be your solution to meme making.
I don't know if it will suggest a meme or if you have to just pick your own image and then add your own text.
Or will it use AI to suggest viral videos?
I don't know if AI is up to that.
So I'm going to guess it's just helping you make your own memes.
I doubt it could make a meme that anybody would care about, but we'll see.
If it can, that would be indeed very cool.
All right.
Here's what I love.
So, Dana Bash was on CNN, and she was reading a truth social post by Trump.
And in that post, Trump was saying, he was talking about the fake news, the PBS and NPR.
And he said that they were even worse than CNN.
Now, because he's the president of the United States, whatever he says that's provocative is news.
So CNN, whose job is to cover the news, has to read out loud or show that the President of the United States calls them fake news.
So let me ask you this.
I've told you that I like watching the news for the humor.
And honestly, that's not hyperbole.
I watch the news, you know, somewhat to be informed, but also because it's funny so often.
Now, what would be funnier than Trump making the fake news cover the real news that the President of the United States calls the fake news the fake news?
Let me read that again because I'm so proud of it.
I wrote this.
What is funnier than Trump making the fake news cover the real news that the President of the United States calls the fake news the fake news?
Nothing.
There's nothing funnier than that.
The fact that Trump has made the fake news punch themselves on air.
I've got a message from the president.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop hitting me.
No, I can't.
Now that's funny.
All right.
Joy Reed was a guest on Pierce Morgan's show.
And he shows a video of her crying after getting fired from MSNBC.
And she claimed that part of the reason she got fired is that she's a black woman.
And Pierce Morgan pushed back.
He said, let's be honest, I don't think you were fired after all those years because of your skin color or because you're a black woman.
So I'm going to side with Joy Reed, who believes she was fired by MSNBC, the most left-leaning place on the earth, because of her black woman status.
But she's not alone.
There's a pattern that's been developed because another black woman named Stephen Colbert, Stephen Colbert, is another black woman who's been canceled.
Apparently, she had a show on Late Night, some kind of late night show she had.
And I never saw it, but I've heard of it.
So Black woman Stephen Colbert has also been canceled.
Now, it's not because she apparently said bad things about her employer and about the $16 million lawsuit to Trump.
He called it a big fat bribe.
But it probably wasn't because of that.
It was probably, wait, what?
Somebody's telling me that Stephen Colbert is a white man?
Well, how's that possible?
I thought they were just canceling black women.
But he's a white man, Canadian.
Oh, wow.
All right, well, I have all that wrong.
So forget everything I said.
Turns out that Stephen Colbert is and was a white man.
A white man.
All right, good.
But the reason for the cancellation appears to be low ratings.
They were insufficient for monetizing it.
So they were losing money on late night.
If you're losing money on late night, aren't you probably losing money on everything?
Because late night used to be the big money maker, right?
It used to be that Johnny Carson was the big money maker.
Adam Schiff was just son of Stephen Colbert.
I wonder why they're getting canceled.
All right, well, according to Politico, Mark Caputo, Trump is really serious about turning Alcatraz into a maximum security prison.
And I guess, no, it wasn't Politico, it was Axios.
Axios is saying that officials have made a preliminary cost estimate.
And I guess Bondi Bergum toured it yesterday.
And it's going to cost $2 billion to turn the old closed prison of Alcatraz into a new modern prison.
Do you think that'll actually happen?
Why in the world would they think it's a good idea to turn Alcatraz into a prison?
There's got to be a cheaper way to do it than putting it on a stupid island.
Wouldn't that be the most expensive way you could build a building on an island?
I mean, seriously?
So somebody has to ask Trump, if he's an expert on building stuff and construction, why would he even consider the most expensive building project you could get for something that doesn't need to be a gem.
It just needs to be functional if it's a prison.
So I don't know if this is going to go forward, but I would point out that Trump has already monetized a war.
I didn't think anybody could do that.
But by getting the U.S. out of the business of funding Ukraine and saying that the only thing we're going to do is sell the Europeans weapons that they can give to Ukraine as they want.
And so he monetized the Ukraine-Russia war, which I'm legitimately impressed by.
If you can't fix it, monetize it.
Likewise, he's added these big tariffs to China because they have not solved the fentanyl problem.
Likewise, for Mexico and Canada, he doesn't like that they've done enough on fentanyl, so he's tariffing them.
So in other words, he couldn't figure out how to solve fentanyl right away.
I mean, he's doing all the normal law enforcement things, and they're doing well, but it's a really big problem.
So instead of solving it, he monetized it.
He monetized overdose deaths, which I have no problem with.
I mean, if you can't solve it and you're trying as hard as you can, it'd be one thing if he weren't trying to solve it legitimately, but he's also trying to solve it.
But until you do, you might as well monetize it, which is so genius that I don't even have words to describe it.
It's like, why didn't anybody else think of that?
That you could wait a little bit longer if you're monetizing it.
So when I say that he wants to spend $2 billion on Alcatraz, I wonder, does he have a plan for monetizing that?
You know, will he do, maybe they'll just keep doing tours?
Because right now, I think he can still do it.
You can do a tour of Alcatraz.
You know, it's like a paid tour.
Well, maybe he's going to do that, but have actual prisoners there to make the tour that much better.
So maybe he's figured out a way to monetize that, but I haven't heard it.
Well, in other news, Trump has a medical condition that's not really serious, but he has some leg swelling that's called chronic venous insufficiency.
So it's just something that happens to old people.
Their veins lose their little valves, according to Dr. Drew.
And then you get the little swelling in your legs.
So it's common for people who are over 70.
And then allegedly, Trump has some kind of hand injury from shaking hands a lot and also being on some kind of aspirin regimen.
Do I have that right?
That they're genuinely saying he has a hand injury from shaking hands too much while being on an aspirin regimen?
Maybe.
I suppose that's entirely possible.
But it sounds like such a Trump excuse.
Well, I was working so hard, shaking so many hands in disaster zones that, you know, I got injured.
So you got that going on.
Meanwhile, CNN has some polling information.
Gunther Eagleman on X is pointing this out.
Where even CNN is saying that Trump's approval rating got higher after the Epstein online controversy.
Now, are you surprised that Trump's popularity went up after it was found that he didn't find anything on Epstein?
Well, I feel like people are responding to all the actual accomplishments.
And I feel like if you went into the public and you said, hey, how much do you care about this Epstein thing?
It's only the people like us, the people who would tune into a political show or the people who would give a podcast about politics, me.
I don't think other people care.
And so far, they haven't been given a reason to care.
So I think the public, wisely, is saying, well, if the economy is looking good and we're monetizing that war we don't care about, well, maybe we like this guy.
But very few Republicans said the top issue was the Epstein case.
Yeah.
There was only one person in the entire poll, not 1%, but one person who said the Epstein thing was the biggest issue.
Just one, one person in the entire world.
Well, in the country, who was Republican.
Meanwhile, also on CNN, Scott Jennings is reporting that, quote, I sat next to a real-life ear truther.
