All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 25, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
45:34
Episode 272 Scott Adams: Talking About Bombs
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, Olga.
Come on in here.
The rest of you two, come on in.
Ricky, John, gather around, get your cup, get your mugs of coffee.
Because you know what time it is.
I think you do. It's almost time for the simultaneous sip.
It's time for coffee with Scott Adams.
Grab your mug, your stein, your container, your cup.
And lift it with your favorite beverage.
I like coffee and join me for the simultaneous sip.
Ah.
Well, let me start off today's Periscope the same way I'm likely to end it.
Which is by saying nobody condones violence.
And by saying there's nothing funny about Somebody sending bombs to public figures, especially because I'm a public figure.
I don't like anything happening to public figures.
You can see, obviously, why.
That said, life does go on, and there are some very interesting, dare I say, humorous elements of the story.
But violence is not funny.
With one exception, which I'll talk about in a minute.
So where to start with this?
So let's go FBI profiler.
Okay? So let's play FBI profiler, and we're going to try to figure out who the perpetrator is.
Now, some people have said, hey, it's a false flag, and it's probably some kind of Democrat pretending to be a Republican because the midterms are coming.
To which I say, possible.
Possible. But...
I'm not going that way.
I'm still saying it's somebody on the right, somebody who is a Trump supporter specifically, but may not be mentally all there, or certainly is mentally not all there.
Now there's something that has been missed, it seems to me, and you might not see this on television.
So what I'm going to tell you, you may never see in the regular media Because there's something they can't say.
You ready for it?
There's something about this list of the people who got the fake bombs.
And today we heard that possibly Robert De Niro and also Joe Biden may have gotten bomb packages that also did not go off.
What is it about this particular group of Democrats?
Because I saw that De Niro's spokesperson said, well, it's obvious that these people have something in common.
But did we get the right thing that they have in common?
Let me describe the people who got the bombs, but I'm going to describe them the way the press has described them.
Now when I talk about the press, in this case I'm talking about both the left and the right.
So what I'm going to present is not my opinion.
This is not my opinion coming up.
This is a description of the people who receive these bombs according to the press.
The press is the press on the right and the press on the left.
So sometimes I'll be picking from the right, sometimes from the left, But here's, you've got two people who have said in public they want to punch the president.
That's De Niro and Biden.
You've got at least one accused serial rapist.
That's Bill Clinton.
You've got one person who painted half of the country as Nazis.
If you paint half the country as Nazis, you're really sort of marking them for violence.
That was Hillary Clinton.
We've got one person on the list who's accused of being a Nazi collaborator.
I believe that's not accurate, but if you're reading various types of press, you know, not the top-level press, but the lower-level, less-dependable press, on the right will tell you that George Soros was a Nazi collaborator when he was 14 years old, which I consider ridiculous.
That's my opinion.
But the press has branded these people the way I'm describing.
There's one person on the list who allegedly tried to rig an election and succeeded.
There's somebody on the list who tried to rig the United States election and succeeded, Debbie Wasserman.
There's somebody on the list who's a deep state trader and the leader of them.
Again, not my opinion.
I'm giving you the characterizations that you would have seen in the press, either the left or the right.
So one of them is the head trader of the deep state.
I'm not saying this in my opinion.
I'm saying that's how the press has portrayed John Brennan.
There's one person on the list who said you should kick, kick Republicans when they're down.
A call to violence.
There's one person on the list who said you should harass Republicans wherever you find them.
Maxine Waters. And there's Obama who's on the list.
You could make a case that he has or has not done anything that would put him on this list.
I would say not so much, but he's sort of the head symbol of the other side.
So here's what's interesting.
Here's what's Think about the people who are not on the list.
There are a lot of people who are not on the list.
For example, where is Nancy Pelosi on this list?
Nancy Pelosi is not on the list.
Chuck Schumer is not on the list.
Let me tell you why Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were not on the bombers list.
Because those two people, you might not like their politics, But they are not fricking assholes.
Again, I'm not defending a bomber.
That's not what's happening here.
I'm saying that if we're trying to profile the bomber and try to figure out why would he target this group as opposed to any other group, he has left off two of the biggest Democrats.
He left off Bernie.
He left off Pelosi.
He left off Schumer. What do those three people have in common?
To their credit, Pelosi, Schumer, and Bernie have never advocated violence of any kind against Republicans.
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders have Have never used words that demonized the entire Republican Party, as in deplorable, as in racist.
