Episode 818 Scott Adams: Coming in HOT. There Will be Cursing
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Content:
Coronavirus look forward at what to expect
Roger Stone sentencing "enhancements" and jury foreperson
3 strong pieces of evidence it was a crooked process
President Trump's comments and decorum, tradition
Geraldo's provocative question...4 high level attorneys?
Did Brennan and Clapper break same laws as Roger Stone?
John Kelly slams President Trump on Korea talks progress
Adam Schiff challenger, Independent candidate Jennifer Barbosa
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
And it's certainly inappropriate in many situations.
But some days, you just have to do it.
But we'll get to that. First, the good news.
You can enjoy the simultaneous sip.
It's that great feeling that starts your day.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stye, and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. Ah, good morning, San Ramon.
Neighbor, good to see you.
So, I want to start with some good news and a positive thing.
Oh, we're going to get to the coronavirus.
We're going to get to Roger Stone.
But let's do some good news first.
So, yesterday I got a package in the mail.
And I want to tell you about how that went.
This is a marketing story.
It's a persuasion lesson.
Okay? So I get something in the mail and I open it up and it's this box.
There's something in it. It's something sort of heavy.
So I think, what could it be?
Now the first part of the story is, this is a really good box.
It's not quite Apple computer quality where you're opening your iPhone and it's It's like an essential experience, but it's not bad.
It's not bad. It's sort of a smooth thing, and it just sort of slid open pretty well.
I open it up, and there's some packing in there, and I have to sort of dig around in the packing.
And I start taking out items, and the first one I see is this.
WD-40. I'm like, what?
Why is somebody sending me WD-40?
And then the next thing I take out is this tape.
It's black electrical tape.
What? And then the next thing is these goggles.
What? Right?
And then I get to the real meat of it, this book.
It's called Friction by Roger Dooley.
Now, you'll see that I just did his podcast, and it's in my Twitter feed.
You can find the link to it, so my interview with him.
Now, I talk about friction all the time on the podcast, and I think Roger Dooley was, that may have been one of the reasons he wanted to talk to me and interview me, and he sent me his book.
Now, here's the payoff here.
A lot of people send me books.
I try to discourage it, because my house would actually just be full of books.
Because if you can imagine how many authors would like me to mention their book, it's a common practice to send a book out to other people.
Now, I don't know, hundreds of people over my career, hundreds and hundreds, have sent me books in the mail.
And usually it's just wrapped in a mailer, and you open it up and there'll be a little note on the inside.
And I don't pay much attention to them, and I don't read them generally, and then I have something I don't want to throw away, but eventually I do.
So generally, everybody fails at that task.
Of getting my attention.
But this one caused me to stop and focus.
And it gave me things I can't throw away.
I'm not going to throw this away, right?
And it's a size I wouldn't buy.
I actually have WD-40 in the garage, but I don't have this size.
So every time I see this, I'm going to say, oh, that's that Roger Dooley book, Friction.
And then because the book is called Friction, he's got something about friction in there.
And then the goggles, there was a little note, a very nice little note that came with it from Roger, explaining that the goggles are so you can see the friction, etc.
Now it's a book, I think, that involves persuasion and friction.
I haven't dug into it yet.
I hear good things about it.
Got great reviews.
And here's my point.
Look how different...
The level of marketing skill was in this example compared to basically everybody else.
Everybody else. So it was quite memorable.
Let me promise you, I'm never going to do this again.
I'm never going to open a cleverly packaged book and then show it on Periscope.
So if you're an author and you just said to yourself, aha, now I know what to do.
I can get some attention if I send a cleverly packaged book.
It only works once. I'm never going to do this again.
Don't send me another cleverly packaged book.
It's not going to work. But this was a great job.
Roger Dooley, if your book is as good as your marketing, you should all read that book.
Let's talk about the coronavirus first.
There are 570 confirmed cases of it outside of China.
But There should be, let's say there's a 2% death rate.
So that would be around 11 people who should have died outside of China who were not actually just people who were in China just recently.
And I'm still waiting for the reports of non-Asian deaths I think there was an 80-year-old who died recently.
Not sure that counts because any kind of a flu can take out an 80-year-old.
