Episode 1830 Scott Adams: FBI Raids Trumps Mar-a-Lago Home And That Means Trouble...For Everyone
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Allow the government 48 hours to explain Mar-a-Lago raid
President Trump's home raided by FBI
David Axelrod thinks there must be "significant evidence"
Jerry Nadler says raid was...good!
Israel & Gaza agree to ceasefire
Why don't we know what the warrant says?
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.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
There was. And you came to the right place because everybody else is talking about it all wrong.
But we're going to do it right.
And all you need to enjoy this experience is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip.
It happens now, go.
Ah, tastes like freedom.
Let's keep that alive.
Well, we'll get to the big story, of course, but I just had to make this announcement that I'm going to start blocking anybody who tries to vaxplain to me.
Here's what you get blocked for.
Scott, don't you know that the vaccinations that you call shots are not really vaccinations because they don't prevent you from getting it?
Block. You're right, but how many times do you have to tell me what everybody knows?
If you just tell me the same thing everybody knows, Do you assume I'm the last person in the world to find out that the vaccinations, so-called, don't actually block transmission?
No, no.
I actually know it. And every time you mention it again, I'm going to block you.
Please don't do it.
Just please stop saying it.
It's the Soylent Green of the pandemic.
All right, well, I don't know if you heard, but Trump's Mar-a-Lago home got raided by the FBI. Don't call it a raid, the Democrats say.
It's no raid.
It's just people showing up unexpectedly at 4 a.m.
with guns and asking for access to your house.
But not a raid.
No, no, no, no. It's serving a warrant.
The Democrats would have you believe.
There's nothing raid-like about that whatsoever.
Just the legal process working exactly the way it's supposed to.
My take is that Trump just won the black vote for 2024 because every time he seems unfairly targeted by law enforcement, I feel like there's a little bell that rings inside the head of everybody who feels like maybe they have also been unfairly targeted by law enforcement.
If you're going to bond over something, bonding over being unfairly treated by law enforcement is a real good way to go.
The best part about this is that Trump backed prison reform.
Trump worked hard and sacrificed quite a bit of his political capital, I would argue, to get a lot of black people out of jail sooner than they would have.
Now, it wasn't just for black people, of course, but since they're disproportionately affected by the justice system...
So here is Trump who...
To his credit, I would say, because I was in favor of it, did a great deal to reduce the amount of jail time that black people were experiencing in the United States.
And now he has...
It looks like...
We don't know what the justification is yet.
We may be surprised.
Maybe they have something.
Maybe this time the walls really are closing in on Trump.
Maybe it's really worse than Watergate for the first time.
Maybe. Maybe.
Maybe. Anything's possible.
But I think if you look at it, it kind of looks like they don't have anything.
Because I feel like we would have heard about it if it were anything big.
But, yeah, so certainly the voters are going to have some reaction to this, but there's more to learn.
Because I think our opinion won't be finalized until we find out what the warrant is about.
So, Does it feel to you that...
Let me just tell you how it feels.
So the next is just literally just how it feels.
So there's no factual basis to the next thing I'm going to say.
It feels like the FBI is protecting itself from Trump.
Am I wrong? It feels like they're protecting themselves.
It doesn't feel like this was for the country.
Because I can't think of anything that I felt threatened by...
By knowing that the president who has full clearance for any kind of information, an ex-president who has complete security clearance, if somebody with complete security clearance has some documents that probably we have copies of, let me ask you this.
How many documents make it into the White House that are not digitally recorded before they're handed to the president?
Do they only record it after the president touches it?
And then what happens to it when he's done?
He sets it on the desk or whatever.
Does somebody just say, well, there's a document we don't have to do anything with?
Or do they just scan everything?
Don't you assume it all exists in a scanned form?
What kind of documents exactly is he taking home from the White House that are not recorded in some form in another place?
I guess I have some questions about the process.
Well, to me it looks like the FBI is trying to avoid Trump looking into their own behavior.
That's what it feels like.
I have no proof of that, can't read any minds, but it feels like it.
As a citizen of the United States, it's just how it makes me feel.
It makes me more likely to want to vote, and I don't vote, right?
That's a long story, you know why.
But this makes even me want to vote, and that's a pretty high bar.
But again, we're reacting on incomplete information.
Now, what the Democrats are trying to sell us, and even David Axelrod came at us with this.
So this is a David Axelrod tweet, and because it came from him, It means a little bit more.
I'll tell you why. He tweeted, one thing is very clear.
Garland, the Attorney General, Garland would not have authorized this raid and no federal judge would have signed off on it if there weren't significant evidence to warrant it.
