All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 1, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
49:29
Episode 711 Scott Adams: The New Trump Campaign Ad, dilbert.com Blocked in China, #Shampeachment
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, where is everybody?
Did you all oversleep because of Halloween?
That's no excuse.
I love that the kids get a day off after Halloween.
The schools just gave up.
They're like, ah, they're not going to show up anyway.
Hey, everybody.
I know why you're here.
Probably has something to do with the simultaneous sip.
I like to think it does.
And if you'd like to join along, it's easy.
All you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a snifter, a stein, a chalice, a tanker, a thermos, a flask, a canteen, a grail, a goblet, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I'm partial to coffee.
And join me now for the simultaneous sip, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Go. Do you feel yourself connected to all people around the world who just simultaneously sipped?
I think you do. I think you do.
Well, let's talk about some of the things that are happening.
So, I hate to be the suspicious one.
Okay, sometimes I like to be the suspicious one.
I hate to start a conspiracy theory.
No, that's not true either.
I love to start a conspiracy theory.
I'll just tell you what's happening, and you can fill in your own conspiracy theory.
So I'm getting reports from a number of people that they ordered my book, Loser Think, from Amazon.
And Amazon has, without explanation, canceled their pre-order based on lack of supply.
Now here's the interesting part.
Some of the people who are getting cancelled for lack of supply ordered it a month ago.
But people who are ordering it today are saying it's just fine.
So do you believe that people who ordered it a month ago are getting cancelled for lack of supply while the people who are ordering it this week are not?
Does that sound right to you?
There's something happening here, and I don't know exactly what it is.
But I asked my publisher to look into it.
I guarantee that the answer will be, we don't know.
It's just one of those things.
For some reason, there must be a glitch in the system.
What are the odds that Amazon, the most sophisticated shopping platform of all time, What are the odds that it can't tell the difference between we have supply and we don't have supply or that they can't keep the order straight that the people who ordered first should be first in line should they have a supply?
There's not really much chance that it's just a mistake in the system.
There's something else happening.
I don't know what.
Now let's put it in context.
I found out today, now I still need confirmation of this because I've got a single source, and that's always sketchy, but it's a reliable sounding single source.
And I'm being told that Dilbert.com just got blocked in China.
Think about that.
Dilbert.com just got blocked in China, obviously for things I've been saying, including in the comic.
Now, take this to sort of the next level of implication.
Imagine, if you will, that we continue trading with China, and because China is a gigantic country, doesn't everybody become the NBA eventually?
And what I mean by that is, eventually, if we kept trading with China, we would all have some kind of entanglement with China, either through our employer, our employers, vendors.
You can think of a thousand ways that we would be connected with China.
And then imagine that China can just cancel you for speech.
Yeah? You see it yet?
The NBA situation is the situation that the entire country will be in.
The freedom of speech in the United States will become a decision that China makes in the future, at least on topics that relate to that.
So that's a pretty big deal.
That's a pretty big deal.
At the same time, we know that there's one of my followers who once a week he goes to a certain tweet of mine that he's liked continuously for, I don't know, weeks now.
And he likes it, makes sure that the like takes.
Then he checks back the next week and it's gone again.
And then he tells me, I liked it again.
Now we're having him try a different device and in a different place just in case there's something special to him.
But You remember I did a survey to ask how many people have followed me only to be automatically unfollowed.
And I think 1,500 people said they'd been unfollowed.
And that's just people who answered the survey.
Imagine how many people didn't bother to answer it, never saw the survey, didn't notice because they didn't see the survey because they had been unfollowed.
So there's that.
Then, of course, you saw what Google did to me in the image search.
I'm not even going to talk about that because it'll just happen again.
That was pretty bad.
And just an update on YouTube.
I'm still pretty much routinely demonetized on YouTube.
Now, there's something that...
Oh, yeah, and then...
I assume that was a technical problem.
But what are the odds that the Matt Gaetz conversation would be the one that had all the massive technical problems?
Is that a coincidence?
I mean, it could be.
Coincidences happen all the time.
In fact, I'm going to be talking about a number of them.
But it happened. You have to throw it in the mix of things that you know and try to interpret it.
Now, YouTube continues to demonetize my videos.
The Matt Gaetz video was instantly demonetized, as most of them are.
Now, the reasons that YouTube would give would sound quite reasonable, because my understanding is that YouTube is trying to satisfy their advertisers who don't want to be associated with certain types of content, especially political content.
