All Episodes
Aug. 28, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:09:44
Episode 1106 Scott Adams: George Papadopoulos Talks About His Book Deep State Target, Then I Review the RNC and Other Craziness

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Special Guest: George Papadopoulos Link to George's new book, Deep State Target... https://tinyurl.com/yyzkmkvx RNC versus DNC production competence CNN anger over RNC small stuff Shocking number of people believe "Fine People" HOAX ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, everybody. Come on in.
It's time for one of the most special coffees with Scott Adams all week.
It's going to be a good one.
A barn burner, as they say.
Better than just about anything.
Oh yeah. There's your three taps.
That tells you we're serious.
Well, I'm going to have a guest on here in a little bit.
If our technology works, we'll be talking to George Papadopoulos about his book, Deep State Target.
Now our technology is always a little sketchy, so let's hope we can get him on here today.
But before we do that, is there something we need to do?
Yes, there is. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it doesn't take much to participate.
No, it doesn't take much.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen drink or a flask of a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except the Democrats' National Convention, which, you know what I mean, coffee can't do everything, but join me now for the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go. Ah.
I feel the economy improving as I digest that.
Now, I've got a few people who have Asked to join as guests.
Let's just hope one of them is George.
And yes, it is. All right.
We're going to try to add George Papadopoulos.
And come on, technology.
George, are you there? You are audio only, so they can only hear you, but they can see me, okay?
Oh, got it, got it. Perfect, perfect.
You know, I accidentally set up a pair of flight light feet, and I was sitting on a couch staring into the abyss.
All right, well, we got it now.
Sounds like you might be a little far away from your microphone.
How about now? Can you hear me better now?
Oh, that's way better. Way better.
All right. Now, George, I think most of my audience will recognize your name immediately, and I'll say what the book text says when I look for your book, Deep State Target, how I got caught in the crosshairs of the plot to bring down President Trump.
And you were advisor to President Trump's presidential campaign, the first campaign, and you got pulled into something and you wrote a book about it.
And by the way, I just looked at the reviews of your book.
Oh my God, you have good reviews.
I don't know if I've seen too many books that have 86% five-star reviews.
That's crazy. I mean, I've written a few books and that's crazy.
So congratulations on that.
Thank you. Thank you. So, George, our big problem is that we've got people who probably know the details and some don't.
Can you give us the briefest outline of what happened to you and therefore kicked off the book?
Absolutely, and thanks a lot for having me, Scott.
It's been a pleasure.
So basically I had worked in D.C. for five years leading up to joining both Ben Carson's presidential campaign and then Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
A lot of people forget that I actually joined Ben Carson's campaign first.
And at that time, clearly the deck was stacked against all the Republican candidates.
Even when I was on Ben Carson's campaign, there were clear animus by the Obama administration, State Department officials, you name it.
They were all either looking to what these candidates were up to, who their teams were, or find ways to basically infiltrate their campaigns.
And we saw that happen with Donald Trump's campaign more vivid than any other campaign.
And as soon as I joined Donald Trump's campaign, that's exactly when it seems the world's intelligence community collapsed on my lap while I was living in Europe for the first month I was on the campaign, and they were targeting myself, General Flynn,
Carter Page, others, and it just really was asserted efforts by not only the Obama administration, but I also argue in my book, of foreign governments who had vested interests in a Clinton presidency that wanted to show on the Trump campaign and to assure that if he did end up getting elected that he would be handcuffed.
And that's exactly what we've looked through as a country the last two years.
Now tell us, without all the details, because it's kind of hard to compress it all, what was the first sketchy contact with another person that you had, which was clearly some kind of an intelligence or something that was just sketchy?
Who was the first person who contacted you?
Before the post even knew that I had publicly joined the Trump campaign, a very shady operative who is now at the center of probably three different investigations made contact with me in Italy.
So this happened in early March and then if who's ever read my book or who knows the story somewhat will see that individual who then introduces me to the fake niece of Vladimir Putin He begins to try and infiltrate the campaign through me.
He eventually tells me that Hillary's emails and now he's gone underground for the last couple of years and he's at the center of the Durham investigation.
Now, what is his nationality?
This is a Maltese individual.
I believe he's a dual Italian Maltese native who had very few, if any, ties to Russia, overwhelmingly tied to the U.S. government, to the British government, and other NATO governments on the continent.
Now, early on, the first time he contacted you, Did you not sort of Google him and say there might be something a little fishy going on here?
At what point did you realize there was something not right about him?
Well, actually, the way that I was reeled in was exactly because he wasn't overtly fishy initially.
When you Google this guy initially, you'll see that he was a professor, he was connected to the State Department, to various governments in Europe, and he had really no connections whatsoever to any hostile power.
So when I first met him, that's how I actually was reeled in to meet him, and shortly thereafter, that's when his motives seemed to be far more sketchy.
So would you say that it is a fact that the Obama administration, quote, spied on the campaign, or would you say that that requires some nuance?
We have to remember that there's an active criminal investigation looking into the so-called spying.
The Durham probe evolved into a criminal matter once information about this individual, Joseph Mifsud, was relayed to Barr's office by the Italian government.
Now, we also have evidence that various spies were sent to meet with General Flynn, myself, others on the campaign, and Stefan Halper, who is one of these spies, actually tried to ingratiate himself within the transition team.
So, clearly, there was spying going on against the campaign.
The question now is, not if there was spying, but was it illegal?
And we've already seen a guilty plea on the other side.
And is there anything that you know that was connected to Obama or Biden personally, or do you just know, in terms of that connection, what you've seen in the news like the rest of us?
