Episode 1831 Scott Adams: Things We Know: FBI and DOJ Can't Be Trusted. Occam's Razor is Worthless
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Are politics worse now than in the 1960s?
Mar-a-Lago warrant details
Occam's Razor is subjective
FBI went through Melania's wardrobe
Judge who signed the Mar-a-Lago warrant
Rep. Scott Perry's cell phone seized by FBI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to another optimistic highlight of human civilization called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Probably the best time you've ever had in your life.
And it's coming at you now.
Sure, sure, there's stuff in the news that's scary and annoying, but that's all behind you now.
You're here. You're safe.
You're with friends.
It's all going to be better.
And if you'd like to take it up another notch, And that's the kind of person you are.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or gel, a stein, 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 the simultaneous sip.
Here it comes.
Go.
Oh.
Who says the country is more divided than ever?
Thank you.
Totally BS. So, part of the debate that you see on social media is the country should divide into separate countries because we're not one country anymore.
To which I say, were we ever?
Were we ever?
Do you really think things are worse than they were in the 60s?
Some of it might be just a bad memory or you're too young.
If you live through the 60s, this is nothing.
America can handle this level of discontent easily.
It's not even pressing the envelope at all.
We are well within the everything is fine zone.
It just feels like it's different because if you have a hobby of talking about the news, as I do, you get all these little nuggets that are designed to get your blood flowing, right?
What do they report in the news?
The news doesn't report things that are normal and everything's going fine.
The only thing the news shows you is stuff that's going to get your entire nervous system excited.
So of course you think the world is falling apart if you follow the news or you follow social media, but it's not.
It's not. Every time I walk outside the house, everything seems fine.
Have you tried that experiment?
You know, you'll be looking at your phone, and you're on Twitter, and you're like, ah, rah, rah, you stupid, stupid Democrats, stupid Republicans, rah, you rhinos, rah, rah, rah.
And then you put your phone down, and you walk outside, and your neighbor's there watering the lawn or whatever, and the neighbor says, hey, good morning.
And you say, good morning, great day, have a good one.
Maybe you're a Republican, maybe your neighbor's a Democrat.
Do you care? Nobody cares.
It can't be more than 1% of the country who would literally want to divorce.
There are things that people say hyperbolically in the political context.
Republicans are always talking about an armed insurrection against their own government or having to defend themselves from their own government.
But it's not that serious.
It could be. I mean, it would take the right trigger to make it serious.
But we've never been close to it.
There's nothing happening that's close to that kind of a trigger.
If the government said we're going to confiscate all your firearms, well, then I'd have a very different opinion.
At that point, I'd say, okay, that's a problem.
That's a problem. But we don't have that.
Take a look at abortion, probably the most polarizing issue there is.
And the people who are most hated by the left...
Are people who are literally trying to save the babies of the left.
The right as well, but they were going to be saved anyway.
The Republicans are trying to save the lives of the children of their enemies.
Am I right? Because the Republican babies are largely being born.
They're less likely to be.
Obviously, there's a lot going on in all parties.
But it's a weird kind of, yes, the world is falling apart because Republicans really want their enemies to have healthy, successful babies.
That's literally what's happening.
Now, the way they're doing it is worth discussing.
The way they're doing it is totally worth discussing, and we do.
And what do we end up doing?
Creating states where everybody can get what they want, but it's going to take some adjustment.
It might take some time for people to relocate if they care enough.
The country was designed where if we have huge disagreements, the states can account for that.
They can give you enough variety that you can go where you want.
You like low taxes?
We got that.
You like high taxes and higher social services?
Come to California.
You know, you like the open borders?
Live in a border state.
You don't like that?
Go to Wyoming. A lot less problem there.
So, I would like to be the one beacon of positivity in your day that will be surrounded with people trying to get clicks for getting you all excited.
And I'll probably get all excited about some things too, but I'll try to keep it in perspective.
And you can keep me honest.
If you see me getting worked up about something that won't matter if I walk out doors...
