Pam Bondi's Search History Folder

David (00:00) This week felt like one of those moments where you remember the system isn't just watching. It's logging. And yeah, that's normal. If you use any government system, of course there are audit logs and records. The part that isn't normal is when the log stops being boring security hygiene and becomes a stage prop like here's your clicks, Congressman. let's do a little public humiliation just to keep everyone else curious. And once that move works once, it's not about the person who gets singled out. It's about teaching everyone else what curiosity costs. Welcome to Shrink the Nation. Let's go. David (01:12) Hey, I'm David. I'm a portrait of a psychiatrist and I have over 20 years of military experience. Today I am in this early morning that we were recording. drinking yet another enormous cup of Americano. I believe for Americanos fitness cup. It is shaped like a grenade and Rob (01:28) Holy shit. David (01:31) It should be a good talk. Rob (01:32) Yeah, so David's doing like 320 milligrams of caffeine right now and I'm Rob. I've got 30 years in the military and a board certified psychiatrist. And I'm excited about today's David (01:47) I think I'm excited because I've already drank like two of the Americanas of fitness cup. Rob (01:51) Holy shit, so you're up in the 600 milligrams of caffeine me too Right no no no bourbon today just coffee David (01:55) Yeah, I'm good. shaking. I'm so excited that I'm shaking. Look at this in my hands, you can tell. So something interesting happened this last week that I do think is worth talking about. And I would absolutely love to get your take Rob. There was a contentious hearing Capitol Hill where Attorney General Pam Bondi was holding piece of that said, Pramila search history. So, Pramila Jayapal is a Washington state Democrat. She had actually gone to the Department of Justice and was Epstein files. this hearing, Pam Bondi was she had looked what Jayapal had said was that the DOJ is spying on us. That's not fully accurate, I think. So I want to be fair. we should totally expect that if somebody were to go into the Department of Justice and use one of their computers, that absolutely everything that they're doing on that computer is logged. That is well within anybody who is shocked by this, I'm sorry. But if you go into a government system Rob (02:58) Hmm? David (03:06) And use it. They know what you're doing, so lay low on the porn. Alright, When I was in the Navy, I was in IT one of the things that I would have to do is comb through the search logs on people's Internet and basically. Cut people off the Internet when they were doing things they weren't supposed to be doing on a Rob (03:08) Yep. David (03:24) in the middle of the ocean on our like shared kbps connection so and i will tell you my god it wasn't just that people were looking at porn because my god you 250 sailors on a ship in middle of ocean for a month people are going to be looking at porn it was the kind of porn that they were looking that really Rob (03:25) Sure. Don't look at porn. Yeah. Yeah, get some weird porn. David (03:47) my God, we got some weird porn. weird searches anyway. and that was back in the early 2000. So just be aware. Yes. If you're on a system, It's going to go to audit logs. What is weird about this or interesting was that it was then printed out, handed to Pam Bondi before a hearing. Rob (03:52) Mm-hmm. David (04:05) I presumably don't know maybe so that she's aware of the things that she's going to be asked about on the Epstein files. But what it looks like is that she might be using that as an offensive more than defensive. Rob (04:17) think the entire hearing was offensive rather than defensive. theory, these kind of hearings are information-based. need to gather information from a subject matter This didn't feel like that, it was offensive from the jump. It was an attack rather than an information sharing. was she has a previous rather contentious hearing that was similar. this was not unpredictable. But what It is striking to me is that it does diverge from history, from the norm of these kinds of usually it's like, we have questions, give us answers. And this an the and, I am not surprised even a little bit that, something like history, was in her possession because it was an attack. And when you're attacking, you need all the information you can have. David (05:20) psychologically though, at it, was an offensive piece to it dispute or not, I mean, I think the DOJ would say we wanted her to be prepared for whatever question she was going to receive. if you're going to go into a congressional hearing, I hope I never have to. Because you're gonna get grilled and you're gonna get yeah lots of gotcha type stuff from whatever side Decides they want to do that But what it struck me as more than an offensive because there wasn't much About somebody's search history on the files that you could really weaponize I mean the truth is that they were viewing unredacted files that the DOJ had redacted Rob (05:34) God. David (05:55) So of course they're going to be searching around looking for the dirt. What it struck me as more though, wasn't really as much the ability to make it offensive. It was a message. psychologically. What does it do to anybody who is the ability to view these files when they are well not only being audited and logged, but that that information