What I know is that the type of foreign governments and foreign officials that were involved in my story, from governments like Italy, these governments are not acting alone and they're not working To set up Americans abroad, working for presidential campaigns.
It just doesn't happen. Clearly, it's directed to do it by the U.S. government.
The question is, how high up did it go?
We know with the recent unmasking of General Flynn that Vice President Joe Biden was directly involved in the unmasking of him, which was an illegal act.
Was Biden and Obama involved in unmasking other people, possibly Trump himself?
That's something that Attorney General Barr and John Durham still have not exposed.
That's something that I think we will be seeing moving forward.
If you had to guess how this is going to end up when Durham is done, what do you think is the outcome that we should expect?
Let me ask it differently.
If Durham really got the goods so that there was no doubt about what happened, what would be the outcome?
The outcome, and I've said this for a long time now, is that I think Durham is looking into a conspiracy case, a potential RICO case that involves a Conspiracy to not only fabricate evidence and scenarios around Trump campaign associates but to then utilize that fake evidence to only spy on the campaign.
We now know that the FBI lied to the FISA court in order to obtain those warrants against Carter Page and others.
And moving forward, we're also going to see if treason was committed, as the president himself calls it, because subverting democracy and interfering in the democratic process in this country is treason.
And if anyone was treason at the highest level in it, they will be held accountable.
And that's something I predict. Now, how do you rule out the other hypothesis, which is that the folks who did all this had a genuine concern about Russia, and they couldn't really know if there was anything there until they dug into it?
So that would be their claim.
How do you know their intentions versus what they did?
Because what they did could be spun either way, wouldn't you say?
That's a great question, and I would agree.
If there were true suspicious links between the campaign and a foreign hostile power, but in the case, especially in my case, and which...
At the center of the Durham probe, they're looking to see if this was fabricated.
If the entire story, known as Russiagate, was a fake manifestation that you would find a Hollywood screenwriter coming up with.
And that's why this Joseph Mifsud, who was at the center of the Mueller report, the Horowitz report, where they were calling him and dingling the Russian emails to me, as I mentioned earlier, If he was really working with the CIA and other friendly governments.
But suppose, and I'm just speculating here, imagining what the defense or the explanation would be on the other side.
Suppose they said we had real concerns about Trump and Russia because we heard he had investments and therefore if there's a money link That's a real concern, but we didn't know how to get at that, so we went through a side door by sort of creating a situation, but really it was to find out if there really was something, because we suspect there was, we just couldn't get at it directly.
Now, I don't know if that would be legal or illegal, but suppose they said that.
How could you disprove that intention?
Because that's sort of a mental state.
Well, we've seen the consequences of their attempt to circumvent the law and to do what I believe is illegal action, where you had this FBI lawyer, Kevin Kline, essentially write that Carter Page is not a CIA asset.
He's working with the Russians, so let's spy on him and by extension target the rest of the campaign.
We saw… Well, let's accept that, let's say they confess, yeah, we fudged some things, we lied on the investigative stuff, but our intention was just to get us something that we thought was real.
Yeah, we broke some rules, we cut some corners, but our intention was to find something real.
We just went through this weird side door that we really shouldn't have.
What if they say that?
Well, the beauty of our country is that we have a constitution and the rule of law, and you also require an adequate predicate to launch either a counterintelligence or a criminal investigation into an American citizen, that citizens are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and this is something that...
But George, so that part we could prove.
We could prove that they did or did not break those laws, and I think it'll be easy to prove that they did break those laws, and that can't be overlooked.
But how do you improve their intention?
Because it all boils down to what they were thinking when they did it, right?
Well, it does, and that's why we're now only recently unearthing declassified documents from people like Senator Lindsey Graham, Who have showcased that people like Bill Priestip, this high-level FBI attorney, lied under oath where he said, I have no idea about the subsource of steel and that we verified everything.
And this information that we had no idea even existed, that even the Senate didn't know existed, is only now and it's essentially exposing They're corruption and possible illegal action and that's exactly why Richard Grinnell did such a duty to the American public so much of this and what the Director of National Intelligence currently, Ratcliffe, is doing as well.
So the logic then is that with so much cover-up, the fact that we know, we know there was cover-ups, we know there was bad behavior to get this going, That there's so much of it and so many people were involved that it's just hard to write it off as people with good intentions.
Is that basically there's just too much evidence to assume that they're all working with good intentions?
It would be sort of unlikely.
Is that where we're at?
And that's exactly what I think.
And I think you're absolutely correct here.
I think they try to pass accountability and any wrongdoing simply to Kevin Kleinsmith, this FBI attorney.
But shortly after his guilty plea, like I mentioned, Lindsey Graham went public and stated that he's bringing in other FBI officials now that they've learned new information that they did not know that clearly demonstrates that they lied under oath and that this could not simply have been a coincidence.
Looks like a concerted effort to undermine a rival presidential campaign.
And that's what is at the heart of this new investigation.
In your book that I said has amazing reviews, I'm really impressed.
I read a number of the five-star reviews and they're quite blown away by your book, so congratulations on that.
It's called Deep State Target.
If you want to link to it, I tweeted it out to look at the top of my Twitter feed today if you want to get a copy of that.
What would be in your book that you think would be one thing that the general public, unless they were really, really looking into it, but just the general public who's following the story, what is it that they don't know?
Is there a fact that you know that may or may not be in the book that would just blow people's mind, they just sort of don't know it?
And I think I lay it out very strategically from A to Z in my book, that the old narrative was that the Trump campaign was colluding to win.