So we still have that open question whether there's something about this virus that has a preference for the speculation is that there's something about the receptors in the lungs of Asian men in particular, more so than women.
Well, we'll see. So I would say that's just an open question.
I'm still waiting, and the absence of confirmation that it's affecting everybody equally is starting to get noticeable, isn't it?
So we'll wait for that.
Think a little bit into the future and see how we're going to handle the next pandemic.
So I hope we're doing a good job on this one, but think a little bit in the future and imagine the technology that we'll have.
China in particular, of course, will have the ability to remove, and already have, remove all sense of privacy.
So the Chinese, basically, they're losing their privacy.
In the United States, I'm going to guess that our penetration of cell phones here is probably higher, smartphones, than China, if you look at the entire country of China.
So our country, in theory, already has the technological ability Maybe not the will and maybe not the legal authority, but certainly the technological ability exists for our government to immediately know where everybody who has a phone is.
So that's the first thing.
So in the future, we'll know where everybody is, and in theory, that would be enough to tell you who is associating with who, and you could quickly clamp down on a pandemic because you'd say, oh, this little cluster.
Send a text to their phones and tell them to wait there.
That's just an example.
So most of them wait there, some of them don't, but you can still follow them if you catch up to them.
But also, what if a technology like that Clearview app someday in the future could identify somebody who recently traveled to China?
Because I assume that in some databases somewhere, there must be records of who traveled where.
I don't know where those records exist, but you have to think that any plane coming in from the United States, we probably have some kind of accounting of where they came from, right?
I mean, that seems obvious. So suppose you have the Clearview app, which identifies faces of people and puts an identity on them.
At the moment, it's being used by law enforcement.
And maybe you can assume that it's always only used by law enforcement, but I assume that kind of app, if it's not that one, some other one, will be generally available.
Imagine having your augmented reality glasses on.
Snapchat is making one.
I think Google's got one.
I'm sure Apple has one.
And you're walking down a public street.
And you've got something like the Clearview app technology that can recognize faces and put identities to them.
And then, only if there's a pandemic...
And remember this part?
Because this is the part...
If you don't catch this part, you'll have a totally different idea of it.
Only in an emergency, and only in a pandemic, let's say...
This is just hypothetical. We're just brainstorming here.
Let's say the government of the United States says, oh, in this one case...
We're going to let that facial recognition app have access also to the database of who's just met in China.
So imagine walking down the street, crowd is going by, and one of the people in the crowd is just glowing.
It just has an aura around them.
And that's how your augmented reality has identified that it's recognized the face and matched it to a database and found out that person just came from China.
You'd keep your distance, right?
You walk into a coffee shop, you look around, you're like, whoops, sitting at that table, I'm out.
So I don't know if this would work.
I don't know if the violations of privacy might be so extreme that we'd never do it.
Maybe the entities involved would never be able to coordinate.
You can see lots of reasons why there would be obstacles to this, but the technology's all there.
All the technology is there.
And all it's going to take is one pandemic that's like the bad one.
I don't know if coronavirus will rise to the level of, you know, big enough to change how we do business.
I'm not sure if it will.
It might. But I think there's a guarantee that someday our phones, our apps will allow us to avoid contamination.
And tamp down on it.
I think that's a guarantee. I would say if you fast forward 10 years, pandemics will be handled by app.
That would be my prediction.
All right. Of course, not the app alone, but the app would be a big part of it.
All right. Bill Barr is reviewing the Roger Stone sentence because nine years seemed like a lot.
Should have been closer to two or three, say some people.
But apparently, according to Trey Gowdy, there's some kind of enhancements that were added to that, had something to do with what Stone did, maybe...
I don't know the details, but there's some kind of enhancement that allowed the judge to give him nine years.
That seemed excessive to pretty much everybody who didn't hate the president.
So Barr is looking into it, and the president weighed in on it.
What do you think about the president weighing in on a question in the justice system?
Well, all the smart people say the same thing.
Trey Gowdy said this.
Probably everybody will say this.
Doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat.
There's a general sense that you don't want the president to be putting his finger on the scale.
The Justice Department should do its thing, and the president should just stay quiet and let it play out.
I agree with that 99% of the time, but 1% of the time, or some small number, there's going to be a violation of justice so blatant,
so obvious, so disgusting, So divisive to the country that it would be an abdication of responsibility for the president not to step in.
