Episode 1193 Scott Adams: I Tell You How Trump Will Win This Legal Battle if he Wants
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The election fraud news conference yesterday
Allan Dershowitz: President Trump's path to victory
Sidney Powell's witness to Venezuelan election fraud
Was/is Dominion software compromised?
HUNDREDS of sworn witness statements
Democrat brainwashing tricks in play
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chelsea, a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
When's it happen?
Now. Go.
Mmm. Delightful.
Some of the best.
All right. Well, COVID deaths, I think, are starting to get out of control here.
The psychology of the pandemic...
Is fascinating in a sort of a morbid, tragic way.
Have you noticed that your feeling about the fear, that your feeling about the risk just keeps going down, even as the pandemic is getting worse?
We sort of just got used to it.
Imagine, if you will, that you had been born into a world in which 2,000 people a day die just routinely from a virus.
And suppose it had just always been that way.
And you were born into that world, and it's just the way it was.
2,000 people per day die from the virus.
How would you feel about it?
You wouldn't even notice.
You literally wouldn't even notice.
There you go. So we're getting to the point where even if the pandemic gets worse, we won't necessarily be less happy, which is weird.
I moved the camera so you can see now.
I'll try to get that right in the future.
I've got two iPads, and sometimes I have one overlapping a little bit.
That's what happened.
All right, let's talk about all this stuff.
A little bit more on the pandemic.
So my smart Democratic friend said to me, see, this pandemic's out of control, and a quarter million people are going to die, maybe more.
And he said to me, it's because Trump set a bad example with masks.
What's wrong with that analysis?
So my Democrat friend says Trump killed a lot of people by not modeling mask behavior better.
Now he didn't say he should create a law where you would go to jail if you don't wear a mask.
He said it was about setting an example.
Doesn't that assume that if you had a different president, some different president could have set the example and people would have been more adaptive to it?
Do you believe that?
Do you believe if Obama had been president during the pandemic and President Obama told Republicans they should wear masks, would Republicans say, well, I wasn't inclined to wear a mask, but now that President Obama...
Has said it's a thing.
I'm going to put my mask on.
Do you think that could have happened?
How about Hillary Clinton?
Hillary Clinton tells Republicans to put on their masks, and Republicans say, you know, if anybody less pleasant than Hillary Clinton had asked me, I might say no.
But she's so nice, and I believe her in all things, so I'm going to mask up.
How in the world do you imagine that you could think of some different president who would have gotten a different result?
It's kind of hard to imagine.
And even if you were to say, now I'm still pro-mask.
I know many of you are not.
But I'm still pro-mask.
But even I don't think it's like a switch.
I think you're barely going to notice the difference sometimes.
But if it saves some lives, I'm all for it.
I don't mind some inconvenience to save some lives.
But I don't know that you'd even necessarily notice it in the statistics.
Here's another question.
Do you have inequality if people are equally happy?
I don't know why I'm thinking of this.
But when you're looking at inequality in society, shouldn't the ultimate measure be, how happy are you?
Because that's what we're all trying to do, right?
We're not trying to just get money.
We're trying to get happiness.
Sometimes we think money helps that.
But if you had two groups, and one has all the disadvantages of life, and one has all the advantages of life, say there's systemic racism or not, what if you measured their happiness and it was the same?
What's that tell you? Because I feel like it would be.
I feel like, regardless of your situation, your baseline happiness stays about the same.
So what are we trying to fix?
Of course I'm in favor of trying to fix unfairness and inequality wherever it's found.
I think you have to do that to have a functioning society.
But think about it logically.
If the goal of life is happiness, and of course you have to do lots of things right to get the minimum requirement to be happy, But if happiness is the ultimate goal, what if two people are equally happy, but one has lots of unfairness and one doesn't?
Do you have to fix it?
Because if you fix it, it's not going to change their happiness.
Probably. If it wasn't changed before, with that difference in their situation, why would it change in the future?
Alright, let's talk about more interesting things.
Did you all see, or some of you see, the press conference, the legal press conference yesterday?
CNN refused to cover it and called it bananas.
Clown show. Full of BS. Do you know how they knew that?
Magic. That's right.
Because the way you know what's going to happen in a press conference is by not watching it.
You just know in advance.
So the fake news has gotten to the point Where they not only know what happened before in a fake way, but they also have fake future news.
They actually knew what was going to happen at the press conference before it happened.
Amazing. Amazing.
And let me ask you this.
In what world does something that's described as bananas not get on television?
When was the last time a news program didn't air something because it was too interesting?
Because I feel like that's what they said.
If you told me that there was a press conference and it was totally bananas, do I want to see more of that or less of it?
I don't know about you, but if I hear there's a press conference and it's totally bananas, I'm going right to it.
That's the one I want to see.
Is it newsworthy when the president's legal team has a press conference and it's bananas?
It's very newsworthy.
In fact, I would argue, there wasn't one fucking thing on the whole fucking planet that was more newsworthy than that was, even if it was bananas.
Now, I would say it wasn't, but even if it was.
It's still the most interesting news in the whole fucking world.
And they decided not to cover it.
You know, every time you think to yourself, well, CNN can't go any lower than they've already gone, they surprise you.
They did it again. Somebody's asking me if I'm on prednisone again because I'm too aggressive.
No. I'll tell you what it was.
Just before I came on, I was trying to get my printer to work again.
Let me read to you the printer instructions.
And this will be a little bit of a foreshadowing of a printer that may or may not Be thrown off my second floor balcony on live stream.
Here are the directions for how to get the Wi-Fi reconnected, unconnected somehow.
So here are the directions for me who are already in a, let's say, less than sanguine, less than relaxed attitude about my printer.
