can add a family member. You have no way to compare it. That's a confusopoly.

The way economics was supposed to work is that the free market would drive all the weak competitors out of business and eventually you'd have one strong competitor. But that's not happening. You have lots of competition in insurance and everything. And the way they compete is they confuse the consumer so the consumer can't tell which product is better. And I believe that they do it intentionally, meaning that they're all quite intentionally making sure that nobody can compare their products. I mean I know that's the case. I'm not guessing. That's definitely the case.

So before I explained it that concept didn't exist in economics. But if you google it now, confusopoly, you'll see it's a standard concept. So how many of you thought that I would be famous for adding a concept to economics? So you didn't see that coming, did you? But it happened.

All right. Rasmussen did some polling on American voters and energy independence and found out that only 19 percent of those polled oppose a policy of encouraging U.S. energy independence. In other words 81 percent would like more of a Trump approach, you know going for energy independence. And only 19 percent — and remember this includes Democrats, right — only 19 percent of the public wants something like what we have now where we're not encouraging domestic energy. And let's say 53 percent of voters — and remember this includes Democrats and independents and everybody else — trust Republicans more to encourage U.S. oil and gas production. Well that makes sense, right?

But why is it only 53? If you took the assumption even if you don't assume that you want that, even if you said to yourself I don't want more domestic energy production — I don't know why you'd say that but suppose you did — wouldn't you still at least recognize that Republicans would do more of it? How could you be so dumb that you think the Republicans and the Democrats would be roughly the same when it comes to encouraging domestic energy production? That's a pretty weird opinion. I mean we fly against literally 100 percent of all reporting from both sides.

Eighteen percent of the public thinks there's not much difference between the two parties on the issue of energy. Eighteen percent. It feels a little low. That's the number I would have expected closer to maybe north of 20, closer to a quarter. I would have expected that closer to a quarter, just saying.

All right. And 71 percent of likely U.S. voters think the U.S. government should encourage increased oil and gas production in the U.S. Seventy-one percent. How in the world does a Democrat get elected president in this atmosphere? There's a really dangerous situation shaping up here and I think you all see it, right? Everything in the news and the polling suggests that there's no way a Democrat could win the presidency against anybody basically. What if they do? What if they do? I don't know. I mean if it happened in this atmosphere where every indicator is pointing toward a strong Republican win, if it doesn't happen and all these indicators stay so strongly in the other direction, it could be a problem. That could be a problem. So we'll see if that happens.

So as you know the January 6 hearings have completely cleared Trump of any criminal behavior by showing that there's no evidence of it. They have completely eviscerated the encouraged an insurrection narrative. Completely gone. Because I don't think anybody believes that there was a planned insurrection in which Don Jr. wasn't let in on it or Ivanka. To me that's just funny. Not only did they disprove their own contention that there was some planned insurrection but they disproved it in a way that's actually funny. It's like really? Somebody should have checked to see if Don Jr. was at least informed about this alleged insurrection. Because if he had not been, and the evidence clearly shows that he didn't know anything about any planned insurrection, there's nothing else to talk about. None of the other evidence is even worth looking at once you've seen that his own family didn't know anything about it. That's sort of it.

And then you say but Scott, but what about all those people in the administration who are helping him try to you know game the rules to take over? What about them? To which I say what about them? Do you notice anything in common with those people who have been named who are like trying to find some scheme for him to keep power? You know playing with the electoral the electors and stuff like that. They're all lawyers. They're all lawyers. Don't you think the Democrats owe it to the United States to say well there's one thing we should point out. That the people who did seem to be supporting the idea that there might be some legal challenge here were all lawyers. And that's what they do. It's not their job to tell you what Trump should do ethically or morally or what's right for the country. They are there to say is there a legal argument, yes or no. And they did their job. You could argue they did it well because if the boss who's paying them says is there a legal way that I could find this, their job is to go find the best argument to support your preferences. They came up with the best argument they could but it was weak. Would you all agree with that? The best argument they came up with about changing electors or whatever was a little weak. I mean it didn't even convince Pence. If you can't convince Pence that's a weak argument.

