The Scott Adams School - 04/28/26 HOME TEAM. Trump. NICE/ICE. EPA

We've been live for this whole thing.

That's right, everyone, they were pre-showing it. Good morning, good morning.

Look at you guys all dressed up for me and for us.

Oh no, just for you. I think we have a good show for you guys today. I just was taking a note.

Are you guys ready? Are you pulling in, sitting down, getting your cup, tapping papers?

Okay, you guys, it is April 28th, 2026, in the year of our Lord. What day is it? Tuesday. It's Tuesday. All right, you guys, I am not gonna lie, I did have some coffee before the show, so I had to save some for the show, but I really need a sip. Okay, let's do the thing.

Before we begin, is there something you're waiting for? Something you expect? Something you love? Yes, it's the simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice, or stein, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the Unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip. Go! Grrr! I can feel the lion energy just going through me. It's like, it's like tiger blood, but different.

It's like a lager. Oh, I like that. All right, I'm, I'm in. Everyone in? Are we ready to go? Owen and Marcela, you're looking gorgeous as usual.

Thank you.

You're welcome, you're welcome. So I wanted to tell you guys something. I meant to say this when Michael Malice was on the other day. So if you were here, you met Michael Malice. And do you guys remember Corey DeAngelis who came on? He also, um, he He's like working tirelessly for school choice for the kids. So what I forgot to tell you was, look at this, Michael officiated Corey's wedding. See, there's Michael Malice. I know, and I meant to tell you guys that when, when he was on, but I love that picture too. So there was that. I just had to get that out of the way. Um, one other thing I want to get out of the way Can we just have a little animal shout out? All right, not an animal, it's a fish. Is that an animal? No. Here's a fish. Look, he's handicapped and they made him a little harness so he could swim. Fish lives matter.

He has horns.

He has— yeah, they're like little, like, uh, I think little spongy things to keep him loady upright.

Why did they do that?

He, he's sick and disabled and he can't swim. There— oh, there's us, Marcela.

Is this someone's pet?

Yes.

Okay, so, so the, the— his owner found him, um, lying on, you know, on the bottom of wherever he lies, you know, and he was like, oh, I need to save him, and he built this this contraption.

And some of the, uh, Beloveds, some of the Sippers heard my personal goldfish story about Jeter. I don't want to say too much. It's creepy. Jeter, yeah. So he's, um, just really quick, he's in my freezer in a Ziploc bag full of water because I want to try to taxidermy him and turn him into a paperweight. Anyway, that being said, explain how he ended up in the freezer. Yes. You missed that episode. So he's— I had him since he was like the day he was born at my neighbor's fish pond. And one day he started to flip upside down and I'm like, oh my God, what's wrong with him? So the internet wasn't super internetty then, but I did some deep dives and I came up with the solution of feeding him frozen peas. I would freeze a can of peas, can of peas. Take the skin off, plop it in the bowl. He would eat the pea and eventually he righted himself. And what was happening was he was eating fish flakes that were dehydrated and it just turned his bladder to get big and he went upside down. So after feeding him peas for a couple of days, he righted himself and he lived for like another 5 or 6 years. He got really big and the peas saved him. So I really appreciated this guy making a goldfish harness. And now, you know, way too much about me, but here we are. So I appreciated that.

All right, I don't— I mean, to each his own. I, I— if I saw a fish on the bottom of the tank, I think that would be the end of that fish for me.

But yeah, um, well, what if you saw him floating upside down but he was trying to turn right side up?

I, I just— I don't know. I mean, I—

push him, face it.

Yeah, I, I think, I think for I don't put fish in the same category personally as a cat or a dog. And even the cat and dog thing is getting crazy with what people are doing for their pets, I think. But I understand it more just because they're so much more affectionate and people consider them part of the family. But I think I saw a story just today about this where it's like vet bills are through the roof and people are treating them like people in terms of medical standards. And you know, there's all sorts of medical procedures and technologies that they never did before, and, um, now they're doing them. But it is kind of crazy, and I think a lot of it has to do with maybe people not having as many kids, because personally, I think once you have kids, you realize, okay, you know, it isn't—

there is a hierarchy. Yes, there's a pecking order. I understand. Listen, if I walked into my kitchen that morning and Jeter was floating upside down and like a human was upside down, I'd probably help the human first, um, and then I would get to the goldfish. But I don't have kids, and he was the only thing floating upside down that day, so I rushed to his aid. I also euthanized him eventually, but that's, that's for another day.

Um, anyway, the story continues.

Teeter, to be continued. And I won't even mention, um, George Steinbrenner. He's over here in a little jar. Okay, anyway, you guys, um, I think you just did.

I—

yeah. Yep. Okay, so a little, little update. Could this possibly happen? Let's watch this clip because this could become a thing.

Change ICE to NICE. Oh my God, that's so funny. And do you know why that would be easy? Because N stands for national. What's the rest of ICE stand for? Immigration— can somebody tell me what ICE stands for? Immigration something enforcement? What's this? What's the C in ICE? Somebody tell me what the C— oh, Customs. Immigration Customs Enforcement. Is that it? So why couldn't it be National Immigration Customs Enforcement? Why can't ICE be nice? You know what would be hilarious? I'm not suggesting this, but it would just be hilarious if Trump changed the name of ICE to nice so that when the Democrats try to eliminate it, they're eliminating nice. Because if you eliminate ICE, well, everybody wants to eliminate ICE. Where's ice good except in your drink? You know, you don't want ice on your jet. You don't want ice on your roads. You don't want ice on your windshield, you know. But nice. Well, we like nice. We like nice everywhere. So I don't think that'll happen, but it would be hilarious.

Well, Turns out President Trump is debating changing the name of ICE to NICE.

