Episode 1278 Scott Adams: My Impeachment Trial Starts Today, and Let's Talk About Biden's Huge Failures So Far
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Was COVID rapid testing delayed intentionally?
DOJ attorney purge
Alan Dershowitz on impeachment
Logic Standard: "That didn't [censored] happen!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Yeah, this is the beginning of my impeachment trial.
I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but it looks like I'm getting impeached.
Now, it looks like they're impeaching, at least on paper, looks like they're going to impeach ex-president Trump.
But I think you know what this is really about, don't ya?
We'll talk all about it in a minute.
But after the simultaneous sip, the best part of the day.
Come on. Can you feel the tingle?
The excitement? You know it's coming.
It's coming. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or sign.
I can't eat jug or flask or vessel of any kind.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Everything. It's called the simultaneous sip.
And if you haven't tried it, oh, I feel sorry for you.
Wow. What you have missed so far.
But you can get in on this now.
Get in on the non-ground floor.
Go. Yeah, you thought I was kidding, but it was just as good as you thought it would be.
Maybe better. Alright, let's talk about all the things.
Do you remember, those of you who have been watching me a while, do you remember that I was just complaining like crazy over the summer and following months about the fact that the Trump administration...
Was not pursuing these rapid testing techniques.
And there seemed to be some administrative problem or something.
But if you remember my criticism, it was kind of specific.
And I said, the weird thing is that they don't even say why they're not doing it.
How could it be that this technique of the rapid testing, if you don't know about it, it's using low-cost, really cheap tests that aren't as accurate, but if you do lots of them because they're cheap, You get a better result than if you have just a few tests, relatively speaking, that are high quality.
Because you can't test many people with the high quality stuff.
So lower quality testing lots of people, the way the math works is that you would crush the virus if you did that.
Now, would anything get through undiagnosed?
Yeah. Yeah, that's the whole point about them being a little bit lower quality.
But they would get all of the super spreaders.
Anybody who had a lot of virus in them, the ones you have to worry about, the test would probably be sensitive enough for those.
It would only miss the people who probably weren't spreading anyway because they didn't have much shedding.
That's the way I understand it anyway.
So my complaint was...
Not that we weren't doing it, which is a big question, right?
Like, why aren't we doing it?
But why wouldn't they even address it?
It was like it didn't exist.
There were these people on social media, you know, Michael Mina especially, and myself.
So there were enough people talking about it.
Clearly, it was a big topic.
But it was like it would just go into this black hole...
Of the Trump administration and just you didn't hear about it again.
So I wondered what that was all about, and maybe we have a hint now.
Andres Backhouse tweeted this this morning.
He said, apparently there's a story out now that when Jared Kushner and whoever else was on the task force was asking, I guess it was Collins out of the NIH, For information about testing, to, you know, try to get a better testing thing going, that...
And this is almost...
This will sound like a joke.
This will sound like I just made this up because I'm the guy who creates the Dilbert cartoon.
So you're going to think it just sounds like a Dilbert cartoon.
The guy who was ahead of all the testing in the NIH decided...
And this is from himself.
He's actually saying this now.
That he didn't want to draw much attention, so he gave such a technical, nerdy description of the situation that it made it impossible to deal with him.
What? Isn't that exactly what it looked like from the outside?
Keep in mind that I would be probably considered one of the foremost observers of bureaucracies.
You know, I've been doing the Dilbert cartoon, which is about corporate bureaucracies, for 30 years.
I know what a bureaucracy does.
I know how they act.
And when I was looking at this whole, why aren't we getting any kind of a yes-no or this is what you should know about this rapid testing stuff, I could smell something wrong there.
And I was telling you this months ago.
I just smell something wrong.
And it looks like it's probably in the guts of the machine, not necessarily something that was a problem with Trump.
It was like the machine wasn't working.
And now we know why.
He literally, this guy literally was stonewalling his bosses and making it impossible to deal with them.
Intentionally. And he's telling you this right now.
So this is what Andres said about it.
He said, so the U.S. didn't put more money into the development of new and expanded COVID testing because the head of the NIH didn't want it to catch the attention of the White House.
So he intentionally sabotaged the communication?
Because that's what it looks like, he said.
That's exactly what it looks like.
Wow. So I'll say this again.
