Episode 1283 Scott Adams: I Tell You How Trump's Lawyers Eviscerated Democrats' Impeachment Case, Lots More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Nuclear Football FAKE NEWS
Scott Morefield's 3 insightful points about Jan 6th
President Trump's lawyers excelled yesterday
Bleating sheep democrat impeachment style
Finally...public debunking of "Fine People" HOAX
Rep Swalwell called a prayer group...a blue-check militia
Lincoln Project troubles
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Gather round. It's going to be a barn burner today.
Yeah, I'm in a good mood.
Good mood because of the news.
Do you know what it takes to put me in a good mood because of the news?
Lots of juicy fake news.
I love digging into the fake news, but I especially like it.
When President Trump is in the headlines.
Because have you noticed the great darkness that has descended upon us when we have nothing to talk about?
Because Biden's strategy is to make politics so boring that nobody really checks too much on what he's doing.
And it's working. But we miss the excitement.
The excitement.
Of Trump back in the fight, even when he's not there personally.
Even not there personally.
He's still the most exciting thing happening.
Well, before I tell you how his defense team eviscerated the Democrats' case, let us prepare for this properly.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip and Habits Now.
Go. I got a very sincere, let's say, constructive criticism about my live streams yesterday.
And one of my viewers said, I'm paraphrasing, I hate to tell you this, don't take it wrong, but you're a slow talker.
You're a slow talker.
And when I watch your live streams, I have to speed it up to 1.5 times the speed just to get through it.
To which I say, is there any other way to listen to a podcast?
When I heard that, I thought to myself, are you telling me there's some people who don't speed up podcasts?
And I think that the difference is, and I'd like to check this with you Tell me if this is true or false.
I believe there are two ways that people consume my live streams.
One is they're just trying to pick out some good ideas or any tips or just useful stuff, in which case listening to it at 1.5 speed is a good idea.
Speed it up a little bit. Get to the point.
But I also believe that some of you use it almost like having company.
Almost like it's more about the hour and the coffee than it is about the specific information that's being transmitted.
Now, that's the way I watch the TV show The Five.
When I watch The Five, which I try to watch pretty much every episode, when I watch it, it's more like watching five people that I like talking about stuff I'm interested in And I like the time.
So it's not just the information.
I just like the time that we spend together, so to speak.
So, there are two reasons to watch this.
One is you just enjoy the time, and the other is to get some nuggets out.
But certainly, if you didn't know you could speed these up, now you do.
Just look in YouTube menus, you'll find out how.
Alright, here are some thoughts.
We'll get to the impeachment, of course.
You know, we're trying to figure out who, what Republican will be the strongest candidate in 2024.
I had been thinking that Tom Cotton would be the strongest candidate eventually.
You know, there's a lot of bubbling around, but he seemed like he would be a strong candidate.
And then I realized he has one really big problem working against him, which is, and this is going to sound like some kind of a racial joke, But it's not.
So this is not a racial joke.
This is deadly serious.
It's also funny, but I'm not making fun of any racial group.
So this is not disrespectful.
It is an honest observation that just happens to be funny.
How can you expect the black population of America to literally pick cotton?
Think about it.
His last name is Cotton, and we're asking people to pick him for president.
Now, there's no way that people are not going to realize that that just doesn't feel right.
And how do you win the presidency if you don't get an unusually big share of the black vote in this country?
Now, again, I'm not making fun of any group.
This is not a joke.
It's funny. It is funny, just because of the simulation and the coincidence and the irony, but I swear to God, I'm not being disrespectful to anybody.
This is a genuine problem.
It's like an actual problem.
Because just do this exercise.
Put yourself in the head of any black American who's got the legacy of slavery.
I don't know.
I just wouldn't...
It would be hard to...
Pick a candidate named Cotton.
It actually would be hard.
No joke. So I just put that out there.
The fake news that I'm enjoying the most today is about the nuclear football.
Now, the nuclear football, as you know, is sort of this attache case with the nuclear codes, allegedly, so that the president And or the vice president as a backup, because both of them have a football.
I understand there might be one at the White House as well, so there might be three footballs.
But there's a person who carries it around wherever the vice president or the president is.
And during the Capitol assault, We now know that at least the one that was following the vice president got really close to the protesters.
In other words, there was a real risk that the protesters could have gotten a hold of the football.
Do you think that's true?
And if they did, if they had gotten a hold of that football, do you think that would have been something really bad?
No. All right.
I don't know for sure that anything that I say next is true.
I don't know it's true.
I'm just going to speculate, okay?
Let's say that you got close enough to the guy with the football that you actually got your hands on it and you're a protester.
How long would you still be alive and Once you, as a protester, physically touched the football, what would be the expected life expectancy of any citizen who touched the football in a protest?
Well, it should be zero, right?
You should die almost instantly, because don't we assume that the guy who carries the football is armed?
Doesn't he have one hand on the football, and the other hand is going to go right in here and take out a very large weapon, I would think?
I don't know that.
I have no reason to know that that's true.
But if you're letting the guy who carries the football walk around without being strapped, I don't think so.
So, the first thing that I would say is that if the protesters had gotten that close to the football, there would have been massive bloodshed, and it would not have gone the way of the protesters.
So, in reality, them actually getting their hands on it, unless they were going to bring out their own weapons, and we didn't see the intention to bring out their own weapons, the protesters, that is.
We assume some of them had firearms but didn't brandish them, at least in terms of aiming them at anybody.
That's the first thing. The first thing is probably it would not have been a close call.
There would have been a lot of dead people, but I don't think it would have been a close call.
Somebody would not have actually gotten their hands on the football.
That's my guess. Now, I don't know that, so I would look for a fact check on that.
Number two, do you believe that in the year 2021...
That if somebody captured the football, they could launch the nuclear arsenal.
Of course not.
There are no experts who tell you that if you captured the football, no matter who you are, that you could then use it to launch an attack.
It doesn't work that way. They would still need to know that you're really the president and there are other safeguards that it's better if we don't know about them, right?
But there was no risk...
That somebody was going to capture the football and launch a nuclear strike.
None. Zero.
Just no risk. But one expert did say if they had stolen the football and acquired its contents, which include pre-planned nuclear strike options, that they could have shared the contents with the world, he told the network. Now, do you believe that if somebody captured the football, they could open it up, Maybe they'd have to do some hacking to get into the system, right?