Now, an ear truther is someone who doesn't believe that Trump was shot in the ear in Butler, Pennsylvania, and that maybe made the whole thing up to be more popular.
And CNN actually had somebody at the table who made the claim that he doesn't necessarily believe the ear was really shot.
And the host, Abby Phillip, she couldn't let that go.
Now, to her credit, she made sure that her viewers knew he got shot in the ear.
We're not questioning that he got shot in the ear.
He got shot in the ear.
But they're making Scott Jennings' job so easy that all he has to do is mock the person next to him.
And that's good entertainment TV.
So good for you.
Also, CNN, they're reading that in their latest poll, the Democratic Party is at their lowest favorability since 1992.
But it's not as if the Democrats have given up.
Sure.
Maybe they haven't done well lately.
And maybe their popularity or their favorability is At the lowest level since 1992.
But here's the good news for them: they have a plan to come back.
Are you ready for this?
Apparently, Democrats are trying to roll out a new tone.
So they had a retreat in which the Democrats got together to strategize what to do differently.
And of course, they noticed that Trump is doing well.
So they're saying, all right, why don't we do more of what Trump is doing?
And what do you think that is?
Well, he uses social media a lot.
He's authentic and less scripted.
And he does more cursing.
And they also suggested that they use more Trump-like insults.
So good for the Democrats.
They're staying away from policy discussions because they don't do so well on that.
And they've decided that the thing they hate most about Trump is the part they're going to copy.
That's right.
The part they hate the most, which is his personality and his character, they've decided that's the part they're going to copy instead of coming up with good ideas for the country.
I tell you, when I say that I watch the news for the humor, this is it.
It doesn't get better than this.
But Senator Chris Murphy said, in the wake of Trump, it's really important for us to understand that authenticity is the coin of the realm.
The voters can smell insincerity more acutely than ever before.
They know when you're using talking points or poll-tested language.
So you tell me if I'm going too far.
We've been saying that Democrats are the theater kids, and you're probably hearing a lot that a lot of their complaints are, quote, performative.
And everything seems like they're acting.
They're literally performing.
And they're ignoring policy.
And they're putting on little shows that are so lame and so cringeworthy that it makes me think, oh, those who can act become actors.
Those who can't act become acting coaches.
Those who can't act and can't become and are not good enough to be acting coaches become politicians, specifically Democrats.
So apparently that's the fallback position if you didn't make it in Hollywood.
Well, maybe I could run for office.
You know, I didn't make that sitcom, but I feel like I could be a representative from some state.
Well, so the latest thing the Democrats, and this is exclusive, I have an exclusive scoop.
So this is, you won't see this on any other network or any other podcast.
You ready?
I don't do this a lot.
So this is an exclusive Scott Adams coffee scoop.
The Democrats are so anxious to copy Trump that they're trying to figure out how to make their legs swell.
And their hands have a bruise.
Why?
Well, they can't tell what the important parts are.
They just think if Trump is doing it and Trump is being successful, it must be something to imitate.
So now they're trying to figure out how to make their legs swell.
That's my exclusive.
And of course it's true.
I wouldn't make that up, would I?
Maybe, maybe I would.
Well, the big news of the day, because it's the summer and you get all the weird news in the summer, is that the Wall Street Journal did a big feature article in which they're trying to draw a picture of Donald Trump and Epstein as good friends for many years.
Now, are you as blown away as I am that this Epstein story started out as one thing?
And Trump's involvement was, oh, yeah, it's true that Epstein lived in the same town in Palm Spruce.
What is it?
Wherever that is in Florida.
And it's true that he did go to Mar-a-Lago at some events, but Trump found out that he was a dirtbag and had him banned from Mar-a-Lago.
So for now several years, I believe that their interactions were minor and that he wasn't a big fan of him, and he eventually banned him.
Now it turns out, according to witnesses and new reporting, that Epstein and Trump were something like best friends.
And for something like, I don't know, 15 years or something, they hung out a lot.
And they would do things together a lot.
Now, how in the world are we just finding that out?
Is that weird?
I feel like reality itself is just bending.
And it can't be true that it took us this long to find out that they were not only associated with each other, but they had a really strong association.
And there's a reason that Trump was on his plane a bunch of times.
Now, one of the questions that was asked by, was it Mark Halperin asking this?
I forget who asked.
It might have been him on his two-way pod, which is really good.
We don't know, and nobody has asked, how many times did Trump go to Epstein's homes in the United States?
Don't know.
How many times did Epstein visit Trump in any of his locations?
Don't know.
Isn't it weird that we don't know that?
Wouldn't those be the obvious questions?
So the fact that this Epstein story gets deeper and more weird every day is just blowing me away.
Like you thought you knew the general contours of the story.
How in the world are we still finding out things about it?
I don't know.
Anyway, so the news story from the Wall Street Journal is that when Epstein turned 50, Ghelaine Maxwell organized a bunch of birthday cards that she put in a binder.
And they were from prominent people and friends and stuff.
And allegedly, one of the birthday cards to Epstein was written and a little drawing was put in it by Trump.
Now, Trump says it's a fraud and that he did not write that message.
I'll tell you what the message is in a little bit.
But it was a kind of a personal message that looked like they had secrets.
And suddenly that's the story.
Now, if you were the Wall Street Journal, and the biggest part of your story is that they had seen a...
Is that it?
Oh, my goodness.
Oh, my.
So right now, for the very first time, I'm seeing what they claim was Trump's drawing on the card.
And what they said was that he signed his name to look like the pubic hair on the naked woman that he drew.
And I'm looking at it for the first time.
I guess Mike Benz posted it, and I'm seeing it in the comments now for the first time.
It's very obvious that he did not sign his name to be part of her private parts.
It's literally, he just signed his name at the bottom of the drawing, and it just happened to go across part of the body.
So the first thing you need to know is that the news was completely lying to you that he signed his name so it looked like pubic hair.
You would only believe that if you'd never seen it.
I'm looking at it right now.
And, well, actually, I can show it to you because it's on my other device.
Let's see.
Can you see that?
So look where the signature is, if I can get it so the light doesn't destroy it.
All right.
You can see it a little bit there.
But does that look like he meant his signature to be people big hair?
No.
It's just he's signing it at the bottom of the drawing.
That's all.
Now, if you've ever seen, if you've ever seen Trump sign anything or do anything, he always uses that big thick pen.
But here's a little drawing that doesn't look like the sure hand of Trump.
Trump has a heavy hand.
So even when he's just signing his name, it's like a thick, lots of pressure, you know, really.
But the drawing that he is allegedly supposed to have drawn clearly is drawn by somebody who doesn't have that style of drawing.
Clearly.
Yeah, and it doesn't look like his handwriting.
Right.
So it does look like somebody drew that in there.
Maybe Autopen, huh?
Maybe Biden's Autopen drew it.
So let me give you my take on it after I tell you what it says.
So apparently the letter, maybe the other part of the card, had some words on it that I'll read to you.
Happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret.
That was part of it.
But let me give you the whole thing.