It would be a miscarriage of justice.
So if your president steps in on the extreme case, one that is clear to everybody watching it, and I think it is, and I'll talk a little bit about why it's so clear, but I think it's clear to everyone who sees it, There's something wrong with the nine-year thing.
There are at least two things wrong with it.
One is the degree of the penalty, more than some pedophiles and bank robbers get.
But beyond that, we're now learning that at least one of the jurors, and I think it was the jury foreperson, was not only an attorney, Which you say to yourself, what?
But somebody who ran for office as a Democrat is an anti-Trumper and was pushing online on social media the Russia collusion.
Exactly the person you don't want on a trial for Roger Stone.
I mean, I don't know how a lawyer gets on a jury to begin with.
I mean, that alone is already a little, you know, a little flag.
But, you know, I think in some cases lawyers do serve.
But if you're a known anti-Trumper, and you've got a long history of it, and it's documented, and you're an attorney, and they make you the foreperson, how is that not the most obvious miscarriage of justice you've ever heard of?
Yeah, there's somebody reminding me in the comments that jury foreman was tweeting anti-Trump stuff during the trial.
During the trial.
Now here's something I'm going to add to the mix.
I've served on jury trials.
In one case in my 20s, I was selected as the jury foreperson.
It's funny the reason I was selected.
The reason I was selected is I'm the only person who wore a suit to every day.
And the reason was I was going to work before and after that at a bank.
And I was just fitting in, you know, the jury trial in the middle, and then I would just walk back to work because it was pretty close to work.
So I was wearing my work clothes, which back in those backward times was a suit.
So the other juror said, well, there are 11 of us in casual clothes, and there's this guy in a suit, so who are we going to pick for the jury foreperson?
How about suit guy?
So I became the jury foreperson because I accidentally wore a suit.
Accidentally meaning coincidentally.
And as you all know, because I mention it too often, even by then I was a trained hypnotist.
What kind of fair trial do you get if your jury foreperson is a trained hypnotist?
Well, I've said this before.
I don't know that the other 11 people were necessary, because things were kind of going to go the way I wanted them to go.
How do you think it turned out?
Things went the way I wanted them to go.
It didn't start that way.
On the first vote, it was very different from how it ended up.
And if you're guessing that it ended up Very similar to what the hypnotist who was also the jury foreperson wanted it to end up as.
Well, you would be correct.
Was that a fair trial?
Well, I think it was fair because the result was a hung jury.
And I don't think that they tried it again because it was something like 6 and 6.
So I don't think you normally try a case again.
It was a drunk driving case.
I don't think you try it again if it's a hung jury 6 and 6, but maybe there's some exception to that.
Just so you know, there were some extenuating circumstances, etc.
So it wasn't as clear as...
It wasn't an obvious guilty thing, as you might imagine.
So here's the thing. If you put a trained attorney who is also a Trump hater on a jury, does an attorney have more influence than the other people on the jury?
Yeah, of course. Of course.
A trained attorney is going to have more influence on the other jurors.
I would listen to an attorney if I were on a trial in a jury and somebody I knew to be an attorney or this is just as good.
Somebody who simply presented themselves in a way, an attorney would, meaning that they spoke knowledgeably about the law, added some context, they were persuasive, they were clear, all the things you would expect from a professional attorney.
I wouldn't even need to know they were an attorney, but I would imagine that they would influence me just by being good at communicating and persuading.
I would think that you could throw out the trial for no other reason, and it would be perfectly legitimate, than the fact that we've discovered that the jury foreperson was exactly the last person you want.
Exactly the last person you want.
Now, had it gone the other way, let's say there was a jury foreperson who was an attorney but was pro-Trump, And then let's say that the result was innocent.
Twelve people, in the end, decided to acquit.
Let's say acquit, not innocent.
Let's say they had decided to acquit, but the foreperson was also kind of questionable in terms of bias, but questionable the other way.
Would that be okay with me?
Yeah, it would be. It would be.
Because our system is designed to have a very high threshold for putting people in jail.
It's a high threshold.
So if the jury foreperson can convince all the other people, in my extreme example, they all agree in the end, I think that probably means the case wasn't that strong.
