Episode 1832 Scott Adams: Time's Up. Phase 2 Begins
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
23% want military draft reinstated
One person...Randi Weingarten
No adequate explanation for Mar-a-Lago raid
Trump families response to Mar-a-Lago raid
Alleged Mar-a-Lago insider...The Mole
Neither AG Garland or WH knew about the raid?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 the Highlight of Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the best thing that's ever happened to you in your whole damn life.
And, oh my God, my phone just stopped working.
What is going on?
Holy cow. Really?
My phone just blew up.
All right, I'm going to play something for you in a minute, but I've got to get it fired up here.
You'll be glad I did.
Boy, will you be happy. Happiest day of your life.
Here it comes.
Here it comes. Ladies and gentlemen, today will be one of the best days of your entire life, because you're here with us.
And if you'd like to take it up a notch, and I think you do, I think you do, all you need is...
A cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice is not in a kinteen 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.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
but it's coming at you now.
Go.
See, that makes my technology all work better now.
Thank you.
So I wanted to play for you a dramatic reading.
Staff, it is my belief that you were doing great and irreparable.
By Jack Posavik of Mark Milley's resignation letter.
Did you read Mark Milley's resignation letter?
So apparently he wrote a resignation letter when he was in the Trump administration.
And he did not deliver it, so he didn't resign.
But we have access to the letter.
It is the funniest letter.
Because the first thing we learned is he's a terrible writer.
He doesn't look like a good general, frankly, but he's a terrible writer.
But Jack Posavec takes it to the next level, and he did a dramatic reading of Mark Milley's resignation letter.
I'm just going to play for you just a small clip from that.
I believe that you have made a concerted effort over time to politicize the United States military.
I thought that I could change that.
But I've come to the realization that I cannot and I need to step aside and let someone else try.
I'm dead serious. This is exact.
I'm reading it verbatim.
Mr. President, you are using the military to create fear in the minds of people and we are trying to protect the American people.
I cannot stand idly by and participate in that attack, verbally or otherwise, on the American people.
The American people trust their military.
We cannot turn back. It continues.
All right, I won't play the whole thing, because you have to go see it.
But you can see it in Jack Bosomic's Twitter feed, or I retweeted it this morning.
You can find it at the top of my feed.
That's really funny. I wish I'd thought of doing that, because that worked perfectly.
All right, let's talk about the good news before we get to the FBI raid stuff.
Of course we'll be talking about that.
Of course we will. I've mentioned this before, but I think this is going to be the biggest deal in the world, like actually the biggest thing that's going to happen in the world over the next 50 years, which is building cities from scratch, largely because our existing cities are legacy and it's too hard to change them into something better.
They're all car-centric and polluted and blah.
But Saudi Arabia is building this many miles long city.
It's like an enclosed structure that will go for miles and miles in like a straight line.
And each little square within it would be a living place where everybody could walk to get everything they need.
So there'd be no cars, no pollution, Probably no crime.
I'm guessing there'll be lots of security cameras and stuff.
Probably no crime.
And everything will be convenient and clean.
Now, you know, skeptics say they'll never build this thing, but apparently they already have approval.
And it's one of ten cities, modern cities, that are being designed around the world.
So in ten different places...
People are trying to build a city from scratch where you do everything right.
Now, one of the things that I think they're doing, the Saudi version, is that the parts to build it will be designed in the factory so that you don't have to cut it when it gets there.
I think that's what they're saying.
I'm reading between the lines.
But to me, that's the biggest deal.
The biggest deal is if you could make one little part of this many miles long city, if you could make one little part of it work perfectly, You just reproduce it.
So I would think the economics of this would be terrific.
I don't know. We'll wait and see.
Maybe one of the ten will get it right.
Well, Rasmussen asked the American public what they thought about reinstituting the military draft.
Military draft.
I'm going to test my audience because I know that you're smarter than the average audience.
So most of you have not seen the results of the survey, so I want to see how close you can get to guessing what percentage of the American adults think that it would be a good idea to reinstitute the military draft.
Oh my God!
How do you do it?
How do you do it?
Yeah, you're so close.
23%. And 23% is nearly, that's nearly a quarter.
Which sometimes is expressed as 25%.
Now, if you're new to my live streams, you may be impressed at this feat of mental acuity.
You should stay around if you're new.
Everybody who watches my live stream long enough could have gotten that answer right without knowing anything about the survey itself.
Every one of you could have gotten that answer right.
So the newcomers, stick around.
That's the sort of thing you're going to learn.
Alright. The funniest tweet I've ever tweeted was completely ignored.
So I'm going to tell you about it.
Because I don't like my best work to be ignored.
Now, I'm going to ask you, after I explain it, you tell me this isn't my best work.
But maybe it was too subtle.
All right, so there's a tweet by Randy Weingarten.
You might know her as the head of the biggest teachers union.
And here's what she tweeted.
She said the teacher shortage was bad before this year, but it's been made worse by culture wars, the mask wars, the fabrication of CRT, the shenanigans of politicians like Governor Abbott in Texas and Governor DeSantis in Florida.
So they headed the biggest teachers' union, Is noting that there's just all kinds of problems related to schools.
You've got your teacher shortages, you know, teachers don't want to teach, and mask wars, and culture wars, and CRT wars, and then politics.
And here's what I tweeted.
I said that one person can make a difference.
That's all. One person can make a difference.