Now, there aren't many things in life that make me genuinely angry.
Not really too many.
But when my printer fails to work, it does get me a little triggered.
I'm going to admit, a little bit triggered.
But let me read you the directions that the printer prints out to get the Wi-Fi connected.
For instructions on how to connect the printer, I'm like, oh, okay, good.
I can get some instructions on how to connect it.
And how hard could that be?
Connect to Wi-Fi.
If you were going to make a device that only had basically two functions, print, connect to Wi-Fi, you'd probably put a button on there for that, right?
Just push the button. So that's probably what it's going to tell me.
It says press and hold.
Press and hold.
Uh-oh. Okay.
Why do I have to hold it?
Hold the information button for three seconds until all lights are lit, and then...
Press the information button and the cancel button at the same time.
Now, one way that they decided to give me instructions were to print it on a piece of paper so I could read it.
But they could have just curled this into a little...
Ball. And shoved it right up my ass.
Because you know what never works?
Let me give you an example of what has never worked in the history of technology.
Press and hold the information button and the cancel button at the same time after waiting three seconds.
That doesn't work.
It didn't work when I tried it.
Didn't work the first five fucking times I tried it.
Probably won't work the next five fucking times I try it.
Because there's just enough ambiguity in here that you're not quite sure.
Wait, do I let go or hold?
Am I supposed to use a different hand?
Do I use my tongue?
Could they have made this any fucking harder?
I just want one button.
Push the button. A light comes on.
Hey, your Wi-Fi is working.
Look, you push the one button.
And where do they put the button?
They hide it in the back, below another button, where it's really hard to find, in the dark.
So, if it seems like I'm mad at politics, I'm really not.
I don't have any particular anger about anything that's happening in the news today.
But I'm going to try one more time after this livestream.
To get my printer connected to Wi-Fi again.
If I don't, I'll open up tomorrow's show by throwing it off the balcony.
So that's my promise to you.
It's a tango, HP tango.
All right. So we have this Bananas press conference.
And what do you think?
What was your impression?
Now, obviously, the anti-Trump people said it's crazy and it's bananas and it's all garbage and BS. What did you think if you're a Trump supporter?
Did you think they made the case?
Now, even Tucker Carlson, who you might expect to be at least, you know, Trump-friendly or Trump-curious, You would expect that he would say, yeah, there was some good stuff there.
But let's talk about the evidence.
And I'll tell you which parts you should believe and which parts you should not.
Because it's not all equally believable, wouldn't you say?
There's some stronger evidence and some weaker evidence.
And we should treat it as such.
But first... Alan Dershowitz has weighed in to tell us how this is going to go.
I was kind of waiting for that.
Did it seem to you that Alan Dershowitz was missing?
Like he was the most obvious person who should have been in the conversation about where the election is going to go.
I don't know where he's been, but he finally came in and he told us the only thing that's useful.
You know, there's a million things that we're talking about and thinking about and You know, arguing about the election and the lawsuits and the legal challenges and the vote counts and everything.
So there's all this blizzard of complexity.
And then Alan Dershowitz does what he does.
He looks into this avalanche of complexity and he says, oh, there's only one thing that matters.
It's this thing. So just ignore all this other stuff because there's only this one thing.
And it goes like this.
If the election outcome is not clearly, let's say, unambiguous, the state legislatures, the Republican ones, can choose not to certify the election.
Now, do they require that there is a successful lawsuit And that the courts have ruled that the election was fraudulent.
Do the legislators require that?
Nope. The Constitution does not require that.
They can simply say, this process does not satisfy my own personal patriotic requirements of being fraud-free.
So I'm not going to certify.
If the legislatures do not certify, in other words, enough of them or all of them or whatever you need to get to your 270, then it goes to the House of Representatives where it would go to Trump because there are more Republican states than there are Democrat states.
That's the way the system works.
So when everybody was saying, hey, Trump has no path to the presidency, You just sort of think that's true for a while, or at least half the country thinks it's true, and you wait and you say, hey, these lawsuits are getting tossed down.
I think nine lawsuits got tossed down on Friday, so he's losing the lawsuits, and we're not seeing the evidence.
And Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, where's the evidence?
You say it, you say you have it, but why don't we see it, right?
That's all misdirection.
It's all misdirection.
The courts kind of don't matter.
Now, if the courts, you know, made some decision and overthrew the election or forced a re-vote or something, then they would matter.
But probably won't.
Probably is not going to happen.
Probably what will happen is the courts may not have enough to change anything or may not be inclined to change the vote.
Because they wouldn't want to make people feel disenfranchised, even if they thought it was fraudulent.
So I wouldn't look to the courts necessarily to overturn anything.
They could. I would say it's a very real possibility if evidence was presented that I haven't seen yet.
So I wouldn't rule it out, but I don't see that as obviously going to happen, some kind of a court decision that puts Trump back in office.
I think far more likely the legal team will create enough reasonable doubt, well beyond reasonable doubt, I think probably some level of certainty in a lot of Republicans that the election was stolen, even if it wasn't.
Even if it wasn't.
So Trump could win, based on the current setup, whether he has a case that's solid, or whether he doesn't.
It actually probably doesn't matter at this point.
Because the argument is good enough.
You don't need a case that can win in court if you can convince the Republicans who need to certify or not certify.
That's the whole game. So let me ask you this.
Did Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani say something in the press conference that you think would be so persuasive it would win in a legal court of law?
No. No.
No, there was nothing that we saw as the audience that would be persuasive in a court of law.
There's simply a claim that they have those things and they're putting those things together and And that when they're ready to show them to a court of law, and when they're required to show proof, they say they can get it.