You know, it must be some kind of password or whatever.
But let's say they could hack it.
Could they hack it and figure out from the contents of the football the pre-planned nuclear strike options?
Do you believe that that information is contained on the football?
I hope not.
Right?
Do you think that you can literally get that information from the football?
I mean, maybe.
But if so, it's really designed poorly.
Like, really poorly.
So, I don't believe that for a second.
I do not believe that there was anything that anybody could have gotten from the football...
That would have been useful, or you could sell it, or enemies would care about it.
And secondly, what if you did find out where we planned to attack with our nuclear weapons?
What exactly was the other team going to do?
What were they going to do about that?
If we were aiming our, let's just say hypothetically, if somebody found out we had nukes aimed at Moscow, what are they going to do?
Put up an anti-nuclear shield?
I'm sure they already figured out Moscow might be one of the targets.
If it's a military location, I suppose they could relocate their military, but aren't we watching that stuff?
I mean, I feel like we're watching.
If they were to move some gigantic military assets somewhere, enough military assets that we would have targeted them with a nuclear weapon...
I mean, you'd have to have a lot of them to make it worth a nuclear weapon.
So the whole thing is rather ridiculous.
All right. I remember when people were mocking me for saying that Trump was both smart and persuasive.
Do you remember that? Years of me being mocked.
Oh, he's so persuasive, isn't he, Scott?
Oh, why are you saying he's persuasive?
Why couldn't he do this or that?
Or why don't Democrats like him if he's so persuasive?
Oh, you think he's smart when he's clearly just a clown.
He's just flailing around.
He's a flailing clown.
For four years, I listened to that nonstop.
And what are they going to impeach him for?
Being too persuasive and being smart enough to know exactly what was going to happen.
They had to reverse four years of belief system to gin up some kind of a claim against him.
So you have to automatically assume that everything you've been saying for years didn't matter.
Well, he actually is smart enough to know Even though you and I wouldn't have known, but he was smart enough to know exactly what his words would cause.
In fact, he was smart enough to know that his words would cause action in the past.
Yeah, apparently the assaulters of the Capitol had planned it before the speech, and Trump was so smart that he knew talking about it today would cause them to plan it in the past.
Pretty smart. So, I just enjoy watching them reframe Trump as being both highly capable and persuasive, which is the entire basis for their claim.
Now, I heard CNN pushing back on the clips that Trump's defense showed lots of Democrats using angry, fighting words.
And even Jake Tapper said he wouldn't support what Schumer said in some instances because they were a little bit beyond the political realm into a little bit irresponsible talk.
So everybody agrees that Democrats talk this way, similar to the way Trump talks, similar to the way everybody talks.
But why is Trump being impeached by Schumer's not?
Do you know why? Because Schumer is assumed not to be persuasive.
It's assumed that his talking didn't cause anything to happen.
Why? I guess he's not very good at his job.
He's not persuasive.
Oh, but Trump is.
Trump is so persuasive, he can cause a coup just by the way he talked.
So, a little inconsistencies there in the way people have looked at this.
Here's a question from Scott Moorfield, who writes for Town Hall.
And he tweeted this.
Let's see if you agree with this.
He said, if Trump had won instead of Biden, these are the things that would have happened.
So if Trump had won instead of Biden, the riots that would have ensued would have made January 6 look like a Girl Scout cookie convention.
I feel like that's a safe statement.
Don't you? I mean, there's no guarantees in this world.
But I feel as if a Trump victory would have been national, you know, nationwide, every major metropolitan area.
It would have been massive bloodshed, wouldn't it?
I mean, I think so.
Am I being unreasonable to say that that's obvious?
Because I don't even think that that was...
Much in question, right?
Would anybody doubt that?
Would even Democrats doubt it?
Do you think Democrats would doubt this statement, that there would have been widespread riots under the umbrella of protests, but you know that it would turn into bad stuff?
All right, here's the second thing.
Anyone shot by police, like Ashley Babbitt, the woman who was shot going through the door window there, would have been a celebrated martyr.
Is that an unreasonable assumption?
Speculation? Is that unreasonable?
That if a protester associated with the Democrat side had been shot by police protesting in a Trump election that the person shot would be a martyr?
I feel like that's a safe speculative assumption.
How about the third one?
Democrats would have defended it and called for more of it.
I think so.
I think so.
Because everything that we saw about how they handled the BLM, Antifa business, would suggest that this is accurate.
That the situation we got was the least violent potential outcome.
It was the least violent potential outcome.
It was the best outcome for violence-wise.
So just keep that in mind.
Here's what I like to say every now and then to make sure that I maintain my freedom of speech.
So you know that any right you don't exercise gets lost, right?
There's sort of a principle in the legal system that if you have a right but you don't exercise it to establish that it's a real right that you're going to keep, you can lose it.
So that's true with copyrights, for example.
If you make no attempt to enforce a copyright, you can lose it.
If you make no attempt to enforce, let's say, trespassing on your land, I think there's some danger there.
You can lose some rights.
I'm not sure of the details of that.
So it's important to stretch the boundaries of your rights to make sure you can keep them.
So I'm going to do that right now.
So I'm going to say something that if I said it wrong, I would get kicked off of social media, but I'm going to say it right so that I don't.
But I'm going to push the boundary a little bit, okay?
And it's this.
It is entirely reasonable to say that the courts found no proof of widespread fraud in the election.
That's true. The courts found no widespread fraud in the election.
That's just true. But at the same time, we can say the result of the election was not credible.
There's no conflict there.
There's no conflict in saying that the courts found no proof of widespread fraud.
At the same time, we can say that the election was not credible.
Because credibility is based on perception, right?
You know, we the public, how do we perceive it?
Now, you can perceive things accurately or inaccurately, But we're talking about perceptions.
And the credibility would be based, I would say an election's credibility, would be based on either full transparency, so you could see every vote and it went all the way in and it got counted correctly, or, and or is a big word here, a lack of motive to cheat.
So if nobody had any reason to cheat, and everybody involved had a reason to prevent cheating, Well, I wouldn't worry too much.
Because nobody had a reason.
Nothing to gain. Everybody wanted it to be fair.
If that were the case, I'd say, well, that's a pretty credible system.
But we don't have that, right?
Nor do we have full transparency.
