Episode 2112 Scott Adams: DeSantis Right Of Trump? CNN and WaPo Clown Themselves, CIA Media Control
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
CNN supports the truth while lying
Washington Post embarrasses itself
DeSantis running to the right of Trump?
CIA media manipulation
Economics is guessing
Tesla robots coming
Removing Schiff from congress
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
I like to call it Coffee with Scott Adams, and it is the best thing that ever happened in your entire life.
If you'd like to make it even better than that.
Hard to believe, I know.
But all you need to do that would be a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tanker, chalice, or stein, a canteen jug, or flask, 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 at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And wow, does it make you healthier and sexier and better looking and probably will increase your lifespan.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm.
Well, let's check out the news.
To get you on your way today, make sure your day is perfect, because you know all the stuff, and you know all the way to think about it.
So big news is DeSantis is apparently going to announce next week, he's running for president, and the news is reporting, CNN says this anyway, that he's going to run to the right of Trump.
Do you think that makes sense?
DeSantis is going to run to the right of Trump?
I'm not sure I believe it.
So I guess he can get to the right on two issues.
One is guns and one is abortion.
So he's a little extra in both those categories.
Gun freedom.
And yeah, well, COVID wasn't mentioned in the news, but I think you could throw that in there.
Here's my Non-political expert take.
Isn't the only benefit of DeSantis is that he would seem more normal to other voters?
Isn't that pretty much all you get?
It's the only thing you get.
It's like Trump without the drama.
And in order to run for president to beat Trump, he has to be more Trump than Trump.
That feels like exactly the opposite of his value proposition.
I get that you have to run to, you know, you go right when you're running for the nomination, but he's a special case.
His entire appeal is that he's not Trump-like entirely, you know, with the extreme stuff.
I don't know.
It seems like the very worst thing he could do.
I feel like it's a gigantic waste of time, and he's just distracting from what good work he could do in Florida for the next four years, or next couple years, I guess, until he loses the primary.
Now, the thing that makes me wonder is, does DeSantis know something we don't know?
For example, Would DeSantis know that there's some big trouble coming down the road for Trump that we don't know about?
I feel like everything must be out by now, but there are always surprises.
Otherwise, it just seems like a bad idea.
But I think we have to wait and see.
Given that DeSantis has a pretty long history of doing smart things, the fact that we can't see this as smart immediately, that he would run to the right of Trump, Doesn't mean it isn't.
It might mean there's some extra information we're not aware of.
So I'm going to wait.
I guess that's a wait and see.
Because at this point it's based on rumor.
It's not really reporting.
So that would be interesting.
I think his best chance would be to run as a normal Republican.
He could just say that.
I'm going to run as a normal person.
If you like a normal president for a while.
Did you see Elon Musk when he was asked if he's happy that he voted for Biden?
And he took a long pause and he said, avoiding the question, I just want a normal president.
Is that too much to ask?
Just a normal one.
I just want a normal human being.
So DeSantis could fit that pocket perfectly.
DeSantis is about the, you know, his biggest, his biggest advantage is that he's not interesting.
He's normal, right?
Now, normal in a good way, because Republicans like, you know, good solid citizens who get to work on.
It's not a bad idea, but he's not exciting, so we'll see.
I saw a tweet by Benjamin Carlson.
You found a clip from 1983 of some CIA agent being interviewed.
And the CIA agent was talking about the degree to which they manipulate the media.
And it's a pretty big degree.
So apparently the CIA forms relationships with reporters in which the CIA Ask them for information, because the CIA is both gathering information, but also planting misinformation.
So in the gathering of information, they have a reason to talk to reporters, because reporters know things before you do.
So the CIA wants to know things as soon as possible, so they know all the big reporters.
But also, they give stories to reporters.
And this was just a for example number, it's not a studied number.
But the agent was saying, you know, you give your contact five real stories that makes them look like superstars, let's say four real ones, and then the fifth one you slip in is misinformation.
And they're going to print it.
Because they trusted you on the other four, and maybe it's unclear whether the next one is even true or not, but they still trusted you, so they printed it.
So one way that they co-op them, said the CIA guy.
Now, again, this is just a video on the internet, but it sounds true.
Even if the guy isn't really a CIA guy, the things he said are so obviously probably true.
I mean, they just ring so ordinary that it sounds pretty credible.
And the other thing he says is, it's not always that we're just being helpful to the reporters and we have a relationship with them.
That's not the only way they persuade them.
But they also look for their human weaknesses.
Whatever that means.
Whatever that means.
It sounds a little blackmail-ish.
You know, maybe it's not blackmail.