To which I say, what?
What kind of a country do we live in that anybody would even say this in public?
Have we not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the FBI would, in fact, falsify information to the court?
We don't have to wonder if that's true.
Somebody's going to jail for it, right?
Or has pled guilty to it.
We have a guilty plea that this exact behavior, faking a reason for action, And in the same domain.
It's not even a different domain.
It's Trump. So we know that they will falsify information to make Trump look bad.
The very organization...
Oh, let's say the Department of Justice plus the FBI. I'm going to lump them together for this conversation.
But here's what's interesting.
In my opinion, Axelrod is one of the Democrats who's least likely to directly lie to you.
Now, of course, he's, you know, on Team Democrat, solidly.
So he's going to give you the Democrat spin on everything.
But I can't think of a time when he's lied directly.
He's one of the higher credibility Democrats who, you know, sells his point of view, and you know it's a point of view.
Do you have evidence of something he did that was as bad as this tweet?
And so he's sort of like an indicator for me.
There's some people on the political left who have more credibility than others.
And I think he has more credibility than most of the people on the left because he's more transparent about being on a team and he says things that don't sound that crazy.
So to me, that's pretty credible.
Fully transparent.
I'm on this team. Here's my opinion.
Okay, I get that. But this seems to be a departure from what I have noticed of his pattern.
Now, that's only based on what I've noticed, so there's a gap in that.
But it feels like he's completely bought off on selling this perspective that's clearly ridiculous.
This is the first time I've seen him try to sell a perspective that's obviously and clearly ridiculous.
Now, if you're going to respond to something that's obviously and clearly ridiculous, what is the persuasion method most effective?
What would be the persuasion technique, which I've taught you many times by different...
Well, mocking.
Mocking is good. But I think mocking has lost a lot of its importance.
Mocking in the political field doesn't really work.
Mocking in the corporate world works really well.
Let me make that distinction.
That's important. Mockery is brutally effective in the corporate world.
Brutally effective. Nobody wants to get mocked in the corporate world.
In politics, it's just the atmosphere.
I mean, mocking each other is literally all that's going on.
There's nothing but it.
So it doesn't really have any power in politics.
So I would say that responding to a ridiculous point of view...
With mockery, it just doesn't work in politics.
It's fun. I do it all the time.
It could be entertaining for your base, but there's no persuasion element to it.
Agree and amplify?
No. There's a cleaner way.
It's called the high ground.
So here's my response to the David Axelrod tweet.
He got tens of thousands of responses, so he's not going to see mine.
But... Here's the high ground approach.
So when he says there must be significant evidence to validate the warrant, I said this.
I said this point by David Axelrod might have been valid 10 years ago.
Today, anyone not zombified by fake news assumes an FBI raid on a Republican is probably illegitimate because the pattern is hard to miss.
That's the high ground. The high ground is, well, you're absolutely right 10 years ago.
If I just said everything you're saying is ridiculous, that just sounds like somebody disagreeing just to disagree.
But if you say your point of view was absolutely valid 10 years ago, but it ignores our recent history in which the FBI has shown that they can't be trusted on exactly this question.
Do you have a good reason to act?
This exact question has been proven to us publicly and without any doubt.
This is something we have to worry about.
So the fact that David Axelrod would live through the last several years and would say without any hedging that if the FBI is acting on a warrant, there must be significant evidence for it.
And everything suggests that that's just not true.
Now, if I just said, well, you're full of shit and you're lying, that has no effect.
But if you say, yeah, you were right ten years ago, that's the way it used to be.
You've really accepted the point of view, but you've infantilized them at the same time.
So that's basically what I did with his point of view.
I infantilized it.
I basically said, well, you were right as far as you went, but the adults can go a little bit further.
The children can say, yes, warrants need good reasons.
That's a child's point of view.
An adult's point of view is, well, not lately.
Lately, the pattern has been very clear and established by the courts, or at least a legal system.
Because we do have somebody admitting to it.
There's a confession. So that's pretty clear.
All right. So we're going to find out what I had today.
How many Americans have not heard of the Russia collusion hoax?
There are actually people who don't know that the Russia collusion thing was a hoax.
And they're weighing in on social media.
They literally don't know that that was a hoax.
They actually think... And they believe that because...
What's his name?
Manafort. The Democrats that believe that because Manafort...
It is known to have shared some internal polling information with one Russian, for money I guess, that therefore Russia collusion was proved.
Now, has anybody asked the question, how much national security value was internal polling information?
How in the world was that valuable?
Internal polling information.
Really? What was in that internal polling information?
