Episode 1285 Scott Adams: Trump Wins the Impeachment Doubleheader While the Press Hides Stories
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
"The Big Lie" demonization of Trump and his supporters
Governor Cuomo story keeps getting worse
Two FAILED impeachments
Democrats manufactured impeachment evidence
Google hides debunking of "Fine People" HOAX?
Rasmusson poll on PUNISHMENT for
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Coffee with Scott Adams, we're going to have a good time.
Even if you're listening to this at 1.5x speed, well, you'll just get the goodness a little bit faster that way, won't you?
But you're only going to get that in replay, I'm afraid.
I can't talk that fast in real time.
But before we begin, What would make this extra special?
I think you know.
It's a simultaneous sip and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stye and a canteen jug or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Oh, this is a problem.
I can't reach my coffee cup because my microphone isn't long enough.
This is a problem.
You're going to have to come with me.
YouTube, stay where you are.
Periscope, come with me.
Come with me.
Oh, yeah.
There we go. That's the good stuff.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go. Oh, I can't put my cup back.
I'm gonna have to fix this.
Hold on. Hold on.
There we go.
All better. Alright, let's talk about all the things.
First of all, happy Valentine's Day.
Valentine's Day. My denture's working.
I don't have dentures.
Just kidding. Happy Valentine's Day.
Why can't I say that word?
Happy Valentine's Day.
Happy Valentine's Day.
Special shout out to my incredible wife, Christina.
Happy Valentine's Day to you if you're watching.
And I hope you're up early so you can.
So the U.S. is reporting the lowest number of weekly COVID cases since October.
All right. All right.
Is the vaccine working?
Maybe. Because I would think we would have the highest infections now, right?
We're right in the middle of February.
Wouldn't February be one of your bad virus months automatically?
Well, let's keep that going.
So that's some good news.
You know, you've been hearing about this allegation that the COVID coronavirus came from a lab in Wuhan.
We do not have proof of that.
That is an allegation.
But one of the things you're hearing about is whether or not the so-called gain of function Could be detected.
In other words, if somebody had tried to take regular natural viruses, and if someone, let's say a major military power with a biological lab, if they tried to weaponize that by tweaking it to make it extra deadly or to have some special gain of function to make it more of a weapon, Would we be able to spot that by looking at the virus?
In other words, could you look at the virus and say, well, look, there's a little man-made thing in there, that virus.
And when this first, when the pandemic first came out, and people were, I heard experts say on television, the experts said, no, you know, we looked at it and You could tell.
I mean, you could tell if it were modified and it's just a regular virus.
Blah, blah, blah. To which I said to myself, can you?
Can you tell?
Because it seemed to me that there would be at least two ways that you could modify a virus.
And this is without knowing anything, right?
My complete zero knowledge of science is going to be fully applied here.
One way, it seems to me, would be directly.
If you could literally directly somehow add a thing or subtract a thing from a virus, I don't know, can we do that?
Is there some lab that can add or subtract something from a virus?
Is that even a thing? I don't know.
I suppose if that existed, maybe you could detect it.
You'd say, ah, that can't happen naturally.
That must have been some human did that.
But the second way that you can create gain of function, somebody says a CRISPR can.
So you can change the DNA in a virus.
Is it DNA? A virus isn't even alive, right?
A virus is technically not alive.
So I don't know exactly what kind of stuff is inside a virus.
We're well beyond my scientific knowledge.
Somebody says genes. I don't know if that's right either.
So let me not try to guess on the science.
I'm going to make my major point, which is there must be at least two ways you can modify them.
One would be directly, if we can do that.
But the other way would be to just breed it naturally.
How can you breed a virus?
Well, apparently the way you do it is you put one animal who has the virus, let's say a penguin or whatever, pangolin or whatever those things are.
You put it somewhere where it can infect another animal.
Let's say a different kind of mammal or bird or a pig.
And then maybe the pig Infects yet another animal.
So I need a fact check on this, but my understanding is that if you create these artificial infection scenarios where the virus will jump from, and this is the key, one species to another, that during the jump from species, The virus changes.
Some of those changes will be nothing.
Some will make it less deadly.
Some might make it more deadly.
So you could experiment just by reinfecting different types of animals until you ended up with a virus that had some extra good stuff just by accident that you wanted.
And that would be a gain of function.
Now let me ask you this.
If scientists looked at a virus that had gone through, hypothetically, The transition from multiple species to give it a gain of function.
Could you identify that?
I mean, really.
Do we have any science that could identify that a human put these animals together as opposed to there was something in the wild in which they just got infected?
I don't think so.
Somebody says probabilistically.
Maybe. Maybe.
But I don't think you could be sure.
Right? So I'll just put that out there.
And by the way, the first person I asked this question to privately, just without, you know, something I didn't do on Twitter or didn't do publicly, but just privately, I asked the smartest person I knew in this kind of area, could you put a gain of function on there that nobody could detect?
What do the smartest people say?
Yeah, obviously you could.
Of course you could.
Now, I don't know if they're right, but I'm telling you, the smartest people I know say, yeah, obviously you could do that.
So, maybe, maybe not.
The Daily Mail is reporting today something that I just had to keep reading and rereading to see if it...
I didn't even think I was really reading it.
