Advertisement Speaker (10:10)

Hey, guys, have you heard of Goldbelly? It's this amazing site where they ship the most iconic famous foods from restaurants across the country, anywhere nationwide. I've never found a more perfect gift than food. Gold belly ship. Chicago deep dish pizza, New York bagels, Maine lobster rolls, and even Ina Garten's famous cakes. So if you're looking for a gift for the food lover in your life, head to goldbelly.com and get 20% off your first order with promo code GIFT. That's goldbelly.com promo code GIFT.

Scott Adams (10:41)

Well, here's something I'm not too surprised at. Well, maybe a little bit. But the McCrones, Bridget and whatever her husband's name is. What is McCrone's first name? France. They're suing Kansas Owens for Candace Owens continuous claims that Brigitte, Brigitte Macron was born a man. So what. What would you bet will happen with that? It seems to me that if you did discovery, and you would have to, wouldn't Bridget McCrone need to prove that she's biologically female in order to win her case? And Kansas is doubling down. Quote, you were born a man and you will die a man. That's the point I'm making. I think you're sick. I think you're disgusting. And I am fully prepared to take on this battle, meeting the lawsuit on behalf of the entire world. I'll see you in court. Now, do you think that the McCrones would sue her? Unless they could easily provide, let's say, DNA that would prove she was a woman. I don't feel that they would make a big deal out of this if there was any chance they would lose. So I'm going to say that unless they're bluffing and trying to force her into settling in some way, or shutting up or apologizing, I don't think that this would be a good bluff. So my best guess is that Bridget McCrone was born a woman. That's just my best guess because I don't think they would do the lawsuit if Candace were right. I think they would just try to shut her up some other way. So, Candace, I wish you well. I'm still a big fan of Candace Owens. I don't need to agree with her on everything, and I know she's a good shit stirrer, but wow, is she talented. She is so talented. I'm always impressed by that. Well, Hunter Biden. I love how Hunter Biden can make any situation worse. Just when the Topic has changed a little bit from his father's brain and that cover up. He does a podcast and he says, and I didn't catch this as being the problem, but now I understand it is. He said that his father was on Ambien, the sleeping pill. And that that might explain because there's a little, there's a fairly substantial after effect of the Ambien, which they tell you about. It's a well understood phenomenon. And that, that might be why the father, Joe, didn't do well at the debate, because it might be a little ambient hangover happening there. Now, it turns out that the medical establishment would like you to know, and I saw this on a Dr. Drew clip on Instagram. Dr. Drew points out that if you had a patient that was that age and had trouble walking and maybe there was some Parkinson's going on, I don't think that's confirmed. But if you had somebody who is as unstable and as old as Joe Biden, and then on top of that, his job was to wake up at 3am if there's an emergency, you know, the president's job, that it would be close to, you know, almost a criminal activity to prescribe Ambien to somebody like that in that specific situation. It wouldn't be illegal, but it would be on that, you know, dangerously flirting with malpractice. Because if something happened, if that person that age and that mobility fell over, everybody would say, well, it's because somebody gave them Ambien. Everybody knows if you give Ambien to somebody in that condition, the odds of them falling down are much higher. So maybe you shouldn't have done that. So somehow Hunter took a topic that was fading in our minds. We were starting to forget a little bit about the Biden brain cover up. And then we find out that maybe the way he was cared for was horrible. If it's true, we don't know it's true. But if it's true that Ambien was part of the story, boy, somebody has a lot of explaining to do, which would be his doctor, I would think. But we don't know for sure that he was on Ambient or they had anything to do with anything. Unfortunately, Hunter is not the most reliable witness. Well, if you were waiting to find out what would happen in the courts with Trump's effort to ban birthright citizenship, that's where if somebody is not a citizen, but they have a baby in our country, the Constitution seems to say that those babies would be automatically citizens. But Trump doesn't want that. And a lot of people who are pro Trump don't want that situation. So Trump tried to ban it. But you would not be surprised to know that a federal appeals court just ruled that Trump can't do that and that those babies are indeed citizens of the United States. So that's a ruling from the 9th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals, but that just means that this topic gets bumped up to the Supreme Court. Now, how many of you think the Supreme Court will ban, which is what Trump would want, ban birthright citizenship by interpreting the Constitution in a sort of an originalist form where nobody really anticipated this particular problem, which is massive unchecked immigration and lots of babies. So what's your bet? I wouldn't put a bet on this one. Yeah, I see it in the comments. 50. 50. That's exactly where I am. If you said, scott, place a bet, you must think one of those is more likely than the other. I really don't. To me, this is a total coin flip. Well, I'll commit. All right, I'll commit. I'll commit to. The Supreme Court will not ban birthright citizenship. I feel like it would be too big of a move, even for all the conservatives. There might be a few votes for it, but I think the Supreme Court's going to agree with the lower court. What do you think? Anything is possible. So it's possible it could go the other way. But just for fun, I'll keep my prediction that it only goes one way. Well, Nikita Byer, who is the head of Product X, did a post that X called the current state of the medical establishment. So listen to this experience. So Nikita says, brought a friend to the ER for a high fever, put their symptoms into Grok. Grok told me to ask for four tests. The doctor, this is the ER doctor, said one of them is unnecessary. I insisted we do them all. The test came back positive on the one he didn't want to do. So that's the state of current medicine. Your doctor has a lot of things on his or her mind, especially an ER doctor. You know, they're just seeing lots of different things come through all day long. So imagine the cognitive load on their brain, first of all. Then second of all, imagine all the possible things that can go wrong with any prescription or any diagnosis, etc. And if you're not already checking your doctor's work with AI, you should start. May I say that again as loudly as possible? You should never take medical advice from me on anything because I'm a cartoonist and not your doctor. But I do think we've reached the point in history where if you're not at least looking at the AI to see what it says compared to your doctor, but then ultimately you should check with your doctor with right. If the doctor says no, AI is hallucinating, I would go with the doctor, but you want to know what the other argument is, so I'll give you my experience recently. So a lot of my doctoring, especially because the holidays I couldn't get in for an actual doctor when I had a shingles attack, which I've recently recovered from. So my neck and the side of my face was breaking out in some kind of mysterious bumps. And I started by sending a picture because I could still get some service from my healthcare provider by email and said, take a look at this picture. And then I guessed that it might be spider bites because there were only three or four bumps and the doctor was covering for. My doctor who was on vacation said, well, you know, it might be spider bites, but we don't know. So take some antibiotics and do something else, take some allergy stuff. But what they didn't guess is shingles. So that wasn't part of the guess. So time goes by and it gets worse. So from three bumps it goes to 15, 15 bumps or so. At that point my own experience kicked in and I said, it's only in one place. There's no way that a spider is coming back to bite me every day in that same one area and no place else. So it's probably something else. And so I guessed shingles, which I've never seen, I've never seen anybody who had it, but I used AI and I looked it up and it looked, to me, it looked like the pictures on the Internet. So I wrote back to my doctor and said, you know what, I think it's shingles. And then I got a prescription for exactly what I needed for shingles. The doctor agreed, as there were more bumps. Now, to be fair, when there were only three or four bumps, it could have been a bug bite. It was only obvious to me when there were lots of them. But if you're not doing that exercise where first you check with AI, then you check with your doctor and then after your doctor tells you something, you check with AI again, maybe even check on the medication that was prescribed and maybe check it against all of your other medications. Have you done this yet? Take your AI and put it on the visual mode where it can see what you see. Then take a picture of all your medications and all of your non prescription drugs, you know, say supplements and stuff so that the AI knows what you're already on and then if something else is is prescribed, even the doctor doesn't know about your supplements. Probably. Yeah. So then your AI will tell you, hey, don't do this one with that one or stop doing this one with that one.