Absolutely nobody got the joke.
And I don't think you would have gotten it necessarily, except I queued it up so you knew what to look for.
But I started to tweet, find the common variable, because she's tweeting about all these things going wrong, and I'm thinking, what do they all have in common?
Her. The only thing they all have in common is her.
They're completely different topics.
Masks, culture wars.
It's all different topics.
Teachers don't want to teach.
It's all her.
It's all her. It's systemic racism.
It's her. We're not doing enough about climate change.
It's her. Do you know why we're not doing enough about climate change?
Because an entire...
An entire, I don't know, several generations of kids have been trained to think that nuclear would kill them.
She's basically the one person who has more to do with destroying the United States than anybody ever has.
And so when you ask, can one person make a difference in this world?
Yeah. Yeah, apparently one person can make a difference.
All right. That was my best work.
So, I tweeted today, time's up.
Now, most people who follow me recognize that to be a follow-up to my tweet.
After the FBI raid, and we were still in the fog of war, I said, you know, I give my government 48 hours to explain why it did something that needs an explanation.
You know, why did the FBI raid a former president?
Because it looks like a political act.
Don't know for sure.
But it looks like it.
So in a case where it looks so much like a political act, which would be the worst thing ever, well, maybe not ever, but we deserve an explanation, do we not?
Now, 48 hours went by, and I have not heard What I would consider an adequate explanation.
I do understand that he's accused of doing something illegal with documents.
I do understand that if he did something within a certain category, it would be a felony.
And I do understand that our law enforcement people are supposed to act on stuff like that.
But, of course, you have precedent.
You have other people where the FBI didn't act.
Maybe it was a misdemeanor then, so maybe it's different.
But there's lots to explain.
Now, for 48 hours, I was open to the possibility that they might have an explanation.
Maybe. Just because I couldn't imagine one, that doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Because it could be just a lack of imagination.
I can't imagine any reason why this would be appropriate, but maybe.
So you wait two days.
Of course the country is complaining.
Of course the FBI and Department of Justice know that the country is not happy about this.
So where's our response?
Has anybody seen any kind of official response?
I haven't. And so what do you do when you have a completely reasonable expectation, not a requirement, I mean I can't impose a deadline on the government, but wouldn't you say that 48 hours is a perfectly reasonable standard for somebody to say something?
I would even allow that maybe they could follow up later and add some details they forgot, but something.
Now what do you do in the absence of that something?
Phase two. So phase two has begun.
Phase one was waiting for the fog of war to clear up and just see what they said.
Just, you know, be open to there might be some other side to the story.
We're beyond that now.
It's obvious at this point that whatever we hear will be just cooked up bullshit.
Because it doesn't take that long to tell the truth.
It doesn't take long to tell the truth.
If the people who were in charge or believed that this was a good play, that they had done something that the country would be happy with, they'd be talking about it all day long.
Would they not? Can you think of a reason that the government would not tell you more information if they were proud of what they had done?
If they thought they did good work, you don't think they'd be telling you?
Who doesn't tell you they did good work, especially a government organization?
Of course. So, while we still don't know the whole situation, we can move to phase two.
And phase two is where you lock in an assumption that there has been criminal or inappropriate activity.
So at this point, we should, as reasonable consumers of the news, and as reasonable watchdogs of our own government, we could move to phase two.
And phase two is the assumption of guilt.
Now, they could still defend themselves.
There's nothing to stop them from tomorrow giving me a good set of reasons where I say, oh, I wish you said that earlier, but I understand why you waited, and those are pretty good reasons.
I'd be open to that.
Totally open to it. But phase two, we have entered.
Phase two is the assumption of guilt by the FBI, Department of Justice, and the White House.
Now, there are some denials about whether the White House knew about it.
I don't care. Do you?
I don't think it's relevant that they denied it.
Because we're in a mode where just people are going to deny anything.
So denials don't mean anything at this point.
48 hours without a statement...
Nothing they say after this is going to hold too much credibility.
Now, what should you do, like actually do, in a world in which it appears that the FBI and the Department of Justice have weaponized against a segment of the population?
What is the proper response to that?
Well, when I tweeted that we had entered Phase 2, I got two reactions, pretty excited reactions, from my critics.
And they were opposites, which is weird.
So there was a whole bunch of critics who come in, and I think these group are maybe paid trolls, because there's something that a certain group of critics always say.
That sounds like it's a cookie cutter, like they have instructions of what to say.
And they usually pile in and say something about Garfield or some other comic to minimize any impact they have.
So part of my critics are saying, hey, cartoon boy, go draw Garfield, which, of course, I don't draw.
And the point of it is that I have no influence on anything, I'm just a cartoonist, and so I should be dismissed.
You've seen those, right? Some of you are following me on Twitter.
And there's a lot of those.
At the same time that my critics are telling me that I'm toothless and over the hill and irrelevant, I got an excited comment from this guy, What's his name?
Schwab. Walter, no, Schaub.
Walter Schaub.
He's a senior ethics fellow and a former director of the Office of Government Ethics.
So he was quite concerned.
This is what he said about my statement that Time's Up.
He said, you're trying to incite violence.
But you're too much of a coward to say it.
You'll hint and hint, and then when the violence starts, you'll pretend to condemn it.
That's cowardice.
No need to argue, just embrace the cowardice.
To which I say, would it be cowardice to incite a revolution in public?
