me it seems like Alex Jones had an opinion which he thought was true. Nobody ever—I don't think anybody ever proved that he thought he was lying. Can you correct me on that? I'll need a fact check on that. There's no evidence produced anywhere that he thought he was wrong, right? Now, I don't think he was right. I don't think there was a fake event. But there's no evidence that he thought he was wrong and he did it anyway. So I never really understood the lawsuit. But now I do. Now I do. It had to be funded by some billionaire who wanted to just take out Alex Jones. And if this is the answer, that it was Mike Bloomberg was the billionaire and he was taking out Alex Jones, I'm not so sure I want to believe this completely. But if it did turn out that Michael Bloomberg is behind that, God, he's a piece of work. If he's really behind this, he's a real piece of work. I actually backed him one time years ago. I thought, well, he looks like he'd be pretty good in national office because he did a good job in New York. But wow, he turned out to be not anything that I thought he was. I'm very disappointed in him.

Rasmussen has a little poll that says that 55% of US voters believe the president should choose cabinet officers he knows he can trust, compared to 39% who think it's better to pick ones with experience. I think the public's getting it right again. The public is doing a hell of a job. Have you noticed that the public is just sort of getting the right answer lately? Yeah, the majority of the public seems to be getting the right answer on all the big questions, and this is new. I don't think they were doing this for the last four years. But yes, if you have cabinet officers that you can't trust, it doesn't matter how experienced they are. In fact, you'd want them to be less experienced, because if you don't trust them, you don't want them to use all their experience against you. So yes, yes, yes. Loyalty and trust has to be higher than experience. It has to be.

Now, if it were not Trump, I might go the other way. But we've seen time and time and time and time and time and time again that people come after Trump in every way they can. So if they stuck any little spy in his campaign, well, it's going to be terrible for him. So yes, loyalty, trust first. And if you have to give up some experience, okay, it's not perfect. But yes, if you give me that choice, I'm going to take trust over experience. Now, you can't pick a total clown. I don't want a clown. But if you tell me that Matt Gaetz couldn't have done the job, you're wrong. He could have. If you think that Pete Hegseth can't do the job, you're wrong. I'm pretty sure he can. Right now I don't know character-wise or anything else about him, but yeah, there are enough permanent people in every organization to get the basic job done. You just need somebody to handle the big ethical questions, basically, and he could do that for sure.

So the O'Keefe Media Group, OMG, got some new corporate guy in the NIH, National Institutes of Health. And let's see, it's Raja something. He's the chief of health data standards with a very longer name. I'll stop there. So he actually said this on undercover video. I probably shouldn't be saying this so loud, that they might have funded a lab in Wuhan, China, and Pfizer and Moderna are getting a bunch of money from all these vaccine mandates. He said to the OMG undercover journalist, I quote, "I don't even know if these vaccines stop you from getting COVID." They don't. He said we're all going to learn about the dangers of COVID vaccines when it's too late. Yikes. He said the six feet of social distancing was not based on any science. It was completely made up. He thinks that Trump's victory is worse for the National Institutes of Health. It would be better for a Democrat to be in office. He said, quote, "We fly under the radar of really being scrutinized. I don't think I have too much to worry about." And then he says to the undercover journalist who is recording every word on the undercover recording—he realized that if he is being recorded in anything he said, he's in trouble. And so he finishes his sentence with, "That's not recording, right? That's not recording, right?" Oh yeah, it was recording. Got every word. Got every word.

Now, by now I don't think this is much of a scoop to know that people inside these agencies know that they were just making it up and that greater scrutiny is really bad for them. But he's saying it directly: The Democrats won't scrutinize us. That's pretty bad to be out there.

Meanwhile, Walmart, one of the biggest employers in the whole darn country, is going to get rid of its DEI program. And they basically are going to abandon all the woke stuff. They're going to get rid of controversial products for children and just get out of all of it. And this is a big win for Robby Starbuck, who's been the activist who's contacting Walmart specifically and saying, you know, just giving you some warning, you're next, because if you get the Robby Starbuck treatment, a lot of people on the internet are going to say, whoa, whoa, we're going to target you now. What are you doing there, you racist? So Walmart's getting ahead of it. I would say that you—well, I'm going to give the credit here to Robby Starbuck primarily. This is more of the Trump effect, isn't it? This is the Trump effect, because I think if Kamala Harris had won, I don't think Walmart would get rid of DEI. I think they would think, oh damn it, we're going to have some problems with the government if we get rid of it, and we might need the government now and then. Big companies all need the government now and then. So I call this a Trump effect working its way through Robby Starbuck, who's doing an amazing job.