Well, they've probably played with the racist term, but that's sort of routine politics in their case.
Those three people are not on the list.
The people who are on the list are people who specifically, allegedly, according to the media, not according to me, According to the media, either the left or the right, have been promoting violence against the right.
Or they've been involved in something that looks like, literally, an overthrow of the government.
So I would say, and let me say this every 10 seconds, it's not my opinion.
I'm giving you the characterization that someone would have if they watched the media.
Not watching me, but watching the media.
So, I'm going to say definitely Republican.
And here's the reason it's not a false flag.
If it were a false flag, some of the people on the list...
Would be the kind that had not called for an overthrow of the government, who had not been Nazis or racists, had not been accusing people of racists, I mean, had not been offering up the idea of violence against Republicans.
If it had been a black, what would you call it, a false flag, If it had been a false flag, they would have picked, even accidentally, they would have picked some people who didn't belong on the list.
They would have picked Pelosi.
They would have picked Schumer.
Maybe Bernie. They would have picked Cory Booker.
Has Cory Booker called for any violence against Republicans?
I don't think so. It's not an accident why this group is on the list.
To me, this has every look of a Republican who has been pulled in by the media.
In other words, the media has created a narrative about all of these people, which in some cases is deserved.
I'm not saying it's not deserved.
But it's clear to me that it's a Republican.
So I'm guessing Republican.
Now, I said there's nothing funny about attempted violence.
But you be the judge.
I tweeted this yesterday and it got over 6,000 retweets, which is a big number for me, and 20,000 likes.
And I said about the topic, I said, my first thought was that the bombs came from a Republican.
Then I learned the bombs don't work.
Use your own judgment about whether that's funny or insightful.
But that's just a joke.
It looks like the bombs were either made by somebody who's not completely in their mental capacity or somebody who didn't intend them to go off.
So that's possible.
But my official prediction is a Republican who has been activated by the press.
In this case, more by the press, the right-leaning press, than the left-leaning press.
But certainly both.
Now, what's interesting here is watching the press...
Try to make a case.
So right now the press is trying to make sure that the president gets most of the blame because the alternative to that is the press itself.
So the press is in full out, it's not us, it's not us, especially the CNN side of the world.
Now, let me give you my take on this.
Here are some of the things that people in the press are showing as equivalents.
They will say, for example, well, sure, there was that person on the left who took a gun to the baseball game and shot up Steve Scalise and other folks.
And yeah, that's an example of something that happened on the left.
But it's not just the left.
They would say, look at that guy who brought a gun to the pizza parlor because he believed that there might have been children somehow in the basement of the pizza parlor based on a conspiracy theory that they were being sexually abused.
Are those equivalents?
There's something different about those two situations.
One is somebody who went to a baseball game to kill people.
The other is somebody who went to a pizza parlor to save children.
Now, he was wrong.
There were no children there.
But did that guy go to the pizza parlor to kill people?
There's no evidence of that.
He had a weapon, because you would need a weapon to do whatever he was going to do.
But he was, unfortunately, had been hoaxed by the media and by social media.
More social media than the media, so I'll say social media.
And it's not exactly the same thing.
So when we compare those two, keep in mind that one was trying to save children and the other was trying to kill adults.
Not exactly equivalent.
But let's look at the things that are equivalent.
I'm seeing in the media, and I saw it this morning on CNN, that since 9-11, this is the number of people who have died in what you would call terrorist attacks at the United States.
There have been 73 right-wing attacks.
In other words, there have been 72 classified terrorist domestic attacks by people who would be associated with the political right.
CNN reports that there were 104 jihadist attacks, but we're not talking about that today.
So let's just look at 73 right-wing attacks.
And then they said there were only 8 deaths.
No, 73 people died from right-wing attacks.
That's what it is. It's not the number of attacks.
It's how many died. 73 people died from right-wing attacks.
8 people died from some kind of black activist attack.
And they left out how many left-leaning deaths there were.
In other words, CNN reported on the number of people who were killed by political affiliation, and they left out liberals.
Like, the whole category isn't there.
The whole frickin' category isn't there.
They just left it out.
These are the categories that they reported.
Right-wing attacks, things specifically related to African-Americans, and then jihadists.
Where's the guy who attacked the baseball field?
Where's the guy who shot, I guess, because nobody died?
So it doesn't have to be on the list.
Is that right? So I saw this other list, too, where there were all these people killed by right-wings.
