Ryan Reynolds (10:29)

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us we brought in a reverse auctioneer which is a apparently a thing Mint Mobile Unlimited premium wireless. Everybody get 30, 30. Better get 30. Better to get 20, 20, 20. Better get 20, 20. Everybody get 15, 15, 15, 15. Just 15 bucks a month. So give it a try@mintmobile.com switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to 15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of network's busy taxes and fees extra see mintmobile.com me.

Scott Adams (11:01)

Of course, it's. Yeah. The one person who only texts me during my live stream. Always an emergency. It's like, are you awake? It's an emergency. All right, well, you have to wait. So we don't know if that's a terrorist or a crazy person or bad driving or what that is, but we'll find out. The story about Stephen Colbert getting fired from his job at the Tonight show, the Late Show. What was his show called? The Late Tonight show or. I don't know. I never watched it. But now people are suspecting the Democrats are. That maybe it wasn't about economics. This is such a. This is such a Democrat point of view. Even though the show was losing $40 million a year, people thought that the reason probably wasn't economics. There was rather trying to make Trump happy so the Trump administration will approve a merger that Paramount wants to do with some other company. And I thought to myself, are Democrats that economically ignorant that they think somebody would want to keep a show on TV that was losing $40 million a year and didn't look like it would ever get better, probably would only get worse. So it makes me wonder, is this one of those things where the Democrats know it's not really a good attack on Trump, but they don't care because it's something and they don't have anything else? Like, well, why don't we make up some stupid hoax about Stephen Colbert? However, I have to admit there's a little bit there. Wasn't there a similar rumor that when Tucker Carlson got canned by Fox News, the reason had something to do with the lawsuit? And maybe there was a side deal that said, all right, we will settle this lawsuit. But then somebody said the only way we'll accept it is if you also fire Tucker Carlson. So sometimes there's a little bit of a side deal. I don't know if it was true with Tucker, and I certainly don't know if it's true as Stephen Colbert. But the Democrats are. I think they're justified in asking the question, was this part of the deal? But if you're losing $40 million a year and you get canceled, I feel like there's another reason that's really good, $40 million a year. However, the good news is that there's already a replacement for Stephen Colbert. Stephen Colbert show will run through May, and May is also the end of Jerome Powell's stay at the Fed. So Jerome Powell, whose nickname is Too Late, will be hosting a new show called the Too Late Show. How many of you believe that's true? Anybody? No, that's not true. But it's funny that the show will run through May, which coincidentally is when Jerome Powell is going to be out of his job, and that his nickname is Too Late. The Too Late Show. Come on, that's funny. The weird thing about doing jokes on Livestream is that there's a delay before I see the LOLs come through. So I'm like, does that land. Do I need to reword that one? Because I thought it was a winner. Well, the House of Representatives has approved the $9 billion budget cuts that Trump wanted, and that would include cuts to NPR and pbs. Now, it doesn't put them out of business. It just reduces one of their multiple sources of income. I love how good Trump is at touting his successes. He is really good at it. Remember the criticisms that were always being given to Biden? They'd say, you know, the real problem is that Democrats are not doing a good job of telling people about their successes. And then Trump gets in office. There's never been anybody better in the history of presidents, or maybe in the history of everything that's ever happened anywhere in any way. Who's been better at touting his successes? Trump is really, really good at it. Now, he has a lot of successes to tout. That helps. But here's another one. You know, the $9 billion isn't going to make a big deal to the the deficit. It's not enough to make a dent in it. But doesn't it make you feel good to know that there was something, something finally, that reduced some part of a budget associated with the country? Now, it's not a big deal, but the way it feels is bigger than how big a deal it is. And that's what Trump gets right every time. He will make you feel that things are moving in the right direction. And what have I taught you about economics? The most important thing you need to know about economics, aside from the fact that economists are only guessing, maybe that's rule one. Even the professionals are pretty much just guessing. There's a reason they always disagree on everything. However, the other big rule of economics is that economics are driven by expectations. And if people are optimistic, the economy usually does well because it causes people to act in a way that drives the economy up. They invest because they think, oh, this would be a good time to do that. Everything's going well. So Trump is the master of all time of convincing people that the economy