I don't think anybody could turn 11 jurors if it was a slam dunk.
If the evidence was just, here's the guy on video, here are the three witnesses who were part of it.
If it's that kind of a case, here's his DNA. If it's that kind of a case, it doesn't matter how persuasive the foreperson is.
But if there's a little bit of judgment involved, a little bit of gray area, or let's say that the attorneys on both sides were Sort of fought to a tie.
It looked like they both made a good argument.
In those cases, a super influential person on the jury is going to determine the outcome.
You heard it from me.
All right. Trump was asked what impeachment taught him, and he gave the best answer I've ever said.
He said that Democrats are crooked.
Thanks for coming. I just shortened what he said into my own words.
But essentially, he said, what did you learn from impeachment?
Well, I learned that Democrats are vicious and crooked.
And no more questions.
Thanks for coming. It was kind of the best answer I've ever seen for that kind of a question.
All right, but we're not done with Roger Stone.
That was just in my notes in the wrong place.
So, can somebody fact-check me on this?
I first noticed the reporting about this Roger Stone juror from Mike Cernovich.
And then, not too long after that, I saw lots of tweeting and other news sources, and now it's headline news everywhere.
Did Cernovich break this?
And are they not giving him credit again?
Because that's happened, right? Have there not been other situations where Mike Cernovich broke a story, became a national story, and then they don't give him credit for it because it's Mike Cernovich?
Yeah, I'm seeing some confirmation here.
I think that's the case.
And every time I would read a story, I'd start it out and say, okay, somewhere in the first, maybe the second paragraph, it's going to say something like, you know, Mike Cernovich broke this story, and then I finish the story, and it's like, Where's Mike?
So that's an open question.
So I tweeted this morning.
What's the difference?
I'm asking a lawyer.
So this is an actual question.
It's not a...
I'm not trying to win a point.
I'm actually asking the question.
And it was in my tweet. I asked, is there any lawyer who can explain to me whether the...
Is it accurate to say Brennan and Clapper broke the same or equivalent laws as Roger Stone?
Now, I keep hearing pundits say something like that on social media and on TV news, but is that accurate?
I think I would have to know a lot more about their individual cases and a lot more about the law and a lot more about the precedent to even know the answer to that question.
Somebody's clarifying that the juror outed herself on CNN, but Mike is the one who looked into her social media record and found out there was a problem.
So that sounds right, but let's just say I don't know all the details there, but I suspect that Mike Cernovich is not getting the credit that is completely due, but we'll wait and see.
So I don't know the answer to that.
Did Brennan and Clapper actually do something that's the same as what Roger Stone did?
Or does it just remind us of it, but one is legal and one is not?
Because I don't know the answer to that, and I'd really like to, because that will determine how pissed off I am.
That will determine how angry I am.
Now, as somebody said, cases are not related, meaning...
I shouldn't look at some unrelated case of Clapper and Brennan and say, well, therefore I draw judgment about this Roger Stone thing.
I'm not doing that. I'm only trying to decide how mad I should be.
Because I can certainly compare them to find out how mad I should be.
I don't think that either of them should be entered as evidence in the other trial or anything like that.
But I'm a citizen.
I can watch both of them.
And I can say one is different from the other, if they are.
So I think it's fair to know that question, and I believe the public is owed that answer.
The public is owed that answer.
We really need to know that.
Because if you listen to, let's say, the right-leaning media, it's being described as probably the most grotesque Miscarriage of justice, I can never, I don't know, since OJ or, you know, your mileage may vary, but what's worse than this?
Is it true? Is it true that Brennan and Clapper made the same, you know, broke the same or some kind of equivalent law and yet they're getting away with it and nobody's even indicting them?
Is that what's happening?
Or do I just not understand the law and there's something about their situation which is not nearly as serious in terms of how the law treats it as the Roger Stone case?
I don't know. It's a question.
So, here's what's different about this case.
Of course, everybody is...
Asking if Trump will pardon Roger Stone and General Flynn, similar situations in terms of pardons.
And I'm watching social media start to erupt.
And I'm going to ask you this.
Is the president really going to make that decision?
Or is social media in the process of making the decision and the president will follow that decision?