So it said, voiceover.
So it used the words voiceover, colon.
There must be more to life than having everything.
Then it said, Donald, Donald, colon, as if Donald is saying this.
Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is.
And then Jeffrey, colon, nor will I, since I also know what it is.
Donald, we have certain things in common, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey, yes, we do, come to think of it.
Donald, enigmas never age.
Have you noticed that?
Jeffrey, as a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.
Donald, a pal is a wonderful thing.
Happy birthday, and may every day be another wonderful secret.
All right.
Now, this would have happened allegedly before we knew everything about Epstein's activities.
So it would not be surprising if Trump signed a birthday card for Epstein because it was before Epstein was in trouble and they knew each other.
However, I just asked Grock.
I put in the alleged writing that is allegedly from Trump and I said, Grok, does this match the style of Trump such that it would look like he really wrote it?
Do you know what Grok said?
Nope.
Did I have to ask Grok if it matched Trump's style?
Nope.
Did any of us need to ask anybody if that was Trump's writing?
Nope.
It obviously isn't.
Now, you might recall that Trump weirdly said that he thought that things had been added to the Epstein file that were just made up, maybe by Comey and who knows who else.
And when I heard that, I thought to myself, really?
He's going to try to convince us that just made up stuff was added to the file.
I don't believe that made up stuff was added to the file.
And then this comes out.
And this is not part of the Epstein files.
The Wall Street Journal has this exclusive.
They somehow got to look at this.
But it seems obviously fake.
If this is real, they're going to have to prove it.
And they're going to have to have a witness who had it in their hand or saw it or something.
But it looks fake as hell.
Like, seriously fake.
So why would this even be there?
I don't know.
You believe they doctored the files?
Well, I do believe that the Epstein files probably have some deletions, but it would be a whole other level.
You know, things that disappeared.
But it would be a whole other level if somebody made up stuff and just put it in the file.
Maybe.
Nothing is impossible.
Scott Jennings' reaction to the story about the birthday card is, my reaction to reading this is, so what?
I mean, 2003, before anything had happened, we know Donald Trump knew the guy.
We also know he disowned him and kicked him out of the club.
Yeah.
So I would agree that the non-news nerd public, they don't really care.
And now it looks like Trump is going to sue Rupert Murdoch in the Wall Street Journal.
Rupert Murdoch, also the owner of Fox News, which is his friend sometimes.
So we'll see.
But he wants Murdoch to be on record.
But then even Elon Musk apparently doubted that it was legitimate.
So Elon Musk would kind of want Trump to maybe get in trouble based on his prior comments.
But even Elon Musk looks at that and says, I don't think so.
So that's my take is that it's sort of obviously not real.
The closest that could be to real is if Trump had delegated somebody else to draw something on the card, you know, some assistant or something.
But why would they draw a naked woman?
I don't know.
None of it makes sense.
So I'm going to say Trump is probably right.
I'm going to give this a 95% chance of being fake news.
Mike Benz has an interesting take on Epstein's connection to intelligence agencies.
And Mike Benz, as the national treasurer that he is, explains to us things that most of us didn't know about how the world works.
And what they need to know is that you don't need to work for the CIA.
You could simply be somebody that they deal with in a mutually productive way.
So that's different from working for them.
It might be that you just have some way that you can both make money.
CIA gets what they want.
Maybe the middleman who makes something happen gets what they want.
Would that be a case of working for or working with the CIA?
Well, arguably not.
So you could imagine that all intelligence agencies would not say they've ever worked with them.
But maybe, as Mike Benz points out, it could be that the sex part of the Epstein operation was to, quote, juice deals.
So maybe it allowed him to have relationships with heads of state and important people that otherwise he wouldn't have access to.
Maybe they worried that he had too much information about them, so they were a little bit more willing to donate money to things that the CIA would want money donated to.
So it's entirely possible that there's a whole bunch of rich people who have given lots of money to things that Jeffrey Epstein said, hey, you know what would be good to donate money to?
This particular charity or this college or this program or this education in another country.
And then the person doing the donating would not even know they were working for, were doing the bidding of the CIA.
Only Epstein would know that.
So that model would be, hey, Epstein, we want a bunch of people to donate to this thing or another because it's good for the United States.
So can you get some rich people to donate?
Yes, I can.
And would that get him any money that he gets to keep?
Maybe.
I don't know.
Maybe he just keeps part of it.
Apparently, Bill Burns, who was the head of the CIA at one point, met with Epstein three times, including two times at his house.
Okay, that's pretty damning.
If you have the head of the CIA visiting your house multiple times, and then you say, I'm not working with him, well, okay, I'm not so sure.
But it could be that Epstein was just an expert at getting money from people and hiding the trail.
One of the things that Benz recommends is that Trump allow the release of the transcripts and questions and answers from something called the OPR, the Office of Professional Responsibility, where investigators talked to Alex Acosta.
He was the prosecutor working on the original 2008 plea deal for Epstein.
And I thought to myself, how does Mike Benz know all these things even exist?
Now, The fact that we have, and I say we, you know, the people who are pro-Trump, that we have a Mike Benz who seems to have this incredible understanding of how the government is organized in the real world.
So he can do what none of us could do, and presumably the fake news couldn't do it either, which is to say there is a document that probably exists, that's probably not part of the, quote, Epstein files, that if we could see it, would answer a lot of questions, such as the question of whether Alex Acosta ever said that Epstein was part of some intelligence operation.
Because I don't believe that that is proven.
I believe that people say that Alex Epstein said it, but I don't believe that we have a document to prove it or a video of him saying it.
So that's a good idea.
We should get access to that.
And then Charlie Kirk goes further and says that somebody should bring Acosta in for a full interview to find out what he says.
If he said it once, maybe he'll say it again, because, you know, Epstein's dead.
So he could probably say things he couldn't say originally.
So yeah, let's hear from Akashi.
He's still alive.
And then Trump posted on True Social that he wants Bondi to produce, quote, any and all pertinent grand jury testimony subject to court approval.
So apparently there are some documents that you would not call part of the Epstein files that would tell us maybe everything we want to know.
Maybe.
So that's possible.
And then Representative Anna Polina Luna said this on X. Why hasn't a single media outlet asked me to discuss my investigation into the destruction of Epstein's evidence at the FBI under Biden's former deputy director?
To which I say, wait, what?
Are you telling me that Representative Luna has been doing an investigation into the destruction of Epstein evidence at the FBI?
And apparently she has evidence that that happened.
Otherwise, she wouldn't be mentioning it.
And that's not the top headline?
And she's saying, why does no media outlet want to talk to me about this?
Yeah, good question.
Why does no media outlet want to talk to her about what seems to be a really important question?
So that's going on.
And then Insurrection Barbie on X points out that apparently we know, somehow we know this, that Harvard gave Epstein an office, keycard access, and unrestricted visitation rights between 2003 and 2007.
They also let him attend faculty meetings, meet students, and host visitors.
And nobody is asking why they did that.
Keep in mind, Epstein didn't even have a college education.