is already going in the right direction when he's in charge. Right? So this budget cut is part of that. It's not terribly important by itself, but the more you hear stories about the Trump administration cut some expenses that were unnecessary, the happier you'll be. You'll think, oh, finally the adults are in charge. So the way you feel about it is much more important than the 9 billion that they cut. Well, according to Polymarket, which is just a bunch of people who are asked their opinion and then gamble on stuff, I guess the odds of a recession have gone down from 70% on polymarket. I guess that was in the spring when we were still confused about what would happen with tariffs. And according to Breitbart News, Jasmine Jordan, that 70% chance of recession is now all the way down to 19%. Now, remember, these are not economists, but economists also have lowered their estimate of the risk of recession. So regular people, plus economists are all saying, oh, it doesn't look like a recession. Now, I remind you that Trump and his administration were really the ones saying, no, there's not going to be a recession. And now we know they were right. I mean, I suppose you could say no, but the recession will be in the autumn. Well, maybe, but it doesn't look like it to me. It looks like, I don't know, 9 out of 10 economic signals are in the right direction at the moment and we're almost certainly going to get a rate cut, if not now, then maybe in the spring and people will anticipate it. That will make them optimistic. I really don't see a recession happening unless there's some brand new thing that happens that we don't know about. So Trump is managing the expectations of the country really, really well. And I don't think that story gets enough play because we talk about what Trump says and we think, oh, you know, he's just being a salesman. And then we, we talk about what the economy does, and I don't think it's enough connected. The things he says do drive the economy and in a very real way. Speaking of that, Breitbart News is reporting that gas prices are stable and fairly low compared to where they were under Biden in Trump's second term. So, so remember how bored you were in the spring. Blah, blah, blah, gas prices, blah, blah, blah, My eggs, my eggs are too expensive. And Democrats thought they finally had a winning topic. All right, everybody, we'll talk about gas and eggs. And in typical Democrat historical patterns, they picked as their attack line the thing that was most likely to blow up in their faces. Just like all the lawfare against Trump and getting Everything from the attempted assassination to the Russia collusion hoax. Every time they go after Trump, they manage to pick the only thing that's likely to backfire. All right, now we've got these pictures of him. What do you call it? The mug shot. We've got him now. We got Trump to have to take a mug shot. Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho. We've got him now. And then his supporters say, can I put that in a shirt? That's pretty awesome. And the next thing you know, his popularity goes up. And so the same thing I thought was obvious with the eggs and the gas. The odds of Trump being able to move those two things, given that they were such priorities, were pretty high. So the Democrats decided to hitch their fate to eggs and gas, the two things that Trump probably, and it looks like he succeeded, had the most ability to fix. Why would they do that? Everything they pick is the wrong thing to pick. Trump comes in and he goes, we got to build a wall. We got all these criminals coming across. Well, that just is real. And then he can fix it, and then he gets the credit for it. But the Democrats never pick the right thing. They always pick something that he can easily turn to his advantage, either by solving it or by, you know, his good persuasion. So eggs. Speaking of which, also in Breitbart, John Carney is reporting the egg prices fell 19.8% in June, and they're down 61% since February. Know what's weird? For most of my adult life, I've not eaten eggs for a variety of reasons that don't really matter. But as soon as eggs were too expensive for people to afford, I really wanted some eggs. And I was completely aware of the fact that I was being manipulated by the news. As long as the news told me that eggs were rare and that only rich people could eat eggs, I just said to myself, really? So only successful rich people can eat eggs? Well, I'm going to get a dozen eggs and see how right they are. So I was eating quite a few eggs, then the price of eggs went down, and now, now everybody can afford eggs. Well, I've lost all my interest in them. If I can't feel superior by eating an egg, I'll eat something else. But egg prices and gas looking good. Speaking of eggs, there's a new study out of the University of South Australia that says eating two eggs a day is actually good for your cholesterol and not bad. Don't you recall years and years of our life where we were told, well, the eggs are okay. But you don't want to overdo it. You know, you're not going to want to have two eggs every day because that would be too much cholesterol. Do you remember that? And now this study says that two eggs a day will actually improve your ldl, which is your good stuff. I guess so. No, it can reduce your ldl because that was bad stuff.