And now, so far, you say to yourself, Perfectly reasonable.
If I were an advertiser, I would also want some control about what I'm associated with.
But think about what YouTube used to be and what it is now.
So what YouTube used to be is a place for creators to create what they wanted to create, you know, within the limits of, you know, acceptable behavior.
They could create whatever they wanted, and if people liked it, they would make money because advertisements would be associated with it.
But then advertisers complained, and YouTube responded.
They're a business. They've got stockholders.
They have to respond to that sort of thing.
And at the moment, my understanding is that YouTube is prioritizing people who do high-production stuff that's within the, let's say, the channel that they want to live in, which is more G-rated, more generally acceptable.
Now, what happens is, if the creator's Try to conform to that and say, oh, okay, I've got to do a higher production value because YouTube won't promote me unless I do.
So you're forced to do higher production values.
And you're forced to do a certain kind of generic content that doesn't offend anybody.
But here's the thing.
At that point, aren't you just working for YouTube now?
Do you see the reversal?
Because it seems to be that in the old days, the individual creators were working for themselves.
They would do whatever they wanted, and so long as it wasn't obscene or illegal, they could get paid for it as long as other people wanted to watch it also.
But now that's changed.
Now the only way you can monetize is to make content that YouTube wants you to make.
You work for YouTube now.
Just like they're your boss.
They get to tell you what you can do.
It's a complete reversal from what it was.
And I'm not sure people have quite realized that.
So I don't know to what extent I'm being shadow banned on YouTube for my specific political speech, or if it's just that political speech is all in that category now.
So we got that going on.
So Elizabeth Warren has released her healthcare economics.
And I haven't looked into the economics, but I can tell you this.
How many people who write about Elizabeth Warren's economics are credible?
How many people who look at her numbers are qualified and objective?
Probably nobody.
Because everybody who's not an economist and also not pretty steeped in healthcare economics specifically, they're not going to know what they're looking at.
Nobody's going to know. So journalists, for example, are going to look at it and say, well, what does somebody say?
I'll just repeat that. But then economists are going to look at it too.
But you say, okay, we'll forget about the journalists.
At least the economists will be able to dig into this.
We'll just wait for them.
But the economists have all picked a team.
I wouldn't trust any economist looking at anybody's health care plan because for the most part they've decided in advance what team they're on and then they just find an opinion that matches their team.
So there's almost no way for the public to know Is Warren's plan economical?
Is it crazy? I don't think we have any realistic way to know that.
Here's what I'll say.
The argument that you're hearing from the right is Is nonsense.
So the criticism of the Bernese and the Elizabeth Warrens, etc., on economics is complete nonsense.
Now, they may have bad plans for a variety of reasons, but the criticisms are just crazy.
And the criticism is that there's not enough money in the world to pay for it.
Here's what's crazy about that.
We pretty much already pay for it.
You know, if somebody has a big problem, they go to the hospital, they get treated anyway.
So if all of the big problems are being paid by someone already, that money is already in the system.
The only thing that's not already being paid for is the more routine stuff that people would put off if they don't have healthcare.
And that stuff, the price of that is going down every day, because you can do a doctor visit by email, doctor visit by phone, and probably our prescription drug prices will go down.
So there's something like 12% of people who don't have insurance.
Worst case scenario, Is that our total healthcare costs go up 12%.
But people like Elizabeth Warren and even the President Trump say the same thing, which is there's a lot of fat in the system.
You could probably get rid of 12%.
You can bring down the cost of drugs, you can bring down the cost of lots of things, just by making the market comparisons more transparent, which is one of the things Trump administration is trying to do.
So when anybody tells you that it's fiscally just impossible, the numbers don't work, to provide healthcare insurance for everyone, just remember these few facts.
Everyone's already getting health insurance, so most of the costs are already baked in.
What we don't have is a way to get to those places where the cost is already being paid and to claw it back as needed for some kind of a government plan.
For example, I assume, fact check me on this, but I assume if somebody who doesn't have insurance goes to an emergency room and they do get treated, That the hospital just eats that, right?
Is that right? Can somebody confirm that, that the hospital eats the extra expense of people who don't have insurance and then never pay?
They bill them, but let's say they never pay.
So you would have to tax the hospital, right?
To claw that back.
You know, if suddenly everybody had healthcare, so the hospital got paid every time, the hospital suddenly makes a whole bunch of money that they weren't making before.
So could you tax them somehow and claw back?
