All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 19, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:25
Episode 761 Scott Adams: Shampeachment and Coffee. Mmmmm-Good.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Come on in here. It's time to talk about...
Shampeachment!
Yes! And when you're talking about shampeachment, is there anything better?
Anything better than the simultaneous sip?
No, there is not. And you can enjoy it simply by grabbing your cup, mug, glass, snifter, stein, chalice, tanker, thermos, flask, canteen, grail, goblet, vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee with my champeachment.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes every champeachment day better, the simultaneous sip.
Go. Yep, yep, yep.
Oh wait, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Let me try that again.
There's something wrong.
Did you notice that?
There was an impeachment vote last night.
I'm all confused now.
Because there was an impeachment vote last night But this morning, my coffee tastes exactly the same.
How is that even possible?
I was told to expect horrible, horrible things.
Everything will change with all this impeachment stuff.
So, I don't know if you noticed, but the President of the United States, the...
The most powerful leader in civilization retweeted me this morning, in which I said, if the impeachment is shit, you must acquit.
That's right. The one time he decides to retweet me is with a four-letter word.
So, we like our president.
Now, I have to warn you. That I'm back on some meds for some nasal cavity problems.
So I started taking prednisone again.
And I know from past experiences that it could have a mood destabilizing effect.
And if you look over here, you can see that my printer, well, you can't really tell, but my printer is blinking and not working.
I can't tell you how close I was to throwing the printer on a second story window on Periscope so you could enjoy it.
And I mean that literally.
I picked it up and I was ready to throw it on a second story window.
And then I remembered, oh yeah!
The doctor told me yesterday that the present zone might cause some mood swings.
So, let me tell you, the only reason that my printer is not already lying in a hundred pieces on the sidewalk below my house is that I remembered my doctor told me, you know, you might want to watch for these mood swings.
But man, do I want to throw that out a window.
So much you can't even imagine it.
I mean, I really do. I really, really want to throw it out a window.
And I'm not even in a bad mood.
I'm just mad that it didn't give me the copy I need.
So now I look bad.
See, I've got the glow of my screen that I must look at for my notes instead.
All right, let's talk about the impeachment.
As you all know, the Senate voted on the Xi impeachment.
I think we need a name for it.
When there's a vote for impeachment and it is completely partisan, should you call it an impeachment?
Or is it more of a half-peachment?
Is it a sham-peachment?
If only one side is doing it, is it a master-peachment?
Are they master-peaching?
I think they're master-peaching because it's not affecting anything else.
And I think some of you saw the video of Representative Tlaib and others laughing and joking and being so happy on their way to impeachment.
And one of the things that I... I had to wonder is, what is it, you know, it's hard to read minds, so you're only speculating what other people are thinking, but what is it that the Democrats who are voting for impeachment and the Democrats who are supporting impeachment, what is it that they're hoping to accomplish?
Because by now they've figured out it will be bad for re-election, right?
Do you think there's any Democrat at this point who doesn't already know that impeachment will only make them lose the presidency, maybe lose the House?
They know that, right?
Because everybody's talking about it.
It would be hard not to know.
So if they know it's going to be bad for them in terms of the election...
And they know that they won't actually be able to remove the president, and therefore there's no benefit in terms of saving the country from his future crimes.
What is left?
It doesn't help them politically.
That has to be known by all at this point.
The polls are showing it, etc.
If it doesn't help you politically, and it doesn't even help you avoid...
The imaginary future crimes that they say he will commit.
What's the point?
That's an actual serious question.
Literally, what are they thinking?
I don't know. Here's my best guess.
Just speculation. We cannot read minds.
But I'm going to throw it out there as sort of the default...
assumption because all the other assumptions don't make sense.
It's not for the country and it's not for even selfish purposes of getting elected.
It's got to be to feel better.
When you saw the video of Tlaib laughing and dancing and so happy that she was going to go vote to impeach the president, she knew it wasn't going to remove him from office.
And she probably knew, because everybody else knows, that it wasn't even going to hurt him in the election.
It might help him.
So why was she so happy?
The only thing I can think of is that they believe that it will make him unhappy, and that they're trying to hurt him personally.
They feel bullied.
They feel like he's a monster.
They feel like he's lashed down at them, sometimes personally.
But don't you think that we've come down to a psychological problem?
I mean, it's no longer a constitutional question, really.
It isn't. It's not a political question anymore, really.
It's not a legal question.
There's no crime alleged.
There's really nothing left Except people acting out to try to make themselves feel better in a situation in which they're feeling helpless and doomed.