Ryan Reynolds (25:24)

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.

Scott Adams (25:51)

So I was looking back on my history of diet and science and correct me if I'm wrong, but over my lifetime, science has been wrong about everything about diet fairly consistently. And I think almost everything, except maybe soda. Soda has always been considered not the best thing for you. But almost everything else went through a phase where somebody said it was bad for you, only to be redeemed later by science. In both cases, science was driving it. And it just feels like guessing. I mean, almost everything in the diet category just feels like guessing. It's so damn weird. So you can have your eggs. All right, these next few stories have something in common, which is I don't understand them at all. And I'm in good company because you won't understand them either. But they're big headline stories. So I spent most of this morning looking at the headlines and then going to Grok and saying, can you explain to me what this story is really about? Can you tell me the context or why would I care about this? Or why is it even a story? Right, let's see how. Let's see how close you can get to understanding this. So Trump signed the. What's called the Genius act into law, and it's legislation that will pave the way for the US to lead the global digital currency revolution. So everybody understands that. Do you understand cryptocurrency? And do you understand why the Genius act is going to be good for the US in terms of cryptocurrency? No, of course you don't. The news has just become so complicated and so technical. I have no idea what this means. No idea. Was there some problem I didn't know about? Well, so I went to Grok and I said, why do we need the Genius Act? And Grok told me it establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins in the US do you know what the next thing I had to ask it was, why do we care about stablecoins? What the hell is a stablecoin? Have I lost you all yet? Are you all in the same place? I am, which is, I have no idea what's going on. No idea. But a stablecoin is a cryptocurrency that would, in this particular example of the Genius act, would be issued usually by a bank or some credible institution. But what makes it a stable coin is that the crypto would only move with the dollar. So if the dollar was worth a little more, so would the crypto, but it would always be tied to the value of the dollar. Now, you might say, why do we need to have comprehensive regulatory framework? Well, now you're well beyond my ability to explain what's going on. There must be some ways that this can go wrong. And having a good framework for. For this and allowing stable coins, I think the big change is that it allows the stable coins to thrive because people will feel safer about that. And I know that there's a benefit if you're making payments overseas. Have you ever tried to pay somebody a lot of money and you had to use a bank and then you say, I'd like to send a wire, and it's this gigantic pain in the ass, and they take a big fee. And you wonder, why does it take overnight to send a wire? Well, if you add these stable coins, apparently you would just say to your trading partner in another country, all right, what's your account number? I'm sending you some crypto. And there wouldn't be any charge, so there would be no middleman to take a piece of it. So some of it probably has to do with privacy, and some of it has to do with regulatory fiduciary responsibility, but we don't really understand it. Well, what else is in the news? Oh, President Trump vowed to never allow the creation of a central bank digital currency, which would be a crypto that would be sort of a direct replacement for the dollar. So he says that's not going to happen. Why? Well, there would be problems with privacy, and it would give the government too much control because they could watch what you're doing and they could turn off your ability to do it. To which I say, how is that really different than the regular dollar? You know, that if the government wants to look at your transactions, they're going to need a reason, but it doesn't take much of a reason, and they can get some kind of approval to totally look at what you're doing with your regular dollars. So do you really have privacy when it comes to larger transactions? No, you don't. You don't have any privacy when it comes to large transactions. If your government is interested, if they want to look at what you're doing, they're going to be able to look at it. They always have been able to. So do I think that a central bank digital currency would make it that much easier for the government to spy on you and control you? I don't know. Maybe. But I think if you think it's a big deal, you probably don't realize how easily they can spy on you now anyway. So those are two things I don't understand. But what I do like is that David Sachs is in charge of explaining and getting changes in the government that are going to be helpful for crypto. And while I don't think that Trump has a full understanding of this crypto world, I do think the Sachs does. So this is one of those cases where I'm willing to trust the plan only because I, I believe that the person in charge is smart enough and honest enough that he would lead us in the right direction. And we'll see. Well, the story of the alleged Donald Trump doodle on a birthday card to Epstein when Epstein was 50. So that would have been years ago, 2003. The