We have some level of transparency.
We can do a recount in some cases.
There's some things we can look at.
But if you were to say, how transparent is our entire election process?
From beginning to end to the final count in the digital database, what percentage of that entire path for each vote is transparent?
Meaning that you could easily check to see if it got recorded right and nothing was left out, no votes got thrown away, no votes got counted wrong.
What percentage of the whole system do you think has that quality where you really could check and find out if anything was wrong?
What percentage? Now, I don't know the answer to that.
But we have a fake news industry that won't tell you either.
Now, I don't know...
That you could put a percentage on it.
That might be a nonsense idea because it's a whole bunch of different situations.
It's sort of weird to say, well, it's 75% transparent.
That would just be sort of a weird subjective estimate.
But we do live in a world where we have to make weird subjective estimates about just about everything in order to function.
So I'll give you my weird subjective estimate Of how much of our election process is transparent.
I could be wrong by a lot, right?
It's just my feeling.
Based on, you know, the totality of what I observe, plus the totality of my life and experience, I would say 10 to 20%.
That's my best guess.
10 to 20%, you could actually check and find out if that part you were checking was legitimate or not.
I'm guessing something like 80 to 90% of it isn't checked or can't be checked, at least in all the ways that you'd want to check.
For example, how would you know if ballots had been thrown away?
Just by the post office.
Do we have a system that would tell us, if we checked later, that somebody's ballots had been thrown away?
Now, I have no evidence that anything like that happened.
No court has found anything like that happened.
But would we find it?
Do we have enough transparency that you could possibly know that that happened?
What about when the votes get into the digital system?
So they've left the paper world behind, and now they're in the system.
What level of transparency do we have to make sure that each precinct, their votes, get all the way into the system and never change and all that?
I don't know. I don't know.
But I'll bet it's not much.
It's probably 20% transparent.
Now, if I'm completely wrong about that, and the real answer is, let's say, 95% transparent, I would consider that a fairly credible system.
Wouldn't you? What percentage credibility, or let's say transparency, what percentage transparency Would tell you that things are okay, because I don't think you need a hundred percent because nothing really could be a hundred percent, but maybe over ninety percent would make you feel that if anybody tried to game the system they'd get caught.
So it wouldn't be a good play to even try because you got a ninety percent chance of getting caught.
Unless you only targeted the place they can't check.
I suppose you got that risk.
Alright, so the reason I put that out there is that the fake news industry and all the bad people in the country want you to believe that because the courts, which are the wrong tool for this, right, it's a very rough tool for checking an election, the courts can only check those few things that courts can check.
The courts can't do an audit.
They can't change the rules.
There are a lot of things the courts can't do.
So they're the wrong tool.
It's the only tool we have.
But it's the wrong tool, or a bad tool, I'll say, for finding out if an election is real.
All right. But at the same time, it could be low credibility.
All right. Let me ask you this.
When did intentions stop mattering?
Because a lot of our political stuff that we debate about is imagining other people's intentions as if we could do that.
We can't. We don't know other people's intentions, generally.
I mean, there's some few cases where you would know for sure.
But generally, you don't know other people's intentions, and especially if you have a crowd of people They've probably got different intentions.
So knowing people's intentions tends to be pretty important.
And let me ask you this.
Of the total number of protesters, you could call them rioters if you like, protesters plus rioters, Who marched on the Capitol on January 6th.
What percentage of them do you think were thinking in terms of overthrowing the legitimate government of the United States?
What percentage of them were thinking in those terms?
Like, I think I would like Trump to be the president even if he didn't get enough votes.
Do you think there was anybody in the crowd who wanted Trump to be president if it could be shown...
With confidence so that everybody believed it was true.
If it could be shown that Biden had legitimately won this election, got the right amount of votes in the right places, how many people who went to the Capitol to protest would have protested that?
Who would have protested Biden getting elected legitimately?
I think the answer is zero.
I mean, I haven't heard anybody say that they would support that.
And when I see the Democrats in their fevered imagination that the people who attacked the Capitol wanted to overthrow the will of the people, that's exactly the opposite of what they were doing.
Clearly, right?
Am I wrong about this?
Were the protesters not very clearly...
Trying to make sure that the will of the people, as expressed in their votes, was the only thing that determined who the president was.
I mean, that plus the electoral college, right?
The rules. I don't know that there was even one person there who would have accepted the following proposition.
Hey, one person, if you could find out that Trump didn't get enough votes, legitimately...
Would you still want him to be president?
Because you know that would destroy the system, right?
Could you even get one person to say that?
Even one? Because I think Democrats are very confused about what a Republican is.
Or conservative or whatever the people who marched would identify themselves as.
Because I don't know any Republicans or conservatives who don't like the Constitution.
That's sort of built into the whole conservative Republican thing, right?
There is no Republican who wants the Constitution torn up.
None. And we're having this whole impeachment trial over this fevered Hallucination that there was anybody there who didn't want the system fortified.
See, I'm using their own word.
Every person there wanted the current system to be stronger.
And they said there's a weakness in the current system.
There's a lack of transparency.
We've got these questions.
And we still have enough time to do a little bit more of auditing.
That's what Ted Cruz was pushing for.
That, every bit of that...
Is to protect the system as it exists.
And we allowed, you know, CNN and MSNBC and all the rest of the illegitimate people to sell us on the idea that it was literally the opposite of that.
That they were trying to do a coup when they were trying to prevent one.
They were trying to prevent one that they thought had happened right in front of them.
Meaning that the election was not credible in their view.
So, how did we get to the point where people trying to prevent a coup are labeled as insurrectionists and coup people?
Now, nothing I've said should excuse any of the violence or any of the people who actually entered the Capitol.
The legal system does what it does.
I'm out of that, right?
It's not my business.
The legal system will do what the legal system does.
I don't need to pile on.
It wouldn't matter who it was.
I would still say the legal system has to do what it does.
That's just not on me. But I think it's just shocking that literally the opposite of what we can clearly observe, and you could talk to anybody who was there and ask them this direct question.
Hey, you were there. If you knew that Trump didn't win fair and square, would you still want him to be your president?
Now they might say, yeah, I still prefer him, but I wouldn't want the system to be destroyed that way.
All right. Let's talk about Trump's lawyers.
As you all know, I and many people Criticized their very first opening statements the other day, and I thought that was exceptionally weak and rambling.
