Episode 1946 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About Twitter And The Hunter Laptop. What A Day!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Twitter Files and Hunter Laptop suppression
Matt Taibbi & The Twitter Files
The democrats and Twitter colluded
democrat lies vs. republican lies
Twitter was the democrats gaslighting engine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And welcome to what will surely be the highlight of civilization.
Coffee with Scott Adams. Do you think today will be fun?
Yeah, you do. You do.
But how fun will it be?
Well, unlimited.
But if you'd like to take it up to stratospheric levels, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it happens now. Go.
Ah, yeah, that's good.
Well, there was some big news yesterday.
I don't know if any of you caught it.
Big news, everybody's talking about it.
There's a movie called Cocaine Bear.
Cocaine Bear. And although some think it's been a bad year for the left, Hollywood did manage to produce high-level entertainment.
It's about a bear who gets into some cocaine and then becomes a rather vicious cocaine bear.
So, was there anything else that happened yesterday?
That's all I can remember.
Something about a cocaine bear.
Oh, oh, also something about Twitter?
Something about Twitter?
I get that confused with a cocaine bear.
You can see how that would happen, right?
It's like Twittergate, Coquine Bear.
It's practically the same story.
You just change some of the names.
But we'll get to that.
First, Wall Street Journal reports that about 25% of manufacturers have reduced operations in China over the past year.
One quarter of manufacturers have reduced Chinese exposure.
And so it begins.
How many of you believe that any of that was going to happen when I started telling you it was going to happen a few years ago?
I'll bet you didn't.
Now, I didn't see the pandemic coming.
But it did look to me like that China was too unsafe for business in a variety of ways.
And that variety I could not anticipate.
But I did tell you it would be too dangerous to do business in China.
And here we are. Probably one of the least...
Predictable predictions of all time.
How many other people predicted that like five years ago?
Not many. Well, I think I started in 2018, so four years ago.
Alright, there's a story that Vladimir Putin fell down some stairs at his home, and apparently he defecated himself on the way down the stairs.
This is a report. You know, it's not exactly the most confirmed report, because it's a report of something that privately happened inside Vladimir Putin's home.
I don't know that we have good information about that, but it's a good story.
And the story says that Putin has cancer and Parkinson's and that was related to why falling down the stairs made him defecate himself.
Now, to me this was not the most surprising story.
The most surprising story about this is I really had a $100 bet that Biden would be the first world leader to fall down stairs and shit himself.
But Putin takes the lead.
He was the first leader to fall down the stairs and shit himself.
Now, apparently, he had a little practice, because Putin had already, when he invaded Ukraine, he had already shit the bed.
So now he's shit the stairs, and there's some report that he was taken to a couch where he probably shit the couch.
So now Putin has shit a couch, some stairs, and the bed.
But at least he's consistent.
He's shitting everything.
And Biden? Still good.
So I think we elected the right guy.
Biden's still holding strong, keeping that feces inside him where it belongs.
Jobless rate is 3.7.
I think that's going to get a little higher because the layoffs that are coming.
But that's pretty strong.
Remember I tell you that there's one economic indicator I care about the most.
It's the most predictive. And that is the jobless rate.
So no matter what things you think are going wrong, as long as that jobless rate looks pretty good, and it does, We can power through whatever we're doing.
It's only the jobless rate.
If you lose that, you're in trouble.
That's depression time.
But if people have jobs, even with inflation and even with other difficulties, they can muddle through until things get better.
So I think we'll be fine.
It's going to be difficult for about two years.
But we'll be fine.
I tweeted around a blog post that I wrote in 2015 in which I had predicted Ye would become president.
And my prediction was that he would fail in 2020, fail in 2024, and succeed in 2028.
Now, what I didn't predict exactly was the swastika business and the And the death gun on the Jews' business?
Didn't see that coming. Did not see that coming.
But let me ask you this.
Can you see any scenario in which he could recover from that?
Is there any scenario in which he could recover?
Because he's never going to get the Jewish population of the United States back, don't you think?
And that's gone forever.
Can you get elected under those circumstances, given how many people would feel the same?
I see one way.
He has one path, believe it or not.
And it would go like this.
If he frames himself and his campaign as free speech absolutists, suddenly it looks different, doesn't it?
And suppose he says, you know what?
I was probably acting out of anger because I was divorced and had some business difficulties.
But you know what? I probably should not have said things the way I did.
And so, you know, I don't have this bad feeling about all Jews.
That's not what I was saying.
But I was acting out.
And here's the bigger issue.
Can I say what I feel?
Can I say what I feel, no matter how odious it is, no matter how hateful, no matter how much it bothers you?
Can I say it? If he does that, it's going to get interesting.