All right? Tell me if you've heard this.
So the Daily Mail is reporting this like it's just a fact.
Is this a fact?
Here's what they report.
The Pentagon admits, admits being the key word here, the Pentagon admits that it has been testing wreckage from UFO crashes, including a possible, quote, memory metal that experts claim may have been recovered during the 1947 Russia...
Roswell crash. What?
They're reporting this like it's a fact.
Now, they're not quite saying that it's an alien spaceship piece of metal.
They're not quite saying that.
But they are saying, we found some metal that doesn't appear to come from human beings.
And they're calling this, they're reporting it like it's a fact.
Somebody says, yes, it's called nitinol.
Now, is this story real?
Right. So when they say UFOs, they just mean unidentified.
So it could have been an unidentified, let's say, Russian technology that we don't recognize.
So it's just unidentified.
They don't say it's from outer space, but they do kind of say it's a metal we don't make here on Earth.
And it wasn't something that came off an asteroid.
It was something that somebody made And it doesn't look like he came from Earth.
What do you think?
What do you think about this story?
I am going to call bullshit on this story.
I do not believe that there is life on other planets because I think we're a simulation and it was just never built out because we didn't need it.
So there's just no reason for life to be on other planets, because we're a simulation.
And if we can't get to those other planets easily, well, we just didn't need to put anything there.
So I don't believe it, but it's a fun story.
It's a fun story, and so therefore I like it, because it's fun.
So here's my take on the illegitimate press that we have in this country.
You're seeing a lot of the anti-Trumpers.
We use a phrase called the big lie.
So they're using this label, the big lie, to talk about Trump's claim that the election had been fraudulent.
Now, you may be familiar that the phrase big lie comes from Nazi propaganda.
And the idea is that the Nazis said, if you tell a small lie, you know, such as somebody who stole a loaf of bread or something, People are inclined, you know, maybe believe it, maybe not.
But if you tell a lie that's so big, if it's big enough, people will believe it because they will say to themselves, well, nobody can tell a lie that big.
You know, like if you heard tomorrow that an actual alien spaceship landed in the middle of the Capitol and all of the news reported it was true, that's so big that it's probably true.
Your brain just says, that can't be not true.
How could that be not true?
Everybody is reporting it.
How could that not be true?
So if the lie is big enough, it makes it look more credible.
And that is literally a Nazi propaganda trick.
That's where we get the phrase, the big lie.
Now, when your press in the United States It refers to Trump and, by extension, his followers as spreading the, quote, big lie.
What is that doing to public discourse?
Well, number one, it conflates Trump supporters by association with Trump, and many of them agreed with him on this point.
It equates them to Nazis.
That's what it does.
The reason they choose that is to equate Trump and his followers with Nazis.
Fuck you.
Let me say this.
To any press person who uses the phrase the big lie and tries to paint Trump supporters as Nazis, just in this clever little way, it's racist.
It's racist. I regard that like the N-word, but used against me.
To me, that is as offensive as the N-word is to anybody else.
Now, can I compare offensiveness?
No. I mean, it's subjective.
But it's a 10.
I would say that if you said to any black American, how bad is the use of the N-word, if you're not black when you're using it, how bad is that?
I think they say that's a 10 out of 10.
I would agree. That's a 10 out of 10, my personal opinion.
You can't get any worse than using the N-word, you know, if you're not black.
Likewise, this is a 10 out of fucking 10.
When you're using literally Nazi imagery to paint your enemies just because they weren't sure that the Election had transparency.
That's fucking racism.
That's a 10 and a fucking 10.
And if you use it, as I just read in the Washington Post, somebody using that phrase, you're a fucking racist.
You're a fucking racist.
Live with it. You fucking racist.
Now, you might be a white person being racist against other white people, but it's still the same fucking thing.
You're a fucking racist.
All right? And I believe that my anger about that phrase is going to keep increasing until people understand this is unacceptable behavior.
Now there is a second problem with using this big lie.
Do you know what it is?
From a persuasion propaganda perspective.
Anybody? Anybody?
Tell me what is the propaganda brainwashing quality of using the phrase the big lie.
In the comments, you're going to have it in a moment.
It's making you think past the sale.
When they say it's the big lie, they try to make you uncritically accept that it's a lie.
We haven't determined that.
It has not been determined that it's a lie.
It is simply something that the people who don't believe it think is probably not true.
It's not the big fucking lie.
It's the big fucking probably not true according to you.
That's what it is.
It's probably not true according to you, if you're people using the big lie phrase.
It's not a lie.
That would indicate that we know it's not true.
We simply know it hasn't been proven yet.
That there's any widespread fraud in the court of law.
That's what we know.
We don't know it's a big fucking lie.
And when you tell us it's a big fucking lie, that's a big fucking lie.
That's the big lie.
Now, remember I keep telling you, I hate it, I hate it when Tucker Carlson keeps being right about this.
He just keeps being right.
That whatever they're doing, Whatever they're doing themselves, they'll accuse you of.
And I swear to God, I don't want that to be true.
Because I just don't know why it's true.
Like, I can't figure out why.
Why does this keep being true?
But this is exactly what they're doing with this big lie thing.
The big lie is to make it look like the thing they're doing, they're doing, which is lying about the credibility of the election, We don't know it was honest.
