Loading summary
Transcript25 lines
- [00:00]
A
On in. We're prepping for the show of shows. Best thing that ever happened to you. There's room up front. Well, that is a nice shirt you're wearing there. How did you get more good looking since the last time? It's hard to imagine, really. Sure is. All right. Stock market's up a little bit, but boy, was it down. Wow. Come on stream in here. I want all of you to enjoy this. Goodness. At the same time, we don't often have a show like this. We've got a guest coming in at the halfway mark. It'll be at the bottom of the hour. And we've got a persuasion lesson. It's going to be a good one. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And you've never had a better time. But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tank of shell cysteine, canteen jug or flask, A vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine of the day. The thing makes everything better is called simultaneous sip. And it's probably going to happen right now. Go. Extraordinary. Delicious. Best ever. Well, here's the kind of story that you depend on me to bring to you. A very important story. Let's say first I'm going to put my clock up here so I don't run over the halfway time. Where would clock be? If you were an app name clock there you'd be. Gotcha. Seriously, the clock doesn't have a clock on it. All right, we'll take it. All right. Well, there's a story about a woman who was accused. She was accused of the first crime in space. So, you know, they say that men get all the credit for inventing things. It's not fair because women also invented crime in space. Or allegedly. Apparently there's some controversy about whether that was an actual crime. But it was a woman who is an astronaut who went up in space. And I think the her wife accused her of, I don't know, doing something with a check or doing something with a password and stealing some money from the bank. But here's the funny part and the only reason I'm bringing this up. It's not because women invented crime in space, although that would be impressive enough. It's. It's the last name of the person who's accused of the crime. Oh, no, no. It's even funnier. This is not the name of the person who was accused of the crime. It's the person who accused the other one of the crime. So the one who's accused, his name McLean, but the one who did the accusing, and I'm not making this up, her last name is Warden. W O R D E N. So the warden accused her wife of stealing in space. Did you need to know that story? You probably. Probably could have gone the whole day without knowing that. Nope, Wasn't terribly important. But her last name, really, it was. Warden didn't make that up. All right, if you were a cursor and you were on my computer, where would you be? There you are. Gotcha. But wait, there are more stories you've probably heard that the Senate has now approved that Epstein bill via unanimous consent. So guess what? It turns out that Congress can pass anything it wants as fast as it wants. Does that make you happy? What have we been doing up to this point? Are you serious? You're telling me that the Congress can do things really fast and very efficiently? Sometimes, but not all the time. So this is the thing that we got right in terms of speed, but the only reason it went fast is because it took us years to get to this point, like we. We found a way, or Congress did, to make even an efficient process, which, if it had been a standalone process, probably would impress you how fast it went. But no, no. Years later, it goes fast. So now we have the Senate and the House have approved it. It's going to go to Trump's desk. So how many of you think that that means you're going to see some more Epstein files? Do you think that's what that means? Or. There's always a reason to not see the Epstein files. One would be if there's a open court case, such as the one Trump was just trying to open against the Democrats for their connection to Epstein. Oh, that's a nice coincidence. Just the time that everybody agreed to see it. There's this lost, there's this legal action. Well, I guess we have to wait till the end of that. That's going to be another five years. So good luck if you're just waiting for all that information that you know is going to come any minute. Because if there's one thing I can tell you about the Epstein files, it's the only thing I know about them for sure. There's always a reason to not show you. Always. We'll find out what the reason is this time, but not expecting it. All right, so it's on its way to the president's desk. And if he signs, really doesn't mean much, does it? If he signs it, it doesn't mean. It's more likely that people will see the files. Probably doesn't mean anything because, again, it's going to be one of these process things. All right, so it wasn't a normal vote. It went through all kinds of weird things you don't need to know about. But what is the strongest type of denial? If you are going to deny an accusation, what's the weakest form and the strongest form? Well, a weak form would be, no, I didn't do that. No, no, we didn't do that. Slightly stronger than that would be, not only did I not do that. You're the one who did it. You're the one who did it. And then that, you know, diverse attention from you. So that's even better than just denying it. It's like, you did it, and then what's stronger than you did it? Well, not only did the Democrats, they would be you in this case. Not only did the Democrats do it, whatever it is, but you're gonna prove it. That's kind of what Trump said. Because if he's, if he wants the Department of Justice to look into these top Democrats, he's going after Bill Clinton and Larry Summers and Reid Hoffman. So those are the ones he's going after. Now, I'm going to give you a little persuasion lesson on how well Trump is handling this. I know that doesn't sound, that doesn't sound possible, does it, does it look like he's handled it well up to this point? No, no. If, if you're not paying attention to too much, it really doesn't look like he's handled it well. It looks like he was flailing around a little bit, didn't it? But he's now settled into a groove that is such a strong groove that I feel like all the rest of the stuff was just testing. He was just saying, how about this? Suppose I said this. What would happen if I said this? So his current approach is that it's a Democrat problem and he's going to put three faces on it. Instead of the hundreds of faces, he's going to pick three rich guys that probably, you know, even the left doesn't love because they're rich guys, and he's just going