Wouldn't you like to know? What do you suppose Manfred told a Russian that was useful?
That actually the Russian said, oh, it's a good thing I know that from your internal polling.
I can't even imagine anything that would have been useful.
Can you? Like, what would be an example?
Give me any example.
Even just make one up. Speculate.
Speculate. What could be possibly an internal polling information that would make a difference to international security or anything?
Nothing. The best-case scenario is it might have been a heads-up about, you know, maybe who's going to win or something.
I don't know. Something like that.
But even that would be sketchy.
I mean, internal polling is not exactly the most reliable stuff.
All right. So nobody's going to ask the question, what did Manafort actually share?
Because if I were Manafort, I would have done the following.
I would have found something I could give to this Russian who would pay me money or return a favor or something later.
But I'd make sure it didn't hurt the country.
Because I'm pretty sure Manafort didn't want to hurt America.
He just wanted to make a buck.
I assume. Because he wasn't really trying very hard to hurt America.
I didn't see any evidence of that.
Just trying to make a buck.
And I'd love to know what he thought was useful to them, but also not harmful to America, because that's probably what he gave them.
Just speculated.
All right.
So, God, there's so much going on about this one story.
So Jerry Nadler, when he retweeted a New York Times headline that said Trump's Mar-a-Lago had been raided, and Jerry Nadler responded with one word, good!
Now, I understand that he's politically on a different side, but doesn't that feel too far?
It feels too far, doesn't it?
Because as far as I know, there's not even an alleged crime, not even an alleged crime, that would go to this level.
In other words, if it's really just some documents, you would not expect a raid.
So what is he saying good to?
What part is good?
The fact that America doesn't know why the FBI, which has no credibility, just raided a political enemy of the current administration?
How in the world is this good?
In what world can you say in public that this is good?
Even if you thought Trump had been guilty of a crime, is this good?
And so I would like to put a stake in the ground.
When Jerry Nadler dies of natural causes, Which I'm guessing could be within the week.
I mean, if you just take a look at him, he looks like he's going to go any minute.
But when Jerry Nadler dies, I'm assuming I'm going to outlive him.
I don't know. Maybe not.
But I'm going to make that assumption.
I'm going to outlive him. I'm just going to tweet one word.
Good. With exclamation.
Good. Because I think he's proven that he's really not on Team America here.
Whatever team he's on, it's not my country.
Because in my country, if Biden's home got raided, and I didn't have an alleged crime that I was even aware of, I would say, fuck that.
I don't care what team Biden's on.
If you send the FBI to raid him and you don't tell me why, just, you know, I hate to do this, but sometimes you have to.
Just imagine the reverse.
Imagine Trump in office and having him investigate Biden, but let's say there was no Biden laptop.
There was nothing like that. There was no actual specific crime.
Imagine that. Would you be in favor of that?
Hell no. Hell no.
If Trump had done this to Biden with equally sketchy reasons, let's say Biden had some documents that were in question.
Let's say it's the same situation.
Hell no. Hell no.
I would not support Trump doing that or the Trump administration doing that.
No, no, no, no. Now, I suppose it's easy for me to say that.
Because I'm not in that situation.
But I feel like I know myself well enough that there's no situation in which I'd be okay with this.
Because it's the ex-president thing.
Even if I thought Biden had done something sketchy, I still wouldn't be in favor of it.
Because that whole don't go after your political enemies, that's a tradition that we kind of need to keep.
Kind of need to keep that one.
And I get the whole argument of, well, it really depends how bad the accusation is that's in the warrant that we haven't seen yet.
Well, okay.
If it turns out that there was a hostage situation at Mar-a-Lago, and the hostage was in some kind of a container with limited air, and the oxygen was running out, and there was no time to delay...
Well, yeah. Execute the warrant, even if you're not quite sure.
Sure. Sure.
But are we going to find out that whatever the reason that's listed on the warrant, is that going to sound to you like a hostage running out of oxygen?
Do you think you're going to feel the urgency when you find out what this is?
I feel like the urgency might be missing.
Because these documents have been there a long time.
Now here's the other funny part about it.
For the Democrats' point of view to be valid, you would have to accept the following.
And by the way, this is a really good persuasion tip.
And the tip goes into the category, in order to believe X, you must also believe these following things because they're necessary to support your belief.
So in order to believe that there's something incriminating in the documents, Here's what you'd have to believe.
That Trump took incriminating documents that everybody would expect to be incriminating because, you know, he took them.
He would store them where lots of people knew where they were, because obviously people at Mar-a-Lago would know where they were stored.
