Episode 1337 Scott Adams: Fake News Guilty of Third-Degree Murder, Imaginary News, and Lots of Surprises
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Terrorists caught coming over southern border?
Biden to "fill the gaps" in border wall
An approved police hold vs deadly dose of fentanyl
Andrew Branca, LegalInsurrection.com
CNN's wild misreporting of Chauvin trial
Challenge: Find 1 person who wants to vote, but no ID
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's time. Yeah, it's time for a coffee with Scott Adams.
What a great day this is.
Yes. And you're all here for it, which I think is pretty, pretty special.
And here's a philosophy question for you, which might have some practicality in your real life.
Hypothetically, if somebody invented a button That you could push, and it would make your life substantially better, would you push it?
In the comments, tell me.
If you know this for sure, and there's no trick to it, right?
There's no trick. There's a button, if it existed, and you pushed it, it would make your life better, with no downside.
Would you push it?
Well, let's find out, because there's a little button on the bottom of your screen called notifications.
And if you were to push that button at the same time as you did the simultaneous sip, it would make your life better.
And that's a promise.
But, if you'd like to fully enjoy pushing that button and having the simultaneous sip at the same time, you need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice of time, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the Turbo...
Simultaneous sip, which comes with a button press for some of you.
Subscription button, too.
That works. Go.
It was as good as I told you, wasn't it?
Yeah. It was.
All right. Now, let's talk about the news.
I guess the Tiger Woods cause of his crash will be revealed today or tomorrow.
Do you believe that? So the news says that we will know the result of the cause of the Tiger Woods crash.
I'm going to say that's not going to happen.
And what I mean is there will be a report, but I feel like we're going to look at that report and we're going to say something like this.
Maybe... Maybe not...
Do you really think we're going to find the cause of the crash?
And that Tiger will say, oh yeah, that was the cause.
And you'll look at it, you'll say, yeah, that looks about right.
I don't see anything left out.
Seems like all of the context is there.
I don't feel like that's going to happen, but we'll see.
Apparently there are a couple of suspected terrorists who are on the list came over the southern border.
Well, I don't know how many suspected terrorists come over the southern border, but two is way too many.
It's way too many. Now what I don't know is if border security could ever stop terrorists.
I don't know. I feel like terrorists...
We'll just find some other way to do it.
You know, there must be a way to get into the country.
So I think the border wall has a lot more to do with immigration in general, and probably has a little limited value for stopping terrorists, but it's part of the story.
There's a different level of motivation for the terrorists, and there are fewer of them, so it seems like they could get across no matter what.
But it's part of the story now.
Now, here's I would like to talk about things I've been right about lately.
Do you remember that I predicted that Biden would be forced to beef up security at the border?
No matter what he wanted to do, no matter what philosophically he thought was right, that he was going to kind of have to keep building it.
And apparently that's been announced.
But they're going to play it down because he's just going to fill in the gaps.
No, no, no, we're not building a wall.
That's crazy talk.
We're filling in the gaps.
Do you know what the Trump administration was doing?
Filling in the gaps.
That's what they were doing.
Because the gaps are exactly where you would put a wall first.
Would you put a wall where there's already a perfectly good wall?
Or would you put a wall in a part of the border where nobody was crossing anyway?
No. You would put the wall where the gaps are.
The gaps that might actually be used for crossing.
So it's sounding suspiciously like exactly the same policy in effect, not in the details, but in effect as Trump.
Who told you that was going to happen?
I did. Now, a fun story.
There's a new study that said exhaled aerosols, increases with COVID-19 infection, age and obesity.
So if you're old and overweight, You're more of a super-spreader, at least in the specific sense of exhaling more virus.
Now this is just one study.
How often does one study turn out to be right?
I don't know. But I think the best part of this story is where this study was published.
It was published in a publication whose initials are PNAS. That's right.
How do you pronounce that acronym?
Do you think people try to pronounce it?
P-N-A-S. How would you pronounce that?
Penis? Sounds like penis.
So, there's a gigantic penis study about aerosols.
I'm not going to say that I'm necessarily right about that, but I feel like I'm Creeping toward being right that the super spreaders are the older obese people.
And wouldn't it have been nice for our medical experts to tell us that so we knew especially who to stay away from?
And don't tell me that we were doing social isolating in general so that covered everything, because it doesn't.
You don't try exactly as hard in every situation.
But if you told me, you know, kids under 12 are totally safe, And people over 50 with more weight, not so safe, I would definitely act differently.
I wouldn't treat them the same.
Well, here's something else I was sort of right about.
I said that in the George Floyd trial, they should put video evidence on trial, in general.
Not just the video evidence for this case, but they should make the larger point that video evidence is misleading and Commonly.
Commonly misleading.
And the defense did that.
Put an expert on the stand who was looking at where the knee was placed on top of George Floyd, where the officer's knee was.
And I guess the defense, Nelson, asked one of the witnesses, If he'd ever heard of, I think it's camera bias or something like that.
And the witness said no.
And then he showed him side-by-side pictures.
One that looked like the knee was on the neck and one that looked like it was on the shoulder blades.
And it's the same time.
And I guess there were multiple pictures that make the hip.
