Episode 2104 Scott Adams: Biden Criminal Enterprise Outed, Trump Proves Justice System Isn't, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden crime family uncovered
Tucker comes to Twitter
Trump politically liable
Newsom rejects reparations...LOL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 newsiest day of news days ever.
Today will be a burner.
Oh, it's gonna be good.
Shutter.
And if you'd like your experience at Coffee with Scott Adams to be...
The best thing you've ever felt in your entire life, physically, mentally, and spiritually, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Don't forget the "ah" at the end.
That's the kind of day it's going to be.
Well, how much do I love being right?
Anybody?
Anybody?
Has anybody noticed I have a special delight whenever I'm right about something?
Well, today's one of those days.
We're going to be talking about all the big stories.
Yes, Biden, etc.
But my favorite story is that The up-till-now-quiet Governor Newsom has weighed in on reparations.
And, uh... Ouch!
Ouch!
Patting myself on the back too hard.
Ouch!
Ouch!
Stop it!
Stop it!
I can't stop patting myself on the back!
And what did Governor Newsom say about the reparations?
Well, that's not going to happen.
Talk about calling it.
Talk about calling your shot before you hit it.
I think I called this one pretty far in advance.
Yeah, and he's such a weasel, but he's good at it.
I guess I'm kind of complimenting him and insulting him at the same time.
So he comes up with this bullshit explanation that this is my favorite line.
Well, you know, reparations is about more than cash payments.
Oh, oh, is that what's going on?
So the entire conversation that's almost exclusively about cash payments, it's not so much about the cash payments.
It's about the ongoing struggle against systemic racism, which they're doing great.
It's about their continuous striving for equity, which is ongoing and doing great.
They're going to do more on that.
They're going to do more.
And so, oh, do we need to talk about the cash payments?
When reparations is about so much more, so much more.
We don't want to get all caught up in the cash payments part when it's such a big topic and we're doing so well on it.
So how do you think that's going to go over?
Do you think Newsom won over the black community?
I think the best way for Trump to play this topic Is to say that Newsom was always pranking them.
That he was never serious.
And he was just yanking them along.
And he was lying to black Americans like all Democrats.
Let me say it again.
Has anybody mentioned that it's the Democrats that are fucking lying to the black people all the time?
And it's only the Republicans.
Well, in my case, I am a recent Democrat.
I joined them when they accused me of being a racist.
I said to myself, oh, it's only the Democrats who are accusing me of being a racist.
Republicans don't even see it at all.
I think I'll join the Democrats.
Because I think they need more racists in their ranks.
Kind of tells the story cleanly.
So I joined them.
But am I wrong?
That Republicans, and in my own little way, are just a few people telling the truth to black Americans.
The truth was there was never going to be any reparations.
I was trying to tell the truth from the start, that there couldn't be any way to do it, it wasn't a practical way to do it.
And it didn't make any difference.
Alright, well, I heard some of the most interesting arguments, which is, Honestly, it angers me to see how abused black Americans have been in this process.
It's really ugly, right?
So, separate from, you know, whatever abuses historically have been heaped on black Americans, on top of that, we're just lying to them and treating them like idiots at this point.
The Democrats are.
The Democrats are treating them like idiots.
And the Republicans are trying to help.
But there's just so much you can do, right?
There's a limit to how much you can do.
But here's an argument for reparations.
Black Americans were denied, you know, various rights.
There was redlining, there was slavery, systemic racism, and so there were many bad things that happened to black people in the past.
Therefore, there should be reparations.
Did you catch the argument?
Let me say the argument again.
Because this is the argument that was presented to me.
There are various number of bad things that the country did to black Americans throughout history.
And we all agree on those.
Factually, I think we're all on the same page.
From redlining to slavery to systemic racism, all true.
All true.
And then here's the argument.
So there should be reparations.
Where's the argument?
All these bad things happened and they were somewhat sanctioned by government or at least not stopped.
So therefore, there should be reparations.
Do you catch the argument?
There is none.
I substituted the word should where you expected an argument.
Should is not an argument.
That's not an argument.
It's not a legal standard.
It's not logic.
It doesn't follow from the facts.
It's just a word that you inserted so that people don't understand that there wasn't any reason there.
Do you understand that bad things have happened to people all through history, right?
Like lots and lots of bad things.
We're not talking about giving them reparations.
Do you know why?
Because there's no argument for it.
There's no argument for it.
The fact that the country did bad things to people in the past is more like a set of facts.
A set of facts is not an argument.
You have to connect the dots.
So here's what an argument would look like.
So this is not the argument, but it's what one would look like.
Bad things happened.
We have a, let's say we have a A standard in this country that we like, because it defines who we are, in which we try to compensate for bad things that happened.
And this is so much like other bad things that have happened, the precedent is set.
And we think that if we correct it, society will function better.
In other words, we'll all get along better.
And our national disgrace, the original sin of slavery, will be not taken away, but at least you can do a little bit about it.
Now that would be close to an argument, right?
I'm not saying you would agree with it or disagree with it, but that's what an argument would look like.
You'd say what you want, and then you would connect what you want with how that makes the system stronger, Or it writes an injustice or something.
But the word should doesn't do any of those things.
Bad things happen, therefore you should give me money.
That's not an argument.
But that is the argument that we're given.
And so, here's my counter argument to that.
You don't think women were abused also for a hundred thousand years?
I mean, women only got the right to vote.
To vote!
How long ago was it that women got the right to vote?
It wasn't that long ago!
Could women even own anything?
Didn't we have a lot of history where women literally couldn't even own anything?