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have done that and it doesn't mean that Trump shouldn't have asked. Because in the process of leadership you ask all the questions. In fact one of the biggest criticisms of Trump is we keep hearing stories where he asks crazy things like can you stop a hurricane with a nuclear weapon? And I doubt he ever said that by the way. I don't think he ever actually said that. But what was the other one? Can we send a missile into the cartels? Basically can we attack the cartels? Now the answer he got back was no don't do that. I think that's the wrong answer. I think he could attack them. But you see that he always asks the edge question. If you're a leader and you're not asking the edge question you're not doing your job.

You need a president who says all right, here are all the standard things we've talked about. Now you better tell me why I can't do a non-standard thing. Why can't I do something outside of this box of options? Tell me if I go outside this box tell me what's going to happen. That's what Trump does all the time. His most basic way of managing is okay now I'm thinking of something that's outside that box. How much trouble would I get in if I do that? It is the question you're supposed to ask. If the answer comes back if you get outside this box you're going to get creamed, and then he says okay thank you and then he stays in his box. Wasn't that exactly what you want?

Somehow the Democrats have made good basic leadership which is asking all the questions, the questions inside the box but importantly the ones outside the box — those might be the important ones — and every time they describe Trump doing exactly what I want my leader to do as if it's a mistake. I always say the same thing. Do Democrats know anything about leadership? It's as if they don't even know what it is. Like it's some weird concept, right? Yeah they don't understand human motivation. If you don't understand human motivation — and you can see that in a number of examples of the systems they prefer — if you don't understand human motivation how could you possibly understand leadership, right? Those two are linked. There's no such thing as leadership without a big variable about human motivation because that's what the leader tweaks. That's what they work on. They work on your motivation to motivate you to do what they want.

All right. So now that the January 6 hearings have shown that Trump clearly was not trying to do any illegal insurrection, clearly it was not planned or at least there's no evidence of it, and so what are the people who have bet everything on this and now lost the bet because there was nothing there, how did they act? Did they say wow well we looked and I'm glad we looked. There were some flags there. There were some red flags. And by the way I agree there were some red flags. Would anybody disagree with that? I do think this was worth looking into. I wish it had been done better, you know, in a different way. But I think the Republicans ended up pursuing what I would say is a risky strategy by not supporting the members of the thing.

So you know McCarthy withdrew their support because they didn't get the people on the committee that they wanted. But those people were also implicated in the actual allegations. So that was a little gamesmanship, right? So it was mostly gamesmanship and politics that McCarthy decided not to participate. So it was a show trial and then the show showed that Trump basically was not guilty of the primary allegations.

So now they're backing up from well we didn't mean he planned an insurrection. Did it sound like that? Oh well. Being corrected, it was McCarthy not McConnell who pulled out of participating in the hearings. So do you get that correction? It wasn't McConnell. But whenever I see a clever political thing I think I'm biased toward thinking it was McConnell. I mean you could hate that as much as you want but he knows how to do this stuff. Same with Pelosi, right? No matter what you think of Pelosi don't you ever have this feeling, god damn it she does get some stuff done for her side, right? As old as they are they do get stuff done for their team anyway even if you wish they wouldn't.

So now since the main insurrection planning and insurrection thing has been completely debunked, does the news go back and say well we checked it out. They were serious allegations and there were some red flags there. We checked that. We found nothing. So let's go on with our lives. Glad we checked. Is that what they'll say? No. And no they won't. They will show you no evidence and tell you you saw it. Same with Russia collusion. They will prove by looking for it and not finding it — if you can call that proof — they will show that there's no evidence whatsoever of their allegations and then at the same time they'll tell you that they found them and there were plenty of them and oh my god there's so many I can't even get into them. And their base will actually believe that.

Now we don't have to guess if that can happen because we watched it and it's happening right in front of us in real time. It happened with the Russia collusion. When it was shown that there was no evidence for Russia collusion instead of just saying whoops there were some signals there but I'm glad there's none there, glad we checked, instead they made it sound like Russia interference in the election was really sort of the same story and really it's been proven to be true so it's really the same as collusion. And they sold that. Ask a Democrat if Trump was colluding with Russia and they'll say yes and it was shown, it was proven. And then you ask them like wha