He would have to unambiguously reverse his position, but if he sold it to you as I was acting out and I wanted to see how far I could push the boundary of free speech, Do you remember the first offensive thing he said before all the Jewish business?
Have you already forgotten?
What was the big provocation he did before he went DEFCON on the Jews, using his words?
Do you remember what it was?
It was White Lives Matter.
Ah! Now think about the context.
Add White Lives Matter to the whole story.
If you see the yay goes off on the Jews as the entire story, everything about that is terrible.
Like, you have to get rid of that, right?
If you see it by itself.
If you see it as part of a clear intention to figure out what it is he can't say and then say it as much as he can, it starts making it look different, doesn't it?
He started by saying white lives matter.
Basically, he said, what's the thing that I would most get cancelled for?
And then he did it really aggressively.
And then when he realized that people were going to...
that he couldn't say anything about the Jewish population, he went right at it.
And I'll bet you if you could figure out anything that's worse than what he's already done...
Oh, he also defended Balenciaga.
He defended Balenciaga and said, you know, the pedophile stuff was a limited number of people, and so you shouldn't blame the whole company.
Nobody who was black was saying white lives matter, except Candace Owens, I suppose.
No one would say what he said about the Jewish community in the United States, odious and must be disavowed.
And nobody would have defended Balenciaga under that current condition.
If everything he does is he models doing the thing you're not supposed to do, he can put that together as a portfolio.
He can say, look, I'm defending free speech.
I'm going to move your boundaries out and you're not going to like it.
But that's not the point.
The point is not we all agree.
The point is, oh, we love each other and find a way to get along, but free speech is an absolute.
And I'll apologize for hurting somebody.
Maybe he says that later.
But I'm not going to apologize for free speech.
Because when I said it, I meant it.
What if he says that?
You know, when I said it, I was really mad.
I was in a bad place.
And I meant every word of it.
But... Now, in my more grounded perspective, I see that it hurts some people that didn't need to be hurt, and that it was more negative than positive, but I will defend to the death my right to have said it.
It would be an interesting argument, wouldn't it?
Interesting argument. But I don't think he could ever get the Jewish community back, but I'll give you one way he could.
Here's one way he could actually get the entire Jewish community back.
Give them everything they want.
Do you know how Joe Biden won, despite the fact that he's a walking bag of sticks?
Because he promised to give the Democrats what they wanted, and that was more important.
If Ye said, you know, I was totally wrong about that, But here are my policies about Israel and about whatever, about anti-Semitism, and I'm going to go as hard as possible to make sure there's no more anti-Semitism and Israel does well.
Then what? Then what?
Then what does the Jewish community say?
Well, we really did hate him when he said that thing, but everything he's saying now sounds good, and everything he's doing now sounds good, so what are you going to do?
So the only thing I'm going to say about this is that don't be surprised by anything.
That's all. Just don't be surprised by anything.
And I want to make sure that this doesn't sound like I'm defending Ye's opinions.
I'm not. Because the whole point of this is that we all understand what he said to be Across the line of not free speech, certainly within free speech, but it's across the bounds of what a public figure should be doing if they're trying to do good for the country.
I think Ye is likely to come around to that point of view, but by the time he does, he's going to create five more controversies.
So he's not done creating controversy, I don't think.
All right. Let's talk about Russian disinformation.
Have you all seen by now the compilation clips of the media telling us that the Hunter laptop story was obviously, obviously Russian dis...
Oh, so obviously Russian disinformation.
Oh, there's no...
We don't have any verification of that.
It's very embarrassing now that Musk has allowed the real story to come out, which we'll talk about.
Very embarrassing. And so I said to myself, how do those media entities handle it?
You know, when they're caught red-handed doing the worst thing you could do if you're a media entity, how do they handle it?
Well, the CNN front page today, no mention.
No mention. So I'd like to make an adjustment to something I said about CNN recently.
Now recently I've been saying that Chris liked or licked, I'm not sure how to pronounce it, liked, light, the new head of CNN, Was doing, in my opinion, a great job.
Because he said he was going to bring CNN to the reasonable middle.
And it looked like the reporting did exactly that.
It looked like the personnel moves were definitely on target.
And then this happens.
How do we explain this?
Do you think that the head of CNN is not aware...
That the entity he manages is intentionally hiding the biggest story of the year?
Do you think he's not aware of that?
Of course he is. Of course he is.
So, Chris Light or Lect or whatever your name is, fuck you.
Fuck you, you piece of shit.
You fucking piece of shit.
I thought you had some potential.
And I supported you against my critics.
Against my critics, I took your fucking side.
You fucking piece of shit.
You are a traitor.
You are not a patriot.
You are a piece of fucking shit.