I argue and I lay out with facts and I think daily and monthly those facts are now being corroborated by new declassified information is that not only did the Trump campaign not collude with any foreign governments or with the US government for that matter but the Obama administration colluded not only with the Clinton campaign but with foreign governments to The Trump campaign and that's exactly why it's so difficult for people to understand what happened because I'm showcasing a different Which is based on reality and which is being based on facts,
being declassified. Yet for three years, the mainstream media kept people essentially deluded and unable to understand the reality of the situation.
And that's why it's almost like a shock and awe effect when people really start to find out what really happened.
And I don't blame them.
I live the story and I'm still shocked.
So, George, from the first moment I started hearing the story and Christopher Steele and ex-spook, I said to myself, there's no such thing as an ex-spy.
That's not a real thing.
There's nobody who's an ex-spy because they always know your name.
They know who you are.
They know you got some connections, some favors.
You're never really an ex-spy.
And I thought...
Well, when is the press going to tell me that Great Britain is highly culpable in this whole thing?
And I kept waiting, and they kept presenting evidence that Great Britain was involved, but they never said it.
And I kept saying, well, why don't you say what's obvious that Great Britain had to be involved in this?
Am I wrong? Was Great Britain involved in this, in terms of intelligence-wise helping the United States, or is that not a fact?
Scott, you're absolutely correct.
And in my book, what I do is, because remember, I was based in the first month I was on the Trump campaign, and what was the number one issue that the UK was dealing with at that time that the candidate was very supportive of, and that was Brexit.
The establishment at that time clearly had a motivation to find out what Trump and his team were up to, considering I'm not surprised.
Christopher Steele was British.
Alexander Downer was connected to MI6. Stefan Helfer was connected to MI6. Richard Dearlove was connected to MI6. And it's another example of it can't be a coincidence, as you mentioned earlier.
But wasn't there, correct me on this, wasn't there some interest or Great Britain certainly would have been concerned That Trump was going to be too friendly to Russia, which would be a gigantic security concern for anybody in the vicinity of Europe.
So do you think that was part of it?
Just they didn't want a president who they thought, perhaps mistakenly, would be a little too friendly to Russia?
If that's the case, and I don't know, and I only speak about facts, and when I would speak with the UK government at that time, they were very concerned with Brexit more so than...regarding Russia.
Now, if that was indeed the case, they probably forgot something over the last 100 years, actually 200 years of American history, and that's that the president's foreign policy in this country, not the diplomats, not the bureaucrats, not the unelected, but the president.
And they would have seen a predicated individual who from day one, going as far back as 2015, stated that having a working relationship with Russia and a more, I guess, confrontational relationship with China is in the U.S. interest.
And that's exactly what's been playing out for the last couple of years, and it's actually safeguarding U.S. interests throughout the world.
Yeah.
All right, so this is fascinating.
I'm going to get on to some other topics here, George, but thank you so much for joining.
If anybody's joining late, check out George Papadopoulos' book, Deep State Target, How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump.
As I said, the reviews for this book are just off the chart.
So it sounds like you should get that and take a good read.
Thanks, George. Thanks for joining me.
Thank you, Scott. I appreciate it. Take care.
All right. That was excellent.
Let's talk about some other stuff.
All right. I've decided to join with the professional athletes.
So the professional athletes, as you know, the NBA walked out, and then some other sports also walked out in solidarity, and they're walking out in protest.
About social injustice.
And I've decided to support them.
Not by walking out, of course.
But I support their walk out.
And indeed, I don't support them going back to work until systemic racism is solved.
So you might say to yourself, hey, isn't a boycott or a strike one of those things that you do because you've got something specific you want to accomplish, and it's short term.
I guess it doesn't have to be.
So the athletes have walked out and if they go back to work before systemic racism in this country is fixed, I don't know what to think.
I don't know what to think.
Apparently they don't care about anything.
All right. We still don't have an answer from the White House about why saliva test strips are not Okayed by the FDA. I know there's some requirement that eased the restriction on reporting, which was one of the hang-ups, but I think that got blown away.
I think the FDA has now said the reporting is optional for some of these types of tests.
I told you more than a week ago that given that these saliva test strips, the kinds that you would just do at home, you don't need any kind of healthcare professional.
There's nothing that goes up your nose because it's saliva.
You don't need a device.
It would be like a pregnancy test.
Now, apparently these are easy to make or easy enough.
The math of it is, even though they're not as sensitive as they like to say, you could test so rapidly and so often that even with a less perfect test, you would end up having a much better result because it would be frequent and it would catch people eventually and soon enough.
Given that this is the primary thing that seems practical, That could stop the coronavirus in its tracks and the White House and the FDA have not answered the public.
And I'm just talking about giving us an answer.
Either yes, it's a good idea and we're working on it.
That'd be a good answer. Or no, it's a bad idea and here are reasons that you didn't know about, which could be acceptable.
But not answering it Screams corruption.
Possibly impeachable.
Did that sound too strong?
If it did, let me say it again.
Not getting at least an answer to the public and to the press about why these are either in the process and we'll get these approved pretty soon or why it's not in the process and there's a good reason.
Without any answer, either of those sides, it has to be Either corruption or something impeachable.
It doesn't have to be illegal.
So I think the Trump administration needs to respond to that.
And again, there are only two possibilities.
It's corruption, or if it's being ignored for some other reasons, since they obviously know about it, it's got to be impeachable, whatever that reason is, because the public has a very clear Right to know what's going on there.
Did that sound too strong?
Because I mean it.
Somebody says, bye.
Now, if they don't at least tell us, it's either corruption or it's an impeachable something.
I don't know what else it would be.
Because all they'd have to do is say, we're working on it and we'll get back to you and that'd be fine.
I don't need a specific answer.