And let me ask you this.
I watched the news...
Do you remember that in the last dozens of years, whatever, is it your recollection that there have been lots of right-wing terrorist attacks that killed people?
Why don't I remember them?
And how come every time they're reported, either on CNN or they're reported on social media, there are lots of graphs you're seeing?
Nobody points to the detail.
Why is it that I don't remember any of these, almost any of them?
I remember a couple of the big ones, but Las Vegas was not a political act, so that wouldn't even be in the list, or it shouldn't be.
So, are we being duped again?
Because the news is consistently reporting, at least the left-leaning news is consistently reporting that right-wingers have killed far, far more people, not even close, far more people in the United States in what would be classified terror attacks.
Do you remember those?
Have you seen the list to him?
Now, Las Vegas would not be in the list because that motive is unknown and didn't seem to be politics.
So, yeah, there's something wrong here, right?
They're making a claim that's a really radical claim, but they never point to the detail.
There's a reason for that.
There's something about the detail that doesn't work.
If the details worked, in other words, if pointing to the details and saying, all these right-wing attacks happened, here's the list.
Look at this long list.
If the details were persuasive, they would point to the details every time they talked about it.
So, that's a big problem in my opinion.
Now, I'm watching CNN say that the responsibility is with the president.
Let's talk about that.
Let me start by saying that it is probably true that anybody who amps up the emotion in politics has a risk of activating the crazier parts of society.
There's a very low risk that the average person is going to pick up a weapon.
But it's a big country.
You only need one bomber to completely dominate our attention.
So out of 300-whatever-million Americans, what are the chances that, let's say, provocative political speech would cause somebody to pick up a weapon?
I will tell you the odds of that.
It's 100%.
It wouldn't matter who the politician was.
It wouldn't matter if we're talking about the news doing something that was provocative.
It wouldn't matter if we're talking about a Democrat.
It wouldn't matter if we're talking about a Republican.
If you elevate the temperature of political speech, you've got 300 million people.
Some of them have guns.
Some of them have time.
Some of them are crazy.
Someone's going to pick up a gun.
Now, is that a reason to not do it?
Some would say yes.
But the trouble is that free speech has this problem in all kinds of topics.
There are all kinds of topics where if you simply talk about something in a public way, there are so many people in the country, there's somebody who's going to go kill themselves or kill you.
I've also made the argument that when I was a kid, I used to laugh when people would say that the music or the, you know, and now you'd say the video games, but when people say that they would cause somebody to go murder or kill themselves or something like that.
And I would say, nobody's going to kill themselves over a song.
Nobody's going to go murder somebody because of music.
But then I grew up, and I learned about persuasion, and I learned how different people are, and I learned about how deep the mental health problem is in America.
And now, I take it as a matter of fact with no doubt whatsoever.
What I'm going to say, there is no hesitation, no doubt, not the slightest chance I'm wrong.
If you have 300-plus million people, and you send them provocative messages on any topic, some of them are going to do some deeply bad stuff you don't want to happen.
That is what free speech looks like.
So if you don't want that stuff to happen, you have to get rid of free speech.
Because the only way you're going to get rid of it is to get rid of free speech, and we're not going to do that.
That said... It still is fair to police our speech.
Let's talk about the president and compare him to the media and to the Democrats.
The media and the Democrats, the anti-Trumpers, let's say, Have created a picture of reality through consistent reporting that has been reinforced as recently as yesterday by Senator Harani who said that when the president calls himself a nationalist that we should not give him the benefit of a doubt that he's just talking about our national identity but rather he's a racist.
What is What happens when a sitting senator says, without any hint of hyperbole, that the President of the United States is a racist?
What does that do to the political temperature?
Well, the first thing it does is, if you're a man, or you're on the right, you're conservative, if you don't vote this year, you're freaking crazy.
Because this is the sort of thing you need a lot less of, right?
Harani has actually, she's insulted men and she's insulted essentially all Republicans and all conservatives because pretty much all of them would consider nationalist a compliment, not an insult.
Or at least they would consider nationalist just an objective description of somebody who follows the Constitution, basically.
And so compare that.
Now compare from the election on that Hillary and her team have been painting Republicans and me.
I'm going to put myself in this category because as a labeled Trump supporter, people have been calling me a Nazi and Joseph Goebbels since the election.
Am I less safe because of what Democrats and what the press has said about Republicans and therefore has extended to me?
