All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 28, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
50:52
Episode 433 Scott Adams: Cohen, North Korea, and Coffee
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey there Red Pill and the rest of you.
Come on in. Take a chair, unless you're working out.
I know some of you are in the gym or taking a run on the beach right now.
And you too should pay attention because today is a very newsy day.
It's so newsy you might need extra coffee.
Luckily, you came to the right place.
Because this is breakfast. No, this is coffee with Scott Adams.
I forgot who I was there for a moment, or where I was, or what I was doing.
That's how much news there is.
Join me now.
Lift your cup, your mug, your chalice, your stein, and join me for the simultaneous sip.
So, we've got a lot of news.
Peace.
Let's talk about it in reverse order.
Let's talk about North Korea first.
So, unless you've been living under a rock for the last four or five hours, you know that the President has decided to end early the talks with North Korea and leave with nothing new.
No new agreements.
Is it a horrible failure?
A mark on his legacy?
A confirmation that he was never the right person for the job?
Is it that? Well, let's talk about it.
Let's talk about the context.
The situation.
Here's what we know. Let me put this back a little bit.
That's better. So we're watching the Cohen testimony.
And what was the news saying all day yesterday about the juxtaposition of North Korea and the Cohen testimony?
The news was reporting it as if Trump needed desperately to have something happen in North Korea.
To compensate for all the badness that was happening with Cohen.
Now we'll talk about Cohen in a moment.
But under those conditions, should Trump have made a deal?
Nope. Nope.
Now the only deal that Trump could have made...
Under that backdrop of the news saying you're just trying to do this to distract, because that was the setup, no deal was possible.
In fact, making a pretty good deal would have been a failure.
Because anything that we did that was we give you a little, you give us a little, any kind of thing that looked like a deal where both sides gave something would have been called a huge failure that never would have happened if Cohen hadn't been testifying.
The president desperately needed to make a deal that he didn't need to make.
And so the press, the enemy of the people, Made it impossible to reach a deal that had any kind of give and take.
Now I don't know if a deal was possible anyway.
So it might make no difference at all.
But it wasn't really a wise thing to do.
To make a deal under those conditions.
Unless the deal was so one-sided that even critics couldn't complain.
But you knew that wasn't going to happen.
Nobody said, the President's going to go over there, Kim will give him everything, Trump will give him nothing, and that will be the deal.
Nobody said that. So without that possibility, the President only had a lose-lose scenario.
He could not make a deal, or he could make any kind of a deal that had a little give and take on both sides, which would be framed as a failure.
Because everybody would say, you gave a little?
My God, you had your foot on their neck.
The sanctions were on.
Why did you give them anything?
That's a terrible idea.
You lost.
And it's only because you were trying to compensate for Cohen.
The US press, in this example, very clearly the enemy of the people, created a situation where the president couldn't do his job to protect the people.
That really happened.
So we're not talking about fun and games anymore.
We're not talking about, hey, the news got a fact wrong or they're a little biased.
Now we're actually talking about them destroying the planet.
Now, it hasn't come to that, but you can see the potential, that their influence is so malign.
Is that the word I keep hearing on TV lately?
I never think that's the right word, but when I hear it, I say, that's a good word, maybe I'll use that someday.
Their influence is so malign.
It sounds like it should be malignant, but I hear people who sound smart saying that word, so maybe that's the right use.
Don't take my word for that.
All right. Now, secondly, President Trump, this is more context.
President Trump wrote a book about walking away from deals that are not as good as what you want.
I'm seeing a lot of people say it's the wrong word.
I thought it was the wrong word, too.
But I keep seeing smart people saying malign instead of malignant.
Alright, well, we'll figure that out later.
Anyway, President Trump is literally famous for, and it's his brand, and he says it often, I walk away from a deal that's, you know, not good enough.
So should we have been surprised that he walked away from a deal?
No. Do you know what would have been surprising?
Making a deal. Now, making a deal would be the surprising part, because he has...
Time on his side. That's the predictive element.
Whoever has time on their side, in other words, the stronger negotiating position, tends to walk away because they know the other side needs it more than they do.
And right now, so long as North Korea seems to be, we think, intent on not ramping up their testing, time's on our side.
Trump has turned a potential enemy into a friend, sort of.