I don't know. Probably.
And then that leaves maybe the 12% or the 9%, whatever it is, of people who don't have insurance But are already getting healthcare, so the only part that matters is just 12% of the public, and maybe only a fraction of that total cost for that 12% is not being paid already.
So maybe a 5% increase in price for what everything is now, which you could easily squeeze out of the system by lowering, you know, just being more aggressive on negotiating prices.
So I'm going to say this.
Nobody is going to understand the economics.
Nobody is going to explain it well.
Nobody is credible talking about it, but I will say with complete confidence that there's plenty of money in the system, meaning in the United States in various hands, that's already being employed for healthcare, that if you could get at it in some kind of a tax or a clawback, the government would have everything they need, while at the same time, the rest of the public would just break even.
They wouldn't be worse off.
So if the hospital went from paying for these people who don't have health care insurance, if the hospital was paying it, and now they don't have to pay it, but the government clawed it back in a tax, well, the hospital's right where they were anyway, same place.
But it might be hard to do any of that stuff, which would be a fair point.
All right. Let's talk about Trump's new campaign commercial, which even the Democrats have said, ooh, that's really good.
It's not so much the commercial, but the message and the approach.
And the new message is, and this is the Derranger says over it, after there's a montage of accomplishments, I guess, The quote is, sometimes it takes a Donald Trump to change Washington.
And they talk about, basically, the approach is, you might not like his personality.
He might break some dishes.
He might be a little bit of a bully.
These are my own words. But in general, the message is, you might not like his methods.
But he sure gets things done.
And sometimes you need that personality to get things done.
So even the Democrats said, oh wow, that's pretty good.
That's pretty good. And I think the Republicans agree it's good.
It's really good.
It's really good. Because, let me give you an example.
If you're familiar with the show, it's back on the air, but in the old days, Simon Cowell was one of the judges on American Idol.
And he was the mean one.
He was the one where you'd say to yourself, my God, he's narcissistic, he's mean.
But because he was sort of playing a character, he was actually the most popular person on the show.
Because he was always consistent.
He was always honest, you know, in his opinion anyway, he was honest.
And it just made him kind of interesting.
Trump is doing a similar kind of a branding play and I think it's going to work.
Because you've noticed that he's run the White House sort of like it's a wrestling match, you know, the kind that's not real wrestling, but rather where you play a villain and you take on a persona and you stay in character while you're doing your wrestling match.
And it seems like the president understands that the country would get it if he just said, yeah, I can be a dick.
Look how successful I am.
Maybe you need somebody who's a dick sometimes.
Maybe you need somebody who's a little bit of a bully to bully the other team.
So I think it's really strong.
And it works really well with this impeachment situation.
So the latest person who testified, was it Tim Morrison?
Testified that...
In his words, let me get his exact words.
Basically, he wasn't concerned about anything illegal happening during the Ukraine phone call.
Now, I don't have to tell you that I don't believe the president was accused of doing anything illegal.
Am I right? Fact check me on that.
But the Ukraine phone call was not considered by anyone actually illegal, was it?
It was only something you shouldn't do.
That's the claim. So by the new guy saying, yeah, I was there on the phone call and I didn't hear anything illegal to be concerned about, that's a very specific comment.
And also it agrees with everybody else.
They didn't hear anything that was illegal.
They just say you shouldn't dig up dirt on your opponent by using other countries to do it for you.
Which, of course, is only part of what he was doing.
The other part was just doing his job.
Yeah, the abuse of power part is what they're talking about.
But here's the thing.
The public... Can't really follow this story, right?
The public, they barely know what impeachment means, much less an impeachment inquiry that turns into a vote about impeachment rules that might turn into an impeachment, but did you know impeachment doesn't mean you lose your job, the Senate has to vote?
The public... Has no frickin' idea what any of that's about.
They kind of generally know that impeachment means you lose your job if you're the president.
That's about it. They may not even be following that there is anything called an impeachment going on.
So, when there is complexity, the best simplifier wins.
Let me say that again.
When the situation is complexity, the best simplifier and brander Wins.
Because nobody can discern the actual truth.
And when you can't discern the truth in a complicated situation, your brain just sort of reflexively gravitates to something that's simple and is compatible with sort of what you wanted the truth to be.
So all this impeachment stuff to the public is just going to look confusing.
The Democrats are going to say, he abused his power.
He did some things.
And people are going to say, exactly how did he abuse his power?