Maybe it's more incentive than blackmail.
I don't know.
But...
But they're very much in the business of influencing the news and not toward truth.
And I think there was one study that showed the CIA influenced 400 journalists.
I think that was according to Woodward and Bernstein.
Woodward and Bernstein studied it and found out that the CIA was basically manipulating a lot of journalists.
So do you believe the news?
The news is completely artificial.
And always has been.
It's just a little more, we're a little bit smarter about it now.
And they're now more like two sides.
So one side is always willing to point out the fake news on the other side.
So I don't think it's worse.
I do not think that the fake news is worse.
I think it's always been this way.
We just didn't know it.
Now we know it.
So, I mean, maybe it's worse, but it was about as bad as you could imagine it being back in the 80s and earlier.
60s, I believe.
I think we have confirmation that the CIA has been active since at least the 60s.
It influenced the media.
RFK Jr.
I was listening to him on the All In podcast, and he was talking about Ukraine and what he would do to stop it.
And I guess this is all stuff I've heard before, but when you hear someone running for president say it, it takes on a whole different meaning.
And he talks about the war in Ukraine being, I'm going to try to paraphrase it as fairly as I can, that it's the military-industrial complex Looking for a reason for war, along with the neocons who want to remove Putin for power because that's what they do and they've always wanted to do that.
And that the whole we're protecting Ukraine, none of it's real.
The entire war is just a fake front for what the US wanted to do, which is go to war with Russia without getting killed.
So apparently Biden and the neocons found a way to go to war with Russia, Without the enormous risk of getting nuked in the process.
And that they really are just trying to drain Russia of resources and get Putin out of power.
And they're acting that way, they're saying it, it's just obvious.
And we're sitting here, the American public, and we're acting like, well, you know, I guess, I guess there's no, I'm gonna ban you.
I ban the people who say Scott is just catching up or just waking up.
Because that's not happening.
You are hidden.
All right.
Is there somebody there who thinks that I just became cynical lately?
Who thinks I'm just waking up?
Are you serious?
I've been doing the Dilbert comic for 34 fucking years, which is nothing but doubting people in power are telling you the truth.
That's all it is.
And do you really think I'm just, like, figuring it out now?
That everybody in power has been lying to us forever?
I thought I was telling you.
Just in case there was somebody who didn't know.
You think I'm just realizing it now?
Just waking up.
All right, he must be new.
Anyway, seeing RFK Jr.
not only say that the CIA killed his father, probably his father, but certainly his uncle, but also that the entire Ukraine-Russia war is a big fake thing that has no American interest.
And we're just using all our treasure and shit for no reason.
And that all of the provocation is us.
Basically, we made a bunch of promises to Russia, which probably would have held.
And then we broke all of our promises and did everything provocative and dangerous looking and tried as hard as we could to overthrow Putin.
What the fuck is he supposed to do?
Like, what did we expect Putin to do?
Well, here we are.
So, I think maybe we did expect them to do this.
Because they wanted him to be in a war and they wanted to drain him and they wanted to sell a lot of weapons.
And our government is not working for us right now.
You know that, right?
It doesn't look like the government has even a little bit of interest in the American people.
Certainly not the Ukrainian people.
So, Anyway, so that's happening.
I think when you hear RFK Jr.
talk about this stuff, it's hard not to like him.
It's hard not to like.
And once again, I saw another journalist go after him for his vaccination views, but couldn't do it with data.
It was so illegitimate.
Here's how they handle it.
You've been criticized for your vaccine statements.
You've said lots of things that people think are crazy and nutty and unscientific.
We don't have time to talk about all that, but I'd like to ask you about... I actually saw that.
Somebody challenged him on the most important question and said, but we don't have time to talk about that.
And he's sitting there like, the fuck?
He just threw me under the bus and said I don't have time to crawl back out.
Like while you're filming?
Yeah, was it a crystal ball?
I think it was.
Yeah, you saw the same thing I saw, right?
She threw him under the bus and said, there's no time for you to respond.
And he's just sitting there like, what?
Now, somebody mentioned that he was being steamrolled in that interview.
Here's the problem with his voice issue.
Trump would not have been steamrolled.
Because he would have talked over her.
Because he's got a big, booming voice, he would have just talked over her.
And as she kept talking, he would have just kept talking over her.
And as she complained that he was talking over her, he would just talk over her.
Right?
Trump would have just annihilated her in that interview.
But it's because he's big and he has a big voice.
When you've got a faltering voice, you can't do that.
You just don't have the sword.
You're trying to poke, but there's none there.
So that's a real disadvantage for him in interviews.