Excuse me. Allergies are kicking my ass today.
Anyway, so in a way, the defense did put video evidence in general on trial.
Exactly right. Because you have to get the jury to the place where they would at least imagine the video evidence could be real.
Now, it probably would have been a great distraction to bring in these examples that I'd mentioned, like the fine people hoax and the bleach hoax, because the people in the jury...
Probably believe those things to be true, so they wouldn't work as examples, even though they're not true.
So I think Nelson did it exactly right.
He used exactly the camera angle that was relevant to the case.
He made the larger point that not only is it possible to be fooled by video, but there's a word for it.
Have I told you that when there's a word for it, it carries more weight?
We are more persuaded...
We're more persuaded.
Somebody's calling me a super spreader out here, which is pretty funny.
Okay.
You never know, but I've had so little contact with humans that I doubt it.
All right. Did you know that the Greg Gottfeld Show is five days a week at night?
It's competing in the 11 p.m.
slot in the East Coast and 8 p.m.
on My Coast.
And apparently the first night of ratings for the Gutfeld show, how do you think he did on the first night?
On the first night he beat all the other shows at the 11 o'clock.
Now it's a little bit of apples and oranges because Gutfeld runs it two times.
But apparently he's already dominating.
You know, technically he's dominating late night on the first night.
Second night was last night.
And by the way, if you haven't seen the clip that's a parody of CNN coverage, it's really good.
It was on the first night.
So watch that. Somebody alerted me, actually a few people alerted me to the fact that Ron DeSantis has apparently adopted the Trump body language.
You know this. You talk like this.
You know, you've seen it.
And when I first heard it, I thought, well, it doesn't look, I'm sure it doesn't look exactly like Trump.
It probably looks, you know, maybe reminds you of it.
And then I looked at it.
It's exactly... It looks like, I mean, I can't explain why, but it looks like actually an imitation of Trump.
It's so spot on with the hand movements.
And Trump's hand movements were very distinct.
I've never seen, I don't think I've seen anybody do it before.
So I have to ask, is that intentional?
Is it? And would you even practice that stuff?
Would you do those hand motions like this?
Would those be the ones you do?
I'm actually a little confused, because I thought it would be sort of obvious whether he was doing it intentionally or not, and I can't tell.
I just can't tell.
It could literally just be influence, and he picked it up, and he doesn't know why.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
Somebody smart suggested that Ron DeSantis should lower his speaking voice to have more authority.
What do you think of that idea?
What do you think of...
Of DeSantis lowering his voice just a little bit to get a little more weight.
If he could do it, it'd be good.
It might be hard to pull off.
And I think in the same suggestion, there was a suggestion that he's speaking from his diaphragm, which makes him sound a little less leaderly, and he should be speaking from, you know, the bottom of his stomach instead of the tight part.
So I do think that he would benefit from voice, the little voice technique.
And there is technique in voice.
I've taught you this before.
If you'd like a really quick technique to tune your voice, you hum the first part of Happy Birthday.
You hum it and you feel it in what's called the mask of your face, the front part.
And if you can hum so it vibrates in the front part of your face, Then you stop humming.
The very next thing you speak will be close to your perfect speaking voice.
So I'll give you a demonstration.
It goes like this. You would go...
And now my voice would be just about my perfect speaking voice because it tunes me and it relaxes me, puts the voice up in the right mechanism.
So I think Ron DeSantis could benefit from a five-minute voice lesson, really.
We'll see. And by the way, I'd like to thank all the people who send me suggestions and stuff, because it really helps.
And that was a good suggestion.
So Rasmussen is reporting that asked the question, do you trust political news you are getting?
Now, one of the reasons that you can't do polling questions, meaning unless you're trained at it, is it's really hard to ask a question that doesn't get a misleading answer, you know, that people interpret differently.
I was looking at this question.
It's a simple question. Do you trust the political news you are getting?
And if they had not added the you are getting at the end of that, it would completely change it.
Because... Trusting that all the news is accurate is different from trusting that the news you choose to consume is accurate because that's your choice to consume it.
So liberals said 55% said they do not trust the political news they are getting.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
55% of liberals do trust the political news they're getting.
What do you think of that?
You would have to be asleep for years to trust the news, wouldn't you?
Even your own news? Even the news that you've decided is the best of the best?
Wouldn't you have to be asleep for years to think that's true?
Even if you said the honest mistakes happen.
Even the honest mistakes.
Let's say if you believed that the Russia collusion thing was an honest mistake by the news.
Even if you believed it was an honest mistake, it's still misleading.
Why would you trust it?
How in the world can 55% of liberals have that opinion?
What reality are they experiencing?
Conservatives were at 23%.
And I'm going to ask the same question.
What 23% of conservatives failed to notice the fake news?
Or do they trust it anyway, even knowing that often it's fake?
How in the world could you be a self-identified conservative, watching presumably at least some conservative coverage, and still think that you could trust the news?
Where do they find this?
Do you remember I told you that on any poll question, something like 25% of the public will just have a whack response?
It will just look like they're not even human beings if they could answer that way?
Here's another example. Like, who are these 23%?
I don't know if you'd ever meet anybody like that.