I feel like the word coward doesn't mean what it used to mean.
Because I'm not exactly hiding.
Am I? So what kind of weird accusation is it that I'm a coward?
So I tried to explain to him the following.
I tried to explain that the implied risk of violence is what makes everything work.
Everything. Everything.
The reason the legal system works when it does, the justice system, is because of the implied threat of violence.
If you don't go to court, somebody with a gun is going to go get you.
The military works because of the implied threat of violence or actual violence.
And I would argue that every human interaction with another man...
Is gated by the threat of violence.
Even if you don't talk about it, even if it's not on your mind.
And somebody complained to me and said, Scott, Scott, Scott, when I talk to my father, I'm not concerned about violence.
To which I say, really?
Try pulling your father's pants off and shoving your fingers up his ass.
Does he complain or does he hit you?
No, he hits you.
Because all of the things that you're allowed to do are the things that your father allows you to do before he's willing to punch the shit out of you.
You are always, always gated in your actions by the implied threat of violence.
This is no different.
This is just business as usual.
Am I inciting violence?
No. No.
I'm simply saying that all options are on the table because they always are.
If you say all options are on the table, are you saying go be violent?
No, you're just saying it's always there.
Not only is it always there, I couldn't take it back if I wanted to.
Could I remove my threat of violence if I wanted to?
No, you could not.
It's not removable. Because if you piss me off enough, I'm going to be violent.
You can't take that back.
What am I going to do, change my nature?
I'm born this way.
And I would think that almost all of you are born the same way.
Yeah, Jordan Peterson does a much better job of explaining this point of view.
So I'm not copying his point of view, but I'm inspired by it.
So don't blame him if I say something he doesn't say.
That's all. But he is my influence in this point of view.
So... Here's what I think about the risk of an armed revolution.
No way. We're not even close.
You could completely stop worrying about it, in my opinion.
But is it useful that people who might want to try to push the boundaries of your flexibility, is it useful that they know it's always there?
I think it is.
I think it's useful to know that there is a line And that if you cross it, there will be violence.
Now, I don't think that line has been crossed.
That's my opinion. And I don't think it's close.
I don't think it's a close call.
But it's always there.
And I'm not going to apologize for it.
And I'm not going to take it back.
Here's a little advice.
Much of my audience is conservative and Republican.
Let me give you some advice to any Democrats who might have wandered in.
If the Republicans and the Conservatives are still complaining, you're fine.
You're fine. As long as you hear the Republicans and Conservatives just yap, yap, yap, yap, complain, complain, complain, you're fine.
There's not going to be any revolution.
Do you know when you should worry?
Does anybody want to fill in the rest of the sentence?
Tell the Democrats when they should worry.
When the talking stops.
Yeah. When the talking stops, you better fucking hide.
Or join the team that has all the guns.
Because if the talking stops, that's when I'd get fucking worried.
But we're nowhere near that.
We're not even close to that.
We're not in the same solar system as anything like that.
But let's be adults about it.
The adult opinion is that violence is always an option.
And if you want to take the child view that you can take violence out of civilization and still make it work, explain to me how that works.
Explain to me how well San Francisco is working when the threat of jail has gone away.
You know, jail is a form of violence.
I would argue that jail is violence.
It's just a different kind.
Alright? So, Let's be clear that we live in a civilization where even if it was your best intention to remove all threat of violence from civilization, you wouldn't do it if you could, because everything would fall apart.
All right. So, what do you do about it?
Let me ask you.
Do you think one person could make a difference?
Now, obviously, if it's Trump, he makes a difference.
Duh.
But do you think that one person in the public who is not elected could make a difference?
Probably.
In my opinion, one person is the only thing that makes a difference.
So I think that old saying is, you know, the idea that one person can't make a difference...
Is almost as completely wrong as anything ever has been.
I mean, I would argue that Steve Jobs made Apple, even though everybody worked on the same projects and stuff.
But everything is just one person.
Gets something going and then it picks up steam or it doesn't.
Jesus is an example.
I saw some examples like Mohammed, Jesus, and George Soros.
Elon Musk, yeah.
Elon Musk can make a difference.
So yeah, there's all kinds of examples where one person can make a difference.
How many of you think some kind of a big national breakup is coming?
Like an actual armed revolution?
Is there anybody here who thinks that's actually like a risk?
It really isn't.
It really isn't.
But have I ever told you that the best way to look at life is energy?
Watch where the energy goes?
The worst way to understand anything is to look at the logic.
That's another way to tell you the things I've been telling you forever.
If you want to understand what's going to happen next, or even understand what's happening now, the last thing you want to look at is the rational explanation of it.
What you want to look for is the energy.
Because if the energy builds up somewhere, it's got to go somewhere.
Energy doesn't disappear.
If there's one thing we know, energy goes somewhere.
You're either going to bring it into your body and make yourself sick with stress, or you're going to put it into the world and maybe get yourself beaten up.
But it's going somewhere.
Where is it going to go?
See, the trouble is this FBI raid on Trump...
Gave more energy to an energy monster.
Trump eats energy.
It's making him stronger, and there's no question about it at this point.
Even the left is saying it directly.
Uh-oh. I think this makes him stronger.
Because it does. And he's playing it perfectly, by the way.
The entire Trump family is playing the story perfectly.
They really are.
And that whole thing about Melania's closet...