And friends are not dangerous.
Friends with some nukes they're not testing, just not especially dangerous.
And they need us far more than we need them, because the president has done a tremendous job, I think.
In painting this alternate universe where North Korea becomes a powerhouse economic entity.
So here's the story that I haven't seen yet in the news.
Have you seen this in the news?
Kim Jong Un came all the way to Vietnam and went home with nothing.
Think about that.
Kim came all the way to Vietnam and went home to his starving country that is crumbling by the minute, one assumes.
They're not going in a positive direction, are they?
I mean, I don't know, but I would think that every day is worse than the day before.
So, yeah, he came all the way here on a train, spent all this money.
In fact, how much do you think it cost Kim just to come here or to come to Vietnam.
It was probably really expensive.
How much money did North Korea have sitting around for stuff like that?
Probably not a lot.
It probably took a big bite out of Kim's budget just to show up in Vietnam with all the security and everything else.
So, I don't think, I haven't seen any reporting on this, but even though Kim is a dictator with full control of his country, I have to think that when he returns empty handed to a starving country, his regime is less stable.
Would you agree with that?
Because what didn't happen, and this is the other smart part of what Trump is doing here, what didn't happen is that they left as enemies.
They didn't leave as enemies.
They left as better friends And Trump is doing this in a fairly genius way.
I just haven't seen this done before.
I'm no historian, but I haven't seen it done.
He's treating the individual as a separate decision from the politics and from the countries.
And he's made it very clear that he has an affectionate personal relationship with the leader.
So can Kim go back and say, damn you, United States.
Damn you, evil Trump.
I'm going to start testing those nukes right away.
That would make sense.
That would be the worst thing he could do, wouldn't it?
So somehow...
No, somehow. In a smart way, I guess.
President Trump has created a situation where time is on our side, because we've already converted an enemy into somewhat of a friend.
And if they continue not testing, which would be the smart thing for them to do, is to continue not testing.
If they had done that, if they continue not testing, We just wait.
We take a little bite out of it every once in a while.
Just keep nudging things in that direction.
And here's the other factor that puts time on Trump's side.
While there's these big level negotiations between the leaders, Fact check me on this, but I believe this is true, that North and South Korea are having continuous low-level engagements.
In other words, they're doing smaller things to increase maybe travel and conversation and just communication North and South.
Let me ask you this.
How long can the Kim regime remain if communication improves with South Korea?
Not long, right?
When the North Koreans get a legitimate taste of what's happening in South Korea, the regime will fall.
So again, Time is on Trump's side.
As long as he keeps Kim as a friend, as long as he's holding out a legitimate, and I think it's a believable, because it's true, a believable carrot, meaning the economic development, the end of hostilities, Kim stays in power, presumably, nobody's talking about him leaving power.
It puts Trump completely in the driver's seat here.
It's just that it's gonna take a while.
And he doesn't need to hurry.
There's no reason for Trump to hurry.
He has no reason. In fact, hurrying would have been the worst thing that Trump could have done because any kind of deal would have been reported as a failure because of Cohen.
That was the context.
It was a setup so that anything that Trump did with a negotiated give and take would be painted as a failure because he was desperate to get a deal.
He was desperate. So, by walking away early, but politely, this is a polite walk away, right?
But it's a walk away.
It's polite, it's respectful, it maintains friends, it puts time on our side, between the information flow between South and North Korea that is Essentially a ticking time bomb for Kim.
He can't allow communication, and I don't think he can stop it at this point.
Because as long as there are people in the North and the South who are talking and they know each other, stuff's gonna happen.
Communication's gonna get through.
So, should we be upset that no deal was reached?
I'll tell you what. I hate that phrase, I'll tell you what.
One of the things that Trump could easily have given, because it's easy to take it back, is signing some kind of an end to the war.
And even that doesn't sound like it was likely to have happened or close.
So it looks like that whole end of the war thing, we didn't even want to give that.
I was speculating that that would be the easiest thing to do.
The easiest thing to do would be to sign a piece of paper that says, ah, the war's over, it's the end of the official war, because that wouldn't really change anything.
That would not require us to remove our troops, it wouldn't require them to denuclearize, but it would change the context.
And I thought, you could at least give Kim that, because you could always take it back.