Advertisement Speaker (23:34)

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 from 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 (24:05)

So, yes, check your AI. Speaking of AI, Trump signed three administrative executive orders, I guess, on AI. And one of them is that the US government will not buy any AI product that's too woke. So it can't be essentially an anti white person AI. The government will not be part of that. Says Trump would not, would not allow the government to buy an AI that says George Washington was black or, or that. Or that refuses to note that white people had some accomplishments in history or argue that misgendering someone is worse than a nuclear apocalypse. All those things have actually happened, so there's that. Anyway, Trump appears to be AI's biggest friend, but he's willing to take out a little more risk that maybe another leader would. And I feel like that's exactly the right place to be. If you were to make a continuum of a graph or something of all the people who were afraid of AI, what it might do in the near future, you would have people who say, yeah, you should slow down and you would have other people just in case it's an existential threat. And other people would say, you better hurry up, because the biggest existential threat is your competitor getting there first. So you got two ways to die. One is being too slow with AI, and the other is being too fast and not having enough guardrails. Two ways to die. Trump is biased toward beating the competition, so that would be optimism that we could control the worst possibilities of the AI, but we wouldn't be able to control the worst impulses of the human leaders of other countries that are adversaries. I feel like he's exactly right on that. It's a guess because you don't know which way it could go, right? It could go either way. But I would take his same risk. I would say that the biggest risk is somebody gets there first. That's a big, big risk. The risk of it killing us, just because that's built into the risk of the technology, I feel we have a much better chance of controlling that than we do of controlling, let's say, China. So I think Trump is completely right on this, and that would mean that David Sacks is advising him really well. And I think that is the case. If Trump isn't listening to everything that the Sachs tells him, that would be a mistake. But by now I'm pretty sure the administration, and Trump in particular, he knows who the smart people are. And when Sachs tells him what to do on one of these topics like crypto or AI, I'm pretty sure he's listening. And that is just. Nothing would make me more comfortable than that because Sacks also is connected to all the people who know everything about those topics. So it's not like he's sitting in a room by himself making up opinions. He's connected to all the smartest people. So that is really good news in terms of the organization of your government. MSNBC is saying out loud that the worst predictions that inflation was going to be fueled by Trump's tariffs have not turned out to be the case. So MSNBC is saying directly, well, we were kind of worried about all this inflation, but by now we should have seen some. Scott Besant, head of the treasury, is explaining that the reason for that is probably that the cost increases are being absorbed by the shipper or the receiver and that there were some margins there that they had to play with. We might not see, we might never see inflation caused by that. Now, have I ever told you that economics is mostly guessing? Wouldn't you think that the easiest thing you could predict if you were some professional economist is whether these tariffs would increase inflation? Shouldn't that be right on the list of the easiest things you could ever predict? And apparently it went the other way so far. I mean, it could all reverse tomorrow, I suppose. But at the moment, pretty much almost every economist got this wrong. I'm thinking back to my days under Jimmy Carter's presidency and there was a belief that you couldn't have slow growth and inflation at the same time. So called stagflation for stagnant economy with inflation. But it happens. And I think the economist said that's not even possible, but it happened. So a lot of, a lot of what you think is science and economics, it really isn't. It really isn't. Meanwhile, the US and the EU are getting closer to A deal, according to a number of reports. And Trump, Trump says he's got a 15% tariff deal with Japan, which would be a gigantic relief because they're one of our bigger trading partners, and that would be an improvement for the US and as I've said a number of times, that Trump will, apparently, given that things look like they're starting to work out, he will be announcing big trade deals that are better for America, probably one a week for weeks and weeks and weeks. And the Democrats are going to be so mad, so mad that the main thing they had to bitch about, which was the tariffs, are turning out to be a gigantic victory that you will be reminded of every week, because it'll just be one after another saying, all right, all right, we'll pay extra tariffs and your inflation is not going up. Well, Representative James Comer has issued, his group in