We don't know that it wasn't honest.
We simply don't fucking know.
And nobody's fixing it.
Nobody's fucking fixing it.
There is no effort by anybody that I'm aware of, fact check me on this, to fix the fucking system.
Because it's going to be just as non-transparent next time.
So here again, the illegitimate press is accusing the right of their own crime, spreading the big lie.
Somebody asked me if this phrase, the big lie, is so good persuasively that maybe it came from Cialdini.
Robert Cialdini.
Now, if you know my history, I've talked about him as possibly being, or probably, being an advisor to the Clinton campaign.
There's no indication that he was involved with the Biden campaign.
I don't know one way or the other.
But somebody asked me, do you think he was behind this phrase, the big lie?
I'm going to give you just an opinion.
No. And here's why I don't think he was behind the big lie.
Because it's a racist, fucking, brainwashing, piece of shit thing to do.
And I have no reason to believe that Robert Cialdini is a fucking piece of shit.
No indication of that.
In fact, I believe he's actually taught courses on ethically using persuasion.
He would be exactly the opposite of somebody who would give you advice to To compare people to fucking Nazis.
He didn't do that.
Now, I suppose anything's possible, right?
I could be wrong. I'm only just speculating.
But it's kind of fucking crazy to imagine that a normal person would do this.
This isn't what normal people who are good people do.
And as far as I know, Chiltini is a normal good person.
This is fucking evil.
I have no reason to think he's fucking evil.
I think he just likes Democrats more than Republicans.
Fine. No problem with that.
Alright, different topic. Jonathan Haidt.
H-A-I-D-T. How do you pronounce his last name?
A well-known author.
He... Tweeted around a study that says that kids who get help from adults to solve a puzzle become helpless on the next puzzle.
And you can see it in real time.
It happens instantly.
So if you have a puzzle and kids are trying to solve it, you have half of the kids just work as long as they can without any help, and then another half you have a parent jump in and say, ah, here's the solution, and solve it for them.
Then you wait a little bit and you give those same two groups of people a new challenge, a new puzzle.
The ones who had no help charge right through and do the same thing they did on the first one.
They try as hard as they can to solve it and succeed to some extent.
The ones who got help can't solve the second one because they can't try hard enough.
They've been ruined, actually broken, By giving them too much help.
Now, I have often said this about my own parenting experience.
My parents were maybe typical of the time, I'm not sure, but they were fairly hands-off, I would say.
I don't know if my siblings are watching this, but I would look for a second opinion on this.
Belief or memory of my childhood is that we had almost unprecedented ability to make our own decisions about stuff and to manage our own day.
I don't believe...
Listen to this and then compare this to 2021.
If you have kids in school right now, just hear this story and just try to imagine this today.
My parents...
Didn't really show an interest in my schoolwork at all.
Now, they told me they expected me to get A's and they expected me to go to college.
And it was just an expectation which they drilled, my mother especially, drilled into us from birth.
You're going to college.
You're getting A's. But how I did that was entirely up to me.
Not once did my mother or father offer to help on my homework.
I don't remember even asking.
And yeah, I'm seeing in the comments, same here, same here.
So when I graduated college, just try to imagine this experience in 2021.
So I graduated college with a little bit of money I got from graduation and some I'd saved up.
I had about $2,000, I guess, in savings.
From mowing lawns plus, you know, graduation gifts.
And I took two suitcases and the one suit I owned that I think I got from Sears.
I bought a suit from Sears.
And I wore my suit on an airplane, took my two pieces of luggage and moved to California.
And with no plan, figured it out.
That's it. I actually flew across the country to spend the rest of my life Without a plan.
The plan was to sleep on my brother's couch and look for a job, if you can call that a plan.
The second part of the plan was to find the first job I could get at the best company in the field that I wanted, which was finance.
I was an economics major.
So I took a job as a bank teller for the fastest moving technologically Superior company called Crocker Bank.
Later they were bought by Wells Fargo.
So I took the worst job I could at the best company.
I signed up for every training course they can.
Later in later years I got my MBA at night and I basically built a talent stack that gave me a lot of options that got me all the way to here.
Now I had zero help from my parents on the details.
I had 100% help from my parents on the mission.
And the mission was always the same.
You're going to do well in school.
You're going to go to college.
You're going to be rich.
Now, I'd have to ask my siblings if they were also told they were going to be rich, but my parents told me that.
And sure enough, I had an expectation.
I had all the support I needed.
I didn't need any more.
I didn't want any more. And I'm pretty sure that the fact I had to figure out so much on my own is like a superpower.
I never encounter a situation where I don't know what to do.
I mean, that's an exaggeration.
I'm sure I do. But I go through my life thinking I can conquer just about anything.
Because that's my experience.
Nobody jumped in to save me.
So I either failed, you know, I either sank or swam, and so far I'm swimming.
So I believe we may be destroying an entire generation by being helpful.
We might be destroying them by being helpful.
It's scary. This Governor Cuomo story and the nursing home's deaths It's just getting worse.
Oh my God.
You know, I've been telling you that as a standard of behavior, I didn't want to be the one who was tough on any of our leaders if they got anything wrong during the coronavirus.