If you spend your whole life, do you think you'll ever meet somebody who says, yeah, I'm a conservative, and you know what?
The news is pretty accurate.
Have you ever met anybody?
23% is enough that you would have met somebody with that opinion, wouldn't you?
So here's the problem. I think some people just interpret the question differently.
If you said to a bunch of conservatives, do you trust the political news you are getting?
I believe that 23% probably thought, you know, I can't read their minds, of course, but probably something like 23%, well, the conservative news that I choose to follow is the good stuff.
Yeah, they could get it wrong, but, you know, I trust them in general.
So I think maybe that's just a question interpretation issue.
Um... So let's talk about the Floyd trial.
So as of today, there's really no chance he's going to get convicted of murder.
I don't know if there's some lesser charge.
But based on the testimonies and the trial facts that came out yesterday, the odds of a conviction of Derek Chavin, in my opinion, have reached zero.
Actually zero. Like you could say, well, anything's possible, but...
I don't know in this case.
It just became so clear.
And I'll run you through some of the things.
Now, what do you think CNN reported when the Minneapolis police use of force expert, the actual training expert, this is the guy who trains the police on use of force.
And how did CNN cover that testimony?
They said that this fellow testified that Derek Chavins kneeling on George Floyd's neck Is not a trained neck restraint technique.
And that's what they reported.
Do you think that covered it?
Do you think anything was left out?
Do you think CNN got everything you needed to know about that situation right in that headline, right?
Because it kind of sounds, if you read that, that doesn't make any sense when I just told you there's zero chance he's going to get convicted, right?
And somebody in the comments is saying, same on ABC News.
Maybe. Probably.
Now let me tell you what actually happened.
Now the only reason I know what actually happened is that I'm reading a blog site called Legal Insurrection.
And Andrew Branca is live blogging this and gets into the details.
Now if you read what actually happened at the trial, it's closer to the opposite.
Of what CNN reported.
Because this use of force training guy absolutely destroyed the narrative.
Here's how you get two different stories.
When the prosecution is talking to this use of force expert, they narrow the question so narrow That the use of force guy is answering on a sort of hypothetical, technical way.
So one of the questions, and this is a general example, right?
This might be a little off, but the general example would be this.
Expert, do you think that, is it appropriate to continue applying force when the risk has passed?
What would the expert say?
Is it appropriate to continue applying this hold When the danger has passed, how would he answer?
Well, I imagine he'd answer, if there's no danger, then you do not use an aggressive hold, right?
I'm paraphrasing here, but basically that's what happened.
But then the defense says, and again, I'm paraphrasing lots of stuff into a little summary.
Then the defense says, well, is every situation the same?
No. Can you factor in the whole situation?
Yes. If you factor in the whole situation, did Derek Chauvin do anything against policy?
Nope. No.
The guy who trains it The main guy who trains the police says that if you consider all of the variables, he followed procedure.
That's the end of the case.
Oh, it's worse.
The medical professional even did more.
So let me just run through, and most of this is cribbed from the Legal Insurrection blog, which I recommend for the best thorough look at this.
What did I tell you about the drug dealer?
So Floyd had a drug dealer who provided him the drugs, and apparently the autopsy showed that Floyd had three times the amount that might be enough for an overdose.
Three times. And I told you that that seems like a third-degree murder charge could be applied to the dealer.
And I recommended that the defense...
Try to get that going.
Because if somebody else is being tried for the same murder, that's kind of some reasonable doubt, isn't it?
If two people are being tried for the same murder for different circumstances at the same time, how in the world can one of them find them guilty?
That's the most reasonable doubt you could ever have.
Well, it turns out that the lawyer for the drug dealer has testified that he's going to take the fifth and not talk at trial because it might incriminate him in a possible third-degree murder, which apparently is a thing in Minneapolis.
Yes. So, for all of you people who said, Scott, Scott, Scott, you seem to know absolutely nothing about the law.
Because it would be ridiculous to charge the drug dealer for the death, otherwise all the ODs in the country would be somebody to be getting charged with the death.
To which I said, I don't think you quite know what fentanyl is.
Fentanyl is not comparable to heroin.
Heroin is some dangerous stuff, but it's not even close.
Fentanyl is way more dangerous.
So if you're a dealer and you give somebody fentanyl, And they die.
That's different. Because you kind of should have expected it.
Or at least the risk if it was high enough that you have some legal culpability.
So, the Scott Adams non-lawyer theory that the drug dealer should be on trial for third degree murder is confirmed.
It is confirmed.
Doesn't mean he'll be found guilty.
Or even tried. But it's confirmed that it's a real thing.
And that the circumstances...
Completely justified, in my opinion.
All right. As Andrew Branca said, if you're looking at two possible causes of death, and this is the way he laid it out.
I thought it was a real good way to lay it out.
He said, certainly if I had to choose between two situations, one in which I was placed in a prone position while handcuffed for 10 minutes, and I think you'd have to assume that There's a knee on you as well.
And another in which I was forced to ingest a three-fold fatal dose of fentanyl.
I know which I'd pick, and quickly.
There's simply no reasonable comparison between those two risks of life.
You get that, right?