So, let me give you an example from my own lifetime.
So, my grandfather owned a farm.
And when he died, he left the farm to his oldest son.
And that was it.
He had two daughters.
Nothing.
You know, except odds and ends.
But one of them got his entire farm, which was worth a fortune, because he was the oldest son.
He didn't leave it to his wife.
Did you hear that?
He didn't leave his fortune, his farm, To his wife.
He left it to his oldest son, because that's just the way it was done.
Now, you don't think women have an argument for reparations?
It would be an easy argument.
If the argument is, bad things happen, therefore you should, with the word should standing in for an actual argument, give me money.
Is there anybody else who could make that argument?
How about the white northerners who fought in the Civil War to end slavery, among other things?
Do you think the white northerners who never had any slaves, didn't get any money from it, and then lost their lives, are they better off or worse off than the descendants of slaves?
Let's see, one is dead, fighting for the freedom of other people.
And one lived, but had a really bad situation.
But now their children are in a better situation.
Not ideal, but better.
So here's the problem with should.
You can put the word should between any two set of facts and act like you made an argument.
But the world is full of people who have been abused by the government.
The government has been abusing people forever.
What about the draft?
If you got drafted for the Vietnam War, which was bullshit, do you have reason for reparations?
I would say so.
I would say so.
If you want to use should, yeah.
People were drafted into the military and then were killed or wounded, so therefore they should get reparations.
Right?
You can't make a should argument.
If should is a requirement, you don't have any argument.
All right.
Well, I know you want to talk about the Biden crime family.
So I guess that the press conference is probably still going live.
Some of you are watching that.
And here's what I was expecting.
I was expecting that Comer and the Republicans did not have the goods.
What were you expecting?
I was expecting it would be a weak case that maybe sounded good at first, but as soon as you got under the hood, you'd find out it was vaporware and there was nothing there.
It was kind of like the, you know, the walls are closing in on Trump kind of thing.
Oh, the walls are closing in on Hunter, finally.
So I thought there would be nothing there.
Now, I'll give you my first impression, which is subject to change.
Because what's definitely going to happen is that the Democrats are going to mount a defense.
Right?
So there'll be a, like the news will, the news will form ranks around Biden and they'll create this cushion of information and misinformation, of course, which will try to protect him.
So we haven't seen the protective field form yet.
We've seen one indication of it, which reminds me of Tucker Carlson.
I just saw, what case was it for?
I think it might've been related to this.
That one of the Biden people said that Republicans must be working for China?
Yeah, they're working for the benefit of China.
And I thought to myself, there it is.
There's your confession.
As Tucker has pointed out, the Democrats always accuse you of specifically what they're guilty of.
Not even generally, but specifically what they're guilty of.
Which is taking money from China.
And apparently that's one of the accusations that got surfaced today by Comer and his Republican buddies.
So, So now we've got that Tucker confirmation, which is not a legal standard, but it's so predictable that you can't not see it anymore.
As soon as they come up with a wild accusation like you're colluding with Russia, they were colluding with Russia.
They accused Trump of colluding with Russia while they colluded with Russia to come up with the fake charges that he was colluding with Russia.
So it's very consistent.
Yeah.
All right.
I just saw a real dumbass NPC comment that was sort of a classic.
So here's what we know, according to Comer and his buddies.
There were, let's see, the accusations were just coming out when I signed on.
There were 16 to 20 companies, entities that the Bidens were shuffling money through.
And the experts are saying that given the velocity of money that went through these companies and the complexity of the setup of who's paying who and where's it going, and money went to nine different Biden members.
And here's the kill shot.
I didn't think the Republicans would have a kill shot.
I thought they would have a bunch of accusations that would be sort of cloudy and, you know, there'd be a defense.
But here's the kill shot.
The way the business was set up, the complexity of it, there is no legitimate business that would ever be set up that way.
It is set up exactly for corruption.
But here's the real kill shot at the bottom of that.
There's no business model.
There's no business model.
In other words, there's no invoice.
There's no services presented.
There's no product sold.
It's just a bunch of old companies where money is going around.
It's very obviously a corrupt scheme.
Now whether or not that could ever be proven is independent from the fact that we're going to think it's a corruption.
I mean, it's so obvious at this point that it was set up for only that purpose, for corruption, to hide the payments.
And, you know, I guess Trump is also being blamed for whatever overseas.
But as Comer pointed out, Trump had real businesses, right?
Jared Kushner has real businesses.
So the Saudis, I think, were investors in one of his funds that he started after he left.
That's a real business.
You put money into a fund, you hope the fund invests and makes you some more money than you put in, and then it gives you some of the money.
Now, you definitely have to wonder about any political business involvement, but at least that's a real business and it's fairly transparent.
The fact that we know that Saudi put money in there is all I wanted to know.
Tell me that you know it.
Be transparent.
I can live with that.
And Jared has an actual track record that suggests he can turn your money into more money.
So if I had a chance to invest in his companies, I probably would.
Probably would.
All right, so here's what else we know about the world.
Apparently our government already was flagging 170 suspicious financial activities related to Hunter Biden and these Biden shell companies.
FBI has been knowing that it looks sketchy for a while.
And Comer says there are two whistleblowers that will come forward.
So now they got whistleblowers.
They've got bank records, and they've got experts who know how corruption works, who say, oh yeah, this is classic.
And here's the key point.
A substantial amount of it happened while Biden was vice president.
And they seem to be able to connect some activities around the money flowing and some policies that directly or indirectly were good for the company that paid the money.
And it looks like the Biden business model is that they get 30%, or the hunter does, that he gives to his family members, 30% of whatever deals they were working out there.