And I've been applying that to Cuomo, trying to be consistent and saying, yes, it's true that very bad things happened.
But I feel like we would need to know the details of exactly what caused him to sign off on the decision to send 9,000 infected people back into the worst place they could be sent.
I feel as if...
It seems to me that I saw him saying in an interview that he was following federal guidelines at the time.
Can somebody confirm that?
Is that his actual explanation, that they were the federal guidelines and he just followed them?
Give me a fact check on that.
Anyway, the news I follow tends to consistently leave out whatever it is that Cuomo says as his response to why all these people died.
I'm looking in the comments.
Yes, I'm saying yes.
Now, if you watch Fox News, they'll just never mention that.
They will just never mention...
That according to Cuomo, and I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying according to Cuomo, that he has a pretty good explanation.
On paper, whether you buy it or not, but on paper, that's a pretty good explanation.
Now somebody says he had a hospital ship and he had the Javits Center.
That's true. But, I put myself in his situation and I ask you this.
Would you have sent infected people To those assets if you thought you didn't need to use them, and you might be able to close them down and save a ton of money later.
Now, it might be the federal government's money, but still, who wants to waste a bunch of money?
So, I put myself in this situation, and I tell you this.
I'm not positive I would have acted differently than Cuomo in that situation.
Are you? Be honest.
Are you positive that if you were in that situation, you would have acted differently?
I'm not. I'm not positive of that.
Which is why I have been soft on this topic.
Because if you put me in that situation and I'm making a decision a minute because it's the pandemic, plus I'm still the governor, right?
I've got a whole pandemic on top of my job.
Which is a full-time job.
A million decisions, somebody comes and says, what do we do with the seniors?
The federal guideline says, send them back to the nursing home, just make sure that they're separated or whatever.
So you're making a million decisions.
The federal government tells you what to do in this exact situation.
And you know that they've looked into it.
You're not supposed to be the expert.
You're not the CDC. So the federal government says, send them back, and you're making a million decisions.
And you go, yeah, here, send them back.
And then you go on to your other million decisions.
If you can tell me that you say you would not have done the same thing Cuomo did, and I don't know if I'm describing it correctly, right?
So I'm seeing a little pushback.
I might not be describing the situation correctly.
But my point is, if you weren't there...
If you weren't there, I don't think you know what happened.
And that's why I'm still putting a little bit of reservation on a complete blame of Cuomo for a bad decision that killed thousands of people who didn't need to die.
But the story got way worse.
Way worse. I reached the limit of where I can give somebody the benefit of a doubt.
Yeah, I see it in the comments.
Apparently, his staff, and he must have known about it, lied to cover up the number of deaths.
And they lied because it would look bad if they said the real number.
And they've admitted that.
That's now in fact that they lied about the number because they didn't want it to look so bad.
That's grounds for removal from office.
There is nothing I can say to soften that.
I mean, I've been pretty, pretty generous, wouldn't you say?
I'm trying to apply the same standard that I applied to Trump and any other leader, trying to apply the same standard to Cuomo, trying to be fair.
But when I heard that they lied about the number of deaths, and it looks reliably like that's true.
You always have to be careful.
We're still in the fog of war.
It's a new story. Might not be true, but it looks true.
That's unforgivable.
That's a crime, isn't it?
I mean, I think it's a crime.
That's unforgivable. So if it turns out that the facts are correct, I don't think Cuomo can remain in office.
I just don't see how that's possible.
I mean, he might remain in office, but I don't see how that could make sense for the public.
All right, here's an observation which I make a lot, and every time I do, there's some new evidence to support it.
And it goes like this.
Democrats think in terms of goals.
A goal, for example, would be everybody is out of poverty.
Pretty good, right? That would be a good goal, get everybody out of poverty.
Another goal would be something for the environment and climate change, etc.
So the Democrats are good on goals.
In fact, I like a lot of their goals, because they're social good kinds of goals.
Everybody treated nice.
Everybody's got equal opportunities.
Those are good goals. Very good goals.
Republicans have a slightly different take on things, and this is just an observation.
It doesn't mean everyone, right?
It's sort of a general observation.
And Republicans tend to be systems-oriented.
That is to say, we don't know what the final outcome will be, and we don't know how long it will take to get there, and we don't even know if we can get there.
We'd like a world where there's nobody in poverty, but we can't make that a goal.
But we can make a system that does the best job of getting us there.
And if you design your systems right, let's say your capitalism systems and your Your democratic systems, your government systems, your legal system.
If you get all those systems working right, then the goals take care of themselves as much as can be.
You maybe can't get to the ultimate end point, but it's the best you can do.
Now look at Mitch McConnell's statement many of you saw, in which he talked about the impeachment outcome in which the president was acquitted.
Mitch McConnell voted to acquit.
The reason was systemic.
McConnell said, I don't think that the Senate has jurisdiction over someone who's not in politics anymore.
Now, the Democrats would say, wait a minute, we've got this precedent.
We've got this legal precedent.
We've got this history where we've got this case where you really can do that.
But here's the thing.
Suppose you really could do that.
Let's say the Democrats were right.
Let's say the law was on their side.
Let's say they could impeach somebody who's out of office.
Should they? Should they?
Is that a system that you would want going forward?
