All Episodes
Previous Next
March 22, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
24:34
Episode 462 Scott Adams: The Mueller Witch Hunt is Evolving Into an “IF” Hunt
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Eddie, John, come on in here.
Nicole, it's good to see you.
Or it's good to see your name go by.
Virus Joe, always a pleasure.
Andrew, good to see you.
All right, so I can't tell you that I have something exactly planned for this Periscope.
I just wanted to share it.
So I'm only here to share the moment so that those of you who watch my Periscopes can come in and just experience the moment.
Just sort of enjoy it.
Now, the thing we don't know, and I feel...
A little anxious about the fact that we don't know exactly what's in the Mueller report.
So maybe there's something bad in there.
But the indications that there's not anything bad in there goes like this.
Number one, CNN is really depressed today.
And I'm going to do a thing where I'm going to play whatever CNN clip is playing at the moment.
And I want you to see how sad they sound.
All right, this is unplanned.
And I'm just going to turn on CNN, and I want you to just hear the sadness.
Whoever's talking, I don't know.
It's sometimes passed on to what they call the gang of eight, the Democrats.
All right, that was Wolf. He's no good.
I want a pundit. So the on-air personalities will be a little bit more like they always are.
They're professionals. But the pundits, you just got to listen to the pundits.
So we'll wait for a pundit to come on here.
Information that Robert Mueller may have collected.
Would that be okay if it's just passed on to the so-called Gang of Eight?
And you're a member of the Gang of Eight.
I am a member of the Gang of Eight.
Oh, Adam Schiff.
But now it's not suffice for the heads of the agency simply to come and tell eight members of Congress what happened.
Now, there may be a select subset of information that they...
Is it just me or does Adam Schiff Not sound as happy as normally you would be on a Friday afternoon.
Is it just me, or is Adam Schiff a little bit sad that the President of the United States is not a Russian spy?
He seems so sad that the President, the Commander in Chief, is not a Russian puppet.
It feels so bad. Poor Adam.
So the other indication we have that there will not be a problem for the president is that he's already said he wants to release it.
Now, it might not get fully released, but he says so.
And he probably wouldn't want to say that as clearly if he thought there was something bad in there.
So probably they've signaled to him That is no big deal.
Next, we have the information that Bill Barr, who just got the report, the Attorney General, is saying that he might release at least a summary of the findings as soon as this weekend.
Do you think there's any chance he would have said that if it was a problem?
I think if any of it looked sketchy, he would have said, better give me some time.
I'm not quite sure how this is gonna go.
Gotta show it to the president's lawyers.
They might take some executive privilege.
Gotta write up my summary.
Give me some time.
That's what you would say if there was some bad news in there.
Good news Given that he's on Team Trump, essentially, being a Republican type, good news travels fast.
So the fact that he wants to do it quickly doesn't guarantee it's good news for the president, but it's a strong indication.
So none of these individual hints are guarantees, but they all are pointing in the same direction, including the sadness that we hear from the Democrats.
Now, as Mike Sertovich just tweeted very recently, two of the biggest hoaxes, let's say, or fake news, whatever you want to call it, fake news or hoax, two of the biggest and most dangerous ones in the history of the Republic were the weapons of mass destruction.
I mean, look how many people died.
Look what that cost. And then the Russia collusion.
Who was a principal character behind both of those?
John McCain.
John McCain was a principal figure behind the two most damaging hoaxes in all of history.
And I never made that connection.
That was Mike Cernovich's tweet that was like a slap in the face.
To me, that makes it okay to say anything you want about him.
To me, I'd say the seal is broken.
War hero? Sure.
He can keep that.
But he owns the two biggest disgraces in the last, I don't know, 30 years, whatever it's been.
So those are his.
Now, Scott, always in spin mode, have I said anything that isn't true?
If I say something that isn't true, you should call me out.
So, now the other thing I'm watching is watching CNN try to...
Turn this into, well, we told you all along there was something here, even though there isn't.
So they've got several lines of attack that they're sort of A-B testing live.
One of those lines of attack is that, sure, you showed us Mueller's report, but you didn't show me the raw evidence that Mueller looked at.
And Adam Schiff, just before I came on, was trying to explain why in this case they should see the raw evidence When normally that would not be the case.
And Schiff said, well, it could be that there's something that didn't rise to the level of being illegal, but the president still did it and it's bad.
To which I say, the president is still a citizen of the United States.
All right? You gotta draw a line somewhere.
Yes, the president is a public figure.
And nobody is above the law, and nobody would claim that should be the case.
But isn't it also the case that he's not below the law?
The president doesn't get treated worse than other people under the law.
That's not acceptable.
And would you want to be the subject of a criminal investigation?
Technically, this wasn't a criminal investigation.
Would you want to be the subject of an investigation The conclusion is that you've done nothing wrong, and then your critics get to see all of the evidence.
Because you know, if unskilled people dig through the evidence, they're going to imagine they've found all kinds of crimes.
Then Mueller, being an expert, said, no, that's not a crime.
That's not a crime. That's out of context.
So, if you wouldn't want that to happen to you, and I sure wouldn't want it to happen to me, You should not want that to happen to anybody.