new wrinkle is that Michael Cohen, who went to jail and he was Trump's attorney, and you know, he loved Trump when they were working together, but then they became enemies, like really enemies. And even Michael Cohen, who remains, I would say, a big enemy of Donald Trump, says, quote, during the 13 year time period that he was close to Trump, I never heard Trump mention Jeffrey EPSTEIN. And over 13 years of being by the man's side, I have never once seen him doodle. I never saw him draw a picture. In fact, I would be very shocked if Donald Trump actually can doodle. So I feel at this point the public opinion, at least on the right, is that the Wall Street Journal report is fake news. And maybe they didn't intend it that way. Maybe. But it doesn't look like the evidence that they produce is reliable. To me, this looks like bullshit. Now, bolstering the idea that it's a fake news, Trump is suing Murdoch and Wall Street Journal for, for producing that article which Trump would say they would know was fake. Otherwise it wouldn't be a problem. If they did it accidentally, thinking it was real, I think they're safe. But if they knew it wasn't real and they did it anyway, well, then they might have some legal problems with Trump. So he's got his lawsuit going. He says he's looking forward to Murdoch testifying. All right, but what would be the most predictable part of this story, the most predictable thing. The most predictable thing would be that we would someday find out that the reporter behind the story for the Wall Street Journal has some connection to the Democrat deep state. Do you think that maybe that's true? Well, it turns out the Gateway pundit is writing that, according to. Let's see. Real Clear Politics, and national political correspondent Susan Crabsheri uncovered a damning connection between the reporter who wrote that story about the birthday card and a little drawing on it. It's Joe Palazzolo. And apparently he was connected with, let's say he previously worked as a reporter for something called Main Justice. So so far you're saying, well, that's nothing. But Main justice was a publication run by Glenn Simpson's wife. Have you made the connection yet? Glenn Simpson was the founder of Fusion gps. Are you there yet? Have you made the connection yet? Fusion GPS was behind the steel dossier. So at the same time that, and we'll talk about this, that the Trump administration is putting all kinds of pressure on the creators of the Steele dossier and all the fake Russia collusion hoax. At the same time, the Wall Street Journal coincidentally produces a major story in which somebody who was. Let me say it again. The reporter who wrote the story used to work for Glenn Simpson's wife, and Glenn Simpson was the one whose firm was behind the Steele dossier, which we know was fake. So don't you think we need an AI program that will do this automatically? I feel like it could do it because these connections are always public. Like, you can always find a story or a connection or a LinkedIn profile or something. So I would love to know, every time a reporter writes a negative hit piece on somebody, I would like to know, ah, so what's your spouse do? Where did your spouse work before this? Where did you work before this? And did you work with anybody's spouse that we should know about? The fact that any human being can make these connections is kind of stunningly impressive. But someday, maybe. AI.

Ryan Reynolds (38:07)

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords, and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it, and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it. Guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off terms apply.

Scott Adams (38:37)

Well, CNN's Harry Entin, he's their data guy. He says that Republicans are up a shocking 12 points before the 2026 midterms. So I won't give you all the data involved here, but the basic is that CNN's data guy says that this midterm election is not looking like past patterns. Past patterns are that whoever's in charge loses the midterms. So if your party has the president, almost always the midterm elections where they're only voting for members of Congress, almost always the other team picks up some dominance in that area. But Democrats are way behind. According To Anton, their 2006 and 2018 pace at this point in the cycle doesn't mean it won't change. You know, there, there will be a million hoaxes between now and the midterms. But it looks like the Democrats are on the verge of the last morsel of credibility that they had is about to be extinguished. If things go the way it looks now, I don't predict it. I feel like it's bad luck to predict it, you know, because the red wave didn't happen, etc. So, so I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to predict that. I've never seen CNN be. So I won't say panicked, but they're quite aggressively promoting the idea that Democrats are in real trouble. Is that true? I don't know. Maybe it's a plot to get more Democrats to vote. I don't know. But you should not, if you're a Democrat, you should not be worried that the Democrats will never be able to recover from the deep, deep hole that they're in because they have a plan. And their plan, as you know, is to do more swearing in public so that they're more like Trump and to do more pretending that they're authentic because the Democrats literally believe that being authentic is an act. Now, I'm not a mind reader, so you might say, Scott, you don't know what