They've got lots of people who have testified under oath.
Lots of them. Like hundreds of people have testified to fraud.
But I don't know if you add them all up, that they come to enough.
I'm not sure a court would decide that, but maybe a legislature would.
If you were a Republican legislature person and you knew that half of the country, which is all of the Republicans, if you knew that all of the Republicans thought the election was rigged and you were a legislator for a state and you voted to certify it anyway, could you get re-elected?
Think about the people who have to certify this.
They would be certifying something, in all likelihood, if things go the way it sort of looks like it's going to go, in all likelihood, they would be certifying a vote that nearly all of their voters think was fraudulent.
Even if it wasn't. Even if it wasn't.
They're going to think that.
So can they do it?
It's a kind of a dangerous situation, isn't it?
Pretty dangerous. All right.
Why is it that Trump always has a plan, according to his critics, he always has a plan if it's something evil?
It's like, by their definition, it would be evil for him to win re-election with his clever mechanisms.
And for that he has a plan.
So they can see the plan clearly.
It's like, oh, we can see the plan.
The plan is to put doubt into the legislatures and send it to the House of Representatives.
We can see your plan from a mile away, Trump.
But when it comes to something like the coronavirus, the plan is completely obvious, and everybody will say, there's no plan.
No, he only has plans to do evil.
But when it's evil, when it's evil, he has a really long-term, complicated plan with lots of steps, and it looks pretty good.
He's a darn good planner for evil.
But they don't believe he does any planning at all for the good stuff.
All right. Here is...
Here's my take on what you should believe and what you shouldn't believe about the claims and allegations so far.
Sidney Powell talks about a Venezuelan military person living now in the United States who alleges that when he was in the Venezuelan military, he was in the room and directly connected with efforts to make sure that this Smartmatic software and whatever,
Dominion, I don't know which entities were involved, but that it was a The software was designed to make it easy to rig an election, and he alleges that he was present when it was used exactly that way, and watched it all happen.
Pretty good evidence, direct evidence, sworn testimony, I assume it'll be sworn at some point if it isn't, from a high-ranking military person with direct knowledge.
He's in the room.
What level of credibility do you give his story?
In the comments, tell me where you're at.
Just that piece alone, if you were only to judge it from that one testimony.
A military person, high-ranking military person, who was high-ranking enough to be in the room when Venezuela was...
I'm seeing your numbers.
6 out of 10, 50%, 30%, 50-50, 10, 6.5, I don't know what that is.
Somebody says low, low, 50%, credible enough.
I think the comments come in faster a little bit on YouTube, so I'm seeing those before Periscope.
But it looks like you're sort of all over the board.
I'm seeing 100%, 5%, 7 out of 10, 75, 50.
It feels like where you're at is between 50 and 100%.
Not all of you, but maybe if I'm just eyeballing this, probably 60% of you are saying it's greater than 50% confidence.
A number of you are saying 10%.
Here's my take.
Have I ever told you about the two-on-the-nose technique for finding lies?
So the technique goes like this.
If a story in the news is a little too perfect, it's probably not true.
And when I say probably, I mean 10 to 1.
Not even close. If it's a little too perfect, like right on the nose, you can usually count on that not being true.
And the reason is that real life is messy.
Things that really happen in real life tend to be almost you can't believe them because they sound stupid and ridiculous and absurd, because that's how real life works.
It's messy. It's just ugly.
But when you hear a story that's this clean, this is a clean story.
This is like the cleanest story of all time.
He's exactly the right person in exactly the right country, Venezuela.
Is there any country in the world that would have been more perfect for this story?
Nope. Short of this software actually being China's CCP-whatever-owned software, Yeah, okay, North Korea and China and Russia might have been worse.
But Venezuela is sort of on point because we're trying to elect a socialist-leaning, a socialist-curious President Biden.
So Venezuela is a little too perfect, isn't it?
Because you're saying, if you elect Biden, you get a socialist.
Sort of like Venezuela.
So, if you were going to make up a story, you'd use Venezuela because you want to believe this story.
You want to believe that we're heading in a Venezuelan direction because that was the story before.
Your brain has been primed.
You are primed to more easily believe things you've heard before and suspected before and worried about before, as opposed to something brand new.
Suppose you had heard the software was, let's say, what would be a good country I could pick?
Let's say you thought it was Belgium.
So it was like, nah, I could pick a better country than that.
Let's say you think it's Turkish.
And you say to yourself, yeah, it's Turkish.
They're a NATO ally.
So that's good.
But, you know, you worry about Turkey a little bit.
So, you know, I don't know.
Maybe they're not so democratic.
Maybe they're not so friendly.
You can't really trust them.
So suppose the story had been that it was Turkish software.
Would you be as worried? It would be the first time you'd ever heard that anything about Turkey and our election have anything to do with each other.
It would be a brand new concept.
It wouldn't be very strong.
But as soon as you connect it to Venezuela, of all the countries in the world, Venezuela?
Is that a coincidence?
Could be. And it could also be that this story is exactly the way it sounds.
It could be, not impossible, that this whistleblower is the real deal.
He was there, he saw it, and it's exactly what he says.
It's rigged software, it's built to do that, and it did it.
Possible. However, I would say that the whistleblower, high-ranking military person from Venezuela Fits very neatly into the category of things which are almost never true.
How about those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Does this sound exactly like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Because it should. What is more perfect than having a whistleblower from Iraq who personally has knowledge of those weapons of mass destruction?
Because you think they're there, right?
You were sort of primed to think that Saddam had those weapons.
So the only thing you needed was a high-ranking insider, or just an insider, who could tell you that they're there.