And he did some inappropriate things.
And it was unpresidential.
And he broke a precedent.
Do you know what all of those things sound like?
All of those things put together sound like what Trump is actually promising to bring more of.
Trump is actually promising in his new ad that if re-elected, he would bring you more of the thing the Democrats are complaining about.
And he says, it's how you get stuff done.
Now, if you're just an ordinary person who lives in the ordinary world, and maybe you've had a boss, you've just had experiences with people, haven't you seen a million times in your own life The biggest complainer, the person who's the strongest personality, who you might not like that much personally, gets stuff done.
We all know in our personal life there are certain Bullying-like personalities who are just really good at getting stuff done.
You don't have to like it, but they get stuff done.
So when the president makes that claim that, yeah, what if all of it's true?
What if it's all true?
What if I did bully?
What if I did do inappropriate things?
What if I did use some language that's unpresidential?
What if I did, I don't know, any number of things that somebody's going to call abuse of power, etc.
And he says, yep, probably do more of that.
Look how well it's working.
Black unemployment just reached a record, historically low black unemployment.
Do you want some more of that?
Well, if you want some more of that, you probably have to elect the guy who's got this personality that you're having a little trouble with.
It's really good.
It's really, really good.
I can't say enough.
How strong that is.
Now, what is the thing that I keep telling you that Trump does well?
He does the flip it around thing.
I've done the examples all the time.
When fake news was a claim used against Trump and then he flipped it around and turned it into a weapon to use against the fake news, of all things.
And You've seen him do that before, and it looks like he's doing it again, and it looks like a good play.
I'm sure that they've tested all this stuff with test audiences and polls and stuff.
So I would hate to be running against this guy.
I would really hate to be running against this team.
One of the things that Trump doesn't get credit for is we're watching a re-election campaign That might be better than anything we've ever seen.
It might be too early to say that, but is there anybody here who would disagree with it at this point?
Let me ask you this.
Brad Parscale is sort of a superstar running the Trump campaign.
When was the last time the campaign head was like a celebrity?
It's sort of like Johnny Ives, sort of a celebrity in Apple because he was the designer for a lot of the Apple products.
When was the last time a designer was a star in a company?
Well, Johnny Ives was the only one I can even think of, except for actual fashion companies.
And now the Trump campaign is so good, they've raised so much money, and they have such a strong team, that even the guy running the campaign is sort of like a star.
He's that good. So you got that.
Here's a little thing I would love to see.
This is sort of maybe could be a, what is it, campus humor?
Who is the group who always does the on-the-street interviews with people who don't understand politics at all?
They can't name the vice president, that sort of thing.
Well, let me suggest a humorous person-on-the-street interview process.
You go to a person on the street, and they don't know what the context is, and you start asking them questions, and you say this.
Do you think foreign interference in our elections is a bad thing?
Everybody says, yeah, it's a bad thing, foreign interference.
They say, do you think if a president had any kind of financial dealings or his family had financial dealings, let's say a son with another country, is that something you would be concerned about?
Now, at this point, everybody's going to start thinking it's Trump, right?
And they're going to say, yeah, I'd be concerned about any president whose son had a financial entanglement with another country.
Of course I'd be concerned. Then if you said, whose job is it?
To make sure that that concern is not blackmail or undue influence on our electoral process and on our government.
Whose job is it? What would the person on the street say?
Well, if they knew a lot, they might say, well, I think that's FBI and Department of Justice.
And then you say, who's the head of those groups in the executive branch?
The president. So you could get a person on the street to agree with the following things.
Foreign interference is bad.
It's the President of the United States job to look into it.
If there's evidence of foreign entanglement of a family member, it's worth looking into.
And you could get them to completely agree in concept with everything that President Trump did.
It was a high priority.
Every person in the United States thinks that's exactly the sort of thing you should look into.
I'm talking about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.
Everybody would agree it's the executive branch.
Everybody would agree it's a top priority.
You can get the person on the street to 100% back Trump on this impeachment thing simply by asking the questions without Trump's name involved.
Because they would be seduced into thinking you were talking about Don Jr.
Because your brain just goes to Trump first in all things, right?
So you just...
What about if the president's children were trying to make money off the presidency?
You would immediately go to Ivanka and Don Jr., Even though they haven't, right?
It's just your brains are wired that way to just jump there.
All right. So you saw all the news about employment is just amazing.
Apparently we've added like twice as many jobs as they thought.