But, boy, did they save the good stuff for later.
Boy, did they save the good stuff.
I've never seen anybody win an argument that hard.
Generally, you see people debate, and you can go away saying, well, I prefer one over the other, but they both had some good points or whatever.
But the Trump lawyers...
For all that people said about, you know, Trump isn't going to be able to get good lawyers because, you know, this or that, he got good lawyers.
I don't know how good they have been in the past, but my God, they were really good.
Like, it was...
It was thrilling to just watch them work.
I'm always thrilled by anybody who operates at, like, a higher level.
You know, I'm not a sports fan per se, but I love watching, you know, Curry shoot three-point shots from half court.
Like, everybody likes to watch the best that there is.
That's just fun to watch.
And watching these lawyers work was just impressive.
It was just impressive.
They were just good.
And so Schoen and Van Der Veen were the two main stars.
And let me tell you what I liked about their presentation.
You know where I'm going with some of this, but the first thing I'd like to say is there was a real difference in skill level, especially around voice and mannerism.
And I'm going to teach you a little trick about persuasion.
If you are arguing your case, and somebody else is arguing their case, do not argue your case sounding like a bleating sheep.
And I'll have to give you an impression of that.
So let me take...
I'll take the same argument and show you what it is with a bleating sheep...
Well, no. It would be easier if I just give you the example.
All right. A bleeding sheep argument sounds like this.
And then he told people to go and fight in the capital.
And he made the violence.
And people hurt. And you could almost hear the sheep bleeding.
Bleating. B-L-E-A-T-I-N-G. Bleat.
And do you know why people talk that way?
They talk that way because they don't believe their own argument, but they're trying to sell it.
People don't talk that way when they believe their own argument.
They just don't.
And you can watch it in real time.
The Trump lawyers talk like two people who believe their own argument.
Here's what it sounds like, if I can do a good impression of it, of somebody who believes their own argument.
And it goes like this. Behind me, you'll see some slides.
I'm going to show you what the Democrats showed you.
And then next to it, I'm going to show you the full edited thing.
And you'll see pretty clearly that they're intentionally trying to fool you by leaving out this part of the video.
Go. Was there any bleeding involved?
Was I begging you to feel bad with your emotions about how bad we felt in the Capitol because the president, he's inciting insurrections?
None of that. People who believe their own arguments just tell you what the facts are.
They just tell you what happened.
Now, you probably didn't notice that little persuasion element, did you?
Did anybody notice that, by the way, without my mentioning it?
But it's really stark if you go back and watch it.
After you hear me explain it, you go back, you will feel that they clearly don't believe the things they're saying.
Clearly don't. Now, the number one thing that I liked about the Trump lawyer presentation, you know where I'm going with this, don't you?
To say that yesterday was one of my favorite days in the last several years would be an understatement.
I'm going to be a little bit revealing here.
I actually cried.
I actually cried.
Now, that's good lawyering.
If a lawyer can make you cry, that's some good lawyering.
Now, of course, I have a personal connection to this, right?
So I've been trying to debunk the fine people hoax since 2018.
I've put a good deal of my reputation on the line.
A good deal of my energy, as have a number of other people.
Joel Pollack, Steve Cortez, Greg Goffeld.
A number of people have been very vocal in debunking this and debunking it.
But it hasn't gotten any attention on the left, where the people who need to understand it's not real, all live.
So the silo was quite robust, so the people on the right knew it was a hoax.
People on the left had never even heard the argument.
Never even heard the full video.
So what I was happy about, and I had said ahead of the defense, I had said that if they don't go directly at the fine people hoax, which the Democrats had used as part of their argument for why Trump is evil, if you don't show that that is a complete hoax by showing the whole video, you don't deserve to get paid.
And I meant that.
I meant if they had not debunked that, they didn't deserve to get paid.
You would almost think they weren't even working for the president if they hadn't debunked it.
But what did they do?
They debunked it.
First, they started with debunking it, which is exactly the right place to do it.
Because it created...
Well, first of all, I wonder how many Democrats saw that debunked for the first time.
Because don't you wonder what happened to a lot of heads?
Must have been millions of people watching it.
I'm guessing somewhere in the low millions of people who believed that the fine people hoax was an actual real thing, meaning that the president called neo-Nazis fine people, which we know didn't happen.
We know that that was a fake edit.
So what happened to the brains of the people who saw that for the first time?
If you're a normal person, many of you are normal, you would say to yourself, wow, a lot of people have just learned for the first time that they've been lied to by their media for over three years, and that the fine people hoax, which has been reported as fact for years, never happened. And I just found that out.
Wow! I guess I'll turn on my own side now and stop believing the people I've been believing, because now I can clearly see that they lied to me, and when I see the nature of the lie, I believe it probably was intentional.
So now I denounce my democratic ways and I become a Republican.
Nobody had that experience.
Nobody. So if you're thinking that the lawyers doing a good job changed any minds, no.
No, that wasn't even one of the options.
It wasn't an option that anybody was going to change their mind.
And neither did I particularly care because it's a political process.
It's going to go the way the politics go.
Now, if the lawyers had done a terrible job, It might have made it safer for some Republicans to cross over into the pro-impeachment camp.
But if they do a marvelous job, like a world-class good job, which I believe they did, it doesn't make any difference.
Because people will just vote their political side because it's a political process.
But it mattered to me.
It mattered to me.
Because for the first time...
Historians can't ignore it.
You can ignore what the cartoonist says on his live stream if you're a historian, you know, 20 years from now.
You can ignore everything that was in Breitbart, Fox News.
You can ignore everything on social media that anybody associated with Trump of the right has ever said.
You can ignore all of that and write your own little history.
But you know what you can't ignore?
An impeachment process.
You can't ignore that a lawyer shown showed you the video that the prosecution and the impeachment showed, and then right next to it, on the same screen, showed you how they edited it to reverse the meaning.
That's history.
This is just for the defense team.
Trump defense team. Had to give a standing ovation.
They changed history.
They changed history.
Not the real history, but they changed how history will be recorded.
Because when I saw the prosecution use the fine people hoax as part of their case, I said to myself, and you may have seen the tweet, I could win this case from here.
From that starting position that the Democrats gave Trump's defense team, they gave them the win.