I don't even know if he's debating. I think he just said do it.

Look, NICE agents. Oh, I know, that's nice. That's nice. So that could just become a reality. You think he did it, Owen?

Well, he put a Truth Social out there saying he loves the idea and he said do it. So I don't know if, you know, he's directing someone to do it or if he's suggesting it because it's somebody else's job to do it. But, you know, we'll see what happens.

I love it. I love it. YouTube, you love that? I think that's a great idea. I'm almost done with my clips, you guys. I'm trying to get through my clips today because I want to hang out in the chat and I can't hang out in the chat until my clips are done. So that's why I'm like hurrying through them.

I want to see the chat, right? When you're sharing your—

Yeah, I can't see the chat, you guys. So, you know, I, I know some people are like, wait, what about us? Um, when I have my clips open, I can't— I, I can't see the whole chat. And if I try to toggle between them, Rumble's like, oh no, what do we do? And so it starts like stuttering, and then it won't reload things. So once I get through them, that's when I usually can hop back into the chat. So let's get through them because my stuff is light. I'm pretty light today. Um, Okay, this was amazing. So I want to congratulate everybody that survived the, uh, the 8 wars that we didn't go through technically. But here's Ilhan calling us stupid.

These, these people are just idiots. I, I really, you know, I'm, I'm at the point where it's become really hard to, to have an intellectual debate with any of these people. The, the dumbing of the United States has arrived because How else do we get a Trump presidency again? The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, it was used to detain and deport German, Japanese, Italian immigrants during World War XI.

So congratulations to all of you that survived all those wars. Um, she said that in 2025. Owen, how'd you do during those wars? Did you use your like your meal kit things that you have.

Yeah, by the way, for at least for me, that clip was cut off before the end. So she said World War 11.

It got cut off.

It just, it said World War and then it stopped. So I don't know if that was just me or other people too, but yeah, she apparently said World War 11. Um, yeah, no, I mean, World War II with the two. I think World War VIII was the worst. It was pretty easy. Yeah. Yeah, but I mean, you could count them that way with all these things where everyone's saying that Trump is starting World War III over and over and over again. I don't know if we've kept count of how many times he started World War III, but you would think they should keep incrementing the count if they really believe what they're saying, right?

It's true, that's true. It's a good point.

Should be World War VI, VII, VIII. Maybe we're up to XI now, I don't know.

I mean, she said we are. Oh, we're about— yeah. Holy cow, Marcela, how'd you do through all those wars? And, and are you, are you as, um, an idiot? Like she said, we're just idiots. She can't have an intellectual conversation with anybody now.

Obviously we are, because we missed all these wars. We think there were only two world wars. I know, and there's like several of them we missed. Oh my God, she needs to— she's a genius.

Yeah. Um, and like, and you know what, there's another little tidbit of proof that they're just like, you know, their rhetoric— World War III, you know, idiots— because now we have Trump. Okay, um, you guys, I'm cruising right through my clips and then we are right into Marcella and Owen. I'm so excited. Okay, so the other thing I wanted to say— oh, I just wanted to— I, I love a hot mic moment. Nothing to do with anyone named Mike, so Mike Burt, don't get excited. Love you too. But you know when someone's caught on a hot mic? I love that. And this isn't bad. It's Jimmy Failla, um, from Fox talking about the security at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in real time. And here's what he had to say.

I love that they have like two random chicks holding the front door open.

Where's the guys?

We're not even trying anymore. It's just even— it's not even like— I just mean like they're not even a team of service people. They the girls who work here are holding the door. Even if it was the guys, wouldn't even make it better if they could. She's fine. Just like, they might as well put a doorstop in. They put up a doorstop and a scarecrow. Don't fuck with this guy.

Then he looks at the camera like, oh, hi. Um, but you know, so like he said, there was just 2 chicks that work at the hotel holding the door open, and he said they might as well put a doorstop in and a scarecrow, like they're not even trying anymore. So it is— it's just everybody— like, I heard so much more of that yesterday. It is— it's definitely very concerning. Um, and God, Tulsi was there also, and Bassett. I was like, I didn't even know they were there. So yeah, so every single important person that runs this country was in that room with like basically no security. So, um, I really hope that this keeps getting attention. Um, what, what did you guys think? Did you guys hear more about that yesterday, about the lack of security? Um, Owen?

Yeah, well, I think I heard that there was some kind of commission that they're trying to, uh, convene about Trump's security. I'm not sure what's going to come out of that, but I, you know, I think when I hear that, I think of Scott Adams saying, oh, they're just going to form a committee, which means nothing's going to happen. So I'd rather they just take action and not form a committee to study the issue because then it's just 3 months and nothing comes out but a report and nothing really changes. And, you know, it could happen any day, any event. And I think to me it's a pretty urgent issue that we address this and make sure that nothing like this can happen again.

Yeah.

Marcella?

Well, somebody mentioned it, I think in the chat, but John Hinckley, who's out of prison, shot famously and unfortunately shot, um, Reagan, President Reagan, at the same hotel. He even said to TMZ that hotel— there should never be any kind of event in that hotel because there's never any good security there. Um, it's happened in the past. It's not the Secret Service today, it's just in general it's hard to, um, it's hard to secure the place, right? Um, the other thing is, uh, FBI Director Kash Patel told Fox News that they will be changing the way that they do this going forward. Um, he obviously, for security reasons, he didn't say what was going to change, but, um, it's hard to secure a hotel that, uh, where, where guests can stay, you know, above the above levels and, um, can come in through the parking lot. Um, all these things can happen.

I have a solution: don't have it at a hotel.

Don't have it there.