they're thinking. Well, I don't know what they're thinking, but the way they act and the way they talk suggests that they believe that Trump is only pretending to be authentic and somehow pulling it off so they believe that they could do the same. Well, we could pretend to be authentic. Let's just copy what he does. Got it. All right. He does these insults. We can do insults. He does swearing. Oh, that's what the common person does. We can do that. And they miss. They miss the entire point of it. The point of it is that Trump has largely been consistent forever. You'd find a few topics where, over time, he. He changed. But generally speaking, Trump has been Trump for almost my whole adult life. So, yeah, I don't think you can. I don't think you match his authenticity, unless you've got somebody who has a long track record and then they are consistent with their long track record. Well, I guess. I guess Bernie's authentic, because as stupid as his ideas are, they've never changed. So he's sort of authentic in a bad way. Well, Trump said, in response to some press shouted question, he said, quote, I was the hunted, now I'm the hunter. I feel like he's used that a few times, but do you remember, um, the most mocked I've ever been over a post on what was old Twitter, the most mocked and abused I've been is when I did a post that said if Biden is elected, that Republicans will be haunted. Oh, my God. That became like a national headline and. And people didn't argue it, they just mocked it. It's like, look at this guy. Oh, my God. Can you believe it? Can you believe it? This guy, this cartoonist guy, this Dilber guy, he's saying, oh, he says that if Biden gets elected. Come on, come on. This is just hilarious. He's saying this idiot is saying that Republicans will be hunted. It's the best prediction I've ever made because no one else that I know of, certainly nobody in the public sphere, was making that prediction that early. And then what happened? Republicans got hunted. Some of us got canceled. Which you might say, well, that's different. You had that coming. No, we didn't. No, we didn't. There were no Republicans that canceled me. I didn't get canceled by one Republican. Not even one. No, that was part of getting hunted. The January Sixers hunted. How about Trump himself? Hunted and literally shot. Hunted and then literally shot. And that's after all the lawfare. So, generally speaking, I would not be in favor of a politician doing revenge kinds of stuff once in office, because I feel like, well, that's a bad precedent to do revenge stuff, because then maybe the other side will do some revenge stuff, to. Which I now say to myself, scott, shut the fuck up. The things that the Democrats did to you, the things they did to other Republicans, and the things they did to the preferred leader of your political movement, Trump, are so bad that Trump absolutely should hunt them down and that a large number of them belong in jail and you would not have to make up charges. You would not have to pretend something happened that didn't. You could just use the public record and start locking up people, and maybe that's going to happen. So I'm completely flipped on the question of presidential revenge. If the other side had done a little bit of something bad and then Trump was going to do something a little worse, I wouldn't be in favor of that. But what the Democrats did was so freaking bad that you can't get worse than that. You have to go to jail for that. You have to go to jail. And I think maybe there's some possibility. We'll see some of that. But, yeah, he's a hunter now. Well, apparently I didn't even know this was happening, but there's some big success in getting some. Ten U.S. citizens who were detained in Venezuela. I didn't even know that was happening. Have been released and credit is being given to Secretary Rubio and El Salvador's leader Bukele. So apparently he was helpful in making that happen. Now I gotta say Reuters is reporting on this. I gotta say Trump is really good at releasing American prisoners. Nobody's ever been better at that. Would you agree? Can you even think of any president who was this good at getting American prisoners released overseas? I feel like he's alone in this capability, but I will give a shout out to El Salvador, Zabukeli, because he plays everything so smart that it's, it's kind of hard to even understand why he's so good at what he does. But, you know, with all these countries who want to push back on the US and they don't want to be pushed around, and they don't, you know, they don't want Trump to be running roughshod over them. Well, Bukele goes the other direction and he basically, you know, this is, my interpretation, says, wouldn't it make more sense if I have this really productive relationship with Trump, with the US and wouldn't El Salvador really benefit from really being a tight ally with the US and the answer is yes. Yes. I feel like it's such a smart and obvious play to be our best friend that when you see the other countries are playing it the opposite way, we cannot be humiliated by the United States. We will try to stop them at every, every turn. How is that working out? I mean, really, how is that working out? Whereas Bukele just says, all right, I'm going to lock up all my, all my criminals. I'm going to embrace Bitcoin, which turned out to be looking pretty smart at the moment. And I'm going to work very productively with the United States and be their best friend. And if they ever need