I mean, literally, just walk out your front door.
There's nothing going on out there.
There's no riot in the streets.
There's nothing. People are just sort of minding their own business, for the most part.
Well, here's some good news, I think.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission...
Main news by approving a small nuclear reactor design.
I think it's specifically for the company NuScale.
Is that Bill Gates' investment?
Is that the one that Bill Gates has invested in, NuScale?
Or is this the other one?
What's the other one? There's another one that is in the news all the time.
The other one is what?
He's invested in one of the big modular startups for nuclear.
Which one is it? Terra?
Is it TerraPower?
TerraPower, yeah, okay.
That sounds right. Somebody sounds like they know what they're talking about.
But NuScale won't be the only one that goes through this process.
It looks like there are a number of other entities that are also looking for this kind of approval.
Now, somebody said the other day that nuclear will never work because the economics can never work, and nobody has any idea how to fix that.
To which I say, yes, they do.
It's right here. I just read it to you.
How they plan to fix the economics is to get an approved model of something that you could build smaller and modular, and it uses a technology that's unlikely to melt or impossible to melt down.
Problem solved. If you've got the government approval And you've got a modular design where you can just make more of them after you get going.
It looks like problem solved to me, economics-wise.
Now, that's easy to say, because we also thought that the last versions of nuclear power plants would cost what we estimated, and then they all ended up being multiples of what we estimated.
But even if that's true...
For the modular, it's still going to be way cheaper than traditional.
It looks like that's a good bet.
So in 2029, they expect to maybe have some of these new scale deals up and running, and that's not that far away.
Imagine six years or so.
Now, one assumes they'll be delayed, right?
But let's say it's 10.
Let's say they shoot for six, but in 10 years...
We're knocking off modular nuclear power plants like crazy.
I feel like we've solved climate change.
And the fact that the climate change people don't talk about this incessantly proves that it's not about the climate.
Right? I mean, it's also about the climate.
But it's clear that this isn't a purely political realm that people imagine is about the climate.
Because if people actually thought it was about the climate, everybody would be all in on nuclear.
Now, here's an interesting thing that somebody said as part of this story.
Somebody in the industry said that the zeitgeist had changed in the last two years.
So in the last two years, the common belief in society and in government was that nuclear had gone from the worst thing you could do to, well, we better do this as quickly as possible and do more of it.
What changed the zeitgeist?
The zeitgeist, by the way, let me define that, because that's one of those writer words.
There are certain words that writers like to write and readers don't like to read, and that's one of them.
Because, you know, if you're a good writer, you're writing at about the sixth grade level of comprehension, and that word is sort of college level.
So zeitgeist just means the way people are thinking, right?
So the way people are thinking for some reason changed in the last two years.
What do you think did it? Was there anything happening in the last two years that would have changed the zeitgeist?
Right? Yes, yes.
Michael Schellenberger, for example, and a lot of other people helping, Mark Schneider, me, other people.
But I do think that, collectively, we actually moved the zeitgeist.
It looks like it.
Because there was nothing else happening, am I right?
You know, the startups were crawling along, same as they are now.
But what else changed?
The only thing I know changed is that Schellenberger got a bigger audience and made his case so persuasively that people just heard it and said, okay, we're just going to go with you now.
I think that's what happened.
Right? Because it wasn't like just the Republicans or just the Democrats.
Pretty much society in general just sort of went to okay on nuclear from not okay.
There's nothing else that changed.
Yeah, Bjorn Lomborg wrote some books, and that's part of the persuasion as well, a big part.
Oh, and then I see the suggestion that the Russia-Ukraine thing blew apart Blew apart our old model of how we were going to get energy.
But I would say that's too recent.
I think the Zeitgeist changed well before the Ukraine thing blew up.
That's my opinion. All right.
So when we heard about this raid on Mar-a-Lago, I tweeted that I was going to give my government 48 hours to explain itself.
And then a weird thing happened.
