God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Sydney Sweeney, American Eagle Good Jeans, News App X Success, Kamala Harris, Jerome Powell Interest Rate, Designated Liar Elizabeth Warren, Josh Hawley, Congress Insider Trading, Nancy Pelosi, Anti-Trump Settlements, America Party Speculation, Humanoid Robots, GDP, Tariffs Inflation, President Trumps Deals Success, RFK Jr. Praises Trump, Speaking Technique, Russia Collusion Revelations, Sean Davis, Brennan Clapper Op Ed, 2016 ICA Multiple Versions, Democrat Party Chaos, 2016 Anti-Trump Conspiracy, Burn Bag Docs Discovered, General Flynn, Stefan Halper, Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein Client-less Victims, Media Matters, Climate Model Whistleblowers, Israel Support Polls, Gaza Hamas Options, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
I'm checking the stock market, which appears to be up.
So far so good.
Not Tesla.
Tesla's down a little bit.
Alright.
We'll put that on hold while we do a show that you deserve.
Yeah, you deserve it.
Mm-hmm.
All right, let's make sure this is all working.
It's all working.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And if you'd like to take this experience that's already the best thing that ever happened to you, up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, well, all you need for that would be a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, shells, to stein, a canteen, jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope.
I mean, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens.
Go.
Go.
Ah, so very good.
Well, here's a little tip for you.
You might know that my book, Loser Thing, was one of the books that got canceled when I got canceled.
So if you tried to buy this, you would not be able to.
But we are going to reissue it.
So there'll be a second edition.
It'll be on Amazon in maybe a month or two.
I will let you know.
But there's a chapter here.
This was written in 2019.
And the chapter is called The Golden Age Filter.
And in it, I made a bunch of predictions about how the Golden Age would unfold.
And you might say to yourself, huh, I wonder if those predictions are anything like what's actually happened.
Now that the predictions were actually before the pandemic, right before.
So you might want to check that out.
I think you'll be amused.
See what I got right, see what I got wrong.
Well, I would like to get your brains ready for the rest of the show with a little bit of an exercise.
All right.
Those of you who are my regular viewers, I would like you to give me the answer to the question I haven't asked yet.
Go.
If you're new, boy, are you going to be impressed.
Watch this.
All right.
Everybody, the answer to the question before I ask the question, go.
There it is.
That is the correct answer.
25.
Well, Rasimus, the polling company, says that 73% of likely U.S. voters believe that requiring a photo ID to vote is a reasonable measure to protect the integrity of elections.
So let's see if 73% think it's a good idea, and there are a few people who don't know what they're doing, but 21% disagree.
21% think it's not reasonable to check ID.
But I will give you full credit for 25% because, you know, margin of error.
Well, according to New Atlas, one diet of soda a day increases type 2 diabetes risk by 38%, according to a new landmark study, 14-year study.
So let's see.
If a diet soda can give you type 2 diabetes or make your risk of it much higher, let me check.
Okay, yes, yes.
100% of the things I was told as a kid have turned out to be wrong.
All of it.
I don't know about you, but I learned you can't eat a sandwich and go swimming for an hour.
Totally made up.
I don't know about you, but I learned that you have to drink how many glasses of water every day.
Totally made up.
Totally made up.
I learned that the safest thing you could do for your health is put on sunscreen before you go out in the sun.
Well, maybe the jury is still out on that, but the smartest people I know are not using sunscreen because apparently it's just a chemical that gets in your body.
Then, of course, there was the food pyramid.
You all remember that, right?
Completely upside down and wrong and probably still is.
Let's see what else.
Then there was what we believed about carbohydrates.
There was alcohol is good for you in moderation, which turned out not to be true.
So yes, 100% of everything I was taught as a young person was made up.
All of it.
But my whole first part of my life was just fake.
But thank God that you're here and I'm here at this time when finally we have all the correct answers to all the scientific questions.
Am I right?
Yeah, just think about how lucky that is.
That after, I don't know, let's say the last 1.5 million years of evolution where we were completely wrong about reality, just totally wrong, didn't have a clue.
And then during my childhood, we were still wrong.
During my life, still wrong about everything.
But thank goodness, I'm still alive when we figured out everything, and now we're not wrong about anything.
Right?
Wait, right?
How many of you have fallen for the illusion that we used to be wrong in the past, but now we've got things pretty well figured out?
I used to believe that.
I used to believe that humans were fundamentally, desperately wrong about all the important questions for 1.5 million years in a row.
But thank goodness.
Thank goodness I was born in the time when we finally got everything right.
There's almost no chance that the things you believe are true and right are true and right.
There's almost no chance.
It's never been true.
We've never been right about anything important.
But it would make you crazy to imagine that we were just wrong about everything.
So you tell yourself this weird little story that, well, we were wrong for 1.5 million years in a row, but finally got it right just when you were born.
Well, C.J. Pearson has a opinion piece in Fox News.
CJ is talking about the war on hot women.
I could tell you what month it is by telling you what stories are the top stories.
It's summertime, people.
It's summertime.
So the big story is the war on hot women.
And somehow, the pundits have managed to turn it into an actual story by pretending that Sidney Sweeney, who did the advertisement, the sexy advertisement for American Eagle, which apparently worked really well, and they sold out of their jeans.
They sold out.
If you wanted to buy some of those jeans, couldn't do it.
It was so successful.
And finally, we're allowed to be commonsensical again, even if it hurts people's feelings.
So apparently the ugliest people are very unhappy that Sidney Sweeney and American Eagle would be talking about genes.
Even though it was a joke, and even though we can clearly see that that young woman has good genes, we're not allowed to say that anybody has good genes.
You're not allowed to say it, because if you did, it would sort of change all of society.
Because then you might say, well, you know, maybe things are the way they ought to be, because the people who had the good genes did the best.
Uh-oh, can't say that.
Cannot say that.
You know how I always tease that billionaires, when billionaires are asked what's the secret of their success?
Do you know what they never say?