Putting somebody in a police hold that is an approved police hold, according to the person who teaches it, versus, hey, I could do this to you.
Or I could ask you to voluntarily take three times the lethal dose of fentanyl.
Which would you choose?
It's not even close. Not even close.
No reasonable person would think those risks are in the same universe.
Really. One has a high risk of killing you, like really high, and the other would be sort of a surprise.
Not even close.
Alright, let's go on.
Um... And Andrew Branca called the prosecution's case basically a train wreck of a disaster, which is a pretty strong statement from somebody who knows what they're talking about.
So the training guy was asked if he himself had ever disbelieved a suspect's claim of a medical emergency.
Because that's a big part of the case, that Floyd himself was saying he had a medical emergency, essentially.
And the expert answered that he personally had done so, disbelieved somebody.
So it is a routine thing to disbelieve somebody saying that they have medical problems when they're being held by police.
It's routine. Or at least common enough that this guy's seen it as well.
So that tears apart that part, and I'm not even getting to the good stuff yet, like of how bad the case is at this point.
So let's see.
And also, the police procedures demonstrated that Chauvin putting his knee on the person was the reason that it's allowed It's the least dangerous thing to do.
In other words, given the totality of the situation, which included, I guess Shaven had called in at one point and said that there might be this delirium tremens or whatever there is, some medical situation they suspected that Floyd was in, In which his very large body and muscles,
combined with the fact that he had some mental thing going on that may have been drug-related, if you have that much strength and you're on some drugs and having a reaction that makes you unpredictable, you can't even control yourself, it turns out that the safest thing to do is what Derek Chauvin did.
It was the safest thing to do, according to the procedures.
Excited delirium, thank you.
Excited delirium is the phrase.
Now, do you get convicted for murder by being reckless when the police who train this technique say that he used the right procedure and it was the least dangerous thing he could have done under the circumstances?
The case is over.
The case is completely over.
I don't know if there's any precedent for this, but it feels like the jury should just send everybody home and say, look, we don't even need a trial because there's no evidence been presented that has any weight at all.
Now, I don't think that's a thing, but it should be.
All right. Let's see.
And then the other factor, which you and I and Common Sense already knew...
Is that the expert said that if a suspect had been forcibly resisting the officers only moments before, it wouldn't matter so much that he looked even unconscious.
Because specifically, the expert was asked, even if he's unconscious, should you remove the restraint?
And the answer was no. Because there's enough of cases where people pop awake fighting.
And if somebody as big as Floyd And with whatever was happening to him mentally, with the drugs or whatever, if he were to pop back to consciousness, which is a thing, apparently it happens often enough that the police are trained to what to do about it, because he could have popped back awake, it was proper to keep him down in that position.
I mean, what's left of the prosecution at this point?
All right. And if the suspect is believed to be on drugs, you have more flexibility for keeping them under control.
And, let's see, when asked explicitly, the expert here, when asked explicitly if any of the video of the event showed Chauvin placing Floyd in a chokehold, quote, chokehold, which in this context means a respiratory choke, And the guy said no.
So the expert said it was not a chokehold.
Then he was asked if it was this other thing.
What is it? A blood...
Oh, was he being subject to a carotid choke?
Which would have been pressure on the...
Is it the arteries?
Arteries, right? On both sides of the neck.
You know what the problem is that?
He wasn't putting pressure on both sides of the neck.
So it couldn't have been.
A blood choke, yes.
Thank you. So the blood choke is, I guess, the common name for this carotid choke or whatever.
And the expert said, no, it couldn't have been because it was only pressure on one side.
And you can't make somebody pass out with pressure on one side.
Two sides would do it.
And even then, they might pop back after 10 seconds.
So apparently the amount of time you would be unconscious, even if that had happened, which it clearly did not, the video doesn't show any of it, it shows only pressure on one side, that he probably would have popped back in 10 seconds.
So all the experts talking about their blood chokes...
So, apparently, based on the video, there's no evidence that he was asphyxiated by closing off the air, and there's no evidence that he was, that carotid, that whatever thing, that other thing happened, the blood choke.
But then there's a more interesting part.
Apparently, according to police procedures, the police officers are not supposed to medically help the suspect when there is a situation In which the police are not expected to medically assist the person who has a medical problem right in their custody.
What would that be? What would be the situation in which police would not be allowed to have medical attention given to the suspect?
It turns out that the situation is exactly the one he was in.
Which is if the crowd is looking dangerous.
Apparently there was an MMA fighter who somebody was physically holding back from getting involved.
Let me say that again.
An actual trained MMA fighter was yelling things at the police, belligerently, was making moves toward the police, and was physically held back by somebody else.
Under that exact situation, The correct police procedure is to not give medical help.
They are instructed to take care of their own safety first as the statistically best way to help everybody.
The same way when you're on a plane and they say put your mask on first and then help the child that's next to you.
Statistically, that's just the best way to play it.
An adult puts the mask on, then you've got time to help the child.
Same thing with the police procedure.
First, the police have to get safe.
That's it. First, the police have to make sure that they're safe, and then they can help the suspect.
The mob murdered Floyd.
Because the mob's actions created the danger which made medical intervention in what maybe would have been in time.