That doesn't mean that Trump gets a pass on this.
It's his administration, right?
But if Biden fixes this, and it looks like he might, that's a pretty big deal.
Pretty big deal. So I hope he does fix it.
I tweeted this.
What do you make of the fact that Biden is going to fire pretty much everybody, all the attorneys in the DOJ? He's going to fire all of the attorneys that work for the DOJ, except, to his credit, he's not going to get rid of the guys looking into the Russia collusion beginnings or the Hunter Biden situation.
So I would consider that an ethical way to go.
So I'll give Biden credit for not getting rid of those two things that he probably would prefer getting rid of.
So credit where credit is due.
But here's my question. Apparently it's fairly traditional to get rid of the attorneys in the Department of Justice when a new administration comes in from the other party.
But what does that tell you about the Department of Justice?
If the attorneys working at the Department of Justice are not perfectly sufficient for any kind of administration that takes power, isn't the administration telling us not to trust them?
How else could you interpret that?
Why would you trust Department of Justice lawyers more than the next administration will trust them?
Because the next administration is going to fire them every time.
And why are they going to fire them?
Because they don't trust them.
Why else?
They don't trust them to do their bidding.
Think about that.
If our own government...
Doesn't trust the lawyers in our own Department of Justice, why should you trust them?
I mean, it's basically a very clear statement that you should not trust your own government.
How else can you interpret that?
Seriously, how else can you interpret that?
Other than you can't trust your own government.
They're telling us.
This is pretty direct.
If you can't trust the Department of Justice lawyers...
You can't trust the government.
And we already knew about Congress.
And it's weird that, as far as I know, I'm the only person who's ever brought that up.
Have you heard anybody else mention that?
Wouldn't you think that would be the biggest story in the world?
That we can't trust our own government, so we have to fire them when the new administration comes in.
These are people who, in theory, were not political.
In theory, they were supposed to just be following the law.
But apparently our own leaders don't think they do that.
Otherwise they would keep them.
Keep the experienced people.
So if you're looking to see who might emerge as the GOP front-runner to lead the party in the future...
I would say that Tom Cotton is continuing to stand out.
He's called out a few failures of the Trump administration that I will call out as well.
So this is what Tom Cotton said in a tweet.
He said, talking about Yemen, he says, the Houthis are armed and trained by Iran's overseas terror corporations, terror corps, the IRGC and Hezbollah.
So he's talking about Biden's decision to remove their terrorist designation is repeating the errors of the Obama administration, appeasing Iran, blah, blah, blah.
Now, doesn't that seem like a pretty reasonable tweet?
Why is it that we're deciding not to call a group that's being trained and armed by Iran's terrorist wing and we're not going to call them terrorists?
I don't know the details of this situation, but it seems like a Biden mistake.
But you'll probably never hear anything about it except this tweet.
And then Tom Cotton, on a different subject, notes that more than 80,000 Americans have died from drug overdoses last year.
And the Biden administration, as part of its immigration changes, said that it won't be deporting illegal alien cartel members who deal fentanyl and heroin.
Because it's not a priority anymore.
So it's not a priority to deport cartel dealers of fentanyl and heroin who are behind 80,000 American drug overdose deaths a year.
That is a mistake.
Tom Cotton called it out.
I didn't see anybody else call it out.
If I had to pick a leader of the Republican Party today, it would be him, because he's calling out high important things that I don't see anywhere else.
So here's a question for you.
Can somebody give me a fact check on this, okay?
Okay. So I've been making the claim that we've never done a full audit of our election system from end to end where you could see every vote and how it got to the final tally and you could know that nothing happened with hacking and any kind of mischief.
But the counterpoint to me has been this, and I would like you to fact check this.
The counterpoint is this.
There have been recounts.
So in Georgia, for example, there was, at least in one county, I guess, a recount.
And in other places.
If you were to do selected, and here's the keyword, selected recounts, In places where you thought there might be an issue or places that were close.
If you only did selected recounts and you matched the physical ballots to whatever the machine said in that precinct, I guess, and you knew that the paper ballots and the digital count were roughly the same, you know, give or take two or three votes usually, would you say That you have now done at least a representative enough.
It wouldn't be an actual, you know, random selection, but it would be better than that.