And that he would have them stored in a building that's full of, and I don't know if you know this, but Mar-a-Lago, Was built in the era in which they have toilets.
There are toilets all over that place.
I'm pretty sure that Trump has a toilet.
Probably the guests have at least one to share.
No, they probably have their own toilets, I'll bet you.
I'll bet you that place is just filled with toilets.
So here you have your incriminating information on pieces of paper.
Sitting in a building with a guy who the Democrats say would never want anybody to see what's in those documents, and then they're sitting next to probably 25 toilets, and we have evidence, photographic evidence, that Trump has allegedly torn up documents and put them in a toilet because we actually saw the photos of actual documents in a toilet.
Now, do you think...
That Trump could have put all these things together and said, documents that would be highly incriminating to me, but I've got possession of them.
I'll store them here next to my 25 toilets.
If only there were a way to get rid of the incriminating information.
If only I could come up with some way...
So that's the Democrat point of view.
The Democrat point of view is, number one, the FBI... Would never raid somebody on a warrant unless they had really good evidence.
Ridiculous. Ridiculous.
In 2022, that's ridiculous.
Of course they would. Because there's nothing they wouldn't do based on their recent history.
Once you understand the Russia collusion hoax, once you understand what they did, that's known.
That part is known.
We're not guessing.
Once you understand that, all bets are off.
Because what exactly was worse than trying to depose or change the course of American history by making up a crime?
There's nothing worse than that.
There's nothing worse than that.
Whatever this is, it's not worse than that.
It's just bad.
Not worse than that.
All right. So I'm just going to throw this story in the middle, then we'll get back to it.
So Israel and Gaza have reached a ceasefire.
And I would like to congratulate both Israel and Gaza for getting everything that they wanted out of this recent flare-up.
And I say that because the government of Israel kind of needs to have an active enemy.
Every time somebody attacks Israel, Israel gets stronger.
You know, they take a little more land.
They, you know, have to take a high ground to defend themselves, maybe keep it.
You know what I mean? So Israel sort of needs a permanent enemy.
But the best case scenario is that it's a low-grade conflict.
And they need it to flare up now and then to remind you And then they needed to go back down.
Likewise, the folks in Gaza who were firing the missiles and stuff, they also need a flare-up of violence every now and then, because that's how they get more funding from their sponsors.
And so this was just theatre.
Nobody in Gaza thought they were going to conquer Israel.
Am I right? Nobody in Gaza thought they were going to conquer Israel.
But here's the other question.
Do you think Israel couldn't completely stop this from happening if they wanted to?
Of course they could. But it would require far more brutality than they could handle, right, reputationally.
So the very best situation is that this type of attack flares up.
It killed 43 people this time, including 15 children.
I don't know on which side.
It doesn't mention whose side they were on.
But from Israel's point of view, that was an acceptable loss, especially since it's not all on their side.
And from the Gazans' point of view, I think it was an acceptable loss because they got everything they needed out of it.
I'm not even sure this needs to be news anymore.
Like, it's a weird kind of news where it's just two sides getting exactly what they want and then going back to the status quo to wait until the next flare-up.
It's just theater.
I wouldn't even bother trying to fix that.
So how angry are you about the Mar-a-Lago raid?
Tell me your feeling.
Did it immediately make you want to go all January 6th on this situation?
So here's the thing I'm going to warn you about.
Don't overreact.
Don't overreact.
Because you know there's some militia right now that just got their marching orders, right?
Somewhere there's a right-leaning militia that Trump will get tagged with, even though he doesn't even know the names, probably.
And they're firing up right now, and they're going to use this as their justification for marching or whatever.
Now, I don't think they're going to start shooting.
I think they're just going to make another show of, you know, a show of here we are.
And then the Democrats will run...
Run that, and they'll say, not only is Trump obviously a criminal, they will say, because look at this warrant, which we have no details about.
Well, clearly it must be a valid warrant, because nobody would do an invalid warrant just because they have done it recently right in front of us.
Nobody would do that.
So it looks like a setup.
It feels like a setup. So I would worry that the Democrats, at least part of the strategy, would be to provoke an overreaction.
Because remember, the January 6th thing completely fell apart.
They were trying to show that the Republicans are a bunch of armed, dangerous insurrectionists, and the entire January 6th just dissolved in sunlight.
In fact, the Harvard-sponsored survey showed that the vast majority of the people who attended thought they were saving the Republic.
They didn't think it was an insurrection.
They thought they were saving it from an insurrection.
That's all in evidence now.
Now we know what the crowd thought.
They were not there for an insurrection.