Which one of those things is happening right now?
The way it will be reported is that the President made the decision to either pardon or commute or not.
So that's the way we'll understand it.
But I don't know if that's what's happening.
I suspect that part of the reason the President is waiting is that there's more information that could be very important to that decision.
This information about the juror is important.
I don't know if there are any appeals that matter.
And it could be that because it's an election year, I hate to say this, but there's a good chance that the president is saying to himself, you know, I don't want him to go to jail.
Here, I'm just speculating. I can't read the president's mind, obviously.
But if I put myself in that position, this is what I'd be thinking.
If I pardon him right away, even though I want to, It's an election year.
And then this will be used as a club against me.
You can see the Democrats are already framing this as the president becoming a dictator and interfering with justice.
And what will he do if he'll do this?
And so I wonder, I hope he's not waiting for the election to be over.
So that he can do it after the election.
Let's say he thinks he's going to win, and then he can pardon anybody he wants, and he doesn't have to worry about re-election.
Maybe that's part of the decision?
I don't know. But the suggestion has been made that there's a perfect time to do this, and I concur.
Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday, if he's going to do it, would be my pick.
And I'm going to ask this directly.
Mr. President, would you use Super Tuesday to counter-program the Democrats who are going to get a lot of attention that day and do your pardons?
Just totally put a shiv into the Democrat-leaning news media because I think they've earned it in this situation in particular.
And Super Tuesday is coming up, what, in the first part of March?
I don't have the exact date on that.
But it's coming up.
Now, I don't know the timing of when Stone would have to report to prison or even if all the legal paths have been exhausted.
I don't know how that works. I don't know enough about the legal process or his case.
But could the president wait that long without him spending a day in jail?
I don't know. Would the President let him spend a few days in jail?
And then do it?
I don't know. But the President was asked directly whether he was considering pardoning Roger Stone.
And I don't have his exact words, but the President's answer was something like, somebody's saying March 3rd in the comments for Super Tuesday.
But confirm that for me.
And the President gave this answer.
And this, I'm paraphrasing, it wasn't his exact words.
He said something like, I'm not ready to talk about that yet.
If somebody is not considering a pardon, how do they answer the question, are you considering a pardon?
Well, the only way you answer the question, are you considering a pardon, if you're not, is no.
Right? So anything that isn't no, I'm not considering this, I'm not going to be involved.
Anything that's not a no is...
Literally, he's considering it.
So the president has essentially confirmed by his choice of words that he's at least open to the conversation, and common sense tells you he would be.
Now let me ask you this.
What would feel more delicious than pardoning both Stone and General Flynn just for revenge?
Because, you know, I don't think revenge...
I think revenge is underrated.
There are certainly situations where a little bit of revenge...
I'm not talking about killing somebody, but in a political sense, revenge.
It would feel like revenge, wouldn't it?
Because you know that the Democrats really, really want some kind of a scalp.
They want it bad.
Yeah, throw Assange in the mix, too.
Let's pardon Assange, too, and really make it interesting.
Now, Manafort, I have a different opinion on.
I'm sure they went after him for political reasons, but what they found was real crime.
Manafort stole from me, and he stole from you if you're a taxpayer, because what Manafort did was avoid taxes on very large amounts of money.
If somebody criminally and obviously and intentionally avoids taxes, well, part of that debt accrues to me and you if you're a taxpayer.
So Manafort stole from me.
And you. I don't have the same feeling about a pardon for him.
I'm not sure I would care either way.
But Manafort did a different level of badness.
Geraldo Rivera asked this provocative question.
So apparently there were four high-level federal prosecutors who resigned over...
Over the fact that President Trump tweeted about and A.G. Barr was mostly about Barr.
He demanded a reviewer the recommendation of a nine-year sentence.
And it's important to note that Roger Stone is 67 years old.
So a nine-year sentence is at least potentially a life sentence.
And here Geraldo He continues with what I thought was a really good point.
He says, which begs the question, why were four high-level federal prosecutors even assigned to this lame, crimeless case?
Why were there four high-level attorneys on this case?
Now, I wouldn't have known to ask that question, but I think Geraldo knows what he's talking about in terms of the legal system.
He's a lawyer. And you have to ask yourself, is that another gigantic flag, that this was not legitimate?