Yeah, so I'm going to say that although Sidney Powell is a credible person, she also doesn't have, let's say, she doesn't have an incentive to debunk this witness.
She has a current incentive to simply tell you what he's saying.
Now that's fair, right?
So as a lawyer, she's not fooling anybody, she's not lying, she's not doing anything unethical if she simply says, there is this person who has this claim, and this is his situation, so you could judge the credibility of the claim.
That's fair, even if He's not telling the truth, because presumably Sidney Powell would not know for sure.
She wouldn't have any way to know that.
So she kind of has to pass it along.
That is her job. That is 100% her job.
She has to pass it along.
She has to treat it seriously, because doing so is good for her client.
But do you think that she personally believes the Venezuelan high-ranking military whistleblower?
I don't know. Can't read her mind.
I will tell you that I don't believe it.
I don't believe it.
Could be true, right?
If there's one thing that I will hammer over and over and over again, is this is all, we're dealing with probabilities, not certainties.
So if I told you he was definitely real or definitely not real, you should not take me seriously whatsoever.
I'm just saying the odds of that one being real, I wouldn't bet on that one at all.
Now, separate from whether that whistleblower is real is the question of whether the software has been compromised by anybody for any reason at any time.
And I would say that that's a certainty.
I would say it's a certainty that at least foreign and even domestic intelligence agencies would have to try to compromise it.
That's really their job.
They would have to try to compromise it.
So by now, do you believe that none of those intelligence agencies that would have to be trying, none of them succeeded?
And there's no insider they could get to, or even an insider who just wanted to do it on their own?
I would say the odds, if you were just to look at the odds, close to 90%, probably, that the software is compromised, which is different from saying that mattered to the election.
That's still separate.
But has it ever been compromised?
Is anybody trying to compromise it?
Oh yeah. Almost certainly it's been compromised.
You just don't know how much, whether it mattered, in what way.
Alright. How about the claims of the signed affidavits from the witnesses to all of the mischief?
Do you think that the many, I guess there are hundreds of them, could be thousands?
Hundreds of witnesses to fraudulent activity, allegedly.
Are they credible?
In the comments, tell me if you think the signed, sworn, under oath, testimonies of eyewitnesses to individual...
Some of the examples are somebody who is told to backdate ballots.
That's a very specific claim.
We were trained to backdate ballots so they would be Turned from illegal into legal.
Yeah, so I'm seeing in the comments that people are saying yes to that.
Now, again, if you have hundreds of eyewitness reports, how many of them are mistaken?
Let's say if there were a hundred reports of fraud at the election, what percentage of them, if you didn't do any research, Just based on living in the world and having some experience in life, how many of 100 would you expect not to be valid?
Looking at your numbers, everything from 1% to 75%, 95%, somebody says, 15, 33.
All right, so you're all over the board.
But I think we all agree that if there were 100 eyewitness reports of a crime, they wouldn't all be right, right?
Have you ever seen the famous experiment where a professor, a college professor, will set up in advance to have a confederate run in during the class and steal, I think, steal a purse right from the front of the room and then run out the door?
And it's a setup, but the students don't know it.
The students think they witnessed a crime.
And then the experiment is this.
You ask the subjects after the fact, To describe what they saw.
And their descriptions will be a person of a different race.
Some people will say he's black.
Some people will say he's white.
Pretty big difference. They'll have all different clothing.
Clothing will be all over the place.
He was wearing a jacket.
He was wearing a t-shirt.
They're eyewitness descriptions of the same moment that isn't even very complicated.
Just somebody comes in, grabs a person, walks out.
That's it. That's the whole thing. And you can't get 100 people to agree even who was there.
It's that different.
So out of 100, I would say my own personal estimate would be no more than 50% of them would be real.
That's just, you know, top of the head.
And let me give you another example.
I was a A bank teller in my early 20s.
My first real adult job.
And I got robbed a few times in the bank as a teller.
So the bank robber would come up.
One of them puts the gun in my nose.
The other one had the simulated gun in the pocket situation.
So I got robbed twice.
One time I was asked to go pick the robber out of a lineup.
And it was real easy.
I recognized him.
There were other bank tellers with me who had also been robbed by the same bank robber at different times at different banks.
And every one of us said, that's the guy.
It's easy. Definitely that guy.
The second time I got robbed, the FBI asked if they could have a meeting with me.
And I said, what?
Is that normal? Do you normally have a meeting after I've already given my testimony?
They said, you know, we looked on the We looked on the video from the bank robbery, and we don't see anybody who looks even remotely like the person you described.
So we'd like you to come in and look at the video and tell us if you see the person you described.
Because we're looking at it.
We don't see it. And we're looking at the time.
You know, we know a time it happened.
We just don't see it.
So I go into the secret FBI headquarters.
At the time, it was a million years ago, so it was actually like a physical tape.
And they had it in this big machine, and they could forward it or make it backwards at any speed they wanted just by hand cranking it.
And so they show me at the window, and they show this guy at the window with me, and they go, is this the guy who robbed you?
Now, the guy they showed looked like a young Clint Eastwood.
With a kind of a sport jacket.
Big mustache, you know, good, you know, thick, dark hair, maybe late 30s.
So that's who was on the video.
And I said, no, not even close.
The guy who robbed me was probably close to 70.
He had a salt and pepper beard.
He was maybe about my size.
The guy in the video looked to be about six feet tall.
You know, I'm shorter than that.
And he was wearing a full-length trench coat, and his hair was sort of like mine now.
You know, he was losing his hair, but it was kind of shortish, salt-and-pepper look.
Now, does that sound anything like Clint Eastwood?
So I said, yeah, not even close.
The guy who robbed me was this old guy.
So they said, watch this.