You are scum.
Tell us the fucking news, asshole.
Show the fucking news.
Suck it up.
I was ready to forgive everything.
I was ready to forgive CNN completely so long as they corrected it.
But no. This shows that there's no fucking correction going on.
This is disgusting.
It's disgusting.
It makes you sick to see that there are Americans in your country who would do this to you.
Because they had to see you then.
He's fucking you.
He's fucking you right now.
He's treating you like a piece of shit.
And we should treat him the same.
I mean his business, not him personally.
Don't do anything to him personally.
We don't encourage going after people.
But I am just blown the fucking way.
Now, how about the Washington Post?
Big front page story?
Nope, nope, nope. But do I hold it against the Washington Post as much as CNN? Nope, I don't.
Because CNN lied to us.
They said they're coming to the middle, and they fucking lied.
Bastards. The rest of them, at least, they're staying true to their nature, right?
The New York Times. Now, how about the New York Times?
I'm guessing the New York Times covered it, did they?
And by the way, shout out to Axios.
Shout out to Axios.
Axios covered it just like it's news.
Exactly the way you're supposed to cover the news.
Like it's news.
They covered it.
Good. So Axios, you get an A-plus for being an independent, reasonable entity for news.
And I would recommend all of you to bookmark Axios because Axios showed that they are an asset to the country.
Okay? CNN showed you that they are a detriment to the country.
And I'm not even talking about, like, who you like for entertainment and news.
This is fucking about the country.
I mean, this is actually an attack on America.
CNN not covering this is an attack on America.
I mean, really. I could not be more pissed off.
But... MSNBC, what are they going to do today?
So here's how the left is starting to spin it.
By the way, you all know this story by now, right?
Do I need to tell you what the Twittergate story is all about?
Let me hit the highlights, all right?
Just in case somebody doesn't know.
So Musk yesterday said he was going to tweet out the details of the Hunter laptop story and what Twitter did to suppress it.
He had Matt Taibbi, an investigative journalist who is very well respected on both the left and the right, which is very important.
In the entire world, there probably was not a better choice for Elon Musk than Matt Tybee.
He's one of the few people who you think will call balls and strikes on both sides.
Very rare. In fact, name the second person.
Right? Name the other person who could do that job.
Like, I can't even fucking think of one.
Yeah, if you said Glenn Greenwald, he's a little bit too...
a little too controversial.
He would be my second choice, perhaps.
But Taibbi was by far the best choice for this, right?
So Tybee does the tweet storm.
We're waiting like three to seven minutes for each new tweet.
And it was, oh my God, it was so hard to wait for the next tweet.
Because you're just there, ah, ah, ah, come on, come on.
I mean, I started to get like mental disturbance from like wanting it so hard.
But here's what we have learned.
Twitter did indeed suppress the story.
It was a major conversation within Twitter.
And they did know that they were making up a reason for suppressing it.
That was my take.
Does anybody disagree with that take?
That people within Twitter knew they were lying and that the lie they came up with is that they couldn't confirm the laptop was not hacked.
Do you know what else you can't confirm wasn't hacked?
Pretty much everything.
There's lots of things you can't confirm.
It doesn't make it not news.
So it looks like Twitter intentionally made up a bullshit story That would pass the legal muster.
Because you can always say, well, we weren't sure it wasn't hacked.
So it gives you this total out.
And you can see the lawyer, Baker.
The lawyer did the best job of making sure that when he was discovered later.
Because lawyers are smarter about what they write down.
Way smarter, right?
You rarely will see a lawyer write down something that sounds illegal, because they know not to write that down.
And so the way Baker did it was the most clever.
Say, yes, we literally don't have a way to confirm that that wasn't hacked.
And I guess that's technically true.
So they did make up a bullshit thing.
The other thing we learned is that there were a number of people within Twitter, apparently, I don't know how many, who could kick somebody off of Twitter or suspend them.
And so they were getting requests from both the Trump administration, important point, and also the Biden administration.
They were getting both the Democrats and the Republicans asking them for getting rid of users or suppressing users.
So not only did they totally suppress the laptop story, but they used a tool that they only used for pedophiles.
You couldn't even DM privately to another person the story about the Hunter laptop story.
You couldn't privately DM it to somebody.
They only did that for pedophile stuff.
That's how deeply and how hard they tried to suppress this thing.
We also found out that requests to ban individuals by name were accepted.
And James Wood was specifically mentioned by the Democrats to be kicked off, and he was.
Now, does anybody remember me telling you that I didn't think that Jack Dorsey was necessarily aware of everything that was happening below the hood?
How many people heard me say that?
We're getting lots of yeses on the locals' channel because they've seen me the longest.
So we see some yeses.