I need to know that they're willing to answer.
That's completely different.
Yeah, impeachable because it's such an obvious path that if they don't at least tell us why they're not taking it, we cannot assume that they're doing their job on the single biggest priority of the country.
All right, so that's the downer part of this.
Let's get to something else.
The production, I just lost about a thousand viewers by saying that.
That's for those of you who wonder if I ever criticized the Trump administration.
So you can refer to that when you wonder.
The TV production was amazing.
So there was no competition between what the RNC and the DNC said.
Now, let me ask you this.
You're trying to pick a president based on competence, right?
Does he hire the right people?
Can they get the job done?
What do we have to compare Biden and Trump?
We have Biden who's never run a successful presidential campaign, right?
Being a senator is kind of easy, if I'm being honest, because they don't have to manage anything except whatever their little staff, and the staff probably manages them as much as the other way around.
So Biden has shown us several examples Of his ability to get something done in a management leader way.
Each of his prior campaigns, which were failures, like really big failures.
And then we have his current campaign, which I think even the people on the Democratic side would acknowledge it's done very poorly.
Nobody would disagree with that, right?
Somebody's mentioning the $5 tests that were just approved.
Completely different.
Those have to be administered by a healthcare professional and it's a nasal swab.
So if it has to be a healthcare professional that has nothing to do with the saliva test strips, which individuals would use, completely different application, which would solve coronavirus versus the one that was approved, which is real good, but it doesn't come anywhere near solving anything.
It's not meant for that.
Because the volume wouldn't be there.
Sorry I got interrupted, but I saw your comments there and wanted to address that.
So the production was great, and if you compare that to Biden, he ran one of the worst conventions of all time.
No, not one of. It was the worst.
Isn't that fair to say?
That the worst convention The first execution was the Biden campaign.
So now he's got three or four failed presidential campaigns, his only leadership management jobs that he's ever done, that we know of.
Then there's this campaign, which he's failing right in front of us.
Nobody would even doubt that, I don't think.
And now we see him organize, even though he's now personally organizing the Democratic convention, he's still sort of the guy.
So if you're looking at what the Democrats can do collectively, it was a complete failure.
Now compare this to Trump's performance.
Trump ran for president a few times, but really just dipped his feet in.
But when he ran this last time, I think everybody would say it was a great job, great campaign, more effective strategically, went to the right states, did all the right things, had the right energy, gave the best speeches, had the best crowds.
And now you're watching the RNC that both sides 100% agree that the RNC just absolutely smoked, smoked the DNC in terms of production quality.
Now once you've watched All of these managerish leadership organizational things, and you've seen that Biden has only failed.
That's all he's done.
There is no success that is Biden managing and leading.
He's been involved with legislation.
He's been a gopher for Obama, but he hasn't really managed anything big.
Trump has. He's managed very big things and successfully.
So that contrast is enormous.
So you got that going on. Here are some surprises from last night.
What are the odds?
And this just blew me away.
So Alice Johnson, who is pardoned the right word, she was released early on that first step thing, I think.
I forget the details.
So Trump got her out of jail before her term was over, whatever term you use for that.
What were the odds that Alice Johnson was also an incredibly good public speaker?
Did anybody see that coming?
That was one of the coolest things.
I don't know if it's going to get much action, but just the fact that she was rotting in prison You know, no good to anybody.
Well, actually, that's wrong.
I guess she was very productive in prison with other prisoners, which is part of what got around early.
So apparently she's a really good person, but she's a great public speaker.
I mean, that was really good.
That's hard to do. If you don't know how hard that is to do what Alice Jones did, you might not quite appreciate how good she was.
I don't think she has practice.
So I don't know where she's going in life.
But I'd watch her.
She's got some game. David Dorn's widow, great on camera.
Now, obviously, they probably tested everybody to make sure that they do okay, and they recorded things so they could do it more than once, I suppose.
But she was amazing on camera.
And then the president gave what was called too long, by both sides, his speech.
Here's the thing. Why was it too long?
70 minutes. Now most experts will say, no, you don't want to do a 70 minute speech.
Somebody said, I forget who, that 13 minutes, maybe you humor somebody, 13 minutes is how long people can pay attention if it's nothing but you talking.
But I don't think that applies to Trump.
I watched all 70 minutes.
Didn't you? I watched all 70 minutes, and I couldn't pull myself away.
Now, I would agree that he seemed a little lower energy than he normally is, and I think that's because they made him, or he agreed to, read off the teleprompter.
He is not that excited with a smallish crowd reading off a teleprompter.
That's the two things you don't want to give Trump, a small crowd And a teleprompter.
That's not his ideal condition.
His ideal condition, gigantic live crowd, no teleprompter.
Walking the wire without the help.
So he was a little low energy, but the reason it was long is because he had so many accomplishments and he had so many legitimate complaints about Biden.
He could have done a much shorter speech if he had no accomplishments, but it took a long time to list all the stuff he's done.
A long time.
Now, I don't see how this election could possibly be close because Biden is decomposing before our eyes.
Trump's list of accomplishments, which we'll talk about how true or not true they are, but it's a long list.
His list of accomplishments is very long.
And as somebody said in the comments, it does demonstrate that he can stand and talk for 70 minutes late at night.
And that's pretty good.
All right. You know that the Republicans nailed it in their convention because I immediately turned to CNN to see their response.
And they were in full TDS frenzy.
I mean, they were angry.
But the things that they had to complain about were so few that they had to be really angry about really small stuff.
So they ended up complaining about them using the lawn of the White House and the Hatch Act.
Literally, nobody in the country cares.
Let me speak for 100% of the voters in this country.
What's the Hatch Act?