Because all they had to do was do what they did, which is show what they claimed, show the lie on a video, so you can just see it yourself, and then they can make the following claim, that if any of the evidence was falsified,
you should, as a reasonable person, there's sort of a legal standard for this, but it's also a reasonable person standard, that if you know the prosecution made up some of the evidence, clearly falsified it intentionally, You should believe that everything else they say is likely to be false as well.
Not guaranteed. But you should treat it as not credible.
That's the end of the case.
Now, if it had been a regular legal trial, it actually would have been the end of the case.
I think, I'll take a fact check on this too, but I think that a judge would have ended the case once he found out that the evidence was falsified.
I think that would have been the end of the case.
Now, that's what the Trump lawyers were indicating, but, you know, I'm not a lawyer.
So, they've got...
So, doing the fine people hoax first was pure brilliance.
It was exactly the right thing to do.
But how do you think the major networks handled this major piece of news...
Which would show that their own networks had been really illegitimate for years and had been intentionally promoting fake news for political purposes, we assume.
We don't know. We can't read minds.
But we know that they've been pushing this obvious fake news.
And the thing that's really striking about it is it's so easy to debunk.
You just show the video. You don't need anything else.
You just show how the video was edited.
That's it. None of the major networks are showing it.
It's the biggest story in the country, or should be.
Imagine if they really took this seriously, given just what is presented right now, What if ABC or NBC or CBS said, you know, everybody's been saying for years that the president called the neo-Nazis fine people, but the Trump lawyers have now shown us that that was always fake news.
What the hell are they going to do?
Because nobody can do that.
Can ABC say, yeah, we've been telling you fake news about this for three years?
Oops! Oops!
Can CNN say, yeah, we've been saying he called the neo-Nazis fine people, and it was because we used the fake edit?
Sorry! They can't.
There's only one thing they can do, which is ignore it and make it go away, at least in our minds.
But historians are not going to ignore this anymore.
If you're a historian...
You're just not doing your job if you don't mention that this was always a fake, fake story.
Now, of course, at some point they might try to back up to the, well, yeah, that part was fake, but weren't there bad people there?
So they always go down the hoax funnel to back up to some other position.
But certainly the main thing was fake.
Now, once they set up that the managers had lied, and here's another example.
There was a tweet used by Swalwell, who you know as the Chinese puppet.
Allegedly. Allegedly.
A Chinese puppet. We don't have any evidence of that, except that he was apparently sleeping with a Chinese spy.
So, use your own judgment.
You can connect those dots.
But he showed a tweet from a woman who said that they would bring the cavalry, which turned out to be a complete misinterpretation because it wasn't even spelled the same because it was referring to the Calvary Hill that Christ gave a sermon on.
And it's basically a prayer group.
And Swalwell tried to sell this as some kind of militia.
So he tried to sell the American public that a prayer group was a dangerous militia.
And it gets better.
They showed the tweet, and somehow they added a blue check to make it look like it was somebody more important.
Now, I'm not going to say somebody who doesn't have a blue check is not important, but you know what I'm saying, right?
In the context of social media, the blue check people get more attention.
They're not better people.
They just get more attention.
And so a verified badge was added to the tweet when they showed it at the impeachment trial.
So now you've got one lie about the cavalry, a second lie about saying who the person was in terms of verified or not.
That's three lies so far.
They're just easily demonstrable.
And then the lawyer showed that the planning for the event had happened before Trump's speech.
They pretty much just completely demolished the other argument.
And then the free speech argument by showing that the other side had used similar speech completely eviscerated their argument about I saw Mike Wallace say that he thought that it was weak when the lawyers showed the compilation of all the Democrats saying, fight, fight, fight, we're going to fight.
And Chris Wallace made the point that you're leaving out the context.
That if somebody's just using this word fight in sort of traditional talk, they know it's not going to be interpreted to cause any violence, but that wasn't the situation with the president.
His situation was different, and therefore he should have known that these common words could have caused violence.
Would you have known that?
Is that reasonable?
Would you have known If you were him, and you said that the Congress people should fight, people in Congress should fight, because they clearly showed that's what he was talking about.
So the Democrats had removed the context that Trump was saying fight about Congress people fighting politically.
They removed that context.
That's just a lie.
If you remove the context and the context would change the meaning completely, well, that's just a lie.
And so the defense's case was built on the lie of removing context from the word fight.
It was built on the lie of the This Calvary thing, it was built on the lie about the fine people hoax.
How many more lies do you have to identify before the whole thing is just ridiculous?
So what kind of response are you seeing after the Trump lawyers just eviscerated the other side?
I mean, this was a massacre.
Well, apparently impeachment manager Stacey Plaskett suggested that Trump's videos with the compilation of all the people saying fight, fight, fight, homed in on people of color and that really their defense was racist because there were so many women especially, women and people of color, who were quoted in it as saying, you know, fight, fight, fight.
To which I say, I feel like You're missing the big point here.
Do you know why there were so many, mostly black, I think, but also some Hispanic, I guess, examples of people in government who were saying fight, fight, fight?
Do you know why there were so many of them on that video?
Because they're doing great.
How hard do you have to look for bad news?
How about accept the fact that there are so many Black, Hispanic, and women members of the Democratic Party, that if you're talking about them, you're going to have a lot of examples of people who are black and women and Hispanic.
Isn't that exactly what you want?
That's exactly what you want, right?
You want your group to represent the people who vote for you, right?
So I feel as if It's taking the best news in the country.
If I were going to tell you, let me tell you something.
I'm going to tell you some good news.
Here's some good news.
This will tell you how healthy the United States is.
That there are more women and minority members in Congress, especially in the Democrat Party, than ever before.
What would you say to that?
You'd say, well, that's progress.
That sounds good. Are governments looking more like the public?
Yeah, that's what we want.
But suddenly they turned it into a bad thing.
Because if you're talking about politicians, there's going to be a lot of black ones, a lot of women, a lot of Hispanics.
That's supposed to be good.
And the only reason that they are targeted...
Why were they targeted for the video?
Because they're important.
Because they're important. You don't get targeted if you're unimportant.
This is like the best compliment you could ever have, that a whole bunch of people that look like you are targeted for being at the height of power and influence of the United States.
It's kind of good news, but they don't have much to complain about, so they went with that.