Because you would be targeting the ones that you suspected are highly likely to have some mischief, if there's going to be any.
So if you did target them, and you did match the physical ballots with the count for just that area, would that be enough of a representative sampling Because you're, you know, it's not really representative, but you know what I mean, better than representative, because they're looking for places that might have trouble.
Would that give you a full check all the way to the final vote?
And so I see some no's, and I see some yes's.
Why don't we know that?
Shouldn't we as a public know the answer to that question?
Because if the answer is yes...
That that's really all you need to know.
And if it's true that those likely problem areas were recounted, and that count got all the way to the final count, that would make me feel very comfortable that you had, wait for it, an unhackable system.
To me, that would be unhackable.
Because as long as somebody could reasonably request a recount in places that were maybe problematic, I feel like that would catch any serious mischief.
I mean, they'd have to be really clever, but if you don't do it in the key areas where, you know, the electoral college makes a big difference, if you're not doing it in those areas, it probably doesn't matter if you're doing it anyway.
So let me see.
All right.
Somebody's mentioning mail-in ballots, but I think they would be part of a recount.
You would just recount the mail-in ballots with the other ballots.
If it's paper ballots without the digital...
There's still a place where you enter it into the digital system.
So nothing is ever non-digitized in the end.
Somebody says you're simply verifying the machines.
So let me be a little more clear.
A recount would not catch any mischief that happened with the ballots themselves.
Because if they got counted once, they would just be counted again.
So it wouldn't catch that kind of fraud.
But my specific question is, I guess I should be more clear about that, is would it catch any possible hacking or software problem?
Would it be enough to catch all of that, even if it didn't catch anything that happened with physical ballots, hypothetically?
Can somebody... Tweet me something that would answer that question.
Because don't you think that's a really important question?
How comfortable would you be if you thought that those few recounts did actually get traced all the way through the digital system to the end?
I would feel a lot more comfortable.
And I would think it would be hard to cheat with software if we had done even those limited audits.
That's what I would think. So somebody clear me up on that.
I figure that's a gigantic question, and I should know the answer to it, and so should you.
This week it looks like Congress isn't even going to pretend to serve the public, and it's amazing that we let them get away with that.
It's just amazing. And does anybody really think the public will be served in any way by the other business of the Congress being postponed, such as the stimulus package?
It seems pretty important.
But they're not even pretending.
They're just not even pretending to do the people's work.
This is so clearly political, meaning that they're trying to prevent Trump from being, what, running again, I guess, that it's just laughably, blatantly incompetent in terms of doing the job you were hired or elected to do.
It's just amazing that we let him get away with this.
Amazing. I'm going to talk about the Capitol riot a little bit.
I need to do a special aside for dumb people.
Most of you watching this have normal or above normal intelligence.
But just in case anybody snuck in, I need to do a special service announcement for the dumb people, if there are any.
I know this is a smart audience.
But if you wouldn't mind, if you have average or above-average intelligence, if you could just hold on for a minute, because I want to make a message directly to the dumb people.
We'll turn the camera a little bit this way.
Okay. All right, so smart people, just talk among yourselves.
This is just for the dumb people.
All right, dumb people. When you hear me talking about the Capitol riots, and I talk in terms of the president not inciting violence, what wouldn't make sense for you to say is that there are victims.
What about the people who died?
And see, this is what the dumb people don't understand, that the people who are talking among themselves probably get.
People like me, who have normal or above normal intelligence, automatically think the victims of every situation matter.
I know, weird, right?
We automatically assume that's important.
We automatically have empathy for the families and for anybody who was injured or killed.
Every time. Now, you're probably thinking, well, not every time, right?
No, actually, surprisingly, every time, you won't even find an exception.
Every single time anybody dies, I sort of wish it hadn't happened, with maybe some exceptions of serial killers and dictators and stuff like that.
But generally speaking, dumb people, and we'll get back to the smart people in a minute, but for the dumb, we always consider that.
I know. It's surprising.
All right. I just wanted to set you up with that so that you don't get worked up about anything else I say about the impeachment or the capital situation.
Are we good? Dumb people?
All right. We're going to get back.
I'm going to talk to the smart people again.
So I hope we're good on that.
All right. All right, smart people.
I'm back. I hope you had a nice break there.
