June 26, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
16:31
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Hey everybody, come on in here. | |
| And if you have a warm beverage, or a cool one, even better, come on in. | |
| Today, after the simultaneous sip, and once we reach a thousand viewers, I'm going to present a fiery defense of Peter Strzok, Patriot. | |
| Are you ready? Oh, those of you who have coffee at the same time, it doesn't get better. | |
| If you've got a soft drink, it's pretty good. | |
| Pretty good. All right. | |
| So, Peter Strzok, as you know... | |
| It has been discovered that he had some emails that suggested he may have tried to change the result of our election. | |
| He may have been so anti-Trump. | |
| That he may have done things we don't know, but allegedly done things that could have led to President Trump losing the election or being impeached after the election. | |
| He was involved in the Hillary server escapade in which they went light on her. | |
| He was involved in the Russia investigation very early on, if you know what I mean. | |
| Now, how could anybody Possibly present a defense. | |
| What kind of defense would be good enough? | |
| I hope he has good lawyers. | |
| And if he doesn't have good lawyers, I hope he's watching this periscope because it could keep him out of jail. | |
| What follows is my defense, a Peter Strzok FBI agent who we know from the evidence He had a very anti-Trump bias, and allegedly his emails tell us that he may have wanted to have an insurance policy to change the result of the election. | |
| Here is my defense, and it goes like this. | |
| Number one, what was his motive? | |
| What was his motive? | |
| Is there anything in the emails that suggest he had personal financial gain, or at least directly? | |
| Is there anything to suggest that he was working for somebody else? | |
| Is there anything to suggest Now, if you say he was doing it to impress a girl, you have to also understand that he wasn't the only one involved in this form of thinking, and that many of them had the same point of view, but only a few of them may have had access to the levers of the department. | |
| So it seems to me that his motives, correct me if I'm wrong, but they're suggested very clearly in the emails. | |
| He believed that a President Trump was a monster and that he would be terrible for the country. | |
| Nowhere in there did you see something like, Hillary will be awesome, although there was a clear preference. | |
| Wasn't it clearly a generic, meaning a widespread, fear that he was genuinely in a situation where he alone Had access to changing the result. | |
| He believed he was in a Hitler-like nightmare, and only he could change the result. | |
| Now you say to yourself, Pascal, that is not a defense. | |
| It is not a defense that he had a reason for breaking the law. | |
| Correct. It is not. | |
| I'm not done yet. | |
| Let me continue. | |
| I have to call some witnesses. | |
| Number one, I'd like to call... | |
| Oh, well, before I call this witness, I'm going to stop and pause this periscope because I saw some comments I didn't like. | |
| So I'm just going to pause it right now and we'll be done with this. | |
| No, just kidding. | |
| Just kidding. Now, did you think I was actually going to pause this? | |
| Were you positive I was going to pause it? | |
| Were you positive that I wasn't? | |
| Or would you say that your state of mind, when it looked like I was going to pause it, was more of a reasonable doubt situation? | |
| You probably had a strong opinion. | |
| He'll do it, he won't do it. | |
| But I'll bet you weren't positive. | |
| You probably had a little reasonable doubt. | |
| I'd like to call my first witness, an advertising executive at the firm of... | |
| It doesn't really matter. | |
| Mr. Advertising Executive, in your vast experience and based on much science, can you tell us that advertising works? | |
| Well, yes, thanks for asking. | |
| Advertising does work. Here's exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C. You can see that you can move people with advertising to do things that they would not have otherwise been inclined to do. | |
| And then you say, but can you tell if any individual got moved by advertising? | |
| Well, sometimes, but usually not. | |
| Normally, the only thing you can tell is that the average moved, or you got more customers doing this, or you A-B tested, and this one was better than that one. | |
| Mr. Advertising Executive, how good are we today, in the year 2018, at influencing people with advertising, Compared to where we were 20 years ago. | |
| Are we just as effective? | |
| More effective? Oh my God, let me tell you. | |
| We thought we were good 20 years ago. | |
| At this point, we can reprogram your damn brain. | |
| You see what Facebook's doing to people? | |
| We're triggering massive mental illness with devices that we think are helping us. | |
| Oh man, is it more effective. | |
| Today we can do this massive immediate A-B testing. | |
| You think you own your brain? | |
| Sort of, but not really, because you're being so influenced by the masters of influence who used to be just a little bit good, but now they're really good. | |
| Well, that's just advertising. | |
| Let's bring up another expert. | |
| Mr. Mental Health Professional, after the election of 2016, did you notice any change in the mental health of the country? | |
| Did I? Oh my God! | |
| I heard cases and saw cases and I've done extensive research so I know these things. | |
| People were literally vomiting. | |
| They were physically sick at the thought That a President Trump, who they imagined would be a monster, had just come to power. | |
| There were people who cried. | |
| There was an uptick in people asking for mental health counseling. | |
| People were screaming in the streets. | |