And then in slow motion, they forwarded it And I watched this Clint Eastwood looking guy robbing me and me handing over the money.
And I watched that thing and I just said, I don't know what I'm watching here.
Because whatever this is, it's clearly happened because I'm watching it on video.
But I have no memory of anybody remotely looking like that guy.
It's weirder. You want a little bit weirder?
My boss at the time also was an eyewitness.
Because right after I got robbed, I immediately alerted management.
And my boss went outside and followed him for a little while.
So he got a good visual look at him.
Independently, without hearing my description of him, my boss described him as this old man just like I described him.
So both of us described an entirely different person the same way that was not on the video.
It just didn't happen. We both had a false memory that wasn't even close to the actual event.
So, now go back to the election.
A hundred people watched with their own eyes.
They were in the room and they say, look, I was standing there when my boss said, do this or do that.
Do you believe it?
That's as good an eyewitness as you could be.
I was there. He said it to me.
It was very clear.
About 50%.
About 50%.
It's unbelievable, I know.
And if you're not a trained hypnotist, if you've never been in this situation like I was, where you can see it and feel it and live it, how wrong you can be about a memory like that, it's just mind-blowing to see how fragile our memories are.
I've got a little warning message on my iPad here, so if I plug this in, maybe that won't die in a minute.
Hold on a little bit. Bear with me.
You're going to lose a little bit of visual here.
Alright. Back.
All right, but I would say that with so many eyewitness reports, even if you discounted 50% of them as being mistaken or liars or anything else, you probably have a lot of witnesses of actual fraud.
So I would say that the Rudy Giuliani's evidence of all the specific fraud, probably pretty good.
Then you've got also the data version.
I tweeted this morning.
There's another Another person who's good with data.
I don't know anybody's qualifications in these public tweetings of claims.
But the claim is that, and he's showing his evidence, so you can look at it yourself, that the election was stolen and that the way it was done was not as simple as just deleting Trump votes or adding Biden votes, but there was a little laundering of votes through third parties to make it less obvious.
So something along the nature of Some votes would be moved to the third party from Trump and then from the third party to Biden, so it would be a little less obvious when you looked at the data of what was happening.
I don't know what kind of credibility to put on that claim.
I don't have a...
I guess I don't have an experience or a frame of reference.
I will just say that 95% of all the claims will not be true.
So I'll say that in general.
But there are lots of Claims about data irregularity, and people will be trying to debunk them.
There's a claim, I think Rudy said, there's a whole bunch of places where there's more votes than there are registered voters.
So it could be just that.
I mean, if the only thing you knew is that there are a whole bunch of places that more people voted than there are voters, That would be enough to throw the election down, I would think.
All right. So I would say that the case for whether or not there was a lot of, I won't use the word widespread, I'll use my own word here, whether there was a lot of fraud, I think that case will be made.
I would say that case has not been made, because you and I have not seen the The sworn affidavits.
You and I can't analyze the data so well.
So you and I don't know.
But I would say that the credibility of the lawyers and the types of evidence they claim to have would suggest that their claim is pretty strong.
But I don't know if that would add up to flipping the race or not.
It will add up to Putting pressure on Republican legislatures.
So the only thing it needs to do is put pressure on Republicans.
It's definitely going to do that.
Alright, here's some tricks.
Did my printer not print off my page?
Oh wait, I got a second page here.
Okay. So here are the brainwashing tricks.
I tweeted on this so you can see it if you want to review it.
So the Democrats are using a lot of propaganda tricks.
So I'm going to list them all so that when you're watching them you can see how much technique is involved versus just people talking.
When you see how much technique is involved, It's a little scarier picture.
So here are the things.
I've talked about some of them before, but if you see them all together, they're stronger.
One of them is they use the word audit to refer to a recount.
Now a recount is, as Rudy Giuliani said, they're just counting the same fraudulent ballots.
So if these ballots are real, or if they're fraudulent, they still just get counted.
That's what a recount is.
Is that an audit?
Would you use the word audit to refer to the process of recounting ballots that you don't know are real or not?
That would be the opposite of an audit.
My definition of the word audit is opposite of the way they're using it.
So they're trying to slip that in and just use the word audit wherever they can to make it seem like they're really looking for fraud.
When in fact the process is the opposite of looking for fraud.
It's the process of actively ignoring fraud and just counting it.
Literally just counting.
We don't care who signed it.
We don't care what it came from.
We don't care if there's more votes than voters.
We'll just count them. Did you get the same number you got before?
Yup. Good enough.
So that's the first trick.
The other is, you see this every day, they use the word widespread.
When the claim is not widespread.
So they're denying a claim that's not being made.
So the claim is that there's targeted, specific fraud in just the places where it mattered.
You know, the few cities and the swing states.
That's the claim.
So when the news, so-called news, tells you there's no widespread, there's no evidence of widespread Voting irregularity.
Well, that might be true, depending on how you define it widespread, but widespread is intended as a propaganda brainwashing word.
Nobody uses that word widespread unless they're trying to deceive you.
It's a deception word.
If they were trying to give you accurate information, they would say there are some number of claims of fraud, And then let you decide whether you thought that was widespread.
Because widespread is kind of an opinion, isn't it?
Wouldn't you say it's a little bit subjective?
Why don't they just tell you how much there is?
Let you decide. Is that widespread?
Well, we have these claims.
In the past, we've had this many prosecutions.
If you figure this year is similar to other years, would that be widespread?
That should be up to you.
They're telling you it's not widespread.
That's propaganda.
This is the best one they're doing.
They say that Trump refuses to concede.
Which persuasion technique is that?
Do you recognize it?
He refuses to concede.
That's the most common persuasion technique.