going to be used publicly you bring up something. interests Rob (06:28) It was a threat. David (06:30) a it's a threat. It it's a shot across the bow anybody else who is considering we're going to be watching everything you do. letter that you going to know exactly what you're looking going to print it we're going to let at you with that information. Rob (06:48) if you're in legal situation in which an expert testifying to say, this person sane commission of the crime. you can't argue against that, you argue are their credentials? their history? were their grades in medical school? they how did they do? And you argue against their background rather than the information. The focus ends up becoming these individuals. So what did they search? What were they looking for? Is anything questionable? Is anything going to embarrass them? a humiliation tactic. to make people feel scrutinized in a way that they end up withdrawing because they don't want to be embarrassed. Withdrawal to a self-protective zone. that's the goal was, at least. David (07:37) It wasn't so much about what representative Jayapal was looking at that offensive was there to let everybody else know. That's the point. when I don't have much else. I'm going to go after you, but not because I want you. I don't want your head. What I want is I want everyone else to stop fucking doing the thing that you did. And I want them to know that I can do this. that's what that was because she didn't bring up anything that would be embarrassing for It was a matter of letting everyone else know, stay out of our stuff or we're going to come after you. because we have the ability. very much have a chilling stand to that type psychological warfare. act in is impacted by our, knowledge of the environment. And so when you see this, you might be thinking, that's not going to stop anybody from looking. Well, don't be so sure that it won't be in the back of their mind if they are deciding to look And so it's going to change their behaviors. weird example of that is something that drug companies have known. for ever in a day, which was if they go into the community with their drug reps and they talk about a drug the docs who hear that are much more likely to prescribe those particular drugs than they would have otherwise. that's the reason. doctors aren't stupid. It's because they are just as psychologically vulnerable as every other human. And so when something is in your mind, whether intentionally or not intentionally, you're going to respond to it. It's just something that you're going to do. Rob (09:02) Human? approach switches the terrain. she was on the defensive. they failed to meet the law. They didn't produce these records in the timeframe that was required by the law, that was passed by the Congress. She shifted it to a terrain that put these lawmakers on the defensive. That in and of itself shifts the conversation dramatically. And here we are talking about it. have shot past the fact that to do what the law was required. And what they ended up doing was submitting set of records exposed some victims. in compromised way. They redacted a certain subset of individuals question did they deserve to be redacted? I don't know. they were implicated without being guilty in the court of law. Were they guilty? They did some bad And then exposed some individuals that leave it ambiguous as to the extent of their guilt. They just made bad They were involved. she flipped the script. She made it an attack on the questioners. And psychologically, think everyone can identify with this. Like, you can remember being a kid and being busted for something you've done. And rather than taking responsibility, rather than providing the information, you go on the attack with your parents, that you make it their problem, their issue, that The question in and of itself is questionable. you know, she does it well. also, interestingly, I think her performance was for an audience of one. She needed to appear the way she did for one singular individual. David (11:04) Yeah, and I think the downstream effects though are to people from even asking the questions. sending a Come after I'm going to come after times harder. There will be an impact. What that is, I don't know. Rob (11:10) Absolutely. David (11:19) but I imagine that there are probably some Congress people who are vulnerable in their districts or anywhere else who are less likely to ask the hard questions that they otherwise may have of this. Rob (11:31) Well, think it'll just shift their browsing gonna use their phone, they're gonna use their private internet. David (11:36) Mm-hmm. but they won't be able to look through those unredacted files without going into the DOJ and looking at them. I think that's the have every piece of information about what you do when you're here. the only way you're gonna be able to look at this stuff is to come here and do it. is just weaponizing a standard thing. Rob (11:47) That's a good point. David (11:57) that the government does because they have to, but it's just never weaponized. mean, would be me going to the person looking horse porn and saying, listen, buddy, I'm going to tell everybody that you did this. Rob (12:11) looking at horse David (12:13) You look at a horse porn, but when you're searching it out, my job wasn't to go around to everybody on the ship and say, guess who's looking at horse porn. The number