Most of them. Some of them were, but, you know...
Any big crowd is going to have some minority opinion in it.
And then we saw all the evidence, and the evidence didn't seem damning of Trump at all, at least in a criminal sense.
And now, coincidentally, we get this.
Imagine what would happen if all the militias show up and they start looking dangerous again.
Don't get suckered into this.
If you know anybody in the militia, I'm sure there's somebody in the militia who's watching this.
There's got to be at least one. Be a little more strategic.
Whatever your militia long-term objectives are, I'm not saying they're good, I'm not saying they're bad, I don't know.
I have no idea what they are.
Probably lots of different ones.
But just be cool for a little bit.
Just be cool for a little bit.
Because you don't want to make a big show that's exactly what they want.
So, just wait.
Now, what do you think they're actually going to come up with as their explanation for the warrant?
And by the way, do we ever find out?
How does the process work?
Because at some point, Trump himself has to find out what it's about, right?
Is that not part of the process?
The person who's targeted has to hear what the charge is.
Am I wrong? The warrant should say.
And when the warrant is served, somebody reads it, right?
On the receiving end. So are you...
Okay, now I have a big question.
Are you telling me that somebody at Mar-a-Lago...
Got a search warrant and read it, and it said why they were there, and we don't know that yet?
Really? There's somebody at Bartolago who actually read the warrant, because they had to let him in, right?
It's a sealed warrant, somebody says.
It would be initially sealed.
So you're telling me that the FBI can come to your house, I guess you are telling me this, and they can say, I have a secret document you can't see that says I can search your house and you're not even accused of a crime.
That's actually the process.
Seriously? Seriously.
I'm not going to take that as a fact.
I feel like there must be some nuance on that.
There's enough people saying no.
A no-knock warrant.
Yeah, they did have no-knock warrants, so that would suggest that it was legal at one point.
But the no-knock bar had more to do with avoiding violence.
That's sort of a different situation.
The warrant has to be served, but how can it be sealed and served?
Does that mean...
Are you telling me that the target of the warrant is not told why they're searching?
Literally. The indictment is sealed, not the warrant.
Okay, that makes more sense.
I feel like we're all bad lawyers trying to figure this out.
If anybody here is actually an attorney, could you put that in your comment?
You know, like, I'm a lawyer, comma, here's what's true.
That would help a lot. Because the rest of us are just guessing.
They don't have to show you the details until later.
So somebody's saying they can say, we're here for these documents, for example, but they don't have to say, because the documents might say X, Y, or Z. Yeah, well, let's watch Barnes and Fry talk about this.
They'll be better. The lawyer says the warrant describes the premises to be searched.
Okay. Thank you.
So, from an actual lawyer, the warrant describes the premise.
It doesn't describe the crime or alleged crime.
Now, I guess you could have a warrant to search somebody who's not accused of a crime.
Because you could be searching a confederate's house or a family member's house.
So you don't have to be accused of a crime to be served the warrant.
Okay. So that does suggest that the person whose home is being searched doesn't have to know the topic.
They just have to know that the warrant describes what will be searched.
That sounds right. I'm going to act like that's right because it sounds right.
They search for evidence so they can accuse you of crime rights.
But they have to have some reason to suspect there's something there.
Where was Melania?
I don't know. That's a good question.
Yeah, was Melania with Trump?
Why didn't they report that?
Now, as Jack Posobiec reminds us on Twitter...
The big risk here is if Trump is, I don't know if indicted is enough, but if he's found guilty of doing some kind of a document of destruction crime, he would be ineligible to hold office.
And it looks like that might be the play.
But they don't have to get that exactly.
They can just smear him until Election Day.
Yeah. All right.
Where were the security people?
Yeah. Now, the security people presumably looked at the warrant or listened to somebody who looked at the warrant and decided that they would step aside.
But it does make you wonder what their job description is.
All right. This is going to drag out for years.
So do you think that the real play is just to put Trump in legal jeopardy at the same time he's trying to run for re-election?
Is it called re-election if there's a term in between years?
Yeah, it's creating some friction, exactly.
Okay.
Well... Doesn't it seem to you that this would backfire?
If you were a Democrat, would you think that indicting Trump would make people less likely to vote for you?
I don't think so.
I think that Republicans would be more likely.
Because remember, Republicans just watched the whole January 6th thing play out, and to Republicans, it looked like people who look like them and think like them were being rounded up and jailed.
And now the leader of the people who look like them and think like them looks like he's being targeted, they would say, unfairly.
I feel like...
I feel like this would vastly increase the number of people who voted.
So here's my hypothesis.