A whole bunch of people who were artists, mostly writers you've never heard of, flooded my mentions and said some version of this.
Oh, cartoon boy, what are you going to do after 48 hours?
Make a Dilbert comic about it?
Are you going to overthrow the country?
Are you going to run an insurrection?
What are you going to do, Dilbert guy, after 48 hours?
To which my answer is, I will form an opinion.
That's all. The only thing I'm promising you is that I'm going to give them 48 hours, which I feel is a reasonable standard.
A reasonable standard.
You have 48 hours to tell me what the deal is.
If they tell me what the deal is and I'm satisfied, okay.
Then I'm satisfied. If they don't tell me what the deal is, then I have questions.
And a related question would be, why isn't Trump telling me what the warrant says?
Because we've got to ask that question, too.
Because they have to show the warrant to the recipient.
It's only sealed from us.
It's sealed from the public.
But not from the recipient.
The recipient gets a piece of paper that says, the law says we can check these things on your premise.
So Trump knows exactly what the warrant says, but what he wouldn't know necessarily is why.
If it's sealed, that doesn't mean sealed from the recipient.
It couldn't be. It couldn't be.
Am I wrong about that?
The warrant says don't reveal the warrant?
Are you saying that the recipient knows, but he's not allowed to Let's see.
We're getting some correction here.
So I'm seeing people on both platforms telling me I'm wrong.
So let's see if we can clarify this.
So do me a favor.
If you're a lawyer by profession, just put that in your comment so I can favor your comments.
Like lawyer, colon, this is what it is.
Let's see if we work this out right now.
So I'm looking for a lawyer to just tell me what's true.
Most of us, I think, are guessing.
Let's see.
Trained lawyer...
Trump can declass...
Well, no, Trump can't declassify anything because he's not president.
So you're saying it's not a normal situation because there's national security involved.
But is there? Is there national security involved?
Levin said he'd have to go to court to have permission to release it.
Is that what Levin said?
Did Mark Levin said that Trump would need court permission to release it?
You're espousing the so-when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife argument.
I am? I don't think I am.
Why are we trying to rationalize the legality of a purely political act Is it?
We don't know yet, do we?
I mean, it looks to me.
It looks political.
Trump lawyer was shown the warrant but didn't get a copy.
All right. So interesting.
All right, so I guess we don't have a...
Dilbert boy ain't talking so loud anymore.
What's that mean? All the people who have failed as writers are very mad at me.
Have you noticed that? They're very mad at me and they also are unaware that I've had any career beyond making comics.
It's very, very consistent.
They feel like they're like cookie cutter, like artist trolls.
Put something about writer in your profile and then go after that Dilbert guy.
They're the one-star customers, yeah.
Stop commenting on trolls.
It's a waste of time. Gets my attention sometimes.
All right, so here's where we're at.
The 48 hours would be over, I think, at 4 o'clock my time.
I think that's when I tweeted it two days ago.
So by late afternoon today...
We will know if we've been told anything useful.
Now, I'm not going to accept that there's a national security element to this, so we can't be told.
Would you? Because this is not like an ordinary situation.
If he were a normal citizen, I'd say, well, national security, so yeah.
But I believe that whether it's national security or not, they could at the very least tell us the domain that they're looking into.
Couldn't they? I mean, couldn't they say, for example, it's about January 6th?
Or they could say it's about something in the documents.
There is something they could say.
Yeah.
So we'll find out.
Now, the clock starts at the raid.
Well, yeah, I think you're right.
The clock should start at the raid.
So then would the 48 hours be over already?
It would be, right? Oh, okay.
Yeah, I mean, I was thinking 48 hours from the time I tweeted, but it makes more sense.
A lawyer says that being the Dilbert guy is not an insult.
But somehow they make it sound like that minimizes my opinion.
I hate to tell you this, but if you took the average IQ of successful cartoonists and compared it to the average...
It would be a lot higher than you think.
A lot of the successful cartoonists are literally physicists, lawyers, you know.