will surprise you. ⁓ I totally did. Yeah, no, I totally did. mean, I had the nicest, I had the nicest rack on the, yeah, I had. Rob (12:21) But you did. But you did. Totally. Like, alright. Chief so-and-so's looking at horse porn. David (12:31) It was going all the way to the top Robbie. Let me tell you the conspiracy the No, but it but that's just it It's the chilling effect It's the ability to get other people to not behave in a certain way by threatening one other person publicly I mean, it's like beating the hell out of your one kid to get your other kid to stop smoking Rob (12:34) Ha Yeah. no, reminds me of, when my kid would have folks stay over, you know, spend the night and they'd be misbehaving and I'd yell at my child to send out a message to everyone else, to all the other kids. kind of what it reminded me of, that she was sending a message. David (12:48) Don't do that. Don't do that. Rob (13:08) And that message was chilling to those who all of a sudden was like, shit, I've searched some crazy shit on the internet know, they now know. and she effectively used a tool that changed the narrative. this way democracies are supposed to work. There's this sense in democracy that everyone's gonna a reasonable agent, that they're going to respond almost apersonally, that everyone's going to just information. she took control of the narrative. There was a narrative dominance. It was aggressive. an attack. It wasn't an exchange of information. It's one of those stories that resonates with can't stop thinking about her performance. But there's nothing to be said about it because it was so aggressive that where do you go from there? And that was the point. The point was to be so over the top, so inflammatory that there's nothing to be said. But it also ends up being that you didn't share any information. You didn't actually expose yourself at all. You were completely defended to the point that we have nothing to say about it other than that, yeah, it was ridiculous that anyone that watched it would probably walk away thinking, holy shit, This extends beyond what normal humans do. But what we forget is that There was no vulnerability. And that's the nature of what those hearings are. It's supposed to be vulnerable. David (14:31) You Rob (14:40) It's supposed to be, we're trying to get to the bottom of something and to get to the bottom of something you have to be vulnerable. David (14:47) you make a good point actually, I think to add a layer to it then is that Rob (14:51) I'm glad I make a good point occasionally. David (14:53) you usually do. think I'm usually just slow to the party, which is fine. I've gotten comfortable with that part of myself. No, what it's got me thinking, is that chilling effect then applies to more than just Rob (15:00) You're dumb as shit. David (15:08) don't come and look at our shit. It's stop dragging me in here because you're going to get nothing out of me. that actually might be a much more powerful message when attorney general has essentially put themselves out there as such a hostile witness that Nothing that I do ever concede an inch of ground. In fact, I'll take more ground if you ask me. I'm gonna come prepared. I'm gonna come with ammunition. It's gonna be personal. It's going to be deep. And I'm gonna come after you. So drag me into another hearing. Rob (15:32) Yeah. David (15:46) and expect more of this, which is an even bigger chilling effect when you can't get the head of the DOJ to answer any questions, especially in this environment where the DOJ is very much being weaponized whatever way they want. Rob (15:47) Yes. it shifts the for our government to work, there are checks and balances and the checks require that there's a certain vulnerability to those engaged in whatever behavior is it morally correct? Is it legally correct? And what she effectively did was shift the vulnerability back to the questioner, questioner in our government, at least, should have safety. to ask the question. And she shifted it psychologically. that's dangerous to our democracy. a, I won't call it a superb book, but there is a book references psychological safety and organizations. It's a leadership book. And in order to be the best organization that you can be Your people have to have psychological safety. They have to have the sense that they can pose questions even when they're dumb ones, bad questions, but they have to feel safe that they're not going to be chastised for asking the question because every once in a while there's going to be a good question that makes the organization better. And what she did was flip the script in a way that the questioners can't ask questions because now feel threatened. by search history. by the fact that they then have to endure an attack. And that's dangerous. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. David (17:26) it erases accountability. basically allows you to do whatever you want because You're never going to have to face the consequences or have to explain yourself. when somebody especially in a democracy, is no longer accountable. for their behavior, then... The gloves are whatever you want. It is a dangerous Rob (17:46) I can do whatever I want and you can't ask me questions about it. That is an authoritarian stance. administration certainly leans authoritarian. And this is one step further into the authoritarian world. David (18:00) You know what I've been thinking about a lot lately too we talk a lot about democracy. We talk a lot about this is what the norms were. This is how the country has always functioned along those lines and this concern about sliding towards a more authoritarian perspective. what end up thinking a lot about is that there is a pretty healthy segment of our population, at least the voting population, that's all for it. very happy with moving towards this authoritarian perspective. And you see that reflected in polls. Now, is, whittling down. Like various approval ratings, questions being less than It was. But it certainly still exists. It's somewhere in to 75 % of Republicans Rob (18:38) Mm-hmm. David (18:52) okay with these behaviors. Now, whether they identify them as being authoritarian, that's a good question. I don't know. it is less than it was because it was higher than when you break it down to the Republican versus Democrat versus independent, high over half of Republicans are saying, yep, we want this, we're good with it. That's troubling. Rob (19:15) It is. interesting thing about democracy is that democratic stance requires high level of psychological health. That democracy means every decision, is going to be scrutinized. And that's an uncomfortable for our tens of listeners, think about what it's like that every decision you make, goes to committee going to be scrutinized, it's going to be thought about, it's going to be questioned. all make decisions that, in retrospect, we're not proud of. we're not comfortable with. And we also don't want it to be pushed in our face. most decisions, they don't need to be pushed in your face. Humiliation is a powerful human word, to Rob, humiliation is actually the core human emotion. The absolute core don't make me question myself I am What I do it's core to us and it's it's the most vulnerable place and democracy absolutely requires tolerance for humiliation we're seeing at this point is that this administration, can't tolerate humiliation. They can't tolerate being questioned. They can't tolerate anyone thinking about their thought process, the logic behind it, et cetera. Rather than tolerating humiliation, They go and they attack. not a leadership position. That's not a position of strength. Strength comes from being confident in the thought process behind your decisions. Going on the attack implies very tentative, background to the decision-making process I often say this in my life is that if my decisions can't tolerate dissension Then they're bad decisions this is purely from a leadership standpoint if I can't accept someone disagrees with me then Ultimately, then I have to go backwards and question my decision to begin with because it was probably based on something that was shaky ground. And all we're seeing is shaky ground defense. David (21:25) got me thinking about, it's really meta actually when you talk about this because has been the norm throughout our entire history was is this, we'll call it a chilling it's Rob (21:29) It is. David (21:40) second order effect being constantly decision-making process to where you involving the expertise. So a typical president will surround themselves may agree with them, but at least experts in their field making policy carefully consider policy, they carefully consider the downstream effects of whatever the decisions are going to be because they know that they're going to be scrutinized. And they want to make sure that whenever they implement a policy, that that policy is going to have at least mostly beneficial effect for all the constituents. And when you were the president of United States, that means everybody. Rob (22:22) Everyone David (22:22) they also know they're going to be and negatively. But what you're aiming for is that once you get past that, there will be benefit want to make sure that what I'm doing is ultimately going to lead in that direction in a positive way. But what we're seeing that is so different is that intolerance of than having that downstream effect of careful consideration for policies, it has become a complete ignoring of criticism. is really shamelessness, we've said but it's a method of dealing with the criticism that doesn't require self-reflection, which is what presidents would do, even change their perspective Rob (22:55) Shameless. David (23:05) because you don't always know what a policy is going to do, but to be able to come back and say, did that don't get me wrong, like we saw that we saw this with Biden as well, to some extent with some of his policies, but not all of them. it's really, really fascinating because it looks like is Rob (23:10) Yeah. Mm-hmm. David (23:21) an echo chamber where all you're gonna get is positive feedback for the decisions that you're making even when the people a majority of them aren't liking it and then if you do hear those numbers the response is I don't trust those I don't think they're real Rob (23:36) the nature of democracy requires a healthy psychological profile. I mean, it assumes a healthy psychological profile. Now, we a strong ego. Yeah. David (23:46) A strong ego. It's a strong ego, right? It's the ability to tolerate dissension. And already know that there is a fragile ego by own admission driving the ship. Yeah. Yeah. Rob (23:52) Absolutely. deeply. Yes, by his words, by his words, he said this. you know, the nature of democracy, like our founding fathers, when they