to paint them over and over again. Now, what does Trump say about talking about this? Trump says, well, It's a Democrat problem and we Republicans should stop talking about it because it just takes attention away from all of our accomplishments. And then because he doesn't want the left to talk about it. What do they do? Well, everybody on the left asks some questions about it every single time he's out, every time. What does Trump do every time now? Every time. Now going forward, he's going to say it's a Democrat problem. It's Larry Summers, it's Bill Clinton is read off. And now I don't have an opinion about what those three people did or did not do. We're only talking about Trump's persuasion game. If he continues to do nothing but that, what are you going to think about? Whenever it comes up, you think about three, three rich Democrats. That's what you'll think about. Now that's sort of a home run if he can do that. Now, the only way this could fail is if the Democrat press, you know, the left leaning press all got together and said, you know, we're going to kill ourselves of this because every time we bring it up now, he just mentions these three Democrats and says it's a Democrat problem. Now, if you're a regular consumer of news, not like us, probably none of us are ordinary people, you know, we pay a little more attention about politics, which is why you'd be watching this podcast in the first place. But think about the average person. How much do they know about Epstein? Well, he was at Pedo, he was on an island. They know the basics, but they don't know any of the details because it's something that only the news nerds seem to be involved in. So now Trump has done something that is brilliant, which he's filled in that gap for the low information voters. If you wanted to have something to say that was sort of capture the whole situation, it would be this, well, looks like a Democrat problem. I don't know why you're even talking to Republicans. Huh? Huh? Yeah, but it's kind of a Democrat problem. So when the Democrats work this out, once you get back to us, well, but, but, but, but there was that, you know, time and Trump and blah, blah, blah. And then Trump has the floor, you know, they've accused him and then he says, yeah, it's a Democrat problem, Larry Summers, Bill Clinton. And every time he repeats it, it gets stronger. So they're going to give him. Because they can't help themselves. You know, the news is the news. They're going to act the way they always act. They're going to Give Trump unlimited opportunities to do the thing that he says. Please don't do this to me. Please don't throw me in the Breyer patch. If you throw me in the Breyer patch, what am I going to do except talk about endlessly how it's these three Democrats who are the obscene people you need to know about, and then maybe the Department of Justice needs to look into them. No, don't make me talk about that three times a day. No, he's sort of in a perfect situation now. As I said when I started, he was kind of flailing in the early stages of, you know, we're gonna have to figure out this Epstein thing. But when he finally went from, no, we don't want to see the files, a complete flip to, yep, let's see them all, that's when you knew he had a grasp of the situation, because you can't really reverse show them all. Now, this would presume that we see anything. I'm not sure that that's going to happen. There are a few things that are going to happen. One, we might see some files that tell us something new. Probably not. But at the very least, it's going to give Trump endless possibilities for blaming the Democrats and saying Epstein is just a Democrat problem until everybody believes it. You know, I've told you that persuasion is mostly repetition, and he's going to have the biggest repetition opportunity anybody ever had, and he's just going to lean into it until you're so tired of hearing him say that Epstein is a Democrat problem that you stop asking him questions about Epstein, and that's fine, too. So Trump has now created a situation where he kind of wins in every direction. Right? Because now he's for full transparency, so he's invulnerable on that. And he's just repeating over and over the Democrat, you know, it's a Democrat thing. It's a Democrat hoax. It's just going to get stronger and stronger as he does it. So good luck with that, Democrats. Let's see, what else. There's also the visual part. You know how I often say that if you're looking at the strongest elements of persuasion, repetition is probably the top, because if you repeat enough, anybody will believe anything. But also visual. Now, the Epstein is not a visual story per se, but if you imagine these three specific people, Hoffman, Summers, and Bill Clinton, most of you can picture them. Maybe you don't know Larry Summers, but you know who Bill Clinton is. So you've got a. A little picture to put in your head to place on the island. That helps Trump too. So if you start imagining the three of them now, the thing I wondered is I feel like Trump's meme archers are a little slow because, you know, the next thing that happens is that the, the Republican memers are going to start producing pictures, probably AI it would show the three of them together maybe on the island. So it's going to turn visual very fast, you know, through memes, etc. So he's going to have repetition, he's going to have visual, he's got now control of the narrative because it's just an interesting thing to talk about. Is it a Democrat problem or not? And he's, I think he is successfully branding this as a Democrat problem. Do you feel that if you take Trump out of the equation, he's always a special case? Do you feel this is a Republican problem at all? It really doesn't feel like one, does it? It feels entirely like it's just, just that. Anyway, So the Democrats, they decided to drop a video that looks like some kind of a psyop to me. So there are six of them. One of them's a senator, Mark Kelly and then Jimmy Panetta, Mikey, Cheryl, woman, Adam Smith, Ruben Gallego, Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slotkin. So they do this video which sort of came out of nowhere. Like it's hard to know what inspired it unless it was just obviously the CIA. So it looks like sort of a color revolution thing that you get these, you get people who are in the government, people who are credible to do a video that says, and here's what they said, that they're asking the, they're asking the military to not obey any illegal orders from Trump. But they don't mention what these so called illegal orders would be. Why are they