But if you don't study this stuff, you don't know it.
You wouldn't know it just automatically.
It's called making you think past the sale.
The most common persuasion technique.
The sale is that he lost the election fair and square.
So they don't want you to even think about the question, which is the only question.
There's only one question, and they're making you think past that.
Nobody who's honest does that.
Honest people will deal with the question.
Yes or no.
We think there's some chance or not a chance of fraud.
But they're not going to go right past that all the way to he refuses to concede.
So I tweeted that Joe Biden refuses to concede despite all of the evidence and all the allegations of fraud.
Same thing. They both refuse to concede.
It's just that they thought to say it about Trump first.
If the Trump team had thought of it first, they could say the same thing about Biden.
It wouldn't fit as well because the alleged number of votes went to Biden, but they could have said it.
They could have said, look, we've got tons of sworn affidavits that the election was fraudulent.
Why don't you concede?
Look at all this evidence.
It's obvious. Biden, why do you refuse to concede with all this evidence that it was fraudulent?
I mean, this is good evidence.
And you refuse to concede?
It's propaganda.
And you should recognize it as such.
Then there's the bad analogy, fear persuasion.
And there are three parts of this.
Jim Sciuto, I never know how to pronounce his name, CNN. He said, quote, the parallels between yesterday's Giuliani press conference and Joseph McCarthy's infamous, quote, I have in my hand speech are chilling.
So Sciuto is comparing Giuliani to McCarthy.
All right, so that's the first...
Bad analogy. Now, that is making you think past the sale, isn't it?
Because McCarthy did not have evidence.
He simply claimed he did, and then in the long run you found out it didn't exist.
Is that the case with Giuliani?
Does Giuliani have no evidence, but he's saying he does?
No. It's opposite.
It's opposite of that.
Because Giuliani has sworn statements From hundreds of witnesses.
Did McCarthy have sworn statements from hundreds of direct witnesses?
No. No.
Different. In the comments, somebody's saying that McCarthy was right, but that's a different argument.
So Trump is being called a dictator.
His authoritarian reflexes are making him stay in office.
They're saying that, let's say, he's a racist.
They're saying he's a racist because it turns out that where the allegations of fraud are highest, let's say the places where they didn't check signatures, is also heavily a black population.
So even AOC was tweeting That the president challenging those specific places which are more black than anything else is racist.
Now, is it the president's fault that that's where the problem appears to be?
It wasn't like Trump decided, well, I think I'll just pick these three places with a large black population.
That didn't happen.
They just looked at the data.
And the data seems to say, well, it looks like these places have some questions that need to be answered.
That's it. And they've turned that into racism.
I looked at AOC's tweet about that.
She referred to it as disenfranchising black voters.
I don't think she used racism in that tweet.
I think she said disenfranchising.
And I thought to myself, that is so...
Diabolically clever. Because what she's saying is, I guess you could say it's technically true, right?
If you were a black voter in one of those cities, and the Trump legal team succeeded in getting some number of those votes thrown out, you'd have to wonder if you had been disenfranchised.
Now, it might not be the biggest problem in your life.
It's probably the smallest problem in your life.
But it's technically sort of somewhat accurate.
But that's not why he did it.
If there's no intention of being racist, nobody said, let's get rid of all the black votes.
Nobody had that thought.
So to make this into a racist thing, even though the outcome certainly has more of a racial outcome, But to turn that into, you know, he's a racist is propaganda and brainwashing.
All right, so those are the main...
Oh, here's some more.
They also say that because the evidence has not been presented to the court in a way that the court has agreed and, you know, accepted the lawsuit and sided with it, that the news is saying there's no evidence of fraud.
And Giuliani's going crazy.
He's going, what do you mean no evidence?
I have hundreds of direct witness evidence, plus all these other things.
That's pretty direct.
But as long as the fake news can disappear stories from half of the country, the half that watches that brand of news, they can just say there's no evidence.
They can just claim it and just keep saying it.
And it will become true by repetition, because there will be no counterargument that half the country sees.
They'll be in their bubble, and they won't know there's any counterargument.
They'll just say, no evidence.
The news says there's no evidence.
What else do I need to know?
Isn't that the end of the conversation?
No evidence? Doesn't every conversation end with, there's no evidence?
We're done. Now, of course, the reality is a little more complicated.
Probably these initial lawsuits were about keeping the argument alive.
The argument being that there's something wrong with this election.
Maybe Trump did not lose.
So I would say, and a lot of the lawsuits came from individuals, not from the legal team.
So first of all, some of the ones that are lost were not from Trump anyway.
But I don't think that the legal team cared too much In other words, they didn't have too much invested in the first batch of lawsuits.
I think that was just to keep the argument alive, make sure everybody was in that frame of mind that there's still something to look at by a little time, because it takes a while to get hundreds of sworn testimonies.
Normally, this is a process that could take a year.
That they're trying to compress into two weeks.
So it looks like a buying time strategy to me, but the fake news turns that into no evidence.
As opposed to, give them a little time.
There is clear indication that there's a problem, or could be.
Could be wrong, but there's clear indication that there's something that needs to be looked at.
Give them some time.
All right. The other thing is they can get people in authority to say that there was no fraud or irregularities detected.
Is that true? There was no irregularities detected.
And somebody on Twitter forwarded me the Republican head of elections who said just that.
I think it was Pennsylvania.
It doesn't matter which state.
It could have been Georgia. But it's a Republican.
And he's on camera and he's saying to the public, I did not witness any irregularities in this election.
Do you know what's wrong with that?
It's that guy's job to make sure there were no irregularities.
They're talking to the guy whose job it is to prevent those things.