Do you want that to be your system that applies forever?
I very much agreed with Mitch McConnell.
Now, he may have been inconsistent with case law, but he's not inconsistent with what makes a good system.
And a good system is, why the fuck does the Senate have any control over a private citizen after they're out of office?
Now, obviously, in the sense of making laws, that's their job.
But in terms of impeachment?
What the fuck do you have to do with that?
I don't care what the case law is.
It doesn't matter what the case law is.
It's obvious that's a bad system to punish somebody after they're out of office.
Now, as McConnell says and others say, we do have a legal system.
If Trump did something that the legal system needs to deal with, there's no restriction on that.
But Mitch McConnell...
I completely back his decision exactly the way he did it.
I like the entire thing he did.
Now, he was very hard on Trump for his responsibility for the Capitol attack.
Do you feel the same as McConnell does about the Capitol attack?
Do you feel like McConnell was maybe a little too hard on the president?
I don't care.
I don't care at all.
Here's why. We have this dumb fuck system where the victims of the crime, in this case the politicians who are actually at the Capitol, they're the victims of the crime.
They're the ones with PTSD. They're the ones who are being hunted.
They're the ones who are afraid for their lives.
McConnell is a fucking victim of the crime that he was on the jury to judge.
What kind of a fucking system Puts the victim or the victim's family on the fucking jury.
What kind of a system is that?
If you put the victim on the fucking jury, don't expect them to say nice things about the perpetrator of the crime.
Mitch McConnell should have gone.
I won't use the word should.
I hate that word. It seems entirely appropriate to me That the victim of the crime is a little bit pissed off.
Put yourself in Mitch McConnell's place.
You are in the Capitol, and you don't think your president did enough to save your fucking life.
I probably would have voted to impeach.
Just leave that hanging there.
If I had been in the Senate...
And I, or even just my colleagues, had been in the Capitol building, and I didn't think the president did enough to stop it, I wouldn't even care what the charges were.
I wouldn't even care what the impeachment articles were.
I wouldn't even care about any of it.
I would fucking vote to impeach that guy.
If I were the victim. Now, I'm not the victim, so I get the advantage of being outside the system a little bit, so I've got a little bit more objectivity.
But in my opinion, anybody who was in the building, Ted Cruz, anybody else, could have voted to impeach.
I would have done it just as a victim.
Forget my responsibility to the public.
I wouldn't even care.
So maybe you shouldn't make me a senator.
Because I would have ignored the law.
I would have ignored the facts.
Except the one fact that I didn't think the president did enough to save my fucking life.
I'd care about that.
And I wouldn't care about one fucking thing else.
So I backed Mitch McConnell's take on this 100%.
And I actually...
Respect him for using a technical argument that I agree with, that the Senate should not have jurisdiction, even though maybe technically they do.
So, a standing ovation for Mitch McConnell for the way he handled this as a victim.
As a victim. Right?
If that's the system, putting victims on the jury, this is what you're going to get.
So, good for him.
All right. So, I think that going forward, I'm going to always say that Trump was acquitted of two impeachments and therefore was essentially not impeached.
Now, I know that impeachment is sort of like...
Just a stain that's supposed to be on their record.
It's not exactly like indicting somebody.
But, you know, in the criminal system, if you indict somebody for a crime, and then they go to trial, and the jury finds them not guilty, what do we say to that person?
Do we say, well, there was an indicted person?
No, we don't talk of it that way, because that wouldn't be fair.
We talk about it as a person who's been found not guilty.
That's how we talk about it. But if you get impeached, which is a little bit like indictment, and then you get acquitted, we still say you were impeached.
Is that fair? It seems to me if the impeachment doesn't go all the way to the point of impeachment, the point is removal from office.
If it doesn't go to that point, can you say an impeachment succeeded?
I would say it's two failed impeachments.
You can say they were impeachments, but they were failed impeachments.
It was two attempts to impeach them that failed.
And then people can say, but there was an impeachment.
And then you can say, yes, there totally was.
There was a failed impeachment.
There was an unsuccessful one.
And then they'll say, no, no, it was successful.
Because the impeachment part is separate from the trial part.
To which you say, what's the point of the first part?
What's the purpose of the first part without the second part?
Would you even do that?
Because it's just a censure.
If it doesn't go to removing from office, it's just a censure.
It's not really an impeachment.
So, just to be annoying to Democrats, because I know they'll hate it, I'm going to say that there were two impeachment attempts, but neither of them succeeded.
Trump wins the doubleheader.
I saw a tweet from Don Jr.
this morning talking about what a bad week the Democrats have had.
Everything from the impeachment results to the self-immolation of the Lincoln Project to Governor Cuomo's problems.
It's a really bad week.
And that's not even counting what Biden has done or not done.
So here's the weirdest dumb story.
uh Somebody named T.J. Ducklow.
It's spelled just like a duck and then with an L-O on the end.
So he was Biden's deputy press secretary and I guess Politico was going to do an article about him.
No. Somebody was going to do an article about him about a relationship he had with some other reporter.
Axios was going to do Article about Duclo's alleged relationship with a reporter for Politico.
Now, is that a fair story?
Yes. It is fair to report that somebody is in a romantic situation if one is a reporter and one works for the press corps.