even doing this? Was there, was there some illegal order I'm not aware of? Lindsey Graham is asking the same question and he's smarter. I mean he was a JAG guy forever and he's saying well over 30 years, right? He was a, he was a military lawyer for 30 years or so. And he says, I don't see why you're talking about what's, where's this crime that, that Trump allegedly asked anybody to do? I also wonder, has Trump ever disobeyed the Supreme Court in any meaningful way? I don't think so. So, so this is a really good psyop because if you, again, if you're a low information voter, you would think there's no reason in the world they would make this video. Unless what, what would be the only one reason Democrats would make this video that makes sense, that there's something happening that's illegal and they're trying to stop it. And that would be what? What illegal thing are you trying to stop? We don't know. Do not know. All right, and the other question is, who gets to decide what's legal and what isn't? Now, obviously, the courts ultimately get to decide, but there's always a lot of stuff that happens before that where the government says, oh, gone too far or you haven't. All right, so it seems to me there's kind of a psy up by the Democrats to create this frame where Republicans are. Wait for it. Insurrectionists. And the way that they're insurrectionists, according to this completely made up narrative, is that Trump will give them illegal orders. The military, and then the military, despite all evidence to the contrary, would just start executing illegal orders. Do you think there's any real chance that's going to happen? I mean, I suppose anything's possible, but it doesn't seem like that's imminent or anything. Anyway, so, as Lindsey Graham points out, the hatred for Trump is really going too far. And Stephen Miller is pointing out that the video itself seems to qualify as an insurrection, meaning that it looks like, and I would agree with Stephen Miller's take on this, it looks like these six people are part of a larger group that's trying to create a narrative to literally overthrow the current government. What else would it be? What's the other explanation for why they would go through all this trouble and expense to create this product? What's the other reason again? If there were some specific crimes that they thought were being violated by the military on orders of Trump, shouldn't we be talking about those? Wouldn't that be already getting wrapped up into a court case? Don't we have a system that handles that fairly efficiently, actually? Because we've had, what, hundreds of court cases that got solved? So seems to me that this is nothing but a psyop. And I would say that the origin of this is almost certainly intelligence entity. Now, I'm guessing it's ours, so I'm not making any accusation. There's some foreign country behind it, but this is not. This is not Democrat stuff, is it? Yeah, I want to hear what Mike Benz says about this. But if Mike Benz tells you, oh, this is totally grassroots. Yeah, I think they. They just, maybe they were having dinner, somebody had this idea, and then he put it together. Right. If Mike Benz tells me that's probably what happened, maybe I'd Change my opinion, but I don't think he's going to say that. You know, he hasn't weighed in yet that I've seen, but I'll probably see it by this afternoon. So go check out whatever Mike Ben says about the Democratic lawmaker video. Yeah, every bit of that looks like something suspicious is happening in the wings. And, and then the language that they use in the video quite, quote, we want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community. There it is. They're trying to get the intelligence community and the military to join them in an insurrection against the current government. What else is this? You can't even tell me that there's some other reason for this. And Steve Miller says Democrat lawmakers now openly calling for insurrection. That's what it looks like. I mean, it legitimately looks like that to me. Not, you know, not making some political point or, you know, you, you can always twist things to, into your narrative. It doesn't feel like that at all. It feels like it's exactly what it looks like, which is shocking. It's shocking. And then, then there's this weird story. Talk about this. And then it might be about time for my guest. So this is funny, but Trump was asked on Air Force One a question. And it's hard to tell from the audio, but it sounded like he called one of the female reporters Piggy, as in P I G G Y. Now, some people said, no, no, no, her name is Peggy. Peggy. But the early reporting is that there's nobody named Peggy on the, on the plane. I don't know if there's anybody named Piggy on the plane, but if you're trying to figure out did he really say that, and if he did, what was he thinking and why did he say it? I have no idea. I don't have the slightest idea. I, I don't think that he just decided to call her a pig. But I'm going to have to see a picture of the reporter. You know what I mean? Is there any chance at all. I don't know which reporter it was. I haven't seen the name. Is there any chance at all that if I were to look at a picture of that reporter, an image of a particular animal would jump in my head? Is it possible that he wasn't doing it intentionally, but he looked at her and she just reminded him of some animal more than others? Which would be terrible. It be terrible, wouldn't be fun. And if it seems like I'm laughing, well, that's on you, because I wouldn't laugh at such a terrible thing. Everything about this story is weird and funny. I'm not sure I care. Do you? Because we know he's not the kind of guy who just sort of randomly attacks somebody that doesn't seem like what he do. So there's. There's either some backstory or it sounded like something else or. Or there's some other word that sounds like that. I don't know. It could be anything. We'll find out later, but we'll keep an eye on that. All right, it looks like my guest has entered the green room. And let me. Let me make sure I'm going to accept him. Boom. You will be accepted. And then can I make you appear? Nope. Oh, there you are. Hey, Chris.
- [25:42]
B
Hey, can you hear me? Okay, Scott.
- [25:45]
A
I can. Let's make sure the audience can hear. This is Chris McKinney, Freedom Press, the maker of can you believe it? The amazing Dilbert Calendar. Now, we're going to ask him some questions about making calendars in the United States. So I'll be looking at your comments. But where are you located? What part of the country? You could be general.