You shouldn't want it to happen to the president or anybody else.
Now, the other thing that CNN is trying out is the old, well, what about those, was it 16 people who got indicted for lying to investigators, etc., lying to Congress?
So they keep trying to say some version of this.
Well, you can't say that the Mueller thing was a failure because they went out to hunt an elephant and they shot 16 squirrels.
You can't tell me that an elephant hunt is unsuccessful when I've shot 16 squirrels.
Do you see the number of squirrels I shot?
Don't tell me this wasn't on point.
Yes, yes, we marketed it as an elephant hunt.
We brought an elephant gun.
We planned to shoot an elephant.
We really, really hoped we were going to get an elephant.
But don't tell me we're not successful, because look at the number of squirrels we shot instead.
That, my friends, is success.
So they're trying that out.
Then they're also trying out the, if we don't have the raw evidence, then, you know, how can we really know what happened?
Oh, they're also trying out the Trump did not personally go in for an interview.
So their best attack so far is that the president did not agree to a perjury trap.
He didn't agree to a perjury trap.
That's the worst thing they have on him.
And given that 16 squirrels got killed in the elephant hunt because they all fell into a perjury trap, how many of them were smart?
Well, just the elephant.
The squirrels all fell in the elephant trap, if you know what I mean.
But the elephant?
No, the elephant did not go into the trap.
The elephant said, you can't make me.
And then he didn't go.
Now, I have to give some kudos.
Again, this is premature, but it's starting to look like this would be the case.
Some kudos to the president's legal team.
Now, I don't know if they did things wrong, but by keeping him from...
preventing him from...
From going in for an interview was certainly right.
And they did get away with it.
Yeah, they were very patient.
They just kept chipping away.
They were running out the clock.
I think you have to admit that the president's legal team was running out the clock because they knew that Mueller couldn't just do Mueller things forever.
You know, everything's got to end.
So the longer they resisted, the more likely Mueller was going to say, I can't wait forever.
And I can't make you do it.
So I think they just ran out the clock on Mueller, which you would have to say was good lawyering.
It was exactly the right strategy, which apparently, and again, you know, we're looking at it from the outside, so we might be missing some of the important context here.
But it looks like, it looks like the president's legal counsel brought it home for him, but we'll see.
All right. Yeah, there was no collusion.
The other thing I expect to hear is when there's no finding of collusion, people are going to say, I told you there would be no finding of collusion because that's not even a crime.
People will continue to say, yes, but although there was no crime and there was no collusion, The president obstructed with the injustice.
So in other words, treating this situation as if there had been Russian collusion was really based on an injustice.
The injustice being the Steele dossier.
So what the president did was, if anything, he obstructed injustice.
Now we know that because Mueller has already ruled We think, again, getting ahead of myself, but assuming there's no collusion, he would have ruled in that case that there's no crime.
So there was no justice to be had.
So if you obstruct injustice, is that a crime?
I suppose it would be.
Yeah, the FISA warrants.
I don't know if those will be released.
That's a good question. Yeah, and they're going to point to the New York Southern District.
But I think we would have seen indictments, right?
If anything was going to be an indictment, wouldn't we see them?
Wouldn't we, if any of that really mattered?
I heard, was it Preet Bharara talking about how if all they have is the Cohen stuff, Might be a fine.
If everything that they think they know about the Cohen payments to Stormy Daniels are true, if all of the facts are true, it might be a fine.
Business as usual.
So, I could not even watch Fox News when this news came out.
Because you know Fox News is just going to be happy and, you know, told you so, and that's, you know, it's going to be a little predictable.
But watching CNN deal with their cognitive dissonance is amazing.
Because this week alone, they lost Russian collusion.
They probably came pretty close to losing the fine people false memory.
And things are going pretty well for the president.
So I would like to introduce to you a new prediction mechanism that I'm going to be using for 2020.
All right? I call it the slaughter meter.
The slaughter meter.
So it's not an opinion poll.
It's my prediction of what the election would look like if all the variables we see now continue in a straight line.
So in other words, if we froze all the variables today, and just, you know, fast forward two years, you'd have a super strong economy, because remember, we're freezing all the variables.
Super strong economy.
North Korea would be, you know, obeying better than they have been before.
ISIS is beaten.
The Democrats don't have anybody with any charisma whatsoever.
It looks like their best plan on the Democrat side is to nominate, to try to get rid of Trump, who they would consider an old white male.
Their strategy is to nominate an even older, whiter male.
So they have the worst strategy I've ever seen.
And they're going to completely savage each other until whoever's left will be, you know, a walking husk of a person, which Trump will finish off.
He will finish off.
I was going to say something terrible, but I'm not going to.
But it would be very funny.
Only to me, mostly.
So here's my current prediction, which will be updated periodically between now and 2020.
The slaughter meter is pinned.
We are at maximum slaughter.
If no variables changed, in other words, if the Russian collusion turns out to be the nothing we think, the economy is good, you name it, you just go right down the line, if all of that sticks, The worst thing that they're going to say about the president is that frickin' John McCain vote prevented him from maybe doing something good with healthcare.
So right now, he is in complete slaughter territory.