Well, that didn't come from the FBI. Whoever started talking about Melania's closet, I have a feeling that what you'd really find out is that there might be a safe in the same closet.
Because that's not an uncommon place to put a safe.
In a closet. Am I wrong?
Does anybody have a safe in a closet?
Like a master closet?
It's fairly common. Right?
Jewelry, etc. So my guess is that we'll find out later that they were not rummaging through her underwear drawer.
I don't think.
Maybe. But I don't think so.
I think they're going to find out they went into rooms that there might have been some storage.
And that's probably it. But the Trump family is playing it perfectly because as soon as you throw in that cross-dressing Edgar J. Hoover, like in your mind suddenly the FBI agents are wearing women's clothing.
You tell me you did not imagine the FBI agents wearing women's clothing.
You did. You imagined the FBI agents, the men, trying on Melania's dresses.
It's the most visual persuasion of all time.
You know, I told you that Trump saying, build the wall, was good persuasion, because the wall is a, even in your mind, it's a visual.
But there is nothing more visual than FBI agents trying on Melania's dresses.
Now, it didn't happen, but your mind can't help it.
You just can't help it.
You just put those things together.
I'm sorry, I can't help seeing it.
And of course, Don Jr., he helpfully tweeted a meme that shows those alleged FBI plants in some earlier protest, but they're dressed in women's clothing.
It's a pretty good meme. Yeah, and then you add the J. Edgar Hoover allegation that he liked to dress in women's clothing.
Not that there's anything wrong with that by modern standards.
But it all makes the story conflate in your mind.
So I would say that the Trump benefit from this is so obvious and strong that it makes you wonder if There isn't something else to this story.
Let's see. Is there something else to this story?
Oh, it seems that there was some kind of insider that the FBI had inside Mar-a-Lago who had given them information about what alleged confidential documents were there, allegedly hidden from, I don't know, whoever, and allegedly where to get them.
And they're referring to this person, have you heard what they refer to this person, this insider?
What do they call this insider?
There's another word they're using.
The mole.
The mole.
The mole. Let me wind you back in the Wayback Machine.
To roughly...
2016 or 17.
When the Hillary Clinton campaign was so incompetent in their messaging and their sloganeering that I suggested there might be a mole working for the Clinton campaign who was pretending to be on their side but always giving them bad suggestions.
For example, remember Hillary Clinton had the slogan, it's her turn?
Now, does that sound like somebody who was really on her side came up with that?
It doesn't, does it?
It sounds exactly like a prank.
It sounded like there was a mole who was in the room and said, I got an idea.
You know what they're really going to like?
They're going to like if they say your gender is what makes you get elected.
Try, it's her turn.
That will go over well.
People love to hear that it's just your turn.
They don't want to hear what you can do for the country or why you're better than the other candidate.
They just need to know it's your turn because you're a woman.
Try that. Now, you tell me that that doesn't sound exactly like it was a prank.
I can't even imagine the room where they thought that was a good idea unless somebody had led them to it in a malicious way.
So now we hear that the mole was at Mar-a-Lago and told the FBI exactly where to look for the hidden documents.
Let's put two and two together here.
If it comes out, if it turns out that the FBI did get documents that are damning in some way, what would we say about the story afterwards?
We'd say, well, that mole certainly did not like Donald Trump, that's for sure.
That was a mole who did not like that president.
That's what I'd say. Good job, mole.
You molled just right.
But suppose, just hypothetically, suppose that the FBI ended up with no documents of any consequence whatsoever, except maybe some technical violation of handling documents.
Suppose there's a whole big nothing.
What would you say then about the mole?
Whose team would you assume the mole was on?
Because this is working out really well for Trump in a way that's hard to ignore.
Am I right? So I'm not going to allege, I do not allege, that the mole is like the real mole.
You know, somebody who's actually working for Trump as opposed to against.
But I will simply point out that the outcome looks exactly like something a mole would do.
Now, do you remember my prediction?
Did some of you see my prediction early on in the 48-hour period after the raid?
Did anybody see my tweet in which I said, the search for an underling to blame has begun?
And here we are.
So as of today, MSNBC, the news entity you associate most closely with, owned by the Democrats, they explained that Garland, who is a Democrat, so Garland, the head of the Department of Justice, a Democrat, they say he didn't know anything about it.
So the Democrat who was in charge didn't know anything about it.
How about the White House?
Didn't know anything about it.
No, that's the way it's supposed to work.
They're not supposed to tell the White House.
Right. They didn't tell the White House they were going to raid Trump.
Now, I do understand that you're not supposed to tell the White House in general, but they raided Trump.
That's not business as usual.
So maybe they didn't tell the White House.
It is possible. Do you know who they decided is the one they're going to pin it on?
Christopher Wray. Do you know why?
He was appointed by Trump.
And do you know what the Christopher Wray excuse is going to be?
Because you know it's coming.
Do you know what it's going to be?
It was more like a bureaucratic mess-up.
Because what the FBI wanted to do was to make it the lowest profile action they could, you know, get there early in the morning and then be gone.
And if they had done it at a low key, you wouldn't have even noticed.
Let me suggest how it could have gone.
Keep in mind that Mar-a-Lago was controlled by the Secret Service.
Give me a fact check, but that's true, right?
Because ex-presidents get security.
So wouldn't it be true that Mar-a-Lago is guarded full-time by Secret Service?