Well, to be perfectly honest, I'm just smarter than the people who didn't do as well.
Because that plus hard work will explain a lot.
Mark Zuckerberg, was he successful just because he tried hard?
No, although he did try hard.
He's really smart.
Elon Musk, is it because he worked hard?
Well, he did work hard, still does, but he's smarter than the average person.
And that could go down the line.
And you would find that all these super successful people are unusually smart.
And we're supposed to ignore that, right?
And act like none of that mattered.
All right, all right, fine.
But the Sidney Sweeney thing does show that apparently there's a little bit of common sense that's coming back.
But if you were one of those people who is, let's say, jealous and angry that Sidney Sweeney's getting attention for being attractive and being born that way mostly, I would give you this following consolation.
There has never been an easier time to be in the top 10% of attractive adults.
Still hard to do it if you're young, because that's just what you're born with.
But if you want to be in the top 10% of attractive adults, all you have to do is eat right and go to the gym.
That's it.
Maybe put a little bit of attention in what you do with your haircut.
And maybe learn a little bit about how to dress.
But oh my God, it's never been easier to be in the top 10%.
So if you're not in the top 10%, maybe you put a little bit of work into it and you could get there.
Elon Musk, speaking of Elon, is bragging that X is now the number one news app in the USA.
Do you remember all the smart, dumb people, you know, the people with high IQs who told you that X had no chance of success and that it was a terrible move by Musk.
He's only good at building cars and rockets.
There's no reason to think he would be good at running a social media company.
And then he fired 80% of his staff.
And then all the smart, dumb people said, well, told you.
Look, you had to fire everybody.
And then the advertisers started joining together to boycott it.
And then he said, well, there you go.
There's no way that's ever going to work.
Well, it turns out that Elon Musk had one thing that other people didn't have.
He is way smarter than you are.
He's smarter than I am.
And apparently he knew how to make it work.
And he has.
It's now the number one news app in the USA.
Well, Kabala Harris has announced that she will not be running for California governor.
Now, I would like to announce that I will also not be running to be governor of California.
Now, my reason is that I wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning.
I wonder what her reason would be.
Hmm.
Could it be that she doesn't have a chance in hell of winning and it would end all of her prospects forever if she ran for that and lost?
Which she probably would, the smart people say.
However, I would like to suggest there might be one other reason.
I mean, maybe she's planning to run for president again.
Maybe she hasn't ruled it out.
I don't know.
But she may have some personal reasons for doing it.
We don't know.
Well, Jerome Powell did, and the Fed did not cut interest rates yesterday at their meeting where they told us their decisions.
They did not cut interest rates.
Now, of course, Trump is not too happy about that.
He said that Jerome Powell is too late, too angry, too stupid, and too political, total loser.
Now, you know how I always compliment Trump for being able to read the room and being persuasive, and especially one-on-one, like with individuals.
But it's hard for me to imagine that Jerome Powell could ever give Trump what he wants, knowing that Jerome Powell's contract is up in May.
If my contract were up in May and my political enemy had been absolutely savaging me for months, I wouldn't give them what they wanted, even if it were really important to the country.
I would be just so mad that I would just say, well, I guess I won't be counting your interest rates.
Because people are humans.
So I think that there was probably no chance that the government could browbeat Jerome Powell into doing that.
And he didn't.
We'll talk about that some more.
Apparently in 2024, which would be, if you're keeping track of your calendar, last year.
Last year, Democrat Elizabeth Warren, Senator Warren, was on TV saying that Jerome Powell needs to cut interest rates.
What does she say now that Trump is president?
Now she says, 2025, Trump needs to stop calling for Jerome Powell to cut interest rates.
Yes, Elizabeth Warren is one of the designated liars.
There's a handful of people, Democrats, who I always tell you, if you see them go on TV, that means that they've decided they have to go with a lie.
And it's not just an ordinary lie.
It's a big one, one that you could easily debunk with a few minutes of effort.
But there are several people from Swalwill to Raskin to Elizabeth Warren, who you can pretty much depend on, will say whatever lie needs to be said at the time.
So Elizabeth Warren.
So Senator Josh Hawley has introduced legislation to ban members of Congress from owning or trading individual stocks.
The problem is that they have inside information.
So if they were to trade stocks, they would be tempted to cheat or we'd expect that they might cheat.
So it's an ugly situation.
And of course, people blame Nancy Pelosi for insider trading, which she denies, even though it would be totally legal.
Congress is the one entity that has legal right to do insider trading.
And President Trump was asked about that.
And apparently, even Republicans don't like the idea that Hawley is putting forward, the idea of banning Congress members from owning stock.
But Trump was asked about it and he said, well, I like it conceptually, he said.
I don't know about it, but I like it conceptually.
I'm going to surprise you probably by saying I'm opposed to Hawley's legislation because people in Congress are not exactly overpaid.
If anything, they're probably underpaid.
And I understand that they have advantages, but I would handle it with transparency.
Now, there are already, I think there's already a website or a startup or something, that reports whenever Congress makes a trade so that you can match it.
Now, there might be a timing problem that Congress can get in a few days before you know about the trade or something like that.
But you basically know what the trade is.
And if you wanted, you could match your own investments to be the same as the politicians.
And then if they make money, you make money.
I don't like taking a basic right away from politicians who are trying to serve the country.
That's best case scenario.
Do you think we should deny them the right to do the most basic financial thing that anybody does?
It's pretty basic.
If the legislation says that they can own stocks, but only if they're in funds, so it's not about individual companies, it's about funds, like the whole stock market.
I definitely wouldn't have any problem with that, because then They would have some skin into the game of America.
But no, I don't like this.
I would rather have transparency.
And if they have some insider information, you would have it too.
Because you'd say, oh, that one always uses insider information, which is legal.
And then if you see the move, you just copy the move if it bothers you.
Nancy Pelosi agreed to go on CNN.
She thought she was going to be asked questions about the 60th anniversary of Medicaid.
And that would give her, I guess, an excuse to say bad things about Republicans and Trump.