So, a significant part of the money was coming from Chinese controlled companies.
So one of the things that Biden had specifically denied is that money was coming from Chinese companies, but now they have the documentation that it was.
So, let's see.
So he lied about money from Chinese companies, this is Joe Biden, he lied about, well he lied about knowing, we assume, because the scope of the operation was so So substantial.
There isn't really any realistic way that Joe Biden didn't know.
Because he was the one providing the service.
He was the one meeting the Romanians or having dinner with a business partner or whatever.
There isn't any legitimate way he didn't know.
Would you agree?
Would anybody disagree with that statement?
We can say with clarity at this point, he knew.
Yeah, we can say that for sure.
I think you could also say for sure it was an influence selling operation.
Do you think there's any doubt about that at this point?
Do you have any doubt that it was an influence selling operation?
And that it apparently involved China, Romania, Serbia?
Lots of different companies, nine different family members.
This is clearly a crime organization.
The Biden crime family is actually a literal thing.
It's a real thing.
There is a Biden crime family, and it's been operating for many years.
And now we know.
I'm going to say the Republicans are doing a good job on this.
Am I wrong?
I don't say that a lot.
I mean, even when I'm You know, leaning pro-Republican on some specific policy or something.
I don't usually say the Republicans are doing a great job.
That's not something that comes out of my lips too often.
But on this, I'm actually surprised.
I'm kind of surprised.
It looks like they actually deliver the goods.
Now, that doesn't mean something will happen.
I still think we live in a country that is sufficiently corrupt that everybody can know the Biden family is a criminal enterprise.
And nothing will happen.
So I do not predict that there will be consequences.
I don't.
I do predict that it's now obvious that it was a crime family situation.
I would say that's obvious now.
I don't think there will be consequences.
I just don't think we live in a world where things operate that way.
All indications are that Something sketchy will happen and they'll all escape for one reason or another.
It could be Biden pardons everybody and then resigns.
Right?
Could he do that?
Could Biden just pardon his whole family and then resign?
Worst case scenario, I mean he wouldn't want to do that, but he has the option.
So you can forget about any of them going to jail.
The only way Hunter could go to jail that I can imagine Is if Joe Biden died suddenly and he couldn't, well, even Kamala would probably give the pardon then.
Yeah, there's probably no way.
There's probably no way that any of them will ever be in trouble.
So we'll watch out for that.
But I cannot wait until Trump gets his teeth into this.
However Trump decides to spin this thing is going to be art.
Because usually Trump doesn't have that much to work with, right?
He's working with rumors and innuendos and hyperbole.
Maybe he's exaggerating DeSantis' record a little bit, that sort of thing.
So he usually has pretty thin things to work with.
Even Crooked Hillary was more like rumors than facts.
But now the Biden stuff is going to be pretty well documented.
What does Trump do with that?
That's like you put the biggest steak in the world on his plate and said, are you hungry?
Yeah, I think he's going to devour this.
I also think that the odds of RFK Jr.
being the next president just went way up.
It went way up.
You don't think there's some Democrats who are pretty sick of this shit?
Oh yeah.
Yeah.
Just as there are many Republicans who are sick of defending Trump.
Like even if you liked his policies, aren't you sick of defending him?
I am.
I'm tired of it.
It didn't help me.
It didn't help my life.
Probably is the reason I got cancelled more than anything else.
Right?
So there's nothing good in it, defending any of the people, even if you like their policies.
I've got a feeling that the Democrats are going to feel a little bit of that defending your guy fatigue that Trump supporters feel.
It's like, I've been doing this too long.
I got to stop defending the same person all the time.
Although you could call it not defending, but you know what I mean.
All right.
Then I did see that it looks like a number of people are going to enter the race, possibly the primary.
It's gonna get interesting.
It's going to get interesting.
So I've got a feeling that RFK Jr.
is the thing that got out of the toothpaste that got out of the tube.
I don't think they can put him back in now.
He might have positioned himself at exactly the right place at exactly the right time that the Democrats are going to say, oh, we better act fast.
To get somebody who has some chance of winning.
Some chance of winning.
Tell me who they could replace RFK Jr.
with.
Name me any Democrat who could beat RFK Jr.
If Biden isn't in it.
Name anybody who could beat him.
You think Newsom could beat RFK Jr.?
After the reparations thing?
Maybe until the reparations thing happened.
Now I think he's dead meat.
Yeah, I will grant you this truth.
Newsom is skilled.
Would everybody agree with that?
Newsom isn't a regular politician.
He's a little extra.
He's got the politician gene where he can just do the politician stuff really well.
Now, I don't think he's been a good operator for the state.
I don't think he's made good decisions for the state.
But boy, you put a camera on him.
And he goes into his, you know, Newsome mode.
That's pretty good.
He just looks like a leader.
He's got that leader vibe, even if he's not effective.
So yeah, Newsome could put a dent in the RFK Jr.
machine, but I think RFK Jr.
has more gears.
And less baggage.
Weirdly.
I mean, he has baggage, but it's baggage that he can turn into a positive.
He hasn't quite done it, but he's very close to it.
Yeah.
The biggest hit on RFK Jr.
Think about the biggest hits on him.
Number one big hit, he used to be a wild, drug-taking philanderer.
Is that going to hurt him?
He had a wild, drug-taking, philandering life, which he fully admits to.
And he's off drugs now.
I don't think that hurts him.
Sorry.
It just makes him relatable.
It makes him more of a Kennedy.
You would think that maybe he wasn't genetically related unless he was also a philanderer.