It's what? The president can't do what presidents do, which is campaign for re-election in the White House.
I can sort of see why that might be a law, but I don't care about it.
I wouldn't care if Obama did it.
I wouldn't care if the next president does it.
I couldn't care less.
And by the way, have you heard of the coronavirus?
It's a pretty good excuse to work from home, it's the coronavirus.
Of course, the participants were mostly not wearing masks, and that became CNN's story.
And I almost wondered if that was intentional.
Because every time the president or the campaign forces his opponents to talk about the smallest stuff, they're not talking about anything important that can hurt him.
If all they're talking about is, hey, those people didn't wear masks, and then Rand Paul and the others walk outside, And they're immediately greeted by large groups of people who are not socially distancing and are all Democrats, or at least Democrat-friendly.
So it first of all brings up the hypocrisy thing, because obviously there have been protests, etc., without social distancing.
But it does force them to talk about the thing that the citizens care the least about.
Yeah, it's true that as the leader of the country, wouldn't it have been a better message to show them without masks or to show them wearing masks as modeling good behavior?
I can see that.
I would say that's not an illegitimate criticism.
It's just not very big.
So it could be true.
It's a true criticism, but it's sort of a small one.
And here's the funniest part.
The president, I think, is playing this strategically brilliantly so far.
We don't know if they're going to be able to maintain this, but the discipline it takes for Trump not to be too provocative during the convention, think about it.
I don't think Trump did anything during the entire convention that made the critics go crazy.
He played it straight.
And I don't think they like it because they need him to do some crazy stuff, you know, tweeze something provocative so we can really dig in and call him a racist or whatever we're going to call him.
And he just keeps telling us his accomplishments.
And that must be driving them crazy.
Because the accomplishments, even though they try to debunk them with the fact checkers and stuff, there's still so many of them that the laundry list persuasion comes into play.
Now, I always talk about it when it gets used against you, it's devastating because it's a whole bunch of things you don't believe individually, but damn, there's so many of them.
Must be something in that list that's true.
So the president, likewise, has a really long list of accomplishments.
If you tried to pick off a few and say, hey, wait a minute, That one's not true, or that one's not quite the way you said it.
People go, well, yeah, but look at all this other stuff.
I mean, that's, you know, suppose you're right.
Suppose that one isn't quite what he says.
Look at all this other stuff.
So the laundry list persuasion is effective, even if you think it shouldn't be.
So they got that going on.
So the fact that the President has shown this much restraint, even to the point where they thought his presentation was flat, is a pretty, pretty good strategy.
Let's see if he can hold that.
Because, by the way, all he would have to do, and I say it like it's easy, but it's not, all he'd have to do is not intentionally cause trouble between now and election.
I don't see how he could lose.
Because he's going to have to do something wrong To lose this thing.
And it's going to have to happen between now and election day.
If he doesn't do something that's an unforced error between now and then, I just don't see how he loses.
It just looks impossible from today's perspective.
All right. So watching the CNN go crazy, and they were really worked up.
It was funny to watch how agitated they were.
Like, literally funny. I watch it as humor.
So here are the kinds of fact-checking That they do on Trump's speech.
So they had their Daniel Dale fact checker come on and he was all worked up and he said that this is the lyingest president ever.
He's a serial liar and he had over 20 lies in his speech.
But listen to the things they call lies and compare them, I will in a moment, to Joe Biden's lies and see if you can see if there's a difference.
For example, They fact-checked Trump on his claims of how many miles of the wall he's built.
And they say, hey, you can't count all that as new wall because that is wall that's going to replace inadequate wall that was going to be fixed anyway.
Now, is it a lie when the president says I have X hundreds of miles of wall if it's also true that there was some kind of barrier there before Could have been small fence or wire, but it wasn't working.
Is there a reason that you replace a wall?
I think you replace a wall because it's not working.
Would they be replacing things that were fine?
So I would say it's quite a big accomplishment if you've replaced walls and little fences and minor barriers with something that people can't get over because why were those minor barriers where they were and there are no minor barriers in other places?
Well, it's obvious because that was the critical place.
There are some places that most of your volume is going to happen and they plug those places with good wall, good enough wall.
Now, is that a lie?
Well, CNN says it's a lie.
I believe that a reasonable person could say, yes, it's a lie by omission.
But does it matter?
Here's where I'm going with this.
How has your life changed by the fact that he's improving wall that wasn't doing the job versus building brand new wall, which would be the wrong thing to do?
Because first you want to improve the wall because that's where the traffic is.
It wouldn't make sense to claim credit for building new wall if you hadn't fixed the old wall first.
So, yeah, I can see technically that it's an over-claim.
I mean, not even technically.
It's just a flat-out over-claim because there's some context left out.
But does it bother you?
Do you make less money?
Is the country less safe?
Let me give you another one. Trump claimed credit for some kind of, I don't know, Veterans Administration thing that he did, and the fact checker says, no, no, no.
Obama got that going, and what Trump did was some minor revision that happened later.
Okay. Sounds like a little hyperbole, maybe a bit of an over-claim, but how did that affect you?
Were you less safe?
Did you make less money?
Did somebody hate you?
Were you hurt?
Nothing. Let me give you another one.
So Trump claims that Obama, the administration, spied on his campaign.
That is fact-checked as false because CNN says, no, no, you don't use that word, spied.
It was more like they had a reason to do some Intelligence, George Papadopoulos, I think, put some holes in that.
But CNN's claim is really that the word isn't quite right and maybe the full intention hasn't been proven.
But does that affect you?
Because whatever it is you thought about that story, you still think today.
Didn't change anything, did it?