And at one point, he was a math teacher at an exclusive school that Bill Barr's father ran.
And Harvard was giving him special access to the campus for reasons that we don't quite understand.
Now, it might be because one of the things that Epstein did was raise money for Harvard.
So there might be just a money reason for it.
But we'd like to know that.
Even MSNBC is asking Democrats why they didn't do more about the Epstein files, if it's so important now.
So MSNBC said to Jamie Raskin, is that his name?
Raskin?
Yeah.
If it was a crisis then, it's a crisis now.
Why didn't Democrats call for Epstein's list to be released when Biden was in office?
And Raskin says, I mean, I don't know.
We had other cases.
We were busy.
What with the autocracy and the stealing of the democracy?
No, let's say that.
He didn't say that, but he did not answer that question very well.
Why didn't the Democrats do more?
And then Lawrence O'Donnell, who is going full batshit crazy, Western lensman points this out with a video clip.
So Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC, he's floating the idea that J.D. Vance is the one behind that birthday letter.
Because he says J.D. Vance was trying to get a promotion.
So he's trying to take Trump out so he can become president.
And Lawrence O'Donnell thinks that the way he's doing it is that he's the person behind the birthday card that the Wall Street Journal was writing about.
Now, does that strike you as a really good point worthy of discussion?
Or does it strike you as Lawrence O'Donnell has a mental problem?
To me, it's the latter.
It looks like, oh my God, you're totally mental.
What is wrong with you?
You should immediately seek therapy or have somebody look at your cell phone to see what you've been doing with it lately.
That's what I say.
Well, Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney has conceded, according to Breitbart News, Francis Martel's writing about this, that Canada might not be able to get Trump to drop all of his tariffs when they get a deal eventually.
So in other words, Canada now believes that they will simply pay more, even if they agree to a deal.
So is that a case of Trump winning?
Yes, it is.
If they've already acknowledged that at the end of the negotiations, they're going to be worse off and America will be better off.
Because that's what they said.
I mean, that's what the prime minister said.
Yep.
That looks like it.
And then according to a different Carney, John Carney, who writes for Breitbart, that the import pricing that we can see suggests that the foreign producers are eating most of the cost of the tariffs by lowering their prices.
So it would seem that Canada is essentially endorsing Trump's view of tariffs as making things a little more fair, and that the economists were all wrong.
So the economists have been surveyed again, and they've lowered their odds that we're going to go into some kind of recession.
So it's down to 33%, according to the Wall Street Journal.
It was 45% in April when they were all worried about the tariffs.
So you've got a whole bunch of economists who were wrong about tariffs.
What good are the economists?
And is it true that Trump is just smarter than the economists?
Because it looks like it.
Did Trump, who is not an economist, just beat every economist on this prediction?
It looks like it.
I mean, you're going to have to give him credit.
He looks like he beat every expert in the field.
It looks like it.
Well, Gavin Newsom says he's suing Fox because he claims that Jesse Waters on his show falsely asserted that Newsom had lied when he talked to Trump about the, I guess, about the disasters and the fire disaster in California.
And he alleges that Jesse Waters aired a deceptively edited clip of Trump's remarks, omitting Trump saying a day ago.
So I guess Newsom said that he had just talked to Trump.
And Jesse Waters, I think if I'm reading this right, is claiming that that didn't happen.
But in order to bolster that claim, had to remove from the clip the part where Trump said it did happen.
And according to Newsom, he would settle for an apology.
But if not, he has all day long to do this legal process.
And he's suing for hundreds of millions of dollars.
And I'm wondering, what the heck will Fox News do?
Because if Newsom can produce the clip that shows that the important part of the clip was clipped off of the clip, it's going to be hard to say that they didn't know they were doing it.
You know what I mean?
Now, Jesse himself is not the one who's preparing the clips.
We assume that that would be some kind of producer function.
So it could be that Jesse is just finding out that he did a story that didn't pass the fact checking.
So I don't know what you do if it might be just a producer thing.
But if I were Jesse and I knew that the proof of the other side's point was simply a video clip that everybody has access to, I think I'd be apologizing.
Oh, somebody says that Jesse apologized last night on the air.
Oh, okay.
All right.
Well, he doesn't have to take my advice.
He already did it.
That would be how I would have handled it.
I would have done that.
I would have apologized on air.
So allegedly, there are big protests this weekend.
Is it happening today yet?
So it's called Good Trouble Protest.
Good Trouble referring to the kind of protest that's trouble, but there's a good reason for it.
And Newsmax reporting about this.
And then Newsmax was doing a person on the street interview with some of the good trouble protesters.
And I can't get enough of this.
You know what's going to happen, right?
So the reporter puts the microphone in the face of the protester who is happy to talk.
How old is the protester?
If you guessed senior citizen, you were correct.
So when asked why the senior citizen was citizen was asked, what are you protesting against?
And I'd like to do my impression of the senior citizen who thought it was important to go protest when asked, why are you protesting?
It goes something like this.
Well, the Trump things and all the autocracy, and there's the stealing of the democracy.
What kind of democracy is he stealing?
Well, all kinds of things.
So many things, I can't think of one.
But, you know, he's autocratic and the oligarchs, and they're stealing the democracy.
Oh, my God.
I want to see as many of those as I can.
I want to see if anyone can come up with anything because they are protesters, not protesters.
They're pro pesters.
They're pests.
All right.
Somebody asked, somebody named Defiant Ls on X, it's an X account, said, you know, why isn't there more of a meme generator built into Grok?
Now, Grok can create Images, but wouldn't you like to add your own text to it and turn it into a meme?
Well, Elon Musk saw that comment and said something very cool is brewing.
And later he said, working on a new way to make creative viral videos fast.
It's being called Imagine.
So maybe Grop will be your solution to meme making.
I don't know if it will suggest a meme or if you have to just pick your own image and then add your own text.
Or will it use AI to suggest viral videos?
I don't know if AI is up to that.
So I'm going to guess it's just helping you make your own memes.
I doubt it can make a meme that anybody would care about.
But we'll see.
If it can, that would be indeed very cool.
All right.
Here's what I love.
So Dana Bash was on CNN, and she was reading a truth social post by Trump.
And in that post, Trump was saying, he was talking about the fake news, the PBS and NPR.
And he said that they were even worse than CNN.
Now, because he's the President of the United States, whatever he says that's provocative is news.
So CNN, whose job is to cover the news, has to read out loud or show that the President of the United States calls them fake news.
So let me ask you this.
I've told you that I like watching the news for the humor.
And honestly, that's not a hyperbole.
I watch the news, you know, somewhat to be informed, but also because it's funny so often.
Now, what would be funnier than Trump making the fake news cover the real news that the President of the United States calls the fake news the fake news?
Let me read that again because I'm so proud of it.
I wrote this.
What is funnier than Trump making the fake news cover the real news that the President of the United States calls the fake news the fake news?
Nothing.
There's nothing funnier than that.
The fact that Trump has made the fake news punch themselves on air.
I've got a message from the president.
Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop hitting me.
No, I can't.
Now that's funny.
All right.
Joy Reed was a guest on Pierce Morgan's show.
And he shows a video of her crying after getting fired from MSNBC.
And she claimed that part of the reason she got fired is that she's a black woman.
And Pierce Morgan pushed back.
He said, let's be honest, I don't think you were fired after all those years because of your skin color or because you're a black woman.
So I'm going to side with Joy Reed, who believes she was fired by MSNBC, the most left-leaning place on the earth, because of her black woman status.
But she's not alone.
There's a pattern that's been developed because another black woman named Stephen Colbert, Stephen Colbert, is another black woman who's been canceled.
Apparently, she had a show on Late Night, some kind of late night show she had.
And I never saw it, but I've heard of it.
So Black woman Stephen Colbert has also been canceled.
Now, it's not because she apparently said bad things about her employer and about the $16 million lawsuit to Trump.
He called it a big fat bribe.
But it probably wasn't because of that.
Somebody's telling me that Stephen Colbert is a white man?
Well, how's that possible?
I thought they were just canceling black women.
But he's a white man, Canadian.
Oh, wow.
All right, well, I have all that wrong.
So I forget everything I said.
Turns out that Stephen Colbert is and was a white man.
A white man.
All right, good.
But the reason for the cancellation appears to be low ratings.
They were insufficient for monetizing it.
So they were losing money on late night.
If you're losing money on late night, aren't you probably losing money on everything?
Because late night used to be the big money maker, right?
It used to be that Johnny Carson was the big money maker.
Adam Schiff was just on Stephen Colbert.
I wonder why they're getting canceled.
All right, well, according to Politico, Mark Caputo, Trump is really serious about turning Alcatraz into a maximum security prison.
And I guess, no, it wasn't Politico, it was Axios.
Axios is saying that officials have made a preliminary cost estimate.
And I guess Bondi Bergham toured it yesterday.
And it's going to cost $2 billion to turn the old closed prison of Alcatraz into a new modern prison.
Do you think that'll actually happen?
Why in the world would they think it's a good idea to turn Alcatraz into a prison?
There's got to be a cheaper way to do it than putting it on a stupid island.
Wouldn't that be The most expensive way you could build a building on an island?
I mean, seriously?
So somebody has to ask Trump, if he's an expert on building stuff and construction, why would he even consider the most expensive building project you could get for something that doesn't need to be a gem?
It just needs to be functional if it's a prison.
So I don't know if this is going to go forward, but I would point out that Trump has already monetized a war.
I didn't think anybody could do that.
But by getting the U.S. out of the business of funding Ukraine and saying that the only thing we're going to do is sell the Europeans weapons that they can give to Ukraine as they want.
And so he monetized the Ukraine-Russia war, which I'm legitimately impressed by.
If you can't fix it, monetize it.
Likewise, he's added these big tariffs to China because they have not solved the fentanyl problem.
Likewise, for Mexico and Canada, he doesn't like that they've done enough on fentanyl, so he's tariffing them.
So in other words, he couldn't figure out how to solve fentanyl right away.
I mean, he's doing all the normal law enforcement things, and they're doing well, but it's a really big problem.
So instead of solving it, he monetized it.
He monetized overdose deaths, which I have no problem with.
I mean, if you can't solve it and you're trying as hard as you can, it'd be one thing if he weren't trying to solve it legitimately, but he's also trying to solve it.
But until you do, you might as well monetize it, which is so genius that I don't even have words to describe it.
It's like, why didn't anybody else think of that?
That you could wait a little bit longer if you're monetizing it.
So when I say that he wants to spend $2 billion on Alcatraz, I wonder, does he have a plan for monetizing that?
You know, will he do, maybe they'll just keep doing tours?
Because right now, I think he could still do it.
You can do a tour of Alcatraz.
You know, it's like a paid tour.
Well, maybe he's going to do that, but have actual prisoners there to make the tour that much better.
So maybe he's figured out a way to monetize that, but I haven't heard it.
Well, in other news, Trump has a medical condition that's not really serious, but he has some leg swelling that's called chronic venous insufficiency.
So it's just something that happens to old people.
Their veins lose their little valves, according to Dr. Drew.
And then you get the little swelling in your legs.
So it's common for people who are over 70.
And then allegedly, Trump has some kind of hand injury from shaking hands a lot and also being on some kind of aspirin regimen.
Do I have that right?
That they're genuinely saying he has a hand injury from shaking hands too much while being on an aspirin regimen?
Maybe.
I suppose that's entirely possible.
But it sounds like such a Trump excuse.
Well, I was working so hard, shaking so many hands in disaster zones that, you know, I got injured.
So you got that going on.
Meanwhile, CNN has some polling information.
Gunther Eagleman on X is pointing this out.
Where even CNN is saying that Trump's approval rating got higher after the Epstein online controversy.
Now, are you surprised that Trump's popularity went up after it was found that he didn't find anything on Epstein?
Well, I feel like people are responding to all the actual accomplishments.
And I feel like if you went into the public and you said, hey, how much do you care about this Epstein thing?
It's only the people like us, the people who would tune into a political show or the people who would give a podcast about politics, me.
I don't think other people care.
And so far, they haven't been given a reason to care.
So I think the public, wisely, is saying, well, if the economy's looking good and we're monetizing that war we don't care about, well, maybe we like this guy.
But very few Republicans said the top issue was the Epstein case.
Yeah.
There was only one person in the entire poll, not 1%, but one person who said the Epstein thing was the biggest issue.
Just one, one person in the entire world.
Well, in the country, who was Republican.
Meanwhile, also on CNN, Scott Jennings is reporting that, quote, I sat next to a real life ear truther.
Now an ear truther is someone who doesn't believe that Trump was shot in the ear in Butler, Pennsylvania, and that maybe made the whole thing up to be more popular.
And CNN actually had somebody at the table who made the claim that he doesn't necessarily believe the ear was really shot.
And the host, Abby Phillip, she couldn't let that go.
Now, to her credit, she made sure that her viewers knew he got shot in the ear.
We're not questioning that he got shot in the ear.
He got shot in the ear.
But they're making Scott Jennings' job so easy that all he has to do is mock the person next to him.
And that's good entertaining TV.
So good for you.
Also, CNN, they're reading that in their latest poll, the Democratic Party is at their lowest favorability since 1992.
But it's not as if the Democrats have given up.
Sure.
Maybe they haven't done well lately.
And maybe their popularity or their favorability is at the lowest level since 1992.
But here's the good news for them.
They have a plan to come back.
Are you ready for this?
Apparently, Democrats are trying to roll out a new tone.
So they had a retreat in which the Democrats got together to strategize what to do differently.
And of course, they noticed that Trump is doing well.
So they're saying, all right, why don't we do more of what Trump is doing?
And what do you think that is?
Well, he uses social media a lot.
He's authentic and less scripted.
And he does more cursing.
And they also suggested that they use more Trump-like insults.
So good for the Democrats.