Right, that's so baked into your Kennedy understanding that if he didn't do a little philandering, you'd wonder if maybe he was not genetically related or something.
So I don't think that hurts him at all.
And especially if he runs against Trump, nobody's going to think, oh, we don't want the philanderer.
I mean, that's not going to be an issue.
The other thing RFK Jr.
has against him is that the pro-vaccination people think he's a nut.
And you think to yourself, well, there's no way you can right that ship.
Right?
There's no way you can go from being what seems like anti-science against kids' vaccinations, anyway, to pro-science.
That's just too big of a thing.
But you're wrong.
Because I've watched him do it.
I watched him actually move that battleship.
He actually turned the battleship in real time while I watched.
Here's how he did it.
I never said there's a definite link between these vaccinations and autism.
I said the correlation is super high and that the way they're tested is insufficient because they didn't do a randomized controlled trials.
They did abbreviated trials because they had legal cover to do it.
They just didn't have to do the work, so they didn't.
So I think that they should have to do the work.
Now, what part of that do you disagree with?
Think about it.
You know, I'd never really paid much attention to him before, when he was talking about childhood vaccinations, because I thought he was a nut.
Honestly.
I just dismissed it.
Because the news told me he was a nut, and that he was being anti-science.
So at the time, this is my simple, stupid, earlier me.
Right now I'm a little wiser.
Now I know that it's all made up.
Now I know that pretty much all of our Medical data is just made up.
It's just bullshit.
But I didn't know it at the time, or I didn't know the extent of it at the time.
I knew some was.
But now that you know it's all corrupt, when you hear the guy who knew it from the start, he knew it was all corrupt from the start.
So he, for me, he turned the battleship around like it was a figure skater.
I mean, I saw this immovable, impossible to change thing.
I'm anti-science because I was anti-vax.
How in the world do you change that battleship when it's already moving in one direction?
And then he said, they're not tested sufficiently.
And I'm not saying that I proved a connection.
I'm saying it's really, really high.
And if you're not looking at the correlation, you're not doing your work.
You're not protecting children.
And suddenly, I'm completely on board.
How do you do that?
I mean, think about that.
Think about the persuasion difficulty of flipping the anti-science guy to the only logical person in the conversation.
He sounds like the only person who knows what he's talking about.
It's fucking awesome, right?
Now, I don't think he's smarter than Vivek.
Vivek is super smart and super good at all this.
But I am so happy that we've got both of them in the race.
Win or lose, Vivek Ramaswamy and RFK Jr.
are two of the best things that have ever happened in politics, in my opinion.
Because they're actually telling the truth and they seem to have a track record of telling the truth at any cost.
Am I right?
They both have a track record of telling you the truth as they see it.
I'm not saying they could be right about everything.
But they have a track record of telling the truth as they see it, at any cost.
When have you seen that before?
Have you ever seen two candidates at the same time, different sides, where both of them have a focus on the truth, and you could actually believe that?
Because they have enough of a track record, and they're modeling their own behavior as they go, successfully.
It's a hell of a thing.
And it makes both Biden and Trump look like dinosaurs, doesn't it?
If I'm being honest.
It makes them both look like dinosaurs.
Because Biden and Trump are both from the era of, you just say anything.
Just say anything.
It doesn't have to be true.
If they believe it, you say it.
And it appears that Ramaswamy and RFK Jr.
are not of that school.
And what is it that we need more of in America than anything else?
The truth.
The truth.
America only has one problem.
You can quote me on that.
America only has one problem.
The truth.
Because everything else, we have all of the muscle to handle.
Don't we?
Give us a war?
We can handle that.
Give us a disaster?
We'll handle that.
Give us some internal conflict?
We got this.
Aliens land?
We could probably figure it out.
Climate change?
Yeah, we'll get there.
We'll figure it out.
But we can't handle not having the truth.
Because then your solutions are just, you know, randomized.
There's no way that works.
So we have two candidates, one on each side, who are promising us the truth.
Different policies, probably.
But promising us the truth in a way that's actually credible.
It's actually credible that they could offer us the truth.
I've never thought that was a possibility before.
Have you?
Have you ever imagined that the truth was actually on the table?
I've never even considered it.
Like it never seemed like a possibility.
But it's on the table now.
And if you don't think that's one of the best things that's ever happened in the history of American politics, I say it is.
I say it's one of the most important things in the history of American politics.
They have people on both sides arguing for the truth and meaning it.
For the first time.
Now, I love me some Trump.
Don't get me wrong.
I love Trump personally, like as a person.
He's really fun.
If you ever get a chance to just like talk to him for 10 minutes, you're going to walk away with a positive feeling.
He just has a really good... In fact, all the Trumps that I've met have that same thing going on.
Their personal charisma is just off the chart.
It's crazy.
And I like a lot of Trump's policies, but like most of you, I don't like being swept up into the bullshit and all the damage that anybody gets into if they're anywhere near the blast zone.
So I'd rather not be in the blast zone, and I think that it's time that we look at our older politicians in a different light, as long as we have alternatives, which it seems we do.
So, I'm still going to be a single issue voter on Fentanyl, and we'll see how that shapes up as we go, because the candidates are going to be modifying their opinions a little bit, clarifying, so we'll see how that goes.
But I'm going to say good things about all three of those candidates at least, and maybe others.
Maybe others.
I think there's a lot positive to say.
About Ramaswamy, RFK Jr., and maybe some others.
There might be some others who get in that I've got some good things to talk about.
All right.
So, I think the Bidens are done.
Is it too soon?
I think they're done politically.
I don't think they're done legally.