So James Carville is not too happy with Jon Stewart. So I guess Jon Stewart said that the identity politics shouldn't have been the reason that Harris lost, because she was not running on woke identity politics. Does that sound right to you? That Kamala Harris was not running on woke and identity politics? Well, your common sense might say, well, that's crazy. That's everything she was doing. But I think Jon Stewart would say if you actually listened to her, you know what she said during the campaign. She seemed to have walked away from it because it was sort of a losing proposition. But still, she embodied it from top to bottom. Not only was she an identity pick—the most clearly, obviously, nobody's trying to hide it identity pick. Her boss said, I'm picking her because she's a Black woman. Identity pick. And then when there could have been some kind of a process to see if she was the best pick, they got rid of the process to keep the identity pick. And then we assumed that the companies would have to keep with DEI if she had been elected.

But James Carville is not taking any of that. And he said, quote, Bill Maher—he said Jon Stewart says it couldn't have hurt because no Democrat ran on it. In order to escape any responsibility, they said that stuff was never used in 2024. And James Carville says you're wrong. It was used in politics. If you have a bad policy, you may throw it away, but the other side gets to play. That's right. So it didn't matter that she tried to run away from it in the last closing hours of the campaign. It only mattered that the Republicans were going to make hay with it, and they did. You know, the trans-related commercials especially were called out. So it didn't matter what Harris did. The Democrats had spent years creating this environment, which the Republicans had every right to say there's too much of this and you're going to get more of it if you elect a Democrat. So yeah, you can't run away from the house you built. It's like she built a house and then she lived inside it and said, I'm not building a house right now. But you're living inside the house. I know, but I built it earlier. But you built it. But I'm not building it right now. I haven't even mentioned it in two weeks. So yes, if you build the house and you live in it, the Republicans are going to notice, and James Carville is going to notice that the Republicans noticed. He's not a happy guy anyway.

And according to the Vigilant Fox, they had some NewsNation show. So Cuomo had one of the biggest donors for the Democrats, this guy named John Morgan. He's called a mega-donor. And he thinks that Kamala Harris's political life is over because she misused the money that she got. She spent it so recklessly. They wasted money on ads in Florida. So she was running ads in places that she couldn't win. Interestingly, Trump also spent campaign money in states he couldn't win. So I'm not sure this donor is on the right page, because the reason Trump did it, I think, is that he thought he had a good chance based on internal polling of winning the Electoral College, but his mandate would only be useful if he also won the popular vote. So you go to states like New York and California he couldn't possibly win. But if he could gather up some votes from people who had a low propensity to vote, maybe he'd get the popular vote. And he did. So why would Trump's strategy that worked not work for Harris if she advertised in Florida because she just wanted to boost her total numbers? I think we have to figure out who are the smart people here, because the mega-donor sounds like he doesn't understand how the campaign works. Now, I'm not defending Harris. I'm just saying that you can't have an article that says going to the states you're going to lose is brilliant if you're Trump, but going to the states you're going to lose is a bad idea if you're Kamala Harris. Because that's what's out there. Like, it can't be both a good idea and a bad idea at the same time. So I don't know. Maybe the argument is that her internal polls showed she wasn't going to win the swing states, so don't work on the popular vote if you're not even going to win the swing states. But we don't know what her internal polls said, and neither does he. So I don't know.

Meanwhile, California—it turns out it's a California story. Do you think it's going to be positive? It's like California just tries to come up with what's the dumbest thing we can do to show that we're not even serious about fixing anything. So they've dropped the EV incentive. There was some tax incentive for building EVs in California. But did you know there's only one company that builds an EV in California? It's called Tesla. Yeah, it's just an anti-Tesla law. Why would a state just come up with an anti-Tesla law just because Musk is working productively with Trump now? I tell you, there it feels like there's not anything that California does that isn't just absolutely up. Like, we need to get rid of our leadership so much. I mean, it's just so bad. It's embarrassing. I don't get embarrassed, but if I did, this would do it.