So that's it, right?
Now, I'm open to other explanations.
But it feels like it's done for completely emotional reasons, like a blanket.
So the sham-peachment is more like a sham-wow, one of those little towels.
It's like, ooh, everything's still the same, but I feel better.
I feel better with my sham-wow, sham-peachment.
I feel like that's all that's left.
Mark Levin noted that in his tweet that Nancy Pelosi was apparently advised by left-wing Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe To delay sending the impeachment to the Senate.
So she's unilaterally sitting on the impeachments.
And I tweeted, to be fair, Pelosi sitting on the impeachment is halfway to where that impeachment needs to go.
That's right. Up her ass.
That's what I'm talking about.
So, it looks like we're going to find out if Democrats can get Trump re-elected and chew gum at the same time, because that's what they're doing.
And so far, they're doing a good job, because the Democrats are succeeding in getting Trump re-elected, and they're chewing gum.
I guess they can do two things at the same time.
So, point made.
Vladimir Putin weighed in with his opinion.
Vladimir Putin says that impeachment was for a, quote, made up reason.
Even Vladimir Putin is laughing at impeachment and calling it a made up reason.
Of course, that's going to make people think, well, Putin and Trump must be in bed because they're on the same side of impeachment.
Because that's how dumb we are.
We just assume that the world is that simple.
It's a funny day because a lot of the tweets are hilarious today.
Now, somebody tweeted yesterday, and I think many of you had the same experience.
If you were switching back in the channels last night between CNN and then the president's rally, was that the weirdest thing in the world?
Because when you watch the president's rally, he seemed relaxed.
Completely unbothered, funny, laughing, having a good time, looking forward to re-election.
The crowd loves it.
It's nothing but a fun night.
And then you go over to CNN, and they're all solemn.
It's a sad day for the republic.
Wait, what did the president say about Representative Dingell?
Oh! Switch the channel over to Trump.
Yay! Back to CNN. We are marinating in our own feces.
So the two movies on one screen was quite stark.
But watching the tweets after the fact was just as fun.
So here's one from, maybe you're on the Periscope right now, Robert Kapko.
He had this tweet.
He said, the Democrats have managed to turn impeachment into a strongly worded letter.
Basically, they've managed to take...
This very important constitutional thing, impeachment, and turn it into a stern warning.
Don't you do that.
And here's another funny tweet from Katie Yonke.
I think it was in response to a tweet I made asking whether the Democrats are only doing this so they can feel better.
And Katie tweets in narrator voice, narrator.
But it did not make Trump feel bad, and it helped him win the re-election.
For some reason that's funnier in narrator voice.
But it did not make Trump feel bad.
It only helped him win the re-election.
So that was good.
All right. I know what you want me to talk about.
You want me to talk about President Trump's comment about Representative Dingell.
And I don't know how to talk about this without seeming like a bad person.
So, I'm just going to go ahead and sound like a bad person.
So, if you didn't see it, it's really one for the ages.
And if it had not happened on the same night as the impeachment, it's all we'd be talking about.
But... So the background is Representative Dingell, who died earlier this year, February, I think.
He was 92 years old, and he was beloved by both the Democrats and the Republicans.
And he was from Michigan, and that's where the president was speaking.
His wife, Representative Dingell...
So Debbie Dingell is the wife, and President Trump tells a story about how she came to him, even though she's going to vote for impeachment, and she did, that she had come to him when her husband died and asked for the full sort of state treatment, and President Trump said he gave her the A-plus treatment with lowering the flag and everything.
Even though he didn't need to, but he was showing what a good guy he was.
And then, you know, she goes ahead and votes for impeachment.
And as the president is talking about her husband who died this year, like this year he died, he said that, he mentioned that Or she did.
I forget, one of the men said that he was probably looking down on this day.
And the president quipped, probably without thinking about it too much, he goes, we're looking up.
In other words, the president joked that Debbie Dingell's recently deceased husband might be in hell.
Now... I'm not proud of the fact that I spent 10 minutes crying at my desk.
Just crying.
I was laughing so hard.
Now, again, let me point out, the joke is not what he said.
The joke is not that it's witty, that he made a joke.
Oh, he's maybe up there, but maybe he's down there.
It's not the joke.
It's the fact that he said it at all.
And I'm not going to defend it, because you don't defend that kind of comment, but that doesn't make it less funny.
Now, I get that it probably wasn't funny to Debbie Dingell and her family or anybody who found the deceased beloved.
I get that.