But he's still strong.
Like overall, I mean, it was obvious he was being screwed by the interviewer.
So I took his side, just sort of automatically, because he was obviously being screwed.
So I think he's still completely effective.
But that is one area he's got to work around that.
All right.
I saw a video of some Tesla robots walking around and being trained.
And I feel like this might be the biggest thing that's coming.
But because Musk is Musk, he never talks about the robots, does he?
When was the last time you heard Musk bring up on his own, Tesla robots are coming?
Like actual walking, talking robots.
It's sort of, it's weirdly not discussed.
Now, I suppose it's, yeah, moved to investors, of course.
But I have a feeling this could be his biggest market.
What do you think?
I think robots could be 60% of all of his revenue fairly soon.
Because if he makes the best robot, it's gonna be the iPhone of robots, right?
Yeah, maybe Apple has one too.
But his are full-size robots, it looks like.
I don't know how tall they are.
They look like, you know, five foot ten or something.
And it looks like they'll have, you know, full articulation and they'll be able to feel sensitive things.
You know, they can put their foot on an egg.
I saw a demonstration without breaking the egg.
And the other thing that you think about is, how do you think Mars could possibly be colonized?
Unless you had really good solar stuff and batteries and robots.
Don't you think he's going to ship a bunch of robots to Mars and then the robots will independently build up an environment for humans later?
That's the obvious thing to do, right?
Like, there's no chance that won't happen, is there?
I mean, assuming the robots are capable.
It looks like they might be.
Now, I don't know if the robots could handle the elements.
So there might be some problem with that.
But if you had enough robots, they could have spare parts and they could be repairing each other and reporting back and building out your little environment and geoengineering and all that stuff.
In fact, you could have robots developing Mars for a hundred years before the first person went there to live permanently.
I feel like that's where it's going.
Isn't that the obvious direction?
Put the robots up there and have them build us a planet so we can go there when we're ready?
The stuff that Musk does is so insanely futuristic that you can't even hold it in your head sometimes.
He's so far ahead, and accurately so far.
He's anticipated where the world will go before it gets there.
And then these robots will all be AI, of course.
They'll be walking and talking, forming relationships with them.
You know we will.
There will be strap-ons for robots.
Oh my God, there will be strap-ons for robots.
You know that's going to happen, right?
I don't think it'll be part of the original equipment, but there's going to be this aftermarket.
It's like, you know what your robot needs?
How about a realistic mask you can pull over its robot head that looks like somebody you know?
Like you could have an Adam Schiff robot, just so you could abuse it?
Or it could look like your deceased spouse or something like that.
But there's going to be this aftermarket for accessorizing your robot, and definitely going to be a strap-on.
That's coming.
I am so curious about a, speaking of Musk, a tweet he made about Soros.
When he said to somebody, he said, you assume they are good intentions, they are not.
Talking about George Soros' intentions.
And he says, Musk says of Soros, he wants to erode the very fabric of civilization.
Soros hates humanity.
What is that based on?
Do you think it's because Musk has inside information about Soros?
I don't think so.
Now here's the problem.
Don't we all believe that George Soros' son is really the active person in charge?
Don't we all believe that?
So wouldn't that assume that the father is evil But somehow it was genetically, or by training, passed down to the son.
And the reason we think Soros might be evil...
Is that he might have been, you know, damaged by something in his past.
Which goes to Musk's comment that he reminds him of Magneto.
Magneto had a backstory of being in a Jewish prisoner of war camp in World War II.
And Soros has a, you know, World War II Jewish backstory.
So, Musk was suggesting There might be something in the backstory of Soros that makes him hate humanity.
Because he did go through an experience that you could reasonably think would make you hate humanity.
That's not a stretch.
But it is a stretch to say that it was passed down to the next generation.
Because clearly the people around Soros are on the same page.
Have you ever heard anybody said, we're trying to talk Soros out of doing this stuff?
All the people who get money from Soros think they're doing good things.
They think?
Or, well, they say they are.
So I don't think the facts support that Soros Sr.
was injured, let's say psychologically, by his past experience, and therefore he hates humanity and is trying to destroy it.
How does that fit with the fact that his son is the one who's running the show and apparently on board with all of it?
And the son didn't experience any of those things.
How is it passed on?
By training?
Or is senior really in charge?
I just don't think the senior is ever really in charge at that age.
It just doesn't feel like a thing.
Well, you think the sun is just sort of going along with it or he's brainwashed.
See, the trouble is you have to reach for some pretty sketchy hypotheses.
Is it possible that the sun is just brainwashed?
Yes.
It's not the most likely thing.