I think the dumb people are on board now, and now we can talk about the topic.
So, everybody knows that, I hope you know that, there are not many people who say that President Trump handled the Capitol riot, assault, whatever you want to call it, well.
Is there anybody making that case?
Because Democrats will argue with me that somehow I'm defending the way he handled it.
I'm not defending the way he handled it.
I think he should be criticized for the way he handled it.
Now, whether you impeach him or not, whether you want to be silly and do something absurd and useless and That's a different question.
But did he handle it right?
No, I think that he could have done more as it was unfolding.
He could have just probably ended it with a tweet.
And I think he should have done that.
Using the words, you know, fight for whatever, a transparent election, or calling for a peaceful protest, whether that is inciting violence among the people who have Viking hats and plastic ties, that's kind of a stretch.
That's kind of a stretch.
But we're going to endure this anyway.
And it appears now that you can be punished in this country, at least in the United States, probably in other countries too, you can be punished for other people's absurd interpretations of your opinions.
So it used to be that you would get punished for things that you did.
Things that you said, maybe your actual opinion.
But we're not in those days anymore.
Now you will be punished in a variety of ways for other people's absurd interpretation of what you meant.
And you can be punished by a social media ban, cancellation, impeachment, boycott, and loss of job for other people's misinterpretation of what you said.
Now, I was asked by some people if I could do a micro lesson.
I'm doing little micro lessons in the Locals platform, Locals.com.
It's a subscription service.
So I've got a whole bunch of lessons and little two-minute videos of things to make you more effective.
And people ask me, Scott, how do we identify a conspiracy theory or fake news?
How do you identify it?
How do you know what's fake and what's real?
And I'm going to give you a little mini lesson on that now.
Here's how to tell what is fake and what is real.
If somebody tells you that the President of the United States went on TV and praised in direct language neo-Nazis as fine people, how do you know that didn't happen?
Or do you think it did happen?
Here's how you know it did not happen.
That didn't fucking happen.
You don't really have to overthink that.
How do you know that the president of the United States, any president, including Trump, how do you know that they didn't go on TV and praise neo-Nazis in direct language and call them fine people?
How do you know that didn't happen?
Because nothing like that would ever fucking happen.
In no universe would that ever fucking happen.
Well, let's do another one.
CNN has said a number of times that President Trump suggested drinking bleach as a possible solution for coronavirus.
Now, how do you know?
And other reporting says injecting disinfectants, which they interpret to mean household cleaners.
How do you know the President of the United States didn't go on live TV and suggest drinking bleach or injecting household cleaners into your body to fight a virus?
How do you know that didn't happen?
Or do you think it did?
Let me tell you how to know it didn't happen.
That didn't fucking happen.
That's it. Don't overthink it.
That didn't fucking happen.
Because in no universe would that ever happen.
It's a flying unicorn.
It's a black hole opened up on TV. It's magic.
You don't have to know a lot about the details or look behind it or get under the hood or really investigate it.
You just look at it and say to yourself, well, that didn't fucking happen.
That's it. That's the whole technique.
If you can't do that, you're not really understanding much of the news.
Let me give you another one.
Did the President of the United States intentionally incite violence at the Capitol?
A violent overthrow or insurrection of the United States.
Do you think he did that? There's an impeachment trial about that.
Do you think that actually happened?
Let me tell you why you know it didn't happen.
Here's why. That didn't fucking happen.
No! Because it didn't happen in any universe.
In the entire simulation, if there are infinite universes, as some people theorize, it didn't happen in any of the universes.
Because it couldn't happen.
It's absurd. It's ridiculous on its surface.
All right, let me give you... We'll see if you've learned anything.
We'll give you a test. I'm going to give you two statements, and you have to figure out which one of these Didn't happen.
And you have to use the same standard.
You just have to look at it and say, well, that didn't fucking happen.
That's it. That's the whole technique.
Here are two examples.
Yesterday, I walked my dog.
That's statement number one.
And you get to decide, is that potentially true?
You don't know if it's true. But is it potentially true?
Or would you say of that, that didn't fucking happen?
In the comments, true.
People say, yeah. Now, it happens it was true.
It was true. But at the very least, it was maybe true.
Wouldn't you agree? Maybe I didn't walk the dog yesterday.
But it was in the category of things that could be maybe true.