Congress, issued a subpoena to Ghislaine Maxwell. And I believe that they're planning to talk to her today at her prison. So that means somebody in his group will depose her or get her opinion on a bunch of questions today. But I would like to point out that the theory that we live in a simulation is now proven by the fact that Comer is going against a groomer. Comer versus the groomer. Come on. We must be living in a simulation. There's no way that's natural. So will we learn anything? I don't think so. My. My guess is that Ghislaine has nothing to say. Do you. Do you know what I would do if I were Ghislaine? I would say I'm happy to sit here and listen to your questions, but it would be against my interest to answer them. Because if I'm going to tell you some juicy stuff that you really want to hear, and, boy, do I have some juicy stuff. If you want me to name names, I'm not going to do it from prison. You're going to have to get to the doj, and you're going to have to make me a deal to get out of prison, and then I'll tell you everything you need to know. So I feel as if there's a very low odds that she will name names we haven't heard before. So I wouldn't. I wouldn't get all excited about this one. Well, apparently we have learned that the Department of Justice told Trump back in May that his name, among many other names of people, are on the Epstein files. Now, that doesn't mean he's on the client list, and there is no client list that we know of. It just means that he's mentioned, as are many prominent people who knew Epstein, but does not mean, and there is no indication that Trump is accused of any untoward behavior. So is it possible that the real reason Trump wants the Epstein files to go away is that his name is in the files? Maybe, Maybe. And if he knows that he was not guilty of anything, but it would give the Democrats this gigantic hammer to hammer him on endlessly, I could see why he might say, we're done here. There's nothing to see. I don't know if that's why, but you could imagine that that would be a pretty good reason from his perspective. Well, I'll say again, there's no indication whatsoever that Trump is accused of any bad behavior. It's just his name is mentioned as presumably an associate or friend of, or a contact of Epstein's at one point before he banned him from Mar a Lago and cut all contact. Apparently. The House panel is also directing the chairman to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton about the Epstein probe, according to Fox News. Now, do you think that Hillary and Bill Clinton will have anything to say there won't be a lie? I don't think we're going to learn anything from either of those two. They're a little bit too smooth. We might find out what the definite definition of is is. And maybe Bill Clinton will say, I did not, I did not sleep with any of those women. Well, how about this one? No, not that one either. How about this one and this one? No, not them either. I did not sleep with them. So he might be busy. Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat Hakeem Jeffries says, quote, it is reasonable to conclude that Republicans are continuing to protect the lifestyles of the rich and shameless, even if that includes pedophiles. So he's talking about the non release of all of the Epstein files. Right. Because we assume there's stuff we haven't seen that would tell us something. So here is my lesson for the day. This is something I learned in hypnosis class years ago. And do you remember I told you that when Trump said he was asked some question recently, he started his answer with I would say, and I told you that if you start with I would say whatever follows, that is going to be a lie. You don't start a true statement that you believe in. That's just a statement of truth. You don't start that sentence with, well, I would say. You just don't. You only do that when you're saying something that may not fully check out. So Hakeem has a similar tell. When he says it's reasonable to conclude, you don't start your sentence with it's reasonable to conclude. If it's reasonable to conclude and it's also true and it's obvious and it's just a fact, you just don't start with those words. It's reasonable to conclude. So in hypnosis class, what I learned, among other things, is that when people say things extemporaneously, meaning they're talking off the top of their heads, they often will say the truth if you just look for it in the exact wording. So people have a real hard problem of not saying what's true, what's. When they're speaking off the top of their head. It's just that they might hide it in a part of a sentence that says the opposite of what is true. This would be it. I would say signal or it's reasonable to conclude signal. And there's probably a million varieties of that. But, yeah, that's telling you he doesn't believe what he's saying.

Advertisement Speaker (37:34)

Tipping culture is out of control. Yesterday, I tipped someone just for handing me a napkin.

Scott Adams (37:38)

Someone.

Advertisement Speaker (37:38)

So when hotels.com gives me up to 20% off for being a member, I finally get tipped. And you know what? It feels good. Hotels.com, members save up to 20% off at hundreds of thousands of hotels.

Scott Adams (37:51)