I'm not Republican, but they've extended it to me.
Am I less safe in this country?
Absolutely. Am I in danger of being killed because of the environment that the press And the Democrats working together have created.
Absolutely. I am absolutely at greater danger in this world because of CNN. So CNN has to own that.
CNN has made me less safe.
Now, of course, the other side would say, but you're all a bunch of racists, so you've made us less safe by electing Trump, etc.
So that's their movie that they're seeing in their head.
But the movie in my head is the one that gets people killed.
The movie that other people are seeing in their head is not materializing because there are no concentration camps.
It's just not materializing.
But the one in my head, the one where the press has made it a dangerous place to live, did cause somebody to take a weapon to a baseball game and start shooting Republicans.
That happened. That was real.
So, Now let's compare that to the president's rhetoric.
And there's a filter I'm going to put on this that you've never seen before.
That's why you watch my Periscopes.
Here's the filter you've never seen before.
Humor changes over the decades.
Nobody's said this to you before.
I've said it on different contexts, but it's important here.
The thing that looks like a joke, the thing that looks like humor, is different in the 40s than it was in the 50s, than it was in the 60s.
About every 10 years or so, what we consider the best form of humor, the popular form of humor, changes.
This is an important concept for what comes next.
When I was a kid, humor was very slapstick.
When I was a kid, the Three Stooges were a huge phenomenon.
I was never a fan.
I never cared for the Three Stooges.
But their entire act was getting slapped on the head and somebody poked in the eyes and hit by a board.
And it was all physical violence humor.
Now, viewed from a lens of 2018, you say to yourself, my god, who ever thought that was funny?
But that's not the point.
The point is that it used to be generally considered what humor looked like, and now it's generally considered inappropriate.
Last night, Christine and I watched a movie that I think was made in the 90s called There's Something About Mary.
It's a humorous movie with, well, you don't need to know more than that.
It's a humorous movie, and we watched it, and there was very little in that movie That you could put in a movie today.
At least a third of the movie, probably a third of the humor in the movie, involved laughing at people with physical or mental disabilities.
Can you even frickin' imagine that?
I remember watching it at the time, when it was a new movie, and laughing uproariously.
And I don't remember being offended by anything.
But even I, who was not offended by anything, I watched that movie through a lens of 2018 and it was cringeworthy.
You should go back and watch it.
It is cringeworthy because of making fun of people who had physical and mental disabilities and it was really hard to watch.
So that's how much humor has changed in those few decades.
Now here's how this matters.
I and others have been saying that when the president says his provocative things at rallies, that is humor.
And other people are saying, that's not humor.
When you say, I'll pay for the doctor's bills, knock the heck out of him.
When you say stuff like that, that's not funny.
Here's what's missing.
Trump supporters tend to skew older and rural people.
The people who are against Trump tend to be younger, more female, younger, and urban.
Those two groups have different senses of humor.
Trump comes from an era in which if you said, I'm going to kick your ass, I'm going to beat you up, it's often said with an understanding that that's not real.
It's just a way of talking.
It's sort of a humorous, kind of normal way to express things.
Why do I say that it is normal for somebody of Trump's age to talk about beating people up and just saying, well, we're just joking.
Look at Joe Biden.
What did Joe Biden say in public?
The same age, right? So Joe Biden, same age, he said that he would take Trump behind the bleachers if he were in school with him and beat him up.
Now, what was the reaction when Biden said that?
I don't remember, but I'm pretty sure it was laughter.
So, in other words, people didn't think that Biden meant literally to take him and punch him.
Biden is of a certain age.
Trump is of a certain age.
I'm of a certain age.
I'm younger than them, but I'm old enough to know that I can't tell you the number of times that somebody has corrected me over, let's say, the last 10 or 20 years because I've said something I thought was funny that other people thought was too violent.
And it's a generational thing.
Slapstick humor, where somebody gets hurt, but they don't get killed, is a characteristic of an old type of humor that people of a certain age, and especially males.
The Three Stooges was largely a male humor property.
If you're a certain age and you're male and you say you're going to kick somebody's ass, you probably don't mean it seriously.
And you also think that other people understand it as not being serious.
That's the problem.
When Trump is in his rally mode, I think the part we can all agree on is that he's trying to be entertaining.
He's trying to be funny, and based on the laughter and the reaction and the size of the crowds, he is succeeding really well.
In terms of making an audience laugh and be engaged and just be on the same page with them, he's really, really, really good at it.