Do you think if you talk to an employee and their job is to prevent something from happening, And the only way you know if it happened or it didn't happen is you ask the person whose job it is and gets paid to tell you that they did a good job and it didn't happen.
It could not be a less credible source than the person whose job it was to make sure it didn't happen.
All he said was he didn't see it.
And if he says he didn't see it, does that mean it didn't happen?
Because let me explain how fraud works.
Let's say you're a fraudster, and there's a person whose job it is to catch you.
And that's that Republican guy who's the head of the elections, right?
It's his job to catch you, and it's your job as a fraudster to avoid this guy.
And you do. It's not really a fraud if you do it in front of that guy.
So really, if you can imagine the fraudsters, if allegedly any existed, And they'd be looking around and they'd say, where's that guy?
And they'd say, he's over there.
And they'd say, keep an eye on him, because he's the guy we don't want to know we're frauding.
Just that guy. And then that guy says, I didn't see anything.
Well, of course he didn't fucking see anything.
He's the guy you don't show it to.
By his job description, he's the one you don't want to let see this happen.
All right? If, allegedly, there were people giving, let's say, postal people giving directions to other postal people to backdate ballots, if that happened, where did it happen?
Did it happen in front of that guy?
No! If it happened at all, it happened at the post office.
It didn't happen in front of that guy.
So if he says he didn't see it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
It's amazing persuasion.
All right. The other one is that if there were widespread, and they'll throw in the widespread part there, if there were massive cheating in the election, it would be obvious, Scott.
It would be obvious.
How can you claim that there was election cheating that was like so big, so big, that it would actually change the outcome of this election when Biden won by, you know, the five million votes or whatever it is, It would have to be such a big fraud that you would notice.
To which I say, that's why we're talking about it.
Because we noticed.
We're not talking about it because we didn't notice.
Everybody noticed.
Do you think that Biden got that many more votes than Obama?
Do you think that he couldn't get 12 people to attend He has rallies, and he got the most votes of anybody in history.
Does that sound like maybe your eyebrow goes up a little bit?
Is it a coincidence, now it's an allegation, I can't say this is true, but the allegation is that the so-called irregularities in the data seem to happen in just the right places at just the right time.
Is that something I didn't notice?
Because I feel like people notice that.
Is it a coincidence that Trump gained with every minority group?
He got more votes than before, and historically more than Romney, more than most Republicans for decades, and yet he lost votes with his core base?
After four years of doing what they would consider a great job, you think that happened?
It could have happened.
It could have happened, right?
So you can't rule out other explanations for every single thing you see.
But to tell me that it's not obvious, even if I'm wrong, even if I'm wrong, that's just not true.
It looks obvious to me, even if I'm wrong.
So, that's the other persuasion, is that you'd see it.
But we do! Alright.
And the other word is enabling and apologist.
So they actually trotted out Carl Bernstein again.
Every time CNN trots out Carl Bernstein to say this is worse than Watergate, I just laugh.
Because what he should be saying is that if this fraud is real, as alleged, it's way worse than Watergate.
But you can't really get him to say that on CNN. All right.
I believe...
That's just about all I want to talk about.
Oh, here's some more.
Democrats tell us we should listen to the experts, am I right?
Am I right? That's right.
We should listen to the experts.
Would you say that Rudy Giuliani and his legal team and Sidney Powell, would you say that they're experts?
I would say they're experts.
Wouldn't you say that Rudy Giuliani is about as good as you could get as an expert on organized crime techniques?
Yeah, who would be better than him?
I mean, he did prosecute the mafia, and he was mayor of New York City.
So if I had to pick an expert in anywhere in the world, Who could tell me that they had accurately seen election fraud at a local level, meaning managed at the local level?
Who would be a bigger expert in the whole country than Rudy Giuliani?
Shouldn't we listen to him?
He's an expert. All right, here's another thing you're not hearing.
I tweeted about this because I think it's hilarious.
Wouldn't you expect that by now...
You would see somebody who is anti-Trump, somebody who says the election was fair or fair enough.
Wouldn't you expect somebody would come out in public and say, I don't know what you people are talking about, because Philadelphia has clean elections and always has.
Where's that guy?
Kind of missing, isn't he?
Don't you think that the most obvious The most obvious thing that you should put on the air is somebody who will say, you know, I've been studying Philadelphia politics for years.
I wrote a book on it.
I was an insider.
You know, I was actually in politics or I covered it.
And I'm here to tell you that if you're saying that Philadelphia politics Is dirty or that they rigged an election?
I don't know what you're talking about, because Philadelphia doesn't do stuff like that.
Where's that guy?
Where's the one from Detroit?
Where's the pundit who goes on CNN and says, I can't believe they're impugning the integrity of Detroit politics.
I've lived in Detroit all my life.
I've worked in politics.
I've covered it. I wrote a book about it.
And I'm here to tell you, if there's one clean city, it's Detroit.
So they picked the wrong town.
I mean, just on the face of it.
It's like saying the Pope is a murderer.
How does it even make sense?
How do you even, you know, conceive of that?
Philadelphia and Detroit?
How could you think that they would throw an election?
It's kind of crazy. A little bit crazy.
Bananas, if you will.
It's bananas. As CNN likes to say when they can't tell the difference between an apple and a banana.
All right. I believe that's all I wanted to say today.
Have I said enough? Too much, really.
Too much. Somebody says, what does Gene Simmons say?
That is the most random question of the day.
Slaughter meter is at 98% with this provision.
Here's the provision.
I separate the question of whether the president will prevail in making his case that the election was stolen and that he was actually the one who got enough votes in the electoral college.
I believe that there's a 98% chance that the president will succeed in making that case, wait for it, to his base.
That's the important part.