Like I say, I don't think the legal system has the even the ability to take them down.
The blast zone, yeah.
Yeah, I believe that the Bidens are politically finished.
I don't think Joe Biden can win re-election based on the Biden crime family narrative.
Because I don't see what they can do about that.
To me that's, they're done.
I'm not seeing a lot of agreement or disagreement.
I think you're all undecided at this point.
Can you give me a sense of whether you're on the same page?
So here's my statement.
Say agree or don't agree.
My statement is that Biden is done politically.
He can't win.
Agree or disagree?
All right.
I'm seeing a lot of agreement, some disagreements.
Looks like the agreements outnumber the disagreements by two to one, maybe.
But that's also because this audience is somewhat biased.
Two to one's not telling me much, because that's probably what it was before this.
Thought the same when he was campaigning from the basement.
Now, I don't think you can compare the campaigning from the basement, which just looked like a real weak idea, but it kept him out of trouble.
Now he's in trouble, right?
So comparing the thing that literally kept him out of trouble, because he didn't say much, with the thing where he's already in the deepest trouble I can even imagine, That's as different as you can be.
One's out of trouble and one's in trouble.
They're opposites.
You said this exact thing in October 2020.
Remind me.
Exact thing about the Biden crime family?
Because I don't recall that we had... I don't recall saying that.
But I might have.
Anyway, if somebody knows I said something that's incompatible with what I just said, if you could produce that, I'll take a look at it.
Well, so here's the thing.
We did know in 2020 that Hunter was doing sketchy things.
But would you agree that in 2020 we didn't have documentation?
So it was still a jump ball in terms of politics.
You and I may have decided that we knew for two years.
I'll give you that.
Yeah, we knew.
But I don't think the voting public, the people who are not following all these arcane details of politics, I don't think the voting public knew.
But I think now they will.
I think there's no way the Democrats don't fully understand what's at risk here.
And I'm pretty sure before they were just saying, ah, that's just Trump people making up stories.
So this does feel like a whole level different to me.
All right, let's move on.
So, Trump was found liable in his E. Jean Carroll lawsuit situation to the tune of five or six million dollars.
My understanding is that a judge could, and somewhat typically does, lower that amount.
But still, if it held, it'd be expensive and it would show he did bad things.
However, as smart people have been pointing out, there's a weirdness about this result.
And Joel Pollack pointed it out, and Ellen Dershowitz pointed it out.
And they both have legal backgrounds, so I take their opinion on this.
Because I saw it too, but I didn't know that it made sense.
And here's what I'm talking about.
So apparently the primary claim was that E. Jean Carroll said that Trump raped her at the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman.
The jury found that they did not believe her story, that she was raped.
Wait, let me see if I can say this.
Well, let me say how Joel said it, Joel Pollack in a tweet.
It is hard to reconcile the jury's finding that Trump did not rape her with his findings that he maliciously defamed her by essentially saying that he did not rape her.
All right, so I'm trying to hold this in my head.
So the jury agreed with Trump that no rape happened, as far as they could tell.
But they convicted him, Trump, of agreeing with them.
Did I get that right?
The jury convicted Trump of agreeing with the jury.
Because the jury says the rape didn't happen.
Trump says the rape didn't happen.
So the jury and Trump agreed, so they convicted him for the thing that they believe he was honest about.
They convicted him, not convicted, but he found him liable for lying.
Did I get that?
Now, what they did find he was liable for, I'll stop using the word guilty because it's a civil case, they did find him liable for Sexual battery?
Sexual battery, right?
Do you know what a sexual battery is?
Do you all know what a sexual battery is?
Yeah.
If you've got a vibrator and it's not the kind that you charge, recharge, you're going to have to put a battery in it.
And that's called a sexual battery.
You put that in your vibrator.
So he was, I guess he's liable for being a battery and a dildo.
Wait, no, that's, I'm sorry.
I might have that wrong.
No, a sexual battery is basically grabbing and touching.
Grabbing and touching.
And there's nothing funny about that.
Nothing funny about that.
I'm admonishing myself.
There's nothing funny about that.
However, do you think anybody else would have been found liable with the same set of facts? - Yes.
It doesn't feel like it does.
It doesn't feel like anybody in the world, except Trump, could have gotten 12 jurors to agree with a woman who they thought was lying.
Remember, the jury concluded that she was lying, or that they didn't believe her, which is slightly different.
That they didn't believe her, and they still found four her.
Just to hold that in your head.
Now, I saw somebody, I won't mention who, say that Trump might have the worst lawyer ever.
Because I looked at the facts of this case and I said to myself, I'm not a lawyer, but I have a high confidence I could have won that case.
Like on the first try.
Did anybody else have that same feeling?
Like, I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like I could have won that case.
It looked like the world's easiest case to win, honestly.
Because it was just a he said, she said.
Now, it must be that what, of course, we weren't there for the trial, so, you know, our external view is simplified.
There may have been a lot more evidence.
But apparently the important evidence is that she talked to a friend at the time, or more than one friend.
Am I right on that?
Is anybody who followed it closely?
So the contemporaneous statements tended to be the persuasive ones, right?
But how do you know Then let me ask if anybody followed the evidence in that.
Was there documentation or just memories?
Can anybody tell me, is there documentation, like an email or something, or is it only memories?
So all it would take is three of her friends to hate Trump, and you have everything you need, right?
So if she had three friends that disliked Trump, But liked her.
That's what the jury depended on.
Her three friends who don't like Trump.
Do you think that in the trial, the other girls, not girls, the other women, do you think the other women were asked if they're Trump supporters or Democrats?
