All Episodes
Oct. 26, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:09:24
Episode 1166 Scott Adams: Giggling Harris, President George, 60 Minutes, NXIVM, Slaughter Meter Update

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: President Trump's 60 Minutes interview Kamala Harris 60 Minutes interview Hunter's laptop, unsubstantiated accusations? President Trump's economic plan NY "Jews for Trump", thousands...rally Joe Biden puts a lid on...last 9 days of his campaign? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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
*Pewds singing* Hey everybody, come on in!
Good morning. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
People are saying that this one will be the best one ever.
Yeah, people are saying that all over the globe.
I can't give you any specific names.
A lot of them are anonymous sources.
But they are saying this will be the best coffee with Scott Adams and all you need To make it a peak experience, you don't need much.
All you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, 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 dope mean hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except for Hunter's laptop.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. Yes, I feel the images on that laptop are now all over 18 years old.
So I guess the simultaneous sip can fix just about everything.
All right. Before we start, you should see my new video that I just put up on YouTube.
It's in my usual place that my other videos are, but you can see it pinned on my Twitter feed as well.
An interview with... Nikki Klein, member of NXIVM, which you would call a cult.
She would call something else, maybe an organization, a company, which they were associated with.
And let me tell you that the story you get...
From a person who was central to the entire situation.
This is how central Nikki is and was.
So she's actually still married to Alison Mack.
So Alison Mack was sort of the, you know, people called her like the second in command at NXIVM under Keith Ranieri.
Rhymes with canary, I'm told.
And she's got a story...
A version of the story that is not exactly what you've heard.
And there's a twist here, and a little bit of a spoiler.
There is some concern that the trial of Keith Ranieri has a big irregularity.
And, you know, as I've said before, two years ago, if you told me, hey, I think the justice system is not operating the way it should...
I would have said, well, that's what everybody says.
You know, if you get sucked into the legal system, of course you think it's railroading an innocent person.
Everybody says that.
But listen to the story, and you're going to walk away scratching your head and saying, um, I got some real questions about how this is being handled.
Some real questions.
And they ought to be answered soon because the sentencing happens tomorrow.
So Keith Ranieri was found guilty on several counts.
Sentencing tomorrow.
It was delayed because of coronavirus, I guess.
And here's the thing.
I still haven't seen anything that I could determine as a crime.
And when the press talks about the conviction, they don't really...
Pair anything that happened with those crimes.
So there's some real questions about what's going on there.
And I would be concerned about whether justice has been served.
Now, of course, everybody gets to tell their story the way they get to tell it.
So I can't fact check anybody's story.
But when you see how different this version is, And as you've experienced the political news, two movies on one screen, you're going to see two movies on one screen again in a different context, and I think you're going to enjoy it.
So check that out.
All right. Mike Pence continues to campaign, despite the fact that five of his close aides, including his body man, have coronavirus.
But Pence does not.
Or at least the tests do not show it yet.
It can take, you know, I think up to a week to test positive if you're infected, which I don't quite understand, do you?
I'm trying to understand the following.
My understanding is that you could go several days of being infected, but the test will not detect it.
But now help me with this next part.
If the test Can't detect that you're infected, can you spread it?
Because the whole point of spreading it is that there's virus coming out of your pores, right?
Or at least it's coming out of your mouth.
And if the test tests your mouth or, you know, your nose area or whatever they're testing, and there's no virus that the test can detect, can you give it to somebody?
Is the test so insensitive that you could have a bunch of virus, enough to transmit it, and the test won't pick it up?
And I'm talking about whatever test a vice president would get, right?
He's not getting the cheap test.
I'm assuming the vice president gets a good test, you know, one that they rely on.
Now, that still would open up the possibility that he He becomes, you know, virally, let's say, measurably viral in between the test that he probably gets in the morning and the test that he probably gets in the evening.
Because you know they're testing him twice a day, right?
I mean, I don't know that, but it feels somewhat obvious and I don't know how you could imagine it could be anything else.
So I would imagine that Pence is just getting so tested that his nose is raw and But does that create a little extra risk for the people he is with?
Yes. Yes it does.
It creates a little extra risk.
Probably not nearly as much as CNN would like you to believe, because they do what I call angry reporting.
Let me show you the difference between reporting and angry reporting.
Reporting would look like this.
Vice President Pence, although people around him have tested positive, has continued to campaign.
Some people are concerned that he could spread it, but of course he's being tested every several hours, so the risk is being minimized.
So that's what it would look like if you were just to report the news.
Now I would like to do Jake Tapper reporting the same news.
Mike Pence is campaigning!
With positive, infecting people.
It's like the same news, except you do something with your eyebrows, you furl them, you get really angry, and then you report that news.
Something's going on here and I don't like it.
But I believe that this is yet another case where the president and vice president have read the room correctly.
If you listen to the news, it's like, ah, it's the end of the world.
This vice president is causing a bad role model.
But you know what else he's doing?
He's acting like you would act.
So this is the thing that the president gets right just a lot.
And you assume that Pence's decision is really the president's decision in this case.
I'm sure they work together on it, but you know that President Trump wants him to keep going.