Now, the odds of things staying the same and all of the variables staying the same between now and 2020 and the election is very low.
So don't make too much of the slaughter meter.
The slaughter meter is unrealistic by design.
It's just telling you that if nothing changed, it would be a slaughter.
The funniest thing is watching the polls that say, and here's a very important point, by the way, you're probably saying to yourself, but how does that track with the fact that every single Democrat seems to beat Trump in a one-on-one according to the polls?
Like, how could that be possible at the same time when he's heading toward a slaughter?
And here's how it's possible.
If you're saying would X whatever Democrat it is line up against Trump, you're not really comparing those two people.
It feels like you are, because they say, consider Biden with Trump.
You know, who do you like? Vote for one of them.
It feels like you're comparing those two people.
But you're not.
Because in those situations, people know that there is not yet a real Democrat who's been nominated.
So their idea of the Democrat, even if you put a specific name, even if you say, what if it's Biden?
What if it's Bernie? What if it's Kamala?
Even if you put a specific name in there, they're still thinking, how do I like my ideal Democrat versus this bastard Trump?
And as long as they're thinking about their ideal Democrat, that ideal Democrat is awesome.
The person who's potentially a candidate against Trump has no flaws.
They're great!
But what happens when it turns into a real person?
By the time it's a real person, You're going to have to compare the real person, not your magical notion of what a great candidate would be, but a real beaten up, flawed person.
So any poll you see today is just sort of a wishful thinking poll about a perfect candidate versus this damn Trump guy, you know.
So I wouldn't worry about the polls too much today.
Now, here's my prediction about this whole Russia collusion thing.
I assume that the results will come out, and if things go the way it looks, they'll go.
There will be not much of any kind of a finding that would be too damaging to the president.
And I predict that the national polls about whether or not Trump colluded with Russia will not change more than Ten basis points.
So right now, probably, I'm just guessing that the country is probably split about evenly.
You know, the Republicans say he didn't collude.
The Democrats say, oh, he definitely colluded.
Once we have Mueller's report, if this were a rational world...
90% of the world on both sides would agree with whatever Mueller came up with, because they'd say, well, he looked into it.
I mean, he had every tool of investigation, he looked into it.
And if he didn't find anything that reaches the standard that we should be worried about, I changed my mind.
I used to be worried, but now that new data has come in, I changed my mind based on logic and fairness and new data.
You're not going to see anything like that.
You're going to see the Democrats just as convinced that the collusion happened, give or take, you know, 5 to 10 basis points.
So it might go from 50 to 40, but you're not going to see it go down to 10%, which it would if we were a rational species.
So this will be another one of those cases where you can predict.
And, oh, by the way, I always tell you that if you filter on the world, Predicts well that it's a good filter.
My filter says people are immune to data and facts so that the vast majority of them will not change their mind, even when the data changes.
All right. I am going...
Oh, it's Schumer. Schumer's speaking.
Oh, we've got a sea droopy dog.
Let's see. Give me a second.
The integrity of our democracy itself, whether foreign powers corruptly interfered in our elections, and whether unlawful means were used.
All right.
I don't want to play too much for copyright reasons.
But in my title for this Periscope, I said that the witch hunt has evolved to an if hunt.
And Schumer was demonstrating that.
So here's how the if hunt goes.
There's no evidence that the president did anything bad.
So they'll say, if there's evidence that we don't have, and if it shows that the president had an affair with Putin, and if as a result of that affair, Putin is blackmailing the president, Then we're in a lot of trouble.
And if the president secretly has a deal with Russia, and if we don't get to see all the data in the report, the Mueller report, and if something is incomplete, and if the president had actually gone in and talked to Mueller in person instead of giving written lessons, and if all those things happened, that's a problem.
That's a problem if all of those things happen.
And so you listen to all this and you come away thinking, well, that's a lot of accusations about the president.
That is a lot of accusations.
So you end up, after the if hunt, you end up walking away having this bad feeling about the president because so many bad things were just sort of mentioned.
Well, If Chuck Schumer is having an affair with his dog, and if the dog is not a willing participant, and if the dog is tiny, let's say a Chihuahua, and if that tiny Chihuahua is injured with the sex he's having with Chuck Schumer, and if we find out about it, Chuck Schumer is in a lot of trouble.
Wouldn't you say? Did I say anything here that is not the truth?
If he's having sex with his dog, if the dog is a chihuahua, if Mueller is injuring him also, he's a bad guy.
I'm not saying anybody's suggested he's done any of those things.
I'm not suggesting it.
I'm just saying that if he has, and if there was a report on it, and if somebody produced a video of it, and if there are witnesses, How bad would that be?
I mean, that would be bad.
We certainly hope nothing like that happens.
And there's no evidence of this.
Let me be very clear. There is no evidence whatsoever that I'm aware of.
But that doesn't mean somebody else isn't aware of it.
Because if someone else is aware of it, and if he had sex with his dog, and if it was a chihuahua, and if he heard it, Pretty bad.
Pretty bad.
That's bad. All right.
I just had to come on here and enjoy the moment with you.
Keep watching the news.
Have a fun time.
▲
Export Selection