And Trump didn't even give him that.
That's some pretty tough negotiating there.
Alright, let's talk about Cohen.
So, in the morning, I saw Jeffrey Toobin describe Cohen's testimony as, I think he used the word, earthquake.
And by that afternoon, I saw Jake Tapper use a different word, and I tried to remember it.
Maybe somebody here saw it.
But by the afternoon, Jeffrey Toobin's description of it as an earthquake had been downgraded to something closer to an inconvenience.
I forget what word Jake used.
It wasn't inconvenience, but it was alarming or something like that.
It was something like alarming.
Now, earthquake? That's pretty big.
Alarming? That's sort of every day.
So I think that there was a sort of a creeping realization that all of these things that sounded big When you actually burrow down onto any one of them, they all sort of disappeared in the dust.
Let me tell you my experience.
I listened to the bombshells all morning, and then I drove to the gym.
As I was driving to the gym, I was trying to remember, in my mind, I was trying to remember, and I listened closely.
To all of the testimony.
And there was like one claim after another, and they're like, ah, man, these are bad claims.
And as I'm driving away, I tried to rank them in my head.
You know, what are the worst, most dangerous claims, and what are the less dangerous ones?
And here's the thing.
I couldn't remember any.
They've all become background noise.
It seems like there were so many claims and the credibility of each claim was so low and the mental processing I had to do to sort of hold any one of those weak claims in my head was so great that my brain just said, well, let me borrow a line from Family Guy.
And so I'm paraphrasing a joke from Family Guy where I'm watching Cohen talk for hours.
Just hours of talking.
Hours and hours Cohen is making these horrible accusations about the president.
And at the end of all those accusations, this was my reaction.
I don't know about any of that.
That's the Family Guy line.
I don't know about any of that.
Meaning none of it is sticky.
Let me give you some examples.
You've got the earthquake bombshell that Cohen was part of a money laundering scheme to cheat on somehow do something illegal with campaign finance to write a check to the porn star.
And you think, my God, that's bad.
Campaign finance violation?
That's bad. Some kind of, you know, a financial crime.
And then you listen to people who are smarter say, um, worst case scenario, that's a fine.
Obama did it too. Oh, and by the way, it's not illegal.
It's literally not illegal to do any of that stuff.
So the whole context we're talking about, you know, this payment to the porn star, We sometimes think past the sale.
The sale is, is it illegal to spend money on things that would help your campaign, but at the same time they're the things you probably would have done anyway, because they have a personal use?
And this clearly does have a personal use.
Obviously he wanted to keep this quiet.
So, the first one, the biggest claim I thought was going to be that money laundering porn star payoff thing.
But if you drill down a little bit, it's not even a crime.
But if you drill down further, and even if you could imagine it was a crime, it's a fine.
That's it. It's a fine.
It's business as usual.
Let's take another one of the bombshells.
It's a bombshell that Cohen allegedly heard a speakerphone conversation between Trump and Roger Stone about Wikipedia going to release some stuff.
It's a bombshell. This is it.
The smoking gun. Now we know that the president was talking with Stone about WikiLeaks and they're connected to Russia.
It's Russia! Russia! Finally!
And then you drill down a little bit and you find out that WikiLeaks had been tweeting the release of these documents for a long time and that Roger Stone is actually just full of shit and he doesn't know anything.
And here's the best part.
I was watching Michael Tracy on Tucker Carlson last night and Michael Tracy pointed out that the odds that Roger Stone allowed himself to be on a speakerphone It was about zero, and the odds that President Trump would take a call with Roger Stone on his speakerphone is basically zero.
Now, I suppose anything's possible, but the story just sort of falls apart.
First of all, there's one witness.
Second of all, yeah, and he's the least, Cohen is literally famous as being the most undependable witness of all time.
I think he lied four times during his testimony before he goes to jail for lying.
I mean, it was the most ridiculous Ridiculously weak accusation.
So first of all, it was public information because Wikipedia was saying it.
Second of all, Stone is a famous fabulist, as they say, or exaggerator, or maybe he lies on occasion.
Cohen is the other biggest liar.
So basically, it's just this den of liars about something that wasn't even a problem because it was public information anyway.
So the Wikipedia thing sounds important, and it just disappears when you start pulling it apart.