Is it possible that the sun coincidentally has the same feelings while having a completely different experience?
I suppose, but it would be really unusual.
The most normal explanation of what's going on is that the father, Soros, doesn't know exactly where his money's going and what's happening.
Or, you know, he's got some cognitive dissonance which is preventing him from seeing it.
Or they're just not telling him.
I mean, I assume he reads the news.
So, to me, some ordinary explanation makes more sense.
Like somebody's really old and doesn't know where his money's going.
Or he gave it to organizations that look good but turned out not to be good.
Very ordinary things.
But this whole, he's evil, and that evil was transferred to his son, his family, and all the people in the Soros organization?
No.
I'm sorry, that's too far.
It's too far.
My imagination is good, but I can't stretch it that far.
Now do Gates.
See, do you not notice the pattern?
That if they're a billionaire and they're doing things that they say are good for the world, but you don't like them?
You don't say they're wrong.
You say they're evil and they want to destroy the world.
Just, can you hear yourself?
Can you actually hear yourself?
If you heard somebody else say that, you'd say they were crazy.
Right?
Oh, it's all the billionaires are evil and want to destroy the Earth.
Well, isn't that a coincidence?
You've never met one person in your entire life who actually wanted to harm the Earth.
Am I right?
You've never met one.
In your whole life, you've never met one person who legitimately wanted to destroy the world.
But all these billionaires do, right?
Yeah, as soon as you're a billionaire, you want to destroy the world.
Just hear yourself.
Just hear yourself.
Now, I know somebody's going to interpret this as defending Soros.
Does anybody think I'm defending Soros?
Does this sound to you like defending him?
No.
Because the outcomes are terrible.
We just don't know why the outcomes are terrible.
Right?
I would damn him as much as the rest of you for what he's doing with the district attorneys.
But I don't know why.
To say you know why is a little stretch.
All right.
But we're built to give ourselves reasons when there are no reasons.
So I understand it.
Montana is the first state to ban TikTok.
Not just for government officials.
But for any user who's a resident of Montana, what do you think of that?
Now, of course, it'll be challenged.
Of course.
So TikTok will challenge maybe the, I don't know, UCLA, not UCLA.
What are they called?
That useless organization?
ACLU, yes.
ACLU, they might try to oppose it.
Why?
Hell if I know.
But I don't have a ton of optimism that with this one state movement is going to become a cascade.
It could.
Other states might say, well, let's try that too.
Maybe.
Well, I believe the way they would do it is, since you have to buy it in the app store...
I think the App Store would check the zip code of your credit card.
And if your zip code is in the banned state, it just wouldn't let you do it.
I think.
Does that sound like-- I think you could do that.
You could use a VPN.
Don't know how many people know how to do that.
Kids probably do.
It would probably take 10 minutes for the kids to get a VPN, wouldn't it?
But wait a minute, does the VPN work if you're buying from the Apple Store?
Does it?
The VPN will work if you're in Montana, so the Apple Store won't know you're in, won't know where you are, or who you are.
Do you think, let me ask you this, will the Apple Store let you buy something without putting in your address?
I don't know that they will.
They will?
You don't think that your credit card has an address and file with Apple?
Yeah, Apple knows a lot about you.
I think they know where you are and what state you're in and where you live.
I don't think your VPN is shielding you from Apple.
Apple knows you on the phone.
Apple knows the identity of the person who owns the phone, period.
I'm not wrong about that.
Now, so I think that you could ban it like 80%.
You know, 20% would find workarounds.
But I think you could ban it 80%, which would be substantial.
All right.
Well, we'll see.
So yesterday in the news there were a bunch of rumors that are being debunked about change up in the Fox News lineup.
And the rumor Which is, I think, debunked, because Fox News says there's nothing to it, was that Laura Ingraham was going to be out, no indication of that, and that they were going to move Hannity to Tucker's time period, and then Jesse Waters would be after Hannity, and then Guffield would be moved to 10 o'clock.
Now that was the rumor.
And Fox News says, no, no, no, we're just considering lots of possibilities and no decisions have been made.
But that is also what corporations say when the rumors get out, right?
When the rumor gets out, the best way to deny it is, well, it's one of the things that came up.
It's just one of the things, one of the possibilities, but we haven't made any decisions.
So it came from the Drudge Report.
Do you remember when Drudge was important?
And then I guess it got sold and turned into something.
I don't know what it is.
But as of today, that doesn't look like that's a confirmed rumor.
We'll keep an eye on that.
That's my phrase for the day.
Let's keep an eye on that.
We'll circle back to that.
All right.