Now, the news is that the Secret Service was, of course, the first to be alerted about the FBI's raid because you want the Secret Service to be coordinating and not be surprised.
So we know that they coordinated.
So now tell yourself, what is the least amount of visibility that the FBI could have applied to this if they wanted to?
Remember, Secret Service already controls the premise.
They already control it.
So all you have to do is get them on your side, and you have full access as much as you want.
One FBI agent and one safecracker if he even needed a safecracker.
Because I feel like you could have asked for the combination.
Doesn't it work that way?
If you have a warrant, can't you ask the person who knows the combination to just open the safe?
There might have been some stalling, so maybe they just bring the safecracker because it's easier.
So the smallest number of people they could have done this with is just two.
Literally just drive up, two people in a car, They don't even have to wear special jackets.
Two people in the car drive up, talk to the Secret Service.
They say, you know, can you make sure everything's secure in there?
And then when you're sure everything's secure, we'd like to go in and we're going to look for these three places.
Here's my piece of paper.
And then the Secret Service walks them to the safe.
They say, all right, your warrant's safe in the master bedroom.
Okay, let's go look at that.
You tell me why they couldn't do it with two people.
Were they expecting violence?
No, because the Secret Service owns the property, for all practical purposes.
So there was no risk of violence.
It doesn't look like it required a lot of people to carry anything away, because they weren't talking about storage of boxes and boxes.
They were talking about a few documents, it sounds like.
Maybe a box. Now, let's get back to the criticism that it was a bureaucratic fuck-up.
It looks like it to me.
It does look like if they try to sell this as a bureaucratic mistake, it will look exactly like that.
They can sell that. Here's why.
It looks like the local office got too many people involved.
And then it turned into something it wasn't.
Imagine this story if two FBI agents showed up with a warrant...
Worked with the Secret Service, got everything they wanted, and then left with a little handful of stuff.
What would that story look like?
That story would look like some people did their job.
Because there does seem to be a credible allegation that he has some documents that legally should be somewhere else.
So you wait until the President's not there.
You send the smallest number of people because you already control the House.
You just get it done. Now, because it was Trump, you end up with the local police force, right?
Lights and action and everything else going on.
So I think that even if Ray approved it, that what he thought he was approving was something you'd barely notice.
I think he may have, this is just speculation, but I think he may have said, all right, if you're going to keep it really small, basically you're just going to go in and get some documents while he's not there, but it's hosted, in and out, clean. But instead, it looks like the bureaucracy had to do what the bureaucracy did.
They have a set of rules that they use in every situation, and so they go in big.
Because I think when you do an FBI raid, You usually go in big so there's no trouble, right?
Can somebody confirm that?
Wouldn't the strategy of going in big be to suppress any pushback?
Like you go in with overwhelming force and lights and people with guns and stuff and everybody just goes, whoa, whoa, whoa, whatever you want.
Whatever you want, right?
Is that not the point?
Yeah. I think that's part of the strategy.
So if you have a special case where that's completely unnecessary...
Because the Secret Service is going to be on your side.
It's completely unnecessary.
But it might have happened anyway because the bureaucracy required it.
The bureaucracy is just going to do what it always does.
It might not make an exception for this situation.
So I think that the Democrats are going to have an actual argument that it was the bureaucracy gone wild and all they were doing was trying to get some documents back.
Now, they can sell that.
You might not buy it, But it is sellable.
So watch for that coming.
It seems like that's where it's going to come out.
All right. And then here's what I expect.
I expect there's nothing damning in those documents.
What do you think? I say there's nothing damning in the documents.
I don't think anything will be found.
The other thing that the Trumps are doing that's brilliant is suggesting that the FBI might be planting evidence.
That really is perfect.
If this ever happened to you, and you weren't there to watch the FBI do the work, the very first thing you should say is that I suspect they planted evidence.
As a persuasion and a legal strategy, you do this right away.
Right away, the first thing you say is, my God, nobody was there?
They could have planted anything.
And then you say they have a history of doing exactly this.
Do you know why? Because they have a history of using fake information to get what they want.
A recent history. You don't have to wonder, I wonder if anybody in the FBI would ever invent any evidence.
Yes. The court has demonstrated that's exactly what happened.
Exactly what happened.
So... Trump is just playing this perfectly, persuasion-wise.
I mean, he's just killing it. All right.
Is there anything else happening?
It feels like this is the only news, right?
Now, if it's the only news...
Now, the one thing I didn't talk about is this attorney and his connection to Epstein.
I didn't talk about it enough. The only thing you should take away from the attorney's connection to Epstein is that he would be, in theory, and I'll add in theory so it's not an accusation, in theory, such a person would be the most blackmailable person in the world.
In theory. Because you would imagine that nobody would help him unless they'd gotten some benefits themselves.
You know what I mean? Now, I'm not alleging that.
I'm saying that's the first thing you'd assume.
It doesn't mean it's true, but your mind goes there immediately.
So, is it a coincidence that the most hypothetically blackmailable judge in all the world is the one behind the actual warrant?
I don't know. Here's the other thing that you have to ask yourself about.
My understanding is that the warrant was showed to the attorneys for Trump, but they were not allowed to hold a copy.
Is that what's being reported?
I don't know that that's true.
I think it's being reported.
Now, you don't think that the attorneys got to look at it long enough to have an idea of what it said.
Because Trump's attorneys are acting like they don't know what's on it.