I needed you to confirm that because I'm the only person who predicted it.
Would you agree? Would you also agree that nobody else in the world predicted that Jack Dorsey might not know the whole story of what's happening below the hood?
Right? How did I predict that?
Let me tell you how I predicted it.
Two factors.
Number one is the Dilbert factor, which says that the people at the top very often don't know what's happening.
That's just a very common situation.
Number two, I like to think I'm at least a reasonable judge of character.
And I had enough interaction with Jack to know it would have been completely out of his character To be just lying about this.
Like just a straight lie.
To me, he looked like he actually had a mystery that he couldn't solve either.
And it looks like probably it took Musk to get in there and fire enough people and do enough stuff that they could get to the bottom of it.
So I'm going to take credit for correctly noting that it didn't look like it would have been in character for Jack to have known everything that was happening.
And if you're managing two companies, that's going to happen.
That's the obvious risk, is that if you're managing two companies, you're going to have at least one of them running autonomously.
And that's what was happening. All right.
So then there's the question of, was Twitter violating the First Amendment?
Here's what Musk says.
Musk tweeted, Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a First Amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech with no judicial review is.
Now, Ted Lieu, famous Democrat, had an exception to that, and he replied, he goes, Dear Elon Musk, I'm in the government, and I order you to stop posting stupid shit.
And then he goes on, See why your post is wrong.
Twitter can do whatever it wants as a private sector company when it comes to speech.
And the Biden campaign team wasn't the government.
Trump was president in 2020.
So not only was it not the government, it was a campaign, But even if the government did ask Twitter to do something about free speech, Twitter could just ignore them because they're a private company.
That's his argument.
Now, does anybody remember...
In the Wayback Machine, a common thing that was said about a president named Trump.
I believe they used to say that he didn't need to explicitly say what he meant because his mafia talk said it all.
Because the mafia talk, where you don't say what you need, but everybody knows, everybody knows if you say take care of Bob, that means whack him, right?
But deniability, I just said take care of him.
I didn't say kill him, I said take care of him.
So the mafia talk was real.
That's what the Democrats told us.
But in this case, there was no mafia talk.
So when the person who is likely to become your next president asks you to do something, and that next president has the power to maybe get you heavily regulated or taxed, what are you going to do?
Are you going to say, no, my government telling me something to do something that's really, really important to them, I'll just ignore that and that'll work out fine for me.
Did Chuck Schumer tell you that government entities sometimes will get revenge?
Oh, yes he did.
Chuck Schumer told himself that the intel agencies would get revenge on Trump for messing with him.
Do you think it's only intel agencies who get revenge?
No. No.
So I would say to Ted Lieu, this is an interesting Supreme Court case, because in my opinion, if somebody who's going to be a government entity asks you to do something and you do it, it's at least an implied threat.
Am I right? Wouldn't you see it as an implied threat?
And is an implied threat enough of a threat to violate the First Amendment?
I'm going to say if you put me on that jury, I guess I'd have to be in the Supreme Court.
But I would say yes.
I would say that is a clear case of a violation of a First Amendment.
But there is room for opinion.
I can see how somebody would have a different opinion.
Maybe. And then I replied to Ted Lieu and I said, in this hypothetical, you know, where Ted Lieu is asking Twitter to do something and they ignore him, I said, in this hypothetical, do you also have the power to punish Twitter with burdensome regulations if they don't bend to your will as a private company?
I'm guessing that he won't answer that.
Just guessing. You know who I haven't seen in the last couple of days?
Carl Bernstein. Also known as the worse than Watergate guy.
Because I wonder if anything's happened recently that's worse than Watergate.
Something that really just screams out for the worse than Watergate guy to go on CNN and say, it's worse than Watergate.
I guess we won't see him.
Now, what about the fact that the Trump White House did it too?
Now, I'm concerned, because when Matt Taibbi said it clearly, so that we all know this, this was not just the Biden campaign.
This was not just Democrats.
This was the Trump administration also asked Twitter to suppress some things.
But without examples, how do we know if that's the same or something different?
Do you have a general problem with your government flagging things that should be banned?
Do you think that's a problem?
I don't think it's a problem if it's users of Twitter doing it.
So if there's a government employee who uses Twitter, and they're also a user, I believe that they could ask Twitter to do things as users, because they're citizens.
So if any user, whether it's the government or somebody else, goes to Twitter and says, here's an account that's promoting hate or violence, let's say, Anybody can do that, right?
There's no...
Nobody's stopping you from accessing Twitter and reporting something.
Now, the government, because they have connections, they might be able to reach an actual individual at Twitter and make an individual complaint.
But I did that.
I reached real humans at Twitter and had real complaints, and they addressed it.