Here's the thing. Every single person who is watching the news has bent the rules a little bit.
Right? Do you think there's anybody that you know who has not bent the coronavirus rules about social distancing, etc?
Is there anybody who hasn't bent them a little bit?
Now, I think if we do mostly what we're supposed to do most of the time, you can get a pretty good result.
But we all bend them.
We bend it a little bit.
A little bit of bending. And so when you watch your leaders...
Doing the same thing, which is Pence's.
He's playing a little fast and loose with that rule.
He's saying he's an essential employee.
I guess you could say he is, but really, you know he's just bending the rule.
How do you feel when you've bent that rule a thousand times, or let's say a few times, and you watch somebody else bend it?
Well, you don't get that judgy, do you?
If you watch CNN, they report it like all of the people on CNN never bend those rules.
They've never done anything that would cause a little extra risk.
But of course they have, because they're human beings in a complex situation.
We're doing the best we can, but we're bending the rules a little bit.
So when you see Pence do that, Part of you might say, hey, maybe that's a bad role model, you know, you could make that argument.
But there's another part of you that says, he's a warrior, right?
He's wounded, in a sense, he may not have the coronavirus, but he's wounded, in a conceptual sense, and he's still on the field.
He didn't leave the field. He took a hit.
He didn't take a timeout.
He just kept fighting. There's some part of you that likes that.
Because he's not just fighting for himself, right?
They're fighting to be the leaders of the country and to fight for us.
Do you want the person who surrenders with a flesh wound?
Kamala Harris was in a similar situation.
Her staff... Had a positive result, and she went into quarantine.
Good role model, right?
Good role model. Went into quarantine just like the experts say.
Warrior? Nope.
Nope. As soon as she got a small neck, you know, a flesh wound, she left the field.
She did what she was told.
Is that what leaders do?
So you have this weird situation where there's something that's the right thing to do, and you know what it is, and it's to follow the experts and, you know, try to reduce the risk wherever you can.
But then there's the other part of you that says, I don't want my leader to be a giant pussy.
Right? I mean, there's some part of you that says, I'll be cautious, but I'm not sure you should be.
And I think the president gets that right, by the way.
Now, obviously, people have different opinions on that, but for his voters and for the purpose of getting re-elected, I think Trump is reading the room right.
That's what it feels like to me.
There have been more photos on that Hunter Biden laptop.
And the latest ones are more shocking than really I had imagined.
I don't know if you've heard the news yet, but there's a new photo going around, and you don't want to look at it, trust me.
So I'll describe it, but don't look at it.
It's a photo of Hunter Biden.
Apparently he was vacationing in Wuhan in 2019, and there's some video of him having sex with a bat.
You don't want to see it.
Anyway, so I'll let that sink in a little bit.
Before I go to the next story, his father, Joe Biden, was out doing his speaking yesterday before, I guess before the lid was put on.
He's got a nine-day lid before the, he put a lid on all the rest of his campaign.
But This might be a reason why it happened.
I'm just going to put this out there.
That Joe Biden forgot who he was running against for president and referred to Trump as George.
Twice. He goes, quote, four more years of George.
George, he, Biden said, going to find ourselves in a position where Trump gets elected.
And then he found his footing there.
Called him Trump. But I still think he thinks it's George Trump.
So could be better.
That could be better. So right after Joe Biden, I think I have the timing right, correct me if I don't, but he called a lid so that for the next nine days until the election, you won't see any more Joe Biden.
Now, what does that tell you?
Well, here's what it tells me.
If Joe Biden thinks that the country is better off with less Joe Biden for the next nine days, because that's what he's doing, right?
If his point is to be running for office for the benefit of the country, then what we're observing him doing during this phase, in theory, should be for the benefit of the country.
Why would he do something that's not for the benefit of the country while he's running for president for the benefit of the country?
So you have to think that whatever you see him do, he has reasoned out, might be good for his campaign, but also would have to be good for the country, or else he shouldn't be doing it in public, right?
So Joe Biden has decided that what's best for the United States for now is to have less of him So he put a lid on it, so he's just going to disappear for nine days.
Now, if Joe Biden thinks that the country is better off for those nine days without him, what is it that's going to change on the 10th day that make us suddenly need him?
Well, I suppose getting elected would do it, but it's a weird proposition, isn't it?
I'm running for president to help the country and And the first thing I'm going to do is give you much less of me.
I think we should take him at his word.
If we need less Joe Biden, let's give it to him.
The Rasmussen polling group, they've started doing a daily tracking of not likely voter approval.
That's what they've been doing.
So approval of likely voters...
Gets you sort of an indirect indication of how the vote itself might go.
But it's not asking voters who you're going to vote for.
It's asking them approval, which could be a little different from who they vote for.
So at approximately, I think in about 13 minutes or so, Rasmussen will be publishing a The first of their series of daily tracking polls for who you're actually going to vote for.
So in this case, they've actually asked people nationally, who are you going to vote for?
When do you see that?
I'm not going to spoil it, but I might have seen a little sneak preview, and I'm just going to say this.
When do you see that?
So, that's just your teaser for the day.
In today's out-of-context news, which is the only kind we get, right now the entire news cycle is just people taking things out of context.