They've adjusted upwards the last two months.
There were 95,000 more jobs than were reported and it wasn't bad either.
And I guess wages are still going up 3%, which is strong.
I mean, we're just killing it.
Now the GDP is kind of weak.
Compared to earlier in the year.
And that's being blamed on China uncertainty.
And I think we'll get over that.
Because I think eventually we'll realize we have to decouple.
People keep asking me about this issue of China doing transplants on live prisoners.
Or I guess killing them on demand.
Now the The evidence that China was killing people for the purpose of harvesting their organs and selling them is that a good organ you could sell for over $100,000.
So if you had access to a transplantable organ, you could sell it for over $100,000.
So where there's money, somebody's going to do something illegal.
So that's your first piece of evidence.
But the strongest piece...
Is that apparently China has advertised organs that are available sort of on demand.
And all the smart people say, there is no way that you could have all these compatible organs on demand.
Unless you're killing people on demand to take their organs because there wouldn't be enough people who coincidentally died, coincidentally were organ donors, coincidentally were close enough in the right match and all that.
There aren't enough coincidences to have some kind of immediate organ availability.
And therefore, the only way you could understand that is they must be killing people and probably the What's the name of the religious group that they oppress in China?
Falun Gong? Falun Gong?
I don't know. Something like that.
Somebody will put it in the comments and I'll say it correctly.
Somebody's spelling it wrong for me.
Falun Gong. Okay.
So that's the thought, that it's the Uyghurs and the Falun Gong they're using just for organs.
Here's my take on that.
While I do not doubt that somewhere at some time China might have taken an organ from a live prisoner, or somebody may have, I don't know that they're necessarily still alive when they're taking their organs out.
Maybe. I mean, maybe.
I wouldn't put it past them.
I don't think you can necessarily believe they're still doing that.
But here's the thing I want to just put into the thought process.
I think you know that there's no one...
Who would like to believe this is true in the sense that I'd like to have something bad to say about China than me.
I mean, nobody hates China more than I do, right?
I think you all know that.
My stepson died a year ago from a fentanyl overdose.
Nobody hates China more than I do.
So I would love to say that China is killing people for organ transplants, right?
I'm willing to say there's evidence of it, because there is.
The evidence is pretty strong.
But I can't get myself to release on the possibility that it's just bad advertising.
Isn't it possible that they simply advertise that they can get you an organ at a short amount of time, but maybe if you went in and tried to get it, you couldn't?
So I wouldn't rule out that when they say they can quickly get an organ, maybe that's not always true.
Now, it might be that the people we hear about who do quickly get an organ might be well-connected rich people, so it's possible that they're the ones we hear from, and maybe there's something where if you're a well-connected rich person, you can go to the front of the line.
So it might be Some people can get them pretty quickly because they paid enough to go to the front of the line, which would be enough to make it happen fairly quickly compared to just being at the bottom of the line.
So I gotta say that the whole organ transplant thing in China strikes me as the sort of thing that is more often false than true.
Doesn't mean it's false.
Because, you know, if I told you that, you know, back in World War II, if I'd said, oh, you really say that Germany is rounding up all the Jews and is going to systematically kill them in death camps?
If I had been alive at the time, the first time I heard that, I don't know if I would have believed it.
Which probably has happened to a lot of people.
Don't you think in World War II a lot of people said...
I'm not sure I believe those reports.
Because we heard about it.
We meaning people heard about it.
I think a lot of people just said, ah, that's too wild.
I can't believe that's actually happening.
So I'm having the same response with the forced transplants.
But that doesn't mean it's not happening.
It feels like something that isn't happening.
But it could be something that's happening.
Here's what I'd look for.
It seems like our government isn't complaining about it a lot.
The thing I would look for is our government officially, and it doesn't even have to be Trump, maybe a cabinet level somebody, Secretary of State something.
If you see somebody in our government saying, yeah, there's forced transplants happening over there, then I'd be a little more inclined to believe it.
But I don't believe that our government has endorsed that as a fact.
Can somebody fact check me on that?
I believe there are international organizations who have looked at the statistics and believe that it's happening.
But has the government of the United States, somebody said yes, but I'll do some confirmation of that.
Send me a link on Twitter if you know that our government has officially said that's a real thing that is still happening.
They may have said it's happened in the past, but I'd like to see a link that says the U.S. government says forced transplants are happening right now in China.
I'll be surprised if that's actually happened, but not completely surprised.