- [26:07]
B
Just north of Dallas.
- [26:09]
A
Just north of Dallas. So you're American and you did the calendar last year, correct?
- [26:15]
B
Yeah, yeah. And so as far as I know, this is the only daily desk calendar that's being made in mass, being made in the United States of America. So if you go to Barnes and Noble, and I have. I'm obsessed with this product. When you look at where all of those are made, they're always. Almost always made in Asia, actually. So.
- [26:32]
A
So if you're. Yeah. If you're wondering at home how hard is it to manufacture one of these, think about the design alone. Just the design alone, because you need this outside box, right? So you got it. You got to get all these specifications. And of course, there's things like. I don't. Well, everything. You just. You got to make sure you've got everything on the box. It's got to be the right size. And then you've got to figure out. In our case, the calendar pages have a comic on the front and the back, which is also new because the cheap calendar companies don't do that. So we had to figure out how to do that. You have to have the right kind of paper. It's really difficult to get the binding just right.
- [27:19]
B
Yeah, no, that's right, Scott. So I think the biggest improvement from last year's calendar is the bindery. And so last year, we were a little afraid to make the Binding too tight. Because we know most of the customers like to tear through as they go through the year. However, we also found out that some don't like to tear through as they go through the year, and some like to actually keep it as a collectible item and never open it at all. Right. And so I think we learned some lessons from last year. So thank you everyone, for your patience on that. And so we do think the binder is better. It's still not so tight to where you can't tear through. I'm very happy with this year's calendar. I think the perf lines on the top are easier to tear than last year's too, which are also a challenge. And so, yeah, yeah, we're really happy with this year's product.
- [27:59]
A
Now, where's the only place you can buy it this year?
- [28:02]
B
The only place you can buy it this year is Amazon.com and if you type in the 2026 Dilbert Desk Calendar, this will come up. So make sure that you find this one and so on Amazon. One of the challenges on Amazon is there are fakes, and Scott and I are battling those on a weekly basis. But with how well the sales are going, thanks to you, all the fakes are being left in the dust. So I. I really don't think it's going to be a big problem. But just make sure. And I'm sure Scott will link it in the. In the show notes, and it's also available in his background on this next page as well.
- [28:36]
A
So, yeah, it's easy to find if you just do Dilbert 2026 calendar and it'll. It'll pop up. Just. Just make sure it's the orange one. It has my name. If it has Dilbert spelled wrong, that's the wrong calendar. And as funny as that sounds, that's how they do it. So they would spell Dilbert with a space in the word where there's no space, and that would be enough for the.
- [29:03]
B
Yeah, it's kind of like a phishing exercise with all the trainings. If somebody's in it, there's just always one little thing off that they do to get away with it. And so be careful of that.
- [29:14]
A
All right, so I've got some really nerdy questions. How many specialty machines does it take to make this one calendar? Like, there's something that cuts. There's something that, yeah, just run through. Like how many machines are there? There's special.
- [29:30]
B
Yeah. So I. I would say off the top of my head, around eight.
- [29:36]
A
Wow.
- [29:36]
B
Right? This is a very Complex calendar. And so the daily desk calendar, just from the sheer number of pages alone in the middle is a big challenge. And that's why it's hard to be made in the United States. And then when you add in the COVID the wraparound cover with the perf lines on top or there has to be the lines to help you tear through, that also requires a commercial bindery piece. Right. And then we use multiple web presses that are roll fed as well as an offset press as well and an inkjet. And so just off the top of my head, around eight, probably the coolest thing that I think would be the easel that we've done. And so in the past it had been a black plastic easel, and those are almost always sourced overseas. And once again, we were trying to make this 100% in the United States.
- [30:24]
A
Right.
- [30:24]
B
I went on a tour looking for a plastic manufacturer in the Dallas area and I actually found one where the black plastic easels could be made. But the cost was a little bit prohibitive because we were trying to keep the calendar within reason. And then just the timing of how long they would take to make those because they had to order a new mold. And so we came up with an alternative solution of chipboard. So, using chipboard. So this is 48 point chipboard. And as you can see with Made in America stamp on the, on the back here, which we're proud of. And so it's just as sturdy as the plastic. Obviously it's more environmentally friendly for those that. That's important to. And we're proud of that. And so I'd like to get some video of that being made. And so we have a partner on that. And so one of the. Another point that people might not know would be, no, no printer can make this on their own. Right. And they might pretend they can, we don't. And we were always honest with Scott about that. And so we have a couple partners locally as well to help us with this that are always just as grateful and just as excited now to get the Dilbert calendar. And so one of them is performance specialty. I'll go ahead and name them in Dallas. And so they convert both the easel as well as the box. And so the box is actually printed on a flat sheet as well, I believe. Four to eight up, I forget. Exactly. And then that that is trimmed and then converted as well, just like the easels. So there's a lot of work that goes into these. And it really just illustrates American crafts craftsmanship, you know, to a T. And so we're really proud about that.