That's fair, right?
One works for the White House communications group.
So it's perfectly fair that they were going to do the story.
Now what's reported is that T.J. Ducklow threatened the reporter when he found out she was going to do the story, and his threat was that he would destroy her.
And at first they were going to give him a week off without pay or something, but then he quit, which means basically he got fired.
So I'm going to throw you a curve here, and I'm going to defend T.J. Ducklow.
Bet you didn't see that coming.
And here's my defense.
The phrase, I'm going to destroy you, Is number one, typical political speech.
It's not typical where you work, but it's typical political speech.
That threat is probably the most common threat that anybody's ever used.
And it's better.
Here's the second part.
Totally justified and legal.
Legal and justified.
Just as The reporter doing a story about this, which would end up ruining this guy's career, etc., totally justified.
The reporter is completely within her rights to do the story, and it's a legitimate story.
Completely within her rights to do the story.
But Ducklow is completely within his rights to destroy her life.
I mean, meaning her career.
When he says, I'll destroy you, that should be interpreted as career-wise.
It should not be interpreted the dumb way, which is some kind of violence or anything like that.
I feel like that's fair.
And it seems worse because one's male and one's female, so it takes on that extra dimension.
But telling people that you'll destroy them if they destroy you, if it's all legal, everybody's acting legally, I don't know.
I don't know. I feel like this is kind of normal behavior.
It became a story, so Biden had to deal with it.
He probably did the right thing. But I'm not sure this was so bad.
I'm looking at your comments.
Somebody says, I'm okay with this.
You can defend that, but it was Joe's promise to not tolerate bad behavior.
Joe kept his promise. Joe kept his promise because he's gone now.
I'm going to give Joe a pass on that.
Now, it looked like he was going to get a week off, but as soon as there was some pushback from the public, probably that's when Biden got involved.
My guess is that Biden really wasn't involved in a lower-level decision like that.
But I think he probably said, when somebody said, hey, Biden, you said you'd get rid of people who acted this way, I think he kept his promise and got rid of them.
Now, it's reported that he resigned, but I imagine it's the same thing.
All right. So, you don't have to agree with me on that, but that's my take.
Biden said he...
In talking about the impeachment, Biden said that he denounced violence and extremism and said Americans have a duty to defend the truth and defeat the lies.
This is the man who ran and based his campaign...
on the Find People hoax, which was debunked in front of the entire world, in front of Congress, on every network.
The biggest lie ever told, the most damaging one by far.
And he's coming out in favor of truth and defeating the lies.
Now, his entire campaign was built on a lie that has just been debunked.
But Will the press call him on that?
They will not. Here's a question for you.
The biggest complaint about Trump was that he had to know his words would cause the kind of violence that we saw at the Capitol.
That Trump had to know it.
Because common sense says if you keep talking about the election being stolen and then you talk the way you talked, Any reasonable person in that situation would have known that those words would lead to violence.
But here's the question.
Why didn't the security people know that?
The people who were in charge of security for the Capitol, why didn't they know that?
Because they didn't have enough security?
If Trump was supposed to know that, but all the people who listened to him talk didn't know it, why wouldn't they know it?
What about the press? The press is pretty clear when they say that anybody should have known that these words would lead to violence.
Was the press telling you that the Capitol was going to be attacked yesterday, before it happened?
Did the press warn you?
Did the press say, hey, why isn't there enough security?
We can all see that this will lead to violence.
Did they? I don't think they did.
So, what you're seeing here is a hindsight persuasion.
They're trying to make you believe that what is obvious today was also obvious before the Capitol attack.
Now, I watch a lot of politics, and I listen to most of what the President says.
I had no idea that the Capitol would actually be penetrated.
No idea. Did you?
How many of you, listening to everything that Trump said, watching the news, how many of you knew that the Capitol would be breached?
I kind of assumed that they would have security.
Right? Now, I knew that there would be protests no matter which way things went.
Protests were guaranteed.
But I also thought that the protests in cities would look just the way they always do.
Too many things get destroyed.
But I figure that any kind of protest in the Capitol would not penetrate the actual Capitol.
How many of you, with all of your common sense and judgment and watching the news, how many of you knew that the Capitol was going to be attacked?
Right? Fucking zero.
We didn't know that.
You know, you could make the same argument about a million different statements by a million different politicians.
Sometimes people say things and then sometime after that a bad thing will happen related to the thing they said.
Does that mean they caused it?
I think it's just sometimes bad things happen and sometimes people were talking about them before they happened.
That's probably all that's going on here.
Alright. So, that's another thing that the press, which is completely illegitimate, as you know, both the left and the right at this point, they don't tell you what I just told you, which is that fucking nobody knew it was going to happen, and they imagine that Trump is suddenly the smartest person in the world.
Their entire case depends on the fact that you will believe they've been lying for five years.
That they were lying about how insightful and smart Trump is.
Because the entire case depends on him being smarter than all of us.
Because somehow he knew the Capitol would get penetrated or that violence would happen in some way.
But you didn't.
You didn't know it.
I mean, I didn't know it.
But I guess he's the smartest person in the world now because he should have known it.
Um... Have you heard the story about there was some angry phone call with McCarthy and Trump during the Capitol assault where people were breaking through McCarthy's windows and Trump allegedly was not too concerned about it?