Here's another one. There's a story about how Trump used his foundation as sort of a shell.
Was it the foundation?
To bid on a painting for some charity.
And the scheme was so he would There would be a bigger bid for his painting than anybody else's and it would come at the end.
But really it was just Trump's own money and he was using somebody to just be a stand-in for himself basically.
So he could have the biggest bid for his own painting.
Now, if this were somebody else, if this were not Trump, maybe that would mean something to me.
But the fact that it's Trump, It's kind of what he does for a living, right?
He was a marketing person who was all about his brand and the image, the Trump property image.
And so he pulled a move that is frankly hilarious.
And I have to admit, I am influenced by the fact that it's funny.
It's very funny.
That he would run a scheme to make sure that his painting was the people paid the most.
Because it's part of his larger effort to maintain his brand as the biggest and the best.
Personally... Personally, here's my reaction to it.
Well, that's funny. It's funny and it's kind of smart because, you know, it should have worked.
You know, if you were going to tell me that this would come back and bite him in the ass when he's president, I would say, well, maybe then that's a bad idea.
But on the scope of crimes, If you were to, like, make a list of the worst crimes in the world, like, you know, genocide or something at the top, and you'd go down, it's like, you know, murdering one person, you know, stealing, beating somebody up, you know, sex crimes and property crimes, and then there's traffic crimes, and there's speeding.
Somewhere, somewhere at about the one millionth crime, Would be pretending that somebody else paid too much for your painting.
Now, I can imagine there's a technical crime there, but it's about the smallest crime I've ever heard of.
And it's hilarious.
It's hilarious.
Would you be disappointed if Donald Trump did not Find a way for somebody to pay the most for his painting.
I'd be a little disappointed if he didn't do that.
It's sort of what we expect him to do.
It's part of why I like him, frankly.
But I'm different. Then there was a story about collusion.
Do you remember collusion?
Oh, I remember collusion.
It was so long ago.
Back in the days when people imagined that Michael Cohen would know the inside stuff.
And if there were any collusion there, Michael Cohen would know it.
Because he was on the inside.
What did Michael Cohen say about the collusion?
Didn't see any.
So the biggest story out of this is that the collusion thing continued to fall apart.
That should have been the main takeaway, but because the nature of the press, they have to make these little stories sound like they're bigger.
The big story is that the guy who is the closest to the inner workings of the thing, not only...
Here's the best part. Even if you imagine that Michael Cohen may not have had all the information...
He tells the story of the president who was his longtime confidant.
I mean, they shared more secrets than anybody, right?
There probably was no one who shared dangerous secrets with the president more than Cohen.
And Cohen apparently says that the president told him a number of times there was no collusion.
So the collusion thing fell apart.
My favorite one Is that the president was accused of inflating his net worth and then decreasing his net worth for other purposes.
Now, let me put this to you.
How many people out there have a financial background?
And when you heard that, that charge, that the president sometimes inflates his values and sometimes takes the low number, if you have a financial background, what was your first impression to that?
Now, this is only for the people who have genuine financial experience.
Normal. Normal.
If you don't have a financial background, you would say, my God, that's, you know, the way they're reporting this sounds like huge financial crimes.
Let me give you an example.
Now, I'm not fully informed here, so my example might be inaccurate, but it will give you an idea of what I'm talking about.
So take my example as a general point.
So I might have some of the details of my actual example wrong, but here's the general point.
So he had a golf course that he valued differently.
I think at one point he valued it at $50 million.
And for other purposes, I think for property tax, he valued at like $5 million or something very low.
So one was like $50 million and one was like $5 million.
So it's reported as financial crime, right?
Because it can't be true that something's worth $50 million, but also true that it's worth $5 million.
They can't both be true, right?
Would somebody with some financial education explain to the rest of the people here why those both can be true?
You know they both can be true, right?
There's nothing wrong with that.
Here's why. If you're paying property tax, you're paying tax on the value of the land and the buildings.
That might have been $5 million.
Or at least you could make a case for it being $5 million.
If you're talking about the value of the business, let's say the business is profitable.
You would say, well, it's making so much money that it's worth, I wouldn't sell this business for less than $50 million.
Now, that may be inflated, but not necessarily illegally inflated.