a favor, oh, I'll totally do it. I'll do them a favor. How smart is that? I mean, I don't know who. I don't know if he's being advised or he's just that smart, but I love. I love watching an ally of the United States just kill it. He's just killing it. Laura Loomer has a scoop. She's talking to a whistleblower who says, and I'm going to wait for a fact check on this because I do think that Laura Loomer has good sources and she's making sure that she's crossed all the T's and dotted all the I's. Most boring thing anybody ever said. But the claim is that under Barack Obama, the systems. That the computer systems that the government use was delegated to Chinese foreign nationals located in China as the tax support, which means that the Chinese. I'm having trouble believing this is real because the implications of it are so fucking big that although I think Laura Loomer has earned some credibility with her scoops, they seem to work out. How could this possibly be true? Let me finish what it is. So the claim is that under Obama, a back door was given to Chinese tech people in China, who, of course, would be beholden to the Chinese government for anything they can steal. So, in theory, the Chinese government has had full access to all of our government systems, full access to all of our government systems for like, ten fucking years now. Is that possible? How many of you think that's real? I don't know. I'm sure there will be some nuances to this. Like, oh, we had. We had this wall up so they couldn't do any mischief or something. But at the moment, the Laura Loomer scoop is that the Chinese government had full access to all of our government technology and that. And that Obama must have known it because he, you know, his administration approved it. So this one doesn't make sense to me. There's probably something else we don't know about it, but that's happening. All right, I'm going to ruin your fun a little bit. You all know the big story of the day, that Tulsi Gabard came out with some new information they found, which, let's say. So the claim is, she did a long thread on X, that for months before the 2016 election, the intelligence Community had a consensus view that Russia lacked the intent and capability to hack US Elections. Now, the claim, if I can summarize it, is that they have new documentation to show that the Obama administration, including Obama and including Brennan Clapper, were fully aware that Russia did not hack the election. Yet they claim that. That Russia did interfere with the election. So the claim is that it's a big conspiracy theory. No, that's the wrong word. It's a conspiracy, like rico, that people were all in on this hoax, and the hoax was that Russia was helping Trump get elected, but they knew that it wasn't true. There's something wrong with this story, and you're not going to like it when I tell you I believe it's conflating things. And what it looks like is conflating is the question of whether Russia could impact with cyber attacks, the election infrastructure. So the, the thing that the intelligence community knew is that Russia, there was no evidence that Russia could get into our election infrastructure. In other words, they did not believe that Russia was getting into voting machines or databases and changing the results. And so because we knew that they weren't getting into the infrastructure of the elections, it means that Obama and his team were lying weasels when they said, oh, yeah, Russia, you know, may have been behind trying to help Trump. So. But here's where I'm going to disagree with how it's been treated so far. This story. I feel like it conflates the thing that I'm sure did not happen because there's no evidence, which is that Russia indeed did not directly hack the voting machines or the databases. But I don't remember that even being a claim, do you? I remember hearing, sorry, I've got allergies. I remember hearing that Russia may have hacked Hillary's email and Podesta's email and maybe something else. But would you call those election infrastructure? They're not right. I remember hearing that Russia ran a bunch of memes, some advertisement. Some of it was anti Trump, some of it was anti Hillary. Yeah, the. The meme farm. So the meme farm had nothing to do with hacking anything. It was just memes. And then there was a claim that. So there was a meme farm, there was a hacking of the emails. And then, of course, you always throw in the Manafort was scamming some Russian billionaire and he was scamming him, saying he would give him some, you know, secret stuff. And the only thing he ever gave him was some dated internal polling. So. But Manifer went to jail for that. And there was no evidence that Trump knew anything about it. So when Tulsi Gabbard says that we have documents that show that the intelligence community knew that the Russians did not hack the election infrastructure, that that fact disproves their other claims that Russia tried to influence the election. Those are just different topics. Right? Because when I say the way the news is treating them, the news is trying to treat it like it's all one big ball of the same thing. And that if you know for sure that Russia or there's no evidence that Russia tried to directly change the vote, that that is a debunk to the claim that they hacked some email and it might have affected the election, probably didn't. Or that they had some memes on social media that tried to affect the election, but probably didn't because they were so minor. Am