So she goes on, and Jake Tapper asked her about the idea of insider trading.
And she had a bit of a meltdown over that.
And she said, why do you have to read that?
That's not what I agreed to come and talk about.
So she got mad at the question.
Don't you think that getting mad at that question is sort of a tell?
Because if you put me in that position, I would say something like, well, I leave all my investing to my husband and we don't talk about work, which I'm sure is not true, but it'd be an easy way to defend yourself.
And then you could say something like, well, you know, it's all public.
It's all transparent.
You can see exactly what stocks I buy and when.
And if you wanted to copy it, you could.
So I would say that her reaction that she wasn't being treated special by the news tells you something, doesn't it?
She agrees to go and see an end and believed that she had successfully told them what they could and could not ask on a news program.
And then, to his credit, Jake Tapper asked her anyway.
She got mad.
So Brown University is going to settle with the White House for $50 million that they're going to give to some workforce development organizations.
So it's a settlement, but the money doesn't go into the government's coffers.
It goes into some things that the government wanted them to put it into, which is good.
News Max is reporting on this.
And so that is how many colleges now have decided to fund something that Trump wanted them to fund.
So he's got law firms giving him money or giving his campaign money or doing some kind of pro bono stuff.
He's got universities lining up to give him millions of dollars or at least put it into things that the Trump administration wants.
So that's working.
Newsmax is also saying that Elon Musk's America Party that he threatened he would launch, a third-party political party, appears stalled.
Now, I don't think we can conclude that because there's no super hurry to form it.
So he might still be asking around and doing some research.
Maybe.
We don't know.
We don't know what he's thinking.
But at least some people believe that he may have been threatening it to blow off steam and that he's now just fully committed to working on his companies and probably has no particular interest driving him to do that third party.
I don't know.
I feel like that could go either way.
But if I were to predict, which I will, I predict he will not form the third party.
I think he would prefer having it out there as maybe a risk in case people go after him.
But probably he'll hold back.
That's just my guess.
Don't really know.
Julie.
Julie, don't be a piece of shit, Julie.
Too late.
Well, China has unveiled a humanoid robot, another company I haven't mentioned yet, with a brain that runs 275 trillion operations per second.
What do you think you could do with a robot whose brain could do 275 trillion operations per second?
Well, so far all it can do is move boxes from one place to another.
That's all it does.
It just moves boxes.
But they're very proud of the fact that it can tell the difference between a small box and a big box and knows what to move where.
All right, sure.
Shanghai Electric, that's the name of the company.
So I am not impressed by the robot that can move boxes of various sizes.
But then an American company named Figure is also building a humanoid robot.
And their leader, Brett Adcock, showed us a video of one of the robots he has in his home that is putting laundry into the washing machine.
So it's reaching into a laundry bag and putting the laundry into the washing machine.
Now, what did the video not show?
Here's what the video did not show.
Could the robot also put soap in the washing machine and know how to operate the controls and turn it on?
Could it come back later and move that wet laundry into the dryer and then use those controls to dry it?
I'm guessing that if it could do those things, that the video would have been edited to show that it can do the entire laundry process.
But I would like to triple down on my prediction that we do not have the technology that would power robots.
Obviously, we all think we can get there, but we're not really even in the right domain.
I don't even think they have the right approach.
It looks like it's just sort of not possible.
Now, if I had to bet on it, I would bet that it will be solved at some point in the history.
But if you think that we're a few months away from humanoid robots, which by the way, last year, I believe Elon Musk was saying that the end of this year, which is sort of right around the corner, that we'd see our first humanoid robots with general, sort of general intelligence, some version of it.
We're not going to see that.
Would you agree?
We're definitely not within a year of having an autonomous robot that you can just give it assignments that it's never seen before.
Like imagine a robot where you could say, I want you to reorganize these shelves, but it's never been taught to do that.
We're not really, we don't have any way to make that happen.
But we can move boxes from one place to another, and we can have a robot take laundry out of one container and put it in another.
And that's it.
Apparently, that's all they do.
Well, in economic news, the jobless claims numbers came in, and they're just pretty close to estimates.
I guess the stock market liked that because the market's higher.
Did you see that the gross domestic product was at 3%, which is better than it was in the spring?
3% would be a good solid GDP number.
And inflation also is not too bad.
So I would like to say for the record, because I haven't said this and I feel very bad about it, if you believe the GDP number, that would be a mistake.
A lot of Trump supporters, and I'm one of them, have sort of celebrated that inflation did not go up with tariffs, and it hasn't really, and that the GDP was solid.
But here's why you should not be too happy about that.
The tariffs haven't even kicked in.
We have no idea what impact the tariffs will have on inflation.
Why do you think we already know the answer to that?
We don't know the answer to that.
There have been a few special deals, but probably almost nothing compared to what it will be or could be in terms of the total tariff impact.
So I'm one of the people who was doing a little bit of too early celebrating, saying, whoa, look at this.
Trump's a genius.
And he was right that tariffs have no real effect, or at least not one that's going to stop us on inflation.
We don't know that.
We're not even in the tariffs have happened phase, much less knowing the long-term impact.
Now, I'm not opposed to the tariffs.
I'm not opposed to them.
But I'm going to retreat to what I keep calling the Dana Perino view, which is we really don't know.
Maybe it would be the best idea that anybody's ever had.
Maybe it will just cause too much inflation and we'll wish it hadn't happened.
Both of those are still possible, you know, and maybe we'll know by the end of the year, but we don't know yet.
And so I would say with inflation and GDP that they both look good, but there are reasons that they would look good at the moment that would not apply to the rest of the year.
So I like the optimism.
I like the fact that the Republicans are touting it as a win.
I like the fact that the pundits are touting it as a win.
And I was touting it as an economic win as well.
But I want to just be on record saying, well, I'm not stupid.
It's way too early.
It's way too early to know it's a win.
So I'm not stupid, but I'm optimistic.
So, you know, I don't mind rolling with it a little bit because optimism is what drives the economy.