There are two possibilities, I think, that is suggested by this whole situation.
And they're opposites, which is interesting.
One possibility is that they really do have something on Trump, and it's good.
I mean, from their point of view.
From the Jerry Nadler point of view, it would be good.
So that's one possibility.
They have the goods, but they need these documents to really seal the deal.
That's one possibility.
The other possibility is desperation.
The other possibility is that they know they don't have anything and nobody has anything.
That all of the various walls are closing in theories have all turned to dust.
And they watched the January 6th thing turn to complete crap right in front of them.
It could be that they're so afraid of Trump getting the power to hire a special prosecutor that they can't take the chance.
Because once the Trump administration gets in there, one assumes, they're going to look into the Biden's association with Ukraine.
And they're going to be looking at a lot of stuff that maybe wasn't being looked at.
You know, the Hunter laptop and stuff.
And so I've got a feeling that this is a desperate attempt to try to keep the Bidens out of jail and people associated with them.
It looks to me like desperation.
Because under the scenario that they really have something real, and that just finding something at Mar-a-Lago would be the final thing, what are the odds of that?
I mean, as I talked about before, what are the odds that Trump would keep something incriminating on a piece of paper?
I don't know if I've mentioned, but paper is easy to destroy.
You could flush it.
Yeah, you could flush it.
So it seems deeply unlikely that there's something in there that's incriminating.
It's more likely that he wanted to keep some things, you know, maybe embarrassing, but that's not a crime.
I'm going to tell the locals people some stuff after I turn off YouTube in a little bit.
I give them the behind the curtain stuff that I can't say in a more public way.
So there is something fun about this story that nobody's mentioned yet.
So I'll mention that just to the locals' people later.
So stay tuned for that. All right.
So those are your two possibilities.
Which one seems more likely?
Does it seem likely...
That the Democrats would have some kind of allegation that's so strong that Trump would be in actual legal danger, and yet that allegation would be so strong that they need these documents that are in Mar-a-Lago to make the case.
Do you think that's likely?
Do you think it's likely that something in his possession would make their case?
I feel like that's the least likely thing in the world.
It just feels ridiculously unlikely.
Possible. Possible.
But ridiculously unlikely.
Alright, so to me it looks political.
So it looks political based on the history of the FBI, the fact that there was no larger allegation that this is obviously tied to, the timing of it, and the way it was done.
Every single thing about this screams fraud and corruption.
Every part of it.
Now here's the thing.
If you're a citizen of the United States and you're accused of something, what is the standard to which we hold you?
Everybody? What is the standard when somebody who is an American citizen is accused of a crime?
The standard is innocent until proven guilty.
And we all agree with that, right?
Like, that's one thing every American is going to say, yeah, okay.
We can disagree a lot, but innocent until proven guilty, that's a bottom line.
That is a bottom line American principle.
You don't play with that one.
Now, that's how we treat citizens.
How do we treat government organizations?
Remember, an organization is not a person.
Organizations don't have constitutional rights.
People do. So what should be your guiding assumption about the guilt of the FBI in this case?
It should be guilty.
Your starting assumption should be guilty.
And you can be forgiven for that.
You can be forgiven.
Now, if the FBI had a spotless record up to this point...
They still need to make their argument.
They still got to make a good case, and they haven't done that.
I mean, maybe they will.
Anything could happen. But you have to assume that the FBI is guilty unless they prove otherwise.
So your best citizen, positive, protect the republic point of view is that the FBI is corrupt in this specific case.
That's the best thing you could assume as a citizen.
It's the thing that protects the system the best.
If you want to protect the American system, you should start with a solid assumption that the FBI is corrupt, in this case in particular, based on pattern in history.
They need to prove the fuck out of that if they want to change my mind.
Do you know how hard it's going to be to change my mind that this was anything but a political thing?
Very hard. They're going to have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and they're going to have to try hard.
And if we don't hold them to that standard, I'm not sure we should expect that our standard will be held to either.
The innocent until proven guilty, the thing you like.
I don't know if that can hold up either.
If you let the FBI get away with innocent until proven guilty when it's obvious they don't play that way, they play guilty.
We know that. That's not in question.
So the best, wisest, most practical, most useful starting point of view is that the FBI is guilty in this case, and they'd better prove otherwise.
And I'll wait. So, I think, you know, I tweeted yesterday, I'll give my government 48 hours.
Because I think 48 hours is enough that the fog of war situation will calm down a little bit.
And then after 48 hours, people said, well, what then, cartoon boy?
What are you going to do?
Make a witty cartoon about it?
No, I'm not threatening.