A lot of them are really credentialed.
You know, Gary Trudeau, Ivy League.
So being called a successful cartoonist is sort of a weird insult, isn't it?
All right, so let's talk about this criticism from the Democrats who say, do a fact check me on this too.
So the Democrats are saying that Ray was appointed by Trump.
They're saying that the judge was a Republican appointee, the one who signed off on it, right?
And so they're saying, well, if Republicans are involved in this, then there must be something to it.
To which I say, but Republicans were involved in the Russia collusion hoax.
Were they not?
Were there any Republicans in the 50 former Intel people who signed off on the laptop?
I mean, I don't know.
But does it seem likely that all 50 of them were Democrats?
I assume there were some Republicans.
And how about January 6 hearings being managed by two Republicans?
What about the Lincoln, one of those guys, the Lincoln Log Group or whatever they are, the ones who are anti-Trump?
So imagining that having Republicans involved means it's not a hit job, that doesn't track at all.
The other bad thinking I saw from somebody who does not have a STEM education is that Occam's Razor Meaning the simplest explanation is usually correct, suggests that the most likely explanation for what we're seeing with this Mar-a-Lago raid is that the judge and also the Attorney General must have seen something that was damning and important,
because it's the best explanation.
The way they're acting is as if they did know there was something important that they could find, maybe find.
What do you think? Do you think that the simplest explanation is it's exactly what it looks like?
They thought there was something important and they went to look for it.
No, that is terrible reasoning.
This is a logic and reasoning flaw.
If you believe that the simplest explanation is correct, you might be very dumb.
Do you know what the simplest explanation is?
It's the one you think is correct.
It's circular thinking.
And people use it as if it's some kind of magic bullet to find the truth.
It's literally the opposite of that.
It's a magic bullet to make sure that you're in circular thinking and you're not part of the rational discussion whatsoever.
Let me prove it.
What's the simplest explanation for the existence of reality?
God. Am I right?
The simplest explanation...
Is God. Well, what do the atheists say?
No, the simplest explanation according to the atheists is just evolution, change over time, explains everything.
And then they say, well, hell, how do you explain how it all got here?
And then the atheists say, how do you explain how God got here?
We're equal. The point is, I'm not arguing whether God or evolution is true or not true.
What I'm arguing is that no matter what you think is true, You also think it's the simplest explanation.
Occam's razor doesn't tell you what's true.
You start with what you believe is true, and then you reason backwards to say, it's also the simplest.
It's so simple.
It's the simplest. Anytime you see somebody using Occam's razor to argue, especially in these situations where there's lots of variables and there's lots of unknowns and still the fog of war, if anybody's using Occam's razor, in a world in which the unlikely thing almost happens all the time, right? If you told me...
So here's the problem with Occam's razor.
When you saw the Russia collusion thing spinning up, Wasn't the simplest explanation that there might be something there?
And it turns out the simplest explanation was Democrats are corrupt.
That's pretty simple, too.
Everything looks simple if it's the thing you think is true.
So don't be confused by what looks like the simplest explanation.
That means nothing.
It has no predictive value whatsoever.
It's completely subjective on your part.
All right. In science, that might have some use, though, because science is more bounded, and if you have fewer variables to explain something in science, that's good.
So in science, it's still useful, but not in the real world.
I reiterate the most dangerous question in the world for Democrats.
If you're a Democrat and you believe Trump is a menace to society...
Unlike normal politicians, and this is the important part, you know, everybody calls the politicians on the other side a menace to society.
But Trump has been singled out as like a special, you know, menace who could end civilization itself.
And if you believe that to be true, wouldn't you falsify an arrest warrant to stop it?
And if you wouldn't, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Let me say it again. If you believe the gaslighting and that Trump is really a risk to end civilization itself, if you believe that, meaning that you believe what Democrats largely say in public, if you believe that and you did not break the law to stop him, you worthless piece of shit, if you believed it was true.
Because if you put me in that position, I would break the law.
I would break the law so fast.