I believe every citizen has access to Twitter.
Right? So if the Trump administration asked Twitter to do something, all that really matters is what did they ask them to do.
The problem is not that they asked.
I'm totally okay with the asking.
It's what did they ask.
If you're asking to get rid of James Woods, is it Wood or Woods, if you're asking to get rid of somebody because they're politically inconvenient, Very bad.
If you're asking to get rid of somebody because they violated Twitter's terms of service, but Twitter might not be aware of it, good.
That's good. If you're telling Twitter to suppress the news, that's bad.
That's very bad. But you get that the story is not who asked or that they asked.
Do you all get that everybody can ask Twitter to do anything they want?
Including the government.
Because I agree with Ted Lieu's basic comment that asking Twitter to do something isn't by itself a problem.
It's what you ask them to do.
If you ask them to suppress the most important story of the country, fuck you.
If you ask them to look at an account that violated Twitter's own terms of service, fair enough.
I mean, I've done that myself.
So I'm going to criticize Matt Taibbi for not telling us a little bit more about what the Trump administration did, because it leaves us to speculate, and that's not good.
We should not be speculating now, right?
This is when they should just tell us what is true.
No more speculating.
Maybe we'll find that out soon.
I suspect we will, actually.
I was fascinated to see that the narrative within Twitter was so similar to what the media outside of Twitter was saying.
So the media within Twitter, they're saying, well, we can't know if it isn't hacked, and we don't want to run hacked materials.
And outside of Twitter, they were saying, well, it's not confirmed.
It's not confirmed.
And of course, they were trying as hard as they could to not confirm it.
So I think it's clear that the Democrats and Twitter colluded.
Illegally? I don't know.
I don't know if it was illegal, but it's clear that it happened.
And there's no doubt about it, right?
I don't think anybody's questioning that it happened.
Now, the GOP, Congress, the new incoming majority there in the House, wants to investigate the Hunter laptop stuff, and there was a survey...
And if you're new to this livestream, some of you are probably new to the livestream, I'm going to do a demonstration to show you that the viewers of this livestream, on average, are way smarter than other people.
Now watch this. This is without any prompting.
This is without any prompting.
How many people do you think answered the poll Roughly, let's see if you can get it within, let's say, two points.
What percentage of the public thinks strongly disagrees with Congress looking into the Hunter laptop story?
It's 23%.
Now, are you amazed?
This is how smart my audience is.
Almost every one of you guessed within just two points.
Like, you are all...
You are right on that.
Wow. I applaud you.
I don't think the word genius is overused in this case.
You are all geniuses.
All right. Now, Joe Biden ran on...
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'll take a fact check on this.
Now, the Democrats have policies that they promote that are different than the Republicans.
But on top of that, Biden was primarily running, not on policy.
Would you agree? Biden said he was running to get rid of a liar and somebody who...
Who did the fine people statement, which was a hoax.
So now we know for sure that Biden's primary campaign promise that he would be the honest one, and he lied about the biggest thing in the news.
So we didn't get that.
And then he was going to bring us a president that would prevent us from having the fine people hoax happening again.
But the fine people hoax was a hoax.
It didn't ever happen.
It never happened even once.
So he ran for president successfully by being the biggest liar and promising he wouldn't be a liar.
And on the biggest hoax the country has ever fallen for, the hoax was supported by the same media.
And he got elected.
Now, how would you feel about that if you were a Democrat and you knew that the main two things he promised you character-wise were complete bullshit?
Total bullshit. How would you feel about it?
Probably pretty good, because you got a Democrat in office.
And, yeah, the guy pretending to be Rob Reiner over here says he feels great.
Yeah, I guess you feel great.
I have an observation and some pattern recognition which is a little incomplete.
Let's see if you can fill in the blanks for me.
Does it seem to you that lately Democrats and Republicans, they both lie, but does it seem they lie differently?
Have you noticed there's a quality difference to the types of lies?
So there are all kinds of lies.
Which side leaves out information that would change the context?
Which side does that? Both.
Both, right? No, every politician.
Every politician leaves out inconvenient stuff.
So that's one kind of lie.
Both of them do that. How about hyperbole?
Hyperbole, where you're taking something that's true-ish, but you're stretching it.
They both do that, right?
They both do that. Trump did plenty of it.
And the Republicans do it when they're blaming January 6th and extremists and stuff.
They just extreme.
They exaggerate.
So they all exaggerate and they all leave out context.
We're kind of used to that, right?
Unfortunately, we're used to it from both sides.
But how about imagining things that didn't happen?
Which side is more likely to imagine something that didn't happen?
No, it's Republicans.
Everybody's saying Democrats because you're all primed.
No, it's Republicans. Republicans believe more conspiracy theories.