- [31:50]
A
All right, Chris, Mostly we want people just to know that it's available now, and they can go to Amazon, they can buy it, and it was made in America, and you're. You're the genius behind it. And I'm not entirely sure if I tried to do this with somebody else, they could have gotten it done, because as I watched the complexity of this, and you watched you chug through all the problems like, all right, got this problem, I'll fix it. Got a problem, we'll fix it. It was just endless little problems that you figured out how to fix. You like the ultimate fixer.
- [32:20]
B
Yeah, I appreciate that.
- [32:22]
A
So I don't want to keep you too long. Some of the audience cares deeply about the calendar, and some of them want to move on. So. So just notice there. So just go to Amazon. Go to the 2026 Dilbert calendar. You'll find it easily. And I'll talk to you later, Chris.
- [32:40]
B
Yeah, I appreciate it, Scott. If you don't mind, one more thing. I do want to tell the audience, and I'm sure they know this, but my favorite question to get at that I get asked when people know I do these calendars is, what does Scott like to work with? And he's been unbelievable. And so he's been so supportive. It feels like we're on one team, and. And we're truly grateful for that. Scott and I always enjoy our calls. We always have a few laughs, and we grind through all the problems together. And I just want to thank you for the opportunity and then just thank all the fans for the support as well. So thank you.
- [33:11]
A
Thank you. Great seeing you again.
- [33:13]
B
Yeah, you too. We'll talk soon.
- [33:15]
A
Catch up to you later. All right, we're back to me Baboom. All right, ladies and gentlemen, thanks for that little diversion. We'll go back to the news. Back to the news. Anyway, let's see. We talked about Trump calling somebody piggy. Or maybe he didn't. I said I haven't heard his explanation. Has anybody heard Trump's explanation of why he seems to have called somebody piggy? Does he even have an explanation is to say that didn't happen? I don't know. We'll wait for that. All right. Apparently, the SNAP program where the government helps people buy groceries was just massively fraudulent. I saw a post by Nick Sorter on X. I guess Secretary Rollins was out there saying they're gonna have to destruct the entire thing. So how big is it? I had no idea the SNAP was this Enormous program that had become more enormous by fraud. So now they'll all be required to reapply, which seems like a good idea. But I do ask myself this question. Of the subset of Americans who couldn't figure out how to feed themselves without the government, are they going to be able to reapply? How they reply in the first, how they apply in the first place? Applying for stuff isn't easy. You got to fill out a bunch of forms, you got to know where to go, where to send them, where to email them. I don't know. I'm not entirely sure people will know how to sign up for snap, but not my problem, not my problem. And I didn't see the number, but it's like some God awful number of the total SNAP recipients were frauds and duplicates. Just an enormous number. Unbelievable. I saw Tucker Carlson who was at some event and he was sort of wondering aloud why Jeffrey Epstein is capturing our anger. Have you thought about that? Have you thought why? Why is this one person, you know, getting all our attention? And is that telling us anything, that one person's getting all this attention? Well, I saw Wall Street Apes do a post about this and so this is what Tucker said. We'll see if you agree with this. I'll have some comments. What is it about Jeffrey Epstein that's so infuriating to people? So infuriating it's actually causing seismic political problems. What is it? I'll tell you what it is. Tucker says it's the frustration of normal people watching a certain class of people get away with everything every single time. That's what it is. We've had enough now. Does that remind you of a Norm MacDonald joke about Bill Cosby? You know the Norm MacDonald joke about Bill Cosby, don't you, where he's talking about. Somebody said that the worst thing about the, the worst thing about the Bill Cosby situation is the hypocrisy. And then Norm's punchline is, you know, I don't think it's the hypocrisy that's the worst part. I'm thinking it's all the raping. Now don't you get that same vibe from this? Do you think that what is infuriating people is that they're watching a certain class of people get away with everything every single time? Or could it be thousands of rapes if you're going to be infuriated? I think thousands of rapes systematically run through one island and a few other properties. That's sort of the problem. More than the gosh, rich people seem to be getting away with a lot. How many of you are sitting here just thinking, man, those rich people getting away with stuff, that's the problem. Not the thousands of sex crimes. No. Well, it was the sex crimes, I'm here to tell you. But also it's a story about sex and money and Trump and attractive females and underage people, and it just has everything that a story that's going to make you angry would have. So there's not much of an mystery about that. So Red Wave Press, we're showing this clip on X. The word implicated is going to start taking some extra meaning lately. Implicated. Because I've got a feeling that some people don't know the difference between implicated and indicted, which is kind of convenient if you want to, if you want to accuse somebody of something. Well, he was implicated. What do you mean he was implicated? Well, his name was on the documents. I don't see his name on the documents. Well, it was redacted, but we're pretty sure it's there under those redactions. Implicated. Anyway, Abby Phillip on CNN was saying, if. I think she was saying this to Scott Jennings, if Trump has nothing to hide, and he's totally intended to say that and to believe that he should be clamoring for these documents, this is before he said everybody could have them, I guess then Scott Jennings did a. Scott Jennings, which is. He goes, so you believe after 10 years of this, of him, Trump being on the public stage, that if there was something to know, we wouldn't know it by now. Now, if you watch Scott Jennings a lot, and I recommend you do, because he's got a lot of game in the persuasion world. It's so powerful to put this in the form of a question because it makes a person stop and think how they would answer the question and it makes the people listening home wonder how they would answer the question. So it's a very engaging form of persuasion rather than just making