There's no law I wouldn't break to kill Hitler.
Because, you know, murder is against the law.
I would murder Hitler if I had a choice or a chance.
If I had a chance, I'd murder him, even knowing I would get killed.
I'd still murder him.
So it doesn't matter if it's against the law.
Of course I'd do it. So are you telling me that a sitting judge, let's say the judge is a patriot, Cares about the country.
But also believes that Trump is Hitler.
You're telling me that judge is going to put the law over the country?
Maybe. But if there's a judge that puts the law over the survival of the country, you need to get rid of that judge right away.
I want the judge that would break the law.
In that specific situation.
I want the head of the FBI to violate the law totally under that specific situation that you're stopping a Hiller from coming to office.
Any other situation, they'd better follow the law, because that's best for everybody.
But in that specific situation, you really have to kill Hiller.
Now, I'm not suggesting that they do that, of course.
I'm telling you that they need to explain why they're not doing it.
Because to me, the simplest explanation for everything we're seeing is that Trump is being framed in every way that they can figure out to frame him.
So if you think that because some people were Republicans or they were upright citizens until this moment, you have to explain to me why you wouldn't kill Hitler if you had a shot.
If you can't explain that to me, you're not part of the conversation.
You should not have a ticket to the conversation if you're not willing to answer this question.
Because I can answer it.
I can answer all of the tough questions.
Sometimes you have to say, yeah, people are going to die, but I still choose it.
That would be an honest answer.
Like going to Mars.
Is going to Mars a good idea?
Well, people are going to die.
They're definitely going to die because it's a risky proposition over the long haul.
And even Musk says that.
Yeah, people are going to die trying to occupy Mars.
But it's the only way we're going to get there.
You can't really stop it all.
It's going to happen. So I feel like anybody who can't honestly say what they believe and what they would do to be consistent with that belief should just not be in the conversation.
Just ignore them. Here's some context that apparently Democrats are not aware of based on social media reading this morning.
I don't believe that Democrats remember the Hunter Biden laptop thing was a disappeared story.
I don't feel they know that.
I feel it's just something that they didn't know about and then maybe lately they heard about.
So they're missing the entire fact that the government is proven To have plotted to frame Republicans or plotted to keep a Republican out of office.
Because the whole reason for the 50 past intel people signing off that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation was to change the nature of politics, to change the result.
To me, that looks like an insurrection.
If you get 50 past intelligence people to lie, and I think they knew they were lying, don't know that, but I think they did, if you get 50 of them to lie, that is an insurrection if it changes politics.
So you've got this January 6th committee looking into the wrong insurrection.
There was an actual proven one with 50 people who have the types of jobs where they shouldn't be lying to the public, but they did.
Now, What do you make of these 50 people?
What I make is that they probably believed that Trump was a threat to civilization.
I don't think that those 50 people were just acting out of just politics.
I think they actually believed they were saving the world by keeping Trump out of office.
So here we have an actual insurrection.
In my opinion, this is a clear, proven insurrection, because the 50 people could not have known It was Russian disinformation, but they signed on to say that they did know that.
That they did know that.
And they didn't. So we don't have to wonder if the top level of government would plot against Trump.
It's right there. And then, of course, Russia collusion.
Have you ever talked to a Democrat about the Russia collusion hoax?
Do you know what they all say?
They all say it was proven to be true.
Because Paul Manafort went to jail.
They actually say it was true.
As if that was the point of it.
Or as if Paul Manafort sharing some internal polling information with a Russian guy, which he shouldn't have done.
I'm not defending it.
But, like, that mattered.
That didn't matter.
He shouldn't have done it.
But it didn't hurt the country to have some internal polling from the Trump campaign.
I don't imagine there were any surprises in it.
Right? Yeah, and apparently the judge who signed off had some...
He had represented Epstein as his lawyer.
That's a little sketchy.
Let me ask you this.
If you represented Epstein as his lawyer, what is the likelihood that you could be blackmailed?