And then criticizing the thing that didn't happen, but it looks like it happened if you take it out of context.
So yesterday, Mark Meadows worded something poorly, I guess, in the sense that it opened him up for this criticism.
He said that the U.S. is, quote, not going to control the coronavirus pandemic, which caused his critics to say, what?
What? What are you saying, Mark Meadows?
Are you saying that we're giving up?
And of course, Kamala Harris takes that and says, that means they're giving up.
They're not going to control the coronavirus pandemic?
This is the dumbest freaking thing I've ever seen.
Let me ask you, which country is controlling the pandemic?
That's not even a thing.
You can't control the pandemic.
You can do what you can do, and you can do everything that you can do, but you can't control the pandemic, all right?
You can't control the rain, but you can wear a raincoat.
You can't control a hurricane, but you could go into your hurricane bunker.
You can't control cancer totally, but you might be able to develop some cures, some treatments.
So, of course, Mark Meadows is making a An obvious, simple, universally understood statement that you can't control a pandemic.
And then his critics act like it's a completely different statement.
Oh, we're going to give up and just let the pandemic sweep through and kill as many people as possible because you can't control the pandemic.
So when you watch the alleged news, this is news?
This isn't news.
This is taking somebody out of context.
That's all it is.
It's nothing but that.
There isn't a single newsworthy thing in the statement that humans can't control a virus that has swept across the globe.
Because you know what?
If we could control the frickin' virus, I'm pretty sure we would have done it.
Now, you could certainly, you know, do more always.
You could always do more.
You could always do sooner. But you can't control a pandemic.
That's dumb. All right.
It's sort of a fun day for news-wise.
So 60 Minutes ran their interviews with Trump and with Kamala Harris and Biden.
And the big news ahead of it That you had been told is that Trump stormed off and ended the interview before it was over.
Isn't that what you heard?
I heard that everywhere.
I heard it all over social media.
I saw it in the news.
That Trump ended it early and stormed off.
And then I watched it.
That didn't happen.
Nothing like that happened.
Let me explain to you What a photographer once described to me, this photographer was doing a photo shoot of me some years ago, and he had done lots of photo shoots of famous people.
And he tells me this story.
He goes, he had been asked to do a photo shoot of Bill Gates for some national publication.
Now, if it's a national publication...
You want a really good photo.
And I've been on a number of magazine covers.
And I know that to do a magazine cover shoot, it's a real big operation.
You're bringing in backdrops and lighting, and you've got three different cameras, and you've got your assistant, and you're changing film.
Not film, but you're changing cameras.
It's a big, big operation.
It can take, let's say, an hour.
So a photographer to do a big photo shoot of somebody like Bill Gates would want at least an hour, and sometimes they'd want more.
They'd want to get there early and set up and do some shoots of, you know, somebody has to stand in to get the lights right and everything.
But Bill Gates walks into a photo shoot, and he says, you have 10 minutes.
And the photographer, knowing he needs an hour, I mean, he needs an hour.
He knows his job. This is not a photographer who started yesterday.
You know, you get the best, most experienced photographer to do a Bill Gates photo shoot.
And Bill Gates says, you have ten minutes.
The photographer knows.
He knows. He needs an hour.
He's like, I can't do it in ten minutes.
I just need an hour.
And Bill Gates says, you have ten minutes.
Nine and a half. And the photographer's like, I can't do it, I can't do it.
All right, all right. He grabs his camera, starts shooting, gets, you know, gets maybe 10 snaps, and he knows he needs 150 to be able to pick a good one.
And then Bill Gates stands up and he goes, all right, we're done.
And he walks out. And the photographer has to pick from his 10 snaps, and one of them's good enough, and it becomes the cover, and everything's fine.
Did the world end?
Nope. Did they not get a photo of Bill Gates?
No, they did. They got exactly what they wanted.
Who decided when the photography session was over and how long it should be?
Not the photographer.
That's not how it works.
Bill Gates decides when it's over.
Bill Gates decides how long he's going to be there.
And that's the beginning and the end of the story.
It's not up to anybody else.
So when I watched the actual footage of Trump storming off, which is what I'd heard before I saw it, I expected something like that.
I thought he would angrily get up and say, I'm not answering that question, and throw down the lavalier and walk off all angry, something like that.
But that's not what I saw, and not even close.
What you saw was the President of the United States in control of his own schedule.
And that's it. Because, let me give this advice to 60 Minutes, as I tweeted earlier today.
60 Minutes, you don't decide how long the interview is.
That's not your decision.
When did you think that happened?
When did 60 Minutes get to be in control of President Trump's schedule?
One of them is the fake news.
The other is the leader of the free world.
The president decides when it's over.
And if you watch the video, he simply decided it was over.
You know, obviously he didn't want to do more of it because it was becoming nasty.
But there was a natural break.
And instead of continuing after the break, the president just said, it's over.
You have enough.
All the president did is what every CEO does in every photo shoot.
And also in interviews.
The CEO decides when it's over.
The President of the United States, he's the one who decides when you're done.
There's no wiggle room there, right?
This is not a shared responsibility.
60 Minutes doesn't get a vote.
And so the whole framing of it as he left early doesn't make any sense at all.