Republicans are going to believe Q. They're going to believe more conspiracy theories.
Absolutely. Now, January 6th, Is definitely an example of some bullshit.
But that's more in the exaggeration category.
January 6th was an exaggeration.
Not something just completely made up.
Just weirdly, extremely exaggerated.
Well, I think...
So again, I'm doing a fact check because I haven't done any science.
It seems to me... Because I'm not a Republican, so I get that little bit of lack of bias from not being on a team.
It seems to me Republicans will imagine things that didn't happen.
But now here's the part you're going to agree with.
Which side makes up facts that literally didn't happen at all?
Just a complete made-out-of-nothing fact.
Which side does that? Democrats, yeah.
The Russia collusion was just completely made up.
The Russian disinformation hoax, completely made up.
The Trump wants you to drink bleach hoax, well, it was based on an event, but the event is not an exaggeration from the event.
It's completely made up, because the event was about light, and they changed it into bleach.
That's not an exaggeration.
That's completely made up.
The fine people hoax, is that an exaggeration?
No, it's completely made up, because he literally said who he was talking about and who he wasn't.
Now, you could disagree with whether or not those people were there, but that was never the question.
The question was not whether Trump was right that some fine people attended.
He defined his terms.
He said, I believe there were. That's the end of it.
So that was a completely made-up hoax.
Somebody saying 1619 was made up, some parts of it.
Now, let me ask you this.
What kind of a person, if it were a person instead of a party, what kind of person makes up a lie where you're adding entirely new things that didn't exist?
Because remember, Q wasn't a lie.
It was something that people believed.
Well, it was a lie, yeah.
But it wasn't coming from the Republicans.
It was coming from Q. Narcissists.
Narcissists. Narcissists do gaslighting.
Gaslighting is not just an ordinary lie.
Gaslighting is like a big lie where you're adding things that didn't exist.
Like whole characters that weren't in the play.
Like you're introducing a character that wasn't even there.
Like that's the gaslighting.
That's the narcissist. So it seems to me that the Democrats have become a female narcissist.
The Republicans have become a I don't know, a fireman or something?
A cop? It just feels like some male vibe on one side, and the other side's a female vibe.
They both have their character flaws, but they're different ones.
An abused spouse?
Republicans are an abused spouse.
Oh, that's interesting.
All right. So the most interesting thing about this Twitter takeover is that, in my opinion, the Democrats can no longer do gaslighting.
They have to change the way they lie.
Because I think Twitter would penetrate any lies that were just made-up shit.
Right? Because the Twitter would call it out.
But if you controlled Twitter, you could just make up stuff and nobody would call you out.
Or at least nobody would see it.
So what happens if the Democrats' gaslighting engine is gone?
Because I think it is. I think it's their gaslighting engine.
So, we'll see how they do.
Alright, let me ask you this question.
Now that you know that everything you suspected about Twitter suppressing the news was 100% true, what do you think you'll find out if the Republicans investigate the laptop?
Will they find out that everything you suspected about Hunter Biden and the laptop And his foreign dealings was true.
How many of you think it's going to be exactly what you thought it was?
Like, no surprises at all?
I think we all do.
Well, a few of you said no.
Could be some surprises.
My best guess is that it is exactly what it looks like.
Now, that doesn't mean anybody's going to jail.
I'm not sure there's a crime there.
But it is exactly what it looks like.
It's, you know, influence for money.
There's no doubt about that. Now, I don't know if you will ever get to the point where you can show that Joe Biden is beholden to Ukraine or something like that.
That's a whole different level. But I think we'll definitely find out that everything you thought about trading influence for money was exactly what you thought.
Exactly what you thought. And probably nothing will happen from it.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday was probably one of the most amazing days of news and revelation.
But you know it's going to be completely killed by the mainstream media, right?
It'll just be completely ignored.
It's already happening. And I think that they can get away with it.
It would be real interesting to wait a month and then ask a Democrat on the street what they know about this story.
Wouldn't that be interesting? Just wait a month and ask Republicans what they know about the story, just some basic facts, and then ask Democrats what they know about the story.
They will not look the same.
But that's why I think Democrats had to get off of Twitter, because they didn't want to see the reality.
There's definitely something to wanting to remain in your illusion, because I've done it myself.
I'm doing it right now.
I'm completely aware that I've built an illusion around myself, and I live in it willingly.
All right. Was there any other story that mattered?
How true do you think it is that Putin fell down the stairs and shit himself and he has cancer and Parkinson's?
How true do you think that is?
That sounds like...
That sounds like Ukrainian misinformation to me.
Yeah, I'd give it 20% chance, something like that.
But here's another possibility.