It's close to 100%, isn't it?
Just think about it.
Who takes the job of being Epstein's lawyer?
Would you take the job of being Epstein's lawyer if you had not been to the island?
Maybe you have to be somebody who hasn't been to the island.
But something tells me that just defending him suggests that you are black-amailable.
Am I right? Yes.
If you said, who's the most blackmailable judge in the whole world, I'd say, well, somebody who had had a close association with Epstein is right in the middle of the blackmail, black hole of the universe.
Because I think we all assume that Epstein was running a blackmail operation, right?
I mean, he certainly was getting lots of important people in compromising situations, and I don't think that was an accident.
So if you believe...
If you believe that a judge or a lawyer associated with Epstein, being on Epstein's side makes him an easy target for blackmail, then you should not trust that judge.
So I don't.
So I don't assume that even if it was a Republican appointment, it doesn't matter if it's a Republican appointment.
You know? Yeah, the far thing...
Well, it's boring.
All right. And I would also add to my list that the FBI, for all practical purposes, they did confess to instigating the January 6th protest.
Now, the reason I say that is that when Ted Cruz asked the representative of the FBI to answer the question...
Did the FBI instigate it?
they decided to refuse to answer.
You're welcome.
So would you sign on to that opinion?
Would you agree with me if the FBI refuses to answer the question, did you instigate the protests?
That has to be assumed to be a confession, right?
Because, yeah, I mean, that's a confession.
So if they instigated the biggest, or at least they're indicating, you know, I don't know, but they've clearly indicated...
Hey, did I disappear there for a moment?
Was it something I said?
Was it something I said?
Interesting when that happens.
So let me say it again.
See if we can crash YouTube again.
A reasonable citizen has to assume that the FBI confessed to instigating January 6th because they did not deny it.
Now... If they had assets there, I think it would have been easy for them to say, we don't tell you where all of our assets are, but we do monitor any groups we think would be dangerous, but we don't instigate or we did not instigate anything in this case.
Then they'd have to explain the Whitmer situation where the FBI did instigate something, and that's been proven apparently.
But they could always deny it.
It doesn't give away anything.
They could just say, no, we didn't instigate it, period.
Do you have assets in every group?
Yes. You would want us to.
But we didn't instigate it.
Just say you didn't do it.
And by the way, they have never followed up to say they didn't do it.
There's been no follow-up as in, well, we probably should have said more assertively we had nothing to do with instigating it.
But they didn't. And given their past performance that's actually pretty recent, you would have to assume guilt.
So let me be as clear as I can.
I don't know if the FBI is framing Trump with this raid.
But you have to assume so.
Because the burden of proof is clearly on the government at this point because they have proven themselves to be non-credible.
If you prove yourself to be non-credible on this exact question, you need to step up or you have to live with the fact that we're not going to buy your story.
Choose one. And I think it pretty much guarantees Trump's re-election.
There's a story about the FBI spent hours going through Melania's wardrobe...
That's the sort of thing I wouldn't have expected since J. Edgar Hoover's day.
I think J. Edgar Hoover, if the stories are true, would have spent more than a few hours in Melania's closet until he tried on every dress.
Allegedly. Allegedly.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
We love our LGBTQ plus community.
And is it true that the judge who signed that search warrant also recently recused himself on a case that involves Clinton and Trump?
Really? Is that even true?
I'm seeing it on social media.
But this one just needs a really, doesn't it?
Let me just say it again, and then you can all just say, really, at home.
The same judge...
Who we're all trusting to be even-handed and above politics, recused himself not that long ago on an unrelated case that involved Clinton and Trump.
Really? Really?
That's the guy who signed the warrant?
That's like the last guy who should sign the warrant.
All right. So, let's see what else is happening.
There's this congressperson named Perry who, he said that he was traveling on Tuesday and that, and you should know that he's also, he's filed articles of impeachment against Garland, right? So a person in Congress, a Republican, he files articles of impeachment against Garland and soon after the FBI stopped him and seized his phone without warning.