Maybe it was true. All right, here's my second statement.
I went out in the backyard and I flapped my arms so hard that for...
Two minutes or so, I was able to hover over the ground like a bird, sort of like a hummingbird.
Now the trick of it is that you have to flap really hard.
If you didn't flap hard enough, well, you're not going to get any height at all.
But I went in the backyard, I flapped my hands really hard, and I managed to hover above the ground for two minutes.
Now here's your test. Apply the standard of, did that really happen?
Go. Go. Uh-huh.
Uh-huh. I'm looking at your comments.
Somebody says, I believe you.
It's true. Stop lying.
All right. Here's how you should have solved that puzzle.
When I told you I flapped my arms until I hovered across the ground, this should have been the entire mental process.
That didn't fucking happen.
That's it. That's it.
So you have to learn that.
Believe it or not, you have to learn that.
Because a lot of the world was swallowing the Q stuff and the Russia collusion stuff.
And you know what you should have said to all of the Q stuff?
That's not fucking true.
That's it. You don't need some kind of an insight.
To know that these things are not true.
It doesn't take any insight at all to know these are not true.
All right. Alan Dershowitz has some smart thoughts about the impeachment trial.
So he's got three constitutional reasons that it's bogus.
Now, I don't think anybody cares about the constitutionality of this, do they?
Do you think that the Senate cares one bit about whether it's constitutional?
No. Do you think the Democrats care if they're following constitutional norms?
No. Do you think that whether or not it was constitutional, the Republicans are going to vote a different way than you already know they're going to vote?
No. No.
So it really doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not.
It really doesn't. Because it's a political process.
They can just pretend it is.
If they had enough people to pretend it is, then there's a conviction, I guess, if that's what you call it.
So it's irrelevant, but the arguments are interesting.
Number one, Dershowitz says, the Senate has no jurisdiction over an ex-president.
So they can do anything they want, But they don't have any jurisdiction.
It would be sort of like the Boy Scouts of America, or the Scouts of America, whatever they're called now, trying to put you in jail.
The Scouts are not a legal process.
They can't put you in jail.
So even if the PTA has a trial and finds you guilty...
It doesn't really matter because the PTA doesn't have any authority over you.
So that's a pretty good argument.
The Senate has no jurisdiction.
The other is that free speech is protected.
So whatever the president said, even if the outcome of that was some violence, it's still free speech.
So, you know, that's the end of the story.
And then the third one's a little more technical.
I guess part of the Constitution says, Congress shall make no law, and that includes any action, as Dershowitz explains, abridging the freedom of speech.
So if Congress punishes Trump for his speech, his freedom of speech, they would be doing exactly what the Constitution specifically says they can't do.
So you wouldn't even have to interpret the Constitution.
It says it directly.
It says, Congress shall make no law, and then I guess you would have to interpret the part about or other actions, because it's unclear on that, abridging the freedom of speech.
Those are pretty good arguments, but they're irrelevant to impeachment, I think.
Here's a little tip for you.
If you're a Democrat and you want to disguise the fact That you're a brainwashed, fake news-believing revenge puppet.
And that what you really want is to punish Trump supporters.
That's what you really want.
But you want to hide that and look like you're a serious citizen who cares about the well-being of the republic.
So if you'd like to disguise it, the best way to do it is to go on social media and declare that Trump's public call for peaceful protests...
for better election transparency is really inciting a violent coup involving a Viking hat and plastic ties.
So if you can sell to people the idea that asking for a peaceful protest for better election transparency is inciting a coup, and that that coup was a plan to hold The government of the United States using nothing but a Viking hat and some plastic ties and capturing an empty room.
And that was their plan to overthrow the greatest military in the world and hold the government.
So let me ask you this.
I've taught you now how to identify bullshit from actual news.
Let me... Let me give you another example, and we'll test it again.
Now remember, the only thinking you have to do is, well, that didn't fucking happen.
Or the opposite, which is, yeah, it might have happened.
You don't know if it happened, usually, but it might have.
Were there people who were quite serious about overthrowing the actual legal government and Ignoring the Constitution, and they thought that they could take over and hold the government,
or change who was in charge, via the process of entering a building that was otherwise empty, with nothing but some, I guess, some clubs, some umbrellas, a Viking hat, and some plastic ties.