Now, I don't know what did or did not happen in that phone call, but I would say of all the news this week that you should not trust to be accurate, it would be this story.
These stories are never accurate.
The ones where somebody's reporting what somebody else said to somebody else?
They're never accurate.
Never. Like actually zero times you could depend on this to be true.
Zero times. So, yeah, they just don't believe any of it.
You should discount that.
The Democrats, when they got their final closing argument, amazingly, Did not address the fact that Trump's lawyers had pointed out that they had manufactured evidence in a number of cases, a number of instances.
Manufactured evidence.
Faked evidence and showed it to the world in public.
That actually happened.
And it got called out, not just the find people hoax video they showed, but also there was the fake tweet that they took out of context and added a Added a blue check.
And I saw Van Der Veen being interviewed by one of the CBS local stations, I think.
Well, I tweeted it this morning.
You have to see Van Der Veen answering the press and just eviscerating the press.
You have to see this.
But as he pointed out, the Democrats didn't even address Didn't even address it.
They simply ignored the fact that the evidence had been manufactured by their own team.
Now, if the Democrats had even just an iota of, let's say, usefulness or morality or ethics...
The managers would have said, oh my god, it looks like the evidence we presented wasn't even real.
And they should have just dropped the case and said, alright, you're right, we quit.
And we resign right now.
If they had ethics, but they don't.
So, what do you make of the fact that they didn't even address the fact that there was manufactured evidence?
Now, as Van Der Veen points out, if this had been a criminal trial, that would be the end of the trial.
If you know that the prosecution makes up evidence, that's the end of the trial.
You don't need to hear the other stuff.
That's a pretty good standard.
And it gets worse.
So by far, the biggest story of the week, by far, there's nothing even close.
The impeachment itself is nowhere near how big this story is.
That the biggest hoax in this country that actually determined who's the president, Biden is probably president because of the fine people hoax.
Now, not by itself, but it's so important that if you took that out, I don't think you would have won.
I don't think so.
It was so important to the Misunderstanding of who this president is that I think it determined the fate of the country.
And this was a lie perpetrated by Democrats and the press right in front of the country, super damaging, obviously incited death and destruction.
I mean, I'm sure a lot more people died from that hoax if you put all the activity together.
Than the capital assault, as tragic as that was.
I don't think they're even close. I think the find people hoax is way more damaging, even in death and destruction terms.
So that's the biggest story in the country.
Now do a Google search on this term.
Impeachment find people hoax.
Because remember, Van Der Veen actually used the phrase, find people hoax, which is the first time I've heard it, not from people like me on social media.
I'm sure it's been in the news somewhere, but hearing him say actually find people hoax made my day.
But go ahead and Google that.
Google the biggest story in the country, find people hoax.
Put it in quotes so you get the same results.
So quotes around find people hoax, the whole thing.
Will it come up with a CNN story about how the biggest hoax in the country has been debunked?
Nope. Oh, I'm being corrected.
Somebody says that Van Der Veen called it the fine people lie.
Incorrect. He called it the fine people lie when he gave his case.
When he was doing the summary, he called it the fine people hoax.
So he used both terms, but the last one he used was hoax.
So you will see if you search that on Google that the top publication, I think, would be Breitbart.
And Breitbart is largely hidden by Google, intentionally.
Their algorithm actually hides Breitbart.
Now, the other entities are right-leaning publications that most people have not heard of.
If you had Googled this and you were a Democrat, and you saw that the top result was Breitbart, which you had incorrectly been told gives you fake news compared to other outlets, Not true.
Not true. All the outlets have had problems.
Breitbart is probably more accurate than any of them.
That's just observationally.
They seem more accurate than any of them.
And you wouldn't read it.
You wouldn't read it.
And if you did, you wouldn't believe it.
Because you've been told not to.
So Google is actually hiding...
Or the algorithm is?
It looks intentional.
If I had to guess, without knowing, I'd have to guess a person, an actual human being, did direct actions to hide the story.
Because I'll bet if they had not directly tried to hide it, I'll bet it would come up.
Now, it could be that it doesn't come up because the major networks didn't cover it.
The biggest story in the country, by far, there's nothing even close, didn't even cover it.
On the other networks.
Did Fox? What about Fox?
Fox News should pop right up on the top, right?
You know it got covered there.
Well, it got covered on the opinion shows.
Did it get covered on the news?
I'm not sure it did.
I don't know it did.
The opinion people, of course, talked about it.
But when you watch this happening right in front of you, This is happening in real time, right now.
The news and social media are suppressing the biggest story in the country.
Right now, right now, while you watch it, this is happening to you.
What do you make of that?
Stop calling it news, Scott, as somebody says.
Yeah, it's not really news, is it?
I mean, fake news is part of it.
All right. So, I don't know which other networks are covering it, Newsmax, OAN, probably will be on there, but I'll bet if you do a Google search, it won't come up.
Now, how do the fact-checking organizations cover it?
PolitiFact covers the find people hoax issue, And then do they conclude that the fine people thing was true, or do they conclude that it was false, meaning it's a hoax?
What do you think Politico concluded after watching it being completely debunked simply by showing the whole video?
That's it. The whole debunk is just showing the whole video.