Like, why, why do you have to have it at that hotel? Why don't you just actually make a place that's specifically for events that need to be highly secured, which is pretty much everything now? So make a, like, a freestanding building that has some kind of, like, extra security to it, and it's just for events in the DC area. I mean, there's a lot of them, so that's an option.

Would you call it maybe a ballroom?

You could, you could call it a ballroom, but it could also just be a venue that anybody could rent out if they needed it. So the ballroom, I mean, the White House should be definitely like the most secure. But I think that, you know, everybody's like paying for extra security now. Unfortunately, this is the times we're in. So I think that venues should maybe be separated like that. I mean, if you're having a wedding and you're at that Hilton, it's your wedding, go ahead. But if it's like a venue where you need to really keep people safe, then let's have some freestanding buildings with like a large perimeter that you can definitely secure with like built with like, you know, I don't know how you build stuff, but like extra steel and reinforcements and blah blah blah, because that's what we're facing now.

Um, do they really not have anything like this in one of the existing government buildings, like Capitol Building or the White House Correspondents Association?

So it's not connected to the government. They are, uh they're not going to be able to have a government office for them, you know.

Why, why can't they do it there?

Well, it's a private organization.

Yeah, the White House—

the government just say we're going to do it in this facility and, you know, we'll give it to you for the day, for the night.

No, I think Marcela means that the White House Correspondents Committee Association is a private company, so they can't use a federal building for something. But I think that maybe what you're saying, Owen, is why can't we lease that out to them? And that's—

but I mean, not even lease it, just like, I mean, I understand they don't have the authority to say we're going to do it in the Capitol Building or in the White House, but I, you know, I think they could request it, or they could just work with the government to say, is this possible? Where do you want to do it?

I think we should have a freestanding building, like, away from everything.

The, the— I went to the Charlie Kirk Memorial, and it wasn't in a government building, you know, and but yet there was so much security to go to his memorial. So the thing that you have to control is who can come in and who can be near any of the entrances.

Now, that was an arena, right? So you have the whole parking lot around it. Um, so, and I feel like blocks out, they, they—

you couldn't even get near it.

But a hotel where there's hotel guests, um, Kennedy, Kennedy from Fox News said that, you know, if you wanted to have a room there, you had to have it booked like, you know, a week before or something. She said that day we actually booked a room that day and like, you know, got a hotel room 2 hours like before she had to get ready for the event. So I don't know, just seems like a bad idea to have that kind of, uh those kind of officials all in one place in a hotel seems silly.

Well, I mean, I know you want to go to their next story, but one of the things is the, um, is that RFK got shot at the— in, in a hotel, in a ballroom. Yeah, the same with Reagan. So it's like, why would you do it again in a hotel?

And I really— I'm not even kidding, you guys, I posted this last night.

Are you for real?

Yeah, I really, really want to know what the thought process was that all these people needed to be at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Why? Honestly, I'm not even kidding, why would you put JD on the stage with Trump? Rubio's in the room, Bessette, Tulsi, the head of the FBI, uh, Pete Hegseth, Everybody who makes decisions, and from what I've heard is that, God forbid that room blew up, then Chuck Grassley would be our 92-year-old president. So what are we doing? And who, like, I think everybody here saw that as a problem. Like when I heard that, first of all, that he was going, President Trump, I was like, this is not a good idea. And this is not like an event that you should be putting your ass on the line for, this dinner. Like, who cares? Um, and, and then when I heard that Vance was going, and then when I saw all the people that were there, I was like, what, what, who, who, what? So does— did that like flip you guys out? Tulsi, everyone was there. Um, you know, Marcella, how'd you feel about that? I thought that was like— nobody was thinking. Of course they were thinking, but why did they do it?

They— I'm not sure why they did it. I mean, they are free to have fun and have an event. However, we're not living in that type of place anymore. And this is not even related to the— to the— all the— all the people in the left that want to kill them, which is the majority of them, um, although they most won't act on it, um, but just it takes only one person to get rid of get rid of you. Um, so I, I think like where you have Iran, you have sleeper cells, you have all these other things. Um, I'm not sure why they, they might be— they might not realize all the danger.

Hello, all of those people whose lives are always threatened death. There's people in that room that want them dead.

Yes, they understand that there's danger, but they also, uh, believe in their Secret Service this in their— and the, um, what is it, the marshals, you know, all, all of that, because that went so well.

Yeah.

I mean, I honestly, my, my thought on the thought process would be there probably wasn't much of one. I think it's probably more like, who did we invite last time, and let's invite all the same people this time. And so they probably took the Biden list or, you know, whatever group they invited And, you know, again, I don't think anyone went into this thinking we're about to have an assassination attempt. So they probably just said, okay, this is the norm. So we're going to do the same thing we did last time.

Unacceptable. It's— you don't go from no one going to every single person who makes decisions. We're in a war with Iran and Hegseth is there and okay, whatever.

I mean, I just put it in Grok and said like, okay, who went to the last Biden one? And most of the same positions were there. Like, there were a lot of the same people were there, um, equivalent positions obviously. But, you know, the president was there, first lady was there, press secretary was there, secretary of state, treasury, defense, all the same types of people were there.

But Owen, they're not being threatened, okay? And I think I do want to drive that home, that one side is being threatened continually, the other side had to pay people to pretend they were threatening people.

So yeah, no, I'm not defending it. I'm just pointing out what I think happened, which is sort of the Dilbert filter of like, you know, nobody puts the thought into it. They just say, we're going to follow the process that we developed however many years ago in a different time and in a different climate. And I'm guessing the Secret Service did the same thing. They just dusted off their plan from the last one and said, how did we do it last time? And the original plan may have been developed 20 years ago, you know, and it may not have been updated since then. And I agree with you that it should have been, you know, you should say we're at an elevated threat level, we need to revisit this, we need to do better. But, um, and hopefully they're woken up to that now. You— I certainly think there's also an argument like, why does it take till this time? Because you had Butler, you had the Ryan Ruth whatever, you know, golf course thing. So it's like, how many times does this need to happen before you start saying we're not just going to follow the plan from last time?