I wrong? I want to see your opinion. When you hear this story, doesn't it feel like they tried to connect dots that don't connect? I feel like there's nothing in this story because I don't remember any time I ever believed it was even. Was it even public. Did. Did the Democrats literally claim that Russia hacked into our computer, into our election infrastructure? When was that ever in the news? Cabo Mate is saying, Scott, they got rid of the report of no finding of Russia collusion and then met to plan the coup to unseat Trump. Oh, it definitely was a coup. So I'm not questioning whether or not there was a Democrat coup and a hoax, that is for sure. What I'm questioning is if this new information adds anything to anything. I don't think it does, because all it's saying is that the IC community said no election infrastructure was. Was successfully hacked by Russia. Was that ever really a claim? I don't remember that even being a claim. Do you know why that would not have been a claim? Have you connected the dots yet? We were told that the one thing we know for sure is that there was no way to hack our elections directly. As in, there was no way for any hacker, be they Russian or be they anyone else, there was no way for them to penetrate our systems because they were too secure. So if the Democrats had been claiming that Russia had the ability to hack our election system infrastructure, they would have had to admit that it was possible to hack our election system infrastructure. And the entire time I remember the Democrats were saying, and the fake news that support them were all saying, there is no way that anybody could hack the system and not get caught. So if they had claimed that Russia had indeed Hacked it and not been caught. That would make our entire election system look unsecure. So I don't even think there's anything new that's important about this story. But we'll see. We'll see how it everything gets conflated. But yes, I do believe that Brennan Clapper and Obama probably belong in jail. My, my current thing is that what they did was a jailable offense, and they did literally try to overthrow the government of the United States twice. Once with the Russia collusion hoax, and then a second time with the January 6th insurrection hoax, which was probably designed to make sure that Republicans never rose again, which would be another form of election interference. So, to me, there are two very obvious, well documented attempts to overthrow the normal workings of our elections. And we know exactly who is behind all of them. You know, throw in Nancy pelosi to the January 6th stuff. So we. We've known forever that the Steele dossier was debunked from the start. That's not new. So what I'm saying is that there's nothing new. We knew that they knew that it was debunked and that they went with it anyway, which is why I say they should all go to jail. They should all go to jail. But. But we knew that there's nothing new. All right. Have you noticed some of you probably have found this out? If you're not following Mike Benz on X, do you really understand anything that's going on in this world? I feel like if Mike Benz didn't exist, I would be so confused about what the world really is and how it works. But he has this almost unnatural ability to understand insanely complicated government things, not only in terms of all the moving parts, which is so impressive I can't even express it. But he knows the history as well. So he knows all the moving parts today. You know, the names of entities and people connected to things that you and I would never know, but also how that connects to everything in the past. So when there's one of these stories, I have to wait to hear what he says to get it in the proper context. So we need more of that. So what he's saying now is that he's talking about the DOJ motion. So the Department of Justice has requested, because a lot of MAGA supporters have asked for this, to unseal the Epstein grand jury transcripts. Now, I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that that will be declined. I don't believe that the court will agree to release any grand jury transcripts. And if they did. It would be highly redacted to the point of being useless. So I don't think it's going to work. But then Mike Benz weighs in, and he says, kudos to the Pam Bondi DOJ for launching this motion so quickly. Not to rain on it, but if you simply walk down the DOJ hallway to opr. So that's a department there. And publish the full Acosta transcript. Acosta was the prosecutor in the first Epstein situation where OPR asked about Epstein's intelligence ties. You'd get us easy answers immediately. What? This almost looks a little too easy to be true. Is it true that Pam Bondi can literally walk down the hallway and open the door to the opr? I forget what they. What OPR stands for and asked for the document. That would probably answer all of our questions about Epstein and his intelligence connections. Is that possible? And why is Mike Benz the only person who knows that down the hallway there's a door marked opr, and if you walk through it, you could have all your answers. Is that true? I mean, this would be so impressive. I mean, I'm impressed already with all the stuff that Mike Benz knows about everything. But if he actually knows that there's a doorway you could walk through to get the answer to that question, and he knows where it is, and he knows who has the authority to walk through that door. Okay, that's. I