Well, another no surprise, 0hedges reporting that a judge has denied the DOJ request to unseal the Epstein grand jury transcripts. How many of you thought that just because the Department of Justice asked for that to be done, that you were going to see the Epstein grand jury transcripts? If you believe that was going to happen, you were not well informed on that topic. I don't think there was really any chance it was going to happen, and I'm happy it didn't. I would rather preserve the standard that if you're going to. If you're going to violate something like that, which is, you know, really intended to be private because the grand jury is not like the actual case with proven evidence and facts. It's way more speculative. As in, yeah, yeah, that looks like it probably should go to court. But it hasn't gone to court, which means that the defense has not presented its defense. So if you saw a bunch of accusations on a grand jury transcript, you being not a lawyer, you would never say, well, it's just the grand jury, you know, we can't take that as fact. No. In a political Sense you would immediately treat it like it was fact when you shouldn't. So I'm in favor of. As much as I would love to see all the Epstein stuff, I wouldn't want it to be revealed this way. And so I agree with the court to keep the grand jury testimony private. We've learned that Barack Obama was at his home, which was right near where his personal chef drowned. So he's. Obama is not being blamed for drowning him, but apparently he was there, not necessarily at the drowning site, but at his home that was right nearby. Oh, I'm seeing in the comments that Dershowitz thinks Maxwell should be released because five years is usually the max sentence for what she did. And he says that she got basically Epstein's sentence because Epstein wasn't available. Well, he's probably right. Anyway, so. But there was one witness we heard on this personal chef drowning, Obama's personal chef, that there was a woman who witnessed it, saw him fall off his board and not come up. And so we have one witness that it was an accident as opposed to the murder that you might have suspected. But we have not heard much about that witness. So I wouldn't say that that's 100% conclusive, but I would lean toward accident. Well, the big news yesterday was Tulsi Gabbard, D. DNI released new documents about the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax and Trump. And she's not recommending specific charges for anybody, but she says, and says it repeatedly, that the Department of Justice now knows what she knows because they've turned it over to the Department of Justice and they alone will decide if there are any legal charges that are appropriate. But don't look to Tulsi Gabbard to tell you if some law was broken, that is the domain of the Department of Justice, which. Which is looking into it. But let me tell you what we think we know now. We know now from documents that Obama was made aware that Hillary Clinton was planning a fake hoax. The Clinton plan, Intelligence, it was called. So he knew that in the summer of 2016, so before the election, he knew that Clinton was doing this fake thing. And I guess John Durham mentioned it in a report. So that's how Obama would know it. Then Obama. Obama directed the creation of a new intelligence community assessment that said, instead of saying what it said at first, which is there's no evidence that the Russia has directly, directly hacked the voting systems and changed any votes. So there's no evidence of any of that, but Obama directed them to rewrite it after Trump was victorious in the election. So that's a little suspicious looking. Right? And the rewrite would focus on Russia's meddling, but it wouldn't change the fact that they didn't see any direct changing of votes on the election system. Then the President Obama was part of big discussions in January of 2017. Remember, that's just when Trump's coming into office. Then related to the FBI's targeting of Trump National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. Now, we know that the Mike Flynn targeting was completely illegitimate. And now we know that Obama was in the meetings when the decisions about what illegitimate things they would do against Mike Flynn were discussed. And then Gabbard says there is irrefutable evidence that details how Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false. Now, here's the part where it gets dicey. How do we know what somebody else knew? I mean, I get that the circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence certainly indicate that they must have, you know, known that they were making up a fake hoax. They must have known it was fake. But I'm going to double down on my opinion that you wouldn't be able to prove it in court. So the standard that you and I go by is sort of a common sense standard. If we know that these people did this and that and we know what their incentives were, you can reasonably conclude what they knew and why they did it. But I don't know that it's going to be any legal standard for that, you know, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Because it seems that they could simply claim that they thought it was real. Now, you might say to me, Scott, they knew that the steel, the Steele dossier, was not credible, and yet they used it as part of their explanation of why they could go after Trump. To which I say, there's a big difference between knowing it's not credible and knowing none of it's true. Because they can claim we knew some of it was not credible. We didn't know at the time that none of it was true. They might even claim some of it was true. Because you've heard them say that recently. Well, not everything was debunked, even though I think there's no evidence for any of it. But there's some of it that maybe wasn't debunked. It's just there's no evidence for it. So is that the same if you can't debunk something but you can't prove it didn't happen? Maybe, sort of, you could argue that the intelligence People said, well, you know, it wasn't the best evidence, talking about the Steele dossier, but it did fit the other stuff we were looking at in some way. So somehow it fit into the larger story. So, you know, it was our judgment that that needed to be part of it. Now, in retrospect, we can look at it and say, well, that was a terrible judgment, but do you think they can argue, well, we were wrong, maybe we were wrong, but that was our legitimate judgment that Russia was helping Trump. It just seemed likely. So I don't think that anybody's going to get perp walked and put in jail over this. I know you want it, and I want it, too. Trust me. I want people to go to jail. I just don't want you to feel too disappointed when it doesn't happen. I'm priming you. What else? Bill Riley. Bill O'Reilly predicts that John Brennan, who is the CIA chief behind all of that, will be indicted for publishing fraudulent intelligence reports. He said that. News Nation's Chris Cuomo, I don't know, maybe indicted, but convicted. I'm still going to say no. He will just weasel his way out of that, I think. And he would be charged with essentially making up the argument that Putin intended or preferred Trump to win. So apparently, there's no evidence that Putin wanted Trump to win or expect that he could. And indeed, there's some evidence of the opposite, although I don't know how they got that. So the evidence for the opposite appears to come from secret sources. So I hate to say it, but I don't believe in any secret sources. So if they have secret sources that say Putin knew that Hillary was going to win or expected her to win, and that he was keeping some secrets to weaken her administration when she got into office, but that he was not trying to get Trump into office, he was trying to hold on to things to weaken Hillary when she got into office. Now, how do we know that? I'm pretty sure that they can't tell us how they know that, because I would suggest some kind of source that's pretty close to Putin, and we wouldn't want to give that up, obviously. So I don't believe. Might be true. It might be true, but if you tell me, trust us, we have secret ways of knowing this information that happens to be exactly what my administration wants you to think. That's not good enough for me. But like I say, I'm convinced that they're all dirty and that they, they did one of the worst criminal acts of all time with the Russian collusion hoax. So I don't have any doubt that, that they're bad actors who deserve, you know, some legal justice. But I'm not sure I'll buy every part of everybody's story here. Let's see, I wanted to tie together something else here. So.

Advertisement Speaker (50:02)

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mints offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com switch upfront payment.