Do you think any of them are Republicans?
Do you think anybody in the trial was a male, MAGA-wearing Republican?
Even one?
You think there's even one?
No, of course not.
I don't know.
But I don't think you can get 12 convictions if one of them had a MAGA hat.
Do you?
Do you think anybody with a MAGA hat would have voted guilty in this case?
And by the way, I'm not saying that he's innocent.
Just to be clear.
I'm saying we don't know.
We have no idea.
Now the other thing that seemed like a violation of justice And I guess this is legal because of the state it's in and the fact that it's a civil case.
I don't know the details.
But they brought in other accusers from other situations.
So they brought in women who said, oh, he did something to me sexually inappropriate.
Completely unrelated to Eugene Carroll's case, except they were evocative of a type of behavior.
Now, if that were a criminal case, that wouldn't be allowed, right?
Wouldn't that obviously not be allowed?
I thought that was one of the most basic legal standards, that you don't say somebody's probably guilty because they do this sort of thing.
Depends on the judge, or it's a trend by judges.
Yeah, I think it has more to do with the fact that it was a civil case.
A criminal case would be a different standard.
So I don't know enough about the law to be smart about that.
That's what I think is true.
So, then they played the tape of Trump talking about, you know, the grab them by the rrrr, you know, that famous tape.
And of course the context of that was about the women themselves.
It's been interpreted to be Trump saying something about his own behavior.
It wasn't.
I mean it also was about his behavior.
But he was talking about the women volunteering to be touched.
Or basically instantly surrendering to his celebrity power.
Which everybody believes is true.
Like anybody who's lived in the real world knows that women do surrender to power fairly quickly.
Happens kind of quickly.
And they use that as part of their case.
To me this is the most bullshit case I've ever seen in my life.
Which again, doesn't say he's innocent.
I'm just saying that if you're convicting people on this quality of evidence, not convicted, you're finding them liable on this quality of evidence, that's really sketchy.
So my prediction is that Trump will be more popular because of this.
Agree or disagree?
To me, this paints a picture of Trump being singled out and targeted by a corrupt family enterprise, the Biden enterprise.
Because it helps, the two stories are really compatible.
Because once you've decided that the Bidens are a criminal family, which I have, I think that's just a fair statement based on what we know from the news.
They look like a criminal enterprise.
And it looks like it's coordinated, and it looks like they're all in on it.
So, at the same time the Bidens are outed, you know, the main part of our government is outed as a criminal organization, you see this very peculiar trial where the outcome doesn't look honest.
It looks completely political.
You juxtapose those two things, I feel like Trump just walks into the job.
It feels like he just took away all the competition.
So I don't think Trump's ever had a better news cycle than this week.
Agree or disagree, this is Trump's best news cycle of all time.
And keep in mind that Trump has survived so many fake claims, That it's starting to build a, I don't know, a feeling of invulnerability or inevitability or something.
But I'm not alone.
Trump is powering up.
Am I wrong?
I see Trump powering up.
It's only going in one direction.
I do not see him limping into the race.
He's going to come into this race at full power.
And he didn't even do that in 2016.
So, we'll see.
I think the big variable will be who he actually runs against.
That's the only thing that will determine the future, probably.
It's probably the number one thing is who's he really going to run against.
Otherwise, it's done.
If it's Biden, I think it's done.
I don't see how Biden can win.
Because of the recent stuff.
Dershowitz referred to the jury result as a Rorschach test, meaning that if you think Trump's a guilty kind of guy, you'll see it as confirmation of that.
And if you think the Democrats in the system are hunting Republicans, you're going to see that.
Which is what I see.
That's what I see.
I don't know if any crime was committed.
I have no way to know that.
But, I do know that the trial looks political to me.
Alright.
What else is happening?
All kinds of stuff happening today.
Big wave of immigration coming.
I always think of money making schemes.
How to make money on the headlines.
And I keep looking at this gigantic wave of immigrants coming in with no end in sight.
And then I see all the street people, the drug addicts, who prefer to live outdoors so they can do their drugs.
And then I see that they're all getting upgraded with nice tents.
And so I asked yesterday on Twitter, is there a company I can invest in now that just is mostly in the tents business?
Do they build a lot of tents?
Because I have a very bad feeling that we're going to need way more tents than we've ever needed before.
And it's going to be for a number of reasons that are unrelated.
One reason might be it's a cheap vacation and people are feeling the inflation, right?
You need tents, cheap vacation.
Another might be And there may be more pent-up demand for vacations because people are still reeling from the pandemic, etc.
So you got your homeless, your immigrants, you got your vacationers, and I think there's going to be another category, which I hate to say it.
I believe the outdoor living community is going to keep growing.
Especially if you get UBI.
Imagine you start getting some, you know, government payment, but it's not enough to have your own apartment.
But it is enough to live where it's usually warm enough.
You can live in your own tent.
You've got access to some kind of a bathroom somewhere.
And you can do fentanyl all day long because you can afford it.
I feel like that as a lifestyle choice is going to explode.
Because it really is a lifestyle choice at this point.
And it's going to grow.
So I'm not joking.
I'm looking at a Looking for some tent investments.
It's bad news, but maybe you can make something of it.
Senator Kennedy is trying to increase the sentences on fentanyl dealers, and I think Cory Booker's trying to stop it.
I can't believe that fentanyl dealers had light sentences.
It makes complete sense that if you've That if you kill somebody and you knew you were selling fentanyl, there's got to be some liability for that.
So, yeah, I'm on the side of stiffening the penalties for dealers.
I probably would leave alone anybody who had, you know, some small amount on them.