They're staying away from policy discussions because they don't do so well on that.
And they've decided that the thing they hate most about Trump is the part they're going to copy.
That's right.
The part they hate the most, which is his personality and his character, they've decided that's the part they're going to copy instead of coming up with good ideas for the country.
I tell you, when I say that I watch the news for the humor, this is it.
It doesn't get better than this.
But Senator Chris Murphy said, in the wake of Trump, it's really important for us to understand that authenticity is a coin of the realm.
The voters can smell insincerity more acutely than ever before.
They know when you're using talking points or poll-tested language.
So you tell me if I'm going too far.
We've been saying that Democrats are the theater kids, and you're probably hearing a lot that a lot of their complaints are, quote, performative.
And everything seems like they're acting.
They're literally performing.
And they're ignoring policy.
And they're putting on little shows that are so lame and so cringeworthy that it makes me think, oh, those who can act become actors.
Those who can't act become acting coaches.
Those who can't act and can't become and are not good enough to be acting coaches become politicians, specifically Democrats.
So apparently that's the fallback position if you didn't make it in Hollywood.
Well, maybe I could run for office.
You know, I didn't make that sitcom, but I feel like I could be a representative from some state.
Well, so the latest thing the Democrats, and this is exclusive, I have an exclusive scoop.
So this is, you won't see this on any other network or any other podcast.
You ready?
I don't do this a lot.
So this is an exclusive Scott Adams coffee scoop.
The Democrats are so anxious to copy Trump that they're trying to figure out how to make their legs swell and their hands have a bruise.
Why?
Well, they can't tell what the important parts are.
They just think if Trump is doing it and Trump is being successful, it must be something to imitate.
So now they're trying to figure out how to make their legs swell.
That's my exclusive.
And of course it's true.
I wouldn't make that up, would I?
Maybe, maybe I would.
Well, the big news of the day, because it's the summer and you get all the weird news in the summer, is that the Wall Street Journal did a big feature article in which they're trying to draw a picture of Donald Trump and Epstein as good friends for many years.
Now, are you as blown away as I am that this Epstein story started out as one thing?
And Trump's involvement was, oh, yeah, it's true that Epstein lived in the same town in Palm Spruce, what is it, wherever that is in Florida.
And it's true that he did go to Mar-a-Lago at some events, but Trump found out that he was a dirtbag and had him banned from Mar-a-Lago.
So for now several years, I believe that their interactions were minor and that he wasn't a big fan of him, and he eventually banned him.
Now it turns out, according to witnesses and new reporting, that Epstein and Trump were something like best friends.
And for something like, I don't know, 15 years or something, they hung out a lot.
And they would do things together a lot.
Now, how in the world are we just finding that out?
Is that weird?
I feel like reality itself is just bending.
And it can't be true that it took us this long to find out that they were not only associated with each other, but they had a really strong association.
And there's a reason that Trump was on his plane a bunch of times.
Now, one of the questions that was asked by, was it Mark Halperin asking this?
I forget who asked.
It might have been him on his two-way pod, which is really good.
We don't know, and nobody has asked, how many times did Trump go to Epstein's homes in the United States?
Don't know.
How many times did Epstein visit Trump in any of his locations?
Don't know.
Isn't it weird that we don't know that?
Wouldn't those be the obvious questions?
So the fact that this Epstein story gets deeper and more weird every day is just blowing me away.
Like you thought you knew the general contours of the story.
How in the world are we still finding out things about it?
I don't know.
Anyway, so the news story from the Wall Street Journal is that when Epstein turned 50, Ghelaine Maxwell organized a bunch of birthday cards that she put in a binder.
And they were from prominent people and friends and stuff.
And allegedly, one of the birthday cards to Epstein was written and a little drawing was put in it by Trump.
Now, Trump says it's a fraud and that he did not write that message.
I'll tell you what the message is in a little bit.
But it was a kind of a personal message that looked like they had secrets.
And suddenly that's the story.
Now, if you were the Wall Street Journal, and the biggest part of your story is that they had seen a...
Is that it?
Oh, my goodness.
Oh, my.
So right now, for the very first time, I'm seeing what they claim was Trump's drawing on the card.
And what they said was that he signed his name to look like the pubic hair on the naked woman that he drew.
And I'm looking at it for the first time.
I guess Mike Benz posted it, and I'm seeing it in the comments now for the first time.
It's very obvious that he did not assign his name to be part of her private parts.
It's literally, he just signed his name at the bottom of the drawing.
And it just happened to go across part of the body.
So the first thing you need to know is that the news was completely lying to you that he signed his name so it looked like pubic hair.
You would only believe that if you'd never seen it.
I'm looking at it right now.
And, well, actually, I can show it to you because it's on my other device.
Let's see.
Can you see that?
So look where the signature is, if I can get it so the light doesn't destroy it.
All right.
You can see it a little bit there.
But does that look like he meant his signature to be people big hair?
No.
It's just he's signing it at the bottom of the drawing.
That's all.
Now, if you've ever seen, if you've ever seen Trump sign anything or do anything, he always uses that big thick pen.
But here's a little drawing that doesn't look like the sure hand of Trump.
Trump has a heavy hand.
So even when he's just adding his name, it's like a thick, lots of pressure, you know, really...
Clearly.
Yeah, it doesn't look like his handwriting.
Right.
So it does look like somebody drew that in there.
Maybe autopen, huh?
Maybe Biden's auto pen drew it.
So let me give you my take on it after I tell you what it says.
So apparently the letter, maybe the other part of the card, had some words on it that I'll read to you.
Happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret.
That was part of it.
But let me give you the whole thing.
So it said, voiceover.
So it used the words voiceover, colon.
There must be more to life than having everything.
Then it said, Donald, Donald, colon, as if Donald is saying this.
Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is.
And then Jeffrey, colon, nor will I, since I also know what it is.
Donald, we have certain things in common, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey, yes, we do, come to think of it.
Donald, enigmas never age.
Have you noticed that?
Jeffrey, as a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.
Donald, a pal is a wonderful thing.
Happy birthday, and may every day be another wonderful secret.
All right.
Now, this would have happened allegedly before we knew everything about Epstein's activities.
So it would not be surprising if Trump signed a birthday card for Epstein because it was before Epstein was in trouble and they knew each other.
However, I just asked Grok.
I put in the alleged writing that is allegedly from Trump and I said, Grok, does this match the style of Trump such that it would look like he really wrote it?
Do you know what Grok said?
Nope.
Did I have to ask Grok if it matched Trump's style?
Nope.
Did any of us need to ask anybody if that was Trump's writing?
Nope.
It obviously isn't.
Now, you might recall that Trump weirdly said that he thought that things had been added to the Epstein file that were just made up, maybe by Comey and who knows who else.
And when I heard that, I thought to myself, really?
He's going to try to convince us that just made up stuff was added to the file.
I don't believe that made up stuff was added to the file.
And then this comes out.
And this is not part of the Epstein files.
The Wall Street Journal has this exclusive.
They somehow got to look at this.