But I can't change the fact that it made me laugh until I was a web puddle on the floor.
I can't change that.
I'm just describing what happened.
And here's the thing.
Of course all of the proper people will be outraged.
They'll be outraged.
It's an outrage.
It's an outrage. Let me get my Dale Beard.
How can the president say that?
That's an outrage! That's an outrage!
I'm so outraged! Look at me, all outraged!
I'm outraged!
First of all, Debbie Dingell probably cares, and the family probably cares, and maybe some people who are really close to the departed, they probably care.
Everybody else who says they care, they're just liars.
Nobody really cares about this bad joke.
And when I say bad, I mean hilarious, but inappropriate, which is what makes it hilarious.
Now, let's look at the context.
Debbie Dingell just voted to impeach the president and overthrow an election.
Illegitimately, in my opinion.
Because this is my opinion.
I don't think the impeachment process was legitimate, and I think the fact that it's completely partisan is strong evidence of that.
So, if you're Debbie Dingell and you just participated in, essentially, an illegitimate coup attempt trying to use the Constitution as your fig leaf, You're kind of a piece of shit.
You kind of are.
And if the President of the United States gets up in front of the public and calls you out for being a piece of shit, when you're being a piece of shit that very day, and he does it in the worst possible insulting, inappropriate, disrespectful way, I'm not going to care a lot.
I get it. I get it.
If somebody's offended, I get it.
I just can't find the caring to care enough about that.
All right, so I love the fact that Nancy Pelosi is desperately looking for some way to salvage one of the worst defeats of all time.
Here's what makes it the worst defeat of all time.
It will probably help the election for Trump.
It will probably help Get more Republicans elected.
So it's a complete disaster.
But Pelosi has to try to salvage something out of it.
So the latest thing they're thinking about is not sending over the impeachment to the Senate so the Senate can't slap it down and just put a cap on it.
But people who are smarter than me, including Joel Pollack, was tweeting that the Senate can still vote it down without actually receiving it.
I think that's... I hope I'm not misinterpreting that.
So the Senate doesn't actually have to receive them, although I think the Constitution requires that they do.
But they can just vote it down.
And you just say, well, okay, it's out of here.
So I don't know that Pelosi has any real play there.
I think she's trying to figure out how to minimize the loss because it's all bad, even though it's supposedly good.
Now, remember I told you...
I told you earlier this week that Trump changes every room he enters.
So it's not the room affecting Trump.
Trump changes the room.
And the room he's entering now is impeachment.
And I told you that whatever you thought impeachment was a week ago, whatever that word meant to you, whatever importance and credibility you put on that word a week ago, that when Trump was done with it, it wouldn't even mean the same thing.
That the word impeachment would just change in our minds from this solemn, important, most critical part of our Constitution, one could argue.
It would change into just something ridiculous.
And you woke up this morning and your president, many of you voted for him, you found that your president had been impeached And this morning, what does impeachment mean to you?
It just doesn't mean the same thing anymore.
Trump completely changed what that word means to all of us.
Now it's just a political dirty trick of no importance.
It's just completely empty, meaningless, nothing.
It's like he got a tattoo on his shoulder that said impeached.
It's just a tattoo. It's nothing.
And as I said yesterday, it fits his character because he's a bad boy.
If you're a bad boy and you don't have a prison record and you haven't been impeached, well, what kind of a bad boy are you?
So he's got that going for him.
Now let's talk about Tulsi Gabbard.
So Tulsi Gabbard is the only person who voted present.
All but two of the other Democrats voted to impeach.
100% of the Republicans voted not to impeach in the House.
And Tulsi Gabbard said that impeachment has to be a bipartisan process, and because this is obviously not bipartisan, It does not meet the constitutional test, so she voted present.
She didn't want to vote against it because she thinks the president made some mistakes, but she's not willing to vote for it because it's partisan, and that's not what impeachment is.
Now, I said it was the smartest play of the day.
Here's why Tulsi Gabbard is the smartest politician in the United States today, At least in the House.
Who are we talking about today?
Well, President Trump and Pelosi, of course.
But Tulsi? Which other politician?
Maybe Debbie Dingell, for the wrong reasons.
But remember, rule number one of persuasion.
You have to get people talking about you.
Rule number one.
There are two parts of persuasion.
First, get all the attention.
Then there's all the technique of how to be a good persuader.
If you don't do step one, get all the attention.
It doesn't matter if you're good at step two, because nobody's going to see it.
Step one, get all the attention.
How'd she do? Those are the two parts of persuasion.
Step one and step two.