built this, they were assuming strong ego, healthy psychological profile. Now, they also build in some rules that sort of contained healthy psychological profile. at this time we're not even seeing policy. There is no policy. The policy is what supports an ego of this administration. is the closest thing to policy that we're seeing right now. There is not any prevailing idea of what is right, what is good. There is ever shifting, from moment to moment really, what supports the ego behind this? we feel this. Our tens of listeners, maybe fives of listeners at this point, who knows? We're probably losing David (24:51) a for sure. Rob (24:53) Healthy tens of listeners. So to our healthy tens of listeners, they feel the They feel this. This is the anxiety that we're all feeling, is that there is no prevailing policy. There is no sense that there is consistency across the board. This is ever changing, moment to moment, based on an ego. singular, one ego. And that makes it for the rest of us. David (25:21) clarify core is one ego. But you stretch out a little bit more to the exterior, what you have are simplistic, non-nuanced ideas that originated at the core and then shoot out to individual sub-leaders whose role from their own perspective, is to appease the core. And their only guidance was that simple version of policy, of something. Rob (25:51) Mm-hmm. David (25:52) Like you see this with DHS. have a leader of DHS. Rob (25:54) Hmm. Which in the midst of a DHS shutdown. David (26:00) because of that, But you have, leader whose perspective was one thing, was given one direction. Deport a million people a year. Department of Homeland Security does a hell of a lot more than ICE and CBP. Rob (26:01) Mm-hmm. They absolutely. David (26:17) They do a hell of a lot more, but the focus has been on this one task. of the fragility of the ego that exists at the core, constant all the different departmental appease and attention because you know, off of past experience that if you're not garnering positive attention that you are vulnerable. because the policy is just very simplistic, non nuanced thing, your actions are to just garner attention from that and to just try to appease it at all costs. And so whenever you're on the news, and you're going to be on the news a lot, but you can't say anything that's going to upset the ego. Even if it's a Rob (26:59) Yes. David (27:00) bald-faced lie, even if it is completely fabricated, even if there is not even enough information to have an opinion, you just say the thing that's going to appease the ego and endure the fallout because you know that you are more vulnerable from the core than anything Rob (27:18) that's the fragility of what we're witnessing I'm not going to say that every president has been psychologically patent. They have it. And in drive to become president, to be the leader of this nation, probably at its core comes from something that is not entirely psychologically healthy. We need leaders. But leadership in and of itself is, underlying it. What we're seeing at this point is a fragility at that leadership position that is ridiculously unique, in fact. It is that everything they do, everything that we're seeing is so tied to that ego structure, to that. fragility, that it defies the consistency that is required in democracy. that's required in governance. history has taught us, is that we need consistent policy and idea. Now, whether that idea is good, bad, indifferent, that plays out over time. But we need an idea that everything falls behind, that all of it is consistent. And yes, these decisions are made and then people have to defend them in order to convey to the populace that an idea behind a policy that drives this. And we all feel it. We feel it in our bones, the instability. of an ego. the interesting thing to me feel it on such a level that we actually end up identifying with then we don't question because get it. We understand fragility. we expect better. We're just accepting it because we feel it in our bones, at our core. we understand why this administration, this president is so fragile. David (29:13) can't say not questioning it because I'm not surprised by it. But I think when you, when you think, ⁓ yeah, we're not surprised by you think about the fact that a good leader is not necessarily a good technician, and actually rarely, rarely is rarely is a good leader, a good technician. Rob (29:17) We're not surprised by it. Maybe that's it. Shouldn't be. David (29:34) But with that, really good leader understands how to authority, appropriately get a team to function, but also understands that as a leader, you are fallible. You will make mistakes. you will sometimes make bad choices, but a good leader surrounds themselves with Rob (29:44) Yes. David (29:55) people that can perform and perform well. knowing that this leader does not appear to believe that anything said, done or otherwise by this leader is wrong. already shows that there would be poor leadership. Now, when we were watching select the technicians he would be leading. I think it was also pretty clear that there was no intention of having good technicians. It was about appeasing the leader. So can you really say that you're surprised that this is the way things are going now? That the wheels on this particular vehicle are wobbly? and coming off when the technicians don't know how to put on wheels. You can't. know. Rob (30:38) that we end up doing this and one of the reasons I was interested in doing this is that you're a smart guy and you put words to things that I sometimes can't. and you just nailed it that leadership isn't being a technician. It's identifying technicians that can do the job that you can't do individually, but that, you know, in total, you make happen. is by definition leadership. And this administration, has not identified technicians that can do the job. identified individuals that can feed the ego. And we're getting the results that is commensurate with that. That when you're feeding the ego, you're not doing the job, our tens of listeners can identify with this. In those moments when they are ego-driven, they're probably not doing the job that they need to do in their lives. They're not taking care of the kids. They're not doing their work. And feeding the ego temporarily feels good. It feels fine. not questioning myself. I don't need to question myself. But in the scope of time, which our tens of listeners can identify with because they've lived lives, that ends up being a very hollow way to approach it. That they actually end up feeling better when they're doing the fucking they're actually doing the work, when they're taking care of the kids and they're taking care of their responsibilities and they're taking care of their life. when they're contributing, that's when they actually feel good. When they are defending their ego, they don't, they feel hollow. I'm now telling tens of listeners what they ego driven for me. And I apologize to our tens of listeners that I've just... David (32:25) I think, I think. Rob (32:29) in a very ego driven way told you how you feel. David (32:32) No, I think very real world example that any parent can truly understand and really honestly, anybody who's been a child, which hopefully is everybody, as a parent, when you're really busy and you tell a younger child, clean your room. Rob (32:42) All of And they don't. Yeah. David (32:50) and because you have other shit to do. Well, what's the kid gonna do? Because the child doesn't know how to clean their room. mean, really, the first time, they don't know how to clean their room. They know what a clean room looks like, but they don't know how it got there. And so what does the child do? They take all their shit and they throw it under the bed. They loosely throw... Rob (33:11) Ha David (33:16) their comforter on top of the bed and it looks like garbage and maybe there's fucking stuffed animal like it's just a lumpy and they go mom look dad I clean my room and they're excited because they feel like they did a great made an error because you you never you didn't show them how to clean a room properly and Frank frankly they're when they're when kids are young Rob (33:19) Yeah. Yeah It's clean. Yeah. Yeah. David (33:41) They don't have the capacity to have the patience and the organizational skills to do it properly, but you expected them. You expected them to do it. And because they just wanted to appease your ego, they did their best. And then what happens? They make a fucking mess of And it actually ends up taking you longer to go in and clean up. Yeah. And you, but that's what this is, Rob (34:00) unorganized mass. David (34:06) this concept of what you want. They do not. Because it's a loose concept. It's too simple. You didn't say, I want you to put all your books away on the shelves properly. I want you to put all your stuffed animals into it. want you to make, you know, you didn't tell them that. Because you didn't have that concept in your mind. All you knew was, I want the room clean. Go do it. that's what we're seeing is we're seeing this room that has been not properly cleaned because your child doesn't know how to clean it. a normal reaction would be to either go in and clean it yourself, which if you don't have time, you give specific direction. Okay, go get all your shit out from under your bed. and want you to put your toys on the shelf where they belong and so on and so forth. What we're seeing from this administration though is something very different. It's not even looking at the room. It's basically saying, did you clean your room buddy? Sure did. Okay. Awesome. Well done. Good job. Keep it up. If we project this forward, I mean, it's only been a year and what we have is a fucking mess of a room. Rob (35:06) I know. David (35:10) that is being set is clean and we haven't fixed anything. And so it's going to only get worse because now child is getting complacent and comfortable with their quote unquote ability to clean a room. And so, we're going to have ants. That's what's going to happen, Robbie. We're going to have ants. We're going to have ants in DHS. It's going to be everywhere. Rob (35:27) Ha ha ha! David (35:31) Because we're just, we're saying good job when a good job has not been done. In fact, a terrible job has been done. things are worse. We project this forward three years, whoever the next administration Republican, Democrat, Green, whatever the fuck, what they're going to have is a whole bunch of rooms are shambles. That's what we're going to Rob (35:35) No. Yeah, organized chaos is what we have. it's a lovely analogy, actually. sense of cleanliness, the sense of organization is driven a singular individual. They're saying, All right, that's good enough. let me actually dig in just a little deeper. It's not