But it seems obviously fake.
If this is real, they're going to have to prove it.
And they're going to have to have a witness who had it in their hand or saw it or something.
But it looks fake as hell.
Like seriously fake.
So why would this even be there?
I don't know.
You believe they doctored the files?
Well, I do believe that the Epstein files probably have some deletions, but it would be a whole other level.
You know, things that disappeared.
But it would be a whole other level if somebody made up stuff and just put it in the file.
Maybe.
Nothing is impossible.
Scott Jennings' reaction to the story about the birthday card is, my reaction to reading this is, so what?
I mean, 2003, before anything had happened, we know Donald Trump knew the guy.
We also know he disowned him and kicked him out of the club.
Yeah.
So I would agree that the non-news nerd public, they don't really care.
And now it looks like Trump is going to sue Rupert Murdoch in the Wall Street Journal.
Rupert Murdoch, also the owner of Fox News, which is his friend sometimes.
So we'll see.
But he wants Murdoch to be on record.
But then even Elon Musk apparently doubted that it was legitimate.
So Elon Musk would kind of want Trump to maybe get in trouble based on his prior comments.
But even Elon Musk looks at that and says, I don't think so.
So that's my take is that it's sort of obviously not real.
The closest that could be to real is if Trump had delegated somebody else to draw something on the card, you know, some assistant or something.
But why would they draw a naked woman?
I don't know.
None of it makes sense.
So I'm going to say Trump is probably right.
I'm going to give this a 95% chance of being fake news.
Mike Benz has an interesting take on Epstein's connection to intelligence agencies.
And Mike Benz, as the national treasurer that he is, explains to us things that most of us didn't know about how the world works.
And what I mean you need to know is that you don't need to work for the CIA.
You could simply be somebody that they deal with in a mutually productive way.
So that's different from working for them.
It might be that you just have some way that you can both make money.
CIA gets what they want.
Maybe the middleman who makes something happen gets what they want.
Would that be a case of working for or working with the CIA?
Well, arguably not.
So you could imagine that all intelligence agencies would not say they've ever worked with them.
But maybe, as Mike Benz points out, it could be that the sex part of the Epstein operation was to, quote, juice deals.
So maybe it allowed him to have relationships with heads of state and important people that otherwise he wouldn't have access to.
Maybe they worried that he had too much information about them, so they were a little bit more willing to donate money to things that the CIA would want money donated to.
So it's entirely possible that there's a whole bunch of rich people who have given lots of money to things that Jeffrey Epstein said, hey, you know what would be good to donate money to?
This particular charity or this college or this program or this education in another country.
And then the person doing the donating would not even know they were working for, doing the bidding of the CIA.
Only Epstein would know that.
So that model would be, hey, Epstein, we want a bunch of people to donate to this thing or another because it's good for the United States.
So can you get some rich people to donate?
Yes, I can.
And would that get him any money that he gets to keep?
Maybe.
I don't know.
Maybe he just keeps part of it.
Apparently, Bill Burns, who was the head of the CIA at one point, met with Epstein three times, including two times at his house.
Okay, that's pretty damning.
If you have the head of the CIA visiting your house multiple times, and then you say, I'm not working with them, well, okay, I'm not so sure.
But it could be that Epstein was just an expert at getting money from people and hiding the trail.
One of the things that Benz recommends is that Trump allow the release of the transcripts and questions and answers from something called the OPR, the Office of Professional Responsibility, where investigators talked to Alex Acosta.
He was the prosecutor working on the original 2008 plea deal for Epstein.
And I thought to myself, how does Mike Benz know all these things even exist?
Now, the fact that we have, and I say we, you know, the people who are pro-Trump, that we have a Mike Benz who seems to have this incredible understanding of how the government is organized in the real world.
So he can do what none of us could do, and presumably the fake news couldn't do it either, which is to say there is a document that probably exists, that's probably not part of the, quote, Epstein files, that if we could see it, would answer a lot of questions, such as the question of whether Alex Acosta ever said that Epstein was part of some intelligence operation.
Because I don't believe that that is proven.
I believe that people say that Alex Epstein said it, but I don't believe that we have a document to prove it or a video of him saying it.
So that's a good idea.
We should get access to that.
And then Charlie Kirk goes further and says that somebody should bring Acosta in for a full interview to find out what he says.
If he said it once, maybe he'll say it again, because, you know, Epstein's dead.
So he could probably say things he couldn't say originally.
So yeah, let's hear from Acosta.
He's still alive.
And then Trump posted on True Social that he wants Bondi to produce, quote, any and all pertinent grand jury testimony subject to court approval.
So apparently there are some documents that you would not call part of the Epstein files that would tell us maybe everything we want to know.
Maybe.
So that's possible.
And then Representative Anna Polina Luna said this on X, why hasn't a single media outlet asked me to discuss my investigation into the destruction of Epstein's evidence at the FBI under Biden's former deputy director?
To which I say, wait, what?
Are you telling me that Representative Luna has been doing an investigation into the destruction of Epstein evidence at the FBI?
And apparently she has evidence that that happened.
Otherwise, she wouldn't be mentioning it.
And that's not the top headline?
And she's saying, why is no media outlet want to talk to me about this?
Yeah, good question.
Why does no media outlet want to talk to her about what seems to be a really important question?
So that's going on.
And then Insurrection Barbion X points out that apparently we know, somehow we know this, that Harvard gave Epstein an office, key card access, and unrestricted visitation rights between 2003 and 2007.
They also let him attend faculty meetings, meet students, and host visitors.
And nobody is asking why they did that.
Keep in mind, Epstein didn't even have a college education.
And at one point, he was a math teacher at an exclusive school that Bill Barr's father ran.
And Harvard was giving him special access to the campus for reasons that we don't quite understand.
Now, it might be because one of the things that Epstein did was raise money for Harvard.
So there might be just a money reason for it.
But we'd like to know that.
Even MSNBC is asking Democrats why they didn't do more about the Epstein files, if it's so important now.
So MSNBC said to Jamie Raskin, is that his name?
Raskin?
Yeah.
If it was a crisis then, it's a crisis now.
Why didn't Democrats call for Epstein's list to be released when Biden was in office?
And Raskin says, I mean, I don't know.
We had other cases.
We were busy.
What were the autocracy and the stealing of the democracy?
It's like that.
He didn't say that, but he did not answer that question very well.
Why didn't the Democrats do more?
And then Lawrence O'Donnell, who is going full batshit crazy, Western lensman points this out with a video clip.
So Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC, he's floating the idea that J.D. Vance is the one behind that birthday letter.
Because he says J.D. Vance was trying to get a promotion.
So he's trying to take Trump out so he can become president.
And Lawrence O'Donnell thinks that the way he's doing it is that he's the person behind the birthday card that the Wall Street Journal was writing about.
Now, does that strike you as a really good point worthy of discussion?
Or does it strike you as Lawrence O'Donnell has A mental problem.
To me, it's the latter.
It looks like, oh my God, you're totally mental.
What is wrong with you?