a statement. All right, so you believe that. Now, usually I mock people for you putting so at the end of a sentence, but he didn't use it in the wrong way. He, you know, he used it just to introduce his point, which is fine. And then Abby Phillip had actually pretty good response to that. She said, I mean, you can make that argument about every single person who's implicated in these documents. Oh, implicated, Implicated. Every single person who's implicated. Yes. You could make the argument that anybody who has not yet been accused must be more likely innocent, but that wouldn't apply to Trump. So as soon as you compare any normal person or even a CEO to Trump, you're in weird territory because there's no comparison. If One of the CEOs had done a terrible crime on the island and 10 years had passed, do you think you necessarily would have heard about it? You can't know for sure, but I feel like maybe not. But what if somebody like Elvis or, or, or Trump had done some bad thing and then 10 years go by and, and the, the stakes are so high. Do you think you wouldn't know about Trump? So that's a good question from Scott Jennings. And then Scott points out, very cleverly, he says you use the word implicated. So he caught that. He goes, if someone's name appears in these documents, it doesn't necessarily mean they did anything wrong, but I'm sure this is going to lead people to say, oh, they've been implicated. And so we'll see what comes out. Implicate. You're going to hear implicated a lot. All right, Breaking. Let's see. So now Representative Stacy Plasket. Apparently she was caught on video. I think the video was from some time ago. It had to be some time ago because Epstein was still alive and it was. She was in congress in a 2019 oversight hearing. And there's evidence on the text messages that she was messaging Epstein to ask him for advice on how to ask a question or answer a question in a live hearing. Now, a bunch of people went, oh, oh my God, no, we must censor her or something because she talked to a convicted pedo. But I have a different take on that, which is she's a elected representative. She can talk to anybody that she represents, no matter what crime they committed and no matter what reason she gives. There is no reason and never will be that an elected representative should be denied in any way the ability to communicate with somebody in their own district. And apparently that's, that's where Epstein lived. You know, the island was in her area. So, no, I completely disagree with this and I don't care about it at all. Doesn't affect anyone. Now, does it give me confidence in her as a representative? No, not really. But it's not like the biggest problem in the world. I mean, if she's getting the job done, otherwise, you know, it's fine, don't care about it at all. Well, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia visited and that's always a big day for President Trump. He likes it. My favorite part is when he, he took mbs, the crown prince, he took him for A little, I don't know if it was a tour or they're just walking from one place, but you takes him down that hallway of paintings of all the President's faces that includes the autopen of Biden. Now it's one thing that he would blame, that Trump would blame. It's one thing that he blamed Biden for the autopen. It's a whole other thing that he would have a, a picture put up to replace him in the hallway of presidents. That's a whole different level. But I think he took it yet to another level that I didn't even know was possible. When he brings the head of, he brings one of our strongest allies and a head of state to take, to take a tour of the auto pen, of the art of the auto pen, just so MBS can see how he's humiliating his predecessor. Well, Trump says that Saudi Arabia is going to invest a trillion dollars in the US in the next one year and that we're now the hottest country in the world and he predicted that we would have $21 trillion in future investments. Trump says we've done things nobody can believe. Oh, that's true. 21 trillion will be the amount invested in the US or committed to invest in one year. Well, there's a big difference between invested and committed to invest. One is money and one is talk. How much talk do you want for my money? So I guess I don't have to tell you that there's some possibility the, that Trump has used a little hyperbole. There's some possibility he's just talking like a salesperson and maybe, maybe 21 trillion won't happen right away. But I don't mind this at all. You know, no matter how accurate or not accurate it is, it's all fine. Because if it makes people think, hey, the US Is the hottest country, we should invest there. That's all I want. If the real number, and I'll just pick a number out of the air, if the real number was 10 trillion, that's a God awful amount of numbers or amount of money. So if it's 10 trillion and there's a commitment for some unspecified amount more, I would call that a huge win. I, I wouldn't peck him to death over the exact numbers. So once you learn how to, how to navigate the Trump world where a claim is sometimes a statement of fact that you can fact check and sometimes the claim is just part of running the country, it's basically branding the country, making sure everybody knows where the hottest country and you know Showing that there's a, an investment mechanism that they all have available to them to put money into this hottest country. So as long as he's doing all that, that's what I want. I don't need any super accuracy on the numbers. What difference would it make to me? So. But I think the world is getting used to Trump now. All right, Marjorie Taylor Greene got a little quieter today. I don't know if she was quieter or just the other news stuff took over, but she's not too happy that she's being called a traitor. I think Trump called her Marjorie Trader Green. That's pretty rugged. She says she fought for six years and gave him her loyalty for free. So, yeah, I, I do, I do worry about that relationship in the sense that we don't want it to affect us. But if I were Marjorie Taylor Greene, who I like, by the way, then you should hope that maybe the next president is a Republican, whoever that is. And maybe as someone who wouldn't mind you in a Cabinet position, that would give you some serious power that was equip, you know, equivalent and made sense for your background and experience. But if she goes to the Cabinet and just does a good job and comes out the other side, I think we're all going to be happy with her. And if she wanted to run for some other office, president would be tough. But if