If you act optimistic, even if you're just acting, it's good for the economy because it makes other people think things are fine.
And then they invest and spend and do all those things that drive the economy.
All right.
President Trump put a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods.
So that's likely to increase the price of what?
What?
50% increase of tariff on Brazilian goods is likely to lift the price of coffee.
Well, remember I told you it wasn't a perfect world.
The price of coffee might go up.
But Trump is also signing an executive order ending what is called the de minimis trade loophole for low-value packages.
So it used to be that if you ship something into the U.S., some goods that you were selling to companies in the U.S., you didn't have to pay a tariff if it was below $800.
But now you will pay a duty or a tariff on all that.
So will that increase inflation?
It should.
It should increase inflation.
I mean, that's how things work.
But maybe not.
Maybe not.
We'll see.
Well, this trend that I love to death of Trump being able to announce a new trade deal, you know, like once a week or once every few days.
And once again, he's got another big win, or at least on paper, it looks that way.
South Korea has agreed to a deal, and part of that deal involves them putting money into U.S. investments that the U.S. would direct.
So we would tell them where to invest, or at least approve where they invest.
And they said yes to that.
Now, if you're not catching the pattern yet, it looks like this, that it looks like Trump is injecting into the conversations that they need to commit to some kind of huge multi-billion dollar amount of investments in the United States.
Technically, that would not be part of trade.
But also technically, I don't believe there's a penalty if they don't do it.
So I'm not sure how many of these billion-dollar investments in the U.S. are really going to happen.
If they don't happen, I suppose Trump could increase their tariff.
So he does have a lever and a stick.
But I'm not sure I believe the numbers.
I suspect most of those companies say to themselves, it would be better to say we're going to do this and then wait for the next president to get in office and maybe he won't push it so much.
So if we don't do it all within Trump's term, we'll say, how about we give you $350 billion in investments over 10 years?
Because then they can just wait for Trump to be out of office.
So, but on paper, and in terms of the news cycle, big win.
South Korea, major trading partner, came in under the deadline.
But also we hear from Howard Ludnick, Commerce Secretary, that we also have a deal with Thailand and Cambodia for a trade deal.
Don't know the details of that.
Some say it's not quite done.
Some say it is.
But another great week for Trump.
And Trump has allegedly struck some kind of an oil deal with Pakistan.
That's a big deal, a big deal for deals.
It's days away from finalization, so it's not done-done, but it looks like it's going to happen.
And I think what it does is allow a U.S. company that has not been yet named to be a major player in exploiting the oil that Pakistan has.
So that sounds positive.
Every one of these trade deals and that oil deal, I say to myself, nobody thought of this before.
It feels like Trump is just picking up all this free money.
It's like, well, why don't we negotiate with him?
Okay.
And then he has this tariff idea that allows him to negotiate effectively and also put an artificial time limit on when they have to make a deal.
I believe there's a really good chance, assuming that inflation doesn't get out of control.
But if things keep going well, and so far they are, but remember, we don't know yet.
By the end of the year, we'll know a lot more.
If Trump keeps pushing this approach where the tariffs are used as a lever and a weapon, and then he simply proposes deals with all kinds of different countries, he can just keep doing that forever.
And it will go down in history.
That's probably just the smartest thing any American president ever did.
I don't know if history will ever give him the full weight of, let's say, respect for how he's created an asset out of nothing.
He created an asset out of nothing.
The whole tariff thing was like it didn't exist until he got there.
Now it not only exists, he's made it the biggest thing that our allies worry about.
So they better get that fixed.
Otherwise, it's going to cost them.
Anyway, so that's happening.
And then according to, I saw a post on X by NASTech AI, which I don't know if that's an AI account or somebody who's just involved in AI.
By the way, it was a good summary there of what the Maha Make America Healthy Again Commission delivered.
Apparently they've delivered their report.
And they found four root causes that I believe they want to look into more.
They're causing all the childhood, what do you call it, chronic diseases, because the chronic diseases are out of control.
They've narrowed it down to ultra-processed foods, environmental toxins, chronic stress and inactivity, and over-medicalization of children.
And to me, that feels right.
Again, I remind you that everything we knew about health for the last 1.5 million years, all of it wrong.
But finally, we're right.
I don't know.
We'll see.
And then apparently some things are getting done that are good, such as Trump approved waivers to SNAP.
That's the food that's made available through the government to people who can't afford food.
Snap.
But SNAP will not, now you won't be able to buy junk food with your Food stamps.
So Nebraska, Indiana, and Iowa have all already signed on to that.
So you can't buy junk food.
And the FDA is phasing out eight common artificial food dyes.
So they will no longer be approved by the FDA after a little time has gone by to phase them out.
And then Trump is doing that most favored nation thing with pharmaceutical stocks, where he says we won't pay more than the other countries pay.
So that could be a big saver.
We'll see.
And of course, he's got that tariff club he's using on that too.
And then I guess RFK Jr. is doing something about institutional capture, which is where the FDA and other approving organizations get staffed with people who know they have a job at the very place that they're approving as soon as they're done.
So you want to get rid of that, that conflict of interest.
So those are good things.
I don't know if that's enough, but they're good things.
I was listening to RFK Jr. talking at some event, and he very cleverly started his comments by saying that he's been coming to the White House for 65 years, you know, because his relatives were, or JFK was there.
And he said that the White House has never looked better, just, you know, just the physical look of the inside of it.
Apparently, he's impressed with how Trump has improved the decorations or the furniture or whatever.
And so he brought that up to sort of compliment Trump in front of a room full of people while the cameras were going.
And it was one of the smartest compliments you'll ever see in your life because you know that Trump cares about that.
He cares that he can make the White House look better than it had ever looked before.
Great compliment.
So if you, you know, here's one of the things I try to teach in my books.
Compliments are free.
If you're thinking of giving somebody a compliment and it's genuine, you're really impressed by something, and you keep it to yourself, that's not exactly something to be proud of.