Am I right? Now I get that they don't want to paraphrase it.
Because if you're an attorney, you might not want to paraphrase it incorrectly or something.
You want to be specific.
So attorneys need the document.
That's just built into their DNA. Don't talk about a document.
Get the document. Somebody talking about a document doesn't mean much.
A document might mean something.
So you can see why the lawyers don't want to talk about a document that could potentially be held in your hand, which would be the better outcome.
However... However, if the warrant said things that I wanted the public to hear, I would tell the public right away, because that's how you manage the public opinion.
So if Trump's lawyers saw something on the warrant that was absurd, I feel like we'd know it by now.
Am I right? If something on there said, we need to check under your mattress, or just some dumbass thing that made no sense, you'd know that.
Somebody would have leaked that.
But if all it says is something like, we want to check your safes because we think you have some documents that you shouldn't have, you don't think the lawyers for Trump read that and knew exactly what it meant and there was no ambiguity at all?
Oh, you're looking in these three places...
For these specific documents.
You don't think Trump's lawyers know what the warrant said?
Of course they do.
They were shown the warrant.
They read it. They have memories.
They're attorneys. They can remember stuff.
Now, not telling you what they know is probably good strategy.
It's probably great strategy.
Because if they don't tell you what's on there, your imagination will fill it in with the worst-case scenario.
Have I ever taught you that, persuasion-wise?
Here's a persuasion tip that I'll embed in this livestream.
If you can keep people wondering, they will create more energy.
Because it's the not knowing that makes your brain spin.
What exactly is in that warrant?
It must be bad if they're not showing...
Oh my God, it's so bad.
Two days have gone by and they're not even showing us the warrant?
Wow, that must be so bad!
So as long as Trump and the lawyers can maintain the story that nobody knows what's in the warrant, Which is obviously false.
The Trump team knows exactly what was in the warrant.
At least, you know, in concept.
They still need the document to share it with you, which would make sense.
But they know. Of course they know.
Now, I'm being questioned that there's nothing in the warrant that explains why they're doing it.
And I disagree. I agree that that's not the intention of the warrant.
So the intention of the warrant is not to tell you why they're doing it.
So that part, you're correct. But where I disagree is that when they tell you what they're looking for, that tells you why they're there.
I need somebody who's a lawyer to disagree with me on this, right?
Okay, I agree, and I'm a lawyer.
Thank you. So, for example, if the warrant said, We're going to check three places for these documents which we think you shouldn't have, and we list the documents.
You don't think the lawyers saw that?
Probably. If they tell you what they're looking for specifically and where they're looking, that kind of tells you what they're looking for.
Now, somebody says the logic is flawed.
I'm not done. I'm not done.
That does not eliminate the possibility that they say they're looking for one thing, but they're sort of hoping they're going to find another thing.
Am I right? Is that what you wanted to tell me?
That they can pretend they're looking for A, but they're really looking for B. They're just fishing.
Right? So those factors all have to go.
So here's my assumption.
I believe that the Trump team does not want you to know what they're looking for yet, because the longer you're thinking about it, the more energy you're building up in your minds, and they need that energy.
Trump wants you to have energy around this question.
So if he told you the answer, you'd say, okay, that sounded reasonable, maybe.
It might drain your energy away.
So he's keeping it high. They all knew what they were looking for.
Yeah, there's a lot of people who knew what they were looking for.
But we are told that it's just some documents that are not relevant to the legal case.
We're told it's just documents that have some security impact.
So here's the question I ask.
Is there any reason that the Trump team did not negotiate with To keep the originals and let them take copies.
Does the National Archive require the original?
Or could you negotiate...
So let's say that one of the items was a handwritten letter from Kim Jong-un to Trump.
Let's just say that was one of the items.
If the archives have a perfect digital image of it, do they need the original?
Let's say he just wanted to keep a keepsake.
Because, you know, it might be valuable at some point, but it'd certainly be interesting to see it framed.
Just wondering. All right.
What should you do about this situation?
Do any of you feel like you need to act because of this situation?
You do know that 95% of the people are not even aware of what happened.
Like, they've heard there was a raid, but they don't care.
Most of the country doesn't care about this at all.
This is very much fuel.
It's sort of like an August story, slow news month.
So we get these manufactured stories in August.
So here's what you don't need to do.
You don't need to clean your weapons and start marching on the Capitol.
Can I say that as clearly as possible?
Because there are people who are...
You know, trying to characterize me as inciting violence.
I want to be as clear as I can.
There is no cause for violence in what we're seeing.
Not even close. Not even close.
Because we have regular mechanisms to take care of it.
We do. We've got elections coming up.
You can't do any better than an upcoming election.
If you want to change something, the dumbest thing to do would be to get your weapons a month before an election.
Nothing would be dumber than to stage an insurrection right before a probable red wave election.
You could not be dumber than that.
So don't be dumb.
Now, let's say there was a red wave, except the polls show that it was the opposite, and the Democrats held power and won everything, 2022 and 2024.
Well, I have questions.
Then we have questions about our election security.
But we might be at a point where Trump could win a re-election by such a margin that cheating would be just too hard.
You just couldn't get away with it.
Alright. And it does seem to me that the swing districts are going to be quite scrutinized.
Um... Somebody changed their affiliation to Democrat just to be safe.
That's not a bad idea.
To re-register as Democrat just for safety?
That's not a bad idea.
It really isn't. Actually, I might do that.