Anyway, it looks like Trump will have persevered through all of his lawfare, as he likes to say. He's persevered. And if you don't know, let's see, Jack Smith is dropping all of his claims. And I guess that keeps them alive should they want to re-up them after he gets out of office, which is a messed-up thing to do. If you're going to drop them and he's a certain age, you should drop them in a way that they're not coming back. So kind of messed up that they'd keep that risk over his head. But the stuff that got dropped is the 2020 election interference and the classified documents case. So Trump still has the 34 felonies or whatever they are for his New York City lawfare trial where the bank made him a good loan and got paid back and they were happy. So he's a felon because he did what everybody does when they get a loan with property. He overstated the value of the property, knowing that the lender would check it on their own. And the only thing that mattered is what the lender checked anyway. So I'd love to get for him to get rid of these 34 felonies just so people don't have to say it anymore.

The rumor is that Kash Patel will be named FBI director. Post Millennial is talking about this. It's still in the rumor phase unless it happened this morning, I guess. What do you think of that? Is that going to happen? Now, I don't know a ton about Kash Patel. I only know this: Trump never leaves cash on the table. Boom. I've been telling you that for years. He never leaves cash on the table. He always picks it up. And here we are with Kash Patel. So if I judge from just the videos I've seen of his ability to talk in public and answer the right questions and have the right opinions and see things through the right frame, seem strong. So my first impression is strong.

According to the National Pulse, recruitment in the military is sharply up, and they think it's because Pete Hegseth got nominated. And apparently if you're the anti-DEI person, people want to get into the military again. And if you're the anti-war person— that's too strong, but it's part of the Trump world is anti-war, let's say. So if you think there's fewer chances you'll be killed and more chances you'll be promoted and fewer chances you'll be treated like garbage for some DEI reason, I would say that would make sense that people would be signing up to be in the military. Makes sense.

Meanwhile, here's more maybe Trump effect. The IDF is looking to wrap up their military missions in Lebanon, and they want to get everything wrapped up in the next 60 days, because after that Trump's going to be in office and he's going to wrap it up for them. So there's the Trump effect. So the Trump effect seems to have increased people joining the military, and it seems to have simultaneously decreased the odds that there will be a world war once he's in charge. So that's pretty good.

Meanwhile, here's more Trump effect. The Haitians that were very numerous in Springfield and caused the meme about eating the cats and dogs—which, as far as I know, is not based on any serious reality—but apparently a lot of the Haitians that were in Springfield are self-deporting because they think that Trump's election would put them in jeopardy if they stay there. And maybe they're right. So you've got Ukraine and Russia waiting for Trump, obviously. You've got Israel waiting for Trump, obviously. You've got the Haitians waiting for Trump, obviously. And they're all correcting. And then you see people joining the military because of Trump. Stock market is up because Trump's coming. Do you notice the pattern? It's almost everything is better. Almost everything.

And to me the funniest reason that the Democrats can't figure out what they did wrong is that it was everything from top to bottom. There wasn't a single thing. If you just go head-to-head, what did Trump's campaign do and what did Kamala's campaign do head-to-head? Trump was extraordinary on every dimension except one, which was raising the most money. Kamala failed. So she raised the most money, but apparently she used it so poorly that it ruined her future in politics. So the raising the money, you don't get credit for if you wasted it and it destroyed your hope of ever being in politics again. So that's again: Trump raised less money and underspent it and won a landslide. Who handles money better? Duh, right? So on every single dimension—from communication to policies to strategies to money used productively—Trump everything, every single thing. And you know, even if you look at the media, even though the so-called mainstream media was strongly in favor of Harris, they themselves did such a bad job that people lost trust in the media and the candidate. So I've never seen anything like it. The media became essentially part of the campaign. So when the campaign lost, the media lost the same amount. Their traffic just went through the floor. It's because the public saw them as just the campaign. We don't need the Harris campaign anymore. That's what you were, so don't need to watch you anymore.

Well, according to a Gallup survey, 86% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they're optimistic because of Trump's election. 86% of people who lean right are optimistic. But how about the people who lost? 76% of Democrats said they were afraid as a reaction to the election. They feel angry and devastated. Do you remember the story I told you earlier in the livestream here that people who are optimistic live longer and they're more successful, they're healthier? I can actually feel this. Like the level of optimism that I've seen and also experienced and other people that I interact with is so high that I would be amazed if it's not good for our health. I feel like my health was suppressed for four years, and now suddenly I just feel great when I wake up every morning. I wake up f