I'm saying that after 48 hours, I'll form an opinion.
Does that sound radical?
That I'm going to wait until I know enough about this situation to form an opinion.
I didn't tell you what the opinion is going to be.
If I told you it was a threat, as in, you know, if this happens, I'll do something, I don't know what.
It's not a threat. I'm just telling you what's the minimum I need to form an opinion.
I need some information, you know, beyond the fog of war.
I need some actual useful information.
So when I get that, I'm going to form an opinion.
But I'm definitely not going to form one yet.
At this point, we have questions.
We have speculation.
We have a complete lack of trust in our institutions.
But that's earned. So we don't need to change that.
Erica says, you sit on the fence.
Do I? Erica?
Am I sitting on the fence?
Or am I waiting to find out what's actually happening?
I'm not sure that's the same.
Because one of them is Erica.
Here I'm talking to the fake Erica.
Apparently there's more than one Erica in the situation here.
So we've got one Erica on the locals' platform.
But we're not talking about that Erica.
We're talking about all capital letters, Erica, over here on YouTube.
Dark Erica? Yeah, have you heard the Democrats are calling Biden Dark Brandon?
They're trying to take advantage of the negative labeling.
It's not working. All right.
Do I think the queens of drilling dry holes finally hit oil?
Probably not. All right.
Giving the benefit of a doubt...
Did I just do that?
Did I just give the FBI the benefit of a doubt while saying they couldn't be trusted?
That's what somebody on YouTube says.
No. I'm not giving anybody the benefit of a doubt.
I'm saying that I'll know more tomorrow.
How is that even provocative?
The most reasonable opinion in the world is, huh, maybe I'll wait and hear what this warrant's all about before I make an opinion.
Because what if they come up with, you know, there was a hostage or some damn thing?
Anything could happen. And remember, there's a chance that this is all a trick, right?
One possibility is that Trump, you know, knew there was nothing there, but he baited them into raiding him to get these documents.
Maybe. Maybe. Yeah, he may have tricked them into thinking there was something there that they needed so that there would be a raid, which would be amazingly clever.
But, you know, I don't assume that's true.
I think that would be a little too clever.
But you can't rule it out.
We're at the point where nothing can be ruled out at this point.
Yeah, I don't think it's 3D chess, but can't rule it out.
I agree with what you're saying.
Somebody at Locals was saying, it's so hard to be friends with a Democrat now.
It really is.
It really is.
The only way you can do it is if they don't follow politics.
If they follow politics, you just can't even hang out with them.
Scott's waking up. Now...
Now I did learn that at least one person, when they say, Scott's waking up, is just joking.
So I'm going to treat it like it's just joking when you say that, because I don't know the difference.
You've lost friends since listening to my podcast.
Thank you.
How many of you have lost friends because of something I've said?
Oh my God. Because of something I said?
Well, it turns out I've cost a lot of people their friends.
You're all saying yes.
Are you serious? Somebody said check the market.
What is the stock market doing?
Nothing. Why did you say check the market?
There's not really anything happening.
Your friends are tired of you quoting me.
Does anybody else have that problem?
Oh my God.
Apparently I've cost a lot of you a lot of friends.
Oh my God. This is horrifying.
My wife doesn't like hearing you.
How many of you have a spouse or a significant other who can't stand your habit of listening to me?
Does anybody have a spouse who's going crazy?
Can you do me a favor?
If you have a spouse who hates you listening to me, could you just turn up the sound right now?
Because I have a message for your spouse.
I'll give you a second. Everybody?
Could you just turn up your volume really loud?
If your spouse is around, I want to talk to your spouse for a second.
I think that's long enough.
Are you ready? Hey spouse, you should totally be listening to these live streams because you would learn so much.
Your spouse is the smart one.
You should be possibly doing more things for him or her because the smart one is watching my live stream.
Now you've been warned.
If you're watching the other news, you're deeply uninformed.
Join your spouse.
Join your spouse.
You can turn that into volume now.
I feel like we came together a little bit there.
Did you feel it? Yeah.
It was like the world was divided, and then I feel like we brought them together.
Bonding, exactly.
Ann says no sex for a month for her.
So, Ann's available.
That's too funny.
If there's anybody else not getting sex from their spouse, you might want to call it out here because there's plenty of people who are willing to fill in.
I'm just talking about transitory sex.
I'm not talking about the permanent kind of a sex partner.
I just mean to get you past the live stream and through the political period.
More of a transitory cheating.
So you've got that to look forward to.
Oh, my. I've taught all of you how to lose your friends.
Oh, that's more than true.