All right, Joe Biden. He has his latest gaffe.
He confused the Paris Climate Accord with the Paris Peace Accord, which was more of a treaty tend to Vietnam War.
And it was signed in 1973, which was Joe Biden's first year in the Senate.
Now, whoever tweeted this said, you know, he's not playing with the full deck because he couldn't tell the difference between the Paris Peace Accord and the Paris Climate, whatever it is.
But I'm here to say, how many times have I done the same...
I've said the same thing a bunch of times.
You've seen me say Paris Peace Accord several times, haven't you?
When I thought I was talking about the Climate Accord.
Or the Climate, whatever the fuck it is.
So I would say...
That's the sort of gaffe that is so ordinary.
I mean, people all over the country, pundits, reporters, it's probably the most ordinary gaffe you could possibly make.
If you saw this gaffe just by itself, it wouldn't mean anything.
It just wouldn't mean anything.
It's such a common one.
But because it's Joe Biden, and because...
Who's the Democratic...
Political guy who says that Joe Biden's in the candidate protection program where they're trying to make sure that the public sees as little of Joe Biden as possible because the more you see of him, the less you like him.
So I think that's what's happening there.
So let's talk about...
Oh, Trump said he's moving from New York to Florida, which is kind of interesting.
I think de Blasio said good riddance.
But Trump announced it last night, and he referred to New York not being a friendly place to him.
Oh, David Axelrod is the one who used the phrase candidate protection program.
Thank you. And it's interesting because Trump moved in part because of taxes, I think.
So he moved from a Democrat-led place to a Republican-led state.
And I have to tell you, in all complete honesty, if it were easy for me to leave California, I would do it now.
So I'd be ready to go.
Because I've never seen a state managed so poorly.
I would be out of here so fast.
I would head to wherever there's good weather and low taxes, and I'd probably end up in a Republican state.
But it's hard for me.
I've got too many ties here, too much going on, so I can't really leave.
But if I were to make the decision today, I would get the hell out of California because basically the whole state is just burning feces and just going to hell and high taxes.
All right, so that's interesting.
Let's talk about Epstein.
So I've been talking about this on Twitter a little bit.
I'm still the... I'm the holdout in favor of it still being a suicide.
So there's an outside...
What do you call it?
Coroner. Who says that the evidence is consistent with homicide.
The evidence is consistent with homicide.
He actually says it's more consistent with homicide than with suicide.
And so the reasons given are some neck muscles are broken that are more typically broken when somebody else is strangling you than when you hang yourself.
So it's rare for those to be broken in any situation except for a murder.
Now, it also would be unusual that the cameras are broken and the guard fell asleep and the roommate had been transferred.
So there are a whole bunch of coincidences.
And so the coroner says, that's too many coincidences.
It's most compatible with homicide.
But I would like to suggest the following.
I'll bet it is common for suicides to look like murder.
And I'll bet it's common for the evidence to be more suggestive of murder than suicide, even when it is suicide.
So how uncommon is it that there is a real suicide But that the evidence is very suggestive and maybe more suggestive that it's homicide than suicide.
I'll bet that happens fairly often.
I don't know how often, but it's not something that's never happened.
So here's the thing.
Nobody has said that you can't break those muscles with suicide.
I believe that the mistake that people are making is that if you look at how high the bet is, And the distance that he would drop to hang himself from the bed, that that distance is insufficient to break your neck, the neck muscles.
Here's the part I think maybe they are not taking into account.
If you are going to hang yourself from a low object, you know, an object that's not that high off the ground, Wouldn't you jump up in the air, maybe from the bed, or whatever the bed is, and wouldn't you make sure that you got as much height before you came back down?
Now, if somebody found you, they'd say, oh, the thing is tied here, he fell this far, there's no way that could break those neck muscles.
But, if he had stood here, got on top of the bed, jumped up in the air, maybe the distance was three times as much.
Maybe. Maybe.
Now, also consider that Epstein was extremely smart, probably put some serious research into the best way to do it, and probably figured out the most effective way to really, really kill himself.
If you were as smart as Epstein, and you had done the things that he is alleged to have done, I'm sure he has done, And you had continually, your entire life, had done one thing after another that normal people probably could have never pulled off from the way he made his money to the abuses.
Normal people could not have pulled that off.
Could it be that he simply figured out a better way to kill himself and he had the angles and the approach and the distance worked out?
Could it be? Let me give you another possibility.