How did she do on step one, getting attention?
A hundred percent. A hundred percent.
It was the best get attention move that was possible.
Because everybody else was doing something predictable.
So she did something provocative, controversial, predictable.
And who are we talking about?
All day long we're going to talk about Tulsi Gabbard.
So on that one dimension, would you agree that's a home run?
If we're just compartmentalizing, you don't have to yet have an opinion about the whole strategy.
Just on that one thing, will you acknowledge that she got more attention than other people and that that's a necessary quality of persuasion?
I think you're with me on that.
Now, the second part is that it's the high ground maneuver.
The high ground maneuver is when you let all the people argue in the weeds about, was it a perfect phone call or was it a slightly imperfect phone call?
But was it a crime and a misdemeanor?
Was it a high crime?
Was it a misdemeanor? What does bribery mean?
That's the weeds.
Weeds, weeds, weeds, weeds, weeds.
If you're in the weeds, you're the small person in the conversation.
What would be above the weeds?
If it's not bipartisan, it's not constitutional.
Does it matter if the call was perfect or not perfect?
If it's not even constitutional because of the partisanship?
It doesn't matter. The details of the letter don't matter.
What the president did, Ukraine, none of it matters.
It literally doesn't matter because high ground, it doesn't pass the first test.
That it's a bipartisan thing.
Tulsi Gabbard found the high ground.
How many people had the high ground available to them?
100% of them.
All right, well, this would only apply to the Democrats.
But within the Democrat world, 100% of them had available to them that play.
And the play was, I'm going to rise above this.
Yes, I think the President did something wrong.
If they do, I don't.
But if they do, they can say that.
That's a fair opinion.
And then rise above it.
Only one person saw the free money laying on the table.
Yeah, there's somebody saying in the comments, free money.
There was a big frickin' pile of free money sitting on the table.
Free money in the form of attention.
And the right kind of attention because it's high ground attention.
It's not just attention for doing something dumb or stupid or provocative.
It's the high ground for protecting the Constitution at the most aggressive way.
Now, what did all of her detractors say to me today when I said it was a brilliant A-plus play?
They said to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, you frickin' idiot, Scott.
They didn't say that, but it was implied.
They said, her vote, voting present, is the opposite of being brave.
It's the opposite of taking a stand.
If you don't take a stand on such an important thing, you're being a coward and you're being wishy-washy and you're not being a leader.
That's what people said to me.
To which I say, well, that's about the dumbest opinion I've ever heard in my life.
There were not two positions and you could vote one way or the other.
There were always three.
She found the third one.
It was the right one, because it got her all the attention and has supported the Constitution at the highest level, you know, the concept level, without the weeds.
Not only was it brave because she's being, you know, castigated by both sides, it was very brave.
It was the bravest thing you could do to take the least popular view.
If she had taken either a yes or no view, half of the country would have said, we love you.
She took the view that guarantees both sides are going to be pissed off at her.
For now. For now.
Getting both sides pissed off at you isn't always bad in the long run if it also accomplishes getting all the attention.
It's what President Trump does.
He makes half of the world pissed off while getting all the attention.
And then he uses the attention as his tools and he works with that and then he becomes president.
So, voting president is the opposite of being on the fence.
That is a very specific decision with very clear direction about why.
It's the high ground.
It was the right thing.
She took the free money off the table.
Nobody else did. A-plus for Tulsi Gabbard.
And if you're arguing with that, there's something you're just not understanding.
Because this one is a clean win for her, in my opinion.
All right. Let's see what else we got going on here.
Did you see the funny clip of Nancy Pelosi shushing people after she read the results or was it the first impeachment thing after the results?
I guess there was some cheering and Pelosi was reading it and she did the school teacher like, you know, just a quick little look and try to shut down the cheering.
And I was trying to imagine what it was like to be the Democrats when they're getting their fantasy fulfilled of a successful impeachment vote.
And I thought, that would be like, not only are they getting their fantasy, but they can't show any emotion.
What would it feel like To have your best day ever, if you're a Democrat, oh, finally, finally we got the impeachment, and you're not allowed to shout.
I imagined being in a long car ride with Eric Swalwell when you've just eaten Mexican.
And Eric's there like, keep it in.
Keep it in.
It felt like the same thing.
It felt like Eric Swalwell in a long car ride from a Mexican restaurant.
That'll be funnier when you think about it later.
All right. What else is going on?
That's about it. So, there are a number of people who I would consider somewhat on the fence wishy-washy cowards.