mean, that's just standing ovation time, so we'll see if that happens. But I would feel like if Mike Benz ever stopped doing what he's doing, I would feel unprotected. I would feel like, you know, he's like this watcher who just understands everything we're seeing so he can warn you about where the corrupt parts are and how it works. Now, on top of that, he also has a take on Epstein that seems to be just Mike Ben's take, but I'm warming to it. And the idea is that Epstein wasn't so much about being a sexual blackmailer, although he might have done a little bit of it. But he might be better understood as a financial manipulator and money launderer who may have made his services available to a variety of entities, some of which might have been intelligence related and some of which may not necessarily have been US Intelligence related. So we don't know that part, but I'm kind of warming to that, because that would explain why the Epstein files are not having the secrets we expected, because he's probably good at hiding his. His financial stuff. That was his expertise to hide the financial trails of who did what where. And the theory would be that he would just know everybody who had money and he would know everybody who needed money for things that maybe the intelligence community wanted done, but they didn't want their fingerprints on it, and they didn't have a budget to do it themselves. So they would go to Epstein and say, you know, if you could find a billionaire who would give $10 million to this entity, that sounds like it's some charity, we would use that money for things that would be really good for the country. So can you go get us that money? And maybe, as Mike Benz points out, the sex part of it might have been something that was just good for convincing some rich people, maybe in other countries, especially, to work with them. So if you were some Middle east billionaire and Epstein came by and said, hey, how would you like to party? And by the way, I could use a billion dollars for, you know, some project or something. Not to him, but maybe we could get a slice of that business. Maybe that's how we got Rich. So there's that. Speaking also of Mike Benz, he asked this question. He said that Julian Assange is a free man now, and he should tell us what he meant by this clip. It was a clip where he talked about Seth Rich. If you've ever seen that clip, it was quite a while ago. But Julian Assange talked about Seth Rich, the young man who is a Democrat who got murdered on the street. And some people said that he was a source for WikiLeaks. And then Assange, who was out of WikiLeaks, was talking about Seth Rich. And he made it really clear to the interviewer and the audience that Seth Rich was their source and that that's why he got killed. Now, I don't know that that's true. I just know that Assange made sure that you believed he was saying that. Now, he didn't say it. He just made sure you knew that that's what he was thinking. So he did the indirect thing, but the indirect thing was so clear that he very clearly said, yeah, Seth Rich got murdered for being a WikiLeaks source. So, yeah, if Julian Assange is free to talk, maybe we should find out what he meant by that. But the fact that he didn't tell us directly before suggests he might have a reason not to do it directly again. So don't know if that would work or not. RFK Jr. The HHS Secretary, says the US is going to reject the World Health Organization's pandemic measures. So I guess the World Health Organization or WHO has some ideas for all the member countries of what they should do if there's another pandemic. But the last thing we want to do is follow their advice. So it looks like we're going to reject that. In other news, there's a poll at FNG Annuities in Life that found found that one in four Americans are considering delaying retirement over economic concerns. Nearly a quarter. One in four. Does that sound right to you? Because I don't know about you, but when I look at the people I know who are not rich, I don't know how they're going to survive retirement. Because if, if you don't have any income in, and you're only relying on your savings and your, your Social Security, are you going to be able to make that work? You know, I don't know, but it just doesn't look like most of the country can afford to retire. So, you know, I, I know I'm not retiring, but I don't know, I feel like it's more than one in four. There's a company called Protector, which has a little app where you can connect yourself to off duty police officers who live near you, and you can get some extra protection that you won't get from your own police who may have lost their funding if you live in a blue city especially. So the Post Millennial is writing about that. So that sounds like a good idea to be able to spend a little extra to have all duty police officers, you know, respond if you can't get anybody else to help. Yeah, you need cops at your yard. All right. And then lastly, as I warned you at the start, this is the end of my prepared remarks. So Owen Gregorian will be holding his His Spaces event on X. So any of you want to go continue the conversation about the news or other things as well, I guess look for Owen Gregorian on X. And I think I forgot to repost it, but I'll do that as soon as we're done. And I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately in a moment. So the rest of you, I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place. And locals, my beloved locals, members.