Advertisement Speaker (50:24)

Of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra see mintmobile.com.

Scott Adams (50:34)

Let me do a few other things and I'll tie together some other stuff. How many of you found out that Obama's hoaxes, which would include the Russia hoax and it would also include the Fine people hoax because Obama was behind that and Biden ran for office. Those two hoaxes, I would argue, ruined my life. Let me say that again. Those two hoaxes, Russia, Russia, Russia and the Fine people hoax, ruined my life because those are the hoaxes that allowed my entire social group to say, are you kidding me? You're backing Trump? Trump say Russian puppet and he said that neo Nazis are fine people. So we can't even talk to you again. You're so bad that we can't invite you anywhere, we can't be your friend and you should just fuck off. So this is very personal to me. What, what Obama did was he divided the country with these hoaxes because if you imagine a different history where there had never been a Russia hoax and there'd never been a Fine people hoax, those were the two primary ways that people became anti Trumpers, like really serious ones where the TTS comes in. Now I would also argue that it's possible that that's what ushered in all the woke stuff is what got me canceled. So if you were to go back, you know, trace the causes back to their origin, you would find out that Obama and Clinton and Brennan, etc. And their hoaxes ruined my life. Now I didn't realize that until today because my natural personality is not to complain about my natural personality is to say, oh, that happened. I guess I have to do this now so I don't spend a ton of time whining about bad things that happen to me. I just sort of, you know, get moving to fix it and make the best of every situation. But if you were to look at it objectively, those motherfuckers ruined my social life and then my professional life, and it was entirely based on two hoaxes. So do I want them in jail? Yes. Yes. I want Obama in jail for ruining my life with what looks like criminal acts to me. And, you know, I don't know if the Fine People hoax was a criminal act, but it was definitely a conspiracy. They were all in on it and they all knew the truth and the news backed them up. So. So the news was, you know, part of the bad guys. If you said there's a way to make some of the news hosts get handcuffed and taken to jail because they knew that they were supporting a lie, I'd be in favor of that. I, I don't think there's any law that would support that, but if there were, yeah, I, I think that some of the people who ruined my life and maybe a lot of your lives should go to jail. Absolutely. I just don't think it's going to happen. All right. Speaking of Trump Derangement syndrome, which I would say those two hoaxes triggered, Graham Noble is writing in Liberty Nation News that there were two Republicans who back in May introduced some legislation. I don't think it's been passed, but they want to have a Trump Derangement syndrome research act of 2025. So the Republicans want it to be part of mental health, that there's Trump Demons syndrome. And they want to. The act, if it were passed, would involve investigating TDS origins and contributing factors, including the media's role in, in amplifying the spread of tds. Now, I think it would go back to the hoaxes. I think it would go back to Obama and Russia Gate and find people. And then it would ask people to analyze its long term impacts on individuals, me, communities and public discourse, then explore interventions to mitigate extreme behaviors, informing strategies for a healthier public square that's a little generic. And then have some data driven, blah, blah, blah, and require an annual report to Congress. So it is an epidemic. It is a mental health epidemic. And I think you can very clearly see that the Democratic leadership created it intentionally. Maybe they didn't know how bad it would be. But, but they did it intentionally and they did it for political reasons. And it caused 50% of the country to have a mental health breakdown. Now, I didn't get the mental health breakdown. I Just got the impact on my social life and my professional life. But mentally I think I'm okay, as far as I know. But their own team paid a big price. How many of you remember that when Hillary was running against Trump, 2015 and 16, that I was saying publicly and getting mocked mercilessly for it, that Hillary Clinton looked like she had a major medical problem. This was before, this is important. Before she collapsed and got dragged into her car after the 911 event. Now, after she passed out and had to be dragged into her car, I believe everybody said the obvious, hey, looks like there might be some medical problem that she's hiding there. So it was easy after she passed out. Can we all agree on that? But I was saying it maybe a year before that. I was even predicting that she might die on the campaign trail. Well, it turns out that based on the Tulsi Gabbard new documents that have come out that allegedly Russian foreign intelligence services, they're spy people, they thought that Clinton was experiencing significant health issues in 2016 that Obama administration officials and Democrat leaders found, quote, extraordinarily alarming. So Russia was somehow aware. I think it was because they hacked the DNC maybe. But they were aware that the Democrats were super worried about Hillary Clinton's health. So do you want to give me the win on that? I was wrong that she was not deceased during the campaign. So I was wrong on that. But apparently it was pretty bad and she was. The specific claims include her suffering from, quote, intensified psycho emotional problems with, quote, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression and cheerfulness, and being on a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers to manage those issues. The report also hinted at other conditions. So this is non confirmed ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, COPD, that would be a breathing problem, and deep vein thrombosis, though we don't have corroboration from any medical records to those. But her own doctor, back after she collapsed in that 911 event in 2016, her own doctor said the problem was