Because the president left when he was done.
That's when you're done.
You're done when he's done.
That's it. That's the whole story.
Anyway, watching that develop into a whole fake news thing was fascinating.
But then I saw the clip of Kamala Harris.
I think Kamala Harris ended any chance she has of helping the team.
And becoming part of the government with that interview.
It was bad.
I don't know if it's the worst interview I've ever seen on 60 Minutes.
It could be.
And the thing that Harris gets wrong is the persona, the The presidential vibe.
Now, what has everybody been accusing President Trump of since the beginning?
He's not presidential.
You are not tweeting presidential.
You're not presidential. But remember I told you on Periscope yesterday you can get used to anything?
Over the last three and a half years, our understanding of what it is to be presidential has It started out as this big history of other presidents, and this President Trump didn't match that history, so he felt a little unpresidential by that standard, but of course he said he's modern presidential, and I actually accept that definition.
He is his own person.
But now that time has gone by, Trump himself, not completely, but to some extent, has become your mental model Of what presidential looks like, right?
What is one of the things that President Trump is often criticized for that I don't think is true, but he gets criticized for it?
They say he never laughs.
How presidential is laughing at your own joke?
Not very.
It just sort of doesn't look leaderly I laugh at my own jokes, but I'm a professional, and I'm allowed to do that.
So Kamala Harris, I'm going to do my Kamala Harris answering a question.
And if you're listening to this on podcast and can't see the visuals, oh, you're missing so much.
Because my impression of Kamala Harris is just spot on.
And one of the things she did, and I don't know if I've ever seen her do this before, is she kept her mouth open while she was listening.
So she laughed really hard and then kept her mouth open while she's listening to the rest of the question and And it made her eyes look crazy at the same time.
And I don't know if it's related or if it was an illusion because the mouth was crazy.
But this is Kamala Harris answering the question.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
See, now if you're listening on podcast, that last five seconds was hilarious, if you'd seen the visual.
Um... And she actually just stayed in that position with her mouth open for way too long.
And she looked like the village idiot.
Now, Kamala Harris is a smart human being.
I mean, there's no doubt about that, right?
If you gave her a standardized IQ test, she'd do great.
I mean, you look at the jobs she's had, the accomplishments she's had.
For God's sake, she's a U.S. senator.
She is a smart, accomplished human being, which we all wish we could be as capable as she is.
So I'll say a lot of good things about her, and they're all true.
But she looked like a village idiot.
And you can't shake that, right?
Now, 60 minutes got a lot of play, in part because the story about the president walking off probably got them more attention than they would have gotten otherwise.
But that was devastating.
I don't know if I've ever seen a worse interview than that.
Let's see. Here's something to worry about if you're a Biden supporter.
And trust me, you've got a lot to worry about in the next few days.
Have you noticed that the entire time that Trump has been behind in the polls, that Trump supporters have not looked as worried as you think they ought to?
Sure, there's been plenty of worry.
You know, there's always worry and concern and uncertainty.
It's always there. But is it my imagination?
Or have the Democrats been far more worried while being way ahead in the polls?
Because they've got this 2016 PTSD, still very much part of their personalities, and the PTSD says it's not a problem until that last week or so.
And that last week, anything could happen.
Anything could happen.
For example, right about now, there should be a pole dropping from Rasmussen, and that would be an example of anything could happen in those last few days.
If you see the pole, put it in the comments and let me know.
All right. So here's what the Biden supporters should be concerned about.
Have you been watching all the Trump rallies and parades and boat rallies and everything else?
And have you noticed that there's one thing that they all have in common?
That the Trump supporters have started using the American flag as a campaign prop for Trump.
In other words, the whole country, I think, both left and right, has begun to associate the American flag only with Trump.
Just think about that.
Maybe it may have snuck up on you, but you've noticed all the American flags that are a substitute And a direct substitute with no change, you don't have to add anything, for a Trump poster.
You don't have to put a Trump sign in your lawn.
You only have to put up the American flag.
And everybody will know who you're voting for.
Think about that.
How would you like to be running for president of the United States?
The United States!
It's a country with a flag.
Betsy Ross created it.
It's very popular among some people.
Not everybody, apparently.
Not always in professional sports.
But the American flag, don't count it out.
No matter how many stories you hear about somebody's burning one, somebody doesn't want to stand for it, somebody wants to kneel for it, those stories give you a false sense of how the country responds to their most potent symbol.
The American flag is really powerful with the American public.
And when you see that Joe Biden Is so disassociated with the American flag that you can use it as a substitute for a Trump poster?
Have we ever seen anything like that?
Has there ever been a campaign where one of the presidential candidates could use the American flag as a substitute for his own brand?
Come on!
That is other level stuff, right?
It sneaks up on you.
Because, you know, the number of flags just sort of started increasing until it was just the flagotopia.
And then you say, oh, I get it now.
Flag equals Trump.
Years from now, when all of the TDS has worn down, this is going to be one of those things that historians are going to look back at and say, oh, my frickin' deity.
I... I didn't see it when it was happening, but this is the most phenomenal branding exercise of all time.