We don't know. I mean, that's a big if.
Could be the mob killed him.
Because they prevented the police from doing their job, and that's now in evidence.
That's in evidence.
That's not me saying it.
That's in evidence now. Sworn under oath from the expert who would know the most.
In fact, this expert for the prosecution was so damning that the defense, in a clever persuasion move, said they were going to call the prosecution's own star witness as a defense witness.
That is what you don't want to hear if you're the prosecution, that your star witness did so poorly that the defense is going to call him next.
Ouch. Because there's nothing left.
I mean, the case is already destroyed, so I guess the defense is just going to walk on it a little bit.
So, let's see.
What else is amazing about this?
Then the defense asked the expert, I think the medical expert, if agonal breathing could be misinterpreted by officers as just breathing.
Now this agonal breathing I guess is some special kind of identifiable last gasps of breath before you die.
And apparently if you're in law enforcement or medical world, this is something you might be able to recognize.
And if the officers had recognized it, they would have more of an obligation to do something about it, right?
But the question was, would they be able to recognize that given the crowd noise?
And the answer was no.
That given the crowd, Shaven probably could not recognize a change in breathing that would have alerted him that it might be this agonal breathing.
Again, it looks like, I think this is a prosecution witness, basically said the crowd killed him.
They said the crowd killed him, basically.
Because if it, you know, that's too far.
Let me take that back a little bit.
They're saying that if the agonal breathing had been detected, but it couldn't because of the crowd, you know, or at least it's reasonable to assume it couldn't because of the crowd, that that could have been a contributing factor in his death, if there was some way to save him.
We don't know that. The fact that Shaven mentioned, what is this called, this excited delirium, and he mentioned it on a call to, you know, I guess the headquarters or something.
So we know that Shaven was thinking that Floyd had maybe this super strength problem where if you have this excited delirium and you're already really strong, it just makes you stronger, and then you're like a You're like the Hulk suddenly.
So we know that he was worried about that, which puts everything in the right context for the defense.
So here's what I wonder about this.
Are we in the super ironic situation where Derek Chauvin has a wrongful prosecution lawsuit after he gets cleared in which he will take so much money from the city that it will effectively wait for it See if you can finish the sentence.
I'll try it again. But you have to finish the sentence for me.
Is it possible that Derek Chavon will be cleared, and so cleared that it's obvious that it was a wrongful prosecution?
Because remember, the people who were involved in prosecuting him, you know, if you say it's the city's legal system, and the police kind of threw him under the bus too, while their own experts said there's no evidence of a crime.
Their own expert. The police expert says there's no evidence of a crime.
Does he have a lawsuit?
Now, I don't know enough about this area of the law to know, but I feel like he does.
I feel like he has the world's biggest lawsuit, doesn't he?
I'm looking at your comments.
Jeffrey says no.
I know there are lots of attorneys on here.
I always have lots of attorneys on here.
Is there an attorney on here who can tell me if he'll have a lawsuit after this is done for wrongful prosecution?
Alright, here's the definition.
Wrongful prosecution occurs when someone who is accused of committing a crime is tried based on false information.
Hmm. But wait.
Any guilty judgment that is based on false prosecution can be appealed.
Now, I believe that the prosecution would have to know that the information was false.
I think that's the key, right?
It can't be that they're just bad at their job.
They would have to know in advance that they were presenting fake information.
Do you think that the prosecution ever talked to their own main witness?
Do you think that the prosecution ever interviewed their main witness before he went on trial?
Do you? Do you think they ever said to themselves, I think we'll just find out what he has to say when he's on trial?
Do you think that's how it went?
Or did the prosecution say, we're going to put you on trial.
Do you see evidence of a crime here?
Because that's what we need to prove.
There's evidence of a crime. Do you believe that the guy who testified under oath told them a different story?
And if he did, I guess he'd have some problems.
But it seems to me that the prosecution must have known that their star witness was going to be a witness for the defense.
If you'd know that, and they had to know it, right?
I mean, you'd have to establish this, of course.
But do you think there's any chance they didn't talk to their own star witness before they put him under oath in public?
I don't think there's any chance of that, is there?
I mean, if you're a lawyer, tell me, did I miss something?
Isn't that just common sense?
So I think we have, in evidence, extraordinarily strong evidence that this is a wrongful prosecution.
And I believe you can sue for that.
So, are we in the ironic situation in which Derek Chavon will be the primary person who, fill in the blanks, who defunds the police?
That could actually happen.
Derek Chavon could be the guy who defunds the police.
Because the police just screwed him.
And let me say, if he bankrupts the police, They have it coming.
Because somehow the police let this go all the way to trial.
Well, maybe that was smart, right?
It was probably better to let it go to trial because then all the evidence gets out.
But it sure seems to me like a wrongful prosecution.
But for political reasons, they probably had to do it.
I think they had to prosecute him for political reasons, right?
For the public opinion. But can you get a wrongful prosecution if the reason they're putting him on trial is their own safety from the public?
Like they're trying to prevent a riot.
And so they decide to put him on trial for murder?
So it'll solve some other problem?
That there might be violence?
Because it looks like that's what's happening.