And those are the people who are, I guess both Democrats and Republicans have said this, but I'm more angry at the Republicans.
The Republicans who say that the President's phone call was very much not perfect, but they don't think he should be impeached for it, to which I say, what part of his phone call was not perfect?
If you make the claim that the President's phone call with Ukraine was not perfect, what would be the reason that it's imperfect?
And it's not so obvious to me.
Now, you can certainly say it's imperfect because it caused a political problem, but that's not what people are talking about.
They're not talking about that.
They're talking about the actual, you know, doing the job of president, that he did it wrong with that phone call.
So it wasn't a perfect phone call.
I think I said letter instead of phone call.
But here's my take on it.
Did he break the law in the phone call?
Apparently not, because even the impeachment articles don't allege that.
Did he ask for something that the citizens of the United States want?
Yes, because we had a legitimate interest in Burisma and Biden, given that Biden was...
Polling high to be the next president.
So it was a top priority because election interference or finding out if your next president has any kind of, you know, blackmail potential or anything.
Very important. Top priority for the country.
So it was a top priority.
The president did not break any laws.
People asked, like, why did he have to do it yourself?
To which I say, if he could have done it a different way, as in just assign it to an underling, I'm pretty sure he would have done that.
But in the real world, often the leaders have to agree before the underlings will really take it seriously.
So I assume that if he had other ways to do it, he would have done it months ago.
If the investigation had already been underway in Ukraine because he, let's say, told an underling and the underling told Ukraine, if it was already happening, he wouldn't have had to ask for it.
So He used a process that was the only process available to him, because obviously the underling process wasn't going to work.
It was something that was a top priority for the country.
He did it completely legally, and there's still a question of whether he used pressure about the releasing of the funds, but all the evidence says that Ukraine wasn't even aware of it.
Weren't even aware of it.
And so I'm not sure it matters because he would have every right to withhold funds to pressure them.
He certainly had the right to do that.
And he certainly had the right to weigh, you know, a few extra days or however long of Ukraine not having that non-lethal aid versus, you know, maybe getting an investigation going on something that was a top priority for the country.
Those are both really important.
And the president, it's his job to weigh those and say, okay, I'll let this go a few extra weeks because that might be the only way to get this other thing, if that's what happened.
Now, there's no evidence that he actually used that leverage because Ukraine wasn't aware of it.
And it's not really leverage if the people you're using leverage on are not even aware of it.
So I would challenge those who say the phone call was anything but perfect because I can't find a flaw in it.
Certainly a political flaw, but that's not what people are talking about.
Right? So where am I wrong?
The only way you can turn that into an imperfect call is by framing it illegitimately.
And here's a rule for you to remember.
If you frame something wrong, you can't get the right answer.
So if the way you framed it was digging up dirt on an opponent through a foreign entity, if that's how you framed it, then the framing is the answer to the question.
Like, there's no thinking involved because the framing removes the thinking.
There's nobody who would favor digging up dirt on an opponent using a foreign country if that's all it was.
So with that framing, you're stuck in that frame, and what are you going to do?
Nobody's in favor of that.
But if you're looking at a more legitimate frame, which is, was it a top national priority?
Was it the president's job?
Did he perform his job on a top priority in the only way that was really available for him to do it?
Yes, yes and yes.
He did exactly what the country would have wanted.
Now, if you're speculating, yeah, but his real internal secret thoughts were that it was just all about winning re-election, that's still legal, still perfect, still appropriate.
The president has every right to pursue re-election through the process of doing the people's work.
As long as it was a top priority for the country, it was certainly a top priority for me.
I can speak personally.
It doesn't matter if it's also being done for selfish reasons.
reasons it's just not relevant that's how our process works so one of the other framing that the Democrats do to make you reach their conclusion uncritically is there they continue to repeat no one is above the law No one's above the law.
No one's above the law. And if you accept that frame, then you uncritically accept that the president has somehow violated a law and therefore he must be dealt with.
But they're not even alleging a law was broken.
There's no law alleged.
So every time they say he's not above the law, they're not even on the right topic.
If they had alleged that the president had broken a law, then it might make sense to say nobody's above the law.
But if you're in a completely political process where no law has been broken, what does it mean to say he's not above the law?
It's a persuasion trick to put your brain in that frame.
That's all it is. All right, but it is very effective, you're right.
It's effective because it's sort of a bumper sticker of thought.
So I tweeted out that no one is below the law either.
Now, below the law doesn't really mean anything because everybody is below the law.
So it actually is sort of nonsense, but it makes you think.