The funniest thing I saw, and I'd have to see it replayed again because I want to make sure I remembered it correctly, but I was watching the initial comments after the defense did its case, and I was watching Fox News, and I saw there was a panel discussion, a bunch of people on, and I was waiting to see if even they would mention the fine people hoax.
Because if you're not aware of this, And I'll take a fact check on this too.
I believe that a number of the opinion people on Fox have called out the Find People hoax, but I don't think the news people have.
So fact check me on that.
I'm pretty sure the opinion people have called it a hoax, but I don't think that the news people have been allowed to call it a hoax.
Just check that for me.
Because Brett Baer commented, and I don't know, I might be reading too much into this, so Brett, if you're listening to this, I apologize in advance.
I won't try to read your mind.
But he said something along the lines of that it would be the debunking of the fine people hoax would be the first time that a lot of people ever saw it.
And he's the news.
He says it's the first time anybody would have seen it.
He's the news, right?
He's not an opinion guy.
He's the news. And he's telling you it would be the first time a lot of people saw it.
Now, again, I'm reading too much into this, right?
He might mean the first time Democrats see it.
But I feel like it felt like he meant Fox News, too.
It felt like, and by the way, this is why I trust Brett Baer, I feel like he was giving a little dig to his own network there.
Now, I might be wrong, and it's not fair for me to imagine what's in his mind, right?
You know, that's a mistake.
But that's what it felt like.
And it made me like him more for putting that out there.
There was no way to handle that exactly right, but I like that he took a shot at it.
Let's see. There seems to be, now CNN is making the distinction, I think Jake Tapper made this distinction, that although the Democrats said things that sound like fight, fight, fight, it did not precede any actual violence.
I would question that, because I think probably a lot of the protests, etc., were at least somewhat encouraged by that kind of language.
Whereas Trump's ended in violence, and therefore you can't compare Trump saying you should fight to anybody else saying you should fight because only one of them led to violence.
To which I say, isn't that kind of blaming Trump for the actions of other people?
Because if other people say fight, fight, fight, and nothing happens, are they free from incitement because they were unsuccessful?
Even if they weren't trying to succeed.
So, I don't know, it feels like blaming Trump for something that his base was going to do anyway, and we know that.
That doesn't feel like a reasonable statement, does it?
I did notice, and I doubt this is completely true yet, but it seemed like the CNN pundits have pulled back from calling this an insurrection or a coup, and they're a little more likely, at least based on the time I was watching it last night, they seem a little more likely to use the words attack or assault or violence, because everybody agrees with those words.
But maybe it just got embarrassing because Promoting the idea that the guy in the Viking hat and the other guy with the zip ties were actually going to conquer and hold the country.
And who exactly was going to be the leader if they overthrew the country?
So I think that CNN, and maybe this will spread to others, I think it just becomes embarrassing to call it a coup or an insurrection when there's no evidence of that.
Just none at all. I mean, there was bad stuff that happened.
But the idea that it was going to be a coup, per se, is kind of ridiculous.
So maybe they backed off it.
We'll watch. And they've also sort of backed off from the claims of the impeachment.
So the impeachment claims were that he knowingly incited violence, but now it's sort of morphing into, well, he could have done more to stop it.
But unfortunately, that is not what the articles of impeachment are about.
He's not being tried to be removed from office, etc.
He's not being tried for that.
I don't have to finish that thought.
All right. Here's a...
Let's see... So there's some question now about whether Trump knew how much danger Pence was in.
All right. And here's how CNN lies to you.
And it's kind of clever.
I'm going to read just their own views.
Now, this is not from an opinion piece.
So this is supposedly news on CNN. And I'll just read their exact sentence.
It says, So now they're questioning whether Trump knew the vice president was in danger.
And then they go on.
So now they're saying, you know, they're reporting directly.
There's evidence that Trump did know that Pence was in danger.
But what is the evidence of that?
And it says former Pence aides are still fuming over Trump's actions on January 6th, insisting he never checked on the vice president as Pence was being rushed.
So it starts with Trump knew that Pence was in trouble and did nothing about it.
But then it morphed as the explanation of how we know that into he didn't check on Pence.
Now, that could be true.
I think it is true that he didn't check on Pence.
But does that prove that he thought he was in trouble?
They're sort of unrelated thoughts that give you the...
It's like a fake because in persuasion.
If somebody says, this happened because we know from science that just saying there's a reason will persuade some people that it's true just because you had a reason.
Well, I had a reason. It doesn't have to be a good one.
Just, I had a reason. That's good enough to persuade some people.
So... CNN uses that technique where they throw something in there that's a statement that Trump didn't check on Pence, but is somehow connected to the idea that Trump knew that Pence was in trouble.
And they're just different ideas.
Just different. So that's how they get you.
Now, of course, the big fun in the news is the Lincoln Project self-immolating.
And I keep going back to this thing that, damn it, I don't want this to be true because I've resisted it for so long, which is Tucker Carlson often saying that whatever the Democrats accuse you of is what they're doing themselves.
Now, the Lincoln Project are not Democrats, but they sort of acted as Democrats during the election.
And sure enough, if we are basing it on current reporting, it looks like they accused Trump of being a grifter while they were grifting.
It was literally, according to reports, this is not me saying this, so I don't get sued, but they're being accused of being major grifters, and there's certainly evidence to suggest that, because there's a lot of money unaccounted for.
And they were actually, they built a grift, allegedly, around accusing somebody of grifting.
And it worked. And they made millions, allegedly.
All right. So I so don't want that to be true.
I don't want Tucker Carlson to be correct when he says everything they accuse you of is what they're doing themselves.
But it does look correct.
It does look correct, and I can't figure out why.
I can't figure out if there's some causal, logical reason why this should be true.
Because I don't think it's that they're so clever that they know that doing this works, because it totally works.
I just don't understand it.
That's why I was resisting it.
The observation is a good one, meaning that it sure looks like that.
It looks like they're just accusing you of what they're doing.
But I don't know why.
Like, is it just because it works?
Is that the only reason that we seem to see this?
It's just sort of a psychological puzzle to me, exactly what I'm seeing.
So Steve Schmidt resigned.
He's one of the more notable founders.
And he resigned after reports that he bought a $2.9 million mansion in Utah with some of the money he made from the Lincoln Project, one assumes.
But here's the funny part.
He quit and he said that he was quitting the board.