And what was the first bomb dropped for Iran was when all of the officials were together.

Mhm.

So I don't know, I, I, it's like, it, it's actually one of the most disappointing things I've seen in a long time. Um, very strange for me, but I'll move on from it. I'll move on. Okay. Very disappointed. I'm very disappointed in you people. Okay, so next, uh, my hero of Monday is Someone who does not get shoutouts and totally needs to is Lee Zeldin. So Lee is in charge of the EPA, and you know what, New York, you could have had him as a mayor and you blew it. You had Eric Adams, dummies. Um, anyway, Lee is so good. Anytime I see a clip of what he's doing with the EPA, he's crushing it. He's like tearing stuff down, saving money, um, But I just have to show you because it, you know, that, that lady with the purple hair on the Democrat side. Oh yeah, the, what's her name? DeLauro. DeLauro. She's from Connecticut. So this always aggravates me, um, when you see these people questioning like the heads of our departments but they have no clue what they're talking about. They just want a sound bite and they just want to be like, gotcha, um, but they're just jackasses because they don't care, um, Here's— so this is— I just want to give you the context. This is, um, Lee Zeldin. So he made this post. He said, when you don't have anything good to say, some advice: to just not say anything at all. As for Rose Delora, she apparently believes that when you don't have anything good to say, you should instruct the person you are debating to kill themselves. So, um, yeah, I'm going to show you that part first because that's real. That's real. And it falls in line with exactly the rhetoric from the left.

Enforcement and Compliance Office.

Glyphosate.

Is that your question? I'd say don't— if your cup was filled with glyphosate, I'm telling you, as the administrator of EPA, don't drink it.

Thank you so much for agreeing to what we need to do.

I don't know what the question was. You're holding up a cup saying glyphosate. You know, don't drink it. Don't inject it.

Maybe you should try doing that. Okay. Excuse me. Okay. I'm going to move on to a second question, Mr. Chairman.

I hope it's not as long as the first one.

Well, it wouldn't have been prolonged except that, you know, it's interesting.

Yeah, we come with facts. We have answers.

Go ahead. She's stunned. So there was that. And I want to show you this other exchange. And I also want to tell you, so Where is Lee? Okay, so Lee said the Trump EPA has ended the green news scam. We proudly rescinded what has been referred to as the holy grail for the world about to end climate change zealots, the 2009 Obama EPA endangerment finding, without apology or regret. So they, um, what they weren't doing is allowing them to like, re— renew this scam because nothing was coming out of it. So, well, you'll hear. So there's $1.3 trillion in savings by doing this, um, and it's pretty amazing. So let's, um, listen to Lee again. He is our unsung hero.

When climate change is flooding our streets, poisoning our air, driving up healthcare and disaster costs, How can the EPA justify abandoning that duty to protect Americans to appease polluters under the false flag of economic growth?

Following the law, Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. Where does it say anything about fighting global climate change? Loper Bright, Supreme Court case. You familiar with it?

No, I, I, maybe others are, I'm not, but let me ask.

But that's really important. As a member of Congress, Loper Bright says that we as, as an agency I don't have the authority to get creative. Section 202 of the Clean Air Act—

No, no, but you don't have— excuse me, you do not have the right to say climate change does not exist, that it's a hoax, and that's where this administration is coming from.

I understand you're upset that you don't know what Loperbrite is. Do you know what the Major Policies Doctrine is?

No, I'm upset because—

Do you know what the Major Policies Doctrine is?

You know what, let me just tell you—

You're a member of Congress, you should know.

Well, you have moved from someone who defended the environment to all of a sudden—

You're very defensive about not knowing the two biggest landmark Supreme Court cases of the last year with regards to your question.

And you are very defensive about changing your policy and your positions with regard to the environment. Now, you just tell me—

You want me to tell you what the two biggest Supreme Court cases are of the last few years?

This is what I want you to tell me.

Michigan v. EPA.

Whoa!

West Virginia v. EPA.

You know, you're here because you need money from us. So halt for the second. And wait for the questions and answer the questions.

I answered your question. You didn't like my answer because you don't know what Loper brite is, because you don't know what the major policies doctrine is, because you, you're asking me a question. You're asking about Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and you don't, you don't read it. You don't know what it says.

Listen, and what you want to do is to deny— you want to—

no, I actually read the law. I do my homework.

Really?

You're just somebody who likes to have the microphone on. You know what I have to do? I read the law. I read the Supreme Court cases.

And I would say—

No, what you should do for your constituents is actually read statute.

Budget is at real risk.

Read your Supreme Court.

This is the Appropriations Committee.

Oh, you care about science? Now you're threatening to defund it?

Oh my God. No, you don't fund science.

Because you don't know what Loperbrey is. Because you don't know what the major policies doctrine is. Your message to our folks at the EPA is that you want to defund us.

To this BS.

The BS? You think I made up these cases?

Yeah, I think you have made up—

I made, I made up Loperbrite. I made up West Virginia versus EPA. I made up Michigan versus EPA.

Whoa, whoa, is right. Uh, what, what are you doing?

Why are you helping the looters? Whoa, lady. Um, um, Miss whatever your name is, uh, Delora from Connecticut, um, climate hysteria. It's a hoax. So I'm gonna just let you know that right now. Um, but holy cow, you guys, every time I see Lee Zeldin, this is what I see. So if you guys have kind of been like, ah, Lee Zeldin, you know, I guess he's out there doing his thing— no, literally go follow his account and watch this man. He is a star. He, he's getting stuff done and I freaking love him, and I love him for calling her out like that. Marcela, did you love that?