That's not a bad idea.
I think I might register as Democrat.
What would you say? Would anybody object to that?
If you heard that I registered as a Democrat, but I talk the same, everything's the same, I just registered as a Democrat.
Because I've actually thought if I ran for office, I would run as a Democrat.
Because it would be easy.
Running as a Democrat is the easiest thing in the world.
And I could get Republican votes fairly easily.
You don't get most, but I could get enough.
Do you know how easy it would be to get Republican votes?
Show them respect.
I'm done. I'm done.
I just got 20% of Republican votes.
Show them respect.
That's it. That's it.
20% of the vote. Nothing could be easier than winning an election as a Democrat.
You literally just have to show a little bit of respect to the other team's opinion.
That's it. And they'll let you in.
I think that was Bill Clinton's genius.
You know, he did the triangulating thing, where he tried to be, you know, not quite a Democrat, not quite a Republican, so everybody would find something to like.
That worked easily. I would say that Bill Clinton showed Republicans respect.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Yes or no, Bill Clinton showed Republicans respect.
I believe he did.
I believe he did. Yeah.
And I think it was actually honest.
Now, I'm not going to call politicians honest.
But I think Bill Clinton, coming from a southern state, being more of a conservative Democrat, I think it was an honest respect.
I do. And I think it came across that way.
Now, compare that to Hillary Clinton calling the other side deplorables and anything that...
And then there was Obama with his clinging to their Bibles and guns, right?
The mistakes that the Democrats make are just so obvious.
They're like these gigantic, easy-to-avoid mistakes.
Oh, all I have to do is treat them with respect the way I would like to be treated.
And then I can be President of the United States?
Yep. Yep.
That's all you have to do. Treat them with a little respect, and then you can be President of the United States.
I could absolutely become President as a Democrat.
It would be that easy.
But I would also have to show complete respect to AOC's point of view, which I do have, believe it or not.
I have complete respect for the AOCs and even the Elon Omars, in a way.
There's some sketchiness to her opinions.
But here's what I like about it.
I like the ones who are saying, we have to blow up the whole system because it's not working.
And I think if you showed them respect and said, you know what?
I like that thinking so much.
I can't see how you can make that work, but can we come up with a small test of it?
Can we see if your idea has some merit?
Maybe we'll build a little community, see if it works.
Run it your way. If we learn anything, well, we'll take that forward.
But if you say, AOC, you're crazy, everything you say is a bad idea, well, that's no way to be president.
The way to be president is to say, that's more radical than we've thought through, but I can help you get to the other side of this.
Let's just test it.
Why would you complain about that?
It's so easy to win the presidency.
If I showed you how easy it would be, you're going to wonder why nobody did it before.
I mean, so easily. And I would argue that...
Oh, here's another one.
Did Reagan...
And I was maybe not paying attention as much during the Reagan era.
Did Reagan show respect to the other team?
Did Reagan show respect to liberals?
Now, he always demonized liberals, but it was more of the liberal point of view, wasn't it?
I feel like Reagan was more about the philosophy he was attacking than the people.
But maybe I just don't remember it right.
Yeah, there were Reagan Democrats, exactly.
He worked well with Tip O'Neill.
Yeah. In those days, things were a little bit more collegiate, so maybe that's a bad comparison.
Yeah, he mocked liberals for their point of view.
But that's very different than mocking them for being, you know, clinging to Bibles and guns and being deplorable.
Reagan never called liberals deplorable, did he?
Yeah. Yeah. All right.
Mocking the other side's ideas, perfectly good.
But going after the people is what the New Democrats have done recently, and that's not a winning combination in the long run.
Now, how many of you would accept the following point of view?
We've never been stronger as a country.
Every generation thinks that everything's falling apart.
You know, I was watching...
I mentioned this before, but I was watching Newt Gingrich's...
He's got a show about Washington, George Washington.
It's called The First American, I believe.
I forgot to... I didn't know the title the first time I talked about it.
So it's called The First American.
And when you find out how close...
Washington was losing everything.
His army at one point was just like 2,500 people.
2,500 barefoot people with no ammunition.
You know, things were pretty grim.
But the United States has been teetering on the brink of extinction for those first hundred years.
Right? We got your civil wars, etc., And the 60s, if you live through the 60s, it looked like the whole country was coming apart.
But it didn't. If you look at anything that we've experienced in our, you know, hundreds of years of history, and then you compare it to what's happening today, what's happening today is people getting mad on Twitter.
There's literally nothing happening that would get you anywhere near a civil war.
When the country talks about, oh, we need a national divorce and everything, That's what the states are.
You can go to a state you like, and it'll happen over time, right?
So you don't need a national divorce if everybody can just have multiple lovers.
Worst analogy ever.
The states are like your multiple lovers.
If you don't like New Hampshire, you always have Texas.
You don't like Florida?
Well, you got California.
So as long as you have diversification and multiple lovers, you don't need to break the whole thing.
Just find another lover.
Corporations have too much power?
Maybe. But I wonder what the world would look like if they didn't.
I get the idea that corporations have too much power, blah, blah, blah.
Everybody agrees on that. But what would it look like if they didn't?
Because I don't think we ever count the good things that corporations do, which are amazingly good.
You know, we talk about their pollution and their whatever, white-collar crimes and stuff.
But I think corporations have really moved society forward overall.
The transnationals do not have loyalty.