All right. All right, well, let me ask on the positive side.
How many of you have bonded with your spouse or significant other, or even a family member, over my livestream?
Is there anybody here who listens to it with their mom, for example?
I know some of you do.
Some of you listen to it with your mom.
Alright, okay, good.
See, I'm bringing people together.
I'm bringing families together.
I'm not just ripping people apart.
I'm bringing them together.
Alright, good. So, let me ask you this.
How many of you came into this live stream on fire because of the raid on Mar-a-Lago and I talked you down a little bit?
Do you feel more relaxed?
Just wait and see. Because first of all, if what you want is a Trump presidency, I think he got closer.
Right? If this follows the pattern of every other thing we've seen, The pattern would be they're over-claiming.
They don't have evidence of any kind of crimes.
They're going to act like they do.
And then the Republicans are going to get really, really mad that they have been hunted.
By the way, have I ever made a better prediction than the one I'm most mocked for?
That Republicans would get hunted?
Huh. Your dog...
Does anybody have a pet who likes to listen to me in the morning?
Anybody? Does anybody have a pet?
Dog or a cat? Yes.
Dogs mostly, right?
Yeah. Because I don't really speak to the cats.
I try to do content that leans human-canine and a little bit less...
less cat.
Um... Cats won't listen.
Well, you need new cats.
You lost your pet friends.
I don't know. Somebody lost their pet friends because of listening.
That's bad. I'm sorry.
The pets couldn't handle you anymore.
Was it because you were quoting me too much?
Has anybody ever quoted me?
I've got a feeling that happens sometimes.
You know, I was...
Before I did any public stuff...
Here's a little weird little anecdote since I have a minute here.
Back in my corporate days, before I started Dilbert, before I had any kind of public notoriety, when I was just guy in cubicle, one of the things I noticed was that my...
My boss's boss would quote me.
And the first time it happened, I thought, oh, look at me saying something so well that it got quoted by, you know, a senior member of the company.
And then I noticed it happened again.
And I realized, well before I was famous, I realized that I was quotable.
Like, weirdly quotable.
Because people were doing it.
And I don't remember a lot of other people who were being quoted as co-workers.
It was sort of an odd thing.
But apparently I had the ability to wordsmith clever little sentences that people like to quote.
And honestly, to me, that was the first signal that I received that I could do something in public that people would care about.
Now, I always imagined it, like I visualized it, so I imagined myself doing things in public long before I had any public interaction.
But I didn't have any reason to think it.
It was just a vision.
But once I saw regular people quoting me, I thought, well, there must be something I do with words that people want to hear.
And sure enough, it turns out, People like to hear me put words together in a variety of different formats.
So I would look for that, by the way.
So if you're looking for somebody to maybe break out from your work situation, look for people that you quote.
Because it could even be like a kid in your family.
Some of you have that situation, right?
There'll be like a 12-year-old in your family and you find yourself quoting the 12-year-old because they actually said something that was kind of cool and you actually just liked it.
Just keep an eye on that.
If that happens more than once, if you find yourself quoting a 12-year-old more than once, buy some stock in that 12-year-old because that's a kid who's going somewhere.
Quoting yourself is quite fine.
How many of you think that my voice is somehow related to why you watch this?
Because in my opinion, my voice is terrible.
I'm always clearing my throat and sneezing and full of allergies.
So a little bit both ways.
Yeah, I told you before, I listened to my voice five years ago on the Joe Rogan show, or whenever it was, and it's really different now.
So five years ago, my voice sounded like a senior citizen, because it was still weak from the years of not being able to speak.
But because I do this for an hour a day, my voice just got stronger.
I was listening to it recently, and it sounds younger than Oh, what do you think?
Instead of me telling you, I'll ask you.
Does my current voice sound younger than my age?
I think it does.
But it's only because it's stronger.
And I think anybody who practices their voice muscles, I think if your voice gets stronger, it makes you feel younger.
I mean, you register as younger.
Because I think the old person voice that you hear is weakness, right?
If you listen to an old person, it sounds like there's literally muscle weakness, like, get off of my lawn.
You know, like there's just no muscle there.
And speaking is like every other muscle.
The more you do, the better you can do it.
So the fact that I do it a lot is what makes me age backwards.
I do feel like I'm aging backwards in some ways.
Did you turn off YouTube?
No, not yet. Alright, but I think I'm done.
YouTube, do you have any questions before I go?
Yeah, my nose always sounds plugged.
You sound like I have a permanent allergy.
Well, that's true. Every now and then, maybe one out of 20 times, my head is clear from allergies.