The other possibility is that our intel already knew how bad Putin was.
One of the explanations for why we're pushing Putin as hard as we are is that he might not be at full power.
Like, it could be that the Biden administration knows they're dealing with a weak in Putin, and this is the time to push him.
Could be. And it could be that they'll turn out to be right.
Could be. Yeah, poop in Putin.
Yeah, when pooping Putin becomes a thing, that's tough.
Biden is weak, too.
Well, Biden might be weak, but I feel like there's some kind of a collective running the show that might not be weak.
We just don't know who it is.
Putin. Oh, my God.
Putin's name actually starts with Pooh.
Vladimir Putin.
I think he just became Vladimir Putin.
You know, I'm waiting for the next, like, G20.
Let's say Putin gets invited to another event.
Somebody's going to be walking up a set of stairs right behind him.
Like, you better put Justin Trudeau behind him, right?
That's what I'd do. If I were Trump, I was walking up the stairs with the other G20 people, and I ended up behind Vladimir Pupin.
I'd reach around and I'd grab Justin Trudeau, and I'd put him in front of me as like a shield.
He'd be my Pupin shield.
Did I see Dr.
Drew's video on foot-long clots?
I saw it existed, but here's what I never want to see.
One doctor telling you what he saw.
So I don't know if that's what Dr.
Drew did, but if he talked to one doctor who's making some claims, I don't have any credibility on that.
That would be the lowest level of credibility.
If you had two doctors who had different opinions and looked at the same data, and then you add the bond and they talked it out, I might come up to an opinion.
But I'm never going to form an opinion from one person without the other side.
Doesn't mean he's wrong. Doesn't mean he's wrong.
I'm just never going to form an opinion on that kind of information.
But it sounds interesting.
I'd like to watch it. You already have a dozen doctors saying they've seen clots.
So what's that worth?
Let's say there's a dozen doctors, notable doctors, high visibility, who are saying the same thing about the long clots.
And the value of that is what?
Still zero. The credibility of 12 notable doctors making the same claim is still zero.
You know why, right?
Because it's still zero people on the other side.
How about if it's 100?
100 doctors.
They show you their work.
They make their case.
It's all very convincing.
There's 100 of them.
And there's nobody you've heard from on the other side.
So how credible is that?
Zero. Zero.
You should rank that as zero.
Because you haven't heard the other side.
You cannot ignore the single most important rule of decision making.
Hear the other side.
It's number one.
There's nothing that's more important than that.
So if you've only heard one side, that's all you know.
That's all you know is that one side said it's true.
You don't know what's true.
In that case, are the Twitter files not credible?
Well, I'm talking about doctors specifically, but you note that nobody is on the other side of the Twitter files.
There's nobody, and they could.
I mean, there's plenty of people who know the inside story.
There's nobody saying, well, you got that wrong.
So I would expect, you do expect whistleblowers.
Fifty notable people claimed the Hunter laptop was likely disinformation, but we also heard from the other side.
By the way, does anybody remember me calling bullshit on the 50 intel people?
I don't know if I did.
Did I just report that they said it, or did I say it's obviously bullshit?
Can you remind me?
Alright, so on locals they're saying that I called bullshit on day one.
I did, right? Okay.
And I think I probably said it because it was Brennan.
Brennan is the one who said it was true, and they literally use him when they need to say something that's not true.
I think I pointed out there was 50 professional liars, probably.
Yeah. Yeah, if Clapper and Brennan say it's true, you know it's not true, because they only bring them out to say things that are not true.
That's their purpose. So how's my predicting looking lately?
So I got...
If I got the Intel guys right, and I guess that Jack Dorsey maybe didn't know what was happening below the hood, and of course I was with all of you predicting that the laptop thing was exactly what it looked like.
So pretty good so far on that anyway.
All right.
Pretty, pretty good.
CNN did cover it if you click on US News.
So, in other words, the CNN page, let's do the app.
Yeah, I do believe that everything will, all the entities will cover it.
I think that they will cover it differently and some will hide it.
All right. So here's the CNN homepage.
Starts with soccer.
Okay, I mean, that's happening at the moment.
Something about Moscow.
Let's see. See what's happening in Moscow.
FedEx driver. James Brown mystery.
Something about a virus.
Something about Trump.
Something about Trump's tax returns.
Something about Iran, Venezuela, Brazilian football legend, Biden analysis.
How far do I have to go?
How far do I have to go before I get the biggest story in the country?
And we keep going.
Rogue wave. So on an Arctic cruise, there was a rogue wave that killed an American woman on the ship.
I actually did a...
Arctic... Not Antarctic.
Well... Proud Boys...
Proud Boys want D.C. police officers to testify in their defense at the upcoming trial.