Well, that's true, but they don't need it.
Market competition is better than loyalty.
Iran sent a hitman for John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, somebody say?
Is that in the news? The news isn't reporting that, is it?
Really? How did I miss that?
Well, interesting.
What would you assume to be true if that news is surfacing now?
Feels like a build-up to war, doesn't it?
Yeah, that feels like a build-up to war, because I don't know that that information gets out accidentally.
That feels like the most top-secret stuff you could ever have.
Multiple reports. Wow.
I don't know. Do you think that Iran would be dumb enough to do that?
Now, granted, we took out their generals, but do you think they would?
Maybe. I'm not going to rule it out.
But it would be a terrible strategy.
Because the United States would have to basically change their leadership if that happened.
Day before yesterday.
Huh. Oh, as a payback for Sula money.
Oh, so there's a reward out for killing them.
That's a little different. A reward out for killing them is a little different than sending a hitman.
That's different.
It's not good, but it's definitely different.
That sounded more like wishful thinking.
It would unify their country?
Well, it would unify the country, but their government would be vaporized.
It's a contract, not a reward.
Oh, it's a contract, okay.
Well, if it's a contract for somebody specific to do it, then that's pretty...
Four hitmen were identified, four specific ones.
I'll be darned. Remember when Ali North got the government to pay for some security at his home?
And there was a big question about that.
Because he thought Al-Qaeda was going to try to kill him or something?
And it sounded silly?
That wasn't silly.
All right.
Well, I thought if Iran wanted to start the end-time war, they would have already done it.
So I think that the Iranians, their leadership is probably looking at the same risks as anybody else would.
All right. Well, that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes the best live stream you've ever seen.
I'm going to get back to mocking my critics.
The ones who are making bad Garfield references to me.
I've invited everybody who is a failed writer or an unsuccessful artist to make comments today about one level of my skill stack.
And boy, are they!
So whenever I get them today, I'm just going to retweet my invitation for them to do it.
Oh, my mascot came back.
I was worried that Keith Olbermann maybe was injured or dead, but he came back today.
So he's on me again today.
And my mascot is awesome.
All right, well, if I can get Keith Olbermann to be mad at me on Twitter, it's a good day.
Okay.
The Dilbert you helped with was published today.
Good. Oh, the one about not getting everything back in the packaging?
Yeah, that did come from...
I think that did come from you.
Pardoning would be genius.
Pardoning who? Pardoning.
So, there's a lot of noise about Andrew Tate.
Is anybody watching all the attention he's getting?
Andrew Tate. He's kind of fascinating, because he's...
If you don't know him, just imagine Andrew Dice Clay, but without the creativity, but with the strong homoerotic undertones.
Yeah. Yeah.
So just imagine Andrew Dice Clay, but homoerotic.
Now, I'm not saying he's gay.
I'm just saying that's how he presents himself.
So he's doing a good job of getting attention.
But being the Andrew Dice Clay Jr.
with homoerotic overtones, I don't know how far that can take him, but it's taken him pretty far so far.
The Nation in Decline video?
It bored me. I tried to watch the video.
I guess Trump did a Nation in Decline and tried to tie it to the FBI raid.
I don't know. It bored me. Did I mention Dark Brandon?
Well, it's so weak.
The Democrats try to do what Republicans do.
They try to take the negative stuff and turn it into positives because Trump does that all the time.
But they can't quite do it.
This whole dark Brandon thing is trying to make Biden look awesome, which is directly copying the MAGA people treating Trump as like a god warrior kind of thing.
They're just not good at it.
Oh, the inflation story.
The inflation story was hilarious.
So Joe Biden getting up there and saying, I've got one number to tell you about inflation.
Zero. We had zero inflation.
And then everybody said, inflation is up 8.5%.
But what he meant is, it didn't get any worse than that.
Now, is it technically accurate that if your inflation rate is 8.5% and it doesn't get bigger than that, That you've ended inflation?
I feel like that was the sort of data that the president should have a little firmer grasp on.
Is there inflation or no?
Now, here's how I interpret it.
If you had a one-time price increase of 8.5% and then nothing ever increased after that, Well, then, yes, that would be the end of inflation.
So I think that's how Biden understood it.
I think he understood it as prices went up, but now they're not going up anymore.
However, that's not what that 8.5% means.
What it means is that's a rolling forever.
Everything's going up 8.5% as we go.
Now, that gets revised every month when you see your actuals.
But, yeah...
The fact that that 8.5% stayed stable is the opposite of not having inflation.
That would be having a lot of inflation.
Tons of it.
8.5% is a lot.
Yeah.
Please don't get distracted from ESG.
So ESG, I've got a week or more of comics coming on that topic.
I think that's September.
You'll see those. And I'll talk more about that then.
Do I ever jam with other musicians?
Only my drum teacher who plays the guitar.
So we do jam.
My lesson is mostly jamming these days.
The Inflation Reduction Act is in trouble because of the FBI raid.
Is it? I don't know.
Have I bought a new guitar?
no, probably for Christmas.
All right.
Alright, I need a bassist, you're right.
An open jam.
I don't think I'm up to quite jamming with anybody except my music teacher right now.
All right, that's all I got for now.
And I think you'd agree this is the best live stream you've ever seen.
And what about dreams?
We'll get to that. And now...
I say goodbye to YouTube, and I'm going to talk a little bit more to the locals' people.