I mean, it shows you, um, her ignorance. Um, I mean, she didn't like being called on her ignorance, which is why she got so defensive. It's not that the, the him calling climate change a hoax, it's just that he was able to show to the audience and to her colleagues that she doesn't know any of the law. Loper Bright was like huge, um, court decision, um, that any of them should know. It only came out in 2024 and it changed the doctrine, the Chevron Doctrine. It's like, it's a major change in how we interpret these agencies. So she should know that particular case, um, out of all of them. I, I, I know that most of you at home, you're like, what is that, you know? But she should know it because that's part of her job.

Yeah.

So it never ceases to amaze me how uneducated our lawmakers are about the law. Like, they don't read the things they vote for, they don't know what has already been passed, they don't understand any of it. And it's just amazing. I mean, you know, I understand there's a lot there and it might be a lot for them to understand everything, but at least for whatever part of their job or whatever part of the policy that they're doing. They have a whole staff that can brief them on these things and prepare them for these things. And instead they get prepared with these gotcha questions and no background about the law, no background about the policy, no background about any of that. But, you know, they're just going completely blind into this process. And that's our government.

And instantly make it like Lee Zeldin, some kind of enemy. And it's like, why don't you just listen to him? Like, he's, he's there with his binders of facts and he's studying the laws and, you know, she doesn't want to hear it. And, you know, I saw somebody in the chat like, hey, that's my— you know, that's our money, lady. Yeah, you know, like, listen to him. She doesn't want— it's like their own little agenda. So it's very frustrating. And I don't think if you are going to— well, it doesn't matter what I'm going to say. I'm going to say if you can't study the committee you're on and what the facts are, don't be on it. But hello, That's DC in a nutshell. So I don't know, it's disappointing. Um, so Marcella, can you kick us off now? I, I'm in the chat now. I'm done with my clips, you guys. Here we go.

I was just gonna say, she reminds you of the pointy hair boss. Um, that, you know, it's like you come up with all these facts, like Dilbert would come up with— at least I was like Dilbert. He'd come up all these facts, all these things, and he'd be like And then there's the pointy hair boss bringing it down. So it's become a Dilbert comic over there, and it shouldn't be.

You could— I mean, Scott Adams could have totally done a whole series of Dilbert just like in Congress, or, you know, Dilbert Goes to Congress. He could have done that for a month or a year.

That would have been so fun.

Yeah, he would have had so much material. Um, so, you know, the White House Correspondents' Dinner suspect was arraigned yesterday. The and he appeared at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. yesterday. Um, federal court, you can't have video, you can only have drawings. The drawings are out there. I don't know if you guys have seen them. He totally doesn't look like himself. Some people said about the drawing of the suspect, they said something about they left the gene out. But anyways, um, you'll determine that when you look at the picture. Um, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, he's been arraigned for attempt to assassinate the President of the United States, charged with that, transportation of a firearm, firearm ammunition in interstate commerce with intent to commit a felony, and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence. Initially, there was a potential charge of assault against a federal officer, which, um, it was— it came out yesterday, further clarification is that he did shoot the Secret Service agent, um, and the Secret Service agent is recovering. So he's—

the suspect shot him?

The suspect, yes. Um, and the Secret Service agent did shoot at the suspect, but he was not— um, he missed like 5 times.

Um, but also I, I think I— because I was looking into— I'm like, how did they actually stop him? And, you know, I was like, they must have tackled him or something, right? And I did see a story that said they tackled him, but I saw another story that said he tripped and fell, and that if he hadn't tripped and fallen, that he probably would have been killed by bullets. So I'm kind of wondering if that might be the way it happened. I don't know for sure because obviously I wasn't there and they didn't catch it on camera as far as I know. But it may have been that he was running so fast he just fell on his face and then they jumped on top of him.

We've all tripped running on a carpet.

They, they talked about the elevation, that it, it was the upstairs area where— upstairs is like where the bathrooms were for this, uh, for the ballroom in at the Hilton. And basically it, it, it sloped down. There goes the slope again. Um, and that slope caused him potentially to lose his footing and be able to fall, and they were able to tackle him. So it's like both things occurred, um, and that really saved his life.

Uh, you know, so yeah, because I'm just thinking like, you know, one question I'm sure a lot of people were asking was, how did they miss him 5 times? And I think it's because he fell on his face, and so they were shooting it where he would have been standing. Hopefully, you know, or thankfully they didn't hit anybody behind him. But, um, you know, that, that I think it was that he fell down, and that's the only thing that probably stopped him from being killed.

And right now he is not cooperating with the authorities, so he has remained silent since he's been arrested.

Is this true? He was Savannah Guthrie's assistant? No, he wasn't. Where? I'm like, no, he wasn't.

I did not see that.

So I really doubt it. He was in the sciences and he went to Caltech. Yeah, he was, um, he did intern at JPL, NASA's JPL, where all of those scientists went missing.

Jet Propulsion Lab.

Laboratory.

Laboratory.

Yeah.

So we'll talk about that. Um, yeah. Oh, and what— anything on that?

On which? You mean this Savannah Guthrie thing?

No, no, no, no, no, no. Um, but also I, I did want to say that too, like I saw, you know, like in the video you see all the guys running with their guns. You can't just start shooting, you guys, because, you know, you don't know what's beyond that person. Like, you know, you think like, oh, just shoot them, but what if you're gonna hit 25 people in front of him? You have to— it's a lot of thinking has to go into that.