I guess he's still associated, but he quit the board because he wanted to make room for a woman because that would be part of the healing process.
Now, I suppose if you were in his situation, there's no right way to handle this.
You're just sort of in trouble.
So there's no graceful way to acquit yourself.
But if you had to take a swing at it, because you've got to say something, right?
You can't say nothing. Throwing in this, I'm going to make room available to add a woman because there are too many middle-aged white guys on the board.
It's funny. It's sort of laughably weak, but it might still kind of work a little bit in our weird politically correct world.
So I thought that was hilarious that he would even try that move, but it might work.
Who knows? The other thing that's funny is that CNN is promoting their upcoming special about Abraham Lincoln.
And the theme of their special about Abraham Lincoln is He wasn't all good.
Now, I don't know what the details are, and I certainly agree with the historical truth that Lincoln, he wasn't so honest.
If we're being honest, he wasn't so honest.
I think that's well documented that he had some dirty tricks to get elected.
But, and I think that his opinions on race and slavery were a little more complicated than history has told the story.
So I don't think CNN is wrong.
I mean, I don't know if they're right or wrong.
But I'm not going to automatically say that Abe Lincoln was free of any criticism.
But what about the timing of it?
I hope this won't get me cancelled.
but Somebody said of Abraham Lincoln that he was a little bit gay.
First of all, that makes me funny that you could be a little bit gay.
But there is a story about how he used to sleep with a man routinely.
But the sleeping, allegedly, was fairly common in those days.
That sleeping in the same bed with a man, if you were a man, wasn't that unusual, I guess.
So I don't know what the truth of it was, but I'm laughing at your comment that I think he was a little bit gay, just because I don't know what that means.
So there's allegations about Governor Cuomo that are kind of disturbing, but I would say they lack evidence, or proof, anyway, at this point.
Because what we know is that Cuomo released people to nursing homes, and that caused a number of deaths that could have been prevented.
At the same time, he was leaving empty...
The USS Comfort and the Javits Center, which would have been converted for hospital beds.
And he didn't use any of those resources.
Now those resources were provided by the President.
So there's some thought that maybe Cuomo didn't want the President to get any credit for helping, so he left the assets that the President provided empty, tried to use the The senior homes or the nursing homes to store the people who had been infected and that didn't work out well and people died.
But I would caution you this.
I don't think we know what anybody was thinking.
We don't know what he was thinking, do we?
We do know that his aides covered up the deaths after the fact, which is a separate badness from the decision.
I would need to know a lot more about what happened.
Because I'd like to hear the argument.
If you put me in this situation, I probably would not have used the Javits Center or the USS Comfort either.
I think I would have said, you don't want to put even one infected person into a new environment until you need to.
Until you need to.
Because every new environment you create for storing infected people...
I feel like that creates new risk.
I mean, that's just my common sense of it, is you want to have the fewest number of places that have an infection.
It just feels like that would make sense.
So if you didn't need those things, and apparently they didn't need need them, or I suppose you could argue that the people they sent back to the old folks' homes should have gone there instead.
But I'd like to hear more about how the decision was made.
I'm not quite ready to say Cuomo, you know, intentionally killed people for political reasons.
I feel like that's too far.
I have a general feeling about our leaders in this country that might not be fair, but it's how I feel, which is by the time they become presidents or governors, They do actually care about the people.
Even if they didn't when they were running.
I think there's something about having the job.
You know, the office has its own power upon the person who holds the office.
I feel like every president cared about the public.
I'm seeing lots of disagreement about Cuomo.
You know, I'm not telling you that he was innocent.
So I'm not defending him.
I'm just saying that I would personally like a lot better, let's say, visibility on what happened before I'm willing to go all the way toward, you know, this guy has to have his career ended, etc.
Now his career has probably ended just by the scandal itself.
We'll see. Anyway, it's not my job to defend him.
I just want you to make sure you have all the information.
Press Secretary Jen Psaki was asked if in the Biden administration we still consider Israel an ally.
She did not answer that directly.
What do you make of that?
She actually wouldn't directly say Israel is an ally.
Is that just being bad at her job?
Or is that something we need to know about?
That feels like a pretty big deal, doesn't it?
And I'd have to say that just based on the few interactions I've seen...
I've told you before that Trump will look better and better as time goes by, once we get past the impeachment and all that.
Or actually, once you know Trump will not run for office again, and I think there'll be some point where we know that, whenever it is that we know Trump will never run for office again, That will be the point where his reputation starts improving.
At the moment, the people who don't want him to run for president still need to suppress with fake news and ruin his reputation.
But the moment he's not at risk, he's almost immediately going to start looking better historically.
Because there are a lot of stuff he did right that Biden is either going to have to copy or explain why he's not.
And... Anyway, so one of the ways that Trump will look good is that his hiring of Kayleigh McEnany just looks way better than Biden's hiring of Jen Psaki.
They don't even look like they're in the same class of capability.
So that's just one example where Trump will look better as time goes by.
I saw a study that I hope I tweeted, if you're looking for it.
No, I didn't tweet it, but I read it because I got it by email.
And the study looked at all the studies that say masks work, and then all the studies that say they don't.
And they were trying to figure out what's going on here.
How could it be that there would be lots of studies on masks, and you would end up with lots of them that say, oh, masks definitely work, And then a whole bunch of others that say, no, masks don't work.
Here's the study. How could that be?
I mean, at this point, how could we have gotten to this point, 2021, and the science?
I mean, basically, this is like a key tool in the medical science world, right?
And the medical science world hasn't figured out if the masks work.
And we've got tests that say they don't.
Or studies. And we've got studies that say they do.
What the hell?
Right? So this study that I'm mentioning, which I wish I could give you more details on, but it looked official.
It's been submitted for peer review.
It looked at what's different about the studies.
And because I don't understand enough about the statistical, you know, let's say the terms of art, I'm not sure exactly what they mean, but here's what they concluded.
So I'll give it to you in layman's terms.
All of the studies that say masks don't work had something in common.
They were flawed studies.
So flawed that if masks had been 100% effective, said the study, that even if masks had been 100% effective, the way the studies were built, they wouldn't have detected it.
That's right. The studies were so poor that even if masks had been 100% effective, the study couldn't have detected that.
That's how bad they were.