No candidate has ever branded themselves with the American flag and made a stick.
It's just crazy how good that is, in terms of technique, how good that is, that it got to that point.
All right. Let's talk about how to bamboozle inexperienced voters.
As the creator of the Dilbert comic strip, I can speak to this with great authority.
And it goes like this.
I see in the comments somebody saying that Reagan...
Did a good job of branding himself with the flag.
And I would accept that.
But he ran against people who also would be associated with the flag.
He didn't own it.
He was more of it, I guess.
So here's how you bamboozle inexperienced people and young people.
If there's something that they want, let's say a policy, That they would like the government to do.
And let's say you're running for president and you want them to vote for you, but you don't want to do what they want you to do.
So you want to bamboozle some young people into voting for you by making them think they might get what they want, but you're not going to give it to them in reality.
What do you do? You want them to think you're going to do it, but you're not going to do it.
Well, here's how you do it.
You say that you're going to form a bipartisan commission to study it.
And again, as the creator of the Dilbert cartoon, let me say with complete authority that if you're going to form a bipartisan commission to study it, you're not going to do it.
Because the whole reason that you form a bipartisan commission is to send the idea off to the graveyard of ideas.
All right? If you can get a bipartisan commission, meaning that there are Republicans on the commission, if you can get the Republicans on your bipartisan commission to say it would be a good idea to pack the Supreme Court or to limit the term of the dominant Republican or at least conservative leaning,
Good luck with that. Good luck with your bipartisan commission, because I'm sure those Republicans are going to get talked into that real easily.
So I think President Trump should take a page from that.
So he could take two pages from it.
So here's what Trump could do.
He could say, you know, I think we could do better on health care.
So the day I'm elected, I'm going to form a bipartisan commission On health care.
There you go. You young people, you Democrats, you want universal health care or health insurance for everybody?
I'll give you a bipartisan commission and we'll look into it right after I get elected.
So that would be fine, right?
Who could argue with a bipartisan commission?
How about climate change?
A lot of Democrats would like the president to take Climate change more seriously and to deal with it more aggressively.
But you know what would help?
Bipartisan commission. So President Trump could say, you know, the day after I'm re-elected, I'll get you your bipartisan commission.
And then that gives people a reason to vote for him.
Now, the beauty of this, of what Biden is doing, is it's actually a really good play.
Because it's definitely the younger people...
And the less experienced people he's trying to bamboozle who don't understand that a bipartisan commission means no.
They will learn that.
They might learn it the hard way, but you've got a lesson coming, young people.
All right. Let's talk about all the news about Hunter's laptop.
So, of course, the big story...
Is that there's, you know, these allegations in this news and the mainstream media, you know, the big respected media is disappearing the story and simply aggressively not covering it.
They're not only not covering it, they're really mad at anybody who suggests that it should be covered because it violates every standard of professional journalism.
You know why? Because it's unsubstantiated.
Right? That makes sense.
The press doesn't want to cover a story that's unsubstantiated, or as they would like to say, baseless.
Would you want a professional press to start covering a bunch of baseless stories that they can't substantiate?
No, no.
Because if they started doing that, what could that lead to?
Well, the next thing you know...
Some author is going to write a book with a whole bunch of anonymous sources, and then that's going to get on the news.
It's going to be this unsubstantiated claims in the form of a book, let's say, knocking a president or something.
And if journalists started treating that stuff like something that should be covered by the journalists...
Well, what's that going to do?
It's going to encourage people to write books about the president with anonymous sources in them.
And you don't want that to happen, right?
Oh, right.
That already happens.
Just about once every three weeks.
And they cover the piss out of it.
Unsubstantiated, though it may be.
Because they talk to the author...
Is that what counts as substantiation?
Yeah, we talked to the person who made the claim.
Oh, I guess we're done here.
Good enough. Let's put it on the air.
Prime time, that baby.
How about Russia collusion?
That was all pretty substantiated, right?
Oh, no. It never happened.
How was it that for three years the press covered Russia collusion...
When none of it was substantiated, and indeed, when the Mueller report came out, said it didn't happen.
Or at least nobody could find anything.
So the standard that they have now of something that is baseless and unsubstantiated requires a hilarious twist.
And it requires them to ignore the fact that this Tony Bobulinski guy, who is a business associate of Hunter Biden, Has confirmed the validity of at least one of the emails and some of the other emails, I guess, on the alleged Hunter Biden laptop.
All right, so now you've got an email that, okay, maybe you can't tell if that was faked.
But now you have a human being Who is a direct witness, who has come forward publicly.
We know his name.
He's not anonymous.
And he has credibility.
There's nothing about him or his history that would suggest he has any sketchiness about him, as far as I know.
He's an ex-Navy guy.
Looks like a solid citizen, as far as we can tell.
And are you telling me that the mainstream media doesn't know how to find Tony Bobulinski when he's actively trying to find them?
He's actually doing a public press release and he would be the easiest person to contact In the entire world.
In fact, I'll bet there's nobody easier to find if you were, let's say, a major press entity.
There's probably nobody easier to find than the guy who's trying to find you, Tony Bobulinski.
Now, when watching the press sort of, I hate to use the term, but it's coming into popular usage, so I will, gaslight the public.