It didn't cost you anything.
And if you deliver that compliment, there would probably be some great payoff, at least to the person who got the compliment.
So compliments are something you should learn how to give.
You'll never see a better one.
RFK Jr. knows how to give a compliment.
That was one hell of a well-crafted compliment that came at an unexpected time, which also helps.
By the way, here's the other tip.
A compliment that's not expected and it's not triggered by something in the atmosphere is way more powerful.
If you just drop a compliment, nobody expects it like that.
But I also noticed that RFK Jr.'s voice appeared the best it's ever been.
And I wondered if he's continuing to improve, or maybe because he's not actually running for election for anything, maybe he's talking less.
And maybe that gives his voice some strength.
But have you noticed that?
His voice isn't perfect.
But if you were to compare it to what it was three years ago, it looks really improved.
And my observation, which I'd love to give to him in person, is that it looks like he's figuring out the mechanics of speech.
And every now and then when he tries to speak and he doesn't have enough air, it's imperfect.
But when he takes a nice breath and makes everything vibrate when he speaks and speaks up in the mask of his face, it's nearly perfect.
So I feel like if he's figured out how to produce the perfect voice, all he has to learn is how to pause so that he can stay perfect.
Because the temptation is to finish your sentence if you're talking in public.
You know, if you start a sentence and then you run out of air, you still want to finish the sentence because you started it and it would be weird if you just stopped in the middle.
But I would advise anybody who has a similar situation to stop in the middle.
People won't even notice.
Watch this.
I'm going to start a sentence and then I'm going to make you wait before I finish the sentence.
All I did was take a breath so that the second part of the sentence is as strong as the first part because I was running out of breath a little bit.
That's it.
So I think RFK Jr. is on the verge of fixing his voice just through his own work, I think.
Well, I saw Chanel Ryan of OAN talking about Gina Haspel, who was the head of the CIA under Trump and Biden, right?
Did you know that she was sort of a favorite of John Brennan?
And he had picked her to be the London station chief of the CIA.
So when Brennan was the head of the CIA, he picked her for one of the most important assignments.
And she was there in London when the steel dossier was created.
And according to Cash Patel, she had also blocked some Russia gate evidence.
So Chanel Ryan is suggesting that the hint is that she might be One of the bad guys.
So I don't think we have proof of that, but more documents are coming out.
And so apparently, according to Just the News, there will be some newly declassified evidence coming out that says the FBI conspired with Clinton to legitimize the Russian gate allegations.
And we expect that the new declassified documents, again, this is according to just the news who has some sources, the new stuff is going to say that the FBI was a willing participant in the plot.
They weren't somebody who was also fooled by Clinton.
They knew exactly what she was doing, and they participated.
Now, if that's true, meaning that it's true that we have documentation that demonstrates that clearly, oh my goodness.
Oh my goodness.
Well, Brennan and Clapper apparently did an opinion piece in the New York Times to try to defend themselves.
Their defense is, we did not technically say anything wrong.
We said that the assessment said that Russia didn't directly change votes with their hacking.
We did not say that Russia influenced things with their influence campaign.
Now, so that's what they said.
So they basically use the complexity of the situation along with the fact that they know that 99% of the public can't follow this story.
I can just sort of barely keep up by warning you that I probably get some of the details wrong.
You know, I'm smart and it's part of my, I guess you'd call it my job at the moment to keep up with it.
And I can barely do it.
And, you know, I have, what would you call it, imposter syndrome?
It's not really imposter syndrome if it's true that you're not good at the thing.
And I'm definitely not good at the thing.
The thing being explaining the story about the Russia hoax.
But luckily, we have Sean Davis, CEO and co-founder of The Federalist, who is on X, which you might know as the number one news app in the world.
So if you're not on X, you're probably a little lost about everything, honestly.
If you're not on X, you really don't know what's going on.
Have you tried to look at news without X as the explainer?
Oh my God, you wouldn't know anything.
You need X and all the commenters who have a different angle on stuff before you can actually get a 3D picture of what's going on.
So Sean Davis is especially good at explaining stuff.
And I just want to read you his counter to Brennan and Clapper saying, well, we didn't do anything wrong.
You just don't understand what we did versus what we're accused of.
And once you understood it, well, then you'd see we didn't do anything wrong.
So Sean Davis says in their latest op-ed in the New York Times, Brennan and Clapper claim that the bogus steele dossier was not included or referenced in the infamous 2016-2017 ICA, that's intelligence, an intelligence report, the ICA, falsely alleging that Putin stole the election from Hillary.
So this is what Brennan and Clapper said in their in their op-ed.
They said, we have testified under oath and the reviews of the assessments have confirmed that the dossier was not used as a source or taken into account for any of its analysis or conclusions.
Now, that's the most important thing, because apparently it's easy to demonstrate that they did not have credibility.
So we know that the report did not have credibility.
We also know that Brennan and Clapper, I think we know this, didn't think it was credible.
So they were aware it wasn't credible.
So if they did not include it in the reports, then that's fine, right?
But what if they just lied about that?
Okay, so here's what Sean Davis tells us.
He goes, so not only did Brendan and Clapper use the steel dossier in the ICA, which would be the opposite of what they just said they did, they produced separate versions of the ICA to hide their tracks.
Oh, so they can claim that they didn't do it because there are two ICAs.
And they'll just talk about the one that doesn't have it.
All right.
They produced separate versions of the ICA to hide their tracks.
They lied to Congress about what they did, knowing that Congress only had access to the version of the document that comported with their lies.
Sean Davis, good job.
They leaked steel dossier lies to media to inject the claims into the public bloodstream.
Well, I don't know if we know the path of leaking, but that's the accusation.
And then continued to lie about what they did for the next nine years, including in this op-ed, including in this op-ed, which means the statute of limitations has not run out because they're still doing it this week.
And the statute of limitations starts counting when they stop doing things that are the thing you're accusing them of.
This would suggest that they're still doing the hoax, if Sean Davis is correct in his analysis.