| It was a huge society-wide mental breakdown. | |
| And what was it that they all believed? | |
| I mean, not just disagreeing with the politics, but what did they actually believe? | |
| Like, literally believe? | |
| I know you might not believe this, but they literally, and I'm a mental health expert, and I mean this literally, Believed that a Hitler-like character had just come to power. | |
| Like an actual Hitler. | |
| The kind who rounds people up and puts them in concentration camps and kills the brown ones and the ones that have defects. | |
| Like actual, real frickin' Hitler. | |
| So, how many people do you think were affected by this? | |
| Seven or eight? Probably 20 to 30 million? | |
| Best guess? | |
| 20 to 30 million people thought actual Hitler got elected? | |
| Well, I believe you when you say this, but it still doesn't make sense. | |
| I'm going to need another expert. | |
| And so I call to the stand the best cognitive scientist in the world, whose name is Marlowe, doesn't matter. | |
| The best cognitive scientist in the world, someone who's an expert on persuasion in all its forms, someone who studied this Greatly. | |
| Mr. Expert on all things persuasion and cognitive, did anything happen during the election that could have triggered a massive, legitimate mental health problem? | |
| Why yes, there was something. | |
| And apparently it did exactly that. | |
| People were persuaded that literally Hitler was coming to power. | |
| I could go through the details, but it's in this great book called Winn-Bigley, and you could just read it all there. | |
| Or you could go to a blog by... | |
| No, never mind. And yes, the cognitive sciences would confirm That you could convince somebody that they were actually under the control of a Hitler regime. | |
| And it apparently is exactly what happened. | |
| And so, it's very likely. | |
| We can't say for sure, but within a reasonable doubt kind of scenario, It's fair to say that Peter Strzok and his coworkers who had similar thoughts were people who had a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome and therefore were not operating under their own good powers of thought. | |
| They had a diminished capacity and therefore you should let my client free. | |
| Oh, Scott, it doesn't work like that. | |
| He broke the law. | |
| He's not technically crazy. | |
| He knew what he was doing. | |
| He had a motive. | |
| He had an opportunity. Bing, bang, bong, bing. | |
| Guilty. And then, because every movie needs a third act, it's hopeless now. | |
| It's hopeless. It was my best defense. | |
| It's hopeless. Because the judge has just ruled. | |
| Law is the law. | |
| You can't just say, I wasn't thinking well that day. | |
| What kind of country do you want to live in? | |
| Where people can just say, well, I killed somebody, but it's okay because I thought he did something. | |
| I stole something, but it's okay because I could have swore there was no law against that. | |
| No, Scott. Your defense is clever. | |
| But the law is the law. | |
| He broke the law. He knew what he was doing. | |
| Jail time. But there's still a twist. | |
| Yes, this story has a twist. | |
| And here it comes. I wasn't talking to you, Mr. | |
| Judge. I was talking to the President, who has the power to pardon. | |
| And I say to him, Mr. | |
| President, are you convinced that Trump derangement syndrome is real? | |
| And you know what he thinks? | |
| Yup. Yes, the President and his entire administration and pretty much everybody who supported him would agree that Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a joke. | |
| It's a real, actual medical problem. | |
| And I would submit, Mr. | |
| President, that if you wanted to pop that bubble, if you wanted to make Trump Derangement Syndrome go away, You have a great opportunity. | |
| You will pardon Peter Strzok. | |
| Because what is the one thing he feared the most? | |
| Peter Strzok. What is the one thing that drove career FBI people to break the law of the land that they had sworn to uphold? | |
| The laws of. The one thing was a legitimate, genuine belief That President Trump was a monster. | |
| Who are the real enemies here? | |
| The fake news. | |
| The persuaders on the Democrat side who thought they were creating a persuasion bomb that would be defused the moment Hillary Clinton won the election. | |
| But in fact, they accidentally built a persuasion bomb that couldn't be defused because President Trump won the election. | |
| There is only one way to diffuse this huge persuasion bomb. | |
| Don't prove Peter Strzok was right all along. | |
| I rest my case. | |
| I'm just looking at your comments. | |
| You're reaching. So, of course I know that there's no legal defense. | |
| If the allegations against Peter Strzok are true or mostly true, the justice system will have to find him guilty. | |
| If that happens, Trump derangement syndrome gets worse, not better. | |
| If we understand what is driving the fear and the genuine mental illness, genuine mental illness on the side that's out of power, you pardon him in return for full disclosure. | |
| Full disclosure. | |
| So the deal is he's got to narc out his friends. | |
| Maybe they deserve some pardons too. | |
| But he's got to come clean, and he's got to tell us, honestly, I thought I was doing the right thing. | |
| Then, eligible for a pardon. | |
| It's too early to do that, right? | |
| Because there's more to learn, and there are investigations ongoing. | |
| But I submit to you, Trump derangement syndrome has gone from a clever thing people said to a genuine super problem. | |
| And there are ways to fix it, but you're going to have to do something unexpected. | |
| This is the most unexpected thing anybody could do. | |
| Who's the president who does unexpected things? | |
| Well, we got one now. | |
| Alright, that's all for today. |
Export Selection