Now, he says all he had to do was ask with a warrant.
But all he had to do was ask and he would just give him the phone if there was a warrant.
But instead they stopped him and his family and took his phone from him.
Now, I have a question.
How much information is on the phone that's not in the iCloud or in the Internet?
Is there much? There is some, right?
There's some messages that are maybe only on your phone?
Is that a thing? Well, iCloud is encrypted, but can't law enforcement get it?
So text messages would not be stored anywhere but the phone, right?
Should it be the text messages only?
Because email you can get to?
I'm just wondering if we should allow law enforcement to seize phones.
Here's what I would suggest.
Somebody make an app that stores all of your text messages in your iCloud, if it doesn't already happen.
So 100% of the things on your phone, including your text messages, are in the cloud.
And then when the FBI comes for you, there should be a law that says, oh, check my phone, and you can see that I have the app active that stores everything in the cloud.
So instead of giving you my phone, I'm going to give you the password for the cloud, But it'll be a limited password that only works for one day or something.
So they can get everything they want, but you won't take my phone, so I won't lose my phone.
Because I think the law about they can take your phone was before phones became essential to navigate modern life.
What would you do if your phone went away?
If somebody took my phone, I don't even know what the hell I'd do.
I guess I'd figure it out.
But... Somebody says this is the dumbest thing I've ever said.
That's not true. I've said much dumber things.
You don't get to negotiate with law enforcement.
I'm saying that the law should be changed.
And by the way, yes, you do get to negotiate with law enforcement.
Take it from me. I'm an adult white male.
I definitely negotiate with law enforcement.
Maybe you can't.
Maybe if you're black and male...
Maybe you can't. I don't know.
I've never been in that situation.
But I can totally negotiate with law enforcement.
You think that's not a thing?
You don't think law enforcement would be more afraid of me than I am of them?
They would be. I can tell you from personal experience.
When I talk to law enforcement, they're worried about their jobs.
And should be. And should be.
All right. Not the FBI, you say?
You can't negotiate with the FBI? You can negotiate with anybody.
You can negotiate with anybody.
They just have to be afraid of you.
If they're not afraid of you, you can't negotiate with them.
I don't mean physically.
They have to think that you're going to be more trouble than it's worth if they don't talk to you.
That's all. Just make sure that they know that talking to you is easy.
Not talking to you could be a problem.
They'll talk. Everybody wants the path of least resistance.
Doesn't mean you'll get what you want, but you can definitely negotiate.
So what do you think of this?
So how many examples now do we have of Republicans being targeted and hunted?
Too many. You're saying don't say a thing to them?
I think it depends who you are.
If you're me...
I think you would talk to me.
I'm not sure everybody would.
Is Scott concerned?
Concerned about having my phone taken?
Yes. I will put odds on it at this point.
If I had to say the odds that I will be subject to an intelligence investigation, no, I'm going to...
I already am.
I'm sure of it.
You don't think that the intelligence agencies have crawled all over my stuff?
I'd be amazed if they haven't.
And the reason is because I can move the needle.
Or they might think so.
If they believe that I can move the needle, they're all over me.
And they would certainly want to know if anybody is paying me or if there's any foreign entity influencing me.
And not only would U.S. intelligence agencies want to know that about me, specifically, but they'd also want to know that other countries would want to know that about me.
And if they don't, they're not doing their job.
If you saw that there was somebody talking about politics who seemed to be actually changing it, And you didn't know...
And he wasn't registered Democrat, wasn't registered Republican, didn't work for a major news organization, seemed to be independent.
If you were the CIA, wouldn't you need to know more about that situation?
If you're doing your job, right?
You'd want to know more about that situation.
Yeah. Tim Pool, same situation.
Mike Cernovich, just to throw out some other names.
There are people who don't take a paycheck...
From a big, you know, known entity who are absolutely capable of moving the conversation.
There's no way that the intelligence people don't need to know as much about those people as possible just to figure out if somebody's influencing the influencer.