she wanted to run for senator or something after that, I think people would start feeling that made sense. So she does have a path, but probably maybe not through her the normal course. So I, I hope her, I hope she stays in public life. I think it would be. Let me get a, let me get a feel from you. Even if you hated some of her recent opinions because they were opposite of Trump's, don't you think she's an important asset for the country and that we're better off when she's in the fight? Even if she's on the other side, we're just better off when she's in the fight. The same thing I say about Massey. Same thing I say about Rand Paul. Yeah. All right. I see some disagreement and nothing wrong with that. We are allowed to disagree on this podcast. All right, I see your comments. Well, the Trump DOE is going to give Microsoft a 1 billion or Microsoft partner 1 billion dollar loan to restart Three Mile Island. How would you like to take on that? You know, all, all the big companies, they rushed to, you know, grab a hold of some kind of nuclear asset when they knew they would need it for AI. And how would you like to be the slowest one. And by the time you get there, those like, all right, we're going to grab some nuclear assets that didn't used to be great, but we're gonna, you know, now people thinking about it differently, they're not as anti nuclear. So we're going to take that nuclear asset and we're going to turn it into something valuable. Well, which one is it? Well, we got there a little late. Maybe the, the recently closed nuclear power plants, they, they got snatched up pretty quickly. Okay, okay, but which one did you get? Well, as I said, a lot of the good ones were snatched up right away. Okay, you're not answering the question. Which one did you get? Wait, what? Three Mile Island. Three mile. Three Mile Island. Three Mile. Three Mile Island. Yeah. Three Mile Island. Never go last. All right, This story made me laugh. So apparently there's a story about how Jeffrey Epstein was unhappy with Google's search engine optimization because it kept surfacing negative stories about him. According to the Verge, Mia Sato was writing about this. Now, weren't we supposed to believe that Jeffrey Epstein was part of some, you know, giant running the entire world, you know, back door thing? That he had all the power of all the intelligence agencies and he had, you know, unlimited money and he couldn't get his SEO to work and he didn't know who to call. He's like, allegedly, we're thinking he's the most powerful man in the world between his blackmail and his money and the contacts he has. And the most powerful man in the world has exactly the same problem you do, which is I don't think this search algorithm is right. Who do I call? There's nobody to call. To me, that's funny that even Jeffrey Epstein had nobody to call to fix this. Not that they want to fix it, but his problem, just like yours. All right, and I guess now we know George Soros gave a quarter million dollars to some British group that was working to censor conservative news sites and kill. Kill. Musk's ex Chuck Ross is writing about that? Well, yeah. Yeah. All right, here's the. The last story in the news. There's nothing to say about that except George Soros is in fact trying to destroy free speech. But only yours. Yeah, not his. So Chris Matthews was recently on News Nation with Leland Vitart. News Nation is doing a good job lately, by the way, and I saw it on a Jason Cohen post. And so what Chris Matthews says is that if the political left teams up with Ms. Now, they used to be msnbc, but Ms. Now that Their, their audience will not be able to elect them at any important federal office. There's sort of a losing, it's a losing frame. If they enter the far left frame and they, they embrace the things that Ms. Now is embracing, that they'll just lose and it will split the party and they'll all be in trouble. And he says, Chris Matthews says this is a problem. And I look at them lining up and when they make these statements, I go, that's for msnbc, that's not for the electorate. And that's a problem. And it made me think about where real power lies. Here's a little mental experiment, a thought experiment. You ready? Thought experiment. All right. What if the talent, you know, the on air talent of msnow was way better than it is? What would happen? Just regular talent. There's nothing magic or special. They're just way better at it. Well, their audience would zoom because they would be more entertaining and their power in terms of their influence over the electorate would go up probably in roughly the same ratio as their audience. So who's running the country? Who's running the country? If Rachel Maddow could do better work and that would cause a bigger audience and that would cause them to have more power and that would cause the Ms. Now point of view to get more weight. Who's running the country? The elected people or Rachel Maddow? Right. Now, let me take that to the other side. You know, as I've often said, that the, the producers for Fox News are so much better than the producers for the other shows that it just jumps off the page. Now, you'd have to be in the business, as I am, to maybe even notice it, but they have such better producers. Now, how much power does that give to Rupert Murdoch or Fox News? Just because they're better at it, they can just put it on the show that looks better, sounds better, and then more people watch it a lot. It gives them a lot of power. So even the producers, the people you've never heard of, even they have power more than you think. But now here's where it gets interesting. If you're looking at Fox News, let's say prime time, where everything important happens and you're looking at, you know, Greg Guffel's on Twice, you know, he's on the Five and then he's on Guffield and you know, Jesse Waters is on Twice. I'm not sure where Dana is now, but she, I think she has a second show. I may have lost track of her other one, but you're talking about the best people, in my opinion, the best people in the business, and they all happen to be in the same network. How much power does that give Fox News simply because they have more talent in their host lineup? Probably a lot. Probably a lot. And we don't really think of power that way, do we? We think of the people I'm talking about as people are talking about the power. They're not the power. The people talking about it, are they. Are they just the ones talking about it, or are they the ones who decide by their, by their quality of their actions how many people are going to watch? And then if a lot of people watch, don't