It makes you think that you can't use the law to abuse somebody either.
The funniest quote is one of the funniest tweets I saw today.
I forget who said it, but I'm going to repeat it because it's funny, but there's an F word in it.
So if you don't want to hear the F word in a humorous context, you should turn down your sound now.
Here's the joke.
Somebody said that...
The only presidents who get impeached are the ones who make the mistake of fucking Hillary Clinton.
Because Bill Clinton and now Trump.
Okay, turn your sound back on.
It's okay. It's okay.
Come on back. Which is pretty clever.
So... We have certainly broken into these two separate worlds, and I think you can all feel it in a way that it just gets stronger and stronger.
The entire Trump world seems to be laughing and completely relaxed and feeling vindicated, really, because the fact that you couldn't get a single, not even one, Republican to vote for it is all you need to know.
All you need to know is that not one Republican in the House voted for it.
Now, we don't know if the Senate will even vote.
I'm guessing they will at some point.
But that's sort of the beginning and the end of the story.
All the rest is weeds.
Doesn't matter. Some of us are trying to eat, somebody said.
Yeah. So I saw there were some polls that said that Trump would beat any one of the Democratic challengers, and then immediately CNN responded with a poll that said that Joe Biden is leading.
So I'm a little confused where the polls are at.
But if it's true that the polls have moved and that Trump is beating every Democrat in the race, what are they going to do?
What in the world are they going to do?
I don't know. It's just an open question.
Alright. Any pardons today?
It would be a great time to do some pardons, wouldn't it?
Because it would take all the attention and it would have to go to the pardons.
And if it did, it would take it away from the impeachment.
So it's probably the perfect time to do some...
You know, if he pardoned...
Roger Stone for Christmas, at the same time that he got impeached, it'd be kind of perfect.
Like, if he's going to, and I don't know what the legalities are, I don't know if he even can, I assume they're federal charges, right?
He can clear Roger Stone, whatever the legal word for it is.
It would be kind of the right time to do that.
Because Manafort's a special case.
Manafort broke some serious laws.
Stone was a professional liar who got caught lying.
That doesn't feel like the same thing, right?
If you're a professional liar, and that's all you do, and everybody knows you as, you know, I think...
Was it Michael Tracy who called him a fabulist?
If you know that somebody is a fabulist, in other words, they spin stories continually, and you go to jail for telling a lie, well, it's almost like that's on FBI, you know?
It's like, you should have seen that coming.
Yeah, and I suppose Flynn would be the obvious one.
Stone and Flynn pardons at the end of the year If you're going to do it, if you're going to do it, if somebody says exonerate, yeah, so I don't know the legal technicalities, but if you're going to do it, would there be a better time than the end of the year, the best year a president ever had?
Literally, this might be the best year any president ever had.
Could be. I mean, it's certainly up there in the top three.
I don't even know who else would be close.
And it's Christmas, and the news people are mostly on vacation, and they want to talk about this impeachment.
They don't want to talk about something else yet.
They want to dwell on it a little bit.
It's the time.
Now, I'm not saying he's going to do it, but there will never be a better time than this week, if he plans to.
All right. Which two Dems voted against impeachment?
Eh, it doesn't really matter. They were ones in Trump supporting territories.
Yeah, I don't know what's going on with Assange.
I'm really confused about that whole story.
There's just something going on there that I feel like we don't know.
I feel as if there's some hidden information.
Alright, yeah, pardoning Manafort would probably be a mistake, because he was a tax cheat, and he cheated on taxes, and that means he cost me money.
Manafort stole from me, and you, if you pay taxes in the United States, because he was a tax cheat.
So, I don't feel the same about Manafort as I do for somebody who's a professional liar who got caught lying.
I mean, really? Alright, pardon everybody but Cohen.
Yeah, I don't think Cohen has earned a pardon, but I wouldn't complain if he got one.
Honestly. You know, if Cohen got a pardon, it would really make everybody chatter because people would say, this is Trump signaling to people that they can break the law and get away with it as long as it's good for him.
That's how it would be covered.
But I wouldn't It wouldn't be the worst thing.
Somebody's asking about a John Brennan indictment.
Is it my imagination or am I watching the wrong networks?
But John Brennan sort of disappeared, didn't he?
Can somebody fact check that?
When was the last time John Brennan appeared on camera?
Recently? I'd like to know how that's going.
All right. Exonerate Tommy Chong.
Tommy Chong isn't in prison anymore, is he?
I thought he got out. All right, that's all I got.
I will talk to you all later.
▲
Export Selection