That they were going to do everything they could to get this one person the maximum sentence?
It looks crooked based on how they staffed it.
It looks crooked based on who they allowed on the jury.
And it looks crooked based on the degree of the, at I'm thinking that is three really strong pieces of evidence that this was a crooked process.
Under those conditions, do you want your president to stay, let's say, traditional?
Should he remain traditional and just say, you know, it's traditional.
That a president not get involved with the justice system, even if I had a problem with it, it's traditional, it might lack decorum.
Should a president depart from good decorum to weigh in on a justice case?
Well, here's what I think.
Fuck them. Fuck your decorum.
Fuck your tradition.
Fuck your, this is the way presidents do it.
Fuck everything.
And fuck you if you disagree.
This is a complete travesty of justice.
It's obvious to all of us.
Let's not pretend it's not fucking obvious.
It's fucking obvious.
I want my president to weigh in.
I want my president to interfere with travesty of justice.
Fuck your tradition.
Fuck the way your president is supposed to act.
Fuck everything you're going to say about this.
Fuck every one of you if you disagree.
Most of you agree, so I'm not talking to you.
No fucking way should this president stay out of this.
Now, I certainly want him to stay out of the legal system in general, of course.
But this is not like every other case.
This is obviously publicly corrupt.
Obviously and publicly corrupt.
If my president won't weigh in, I don't care who the president is, if my president won't weigh in on a case that's obviously and publicly corrupt, well, fuck the president too.
Fuck him. If he won't do that little thing that the country certainly deserves, certainly ought to get it.
Now, here's my prediction.
You elected the right guy.
I don't see any possibility, honestly, that Trump will not pardon Stone.
I assume Flynn will get a pardon too.
Maybe there's some different issues there that need to be played out before that happens.
Oh yeah, and fuck the media too.
Thanks for suggesting that.
All of you fucking assholes in the media who are trying to make Roger Stone go to jail so you can jerk off to it, fuck you.
Fuck all of you. You know this is just for pleasure.
This is a pleasure prosecution.
This is a feel-good prosecution.
It's corrupt.
And fuck anybody who thinks that this is the way this country should run.
Man.
So if there's still anybody out there who says that having this juror who is an attorney and a documented Trump hater who is tweeting against Trump during the trial...
if anybody thinks, well, you can't say some people are more persuasive and so this person will sway the jury, I give you this analogy.
You've got a pickup basketball game in the park.
It's you and some of your friends.
None of you are professional basketball players.
You're just having a pickup game in the park.
Michael Jordan walks up in his prime, not retired Michael Jordan, but in his prime Michael Jordan.
He says, can I play? And you say, oh, all right.
And Michael Jordan joins your team.
Who wins? Which team wins?
The team of people who play basketball on the weekends sometimes?
Or the team that plays on the weekends sometimes and has Michael Jordan on the team?
It's Michael Jordan's team.
He wins every time in the playground.
That is the degree of difference between having your jury foreperson, a trained attorney, or a trained hypnotist.
If you have that situation, you just added Michael Jordan to the jury, And you made the other 11 people irrelevant.
You could trade them in.
You could switch them out. It doesn't matter if they have functioning brains.
It doesn't matter what their bias is.
It doesn't matter. Because add Michael Jordan to your pickup basketball game and you know how it's going to go.
So it's a travesty of justice.
It's horrible. Let's talk about other assholes.
John Kelly is talking out about Trump's, in his opinion, not succeeding with North Korea.
And John Kelly, who is being a bit of an asshole here, says that he predicted that North Korea wasn't going to be serious and they were just going to stall for time.
And he thinks he could have maybe had an impact on that, I guess.
No, I guess he didn't have an impact, so he wouldn't say that.
Here's what's missing from that analysis.
President Trump removed the reason For North Korea and the United States to even care who has what weapons.
He removed the reason.
Are we at war with North Korea?
No. Does North Korea think we're going to attack any minute and therefore they need to get ready?
Probably not. I think Trump convinced them that we have no interest in attacking him.
Why was Kim Jong-un rattling his saber and aiming his nukes at us and testing nukes?
Well, because he thought we might attack him.
Trump basically solved the problem without solving the problem.