And historians will agree for sure.
I believe that everyone in the Trump rally, with the exception, I think, of one old guy who got confused and actually tried to hurt somebody once early on in the campaign.
But lately, there's been essentially zero, I think, zero altercations at Trump rallies.
Wouldn't you say that people who go to Trump rallies understand that when he talks like that, it's for the effect, it's part of the act, it's part of the humor.
It's just that not everybody sees slapstick humor as funny.
If you're young, female, and urban, probably that's not your style of humor.
And to you it just looks like, hey wait a minute, that sounds like a little bit of violence.
Let me give you another example.
How old is Eric Holder?
Eric Holder looks like he's somewhere around my age, 60s?
I'm not sure. Eric Holder said that when the Republicans are down, wait, was it Holder?
Yeah. You should kick him.
Who says something like that?
When the Republicans are down, you should kick them.
Well, somebody who's male and a certain age.
It's just the way people who are male and a certain age talk.
Now, I don't know where Holder grew up, if he was urban or rural, but...
I've got a feeling that that was just a normal way to talk when he grew up.
He just extended it to 2018 and it didn't play.
Same as Trump does on a fairly regular basis.
So now let's compare these two things.
You've got a President Trump who makes frequent references to slapstick humor.
In my opinion, he should call it back.
This is the time to call it back.
I think it did its job of getting people fired up and interested.
I think it went a little too far.
If ever he was going to call something back, this would be a good time to do it.
But I would label it slapstick humor and I would admit that maybe it was a good time to call it back.
You don't even have to apologize.
You could just say, going forward, I'm going to dial it back a little.
So it's dangerous to...
I'm not recommending that the president takes responsibility for any violence.
Because that's not how freedom of speech works.
Free speech allows you to say what you want to say.
And if people do what you didn't want them to do, that doesn't make that your responsibility.
There can be a cause and effect there.
Hold on. So the cause and effect might be real.
But we don't assign responsibility because freedom of speech doesn't work that way.
One person can talk and another person can act, and you don't blame the talker for the actor.
So Trump has employed humor.
That I believe has been misinterpreted by many.
If you see it as a generational thing, as a male form of humor that was appropriate in his life, was also appropriate in Joe Biden's experience, I'm guessing, was also appropriate in Eric Holder's opinion, because they all talk the same way.
So that's the way you should see it.
But I do think it can be misinterpreted, and I think that the president would be advised to not take responsibility.
For what has happened, but to perhaps say that he'll dial it back in the future.
That would be the right way to play it, in my opinion.
But none of us should give advice to the president because he's the president and we're not.
I'm always a little bit humble about, maybe it's the only time I'm humble.
I'm always humble about giving advice to people who are more successful than I am.
Because obviously whatever they're doing, Whatever they're doing is working.
Now let's look at the press.
The press, get rid of this guy who says I'm an apologist.
You're so 2015. Now let's look at the press.
The press has legitimately tried to paint Trump supporters as racists and Nazis.
So the left-leaning press along with the Democrats.
What is more dangerous?
Old guys making slapstick jokes.
Or an entire media oligarchy painting a huge segment of society as worthy of death, which is what Nazis and racists are in the minds of most Americans.
They're horrible people who deserve whatever that comes to them.
I don't think you can compare those two.
I don't see any way that you can say that an old guy's slapstick humor that wasn't received the way he hoped it would be received by everybody.
How do you compare that to literally branding people as Nazis, including me?
I don't even go out in public anymore.
I literally won't do public events if there are big crowds there because of the security concerns.
Is that security problem caused by President Trump?
Doesn't feel like it to me.
To me, it feels like it was caused by the anti-Trump media, because they're the ones who have convinced the base that there's an actual racist Hitler thing happening here.
So I would say that people like Harani, Senator Harani from Hawaii, Who says that being a nationalist is the same as being a racist, in her mind, at least when President Trump uses the word, and therefore extends to his base by association.
I would say she is one of the worst people I've ever seen.
Just a horrible, horrible person.
As a human being, she is despicable.
And I have to say that I almost never have this reaction to just famous people I disagree with.
But I've never had such a bad reaction to anybody as I have to Senator Hirani.
Do any of you have that same reaction?
I can't tell what the hell it is.
It's not because she's a woman.
It's not because I disagree with her.
I don't know what it is.
It's something about the way she says it that literally just sounds evil.
It doesn't seem like there's anything productive even intended by it.