In other words, you can use optimism to value things.
You can use the value of the brand, somebody said.
So even if the Cash flow is not that high.
Somebody could say, yeah, I'd like a golf course that had the Trump name on it, and you knew it was designed by Trump people, etc.
So my example might be bad because I may not have the details of this particular thing, but my point is that when you're talking to Forbes about your net worth, inflating it is just sort of normal because you want to make your brand look good, so you want to look like you're high on the list.
But that's not illegal.
Saying that your property is worth only what the building and the land could sell for is not illegal.
That's actually just the way it's done.
Saying that your business might be worth a lot more than other people think it's worth, based on its cash flow, is normal.
That's not a crime. So I think what you're going to find is that I was looking at the article in CNN and they kept saying it's very confusing because we know this and this and he valued this at this time and this at this time and it's all very confusing.
It is all very confusing if you have no background in finance.
If you do have a background in business With a background in finance, you would know that the most normal situation in the world is that the same thing, or what you think is the same thing, could be valued at wildly different numbers depending on the purpose.
Is it for property tax?
Is it for selling your business?
Is it for being on the Forbes list?
Those are all different valuations and should be.
Or at least could be.
Alright, so the net worth exaggerating thing sounds like it's a big deal, right?
Until you drill down and there's just nothing there.
Now I could be wrong, but on the surface, it looks like simply a case where reporters don't understand finance, so it looks like it's a bigger deal than it is.
Then there was Michael Cohen said that the president was a racist.
Now, I didn't watch every minute, and I think there was some point where he was, was he ever accused of something specific?
Because I think I missed that.
It's not in the news. Did Cohen point out to anything specific that only he knew there was evidence of that claim?
Because I didn't see it.
So you can inform me on that.
So Cohen claimed that the president's comments about Charlottesville were evidence that the president was a racist.
Here's what's wrong with that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cohen is a Jewish name, isn't it?
Well, I know that part's right.
So Michael Cohen, a close confidant of the president, who is Jewish, For 10 years, hired by the president despite what other people say are his lack of qualifications, worked with the president for 10 years, and never noticed that the president was anti-Semitic until Charlottesville?
Is that the weakest claim you've ever heard in your life?
If Cohen had not been Jewish, Then I would say to myself, I guess maybe you just wouldn't notice or maybe there was the final straw or something.
But Cohen is Jewish.
The Charlottesville marchers were anti-Semitic.
Are you telling me that Cohen worked for Trump for 10 years and didn't notice?
Didn't notice until then and that was based on fake news for anybody who's new here.
The Charlottesville hoax is that CNN and other people report that Trump said that there were fine people on both sides.
That of course was not referring To Antifa on one side because they weren't fine people.
And he was not referring to the racists who were marching with tiki torches because they were not fine people.
He was talking about the fact that the event was about statues and there were fine people on both sides of the general question about statues.
And yes, there were other people there besides Antifa and the racists with the torches.
And the next thing you say if you hate Trump is I've been waiting to do this one.
Oh, right? So why were they marching with the racists?
Are you telling me that they're non-racists who march with racists?
Is that what you're saying, Scott? No, Dale.
No one has ever said that.
I'm not saying they're marching with.
I'm just saying they were there.
All right. So the Charlottesville thing, once again, plays on CNN. CNN once again lets it go by as if it's fact, which is why you can call CNN the enemy of the people.
All right. Then there was the...
I saw AOC asked some question about insurance.
And she asked her question, and then I didn't really see any of that in the news, did you?
So I don't know what she was talking about with...
Property values and insurance.
So I think that was just another case of you use different valuations for things based on what your purpose is, whether it's insurance, whether it's Forbes list, etc.
So that seemed like nothing.
But I'll tell you what was the most interesting thing about this.
If you watch the Cohen testimony, he said that the president speaks three languages.
Did you catch that? A lot of people were saying that President Trump is not that smart, but I didn't know that he spoke three languages.
So he speaks English, so that would be the President's primary language.
But as Cohen explained with the Charlottesville thing, the President also speaks a secret coded racist dog whistle.
At the same time he's speaking English.
But on top of that, Cohen told us that he speaks in gangster code.
So he's got three languages going on.
He's got his normal English language, he's got the racist dog whistle, and then he's got sort of a gangster code.