they have power? Right. I'm watching your comments. You get a little bit quiet when I, When I venture into new territory. But, yeah, talents. I would say that talent is the invisible variable that people don't necessarily recognize and call out. But there's a specific theme within talent. Let's see if you can tell what it is. There's something that Fox News hosts have as a talent that I don't believe anybody on MSNBC has, and maybe I'm thinking nobody on cnn. So. So there's a talent, a specific talent that you'll see on Fox News hosts, several of them. I'll name them in a minute, but you'll see none of it. And the others, what's the talent? You tell me. What talent do the Fox News host AV it might be more than one, but there's one I'm thinking of. The answer is humor. The answer is humor. If you have not discovered that Guffield and Waters are hilarious, and you haven't discovered that if you, you know, throw in Kennedy and you throw in Dana and you, you know, throw in Emily Campagno, that you have this whole humor kind of a structure that lives within the structure of the show. And it travels. Not. Not every show, but it does travel from show to show. You know, wherever one of those characters, you're gonna see humor. Now, am I wrong? As soon as you think about it, it changes how you see the whole thing, isn't it? The. The Fox News people. And again, none of this happens unless you've got the right producers, because the producers are the ones who say, you know, do more of that, do less of that, at least until the host is so successful they don't have to take advice. Eventually that happens. But am I wrong? I'm not wrong. Right. So the, the humor talent that apparently Fox News either got by luck. I don't think it was Locke I think they got it by looking for it and then finding it and promoting it. Obviously, if you look at the show got felt, obviously they were thinking of humor, so it's not like it snuck up on them or something. They knew what they were doing. So I don't think you want to overlook the power of that part of their talent stack and the fact that the, the competitors who don't seem to be in their class, you could very easily identify what they're missing. It's humor. That's what they're missing. All right, here's a story I don't believe. Joe Hoft is reporting that Dominion voting machines have been found to have phone chips on their motherboards. Like, you could just make a phone call to your election machine. Now, maybe I, I don't have evidence that is not true, but do you believe that we just learned. Just learned that Dominion had phone chips on all their motherboards? That doesn't sound right, does it? So I'm gonna, I'm gonna have to back Dominion on this one so I don't get sued. I'm gonna say it doesn't strike me as likely, and I don't see proof of it. So I'm going to say you better bring a little bit more evidence of that. It's going to take something like a demonstration of multiple boards before you could ever convince me that they were just sitting out there the whole time with phone chips on them. And we just now figured it out. There's something wrong with that story. All right. North Korean workers are going to be making Russian drones, according to Matt Ha Ha and the Long War Journal. That's what they say. So that's the war. It's going to be a robot war, mostly drones, and it's going to be North Koreans pounded them out and the three remaining living Russians will be flying them. I guess Trump wants to have a unified federal standards for AI so that all the states don't have their own standards. Now, I don't know much about this domain, but doesn't it make sense that you would just have federal standards and then everybody could know what they've got? They wouldn't have to worry about every state having their own AI standard. Yes, but the reason I brought it up is not because it's a good idea, probably. It's that for the first time, I feel that the administration understands the topic. Meaning that in the first Trump administration, maybe they had the right people to make a decision like this. I don't know. Certainly in the Biden administration, I don't think they had the people who could make this decision. But then you fast forward into the current administration and you've got your, you know, David Sachs, and I could, you know, I could go down the line. There are people who actually understand the domain. So we're finally at a place where I don't have to think about it. I just say to myself, all right, who's in the administration? This one, this one, this one. Oh, they got that. Yeah. I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna tell Sachs that he got it wrong. He obviously knows more than I do about that domain. So I feel good about that, that we have the right people in the right places. All right? And the Trump administration. This feels like it's happened so many times before. Oh, now, this is funny. There's apparently, according to Brianna Morello, the Biden regime was allowing illegal aliens into the country who were convicted of sex crimes. Do you believe that the people convicted, not just accused, but convicted of sex crimes, were allowed into our country? But it gets better. And by that I mean worse. What kind of ID do you think they had to show? If they were a convicted sex offender and they wanted to enter the country, what would be the burden of proof on their id? Turns out that the TSA accepted the sex offender paperwork. So if they had documentation that proved they were sexual offenders, come right in. And I think that's real. I mean, it sounds like something fake, doesn't it? It doesn't. Really. Doesn't sound like it's real, but I feel like it might be. Might be real. All right, and the Trump administration has plans to unveil the Education Department. How many times have we done that? I. I feel like every month or so, there's a story that says, oh, and we're going to dismantle the Department of Education. And then nothing happens. And a week, month later, we do it again. But when they say dismantle it, what they really mean is just take his functions and put it in six other places. I'm not even sure if anything would change except the names on the doors. That's all I know. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is your show for the day. I believe I have. I've now. I've now satisfied all your needs. Does anybody have any needs that are unsatisfied? You? You? No. All right, all right. I'm going to talk privately to the beloved members of Locals and the rest of you. I sure hope to see you tomorrow, same time, same place, and get your Dilbert calendar if you have a chance. At Amazon.