undiagnosed pneumonia and she had some exhaustion and dehydration. And that's why she passed out over, well, overheating and dehydration. But the, but the belief, and here again, I don't know how we know this, so it's a little sketchy. The belief is that Putin knew about these health problems and thought it would be better to release them after she got elected, but that he was not trying to get Trump elected and didn't think that was really an option. All right, so Here is the, the weird thing about this whole Russia, Russia hoax situation. So we were told that that Putin's ambition was to sow discord and chaos in our election system. Now, there is evidence that Russia may have been involved in exactly that sort of thing in past elections, and maybe we do the same to them, but it was kind of at a low level. They weren't trying to get somebody elected so much as they were trying to make people doubt the credibility of the election system. So that would be a win for them if they can make the Americans doubt their own system. But apparently the people who made us doubt our system were Obama and what I call his winged monkeys, you know, all of his aides and Brendan and Clapper and those guys, when they were done, they had convinced us that Russia could control who got elected in the United States. Am I wrong? That the Russia hoax, the entire point of it is that our election systems and our government are so vulnerable that Russia and Putin specifically would decide who our president was. Now, can you even imagine anything that would be sowing more discord and chaos? And so now we learn that Putin probably didn't do anything of scale. There were a few things that came out of Russia allegedly, but they're not really of scale. They wouldn't have changed anything. So the weird thing is that the only person who is not involved. I'm going to read this is somebody else's joke. Sergeant Pony Soldier said this on X. So this is Sergeant Pony Soldier's quote. Apparently the only people not involved in the Trump Russia collusion issue were Trump and Russia. Now, did any of you have that observation? Because when you hear it, you say to yourself, oh, damn, that's true. The only people who were not involved in the Russia Trump collusion story were Trump and Russia. Trump wasn't involved in any way and apparently Russia wasn't either. At least not in any important way that changed anything. So. So I saw a post by Cynical Publius on X. Now he's a lawyer, but not a prosecutor. So he warns us that his takes are not as good as maybe a prosecutor's take, but he is a lawyer, so he's not, he's not totally guessing on stuff. And he did a post on X that was very helpful because he tied crimes, crimes that are on the books, to what we know so far about the Russia hoax so that we can see what crimes are in play. And there are six crimes, and I will just read them. So this is from Cynical Publius. If you're on X, you should definitely be following him. He's one of the best accounts. You'll follow. Number one, it would be illegal to knowingly falsify classified intelligence reports for political gain. But you see the trick. It's knowingly the defense will be, well, we thought it was true. We thought Russia was trying to collude. We thought they did influence the election, so it's not a crime because we didn't knowingly falsify anything. We thought it was true. So the first one I think will not put anybody in jail because the knowingly part will be too hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And then you say, well, what about that Steele dossier? And as I said before, all they have to say is we knew that it wasn't highly credible, but we didn't know that every part of it was fake. So we thought it was worthy of considering it's part of the larger story. And maybe we were wrong, but there's no evidence that we knowingly did something fake. And number two, relying on those knowingly false classified things to do things. But again, number two won't kick in if it wasn't proven that it was knowingly. So number one and two are not going to be a threat to Obama if he can argue, well, we didn't know it. Number three, releasing classified information to the media. We don't know who did that. Right. And the media will go to jail rather than reveal their source. So, yeah, that's great that it's illegal to release classified information to the media, but how are you going to catch anybody for that? There's nobody to catch. You'll never catch that person. I don't think. Number four, conspiring with other government officials to accomplish any of the foregoing. Have they done that? Well, they definitely conspired with other governments, maybe the UK with the Russia, Russia stuff. But again, they would have to know that they were conspiring something illegal. But they could argue no, we asked for their help, but we thought it was for legitimate reasons. How about number five, lying about the foregoing to Congress while under oath? Well, I haven't seen any politicians go to jail for lying under oath to Congress. Have you remember Clapper told that whopper that they were not collecting information on Americans and it turned out just total lie. Is Clapper in jail? No. So lying to Congress, probably not putting anybody in jail, attempting to cover up any of the foregoing. Well, if you can't prove that any of that was a crime, would it be a crime to try to cover up the thing that wasn't A crime. So here's my non lawyer take. So remember, Seneca Publius is not a prosecutor. He's a lawyer, but not a prosecutor. So you should, you know, factor that into what I told you. But then you should also factor in that I'm definitely not a lawyer of any type. But when I look at it just from a common sense, how would you ever prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? I would bet against it. I don't think that you could get this past the reasonable doubt stage. Now is it possible that you get a grand jury to indict? Yes, that is totally possible. I'm not going to predict it, but the grand jury stuff is sort of easy to get. So I would say that the evidence that Tulsi Gabbard has released and plus what we know is definitely enough for a grand jury to say that it should go to trial, but I don't see any chance of a conviction. That's what I think.