In the secret non-public version of the ICA, four bullet points were listed in support of the key judgment.
So there's one version of the report that referred to the steel document, you know, very specifically and said, we're looking at these things.
The fourth was sourced directly to the steel dossier annex, but in the versions of the ICA provided to Congress and the public, the fourth bullet citing the steel dossier and the annex itself were removed from the document without a trace.
All footnotes to cited material were also removed.
So if you removed all the footnotes to it, it didn't happen by itself.
That sort of, if you say the turtle on the fence post, it didn't get there by itself.
And Sean Davis says they are clearly engaged in an ongoing criminal conspiracy to cover up their crimes, and they deserve to be held accountable to what they did and continue to do to the country.
All right.
And I guess the Federalist has a big story today that a whistleblower who called shenanigans on the claims in the ICA report was threatened for refusing to sign on to the false claims.
So this is what I've been waiting for.
I've been waiting for the whistleblowers because you know there's people there who have their lips up to the whistle and they're just thinking, ah, oh, I so want to talk about this.
I really, really want to talk about this.
But, you know, my career would be over if I do.
And it probably will be.
Well, Maggie Hemingway, also of the Federalists, says the Obama team is acting absolutely terrified about being held accountable for the Russian collusion hoax.
And I couldn't be happier about it.
Now, she has better sources than most of us, so I don't know that they're being terrified.
But when I saw Brennan being asked about it on MSNBC, he looked terrified to me.
Now, that may have been my bias because I expected him to be terrified.
So maybe I just imagined it.
Could have just imagined it.
But I would love to know what they're saying behind closed doors.
I will note that Trump is torturing them like a cat with a mouse by sending out these memes showing them behind bars and suggesting that they need to be indicted.
Now, he's not doing those things, but it looks like the mechanism for that to happen is in action.
So I do believe that the Department of Justice is looking into it and may have already come up with a bunch of ideas about how to prosecute.
So I feel like it's going to happen.
And the question I have now is what would happen to the country?
Your common sense tells you that if the prior administration is seriously indicted and put in jail, that that would be just ripping apart the fabric of the country.
And so you shouldn't do it, even if you know that justice requires it.
But you don't want to destroy the country just to have that bit of justice that you so desperately want.
Here's what I think.
I don't know what Democrats would say about this.
I feel like it would be a split opinion because the evidence of their crimes appear to be really clear, meaning it's all documented.
And there almost certainly will be more whistleblowers coming forward.
So would the Democrats decide that they had to, I don't know, do what, take up weapons?
What would they do?
If it were proven that their team was behind one of the most destructive hoaxes in the history of humans, what would they do?
Would they say, oh, you know, I'm on this team, so I have to fight hard?
Or would they do what they're doing now?
I talked about this yesterday.
Half of the Democrats are still scrappy and trying to make something of their bad situation, but half of them are just insulting the other half and saying, you're idiots.
We got to get rid of the woke stuff.
We don't have any ideas that people like.
We don't have any policies.
We don't have any good leaders.
We don't have any messages.
So I feel as if the Democrats have, through their own actions, created a situation where they're not so team-oriented as they were even one year ago, and that they only have to have a split opinion in order for Trump to be able to get away with indicting these past leaders.
In other words, if we thought that 98% of the Democrats would say, whoa, whoa, whoa, they did not break any laws, there's no evidence, you're just lawfaring them, then it wouldn't be a good idea.
It would tear the country apart.
And even I would say, damn it, maybe we should let this go.
But when you have a situation where the Democrats are already tearing each other apart and saying, we can't act like this anymore, it doesn't work.
Then you're just throwing more logs onto the fire that's already burning, which is Democrats blaming themselves or their party for horrible performance and maybe even some crime.
So there probably is no other time when this would work.
But Trump could sell it.
And so, you know, sometimes you blame me for sitting on the fence about things.
Usually I don't think that's what's going on.
Sometimes I just don't know the right answer.
So, like with the tariffs, I'm not sitting on the fence with the tariffs.
I just genuinely don't know if it's going to cause inflation or not.
I don't know.
But on this one, I'm going to give you a solid opinion.
They have to go to court.
Now, if the court decides that they're not guilty, I will accept that.
But this has to go to court.
There's no way that the country can heal or the history will even understand what happened unless we take this through the court system.
So I think that every one of these people that have been mentioned, they need to be dragged through the court by Trump, and he has a free punch.
I mean, what they've done to him has been so grotesquely out of balance up to this point that he just has the freedom that nobody else would ever have.
Because what he's doing is setting the world straight.
He has the right to rebalance.
And things are terribly out of balance.
If the only thing he does is say, here's what you did to me, and you made up all of this shit, or you exaggerated it, or you turned an almost nothing into a big something, all I'm going to do is let the courts decide, based on these documents and the whistleblowers, whether any crimes were committed.
And I'll just watch.
So yeah, I believe that there would not be a civil war, and I believe that it would not even necessarily affect us economically or geopolitically.
I feel like the Democrat Party is in such disarray, and they hate each other as much as they hate Republicans at this point, that this is the one time in history Trump can just put the boot down.
And will they say, oh, he's acting like an autocrat?
Sure.
But that hasn't made any difference yet.
They would say he's acting like a king.
And then we would say, this is being handled by the courts, and the courts are not doing anything that's illegal.
This is actually what they do.
So yeah, I'm going to go in.
I'm all in on the fact that the risk to the country of making this an actual Department of Justice big deal, I think the risk to the country is low.
I think it's low.
And I think that this is just the, it just has to happen now.
So when I think about all the lives that were destroyed by these hoaxes, and really the country itself was essentially destroyed, we can build back.
I think we'll get back.
But at the moment, I mean, just think about the fact that people can't even spend time with their own families.
That's what this kind of hoax gets you.
That plus the fine people hoax.
So yeah, I'm all in.
Jail.
Apparently, there's a report that a number of the worst documents, there might be some bad ones we haven't seen yet, were found in a secret locked room in burn bags.