Now, the ones that were done with higher quality, meaning that there are more people involved and there are no obvious problems with it, pretty much all say the masks work.
So if you're looking for understanding why could people show me a link to all these studies that say masks don't work, while somebody else will give me a link to the studies that say they do work, what am I going to do with that?
Well, I can't guarantee that This one study that I'm describing is right, but I'll put it out there that one possibility is that the ones that say masks don't work were underpowered statistically.
Statistically underpowered.
In other words, they didn't have enough data of the right kind to really draw a conclusion of any kind.
So, could that be the answer to the mystery?
Why some people think they work and some people think they do not.
I think so. I think that might be the answer to the mystery.
Can't guarantee it, but it does sound like it might be.
Yeah, it's a sample size problem, I think, for the most part.
Just looking at your comments, because I know that you always go nuts on me when I talk about masks.
I drop followers like crazy whenever I talk about this.
Then we're talking about kids, blah, blah, blah.
Well, my take on kids is if kids do not get bad symptoms themselves, what are the odds that they spread it?
I mean, really. If we know that it's the super spreaders who are responsible for the vast majority of spread, that even an adult who has it Might not spread it that much, unless they have a certain viral load and they're a certain kind of person, I guess. But kids are almost universally unaffected.
So if you're unaffected, even if you're infected, you're unaffected, even if you're infected, how much virus could you possibly be spreading?
If you don't have enough in your body to even affect you with a symptom, I would imagine it's just almost nothing.
But I'm not a medical person, so don't take my word for anything medical.
We're all in this situation where we'd love to trust the science, but we just don't know what to trust.
You don't know which science to trust.
So you're sort of trying to use your best judgment and whatever passes as your common sense to figure this stuff out.
All right. So my take is that kids are not dangerous, certainly below a certain age.
I would treat them as if there's no danger at all.
And in fact, I do treat them as if they're no danger at all.
Don't know if that's right, but that's where my judgment leads me.
Somebody says, I quit wearing a mask last week.
I'm over it. Well, I think, you know, I'm not a mask rebel.
And here's my thinking.
Number one, it probably makes a difference.
So it probably matters.
Number two, it is part of showing that we're all in this together.
And I feel like that matters.
I feel like that matters.
I think you have to...
There's something about shared pain that has more benefit than I think is obvious on the surface.
In other words, if you said to me, Scott, you've recovered from the virus and you took the vaccination too, there's no real chance that you specifically are going to get the virus and pass it on.
I mean, it's possible, but it's such a low chance.
That you don't need to wear a mask.
I feel like I still would.
I feel like I still would.
Because there's a benefit to being a team player.
Let me give you an example.
During the droughts of whatever year that was in California, I have my own well.
So I bought the property I'm on in large part because it came with a well.
Now, in my town, you can't drill a well for your house.
It's illegal. You have to use town water.
But if you already have a well, it's a property that's been there a while, you can use the well, but you can only use it for outdoor stuff.
Now, of course... Even though I can only use my well for landscaping, it's still water.
So I wasn't going to run out of water.
I mean, I would drink it.
It's just not legal.
But if you need water, you're going to drink it.
It's not dangerous.
I get it tested. But I got complaints from the neighbors because I was watering my lawn with my own water.
The water that I owned legally.
And had plenty of it.
As far as I knew, it was a well.
But I got complaints from the city because the neighbors complained and they said, we're letting our lawns die.
Maybe you should let your lawn die too.
Now, there are two ways I could have played this.
Number one, a rebel.
Did that really happen?
Hold on a second. Okay, no.
One is I could say, I will fight the city, you have no legal recourse, I'm going to get my lawyers, and I'm going to use my water that I paid for any way I want, it's a free country.
I could have done that, and I would have been completely within my rights.
My argument, I think, would be completely, completely solid.
It's my water.
That's the end of the story.
I'm going to water my lawn with my fucking water.
That's not the job of the government to tell me I can't do that.
So I could have played it that way.
But I chose instead to be a team player.
And I chose instead because not everybody would know if they drove past my property.
They wouldn't know it was my water.
They would think it was the city water.
And what message would I be sending having the biggest house on the block, That's just a fact.
It's the biggest house on the block.
And watering my lawn in the middle of a drought.
So, at very large expense to myself, I let my landscape die.
Because it was a better team play.
And I don't regret that.
I don't regret that.
There was no reason I had to do it, except for how it felt to other people.
But that is a good reason.
That is a good reason.
It's largely the same argument I make about Confederate statues.
It doesn't matter what I think of the Confederate statues.
It's irrelevant. It's impolite to some large part of the community.
I don't want to be impolite.
I don't want to live in a country with other people who are impolite.
So if I can be polite, I'm going to do it.
And if I can be part of maybe helping the, let's say, the psychology of the public to get through something, be it a drought or be it a pandemic, I'm going to be biased toward the thing that's better for the message and the psychology.
I'm going to be biased toward that, even if it's a substantial discomfort on my side.
I'm willing to take a pretty big hit if there's an obvious societal benefit.
Alright, that's all I've got for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
Alright, YouTubers, you have me for another minute.
That shows you are patriotic.
I don't think so. You know, I don't think you have to be patriotic to do what's best.
I just feel like that should be a normal human instinct and it had more to do with good manners or being polite or just not being a jerk.
Erasing history for politeness sake?
I don't know what that means. I would have taken a different approach.
Somebody says, yeah, you might have.
And I wouldn't even argue that.
If somebody else had played it differently and said, it's my water, I'm going to do whatever I want.
I'd say that's a legitimate opinion.
I wouldn't argue it.
Somebody says, a Danish mask study.
Let me summarize masks.
Ignore every study.
If you see a study that says masks work, ignore it.
If you see a study that says masks don't work, ignore it.
No individual study on masks has any credibility.
But if you look at the totality of them, you might be getting to something like knowledge.
But don't look at any one study.
It doesn't mean anything.
You should literally give it zero credibility.
Not even 1%, if it's just one study.
Oh yes, the Senate calling witnesses.
So I forgot to talk about this, but on CNN they were bleating that they should call more witnesses.
Do you know why you need more witnesses?
Because they lost the case.
They lost the case. You don't want more witnesses if you won.
The Democrats have just lost.
They've completely lost.
And they've given the Republicans all the cover they need to vote against this thing.
So it's over. But they're like, TDS. I must claw some.