good enough, but it's good enough for this ego. and you're right. The next administration, which hilariously you said the green party. Very starting to hilariously. Yeah. Yeah. That that's who's going to be in the next. That's, that's who's going to win. David (36:18) I'm being nice, Rob (36:26) You're right. You're right. It be. ⁓ David (36:27) Mm-hmm. Could be. Could be. Didn't David Duke endorse the Green Party candidate this last time? Yeah. So, you know, maybe. Rob (36:35) I think he did. I think he David fucking Duke. put that on your poster folks. David Duke says, I wish you hadn't endorsed me. David (36:42) Endorsed by David Duke. Thank you, sir. No, it's I mean really, but yeah. I mean, I honestly, that's what I, if you were not green party, you'd probably just put that the other guy was endorsed by David Duke. put that on yours. Just remember when you're going to vote. but the. Rob (37:01) Which strikes me is like how much douchebaggery has to be involved in thinking you're important enough to endorse anyone. David (37:09) In all fairness, he did endorse Trump the first time he ran. He said the reason he didn't endorse Trump the second time was because Trump was in the pocket of Israel or some shit like that. Like that was his only reason for not endorsing him But he otherwise would have endorsed him. Yeah. No. Rob (37:28) Trump's close with anyone. He's not close with a single individual. David (37:33) But OK, so the analogy, though, is is like when other kid is saying their rooms not clean, it's not clean. And you're like, shut the fuck up. Shut up. It is clean. He told me it was clean. All is good. I'm taking it. That's where that's where we're at. Is this I told him to do it. He said he did it. Awesome, he did exactly what I said, we're all good. Where the other kid's like, but wait, my room is, my room is clean. Shut up, Karen. You hater. I've got your search logs. You want to talk about your search logs there, Karen? Rob (38:04) Well, you know, this is the fascinating thing about this show. I'll call it a show. I don't know what else to call it. the thing we do, we started out with a very limited. And here we have expanded beyond that, which I find fascinating and wonderful at the same time. Yeah, shut up, Karen. should be our new catchphrase for us is that, you know, we end up expanding these things so far beyond what they are. Maybe we're being Karen's. Maybe. David (38:34) Maybe. All right. get to our prescriptions so that we can end this nightmare. Rob (38:39) a bullet in this one. Yeah David (38:40) to call this one the audit log candle. So you're going to light a candle for every time somebody turns a boring administrative tool like audit logs into a dominance performance, and then blow it out when you feel your shoulders drop two millimeters. You're not going to fix anything, but you are noticing that there's an incentive structure without getting your nervous system to involve. Rob (39:01) I'm going to say Congress must treat, quote unquote, victims in the room as humans and not props. We didn't talk about this that much in this episode, but the thing that struck me about the Pam Bondi hearing, was that these humans who were mistreated were abused. were treated as props, that they were a thing that the conversation ended up revolving around, but weren't people. So dragging survivors into gotcha moments is moral theater. So refusing to acknowledge them as humans as people who experience something negative is just wrong. So you got to pick a lane. You're either going to be accountable or it's going to be spectacle. And we tend to choose spectacle. David (39:50) Yeah, and it is unfortunate, but it also feels like purposeful move by everybody. survivors sitting there being used as props, it was pretty clear that had no intention of acknowledging the humanity of those people. And what she was able to do was drag the Congress people out of that as well. Rob (40:14) actually brings me additional prescription that the public has to quit rewarding contempt as She approached this with contempt. And when a washed up loser lawyer becomes the headline, the institution's lost. You can't. rebuild trust contempt. And that's all that was demonstrated in this hearing was contempt for the institutions of democracy. David (40:41) And finally, if you tell your kids to clean their room and they don't know how, realize they want to appease you. So just give them some solid instructions so that they know how to clean their room and you will be much more appeased than, you clean your room, buddy? Sure did. All right. And then later you have to deal with ants. Rob (40:59) No ants, folks. our avoid the ants. David (41:03) that pretty much sums it up for today. Want to thank everybody for sticking around. We want to ask is that you go to our website, Sign up for our mailing list. able to get any new information that we have as soon as possible. That'd be a good place to go. Go up and hit our socials, subscribe, like, share. Please do. We would love for our tens of listeners to become hundreds of listeners and maybe even thousands at some point. know that our listeners thoughtful And we want to can get more people to listen to us send us some messages about that's good and what's how you want us move things forward from here. than that, Thanks so much, Rob (41:37) You summed it up beautifully. David (41:39) up that music and we are out.