The Proud Boys want the police to testify in their defense.
That could be interesting.
Man fathers over 117 children.
Oh, okay.
And the guy who fell off the cruise ship said he battled some sort of creature to survive while stranded in the ocean.
And New York City is hiring a rat czar.
A rat czar.
There's so many rats in New York City that they need a rat czar.
Let me take a moment to give you some valuable dad advice.
Children, and some of you, you can pass this along to your children, because this will be good.
Someday, you may be in a place where you have to decide where to live.
You know, you can decide to live in a city or in the country or any city.
When you're making that decision, I would like to add to your criteria that if the city you're considering moving to has a czar, cross it off the list.
That actually should be the first thing you should look for.
I know people look for good schools and low crime and a good commute.
But I would say, rats are.
That needs to be the first part of the checklist.
Huh. Should I go where I will be overrun by rats?
No. I'm going to say no to that.
Do not go where you will certainly be overrun with rats.
Yeah, so Baltimore is just totally off the list.
All right.
We need that rat czar.
Thank you.
Did I hear that Balenciaga dropped its lawsuit against its designer?
So how long has it been since we found out who at Balenciaga did that pedo-related visual stuff and why?
Are you telling me we still don't know why and who did it?
Here's another dog not barking.
The person who got fired at Balenciaga.
Nobody? Really?
Nobody got fired.
Have you heard of anybody getting fired?
Nobody. You should fire somebody just for the look of it.
What are we looking at here?
Is this a new... Oh, CNN. It's our job to go there, February 2007, and tell the hard stories, yes.
All right. Anything else going on?
I think we're good.
Trump was right about everything.
Kim Kardashian needs to sever her ties.
What would happen if Trump retweeted Matt Taibbi's tweet thread and nothing else?
Pandemonium. Pandemonium.
That is a really good idea.
If there's anybody on the Trump team listening, if Trump did one tweet and that's it, And that was his goodbye to Twitter.
You know, he might come back if true social doesn't work out.
But that would be strong.
Because then everybody would be talking whether he was going to keep tweeting.
You wouldn't be able to stop talking about Trump, and he would insert himself in the story with one tweet.
That would be a good play.
So whoever suggested that, very strong, very strong suggestion.
I love that. Not only tweet it, but block the replies.
Oh, that's even perfect.
I mean, I can't see Trump blocking replies, but that would be perfect.
He's in contract. Yeah, I don't believe that Trump can tweet.
He probably has a contract that keeps him on Truth Social.
But I could imagine him talking to whoever he has the contract with and say, how about I tweet this, and then he'll say, see me at Truth Social for more.
And just use Twitter as his marketing vehicle.
I mean, that would be the way to do it.
All right.
Yeah. Shecky Pavel.
I don't know who that is. Does the liability for the Twitter laptop thing transfer to the new owners?
There's no liability. It's not a crime.
Remember, Twitter's a private company.
They could ban the laptop if they wanted to.
The liability, I think, is the government's.
Am I wrong? If Twitter did this thing, which they did, but they did it because of the government, it would be the government who's in trouble, not Twitter.
Because Twitter could just say, well, if the government asks me to do something, I don't say no to my government.
I think that's a get out of jail free, right?
If you say I was following directions from my government, even if it wasn't a legal requirement, I would think that's a get out of jail free completely.
I would think. You know, even if it's just suggested by the government and it's not like a legal mandate, if your government says do it, I don't see any jury seeing otherwise.
Like, not in my country.
In my country, if the government forces you to do something, you don't go to jail for doing that thing, or there's no penalty.
Yeah, the liberals might sue Twitter to try to break it.
You're right. Just follow orders.
All right, yeah, Biden was not the government, but do you think the people on his team were not operating as if they were a government?
Yeah, I mean, those are interesting nuances.
Whether the campaign is really the government or it's a pre-government, that might matter.
Yeah. To the Supreme Court, I could see how that would matter.
So I don't know how it would come out.
Yeah, members of Congress were probably involved, because they were probably working on his campaign with him.
But I don't know exactly who contacted who and how many times.
I wonder what Dershowitz will say.
That's always a big question.
Scott, did Biden steal your Define America Equals Possible from your Define America Equals Impossible?
I don't recall that.
So I don't know the reference.
So I don't know the reference of what Biden did.
When did Biden do that?
And I don't know what I said that you think might have...
So I guess I don't know.
Alright, just looking at your comments here for a moment.
You miss my cat?
So do I. I miss my cat.
She was a giant problem.
A giant problem. But boy, do I miss her.
Yeah, we got nothing here. So I think we're just hanging out at this point.
All right, YouTube, I'm going to say goodbye to you.
I'm going to say a little bit more to the locals' people.