It's really interesting. So I guess it started with the Wall Street Journal was going to write an article about the laptop stuff, and they decided that they wouldn't because when checking the financial records, it became clear that Joe Biden never received any direct payment, nor was he on any contracts by name for any deals that Hunter did.
So that's the Wall Street Journal.
They looked into it and found no financial written records.
Now, here's a problem with that.
Given that the allegation is that something sketchy was up, as opposed to something completely legal, why would you expect there would be a record of it, given that the email in question One of the central emails in question says explicitly that Hunter would be holding the 10 for the big guy.
And Tony Bobulinski has confirmed that what that means is that Hunter Biden would be holding a share of the deal on behalf of Joe Biden to keep it from being on any kind of a record.
So if you're the Wall Street Journal and you're trying to research Whether a crime was committed or something just sketchy, whether it was criminal or not, and the entire nature of the crime was it was kept off of financial records, and then your reason for not running the story is that it wasn't on financial records.
Have you done your fucking job?
It doesn't look like it, but it gets better.
New York Times runs an article, I think it was Ben Smith, runs an article talking about the Wall Street Journal and essentially backing them up for their decision to not run these stories, which they don't describe in that article so it doesn't get accidentally described.
And so now you've got the Wall Street Journal that has passed on the story by saying it's baseless because they literally looked in the place that it's not supposed to be.
They consciously looked at the place it's not supposed to be and said it's not there, therefore it can't be in the place it's supposed to be, which is Hunter holding it.
The fact that they can push this story, and because of the complication of it, the public reads it and they go, I'm not really following this Wall Street Journal thing because didn't they look in the wrong place?
And you think to yourself, am I missing something in this story?
This looks exactly like they're just trying to not do the story.
It doesn't look like they researched it and it was baseless.
Because I just saw the guy who's a witness talking about it on TV. Does he not exist?
Where's the part where they talked to him and decided he didn't have a story?
There's something missing.
And you say to yourself, so I'm not really comfortable with this Wall Street Journal decision.
There might be more to it that we don't know, right?
So my take on it is based on the information I have.
Could there be more to the story, which would change how I'm thinking about the Wall Street Journal's decision?
Of course. Almost every story we see, there ends up being more to the story.
But what we see so far doesn't explain what they did.
And then the New York Times comes in with suppressive fire.
Because you're over here saying, I've got a question about the Wall Street Journal decision.
And you're like, I'm not sure I understand.
Or do I have the timing of something wrong?
Because there's something unexplained here.
And then you see that the New York Times totally backs the Wall Street Journal.
Now what do you say about the story?
Well, if you're a reasonable, educated, well-informed adult, here's what you probably think.
You know, I don't understand what the Wall Street Journal did, but the New York Times is very credible, and they seem to understand what the Wall Street Journal did.
So I wasn't totally sold by just the Wall Street Journal, but now that the New York Times has essentially endorsed what they did...
Okay, I guess all the smart people are on the same side, so I'll just let it go.
That's what you just saw.
It's freaking amazing.
It's impressive as hell, because they're getting away with it.
And it's so good that I even wonder if it's not intelligence sources behind it.
Because the quality of this, if you call it a cover-up, I don't know what you'd call it, maybe a cover-up, the quality of the work is That went into the psychological engineering of the cover-up is better than the press could do on their own.
It's almost like there's a professional or professionals who are sort of running the show, and I don't know what country they would be from.
So that's another question for you.
Given the sketchiness of all this, You should not automatically assume that this is domestic.
Got that? Now, I'm not going to say I have some information that says it's not domestic, but the way it is developed, you should ask yourself, given all that we know about the world at this point, you should ask yourself, is this domestic?
Is this coming from completely domestic actors who just want Joe Biden to get elected and that's it?
You know, they're just... Coordinating, or they just know what to do.
They don't need to make a phone call and coordinate.
So anyway, here's an assignment for you.
Find a low-information Democrat.
That would be somebody who never follows any of the conservative news, so they only see the news on the left.
Find somebody like that, and then tell them the whole Hunter Biden laptop story, including the email about the 10 that goes to the big guy.
I don't know.
Without doing the experiment myself yet, I think they're going to say, that is so outrageous!
And Fox News, why don't they cover that story?
I think that's what would happen.
Because I don't think there's any possibility that if this story were reversed, and it was a Trump kid doing any of this stuff, you don't think that that would be a major story?
Here's another part of the story that is not mentioned.
So not mentioned by New York Times, not mentioned by the Wall Street Journal.
Aren't we worried about blackmail anymore?
When did we stop being worried that a president could be blackmailed?
We've had a President Trump for, you know, close to four years.
And, you know, the press and everybody else in the world has been digging and digging and digging and looking under every rock and found nothing.
The only things that we thought maybe there was something there was like Deutsche Bank.
Maybe there was something in his taxes.
But there wasn't.
There wasn't. Turns out there's nothing.
The only thing they found is he did some business in China and opened some smallish Chinese bank account to do some business a few years ago, but it didn't turn out.
That's it. Basically a big nothing.
But you've got Hunter Biden...