Well, I mean, it is a split-second decision. I mean, I hope— you know, very thankfully, again, I've never been in that situation where I actually had to do it. I've been trained on those types of situations, and it kind of opens your eyes. Where it's like, you know, like there was a training course I went to and they did the sort of hostage target thing where you've got a person behind another person and only his head sticking out. And so you're trying to hit the head without hitting the hostage where you have a whole body right in front of them. And, you know, they did this as a contest for all the people that were in the course. Like you would go up against another person and you try and say who could hit the bad guy first without hitting the hostage, of course. And I think probably 70 or 80% of the people hit the hostage. Like, like it was really hard not to.

Yeah.

And that was only from maybe like, I don't know, 10 or 15 yards away and maybe about the same distance as this. So like, yes, you need to be careful and they do train you. You gotta know what's behind your target and you gotta make sure you take that into account cuz you're responsible for where that bullet goes basically. And I do think in a situation like this, I would imagine that the Secret Service would be not so worried about what was behind the guy, um, because, you know, the consequences of not killing him would have been much more than killing someone else.

Yeah.

Um, but I do think that, you know, yes, that's always going through your mind, and you're— you want to make sure there's not another Secret Service agent behind them, or, you know, something like that. And you do need to be very careful when you're in these situations. But it's hard. I mean, you know, you're— I'm sure your adrenaline's pumping, your, uh, you know, your heart's beating fast, you're under a lot of pressure, and So I think, you know, my hope is that they do go through a lot of that kind of training so that they're ready for that. Because, you know, we've been told in the training I've been through that, you know, you're different. It's different, right? Like, no matter how much you train, you're not ready for that actual situation. And you're going to be, you know, breathing hard and you're going to be not in your normal mindset. And so, you know, unless you've been through a lot of that sort of training, it's going to be difficult to keep your calm in a situation like that.

Those trainings are such a mind F because— so also I always say like I hated games like musical chairs, duck, duck, goose, like that anticipation, you know, like am I gonna get the chair, when's the music gonna stop, or am I gonna be the goose? Um, so, you know, even if you practice that shooting, like shoot or don't shoot on a simulator, you're so like, I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do, that sometimes you pull the trigger just because. It's like, I'm just gonna pull the trigger now, no one's even standing there. So I could imagine in real life with, like Owen said, with your adrenaline going and there's so many people around and the stakes are so high, I mean, it's just a mess. Like, that, that's why, like, the best thing to do is really prevent it from getting to that point, like with the perimeter and the building, like really know that that's locked down. Um, I don't know. I just think the, the more groundwork you do that way, the less chance of something like that. But anyway, all right. So Owen, hit us with a story, would you?

Sure. Well, um, I think you mentioned that you liked this story when we were conversing before the show. There's a story that AI cannot self-improve, and there's apparently some math behind that that proves it. Um, I think essentially that, you know, a lot of people are talking about these self-improving AIs and how dangerous but also incredible that might be, because, you know, that would potentially be how that you get to this superintelligence sort of thing where it at some point, in order to be smarter than people, it would have to go beyond whatever people have taught it. And apparently they did some math that showed that it just doesn't work. It, it, that it goes through, you know, this recursive process and collapses. And so if you try and give it you know, fake data or you feed data back into it from whatever it came up with, that it just gets worse and worse. And, um, so really it is very dependent on the inputs coming from humans. And so I think the end result is that human data is not replaceable. You can't just, you know, go beyond what people can produce, which might be a limiting factor. And I think they do point out, it's like they're not necessarily saying there's no way to do this, but at least that the current method doesn't work.

Wasn't there, wasn't it, who was it? OpenAI? No, was it Claude? Wasn't one of them teaching each other how to do things and it was getting dangerous?

I mean, I think there certainly have been lots of things I've seen where you have an agent talking to another agent or a chatbot talking to another chatbot, and I think they are coming up with various methods like this where they're building virtual worlds for robots to walk around in and learn in. And, um, you know, certainly they're learning from a lot of YouTube videos, kind of like what Elon Musk did with Tesla for the driving. But I think, you know, the, the apparently the finding here is just if you go beyond that, if you run, you know, if you're out of all the data training you could do and then you try and have it learn on its own, that it really can't do that. At least again, given the current methods. There may be some other methods someone could introduce. There are a lot of articles that I posted where people are trying to model these neural networks and things after the human brain. You know, if they really did perfect that, then maybe you would basically have a virtual brain that learns just like a person does. But even then, it's like, okay, if you were this virtual brain, let's say you still need to learn from something, you know, you need to have the data, you need to have the inputs, you need to have something to learn from. And the innovation and the discovery process is pretty slow in comparison to all these other things we're talking about. So it's not necessarily that it's just going to run away and all of a sudden be a super genius.

Yeah, I think I heard it on the All In about OpenClaw and that it was— they were like self-organizing and like talking back and forth and like figuring things out. And I was like, well, that's really effing scary. Did you hear that, Marcelle? You were shaking your head.

Yeah, I mean, that's the— that's, you know, agents is pretty, you know, you can see it happening. Um, but I think what Owen and what we're talking about now is that it can't go beyond a certain point. Um, and I think Scott Adams would always talk about that, how he always tried to have AI go further and it never went further. So maybe it's true, or maybe it's, uh, maybe the LLM method, maybe there's like a different way of creating this where it can create its own, can learn from itself or something like that.