So Trump's lies, as they call them, or not passing the fact-checking, they all seem to have that quality that they don't kind of matter.
They just paint a picture that he's doing his job.
Now let's compare that to Joe Biden's lies.
Let's see if Joe Biden's lies are those harmless kind.
So Joe Biden has claimed, famously, that President Trump called white supremacists fine people in Charlottesville.
Now suppose that the country believes that, or some portion of the country.
Is that harmless?
That is not harmless.
That is the sort of thing that rips the country apart.
It causes protests in the street.
It causes things that shouldn't trigger riots because it becomes the gasoline just waiting for a match.
Maybe the match is these police actions that turn out tragically for black people who got stopped by police.
That might be the trigger.
But the gasoline is this Joe Biden kind of a lie that the president is literally, which he didn't, praising white supremacists.
You can't compare that to exaggerating about how much wall you've got built and leaving out some context.
Those two things are not the same.
One is destroying the whole frickin' country, ripping apart everything good about this country, and the other one is just a salesman talking about his product being good.
That's it. Those are not the same.
Am I on shaky ground saying that Biden is lying?
Well, let me give you a little preview of something that you're going to see.
You'll see in about an hour and 15 minutes.
Anyway, you'll see a little later this morning.
So I got a little preview from the Rasmussen reports and they did a survey to see how many people believe the fine people hoax.
How much do you love this so far?
There's an actual survey by Rasmussen reports.
You'll see the official one in an hour or so.
I got a little preview and apparently 73% of Republicans Recall what Trump actually said, which is when he disavowed the white supremacists.
So they recall that he actually disavowed them, which is what he actually said.
But 59% of Democrats remember it the way Biden does.
In other words, if you want to know what is the limit of brainwashing, you just found it.
Because the perfect test is if you hold up, I'll do an exaggerated example.
If I hold up this pen, And say, am I holding a pen?
If everybody says, yeah, we're looking right at it, you're holding a pen, there is no brainwashing.
But what if I could hold up a pen just as clear as this and say, there's no pen here.
And I repeated it enough and I controlled the entire media cycle until 60% of the public couldn't see the pen anymore.
It's right here. And 60% of the public couldn't see it.
Is that possible?
It just happened.
The Rasmussen poll found out that Democrats, who presumably are mostly in some kind of a silo of news, that 59% of them, I'm going to round that to 60%, believed something happened, even though they can look right at it and they know it didn't.
They can look right at it.
Because you can look at the transcript.
It's just written right there.
But they've all seen, for the most part, they've seen the hoax version that lops off the clarification.
By the way, if you speak a lot in public, as I do, I do like an hour a day without much planning, You very often will say something and then you start talking about something else and you'll realize that that thing you said a little while ago needed some clarification because the way you said it could have been misinterpreted.
So you double back. You go, okay, just to be clear, when I was talking about X, this is what I meant and this is what I did not mean, just so you're all clear on that.
Most common thing in the world.
When you do that though, it allows your enemies to lop off the clarification.
And go with the thing that even you knew could have been misconstrued.
That's what happened with Trump. He knew it could be misconstrued, so he doubled back without anybody asking.
Nobody prompted him.
He was just riffing.
He doubles back and says, I just want to make sure.
It's clear. I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists.
And then they just lop that off.
So how many people were fooled by that edit?
59% of Democrats were fooled by it.
So if you'd like to know what's the limit of brainwashing for something that can easily be checked, just Google it.
Now, I say easy, but if you Google it, you might get more.
You'll probably get two of the hoaxes for every one that shows the entire thing.
So it isn't that easy.
But that gives you kind of a limit of how Brainwashed a public can be.
So 73% of Republicans got it right.
So even a lot of Republicans think he actually said that.
What? But here's the kicker.
If you want to know how this is going to play in the election, 54% of people not affiliated I think they don't call them independents anymore because people are not that independent when they actually vote.
They tend to be consistent one way or the other.
They just call themselves independent.
So I think maybe the new name for that with Rasmussen is not affiliated with either political party.
So the people who call themselves not affiliated, 54% of them accurately know that the fine people thing is a hoax.
54% of people not affiliated with the party know that Joe Biden is lying about his most central campaign theme.
And if they were concerned about Trump being not good with the fact checking, and so they wanted the one who didn't lie, he's literally the worst liar we've ever seen.
Worst, not just in terms of quantity, I don't know if he's worst in quantity.
Maybe Trump beats him on quantity.
But in terms of how bad the lie is, really, really bad.
That's like one of the worst lies you could ever tell.
So Rasmussen is going to make a lot of people have TDS because they're going to argue that it's not accurate that the president didn't call these people Fine people.
But Rasmussen cleverly shows the text that he did.
So part of the poll shows the actual, you know, the poll results, not the poll.
But the poll results show his actual words, so there's no doubt about Rasmussen being right about that interpretation.
All right. 39% of people polled said they actually believed Biden.
Wow. The other thing that Biden lies about, of course, is that the president suggested drinking disinfectant for coronavirus, which did not happen.
I've described in detail that he was talking about light technology.
It's obvious. If you see the whole quote, But it's not obvious if they lop off the introduction and the summary where he clarifies that he was talking about light.
So what did the mainstream press do?
They lopped off the clarification before that gives it context as light and they lopped off his last sentences where he brings it back to light so you know he was only ever talking about light.
So that's how that hoax is created.
And Biden still pushes that.
Now, is it dangerous that the public thinks that the person leading the coronavirus effort ever thought that drinking bleach, which is what Anderson Cooper changes it into, drinking bleach, it's pretty dangerous.
It's pretty dangerous to tell the public during a pandemic that their leader is actually that crazy.