Even if they sold it, if it's a small amount.
Because that's just too many, too many small lives being destroyed.
But if somebody's a major dealer, above some quantity, it should be the death penalty.
Yeah.
Death penalty.
All right.
Wow, so many stories today.
Oh, Tucker Carlson announced he's going to move his show to Twitter.
So he's going to do his same Tucker Carlson show.
It'll just stream on Twitter, I assume to subscribers, but I don't know that.
I mean, he might be streaming and then have commercials, maybe, whichever would pay more.
But naturally, Tucker feels the safest place for him to be would be on Twitter.
Is he right?
Is that the safest place for Tucker to be on Twitter?
I think so.
It feels perfect.
Now, unfortunately, it gives the people on the left an argument that Twitter has turned into a right-wing hellhole under Musk.
And Tucker will help them make that argument, even though... Does Tucker seem extreme right to you?
Those of you who've been watching him?
I don't even get that.
He seems the opposite of extreme right, doesn't he?
I would say Tucker is just his own thing.
He's not extreme right.
He's just whatever makes sense, I think.
But he does have some views that would map to the right.
On abortion, for example.
Yeah.
Yeah, he's definitely not extreme right.
Or even close.
But that's what Stelter and CNN are saying.
They call him a right-wing extremist.
So CNN just tweets this as if... I mean, they're a news organization.
And they tweet this as if it's a fact.
That he's a right-wing extremist.
Does that feel like a fact?
Not really.
Alright.
Here's a question I'm going to ask you.
I asked people on Locals yesterday.
So at the moment, the only place you can see the continued Dilbert cartoon Which I call Dilbert Reborn.
It's a spicier, naughtier version that would never be allowed in newspapers.
It's not gross.
It's just stuff that newspapers wouldn't be comfortable with.
So it's, you know, modern trends and stuff.
Nothing disgusting.
But right now the only place you can see it is on the Locals platform by subscription.
Now, the question is, If I were to put it on a subscription service on Twitter as well, but locals remained the bigger entity where I do my live streaming and band KUs and I do Robots Read News and everything else, but would it make sense to have a lower priced subscription just for Dilbert on Twitter?
And if I did, if I charged two to three dollars a month, would anybody want to see it on Twitter?
Because then there might be some people on Locals who are only there for the Dilbert comic.
And then they could just get it cheaper.
So for them it'd be good.
The people who are there for the more comprehensive community situation would still get that exactly the same.
And then if somebody wanted to see the Dilbert comic, they could see it on Twitter.
As long as it's funny, well, you get to decide.
You get to quit after a month if you didn't like it.
Now, I know that you would prefer that it be free or 99 cents.
So, when you ask what people are willing to pay, most of the people are going to lowball you, because they don't want you to charge a lot.
Oh, I should charge $4.20, somebody says.
I should charge $4.20.
That'd be funny.
Probably not any more Dilbert books for the short term.
That might change.
I blocked you on Twitter.
I'm sure I had a reason for that.
All right.
Charge 69 cents.
All right.
Yeah, maybe I could just test it.
There's the best comment.
So, you know, one of the things I continuously harp on is that you don't need to make a decision on anything that you can test small.
And I could easily test the subscription feature on Twitter.
Just see what happens.
Just see what happens.
Alright, my instinct is $2 a month on Twitter for the comic only.
The one thing I kind of need to get right before testing it is the price.
Because you can't really change the price.
Like, if you come in too low, you can't really raise it.
I suppose you could lower it, but... Yeah.
I think $2 is an amount that would feel like nothing.
Am I right?
Would $2 a month feel in your brain like nothing?
Because that's what I'm shooting for.
I want it to feel like nothing.
Yeah, okay.
Good.
People are saying it does feel like nothing.
Alright.
I like that.
People wouldn't respect $2?
Here's a question for me.
Are you familiar with aphantasia and have you written on it?
Aphantasia?
No.
Aphantasia.
What's aphantasia?
Don't know what that is.
How much was I getting from the newspapers?
Do you think I'm going to tell you the financial payment of the newspapers?
Oh, I can tell you the individual newspapers paid a lot more than $2, but not that much more.
Oh, inability to imagine pictures and sounds.
I've heard of that.
It's hard to imagine it, obviously.
Having no imagination.
Well, it sounds like being an NPC, doesn't it?
I would think that an NPC would have no imagination.
So you're getting newspaper prices?
No.
Newspapers pay by the week.
So a typical newspaper might pay $10 to $25 a week for a comic.
So that would be many times more than what we're talking about, because we're talking about $2 for a month.
Very different.
All right.
How much am I offering to pay you to read Dilbert?
Good question.
All right.
Talked about that.
Oh, here's something that I've heard now from three different sources.
Now, all of them are Fox News sources, but I like hearing it.
So it's harking back to reparations.
Jack Brewer, I saw him today.
He's black because it's important to the story.
And he's suggesting that reparations should be in the form of education.
In other words, making more effort to make sure that black kids can get a good education.
I would extend that to adult job training skills.
But you might remember that that was an idea I floated a few years ago.
That we're never going to agree to cash payments for reparations.
But, if you say to the non-black members of the United States, how about we make sure that black kids get a good education from this point on?
Suddenly that's a whole different conversation.
Because if you tell me you want some of my money through taxes to, you know, extra money to make sure that there are more good black citizens in America and fewer people who are struggling, I would say that's good for me.
Wouldn't you?
That's good for me.
I would like the inner cities to be wondrous miracles of success and prosperity.
Then I can go there.
The more places I can go that are nice places with no crime and things are working, well, that's all good for me.