Advertisement Speaker (68:04)

This episode is brought to you by Vuori DJX here. Jumping in real quick to talk shorts, however you get after it, on a run at the gym, whatever. Vuori's core shorts move with you with no restriction. Plus they're comfortable, stylish and lightweight enough to wear all day long. Even better, right now you can get 20% off your first order at viori.comdjx that's V-U-O-R-I.comdjx A exclusions apply. Visit the website for full terms and conditions.

Scott Adams (68:36)

Anyway, apparently the Department of Justice has launched a what they call a strike force to investigate the Tulsi Gabbard's claims that the intelligence community weaponized their department. So the Post millennials reporting on that. So that's good. At least I look into it. Here's my favorite story of the day. So you know that Trump has been trying to get rid of Jerome Powell, the head of the Fed, but he would like him to quit. He says he's not going to fire him because that would roil the markets. And he's repeated Trump has that firing him is off the possibility. The only way you'd be able to fire him is if he were involved in something so illegal or corrupt that the public would say, oh, okay, he has the ability legally to fire him for cause, but the cause would have to be really obvious and the public would have to see it. Now if it's really obvious and the public sees it, well then maybe the markets would understand. It's like, oh, you can't let this go. So the question is, would there be anything like that. Well, as you know, Bill Pulte has been. He's been promoting the idea that there are lots of questions to be answered with the building, or the. What do you call it, the upgrades to the Federal Reserve headquarters, which apparently are budgeted at $2.5 billion. And as Bill Pulte points out, that is a lot of money, and you should be able to build an entire building for that, you know, much less just fix up the building that already exists. So they have some real questions there. And Pulte had said that he would be willing to, you know, tour the site because he has a background in construction as well. You've heard of Pulte Homes? That was his grandfather's business and he worked there. So he knows about construction. Bill Pulte did visit. I don't think he had a reservation with him. I think he just showed up at the site and saw that there were only like half a dozen people working. So does make you Wonder where the 2.5 billion is going. But here is the best part. Trump is going to join Bill Pulte and James Blair and Russ Vaught on his team, and today they're going to be visiting the Federal Reserve building site. Now, remember, I told you that Bill Pulte has a background in construction, so he knows what he's talking about. What does Trump have? Trump has, you know, he also has an extreme background in construction, specifically for these larger buildings, which I think would be on point. And this is just great. Now, I don't know that this will have any impact on Jerome Powell because the work wouldn't even be done while he's still in office. His term ends in May, so he's not going to spend even one day in that building after, I guess, rehabbed. But maybe somebody's taken some bribes or some of that money is being wasted. There might be more to the story. We don't know. The budget is so big that asking questions makes sense. So imagine Trump getting to attack his enemy. I guess you call it that. Jerome Powell, by looking at a construction project. And what do you think Trump is going to say about the construction project? Do you think he's going to go there and say, oh, everything looks good, looks like they made all the right decisions? That budget makes sense to me. No, he is going to absolutely eviscerate whoever's doing the building of this thing, and he's going to raise all kinds of questions. And, boy, that's going to be a fun visit. So, Bill Pulte, congratulations for pushing that Topic forward, because I've told you before that when you see the government competing to try to find out who can find more fraud and get rid of it, that is a really good sign of healthy change. If people were simply approving more budget and spending it, you're heading to doom. But the Trump administration and Doge especially, have changed the thinking such that your highest priority, and that's what this looks like, highest priority, is to look for waste and abuse. And so it all makes sense. They're looking for waste and abuse. I told you that. Trump has humorously monetized things he couldn't solve. So he monetized the Ukraine war by saying, we won't put any money into it, but we will sell Europe as many weapons as they want to buy. He monetized that. He monetized the fentanyl problem by, by using it as an excuse to raise tariffs on China and also Canada and Mexico, I believe. So he couldn't solve it, but he monetized it. And now apparently Columbia University is settling with the government for the government's claims that they were being too discriminatory against white people and not doing enough for anti Semitism. But do you think that's a solvable problem? Do you think you can just fix these colleges? Maybe not. But he monetized it. So now Colombia is settling and they've agreed to pay $200 million to the federal government over three years. And they're also going to settle for some equal opportunity commission for 21 million now. So this will, in theory, Colombia will stop discriminating and maybe do more to squash anti Semitism. So that was what was asked of them, but they're also going to pay $200 million plus $21 million. And we don't believe that they will completely get rid of all their DEI and all their bad practices. They'll probably just hide it a little bit. So here again, you have a problem that I don't think you could completely solve. I mean, you could shrink it a little bit. And that looks like what's happening. But he's monetized it. He monetized it again. Harmeet Dylan. She's on the job of Jason Ennold at DI Criminals. I say criminal because DEI is illegal at the federal level anyway. And she's going after companies and entities that are not following the law. And Di Di. So she's the assistant Attorney General and I, I'm watching her with great interest because she appears to be very capable and she's in the right job. I saw A post by the Rabbit Hole on X who asked this question? He says legacy media will publish endless articles about men, but rarely, if ever, cover the radicalization of women. Now, the article about men, I think he means that men are more Republican. They're moving Republican in a big way. But who is talking about the fact that women have been radicalized? It's a good point. If. If men had been radicalized the way women have been radicalized, it would be a huge topic, and everybody would say, we have to unradicalize these men. What happened to these men? They're believing all this ridiculous stuff. But when it's women who are the radicalized ones on the left, I don't know that there's a lot of talk about reprogramming them and their mental illness or their radicalization. Now, is he right? I mean, this is anecdotal. It's just observational. But I do wonder about that. It does seem like if we're going to talk about TDS being an actual mental problem, which it is, we should talk about the radicalization of women, especially the crazy ones, because there are so many of them. According to Gizmodo, Matt Novak is writing that CNN says the FDA's new drug approval involves AI. So AI is helping the FDA decide what to approve. So that sounds good, right? Probably a big improvement in their speed and the accuracy because they're using AI. Well. Well, there's a problem. Apparently the AI is hallucinating in this realm as well. So it's actually making up studies that never existed. Oh, yeah, this drug should be fine. Here's a study that says it works great, but if the human didn't know to check to see if that study existed, they would be approving something for the wrong reason or disapproving it. So that's scary. AI is literally making up scientific studies and inserting it into the conversation. Oh, my goodness. So RFK Jr signed a recommendation to remove a component called thimerosol from the regular flu vaccines. Not from the COVID stuff, but from regular seasonal flu vaccines. Now, there's a little bit of a backstory