Now, a burn bag is a bag you put a document in if you're planning to have it all burned to get rid of it, because you can't just throw classified stuff in the regular garbage.
So why were there burn bags?
Were they burn bags that simply hadn't yet been burned?
And there's nothing to see here.
It's just stuff they didn't need, so they put them in a burn bag.
Or I think we've already been told that the burn bags have the good stuff in them, which would suggest they knew exactly what they were doing and hid them.
General Flynn notes that those burn bags probably could be fingerprinted.
What?
Did you think of that?
The burn bags probably can be fingerprinted.
Now, I hope they haven't been touched by too many other hands.
They probably have been.
But kind of an interesting thought, isn't it?
That they could be fingerprinted.
And then there's some information about, do you remember, was it Stephen Helper, the British spy-related guy who was part of that steel dossier?
And I guess he was a big part of making the fake case against General Flynn.
And so General Flynn is, he's going all caps on his ex-post today.
I'll just read you what he posted.
He said, and as noted many times by Sadlana, Helper, so that was the British spy guy, was not even there that night.
He made up the whole story.
He goes, that fat bastard helper made the entire story up, all in caps.
We've always known this.
The crooked cops inside the FBI and those in the White House and at the CIA all went along, all done to overthrow the United States of America.
Enough is enough.
Start arresting people.
Yep.
General Flynn, I am 100% down with that opinion.
It's time to arrest people.
Well, Ghelane Maxwell, as you know, has been talking with the House Oversight Committee.
Well, actually, she's been invited to talk to them, but she will not consider it unless she gets congressional immunity, which would be different from, what's that other word?
If she gets clemency.
So she wants clemency and also immunity, and she's unlikely to get any of that.
So do we expect her to tell the truth if she doesn't get something in return?
Well, It appears that she's not going to get those things because it would be politically impossible.
It would be a bad idea for Trump to grant any of that.
So I'm hoping we can find out what she knows from some other mechanism.
There's a lawyer who represented nine of Epstein victims, who was on one of the shows recently.
And he's questioning what Dershowitz said about the Epstein clients not being real.
Now, I did not hear Dershowitz say anything like that.
So I don't want to characterize what Dershowitz said.
I'll just tell you what the other lawyer says.
He says, I've represented not only the nine victims, but I've seen the evidence on behalf of the 40 victims that the FBI investigated at the time to prove conclusively that Epstein had trafficked in underage girls, children as young as 14 years old, for sex.
Not only that, he was using these young children, but so was Ghelene Maxwell.
So she's accused of being physical as well.
And then he was trading out these favors with these young people to people in Palm Beach and in the Manhattan home, as well as transporting people to the islands and the Virgin Islands.
So I think we make too much of a big deal about who went to the island because he had three homes in the United States, right?
New Mexico, New York, and Palm Beach.
And he had lots of entertainment and parties and people going back and forth.
So I don't think that who did or did not go to the island is telling you a lot because it would have been smarter for them all to just visit in one of his homes because you wouldn't have to even be on his airplane to go there.
So we'll see what happens there.
So it is kind of amazing that apparently there may be dozens of famous people who were credibly accused of very specific, horrible crimes.
As far as we know, none of them are being prosecuted.
Now, I understand that the victims may have settled and there may have been like a gazillion dollar settlements.
And if you had already been victimized, you might want to keep your $20 million more than you want to see somebody go to jail.
So it might be tough to ever find out what happened for sure.
In other news, Media Matters, that horrible publication that's sort of a pit dog for the Democrats.
It's just a way to go after Republicans, basically.
Might get shut down.
Rod Martin is writing about this on X. He's got a nice thread on this.
But it was founded by David Brock in 2003.
And now apparently they're drowning in legal bills.
And the main reason would be Elon Musk is going after them for, what was their claim?
Oh, they did a fake test where it showed that X was pairing Nazi propaganda next to advertisements.
But it was a fake test.
So they got busted for that, at least in terms of that's why the lawsuit is there.
But also, they would try to organize advertiser boycotts against X. So this is just the worst organization.
They really should not exist.
And apparently they're really sucking wind on money.
And here's the funniest part.
They got cut off from their law firm for not paying their bills.
The law firm is Mark Elias' firm.
Now, 1% of the world knows why that's funny, because Mark Elias and that law firm also, like Media Matters, were just a Democrat pit bull kind of an organization.
So, yeah, the Democrats are falling apart entirely.
Well, good news, there's a new robot for picking mushrooms, according to the robot report.
And that's important because mushrooms can double in size in like a day.
So you have to pick them every day.
Now, I saw separately, I saw a broccoli picking robot.
Now, these robots don't look like humanoids.
They're just big tractor-related things with lots of arms that identify and pick the stuff.
But are we heading rapidly toward a point where farming will be almost no human labor?
Because farming is very predictable.
Like, you know exactly what you have to do, and it's not that much different.
You know, you know, you have to get rid of the weeds, you have to pick the fruit, you got to plant the seeds, you got to, I mean, there's not much to it.
So it seems that would be exactly the kind of thing you could get robots to do more and more.
Now you don't have to worry about immigration to pick your food.
Well, in other news, North Carolina State University says, researchers have devised a way to improve the large climate models, the models that predict what the temperature will be in 50 years.
And they demonstrated that their new tool makes the models more accurate.
To which I say, wait a minute, I thought the models were already accurate or accurate enough.
So about once a week, I see a story where somebody says, oh, here was something wrong with those models.
Oh, they were pretty good, but we're going to make them even better.
Really?
How many ways do you think you Can tweak those models and still have them come up with roughly the same answer.
Because if they come up with wildly different answers, every time you tweak a variable or you discover a new way to do it, then you've proven that they're useless.
However, if you don't prove that they're useless by showing that every time you get new information, the model is wildly different, if it turns out that no matter what you do to the model, it still predicts roughly the same thing, that would also tell you the models are fake.
The glaring signals that the climate models are going to be next on the chopping block, like it'll be the next thing that just blows your freaking mind when you find out what the whistleblowers say about their own climate models.