It looks like the city was trying to save its own ass by throwing this guy under the bus.
And I should throw into this that I'm not sure that Shaven did everything right.
I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying that in terms of what's technically illegal, I don't think there's any chance of being prosecuted for murder, specifically.
So now you've got CNN who willfully reported this trial the opposite of what happened.
That's true, right? Because they reported this witness as though he had the goods.
And in fact, it was the opposite of that.
He was so far from having the goods that he will be used as the defense witness next.
So CNN is misreporting this wildly.
I mean, misreporting it to the point of it's just the opposite of what happened.
Isn't CNN... Guilty of creating a riot.
And if somebody dies, and I'm sure there will be, there will be at least injury, if somebody dies, isn't CNN guilty of third-degree murder?
Now, there may be some legal protection for the press.
I don't know how that works.
But, in a functional sense, is it true that CNN knows they're lying?
I would say yes.
I feel we could say safely that they know they're misinterpreting the news intentionally.
That's very clear. I don't think there's any doubt about it based on what's obviously right in front of us.
So if they're misrepresenting it intentionally, the obvious outcome of that will be riots.
The obvious outcome of riots is people get hurt.
Let's say somebody dies.
Should they have known that was going to happen?
Well, I know it's going to happen.
Don't you? If I know it's going to happen months before it happens, and I'm saying it in public, hey, they're going to cause a riot.
Somebody's going to get killed, and it's because of the way they're handling it.
If I know it, and you know it, do you think CNN can claim they didn't know it?
Because they know it. I don't have to be a mind reader to know that they know the obvious.
So that's happening right in front of you.
At the same time...
Is it Chairman or President Xi of China?
Has been sending fentanyl to us for years.
Probably killed George Floyd, my stepson, and I'm guessing a quarter million Americans by now.
Intentionally. Intentionally.
That's right. President Xi, Chairman, whatever the fuck he is, is allowing the fentanyl trade to happen because we know even who's doing it.
If she wanted him to stop, he would just go pick him up.
We know his name.
Probably know where he lives.
You know, it's a public record.
The United States has already fingered the guy who's the dealer over there.
The main source, anyway.
So she has murdered a quarter million people in the same standard, which is the third-degree murder.
In other words, did things which he knew would cause murder, cause death.
And that's happening right in front of us.
And it's not a story. Right?
Is it on the front page of anything?
Nope. Nope. It's not.
Should be. It's the big story.
So now we know that the crowd may have been guilty of at least contributing to the death of Floyd.
We know that CNN and the news that is not covering this appropriately will be contributing to the deaths of the coming riots that they're sparking.
Probably won't be charged.
And we know that China's Xi is guilty of third-degree mass murder, actually, probably a quarter of a million people.
And that's what we know.
Like, we know that.
There isn't a single thing I said that is in question.
Is there? Right?
Have I said one thing so far about this case of which there's any real doubt?
Not at this point.
Let's talk about the imaginary news.
Most of our news is imaginary, as you know.
And let me list a few that are in the headlines right now.
So right now, a headline from New York Times is saying that Matt Gaetz asked Trump for a preemptive pardon when the Department of Justice were questioning his associates about sex trafficking allegations.
Now let me read this sentence again and see how you interpret it.
Matt Gaetz...
So this is their sentence, right?
Not my sentence. Matt Gaetz asked Trump for a preemptive pardon when the Department of Justice were questioning his associates about sex trafficking allegations.
But what they go on to say is they don't know if he was aware of those charges.
Do you think he was aware?
We don't know. This is news because he might have been aware according to them.
That he might have been aware. Why do we make news about things that might have been true?
Do you know what might have been true?
Anything. This isn't news.
This is something that might have been true.
So how does that become a headline, that something might be true?
Just about everything might be true.
There's literally no evidence of this thing which might be true.
Now you'd have to ask yourself, why would anybody ask for a preemptive pardon That would just sort of cover everything.
Can you think of a reason?
Can you think of any other reason that a prominent Republican would think that they had general legal danger even without the specific charges that are being discussed now?
Yes! A reasonable person would reasonably conclude That they would be targeted for false claims of stuff.
Right? Or maybe he broke some law and he doesn't even know it.
Because that's the world we live in is that sometimes you can break a law and not even know it.
Example? When Trump gave his speech on January 6th, some people said he broke the law because he incited an insurrection.
Do you think Trump knew that?
Do you think when he was just talking to people the way he always talks, he thought he was breaking the law?
I don't think so.
But others say he might have.
So, in a world in which you could just be living your life and doing what you always do in public, can people say that you broke a law just sort of doing your job?
And the answer is yes.
It just happened to Trump.
The exact thing just happened to Trump.
He was blamed for a crime of something that he probably thought was just being Trump.
Talking about the stuff he talks about, right?
So yes, it was completely reasonable for somebody with his prominence in the Republican Party, especially knowing that the Department of Justice would become a Biden Department of Justice, completely reasonable to say, you know, as long as we're talking about pardons, it wouldn't be the worst idea just to have one.
Now, we also don't know how hard he pushed, or anybody pushed.
If it was just something he brought up just to feel out the room, that was just smart.