You don't even have to add any opinion to it.
So Politico now, of course, has seen the whole video, because everybody has, if they watch the impeachment.
And what did they say?
Was it true? Or was it false?
Here's the PolitiFact final analysis.
Quote, more context is needed.
Fuck you, PolitiFact.
Fuck you. You don't need any more context.
It's false.
Amazing. This is happening right in front of us.
Right in front of us this is happening.
So here are some red lines that I've drawn.
If the Republicans don't try to impeach Swalwell for manufacturing evidence during the trial...
And if they don't try to impeach Biden for spreading the find people hoax as the basis of his campaign, I can't support them.
I don't think I can support any Republican for president who won't try to at least raise the issue.
Obviously, they would be unsuccessful because of how many Democrats there are in Congress.
But if they just let that lay there, they're just letting you take an arrow in the back.
If Republicans let this go after it's been debunked, and it's the biggest story in the country, and they don't try to impeach Biden over it, they're worthless.
They're worthless. I just can't support anybody who won't take this on.
It's the biggest thing in the country.
Biggest story. And you're just going to ignore it?
And I'll go further.
If there's somebody who's planning to run in 2024, and they would like my support early, here's how to get it.
Here's how to get it.
Now, I don't know, maybe if it's somebody I don't like for some other reason, I'd have a problem.
But you'd have a big leg up on winning the presidency if you try to impeach Biden for the fine people hoax.
You won't succeed, but you need to try.
Right? You need to try.
You need to try.
It's not optional.
How can I fucking support a Republican who won't try to do this?
For us. Do it for me.
A citizen. Right?
Do it for the people who are watching.
Do it for the country.
Do it to show people what the fake news has done to them for the last five years.
You gotta do this.
Somebody. Ted Cruz?
You've got the balls. I'll use balls in a non-sexual way so that, in this context, women can have ovaries or balls or whatever you want.
I'll make it non-sexist.
But Ted Cruz has the balls.
I don't know if he'll do it, but he has the balls, at least.
I don't know if anybody else will. And I would look to the principle of reciprocity here.
If there's no Republican who can bail out the citizens on this fine people hoax thing, if he can't bail us out, don't expect help.
Because we don't ask for much, right?
I suppose we do ask for a lot, citizens.
But I don't.
There's not much I'm demanding, right?
Right? You haven't heard me demanding things.
But I do demand this.
I demand this. I demand this.
You gotta stop leaving us out here exposed.
You can't let the fake news and the platforms do this to us.
They're doing it to us.
Right now, as I sit here, they're doing it to us.
Give us some fucking help.
Rasmussen reports.
Rasmussen did a poll and found out...
I don't even know how to deal with this result.
But the question was, should public figures be punished for saying they believe the 2020 election was stolen?
Democrats, 54% of them, said public figures should be punished for an opinion...
About something that can't be proven either way and is important.
And that 54% of Democrats think they should be punished for that opinion.
Just chew on that.
Just chew on that for a second.
You want to be even more angry?
You think that made you angry?
I'm not done. Alright?
Feel how angry you are now and watch me take it up a level.
54% of Democrats, as I said, think public figures should be punished for saying they believe the 2020 election was stolen.
Are you mad enough? You're gonna get a little madder in a moment.
21% of Republicans agree.
21% of Republicans think that a public figure should be punished For saying they believe the 2020 election was stolen.
Punished. Republicans.
Among all voters, 35%, more than a third, think a public figure.
Now keep in mind, what does public figure mean?
Public figure doesn't just mean elected.
I'm a public figure.
I'm a public figure.
It looks like YouTube just turned me off.
Do you think that's a coincidence?
So I'm still live streaming here on Periscope, but I'm watching the YouTube feed and it just froze.
So if you're on YouTube, do you think this is a coincidence?
Given the topic that I've just been discussing...
Did you just watch YouTube Turn Me Off?
Did that just happen?
Now, it could be a glitch, but do you think the glitch always happens when you're talking about YouTube hiding the news?
Or about YouTube, I'm sorry, about Google, the parent company of YouTube, hiding the news?
Is this a coincidence?
Now, if we were not in this situation where, right now, The news is being suppressed right now.
Like right now it's being suppressed.
Then I wouldn't think this was anything but a bug.
But in the context where you know that this same entity is suppressing the news that I'm telling you, and then you watch them suppress it, is it a bug?
Is it a bug? I don't know.
Could be. You can't rule out coincidence.
Coincidence is pretty strong.
But I guess there's your freedom of speech.
So... I'm still seeing comments on YouTube.
Somebody on YouTube, tell me if you can hear me.
I know you can see your own comments that are going through, but the video is frozen.
Can anybody hear me on YouTube?
Somebody said no. No, it's frozen.
So I guess it's just the comments.
Isn't this amazing?
I mean, think about this.
Are you not a little bit blown away by what's happening right now?
Like, you're watching it in real time.
Let me...
God, I'm so close to being cancelled right now.
You have no idea what's about to come out of my mouth, but it would definitely change my life, so I'm going to hold it in a little bit longer.
Somebody says, I'm still up on YouTube, but the picture is frozen, and I don't think they can hear me.
All right, I'm going to turn off YouTube, and that's disturbing.