Will he succeed in making that case to the courts?
I don't think the courts are inclined to overthrow an election, even if the case is made.
So I think the courts would say the last thing we want to do Is disenfranchise all these people even though the law would allow us to do that and would even indicate maybe we should.
But the bigger benefit for society is keeping the world together, keeping the country together.
So I think that in terms of winning a slam dunk in the courts, probably low.
I'd say the odds of just outright winning the election Because the Supreme Court said, oh yeah, it's Trump's election.
He won. I think that's low.
10%, less than 10% maybe.
Now, of course, that's not his only path.
He also has the path that he can get the legislatures to just say they don't certify.
Now, that path only requires that he convince his base so that his base says, hey, you Republicans who might want to certify this election, if you do, you're going to lose your job.
Is there a 98% chance that Trump will succeed in convincing his base that the election was stolen?
Yes. There's a 100% chance of that, actually.
I don't think there's any chance he won't do that.
Because you can't prove a negative, and that's what the Democrats would have to do to convince Republicans.
And it's not logically possible.
It's not just hard.
It's an impossibility.
You can't prove something didn't happen.
You can only prove you didn't find it.
And as long as you say, well, the best we can do is we didn't find it, that allows Republicans to say, well, we found it.
I think I see it, so that's good enough for me.
And I think that they are saying that, and they will.
So, the likely path of this is that the legislature is going to have a hiccup on this.
Could end up at the House of Representatives, in which case it goes to Trump.
But, here's the next part of the prediction.
I don't think the country could handle it.
In other words, the amount of upset that would be caused by having this go to Biden, at least in the minds of Biden supporters, and then having it yanked away in what would look like an illegitimate process.
Now, there's nothing more legitimate Then following the actual steps of the Constitution, which is what would happen in this scenario.
But it wouldn't look that way.
To the Democrats, it would look like a technical lawyer thing.
It would look like it's stolen.
It would look like an autocrat.
So I can't see that the Democrats have any chance of living with it.
And I think they would go violent, or enough of them would, that there would be massive unrest.
And I would go back to my George Washington path, and that allows that President Trump, through technical processes, actually wins the election and can be seated, but chooses to step down for the good of the country.
Now, if I were him, I would not choose to step down unless I were cleared of all of my future legal problems.
See where this is heading? Trump's biggest risk, according to his critics, are future legal problems that are not easy to avoid if you're no longer the president.
So the president has this big honking thing hanging over him that he can avoid either by being the president, which might rip the country apart, or getting some agreement that going George Washington and stepping down preserves his freedom in the future And he becomes George Washington.
He will always be the person who gave up power.
Now, the story will be he gave up power to avoid legal problems.
But since we don't know how the legal problems would have turned out, it's going to look George Washington-y.
Now, the other possibility is he just lives with the street violence and tries to last it out, which could work, could also work.
So those are the possibilities.
And that's where I see it's going.
And I will talk to you later.
All right. Said goodbye to Periscope.
All you YouTubers, you have my full attention.
Seal Team 6.
I don't think...
I've seen a lot of people...
Who believe that I'm operating in bad faith and that I should just cut it out.
Which part? What is it that I should cut out doing?
Should I cut out putting percentage odds of things happening?
Why? Why should I stop that?
Why should I stop putting odds of things and predicting them?
It's actually a useful thing to do.
But a lot of that is trying to make me think past the sale.
The people who want me to stop talking about even the potential that the election could go the other way, they are trying to make me think past the sale.
And they're trying to make me think that there's only one way it can go, and so clinging to any other hope is just bad for the country.
But that's just simply not true.
If I were to place a bet today...
I would think that Trump has a path.
Somebody says, violence is coming regardless.
Well, you know, one of the beauties of getting into the winter, especially with the lockdowns and stuff, is that between the cold and the coronavirus and the fact that there's some protest fatigue, I would think, by now, it might be a good time to have some protest Some protesting, because it might not get too big just because the weather is so bad.
When you have bad weather, especially cold, it does put a crimp on your protesting.
Somebody says Trump fired Esper so he could use the military.
I don't think there's any chance of that.
Well, I'll be consistent and say that nothing has zero chance, but that's pretty close to zero.
Adam says mind reading now.
Give me a specific for that.
You know, I always talk about people mind reading and how you shouldn't do that.
But it is also true that you can't really avoid it.
Because if you're operating in the real world, you have to make assumptions about how other people are thinking or you couldn't operate.
So you have to do it, but you should stop and remind yourself that you're not good at it and adjust your predictions from that.
So if I did something that would be called mind reading, just tell me I might have done that.
Is the golden age still happening with Biden?
You know what people are calling the great reset or whatever?
There is a whole bunch of stuff that's going to be way better after the pandemic.
Like way better.
Like way better than you could have imagined even a year ago.
So everything from the way we do transactions and the way food is created and delivered, our healthcare system, I mean, just everything.
You know, Zoom meetings, so much.
There are so many things that changed because of the pandemic, and many of them are opening up opportunities.
So I would say the golden age probably does come, regardless of who is president.
Can we ever trust elections again?
Well, we shouldn't have trusted them in the first place.
But yeah, I think we could figure out how to do it right.
Did my inside information come to pass?
The stuff that I've seen, some of it, I have not seen debated in public.
And I don't know if all of it is part of any lawsuits.
So what I've seen is data-related.
But you haven't seen too much, at least on the news.
You see it on social media.
But the things I've seen, I've not seen covered in the news news.
It's hard to eat a turkey with a mask.
You know, one part of the...
There's a whole bunch of that Venezuelan whistleblower story.
That just in the way it's told, just to my ears, I'm thinking, that just sounds made up.