That's dangerous, because you need the public to comply when there's something to comply with.
Here's a little trick for you that I used at my restaurant years ago, and I've reconstituted it.
It's a persuasion trick, and it goes like this.
If there's somebody who's a big critic of yours, and in my old restaurant days, I actually got a picketer.
So there was a guy who picketed my restaurant because he got fired for something he didn't like.
I forget what it was. And he deserved to get fired, but he didn't like it, so he picketed.
And for a while, it was really bothering the staff.
So I came in and I saw the picketer and I said, who's the mascot?
And so as soon as I redefined our lone picketer as our mascot, it just became funny.
And then nobody cared anymore, and then he got bored and went away after a while.
So I've decided that Jennifer Rubin is the mascot for fake news.
She's not the person who just continually makes up crazy takes on Trump, because I don't know why.
It looks like a mental problem, but I can't diagnose it from afar.
I can just say what it looks like.
She used to bother you, right?
You'd see a Jennifer Rubin story about Trump and you'd just say, what?
What? What is wrong with you that you would interpret it such a bad way?
So stop thinking that and just think that whenever you see her, she's the mascot for the fake news.
It's similar to...
Who's the...
Carl Bernstein, the worse than Watergate guy?
If you only just listen to him complaining about the president, he's the most annoying person in the world because he seems so illegitimate.
There's nothing about him that seems even a little bit credible.
He's just a partisan. But as soon as I defined him as the worse than Watergate guy that they take out of the closet when they don't have anything, they bring him out when they don't have anything.
If you haven't noticed that, They only wheel out Carl Bernstein when there's nothing to complain about, and they just need somebody who will complain anyway.
It's like, okay, we don't have any meat, but Carl doesn't need any.
He'll just say it's worse than Watergate, whatever it is.
So just think of him that way.
It's funnier. If you're not keeping up with this Kyle Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha, The latest videos make it pretty clear that he's going to get off from any kind of murder charge because it's so unambiguously – well,
I won't say unambiguously, but certainly in a situation where reasonable doubt is the prime thing that you're trying to prove or disprove, in a reasonable doubt situation, all three of the people that he shot, allegedly, We're quite unambiguously attacking him.
Now, maybe there's some question about, did he know that he was in grievous bodily potential harm?
I would say he was.
Because if any one of those protesters had, say, gotten the advantage on him, the other protesters would have swarmed him.
So I think he has just the most airtight self-defense defense.
There may be other issues about why was he there with a gun.
He was 17. So there may be some illegality in that sense, but there really isn't much chance he's going to get convicted of murder based on what we've seen.
Have you noticed that Joe Biden has a dementia smile that he uses to stall for time when he gets an unfamiliar question that requires him to think?
Watch for it. And it goes like this.
So, you know, Biden sometimes has angry Biden look.
Get off my lawn!
You know, Hatchack, get off my lawn!
I'm stealing Amy Klobuchar's joke about get off my lawn, which was a pretty good tweet.
So he's got his angry look, angry, stern, squinty.
I'm squinty, stern, and caring.
But then he also has his smile too big and laugh too hard.
And it goes like this.
Joe Biden, you know, a big part of the country knows that you're lying about the fine people hoax.
What do you say to that?
Now, that would be a tough question.
How does Joe answer it?
For those of you who are listening on podcast, this won't be nearly as hilarious as for the people watching it on video when I give my Joe Biden smiles impression.
And it looks like this.
First of all, he only smiles with one side, and then that one side is too big.
So I was like, And he gives the smile and then he'll laugh.
Come on, man. Come on, man.
So look for the over smile.
It's a total tip-off.
That the dementia has slowed him down and he's looking for a stalling technique and so laughing about the laughability of the joke, it is so laughable, that question.
So you'll see a lot of that.
Nancy Pelosi has suggested that maybe it would be a bad idea for Biden to debate because Trump just lies.
And what would be the point of debating with somebody who's just going to get up there and lie or take all your real estate on stage and crowd you?
What about that? Now, I don't think that that necessarily means that Joe Biden has already agreed privately, let's say.
Publicly, he says he wants to debate.
But I don't think it means that privately, Joe Biden has decided he's not going to debate.
Because here's the problem.
Joe Biden probably thinks he can, or he's talked himself into thinking that he can debate.
I don't think there's anybody on the Democrat side who actually believes he can, at least the people who are on the inside and have good information about him.
I don't think there's anybody who thinks he can debate.
So Pelosi, by floating the idea that he shouldn't debate from such a high level of Democrat power, Makes you think that maybe it's already approved, but I think she's just testing the idea.
I think she wanted to see what the pundits and the public said about it, but I think it's also creating space so that it wouldn't be some big surprise if Biden later said, you know, there's no point in debating with this big old liar, so I'm just going to cancel.
I think she's just softening the room.
And I also think that somebody doesn't know how to talk to Biden and tell him he can't do this.
I think that's a real problem, like an actual problem for the country.
I doubt there's anybody who can tell him that he's not up to it and just be honest about it.
I don't know that they can do it.
All right. Did you see Biden try to get through an Anderson Cooper interview he was doing by Zoom or something like it?
And it did not look good.
Joe did not look like he was fully with it.
He bumbled a little bit.
He answered the wrong question and threw in his Charlottesville hoax for some unrelated question about somebody else.
It didn't look good.
And I felt as though Anderson Cooper was feeling quite awkward.
Feeling quite awkward.
Because you don't really know how to deal with that.
Speaking of Rasmussen, they also have a poll result that says 51% of both Democrats and unaffiliated voters agree that it is important for Biden to address the dementia issue publicly.