If you were in his position, and your buddy the president, because apparently they were pretty close, and your buddy the president was handing out pardons, and you thought, maybe.
Maybe somebody's going to come at me with something, and I don't even know what it is.
Wouldn't you float it?
Wouldn't you just sort of, you know, while you're at it?
Wouldn't be the worst idea to protect your buddy, because I don't know what's coming at me, but probably something.
Probably we'll be targeted by enemies.
So, is this news, or is this just speculation?
Well, the news part is a yes for the pardon, which qualifies as what?
Smart. So is the news that Matt Gaetz is smart and he thinks they had?
Because that's what they reported.
That's what I would have done in the same situation.
If I thought maybe it could be useful and maybe I could get it, I'd float it.
See what happened. All right.
How about other fake news?
Well, of course, the The Floyd murder trial is mostly based on fake news.
Now we have some reporting on CNN. Apparently they've got a documentary on CNN called, I think it's on CNN, called Q Into the Storm.
And the guy who made this believes that he has found Q, the actual person who is Q. And he bases it on The reaction of this person he thinks is Q, somebody named Ron Watkins.
You might know him from Twitter as Code Monkey.
How many of you know Code Monkey from Twitter?
I don't know if he's still on Twitter.
I haven't seen him in a long time.
He may have been booted off, I don't know.
So, somebody says it's an HBO show.
Is that right? HBO show?
Okay, thank you. Correction.
Correction. It is an HBO special called Q Into the Storm.
But Anderson Coopin was interviewing the maker of the documentary and showed a clip in which, reportedly, this fellow Ron Watkins answered a question in which the way he reacted or laughed suggested that he was really Q. Now, I watched it. And I know what they're talking about.
He did react.
But he also said unambiguously he was not Q. Now, of course, people could lie about that, so that doesn't mean anything.
But I don't feel that you could quite say he's Q because he laughed at the wrong time.
Let me ask you, husbands, this is a question just for the husbands, okay?
Have you ever gotten in trouble with your spouse For laughing as something that they thought the spouse was laughing at maybe them or something different.
Have you ever gotten in trouble, husbands only, for laughing as something when somebody thought you were laughing at the wrong thing?
In the comments, how many husbands have been busted by their spouse For laughing at the wrong thing.
Look at the comments.
Yes, of course, all the time.
Yes, yup.
Yes, yup. Today.
Somebody said today.
Yeah. It's the most universal thing is that people laugh at the wrong thing because what they're laughing at is something in their head.
Right? They're not necessarily laughing at you.
Right? They're laughing at some disconnect in their head.
And so when I saw the clip, I saw somebody laughing, but to me, I could have easily interpreted it this way.
Now, I'm not saying this is true, because we're not mind readers, right?
So it would be mind reading to say he had somewhat accidentally admitted he was Q. I think that's mind reading.
But it would also be mind reading the next interpretation I'm going to give you.
It's just speculation, okay?
When I saw him break into a smile, I thought he was laughing at the notion that he would be fingered as Q. Because let me ask you this.
I put myself in the same interview, and somebody asked a question which, if I answer it a certain way, makes it sound like I'm Q and I just admitted it.
What would be my reaction to realizing on live, not live, but recorded video, what would be my reaction if I thought I had accidentally outed myself as Q and I wasn't Q? What would you do?
You'd laugh. I would.
To me, that would be hilarious.
What could be funnier than making the media think I'm Q when I'm not?
That would be pretty funny.
And if you don't laugh at that, you're dead inside.
Now, I don't know a ton about the person involved.
Ron Watkins, who went by the name CodeMonkey on Twitter.
I don't know a lot about him, but I feel as if he's got a little bit of a joker in him, wouldn't you say?
Because even if he really were a Q, it would suggest he's a bit of a prankster.
Right? You'd sort of have to be a little bit of a prankster to beak you.
So whether he was or not, I feel as if he's a prankster.
Am I pronouncing it wrong?
Watkins? I don't think I'm pronouncing it wrong.
All right. More fake news.
The story about DeSantis on 60 Minutes and the Publix store.
The story is boring, but just know that it's just fake news.
So we've got fake news about DeSantis.
May or may not be fake news about Q. Fake news about Floyd.
Basically, it's just all fake news.
There's a new national survey, Corey DeAngelis reports this, that 71% of voters support funding students instead of systems.
Let me ask you this.
Do you remember I was telling you there's this weird thing happening where whenever I'm persuading, things go my way?
Now, there's no way to know that I'm having any influence, and I wouldn't claim any influence in this particular case, But why is it every time I'm persuading, things do go my way?
And like fairly quickly.
So this is one of my main topics, is that students should be funded instead of schools because the teachers' unions are a source of systemic racism.
And now a solid majority of Americans agree.
Now I think if I were to explain it myself, my track record is just crazy, so good.
But I think what's happening is I'm just good at picking the right issue.
I don't think it's that I'm changing it so much, or at all.
I think that I'm just good at knowing, well, this has to happen, because the logic, the argument is just too strong, it's going to go this way.
So I think I'm just going to Identifying strong arguments.
Likewise, the Biden administration now opened a...