And that's coming.
That is so coming.
I don't know when.
Might not be this year or next year, but it's definitely coming.
And wait till you find out about climate models.
Well, NVIDIA, who makes those high-end AI chips, had been restricting the type of chips that they would sell to China.
And they had this special chip called the H20 that was good enough to do AI, but not as good as the American stuff.
So America could continue to have its advantage in the technology.
However, 20 national security experts have suggested that that H2O chip is a little bit too good and that we're putting ourselves in a dangerous situation in allowing China to have access to it.
I don't know.
But people don't agree on how much technology China should have.
Canada has announced it's going to back a Palestinian state.
And Trump says it will be very hard for us to make a trade deal with Canada now that they're backing a Palestinian state, which Israel doesn't back and the U.S. doesn't back at the moment.
To which I say, why would I as an American care what Canada says about the Middle East?
And would I be willing to have a worse trade deal, one that maybe increases my inflation, to force Canada to have a different opinion about the Palestinian situation?
I don't feel like that's the right place to apply the tariff paddle.
I feel like Canada can have whatever opinion they want.
Why in the world can't they have an opinion about a part of the world that we don't even live in?
What?
I mean, I do appreciate and I'm impressed by Trump's ability to create this little weapon, the tariff, and then use it to get better trade deals and decrease fentanyl maybe and a bunch of other stuff.
But are we really policing the free speech of Canadians?
Don't you think that the people of Canada should be able to say whatever they want about whatever they want?
Why are we tamping down on their free speech?
I don't know.
I don't love that.
There's a report that Trump said something privately to some Jewish donor.
And so who knows if it's true?
Generally speaking, the least credible stories are somebody heard somebody said something to somebody privately.
Those are almost never real, but it's in the news, so I'll tell you about it.
So apparently, the report is that Trump told a Jewish donor that, quote, my supporters are starting to hate Israel.
Now, of course, there probably was a whole bunch of context to that, but I went to Grok to see if there had been a change.
And sure enough, according to polls, hate is too strong a word, but Trump always speaks in hyperbole.
There's a big difference.
So since October 7th, let's say the support for Israel initially was high because they'd been attacked, but now has reached a new low.
So it's nowhere near hating Israel.
So that would be going too far.
But yeah, support for Israel, probably pretty low, even among Republicans.
Now, when I say pretty low, I mean pretty low compared to what it was.
It's not low, low.
It's just going down.
So let me be clear.
It's going down.
It's not that low.
And Trump has said in a Truth Social Post that the fastest way to end the Gaza crisis is for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages.
Now, that, of course, is what Israel's been saying for a long time, you know, that you got to do those things.
But I do love Trump's framing of it.
He should just repeat that sentence every time it comes up.
Gaza crisis can be settled immediately if Hamas surrenders and releases hostages.
That's it.
Just say that over and over again.
Because the debate acts like Israel has the option of just putting Hamas back in charge and then going on with their day.
I don't feel like they think that's an option.
I feel like they think that Hamas has to be 100% gone and all of the hostages have to be released or there's just nothing you can do.
You just got to make that happen.
So I remind you that I'm not pro or anti-Israel.
It's Not my country.
I'm simply observing.
And anything that I think they should do is irrelevant.
Anything that I think is more or less ethical or moral, irrelevant.
It's not my country.
I just observe that all countries do what seems to be good for their country.
And Israel is doing a really good job of that.
However, it does seem to me that if things keep going in the direction they're going, that Israel will have spent their Holocaust premium.
What I mean by that is the narrative of the Holocaust gives Israel some superpowers because when that's in your mind, you automatically will side with them when they do something to defend their country because you don't want another Holocaust, never again.
So if you've completely internalized and accepted the Holocaust as the way to understand Israel, it's a real powerful weapon for persuasion.
So once they bring up that Holocaust, it's impossible to be on the other side because it would be like you're doubting the Holocaust or you're supporting another one or something.
So it's really powerful that that narrative exists.
However, my observation is that that goodwill or that power that they get from that historical narrative is being used, spent, to get control of Gaza.
Now, that might be a good expense.
If they can somehow get rid of all the bad elements in the Palestinian properties and they don't create a second state that becomes their new threat, and they continue being the ones who provide the security, the defense for all that area,
I feel like they would get a good deal, even if what they did was greatly degraded the power of the Holocaust narrative, because then people who don't like Israel would say, well, yeah, the Holocaust was plenty bad for sure, but look what you did.
And again, I'm not taking that point of view.
I'm just telling you that people will take that point of view.
So it's expensive what Israel wants to do with Gaza, but I'm not sure they have a choice.
And the way I look at it is, what would we do if it were your country and you knew that reconstituting Gaza and putting Hamas back in charge guaranteed that there would be more missile attacks and more October 7th and an endless number of future problems?
What would you do?
What would Trump do?
Yeah.
So I don't judge anybody over there.
Everybody's just pursuing their best self-interest as they see it.
So according to the Vigilant Fox, a great account on X with lots of good summaries of what's happening in the world, they're talking about you probably knew that YouTube now can monitor the behavior of a user and it will know just by the behavior and what you visited and how you click and stuff that you're probably under 18 and then they would restrict you from things you should not see if you're a child.
But Australia is trying to get other products like Google Maps and Apple Macs and Bing and more.
Wants to get them all powered so that they can really tell who you are and what age you are.
The fast version of this is that Apple apparently has a patent that can verify your identity based on your body, your clothes, and your movements.
So there are a bunch of ways to identify who you are based on what you do online.
So that would suggest that you would lose all privacy for going to naughty sites or whatever it is you're going to because they'll know who you are.
Now that is not fully implemented, but there's a good chance it will be.
So don't do anything online that you wouldn't do in front of people.
All right, that's all I got for today.
Sorry I went a little bit long.
Locals, I'm going to say hi to you, my beloved locals subscribers.
The rest of you someday I'll tell you why locals is so awesome, so that you might want to join too.