He took away the reason.
If you're not bright enough to see that he took away the reason, I'm not sure you should be talking in public.
So, John Kelly, that was not your finest moment.
Oh, one other interesting tidbit.
So Adam Schiff, his district is, you know, hugely, solidly Democrat.
It's here in California, Southern California, not my district.
But he has a challenger I've mentioned before, Jennifer Barbosa.
And she's running as an independent.
Now, her argument is that you need to be an independent to have a chance against Schiff because he has the vast majority of Democrats.
Well, there are far more Democrats in the area than anything else.
In fact, there are only 16% GOP in Schiff's area.
But there are 30% independents.
Now, I don't know how independent independents are.
I'm not sure that real independents exist.
But let's say they do.
And the reason I say that is that most independents reliably vote one way or the other.
It's sort of an exception if they ever cross lines.
Or if they ever vote a different way.
Let's say it's a... It's a surprise.
So if you add the 30% independence and the 16% of GOP, you get 46%.
If she could cleave off enough Democrats who are mad at Schiff for one reason or another for not doing his job and just playing around, trying to...
Basically, he's playing Moby Dick, and he's just trying to harpoon the great white whale, but it's not happening.
So... I'm just calling her out because I think the country would be better off without Adam Schiff in government.
I don't really care if it's another Democrat who gets elected.
I mean, I'm not anti-Democrat or anything, but Adam Schiff, he's a character, and he's done more harm to the country than, I think, anybody?
Anybody? Would that be true?
Could you reasonably say That Adam Schiff has done more damage to the United States than anybody else alive at the moment?
Can anybody think of anybody who did more damage to the United States than Adam Schiff?
Who's still alive? Anybody?
I'd like to see some suggestions.
I assume there are people who have done worse, but I can't think of one.
He's really driven the country apart with one hoax after another.
I don't know what could be more destructive than that.
Does anybody have a suggestion?
It's a serious question.
No matter if you're Democrat or Republican, you'd have to agree that he pursued a Russia collusion hoax and a Ukraine case that never really was going to go anywhere, and he wasted all of our time and made our government ineffective and deepened the divide, added fake news to the mix, Is there anybody who did more damage to the United States than Schiff?
I mean, honestly, that's just an honest question.
I can't think of anybody. Pelosi, I think, was sort of carried away by the stream.
I don't know that Pelosi...
Her options were limited by the situation.
It feels like it was mostly Schiff.
Now, you could throw Nadler in there, but I think Nadler by himself...
Would have been less effective and therefore done less damage.
I think for all of his flaws, of which I see many, Schiff was a very, let's say, energetic and disciplined and passionate and well-spoken advocate for his evil position.
He had lots of skill That went into pursuing something that shouldn't have been pursued and all ended bad.
So his judgment is terrible, or his bias is terrible.
It could be one or the other. And so give a thought to Jennifer Barbosa.
If you're thinking of donating, you could probably find her easily.
Just Google Jennifer Barbosa.
B-A-R-B-O-S-A for Congress.
She'll pop right up. And I'm sure she has a page for donating.
But if anybody wants to reduce the chance of more Schiff, that would be one way to do it.
Okay. All right.
I'm looking at your comments.
What about AOC? The whistleblower, blah, blah, blah, blah.
All right, I think I've said what I need to say.
I hope my swearing was just right.
And I hope we see a return to justice.
And let me say, as a supporter of this president, by the way, for context, I think I've supported every president.
It didn't matter what team they were on.
When somebody becomes the president, I'm almost automatically a supporter, because I think that's the way it should work, regardless of which team they're on.
Your mileage will differ, but that's fine.
So I'm a supporter of the president.
If he pardons, I'm going to be far more enthusiastic about supporting him for re-election.
I mean, I would do it anyway. I'm sure I'll support the president for re-election.
But it would make a difference to me.
I would feel differently.
I would have a different energy about it.
And if there's blowback from the pardon or commuting the sentence, whatever it is, if there's blowback, I will be a tireless patriot To try to reduce the impact of that.
So that's where I'm at.
I hope some of you are on the same team.
Well, thank you. Somebody's saying nice things about me.
I always appreciate it. What about coffee?
We already had our sip. Alright, that's all for today.