They're going to build a Gen 4 test nuclear reactor in the United States, which is big, big, big news.
It's really big news. And, of course, I've been persuading for that forever, that we should be getting it to that harder.
But, again, the argument for it was so strong that I think maybe it was just going to happen anyway.
But keep that in mind.
So, let's see if I covered everything I want to cover.
Oh, we got some more things happening here.
I issued a challenge.
A voter ID challenge.
It goes like this.
Find one Georgia citizen who wants to vote but is thwarted by having no ID. Just one.
Because it's a national story that these people exist and But curiously, a national story about, you know, what, hundreds of thousands of people?
How many? Tens of thousands?
Who would be in this category just in Georgia?
And we haven't seen one.
Is that weird? Do you believe the news if you haven't even seen one?
What is the most common thing that the news business does?
They find a human to represent the story.
It's the number one thing that the news does.
In fact, they hate telling stories that they don't have a person involved.
They need a person.
So, you don't think they could find one person?
In the whole world?
Can't find this one person?
Now, to be fair, it might be hard.
Because if such people exist, they probably don't have cell phones.
How would you find them?
I guess you'd have to find somebody who could find them.
Somebody who knows a relative or something.
But then, do you think if you put that person on camera and said, okay, you want to vote, but the only thing stopping you is that you don't have ID, how fast would they get ID once they became publicly known?
In fact, don't you think that Republicans would pay for his ID if this person exists?
The day you saw somebody go on television and say, yeah, I'm one of those people.
I'd like to vote. But I don't have the $30, or whatever it is in Georgia, $33, to get an ID, or I don't know how.
How long would it take one Republican to say, really?
That's why you're not voting?
Here's 50 bucks.
Go vote. Get yourself an ID. I would buy somebody an ID, if I could.
You know, if I knew it was not going to the wrong thing.
If somebody, a citizen of this country, let's say they're a black citizen because that's the group we're talking about with not having enough ideas.
If a black citizen, a real person, had this real problem and really wanted to solve it, and I was standing right next to him, I'd say, seriously, your whole problem would be solved for an Uber ride and $33 or not even that.
You just have to send in a letter and a check.
That's it. You just need $33?
I would just reach in my pocket and hand them $33.
Say, alright, problem solved. And I'm pretty sure most Republicans would.
I mean, not necessarily just like that.
But you could find plenty of Republicans who would say, seriously, that's your problem?
Alright, we'll fix that.
We'd like everybody to have an ID. Taiwan is being surrounded by a Chinese fleet.
So China's flexing its muscles and showing that they can surround Taiwan with their fleet and stuff.
Here's a question I ask.
We keep talking about China dominating the South China Sea, which they are, and they're building aircraft carriers.
Here's my question.
How long does an aircraft carrier last in a modern war with a superpower?
Five minutes? It doesn't matter whose country it is, whether it's an American vessel or a Chinese vessel, would it take more than five minutes for us to remove all of the battleships and aircraft carriers?
Would it? Because we have lots of missiles.
Now, I know they all have defense perimeters, and they've got other ships that are putting up anti-anything missiles, and they've got radar, and they've got all kinds of things.
But it's really just a volume question, right?
If one missile is going toward an aircraft carrier, well, you've got a pretty good shot of knocking it down.
But America has more than one missile.
Our submarines would be sitting right under those things.
The Chinese aircraft carrier is up here on the surface.
Our nuclear sub is going to be right under it.
I'm exaggerating. You wouldn't want it to be right under it.
But the point is, It would be sort of fast work.
And I think that would work either way.
I can't imagine an American fleet would last more than a day in the South China Sea.
Am I wrong about that? Some military experts said the next war would be nothing but submarines and targets.
That's more insightful than I wish it were.
Yeah, Taiwan has a big problem.
I've said that there isn't any way that they can stay independent in the long run, and China has a long-run mentality.
I just don't think we're in a world where you can defend a neighboring piece of land that a superpower has surrounded.
I just don't think it's a thing.
And I also wonder about the rightness of us being there.
Now, at this point, we're committed to an ally, because Taiwan's an ally.
So we're in a situation where we...
We sort of have to do what we can.
But I don't know that a superpower should have a presence or any kind of a strong influence that close to another superpower.
I feel as if the superpowers ought to have a little buffer between them.
And I feel that China has a completely legitimate interest in not having the United States have an ally that's, you know, that close to them.
But of course, I support Taiwan completely.
Why do they want Taiwan?
Well, I think they want it first of all for defense, because you don't want an American ally with a big economy and who knows what kind of weapons right there.
So I think there's a legitimate defense need.
The same way if Russia had put missiles in Cuba, We don't have any missiles in Taiwan, but if they had militarized it a little more, you could see how it could become bad pretty quickly.
Yeah. Oh, let me see this.
So Admiral Ridenour said, World War III would sink all the carriers in an hour.
Yeah. I think it would be less than an hour.
Well, it would take an hour for them to actually sink.
It would take 15 minutes for them to be syncing, I think.
Okay, that's all for now.
I will talk to you tomorrow.
And if you forgot to hit the subscription button and the notification button, all you have to do is touch them and your life will be better.
It will be. Because you'll get more simultaneous sipping.