This view is shared by 81% of Republicans.
So it's mostly Republicans, 81%, but there's a good little slice of Democrats and Independents If you add them all together, 38% of voters think Biden has dementia.
So 81% of Republicans want it to be addressed.
That just means they're suspicious.
But 38% of all voters think Biden has dementia.
And people think that he can win.
Just the fact that anybody thinks that he could actually win this thing is crazy.
Now, somebody smart said to me, yeah, but the coronavirus performance is going to be the whole story, and that's all people are going to care about, and Trump is not getting A pluses from the public on that, or at least not from the Democrats, and so he's vulnerable.
To which I say, it's not November yet.
Do you know how much is going to happen between now and November?
A lot. And in all likelihood, wherever we are on the coronavirus, we'll be in better shape.
Either we'll be right just a few weeks away from the vaccination, which would look like progress, even if you don't like the vaccination idea.
We'll probably have some more therapeutics.
We'll probably have an economy that's recovering a little bit better.
Oh, here's another one of the things that CNN calls a lie from the president.
They say the president says we gained X million jobs since April, but he forgets, he neglect, not forgets, but he leaves out that we lost 22 million.
Well, does he need to put that in there?
Is there anybody watching the president claim that we've gained 9 million or whatever it was, Jobs in the last month or so.
Is there anybody who doesn't understand without being told that we lost more than that and we're just making back some of our loss?
Is there anybody who didn't understand that?
So that was fact check the lie because he left out the context That everybody understands.
So these are the trivial kinds of things that CNN says are the president's lies.
And then you've got dumbass Biden with his race-baiting hoax that will rip the society apart.
Those are not equal.
All right. Somebody says, did Harris speak yesterday?
I think she did, but she didn't get much attention.
All right. So, Kamala's speech.
She's completely lying.
Well, if you're looking for the politician who doesn't lie, good luck.
Good luck. There's still buzz about hydroxychloroquine.
Between now and November, do you know what also is going to happen?
You can have a lot more Drug trials for hydroxychloroquine that have been completed.
Some of them, I don't know if there's any going on now, but I'm hoping there's at least one of those gold standard types of clinical trials for hydroxychloroquine.
I don't know if there will be, but what if there is?
What if between now and election day, there's a gold standard test for hydroxychloroquine and it shows it works or shows it doesn't work?
It's going to be a pretty big impact on the minds of voters, whichever way it goes.
I do think that President Trump's going hard on China is devastatingly effective because Biden is obviously framed as soft on China, and I think that's fair framing.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
And that alone is gigantic.
I mean, that would win the Midwest just by being hard on China and trying to get the manufacturing back.
Trump also has a surprisingly good story on healthcare because he's cut enough regulations from telehealth to making the most favored nations.
That's not cutting a regulation, but getting drug prices that are no worse for the United States than anywhere else.
These are some pretty big deals.
So the Rand Paul attack, I don't know, that feels a little bit political in the sense that he wasn't attacked, attacked, as in nobody was trying to hit him.
Maybe they would have if he had not been surrounded by police.
Maybe they would have.
But I don't think he was assaulted per se.
I think there was just aggressive protesters.
Now, I wouldn't want any aggressive protesters coming at me like that.
And if I had a gun, I don't know what I'd do.
If they surrounded me like that and I didn't have police protection, I'm not exactly sure how that would go down.
But it's definitely something to be worried about.
Somebody pointed out on Twitter that Maxine Waters had called for this very behavior of not letting these public figures be unharassed in public.
Democrats got to own this, I think.
So Dr. Zelenko, somebody says in the comments, says there's a conspiracy theory to squelch the hydroxychloroquine.
And I don't know about that.
We'll see. I'm still at a 30% chance that hydroxychloroquine works and there was some effort to suppress it.
I saw the question about Jim Gaffigan.
I'm going to give an answer to that only to the subscribers on Locals because I know Jim and I met him, spent some time with him and I'll tell the people on Locals what that was like.
By the way, if you haven't watched Jim Gaffigan's stand-up comedy, he's just about one of the best ones working today.
Maybe the best, could be the best working comedian.
Rioters are preventing voters from reaching polls.
Maybe. I don't know.
Yeah, Kamala Harris gave a pre-buttal speech and nobody cared.
That's probably true. Oh, just adding to the...
Oh, I forgot to tell you.
So I had set a trap by saying that Joe Biden's campaign has a lot of satanic imagery.
I said before and after and several times during that I'm not a believer.
In other words, I don't believe in Satan.
I don't believe he exists.
Okay. But there are a bunch of coincidences that could be confirmation bias, probably are, that look satanic in terms of the campaign.
And somebody pointed out that on their logo they've got a pentagram.
That's like the satanic pentagram.
And I thought, man, when you start looking for it, when you start looking for it, you sure can find a lot of it.
Which again, doesn't mean it's true.
However, there was a publication which decided to fact check me and some kind of group that tries to fact check people they think are on the right.
And what they did is they lopped off my part about I'm not a believer.
So they did the same editing trick as the fine people hoax, same one as the drinking disinfectant, same one as the overfeeding the koi fish.
So it's always the same trick.
If there's a clarifier in there, they just edit that out.
So they edited out my clarifier to make it look as though I was saying with complete sincerity that Joe Biden is running a satanic campaign.
And this was, of course, to make me look crazy.
But that wasn't the play.
The play was to get attention to that idea.
And if somebody else believes it, well, that's on them.
I already said I don't believe it.
So if they see coincidences and they find it compelling, Well, that would be all their own decision because I do not tell them to do that because I don't see it.
There are just a lot of coincidences.
That's just a fact. All right.
Export Selection