Suppose there was something heavy in the cell that he put in his arms and then jumped off the top of the bunk, and then the weight of the stuff that was in his arms helped to break his neck, but then when he died, his arms opened, and whatever heavy thing it was rolled onto the floor, And if you were the coroner and you walked in, would you say that the heavy object on the floor was part of the suicide?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Because you just see the heavy thing and you say, well, that doesn't seem related.
It's over here. All I'm saying is, I'm not suggesting that specific thing is a problem.
All I'm saying is that clusters of incompetence are not unusual.
So the fact that the cameras were off, the guards were asleep, the fact that there were a number of incompetence coincidences, I'm not sure that's a coincidence.
Because wherever you have incompetence, you're likely to found more of it.
Incompetence tends to cluster in certain places, right?
That's why some companies are a mess, some groups are a mess.
So it is not that unusual to have a cluster of incompetence.
So the part about what the jail did...
Not that unusual. The fact that the roommate had been moved out, well, that could be something that Epstein himself bribed somebody.
So Epstein may have caused all of these incompetences to happen.
He may have offered to the guards, for example, if you can turn off the cameras so that, you know, there's a reason that you're not stopping me from killing myself, you will get a big cryptocurrency payoff that nobody can trace.
Let me ask you this. If you were Epstein and you wanted to kill yourself, wouldn't you bribe the guards to look the other way and turn off the cameras?
And wouldn't you pay them in cryptocurrency so that there's absolutely no way anybody could ever determine they ever made money?
You would. It'd be easy to do.
Right? So, when you say, hey, it looks like murder because the cameras were off, the guards were asleep, that's also exactly what suicide looks like.
Because Epstein would have wanted the cameras to be off and the guards to be asleep, or pretending to be asleep.
He would have wanted his roommate to be transferred.
And he may have just bribed his way into all of those conditions.
And the guards might be so rich now that when they lose their jobs, they're saying, oh, well, I lost my job, but I got a million dollars of Bitcoin that nobody knows about.
So somebody says, are you an FBI shill?
No, let me say this.
The possibility that he was murdered is absolutely on the table.
So, there's nothing I'm saying that says it's impossible he got murdered.
Totally on the table.
You've got motive, probably opportunity, right?
So, good possibility.
But I would say there's more likely, it's more likely...
That he's really, really good at killing himself.
And that's the part that I think in normal analysis overlooks.
Your average person doesn't have hundreds of millions of dollars that he can easily turn into crypto that he can easily pay to guards on any amount.
Remember, he's going to die.
He could have paid that guard.
Just think about it. He could have paid that guard ten million dollars.
Nobody would ever know.
It would just be a cryptocurrency transfer.
You don't know. I think that's the most likely explanation is he's just good at killing himself.
All right. That's about all I've got for now.
Completely unpersuasive, you say.
Well, I would say this.
That coincidence is easy to overrate because the world is full of coincidences and you don't notice them until somebody draws your attention to it.
So don't make too much of coincidence.
Now, I'll make a prediction.
My prediction is that there will never be a time when there's an actual suspect who gets tried and convicted for the murder.
Now, how often do you see a murder that would...
I mean, you'd have to have...
It'd be pretty complicated to have a murder that nobody saw.
Because all you need is one person in prison who's a witness, who's willing to sell the story, right?
Let's say it was a prisoner who killed him.
What are the odds that other prisoners would know about it if one of the prisoners had been enlisted to kill him?
Probably 100%.
Don't you think there's a 100% chance that other prisoners would know if one of them killed him?
And how much money could that prisoner make for telling their story?
A lot.
A lot. If you were the prisoner who knew who killed Epstein, how much could you sell your story for?
Name your price.
You could sell it for a lot.
So, I predict...
Well, let me ask you that.
Wouldn't snitches get stitches?
Well, they would have to also negotiate to get out of jail, probably.
So they'd have to say, you've got to let me out, and you've got to pay me some money, maybe, and I'll tell my story.
All right.
Epstein's brother is rich enough to pay for the truth.
Exactly. Exactly. So if there's somebody who's got the truth, remember, the people who have the truth would be criminals because they're in jail.
Would a criminal sell out another criminal in jail for millions of dollars and maybe a reduced time?
Would a criminal sell out somebody for millions of dollars?
Some wouldn't, but my prediction is we'll never know who did it if it's a murder.
Meaning that there probably wasn't a murder.
Alright, that's all for now.
▲
Export Selection