It just feels evil to me.
And I can't believe that she's an elected official.
If there's one person who should be removed from office, legally, legally, legally, Nobody wants violence.
Let me say that again. But if there's somebody who should be legally removed from office, it should be somebody who incites that kind of violence.
All right. So watching CNN desperately try to avoid responsibility for what...
Clearly, is the press's...
And by the way, I'm not letting Fox News off the hook here.
So the right-leaning press is almost certainly who has activated this particular guy.
That's my opinion. So my opinion is somebody who watches...
Watches the press on the right, sort of a Fox News type person.
It probably consumes other right-leaning media.
Now, I don't think, just to be clear, if the only thing you watched was Fox News, I don't think you send bombs to people.
I don't think Fox News weaponizes people at that level.
But if you're watching Fox News, you're probably also consuming things that are a little less credible.
And I can see that as weaponizing you.
Alright. What do we make of the fact that none of the bombs worked?
Or none of the...
And I'm kind of expecting to hear that none of them could have worked.
Here's what we haven't heard about the bombs.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
We have not heard that there's any electronics with the bombs, have we?
Has there been any reporting that the bombs have any kind of a remote detonating device?
If we don't hear that, and I don't think we will, because whoever this bomber was couldn't spell, didn't have the right addresses, did not seem to be a master bomb maker to me.
But the odds that that person could have a remote detonator...
You know, given the low level of skill that was involved, it does now sound like a master bomb maker.
So I'm guessing that there was no detonating device.
Obviously it was not based on motion.
If there were no electronics, it's not based on time.
And it would not be based on, and I think they were probably not based on time because you wouldn't know exactly when the right person has the package.
And this is someone who is targeting specific people.
This is someone who is not trying to kill the security guard.
This is somebody who did not want to kill the postal worker who delivered the package or the courier or whoever delivered it.
So this is somebody who was after specific people.
So that means they would either have some way to detonate it.
And that seems to be missing.
Yeah, there seems to be no clock.
There seems to be no remote detonation.
Which leads me to believe that it's a right-wing white adult male who is Republican-leaning, who is activated by the press.
You know, he was weaponized by the press.
He is not a very good bomb-maker.
He does not have an advanced education.
High school education tops.
And maybe not even that.
And that is not a good bomb maker.
All right? So there were wires, but they were over-gaged, somebody says, which would be Yeah, a sign of a fake.
Somebody says false, they had electronics.
So if they have electronics, and if those electronics are real, meaning that the electronics are actually hooked to the bomb in a way that they could have detonated them, then I will say, yeah, somebody just said that none of them were disposed of by destruction.
What does it mean that none of the bombs were blown up on sight just to limit their destruction?
I think it tells you that people who understand bombs looked at them and by sight they could tell they were not functional bombs.
Probably. So, somebody says there were clocks.
But were they connected?
And were they connected in a way that would actually activate it?
There's a big LCD clock on every one of them, somebody says.
Let's find out. Something tells me that the clock has a mechanism for...
Can you think of anything that would be less effective than a clock?
Keep in mind, let's think about this.
Keep in mind that these are not bombs that are placed in a building and then you go away and you wait for the clock to take down and then they blow up.
These were things that were going to change hands, these packages, and were going to be in different places at different times.
There are two possibilities.
The bomb blows up before it reaches its target.
Or the target opens the package, sees it's a bomb, looks at the time on it and says, oh shit, I've got five minutes left.
And then they leave the room.
If you were going to try to send a package bomb to somebody, a mail bomb, you don't put a timer on it.
So if what you saw was a clock on these bombs, you saw somebody who was not really a bomb maker or really didn't want them to go off.
You would never use a timer on a mail bomb.
Am I wrong? Am I wrong that you would never use a timer on a mail bomb?
Because you need it to be in the target's hands at the very time.
Somebody says Soros' version was exploded.
So there's a lot of fog of war here.
So let me not give you fake news.
I don't know that none of them were exploded.
Maybe the Soros one was.
Maybe some other ones were. But...
That may also have to do with different law enforcement handling it in different ways.
All right.
An LCD clock would be ridiculous, ridiculous.
Right. Bad design.
So that's what we know for now.
So you have my prediction.
It's an adult, white, Republican-leaning guy.
Who doesn't know how to make a bomb or didn't mean them to go off.
They could have been intentionally fake.
He could have been making a point.
But we'll see. Alright, that's all I have for now.
▲
Export Selection