You should immediately seek therapy or have somebody look at your cell phone to see what you've been doing with it lately.
That's what I say.
Well, Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney has conceded, according to Breitbart News, Francis Martel's writing about this, that Canada might not be able to get Trump to drop all of his tariffs when they get a deal eventually.
So in other words, Canada now believes that they will simply pay more, even if they agree to a deal.
So is that a case of Trump winning?
Yes, it is.
If they've already acknowledged that at the end of the negotiations, they're going to be worse off and America will be better off.
Because that's what they said.
I mean, that's what the prime minister said.
Yep.
That looks like it.
And then according to a different Carney, John Carney, who writes for Breibart, that the import pricing that we can see suggests that the foreign producers are eating most of the cost of the tariffs by lowering their prices.
So it would seem that Canada is essentially endorsing Trump's view of tariffs as making things a little more fair, and that the economists were all wrong.
So the economists have been surveyed again, and they've lowered their odds that we're going to go into some kind of recession.
So it's down to 33%, according to the Wall Street Journal.
It was 45% in April when they were all worried about the tariffs.
So you've got a whole bunch of economists who are wrong about tariffs.
What good are the economists?
And is it true that Trump is just smarter than the economists?
Because it looks like it.
Did Trump, who is not an economist, just beat every economist on this prediction?
It looks like it.
I mean, you're going to have to give him credit.
He looks like he beat every expert in the field.
It looks like it.
Well, Gavin Newsom says he's suing Fox because he claims that Jesse Waters on his show falsely asserted that Newsom had lied about when he talked to Trump about the, I guess, about the disasters and the fire disaster in California.
And he alleges that Jesse Waters aired a deceptively edited clip of Trump's remarks, omitting Trump saying a day ago.
So I guess Newsom said that he had just talked to Trump.
And Jesse Waters, I think if I'm reading this right, is claiming that that didn't happen.
But in order to bolster that claim, had to remove from the clip the part where Trump said it did happen.
And according to Newsom, he would settle for an apology.
But if not, he has all day long to do this legal process.
And he's suing for hundreds of millions of dollars.
And I'm wondering, what the heck will Fox News do?
Because if Newsom can produce the clip that shows that the important part of the clip was clipped off of the clip, it's going to be hard to say that they didn't know they were doing it.
You know what I mean?
Now, Jesse himself is not the one who's preparing the clips.
We assume that that would be some kind of producer function.
So it could be that Jesse is just finding out that he did a story that didn't pass the fact checking.
So I don't know what you do if it might be just a producer thing.
But if I were Jesse and I knew that the proof of the other side's point was simply a video clip that everybody has access to, I think I'd be apologizing.
Oh, somebody says that Jesse apologized last night on the air.
Oh, okay.
All right.
Well, he doesn't have to take my advice.
He already did it.
That would be how I would have handled it.
I would have done that.
I would have apologized on the air.
According to News Nation, the personal health information of 79 million people, Americans, will be handed over to ICE.
And then ICE will use that to figure out how to track down immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally.
I guess part of it is to get them, the illegals, off of Medicaid, because they're not allowed to be on it.
But also maybe to just locate them.
I don't know how you do that with that data.
But that's bad.
Now, you might remember that I said to you that I wondered how long it would be before the aggressive deportations would start affecting regular citizens.
So on day one, when you hear that the ICE is deporting some murderers and some gang members, I say to myself, huh, that didn't affect me in any way.
But if it did, it was a positive.
I'm better off.
And then they do some more criminals and they go after gangs trying to take over apartment buildings or whatever they're doing.
And I say to myself, well, that's all good.
But remember, I warned you that there will be a time when the regular citizens are affected by it.
And that's going to change the conversation.
So if you were, for example, a farmer who couldn't get your crops picked, and I'm not saying that will happen.
It's not a prediction.
But if, you know, just as an example, that might affect your cost of food.
Maybe.
And then you'd say, oh, wait, they've deported so many people that we can't even fill those jobs.
And my food costs just went up because there was a lot of waste.
Or maybe there were some other services that you couldn't get done.
Or maybe people that you knew and like in your life are being deported and you don't think that they were criminals.
Well, I'm here to tell you that I have now crossed that line, meaning that this now has affected me personally.
Not because I'm illegal.
Turns out I'm a citizen.
Who knew?
But I did meet and have an interaction with somebody who is, their life is ruined.
Their life is ruined because one of them has been here, I don't know, 15 or 20 years, has been working productively and legally, never broke a law, never got a speeding ticket, has children that are legal residents because they were born here, and has, I believe, an American wife.
I'm not positive about that.
I think so.
And his life and his family's life is in terror right now because they expect that although they're nothing like the criminals that are being deported, that they might get scooped up and sent to a country that they don't consider their country.
You know, if you've been living and working and obeying the laws, you think this is your country.
And now it's nobody that you know.
So don't guess.
Please don't guess in the comments because it's not who you think.
It's just somebody I had a conversation with yesterday.
And I would say that affects me personally because it's the first time I had a conversation with somebody who was a law-abiding, you know, God-loving, family-loving, good person whose life is kind of ruined at the moment.
And I don't love it.
So more and more of you, I think, are going to have this experience that at some point, the cutting is going to reach the bone.
And you're going to say, oh, wait a minute.
I didn't realize that was going to happen.
So I don't know when that happens, but I'm here to tell you what already happened to me.
So my take on immigration was always that if they spent all of their time just looking for the problem people, that they would never run out of stuff to do.
And then at some point they'd say, all right, we probably cut enough.
We can absorb the rest of the people.
You know, we don't need to get every single person.
Now, I know a lot of you say, well, I don't know who you talk to, so therefore it's irrelevant to me.
I want them all gone.
I get that.
What I'm telling you is it might not be people you don't know forever.
It might start bleeding over into your actual life.
And when it does, people are going to have a different opinion about it.
So that's my prediction.
All right.
China has allegedly been working on super soldiers.
News Nation had a former senior intelligence officer in the Defense Intelligence Agency who says that China allegedly is trying to genetically alter their people to make super soldiers, to which I say, you're a little too late, China, because our robots are going to enjoy killing your super soldiers.
Super soldier is never going to be better than robot, if you know what I mean.
So unless those super soldiers roll out this week, by next year, they'll just be target practice for our robots.
And then, according to Nature, the publication, there are a bunch of low-quality scientific papers being submitted, like more than ever, because people are using AI on public databases.
So they're just using AI to sort of do the research and write up the paper.
So before that was happening, the scientific papers that were submitted and approved, peer-reviewed, only half of them were even reproducible.
So it was basically a coin flip if the science was right or made up.
And now it looks like it might be getting worse because of all these low-quality papers.
Anyway, that's all I got for you today.
And it looks like the weekend's here.
We're ready for the weekend.
All right.
I'm going to say bye to most of you, and I'm going to privately talk to my beloved subscribers on locals for a little bit of extra.
And of course, they also had the pre-show, which you don't get to see.
But those of you who are about to disappear, thanks for joining.