to that. This thing called thimerosal. At one point, RFK Jr thought it was a cause of autism because it used to be in a lot of different shots, but apparently it got removed from the childhood shots a while ago, back in 2001, but it did not make any change in the rate of autism. So if this had been the cause of autism, which is what RFK Jr suspected way back then, the removal of it would have by now shown all kinds of improvements. The number of people who had autism diagnosis when they were young would drop back down to some historical baseline, which was a lot lower, but it didn't. However, there's still some concern about that component, and it wasn't in many things at this point, but it was in the seasonal flu shots. To which I say, how many of you get the seasonal flu shot? Long before the pandemic, A lot of you said this seasonal flu shot is bullshit, right? I'm one of those people. You know, once you learned that the. The seasonal flu wasn't even tuned to the seasonal flu, it was tuned to last year's flu, which you're not going to get this year. I mean, once I heard that, I thought, are you kidding me? How's that even possibly true? That were highly recommended to get a flu shot that's designed for a virus that doesn't exist. How in the world is that possible? Now, I never looked into it that hard, but once I heard that, that was the last time I got one of those. So maybe someday we'll learn what causes autism or what caused the increase in it. But it looks like it wasn't that particular part of the shots. According to NewsMax, there's a McLaughlin poll, 77% of Americans oppose amnesty for illegals. Now, the amnesty would not just allow them to stay here, but wouldn't it also allow them to be citizens? So 77% oppose that. 56% say deport everyone who's an undocumented migrant. 56%. So that's where that's at. So I believe that although there's going to be a lot of complaining, it looks like the public is sort of back in Trump, at least by a majority. Here's something else to worry about. According to interesting engineering, it's possible to use WI fi as sort of a whole body fingerprint to track humans. So in other words, it turns out that if you were in your house where there was WI fi, the WI fi would be disturbed by your body. You know, the way it's disturbed by any object in the house. But the way your specific body disturbs WI fi apparently is unique. So with about 95% accuracy, if, if they've picked up how you distort WI fi on one WI fi system and then you went to another WI fi system, they would know it was you if they had access to the WI fi in both places. Now they don't, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine that they could get it. So That's a new way to track people. Track them by their disturbance to the WI FI system. Scary, huh? Well, apparently the Israeli. Is it Nesset or Knesset? I never know. I read it, but I never hear it pronounced. They voted 71 to 13 in favor of a non binding motion for the agenda in favor of annexing the West Bank. So, all right, so I don't think that has any impact anything. I may have written that down wrong too. So forget about that story. I don't have anything to say about it. The only thing I'm going to say about the, the two state solution in Israel is that there's no way that's going to happen. There's just no way there's going to be a two state solution. That's my prediction. All right, the largest teacher union in the United States, which is the nea. All right, so it's the largest teachers association union. A union according to the Washington Free Beacon. This is hard to believe, but I'll tell you what the story is that they want the materials that people are using to learn history to include that The Holocaust had 12 million victims instead of 6 million. Six million would be the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. But the NEA wants to expand what students think of the Holocaust to 12 million because that would include people from different faiths and that they would leave out from history the idea that Germany and Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jewish people. So they want to just leave that part out and say, well, it wasn't the Jewish people per se, but it was people of different faiths and that there were 12 million of them. So it's not really a story about, you know, what happened to the Jews. It's more of a story about 12 million people of different faiths. Now on top of that, they want to include lessons that say that would teach students that Israel was founded through, quote, forced violent displacement and dispossession. So it would go hard at Israel for the Nakbar and kicking out the Palestinians who were in that location where Israel was formed. And they would try to redefine or reframe the Holocaust as not being specifically a Jewish problem and not making. Well, so I'm no historian, but let me just talk about it politically. How in the world can this teachers union survive that? Don't you feel that Israel and the ADL and certainly all the Jewish teachers who are part of that union, don't you think they're going to go as hard as you could possibly go at that union? I've got a Feeling if you were hoping for the teachers unions to be somehow neutered, that we're a lot closer to that than you thought. Because if you get the entire Jewish community, both domestic and internationally, saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, you can't take away the Holocaust from us. You can't take that away. It's too, you know, too built into our entire narrative, our history, our understanding of who we are, our understanding of the risks of. Of being in that situation and all that. So I feel like the nea, the biggest teachers union, just declared war on domestic and international Jews. By this I mean, how do they survive that? We'll see. But it is certainly suggestive of a gigantic change where the Jewish Americans, and Israel in particular, have just had a reputational destruction in the past year or so. So things are going to get frothy. Russia apparently is doing some publicity on what they call the world's largest drone factory in Russia. So wonderful engineering is talking about this, and it's the Alabuga, Alabuga factory in Tatarstan, and it's supposedly the biggest drone making facility in the world. But here's the part that interested me. Apparently, for that factory, 25,000 North Koreans, industrial workers, were shipped in to do the work. Do you think that the only reason that they shipped in North Koreans to do that work is because they work cheaper? Do they work cheaper? Maybe. Is it possible that there just weren't enough Russians? Is Russia running out of people to do new stuff? I feel like the biggest story is that they didn't have domestic employees to run the most important factory in their country. They didn't have enough Russians. Are all the Russians that can walk and do things, have they already been shipped to the war? Have they already been killed? Why in the world do they need 25,000 North Koreans for their factory? Are you telling me that the employment situation in Russia is so good that people already had better jobs than this one? I don't know. I don't know. I have questions. But I do think that. That Russia may have a population collapse problem that has not been discussed enough. Enough. I think they're running out of young people. And if you run out of young people, you're kind of in trouble. So we'll see. I also wonder, I didn't look on the map to figure out where Tatarstan is, but if it's within missile range of Ukraine, is it possible that Ukraine is going to use American weapons to destroy the biggest drone factory in Russia? And if they didn't try, why wouldn't they? Can you think of any reason why the Ukrainians would not use if our missiles can reach it? Do you think that they would buy new missiles and just take out the drone factory? Because I don't know how a drone factory survives in a war. Isn't the drone factory the very first thing you bomb? I mean, I haven't run any wars, but that's how I'd handle it. All right. That's all I got for you today. Sorry I went late. I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers. Beloved, beloved local subscribers, thanks for the rest of you for paying attention, and I will see you tomorrow, same time, same place, in 30 seconds.