I'd pay extra for that.
And I've said before that helping the people who are in the deepest hole is where you get the most bang for your buck.
Because taking somebody from not having a job to having a good job, that's the biggest increase you can get.
They go from being a drag on society to a benefit.
You can't beat that.
So, that's why education is such a good lever.
And why you could talk me into it, because that's me giving money to other people that I would have a high degree of confidence would come back to me indirectly.
Does that make sense?
I wouldn't mind paying extra for educating the people in the deepest hole, if it works, because that's going to come back to me in a better society.
And I want that.
So just my self-interest would be to favor reparations in the form of education.
So anyway, I saw Jack Brewer say something along those lines.
I saw Greg Gutfeld say something along those lines on The Five.
And Harold Ford Jr.
seemed to be on the same page.
So this is all Fox News-ish so far, but I do really like the fact that there's a place to meet.
For all the bad feelings and racial divisiveness, there's absolutely a place in the middle where if black Americans are willing to take the help Republicans would probably step up and say, yeah, if education is what you're talking about.
But with one caveat, the best way to make it happen is to fix education for everybody who's in a bad place.
If you make it only black people education, you're going to have trouble.
But if you say, all right, this is mostly for reparations, but it's also available to everybody.
So we're not going to exclude you for not being black, but we're doing it for the reason that systemic racism has created this problem.
We're trying to make it better, as long as it doesn't exclude anybody who's at the low end of the economic situation.
Yeah, reparations for all.
All right.
That's very positive trends.
I saw this, that it was a story that now that the 50, you know, ex-Intel people who signed that letter about Hunter's laptop, now the story is that maybe people associated with the CIA were behind getting the signatures on that.
That's in the news today.
And I said to myself, is this Groundhog Day?
That's the one thing we knew for sure.
The one thing we knew for sure is that the CIA was involved.
And again, I don't know who needs to hear this, but there's no such thing as an ex-CIA agent.
It's like being an ex-Marine.
You know, technically it's true.
I mean, in a technical sense, you could be an ex-Marine and you could be an ex-CIA person, but not really.
Not really.
Not in any practical way.
You're still going to be friendly to them, do a favor, act in their interest, you know, act in character based on the character that you developed being there.
Same as a Marine.
So, yeah, if you see a Marine acting like a Marine after they've gotten out of the service, it's because they're a Marine.
That's who they are.
They got trained that way.
That's who they are now.
So, was Ray Epps an ex-Marine?
Is that true?
Anyway, I thought this was a story that was already known, so I don't know if there's a real story here.
Now China is being extra dangerous to businesses.
Apparently there's big consulting companies that help American companies and probably others do business in China.
And China's mad at these consulting companies because it thinks that they're giving Chinese secrets away to American companies.
So they've raided them and they're putting the pressure on.
Now here's the thing.
If you're an American company, there's a reason that you hire these kinds of consultants.
And the reason is, it's too dangerous to do business in China, unless you've got somebody there who's really plugged in.
So they get these plugged-in consultants, who apparently are plugged into the Chinese system, but also advising.
And that's how they can get them, safely.
Because they've got these good consultants who can get them a foothold there.
But now China is cracking down on those consultants.
Basically, it's impossible now to start a business in China at a risk which an American company would consider okay.
China has basically closed the door on American business.
They don't know it, because that wasn't their intention.
They don't know it.
But the zeitgeist against China is so strong that if you take away that last little psychological protection, and actual protection, of these consultants being able to grease you away in, that's probably the last straw.
Like, no new company of any size would go in there under this level of risk.
There's way too much political risk.
And as I've been saying for some time, Do you remember when people were laughing at me when I said we were going to divest from China?
Does anybody remember how you laughed back in 2018?
It was ridiculous, wasn't it?
Like the idea of it was just way beyond the pale.
And now the only thing we're talking about is how fast it will happen.
Am I right?
We're now only talking about how quickly it will happen.
It's just a given now.
It's going to have to happen.
Yeah, the Guinea-Navid-China program.
Yeah.
All right, so China's unsafe for business.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I needed to say today.
probably the best live stream you've ever seen.
How effective will be a Tucker Trump Twitter interview?
Well, he's already interviewed him recently.
I'm sure he'll do it again.
Yeah.
Well, China should not have provided fentanyl that killed my stepson.
They had it coming.
All right.
Just looking at your comments, see if I missed anything.
How do I rate Comer's persuasion technique?
Well, Comer doesn't need much persuasion.
Because Comer, it looks like He found the goods.
So if you have the goods, you probably have the goods.
So I don't think he needs much technique, but he's not doing anything wrong.
So I saw no mistakes.
I have wondered why he's the one leading this up.
Have you?
Have you wondered what made him the choice?
Yeah, because he's not a lawyer.
There's so many lawyers in government.
Wouldn't you naturally, you know, you think it's going to be a Jim Jordan type, just another lawyer.
But he's a business person, like a farmer or something.
Former, what was he?
Former banker?
I thought he was a former farmer.
He was a banker?
Comer?
Comer was a banker.
Okay.
Look at his posse?
Who's his posse?
Who is Comer's posse?
Is that a banker this one?
Former banker farmer.
Well he must be pretty clever if he went from farming to banking.
Interesting.
All right.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all.
I don't care about George Santos.
Israel is being attacked by rockets.
That feels like an evergreen story, except that there's a lot of them today.
He's a fine-toothed comber.
All right. - Yeah.
Comer declared a former banker-farmer.
It's the Paying Coyotes.
Yeah, the religion war is pretty spooky, isn't it?