Was it their plan, now I'm sure that there were people who had concealed carry as well, but was it their plan to actually hold the government like an actual coup and control it with their Viking hat,
their plastic ties, a few guys who had concealed carry probably, but did not brandish them, Was that actually really happening?
Well, I would apply the standard.
That didn't fucking happen.
That didn't fucking happen.
There was no attempted coup.
If it had been an attempted coup, it would have looked a lot different.
Because nobody, nobody, is so dumb that they think that they could have taken over the government of the United States by taking over an empty room in the Capitol with their plastic ties and their Viking horns and taking selfies.
That's not even close to a coup.
That's not in the zip code of a coup.
That's not in the solar system of a coup.
That's not in the Milky Way Of a coup.
So if you're looking at that and trying to say, is this real?
Apply this standard.
That didn't fucking happen.
Is Bigfoot rummaging through your refrigerator downstairs right now?
Is he? That's not fucking happening.
See, this standard works for everything.
We'll clear up quite a bit, I think, for you.
Alright, those are my comments for today.
Remember that Periscope will be going away, so one of these days soon I will only be on YouTube.
So you might want to make the transition Quickly, because it's the same content, you still have commenting, and it's just on YouTube.
So you Periscopers probably might want to get used to YouTube right away, because it'll be the only game in town pretty soon, although the Locals platform will have streaming sometime in the coming weeks, we hope, at least in beta.
All right. Why not go to HAPS? Did you hear that the Clubhouse app, where I guess it's audio only and people can talk, got banned in China?
China isn't even pretending anymore.
Ivermectin, somebody asked.
Well, ivermectin appears to be one of these things that people on social media talk about as working, but the medical community as a whole is not embracing, and who knows why.
Is HAPS a thing?
H-A-P-P-S? Rumble?
Oh yeah, you know, Rumble has live...
Does Rumble have live streaming?
They didn't have live streaming a while ago.
Alright, just looking at your comments for a moment.
Start your own platform.
Well, I wonder if Trump will start a platform or if he'll do a roll-up.
You know, here's what Trump should do.
So you've got your rumbles and your gabs and your parlors and your few other things.
Maybe he should just roll up Two or three of them under one brand and make it some other kind of social media.
The problem is if Trump starts a social media platform, it's going to attract pretty much exclusively the same crowd that supported him.
So nothing's going to be as good as, say, a Twitter would be for showing both sides.
If you took all of the trolls and critics and Democrats away from Twitter, I don't know if I would even be there.
Because if you can't hear both sides, what's the point, really?
So, that's the problem with the rogue social media sites, is that they're not going to attract both sides, and if they can't do that, they don't really have a product, in my opinion.
That will be a problem.
All right. Somebody's saying, Twitter co-opted Periscope's function, so you can still broadcast on Twitter.
I don't know the details of that.
I think that you are roughly correct that Twitter will have some built-in process that may be a partial or full substitute for Periscope.
If that's the case, I may use it, but we'll see.
But I have to wait and see what that's all about first.
All right, that's all for now. I'll talk to you later.
Alright, YouTubers, you're here for another minute.
Dilbert's new company needs to develop the new platform.
Hey, that's a good idea. Someone hacked a water plant in Florida.
That's dangerous. Did I see Dr.
Simone Gold's conference on the dangers?
Dr. Simone Gold is...
Once you become the skeptic, I don't believe anything you say anymore.
So the medical skeptics who are skeptical about one thing and then they move to a new thing to be skeptical about, I immediately just say, oh, I get it.
They're trying to be the skeptical person.
And they lose all credibility, frankly, by the time they go to the second skeptical thing, even if they're right.
When I talk about credibility, I mean, you know, how real does it look, not how real is it?
Have you heard the name of the DC cop who shot Ashley Babbitt?
I haven't. And I think the point you're trying to make is that if it had been a white cop who shot a black citizen that we would know the name of the cop, but if it was a white cop who shot this Trump supporter that we don't hear the name of the cop.
But We do know that the cop is not going to be charged because it was judged that it was a good shooting.
Good meaning, good in quotes.
Obviously, there's nothing good about it.
But I would agree that the officer should not be charged based on what I saw on video.
What I saw on video looked like he had to do what he had to do.