And he can do them all at the same time.
I'd like to give you an example of that.
So if, for example, you were to hear the president talk about North Korea, If you only knew about the one language, it would sound like Well, we've decided to end the North Korea talks, and we didn't get everything we wanted, but we'll keep talking with them.
So that's what it would sound like, just the English language.
But now you have to layer on the whistle.
So that's like this.
We didn't get a good result in North Korea.
See, so now you've got some English, but you've got the whistle that's in there.
But then the gangster code is more of a clicking sound.
So then it would sound like this.
You can add the English on top of the racist whistle on top of the gangster clicking sound.
And it would sound like this.
Well, we've decided to end our conversations in North Korea.
We're very hopeful that things will go better in the future.
Now, those are the three languages that are confirmed.
So we know the president can speak three languages simultaneously.
They're just traveling on different frequencies, as I gave that example.
The one that Maybe I'm the only one who knows this.
When I met with the president, I really shouldn't tell you this, but I'm going to tell you this.
When I met with the president, we talked privately, and he admitted to me, and I'm going to tell you, that, you know that sonic weapon that was injuring the diplomats in the Cuban embassy?
It wasn't a sonic weapon.
The president... Speaks four languages.
That's right.
English. Racist dog whistle.
Gangster code. Sonic weapon.
The president is responsible.
For that damage to the Cuban victims.
So, I think that's what we learned.
The president speaks four languages simultaneously.
He's a lot smarter than we thought.
He's possibly an alien.
Possibly an alien. Somebody, Peter Nunes 7, says, apologist much?
And that gets you the block.
The word apologist gets you blocked automatically on my periscopes.
Because, and it's not like apologists is the worst insult or criticism.
It's just that it's empty.
You can certainly disagree with what I say.
I'm always open to that.
But to simply label me instead of to talk about the point, that's an instant block.
Now, On Tuesday next week, we'll talk to Dr.
Shiva about climate change.
You're not going to want to miss that.
But let's see. We've got a little time left.
Was there anything I missed?
No. Let me just check with you.
Was there anything that Cohen said...
That made any difference to anything except that it showed that collusion is even less likely than we thought before.
Did I miss anything with the co-intestinity?
Because it feels like it's all nothing.
Oh, here's the other thing.
One of the claims that some of the congresspeople made, and it's a claim that Michael Cohen made, is that Trump approves and is aware of every important meeting in not only the Trump Organization, but in the campaign.
How little experience with the world Do you have to have to think that's true?
If you're an experienced business person and you've had any experience in a big organization, it could be a government, it could be a large corporation, any kind of large organization, and I'm watching these politicians and I'm watching Cohen say that the president absolutely,
positively, 100% knew whenever there was a meeting At the same time that the president is disengaged and doesn't read defense reports or whatever he's supposed to be reading, are you telling me that the same people that you've been painting as hands-off and a touch,
you know, barely paying attention to his job, simultaneously knows every meeting that happens in the Trump Organization, as well as every important meeting, maybe not every meeting, but every important meeting in the campaign.
That feels exactly like the opposite of true.
In fact, if you said to me, Scott, I'd like to make a bet with you.
I will bet that President Trump approves of and knows 100% of all meetings that happen under his organizations.
I would take that bet pretty quickly.
I would give you pretty long odds.
That meetings happen, that are important, that do not get approved by President Trump.
Alright, so that part was funny.
Yeah.
I'm just looking at your comments now.
Are you also surprised that we've gotten this far?
Oh, and then the other accusation about Trump is that he didn't expect to win the presidency, and he was negotiating for his Russian building deal in case he lost, and then he would do that deal.
To which I say, which part of that is not just business?
Why should he not keep his options open?
How is that bad?
It might have been bad if he decided to go ahead with the project after becoming president, but, you know, the fact that he kept that option open, and then I think he's accused of lying to the press about it, not a crime.
Not a crime. Geraldo said that he revealed more in his vault than Cohen's testimony.
Well, good.
I'm glad that Geraldo was on that analogy.
Oh, and then...
And then Cohen reports that the president said that Don Jr.
had the worst judgment in the world.
Now, does that sound true?
Do you believe that the president made Don Jr.
the head of his empire at the same time that he thinks he has the worst judgment of anyone in the world?