They would have to know that.
That would be very important. All right.
Does anybody disagree? You think you have actual power?
I've got news for you, LOL. I don't know.
Is that from me? Scott's too useful to the deep state to be cancelled.
That's probably true. That's probably true.
I'm too useful to the deep state because I'm useful to the country.
If you've noticed, the one thing I don't do...
At least not intentionally, is I don't promote conspiracy theories that Republicans love, generally.
In fact, I'm usually the last person to get on board even after the court has proven it's a conspiracy theory.
Russia collusion being an example.
Although I never expected that to be proven.
But I was kind of waiting, waiting to see if they had anything.
Yes, it is. Civil servants live in...
Yeah. Adrenochrome?
I don't know what that reference is.
You promoted masks.
No, I didn't. Jonathan will now be banned for life for saying that I promoted masks.
Jonathan, you miserable piece of shit.
That never happened. I've always been anti-mask.
I'll hide you in this channel.
You're gone forever.
I remind you that criticisms about what I've actually said or done are very much allowed.
You are allowed to criticize me as much as you want for something I actually did.
But don't make shit up.
Don't start with a lie and then act like you're defending it.
How soon until China starts to blockade of Taiwan...
I don't expect it. You know, China's best play with Taiwan is...
Keep everything the way it is, which is actually everybody's best interest.
Because in the long, long, long run, Taiwan will be part of China in more ways than it already is.
There's no way it can go any other way.
So you don't need a war over it.
It would be a war over something you were going to win anyway and it didn't make that much difference.
Somebody says, I'm confused because you argued that masks create friction.
All right, let's see if you can understand this.
How is that?
I'm not even sure I know why that's hard to understand.
So there's an engineering statement that masks cause friction.
And then there's a what-do-you-do-about-it statement that's completely different.
So I'm not going to argue masks because you're all bored about that.
But if you believe that I promoted masks when 100% of what I said is no masks, no mandates, then fuck you.
Just don't comment on me if you're going to change my opinion to the opposite of my opinion and then come here and confuse people about it.
Just go away. If you can't handle the fact that something could have an engineering truth but not be good enough to be worthy of implementing, that's not hard.
It's not hard to understand that something might work a little bit, but not enough to be worth doing for other reasons.
Those are not incompatible thoughts.
If you're saying I argue that they're effective, that's a little bit more than I did.
Right.
I argue that the logic of them guarantees that they would have to be based on what we knew.
And that assumed that plume theory was correct.
But if the plume theory was incorrect, then they would have no value, I would agree.
Do you think intelligence agencies are soft on Dems?
Obviously, yes. Somebody says, you valued and pushed masks.
Nope, did not.
And I would ask you, boo dog, I would ask you to unsubscribe from locals.
Because really, I can't tolerate that.
I really can't.
I did not value and push masks.
That literally didn't happen.
So I would ask you to leave locals, really.
I don't want you on the platform.
Seriously. Please, please unsubscribe.
You can do anything except start false rumors about me in public.
You just can't do that.
Everything else is fine.
You just can't do that. You did say they worked.
Are you still confused?
Still confused?
All right.
Dr. Michael Savage, I don't know what you're referring to specifically.
Seems like gaslighting now.
You promoted cannabis.
Did I? Yeah, we're not going to talk about masks anymore.
Let's talk about anything else. All right.
Those are good rumors. Keep starting those.
All right, I don't have anything else useful to say, so I think I'm going to go on.
Why did I say I would talk to them?
What do you mean? Why did you say you would talk to them?
To the FBI?
Why wouldn't I?
I don't understand the question.
Yes.
So a number of you have an accurate summation of my opinion, and I see it over on Locals People are explaining it better than I was explaining it.
Coffee mug. Yeah.
I need to follow up on the coffee mug.
All right.
And then I'm going to do some interview tests We'll do that later. Why should you talk to the FBI? I don't get that question.
Alright, that's all for now. I'll talk to you later.