There is some level of that that works because I do that at work. I, I use ChatGPT, I use Claude, um, sometimes I use Groq. And, um, one of the things that I found that was pretty effective was I would give the same prompt, like create this document or create this this, you know, presentation or whatever and give me the content for it. And each one I would put it in independently and then I would feed one into the other and say, okay, here's another response to the same thing, you know, compare them, give me the best one. And then if there's any improvements you can make from the other one, put those in and improve it. And it does a pretty good job with that, I would say. And sometimes when it's important, I would even do that 2 or 3 times to just get to the, you know, go back and forth and back and forth until it says, okay, this is the very best I can do with all these different inputs. And I think that is effective. But really what I'm doing is just saying, okay, these different models are trained differently. They might give me different answers, they might come up with different insights or different good points. And so I'm kind of putting them all together, but that still doesn't go beyond what they've been trained on. You know, it's, it's only what they were exposed to that they're able to use. And they're not really reasoning, they're not really thinking, they're not going out to the web and saying, oh, there, there's this data, but I'm going to go beyond that data and I'm going to you know, come up with something completely new. So I think there are limits to it.

Okay, well, I hope so. That freaks me out bigly. Okay, Marcela, give us something exciting, would ya? Would ya is my word of the day. Would ya?

So there's this thing called Iran, and, uh, still out there.

Um, so Iran is a country. Yes, the Kamala thing.

And then there's another country Okay, and, um, so the big, big news today, uh, beyond Iran, uh, well, I'll give you the Iran news real quick. Um, there's basically— it's in the standstill. There's like, um, the US is still blocking Iranian ships from coming in and out, and Iran is still blocking any other ships from going through the Strait of Hormuz, or at least controlling and trying to limit who they don't like to go through there. So there's a standstill there. What was proposed by Iran is basically let us talk about— let us open the Strait of Hormuz, let us not fight, let us do the ceasefire, and then later on we'll figure out anything about, you know, that thing called nuclear stuff, you know. And so President Trump is signaling that he would unlikely accept Iran's latest proposal because the reason why we're there in the first place is to get the nuclear dust, is to make sure that they do not create a nuclear weapon, blah blah blah. But the big news today early on is that the UAE has indicated that is leaving OPEC. So it's like David Lee Roth leaving Van Halen. So basically OPEC is this big cartel for oil. And the UAE, the United Arab Emirates, if you can say it that fast, is indicating that by May 1st they're going to exit OPEC as a major blow to all of these production coordinations by all these countries. That would be Iraq as well as other major— Oman, Qatar, all the other major oil countries. And that actually helps us, uh, because without— with the UAE outside of OPEC, they are able to increase global supply. So what happens is that the OPEC sets a standard of how much supply that can be created for everybody that belongs to OPEC. But now if the UAE is outside of OPEC, they can create as much oil as they want, which would lower the prices. Um, there's obviously geopolitical you know, issues and can make the Middle East weaker. That there can be a lot of anger. The UAE didn't indicate why they're leaving OPEC. Uh, obviously things aren't well between OPEC, but I think the main reason is that they see an opportunity with the blockade of Strait of Hormuz. Um, the other news about Iran is that they're very, uh, desperate to, uh, get, uh, export their oil because they don't really have— at least this is what's, what we're being told by the government, the US government— is that Iran does not have a good way to store the oil they create. And so that's why they have to get rid of it, to give it to China, give it to wherever they are selling it to. They can't store it. And one of the ways that they're trying to give it to China or other countries is through trains now. Instead of the ships, or they're trying to do that.

So that sounds dangerous. That does sound dangerous, like a slow-moving disaster.

It does seem like there may be a really big shift as a result of this Iran conflict in the oil balance of power, you know. I mean, and I know that's exactly what you just said, but I think it's broader than that. Like with Venezuela and the— all the ships that are now going, you know, instead of going through the Strait of Hormuz, they're all headed to America, or you know, and a lot more of Europe is buying natural gas and oil from the United States. And Trump is making all these deals along those lines. And it really seems like the U.S. is becoming a much more powerful oil-producing nation than they were before this. And I am wondering, you know, how sticky that will be. Like, I don't think it's going to just go back to the way it was before, because I think people are realizing the risk, realizing the, you know, that things are different now. And, you know, you've got also obviously the Russia and Ukraine stuff that's still going on. And so there's all these different shifts that have been happening where people are buying their energy from. And it seems to me like most of it is to our benefit, where it seems like almost all of them are saying we're going to buy more of our energy from the United States. I don't see a lot going the other way. But again, it's hard to know if these are temporary, where once the conflicts are done, they'll go back to it. But I would imagine, for example, that Europe is probably not going to be wanting to get all their energy from Russia like they were before, right? And so some of these may be permanent, and, um, it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Um, it will. I mean, we'll keep an eye on it. I, I'm looking forward to hearing what everybody's going to be saying about this as it— as the days go on. Um, you guys, I don't know if Owen or Marcella grabbed that story I shared with you about somebody else leaving something which was from Google.

Sergey?

Yes, uh, leaving the Democrat Party, which I think was a big deal. So do either of you happen to have that story handy?

Yeah, um, so I have a lot to say about that, but you can go ahead on.

Okay, well, I'll just give you—

give us the setup.

Yeah, just the— that Sergey Brin is saying he's coming out as a Republican according to the New York Times.

Please say who that is so they know.

Sergey Brin is one of the co-founders of Google, so he's a billionaire. He's one of the, you know, big, big tech bros, um, in case you didn't know that. And so, you know, apparently he was, um, wanting to kill this whole wealth tax in California, um, and was fed up about that. Uh, he— there's a quote from him saying, I fled socialism with my family in 1979, and I know the devastating oppressive society created in the Soviet Union. I don't want California— California to end up in the same place.

Yeah, that's—

go ahead, Marcela.