Do you think that's even slightly true?
That doesn't even seem like in the universe it's true.
If you look at the prominent role that Don Jr.
has played throughout the campaign and after the election, etc., if there's anything you can say for sure, it's that the president has trust in Don Jr.
I would say that's so obvious that it's laughable that anybody would say the opposite.
Now, that doesn't mean That the president didn't argue with some specific decision.
So you can also guarantee that the president and Don Jr.
have had periods at which they very much disagreed on how to do something.
So if you tell me that the president made a sweeping generalization at that time, maybe.
But clearly it's not true as a general statement that the president doesn't have confidence in Don Jr.
I think that's as obvious as anything could be by the last several years of observation.
Don brought in Michael Cohen.
The president hired Michael Cohen and worked with him for years and he hired him after he did a good job on a few projects.
So you didn't hire him without seeing his work first.
Did you ever disagree with your dad? - Good.
Not that much, actually.
I had one of the worst thoughts, and I don't know if I can even say this.
Maybe it's the end of the periscope.
But I gotta say it anyway.
I would only say this because Cohen is such a horrible person.
I mean, he really is a bad person.
Oh, should I say this?
I'm gonna get in trouble if I say this.
I'm gonna say it anyway. Because we're just having coffee, right?
So, Cohen's wife...
Who has to endure all the humiliation of this situation, all the risk, all the emotional turmoil, and her husband's going to go to jail for three years.
And then she may have heard for the first time from Matt Gaetz that her husband has had girlfriends or has girlfriends.
That's the bad news, right?
So the bad news, and nobody can be happy about that, is that his marriage fell apart and that his family are all victims, right?
So there's nothing funny about that.
His family are victims.
Period. So I'm not making light of that.
However, however, I'm just going to say this as a statement of what I think is a fact, and then you can do with it what you will.
Cohen's wife is now the most dateable woman in whatever city she's in, New York City.
She might be the most eligible kind of single woman ever because there are going to be a lot of people who are going to see her as having a little extra going on.
And by a little extra, I mean that They might like her in general just because she's an attractive person, but they're going to like the fact that Michael Cohen doesn't like it.
And so he has transformed completely accidentally.
He has transformed his wife, who under any normal circumstances is...
I actually went and looked at a picture of her because I needed to get a mental picture in my head.
So she's an attractive woman.
And her datability just went through the roof in this weird way that nobody would want it to happen, right?
So she's a victim, no doubt about that, of all of this, as well as the kids for sure.
But she became really dateable.
Really, really dateable.
And we'll see how that works out.
You didn't defend Alex Jones when he was censored.
You know, I'm not the guy who's going to defend people for saying things that I don't agree with.
So, some people just have to defend themselves.
Um... Cohen will make money from this.
Yeah, maybe. Yeah, I think, didn't Daryl Scott, yeah, and I think Reverend Scott said in a tweet or something that Cohen had tried very hard to get a job in the administration, so he got outed as a liar.
Yeah. There's nothing worse than being called a liar by a minister.
You know, if you ever get called a liar, you better hope it's not a man of the cloth.
I'm not sure if that...
Does a man of the cloth...
Is that just a Catholic term?
I don't know how that works. But you don't want to be accused of a liar by somebody who literally is teaching the Bible.
Uh... Why did he plead to campaign finance charges?
It may be that he was forced into that.
It's not unusual for people to plead to things that they might not have necessarily been convicted for.
So that's not unusual.
So if you did a big crime, but they're going to give you some lenience on that because maybe you were helping them in other ways, it wouldn't be that unusual to plead guilty to a thing you didn't actually technically do.
So I think that's a real thing.
Or at least a lesser crime that's a little bit off point.
Let's put it that way. Yes, I hear you saying you want me to talk to Victor David Hansen.
I hear your message.
I haven't quite decided how many guests I'm going to have on here, but he would be a great one.
He would be tremendous.
Then Lanny Davis, so he's apparently doing this without pay.
And that's so transparently fraudulent, maybe not in a legal sense, but it's so obvious that Lanny Davis is not doing this for free.
In one way or another, if you know what I mean.
It may be that nobody's writing him a check per se, but he's not doing it for free.
I don't think that's happening.
All right.
▲
Export Selection