Who we can be pretty sure, because of the videos you've already seen from the laptop, etc., and from the emails, that if ever there was somebody who was blackmailable, it would be Hunter Biden.
Which means that Joe Biden would have pressure too.
Because if you're blackmailing the kid, and the father could do something to make that not happen...
That's a lot of pressure. Now, I'm not saying that Joe Biden would break the law of the United States or even change a policy of the United States to save his son, but let me remind you, Joe Biden already lost a son.
That matters.
If you had, you know, two sons, does he only have two?
There were only two, right?
Two sons. But if you've lost Beau Biden, you've lost one son, you can imagine the crushing emotional impact that that would have.
You're going to do everything to protect the one you still have.
And so that makes Hunter Biden a little extra vulnerable to blackmail, I would think.
Now here's the counter argument.
The counter argument goes like this.
Hunter Biden is the least black-amailable person in the world because you already know so much about him.
If tomorrow you found out, oh, he also does heroin, it wouldn't change anything.
It wouldn't change a thing.
There's no suggestion he's ever done heroin, by the way.
But you could see some news that would make your hair catch on fire, and you would still say, well...
We kind of knew that. That's sort of baked in.
We know Hunter's the wild child.
But suppose it's financial.
Suppose it's financial and there's some way to tie in the dad.
What if that's still out there?
And we've seen enough to suggest that Hunter was in the kind of business where you would suspect a little bit of that to be out there, right?
Now, in order for the Wall Street Journal and...
The New York Times, to treat this as non-news, they have to sell you the following belief.
The belief that foreign entities would pay millions and millions of dollars to Hunter Biden and Hunter Biden's business entities with the assumption that that would not make any difference to Joe Biden.
In other words, you have to believe that all these high-level players who have millions of dollars to put into other things, that they're very sophisticated, and yet somehow they don't understand that giving money to Hunter doesn't have any effect on Joe Biden.
Or does it make more sense that the entire reason they do it is that they have a high confidence it will pay off?
That there's a return on investment.
And what would be that return on investment?
How would the Chinese company get a return on investment for a Hunter Biden payoff, except for the Hunter Biden company itself, which probably was not why they invested, right? They're not investing in Hunter.
Nobody would invest in Hunter.
Because even China's heard the stories about Hunter.
Nobody puts their money into the crack cocaine guy.
Right? And nobody does that.
Unless they think they're buying something else.
Influence on the dad.
I've heard it said that one of the reasons it's no big deal is that some of this happened when Joe Biden was out of office.
And therefore, you know, he can't make any policies anyway.
Oh, okay.
Technically true.
But do you think Joe Biden didn't have any influence on the other politicians in the government?
Do you think that after eight years of being vice president, he didn't have any favors he could call in?
It's crazy to think that the Chinese were not buying influence on Joe Biden because that's what they thought they were buying.
You know they thought they were buying that because they weren't investing in the crackhead.
That wasn't happening.
So in order for you to believe that everything was fine and that there's nothing there that's newsworthy, now I will grant you I did not see a crime.
That doesn't mean there wasn't one.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a prosecutor.
But it doesn't matter.
Does it matter if you can identify a specific crime on the books?
If what you have identified is people thinking they're buying influence, paying actually money, a lot of it, for what they think is influence, and your common sense tells you it is.
That's not a story.
You have to ignore a lot of stuff to make that not a story.
You have to ignore potential blackmail.
You have to ignore Tony Bobulinski and his confirmation of the email.
And you have to have no curiosity about who the big guy was or who's holding the 10 and why he's holding it.
You have to accept a lot to think that's not a story.
And it's just crazy to imagine it wouldn't be a story if it were about Trump.
Here are some dumb people in the news.
Axios has a story in which the headline is so dumb that you don't need to read any of the article.
And here it is. Trump has no second-term economic plan.
What? You don't have to read that article.
That title of the article is so dumb that nothing in that article could be of value to you.
Let me explain why.
You don't need an economic plan, unless you're a communist, I suppose.
You need a system.
The system is the plan.
Here's the system.
It's called capitalism.
And what would be a good system to make sure that your capitalism system is working well?
Well, you'd want to have a good court system.
Done. You'd want to get rid of unnecessary regulations.
Trump did a lot of it, will do more of it, has a system for doing exactly that.
You would want to, let's say, remove any competitive barriers so that there's free market stuff in healthcare, healthcare being a gigantic part of your entire situation.
You'd want to...
And, of course, the president does have a spending plan about the military, which is spending a lot to make sure our military is first rate.
That's part of the economy.
He wants to open up sooner rather than later.
That's an economic plan, because this pandemic is going to be part of the next term.
And for Axios to say he doesn't have an economic plan...
Demonstrates a massive lack of understanding about anything.
It's certainly about the economy and what is appropriate for a president to do to manage an economy.
It's like they don't even know what it is.
They don't know what managing an economy even entails.
I'll tell you what it doesn't entail.
Any kind of a plan.
If one of your presidential candidates tells you they have a plan, you run away.
Run away. You want the economy to work on free market competition, not a plan.
Now, certainly it's plan-like to say you want to cut taxes, but I'd say that's a system.
You know, the president's system is to remove friction wherever you can.