Okay, so I'm gonna go on a rant. Okay, um, so here we have Sergey, uh, Brin, um, the billionaire for co-founder of Google, still a chairman in Alphabet, which is now what Google— the, the major company of Google, um He, for since 1998, since in 2025, he's been donating to the Democratic Party, the same party that created the tax on billionaire wealth tax on billionaires. So now he's saying that he wants to be a Republican, that he wants to go forward and that he's afraid of California turning into Soviet Union. Let me tell you, we are already in the Soviet Union here. Um, It's worse than the Soviet Union because at least the Soviet Union, you could call it a dictatorship because someone took over. But here it's, it's worse because in California, which I am here right now, um, it was chosen by the, the majority of the people here. This is the, the Democratic, uh, sole party that controls the entire government apparatus was chosen by everybody that was here. The minority of people are Republican, um, and they don't have as much power as the rest. And the majority of Republicans or even Democrats have left the state, right? But the rich Silicon Valley, um, co-founders or founders, or, you know, however you want to call them, They've always supported this Democratic government in Sacramento. And, you know, sometimes you think it's because that's the way that business works. You have to pay off, you know, people to allow you to exist. Yeah. I mean, I'm glad he's seen the light, but for since 1998 to 2025, you've been supporting supporting Gavin Newsom, you've been supporting these people that have created this, this, uh, basically this— I don't even want to— California whatever, it's what you would kind of fully stand, or whatever it's called, um, the Soviet Union of California. And that's what I, I don't see. I don't see any kind of reasoning to show that What has changed? Now I'm gonna support Republicans and I'm gonna support Steve Hilton for governor because 5% of well tax on my billions, you know, I don't know, affecting him personally now because he is a billionaire and he's like, oh shit, like they're gonna take a chunk of my money.

Um, yeah, so You know, for me, I'm kind of like, whatever it takes, like, okay, you're here now. Good. And maybe, you know, his example will encourage other billionaire class people to not be afraid to be like, you know what, me too. Like this guy, you know, is a, an immigrant who, you know, did the most by coming here and he wants to keep his money and he's not afraid of like, oh, how's that going to look to people? Good, you should keep your money. You, you, unlike Obama would say, you built that. Um, I'm all for keeping more of your money, especially California, even New Jersey. I mean, everywhere you see how they are spending our money, it's, it's all a scam. So, you know, why put up with it? Um, I hope he encourages more people, and, um, I, and I hope Newsom never sees the light of day of having power again. Um, and I hope Steve Hilton wins because he's just like— I don't know, anytime I hear someone with common sense, it's like I get so tingly. Um, and I— there's a woman in New Jersey, I'm actually going to introduce you to her. She has so much common sense, and I'm like, oh my God, like, where— like, yes, lady, like, let's get out there and talk to people. So I hope he encourages people. I hope more Billionaires, come over to the Republican Party and don't be afraid and band together. You deserve to keep more of your money. You're still paying more taxes than anybody, uh, any way you slice it. So, and if anybody wants to pay more taxes voluntarily, go ahead. I mean, you, you can. Nothing is going to stop you. Um, Owen, any more on that before we wrap up?

Well, I mean, I think some people are, you know, donating to the Ballroom or donating to presidential funds and they are donating to campaigns or whatever they want to do there. And I think some people have even offered to help pay off the national debt and things like that. But, you know, I don't know that that's going to ever be enough. But I think I certainly agree that, you know, if people want to pay extra, they can. I don't think very many people do. I think most people will say, give me the absolute lowest taxes you can. And I do think we're just so far beyond where we should be in terms of taxation. It's just just crazy that anybody would be paying maybe 60% of their income. Um, you know, and I think in California it's at least 50%, probably more when you add it all up, because you got sales tax, property tax, income tax, capital gains tax, fees, you know, all sorts of things. And then if you add in everything from their business, it would be an incredibly high number. So, um, you know, to me it's just— they're just so tone deaf when they, you know, think, oh, we just need more tax, we just need more money so we can give them out to our friends and pretend like we're going to do something else with it.

So it's a lot of people mentioning what Michael Dell did. Yes, I mean, amazing use of his money. Make sure you get your kids' accounts open. I think— oh, it's late. Okay, so you guys, we have so many things to talk about. Uh, tomorrow, guess who's coming? If you didn't already know, Walter Kern will be with us for the hour. And I think what we're going to do is let Walter just talk about whatever he wants to talk about. Let him rant. Let him riff. Let him just chat it out with us. I can't wait. And I want to also just say, you know, Scott Adams had rules of decorum in the chat. I just want to make sure I make this one clear right now before tomorrow. Please, please, I'm begging you. Don't let me look over in the chat and see you insulting a guest that we invited into our house, okay? If you want to say something about that guest later on your own time, on your own channel, on your own timeline, feel free. But please, here, like, I feel like this is all of our homes and, you know, we're inviting people in, and the last thing I want them to remember about the Scott Adams school is that they read the chat and saw something disgusting said about them. Save it for another time, okay? And if anybody does see that behavior in the chat, please remind that person not to do that, because, you know, we are representing Scott Adams and his channels and also ourselves. And, you know, for me, I'm putting my name on the line asking people to come in here based on the relationships I've sort of built with them also over years. So please don't do that to us, okay? If you want to, you know, razz us, we can take more than that. But if there's a guest here, please be like, you know, on your best behavior. I'd really, really appreciate that on behalf of Scott Adams School. Um, so we will be back tomorrow with Walter Kern at the same time. You guys are amazing. And always, we appreciate that Shelley and Scott let this, uh, keep going on. Freebird, you're amazing. Start saying your goodbyes, you guys. You guys, okay, we're ending the show. Um, so Marcella and Owen and I thank you so much. And I thank you, Marcella and Owen, as always. And let's have a closing sip to Scott. And make sure you go out there to be useful, you guys. Okay, to Scott.

To Scott.

Bye, you guys.

Bye, everyone.

Bye, everyone.