And to make us competitive with external forces.
One of the ways you can be competitive with your corporations is you've got to have a tax rate in your corporations that's similar to or lower than the countries you're competing with, because otherwise those corporations can't produce cheap enough goods to sell in other places, because they'd be taxed too much.
So it is such economic ignorance to say that the president doesn't have an economic plan.
It just ignores reality and every element of management and understanding of free markets.
It's mind-boggling how ignorant that is.
All right. The people who believe the fine people hoax are having a tough time this week.
Did you see all the coverage of a group?
I think it's Jews for Trump.
And so in New York, there was this giant caravan of Jews for Trump, and a lot of people there.
A lot of people were there with their American flags.
And if you were a Democrat and you would believe the fake news that the President of the United States, Trump, had once called the marchers in Charlottesville fine people...
While those marchers were chanting anti-Semitic things, if you think that actually happened, it didn't happen, by the way, that was fake news, but if you did believe it, how would you explain thousands of Jewish Americans who are not aware of that?
You can't. It doesn't make any sense.
You could be the worst anti-Semite in the world, and you would still agree with this following sentence.
Jews can spot anti-Semitism.
Are we on the same page?
Do you think that there are thousands and thousands of Jews in New York who don't have...
Anti-Semitism DAR, you know, radar for picking up anti-Semitism.
Do you think that they heard this Charlottesville story, believed it, that the president was supporting people who want to, what, deport them?
You know, American citizens?
I mean, it's so insane that I don't know how to keep it all in my head at the same time.
They can't live in there, these thoughts.
But if you're a Democrat, you have to explain that.
It's like, oh, and how would you explain it?
Like, what kind of cognitive dissonance would you have to gin up in your head to explain why thousands of American Jews who clearly know what anti-Semitism is, who clearly can spot it from a mile away, who live it, breathe it, they know what it is.
And they didn't notice this?
According to your fake news worldview, they just didn't notice.
The biggest news in the country for years?
Nope. Joe Biden's primary theme of his campaign, the fake news about the Tiki Torch guys, and the Jews in New York didn't see the news.
Nobody saw that.
Obviously, the only way to explain it Is that the fake news has convinced some people, but not all.
That theory is complete.
There's nothing else to add.
Oh, some people realize it's fake news, and then they act upon that understanding.
And some people can't distinguish fake news from real news, and they act on that understanding.
And that would give you a number of Jewish supporters of Biden and a number of Jewish supporters of Trump.
And that's completely consistent, right?
It's consistent with everything you see and observe.
But if you're a Democrat and you believed in the fine people hoax, you're very confused this week.
It gets better.
You would have also believed that the president supported neo-Nazis.
Didn't happen. But the fake news people who believed that, believe it did.
How does that explain 44% or 46% African-American approval of the president's job performance.
Are you telling me that nearly approaching half of all black people in the country don't know what racism looks like?
I think they do.
I think black people can spot racism.
If anything, there might be too much spotting to the point where maybe they see it when it's not there.
But what they never do Back me up on this.
You know, if this sounds racist, I don't think it is.
I don't think it is at all.
But you'd be the judge.
I believe black people are good at spotting obvious racism.
Same page? Anybody disagree with that statement?
Because in order to understand, again, you're a Democrat, you're trying to explain your world, how do you explain 44-46% job approval for Trump?
How do you explain that?
You think there's 44, 46% of black Americans who can't spot obvious racism?
Or, or, this is just as crazy, they're okay with it?
Like, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, it's an obvious racism, but you know, I like low taxes.
You think that's happening?
I don't. I think that's happening in Zero places.
Because even if they like the low taxes, what you would hear would be closer to, I like low taxes, but I can't put up with that.
I'll pay extra taxes to not have that guy in office.
That's what you'd hear. Right?
That's exactly what you'd hear.
Yeah, I like low taxes, but we can't have that.
That's completely unacceptable.
There's no argument about that.
Right? We're not even going to have the conversation...
If you actually believed he was a racist.
So I would have to say that Black America and Jewish America, in each case, some substantial portion of them, are demonstrating the two movies on one screen.
And it's because of fake news.
It's not because of the president.
It's because of the fake news coverage of the president.
It's the only explanation...
It's the only explanation for why people would be on two sides of this whole question.
All right. I'm seeing in the comments, when will Biden step down?
You know, I gotta say, the fact that he put a lid on for the next nine days, and the fact that he called President Trump George...
And the fact that, was it yesterday?
He was out in public talking, and he was doing Angry Biden, where he just acts like the angry neighbor who says, Get off my lawn!
Get off my lawn!
Trump! Trump!
So Biden has turned into James T. Kirk's Star Trek nemesis, Khan.
I mean, I feel like Biden should just go out there and go...
And just say, I'm done.
Just make it short.
Except he could, I guess, suppose he'd have to say Trump.
And then just walk off the stage.
That's all you need. All right.
So make sure that you watch my bonus video that's already posted on YouTube, in which I...
I'm just looking at your comments.
I talked to Nikki Klein, who is associated with the NXIVM, what you call a cult, and she doesn't.
And you make your own judgment about that.
I think you're going to like it.
Export Selection