CNN, speaking of their lineup, Caitlin Collins, who did that town hall with Trump, is going to take the 9 p.m.
hour At CNN, which is a prestigious hour.
And so she's basically getting promoted right after her town hall performance, which was widely criticized, but not her.
I don't think she was criticized.
It was CNN that got criticized.
Yeah, I thought she did a good job.
I tweeted that twice.
I think this is smart.
It's fun to watch Chris Light, the new head, Try to navigate the impossibility of turning CNN into an honest organization.
But he's putting in the work.
At the very least, he's trying some stuff, right?
He's being provocative.
He's violating expectations.
These are all good things.
He's got our attention.
You know, he got a lot of Republicans to tune in at least once.
And Caitlin Collins, somebody mentioned this, she's 31.
Is that the youngest person to have a show like that?
Have they ever had anybody who was 31?
Who had a major hosting job?
Or am I forgetting somebody?
Feels like the youngest I've heard of.
So good for her.
I think she did good work.
And deserved her promotion, if that's what it is.
Speaking of CNN, Christina Amanpour gave a speech somewhere and she said she doesn't believe she's in a post-truth world.
It got a lot of attention because she was making the case that CNN should maybe not have held that town hall the way they did it.
She didn't think that was a good look, told her boss, she says.
And she says the truth matters and that they can't just take both sides and everything.
Sometimes you just gotta follow the truth as opposed to the both sides of it.
Now, doesn't that all sound just funny coming from a longtime CNN employee?
Doesn't it sound sort of ridiculous?
Does she know where she works?
She works at the biggest distributor of fake news in modern times.
Except for maybe MSNBC.
So, I have to wonder about the level of self-awareness.
She knows the CNN pushed the Russia collusion hoax quite a bit, right?
You know, she knows about the laptop.
She knows all the fake news that CNN has pushed.
She's not unaware of that, is she?
So I actually wonder if there's some kind of weird cognitive dissonance going on where she actually thinks that the things she's saying are rational and fit the context of her life.
It doesn't at all.
It looks absolutely absurd that she would get up there and talk about honesty In the news, while working for CNN.
That's the most incompatible things you could possibly do.
Now I could have, you know, it's not just CNN.
Could have been some other news organization.
But, I don't know.
It's a bad look.
Because it makes you wonder if she is in control of her faculties.
Or is she just lying?
Or is she experiencing some mental phenomenon?
You don't know.
But it's fascinating.
So speaking of that, so Christina Amanpour wants CNN to stick to the real serious news and not take, you know, and not be a both-sides-er.
The same day she said that, or at least it's reported, CNN has a Stephen Collinson opinion piece in which he says the following things.
Now he's talking about Trump's big danger, the walls are closing in, because of those documents.
You know all those other times the walls were closing in?
Ignore those.
Ignore those.
They tell you nothing.
This new thing, oh the walls are closing in on this!
The walls are closing in!
And let me tell you how Stephen Coulson explains these walls closing in.
So CNN, this is in his opinion piece, CNN reported that the National Archives plans to hand 16 documents over to the special counsel They show Trump knew the correct procedure for declassifying materials.
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh.
Trump knew the correct procedure.
Because he used it for some documents.
But then there were other documents in which he did not use that procedure.
The one that he knew was the correct one.
So, walls are closing in, he's dead.
It means there was definitely something sketchy going on.
There we go.
So I think you heard me.
Did you hear me on YouTube or did you miss that part?
A little buffering problem over there.
You missed it?
I'll quickly repeat it.
So Stephen Collinson, opinion piece, CNN, says Trump knew the proper process for handling the secret documents because he used the proper process.
So we know he knew the proper process because he used it.
But then these other documents he didn't use that process.
So how can he say it's just automatically automatically declassified when I took them?
Now Stefan Collison does not offer any possibility why that would be okay.
So I will.
Because it's fake news if you don't offer the context.
The context is, there is no written required process for how to declassify things.
So here's what Collinson is doing.
Collinson is conflating the fact that a process was used with the fact that there is a process.
Those are not the same.
There is no official process, but they did sometimes use one.
That does not obligate the President to use it again.
It's simply something he did once.
Or more than once.
So he knew a way to do it without getting in trouble.
And I would give you that.
He knew a way to do it where nobody would ask questions.
But he's additionally made the claim that they were automatically declassified when I took them.
And I 100% agree with that statement.
Even in the context Of having used a real system of, you know, getting approvals and checking with people, getting signatures and stuff.
Because the president has the sole power to decide what the process is.
And you know what the president is not required to do?
Here's what the president is not required by any law or statute or constitution.
He does not need to tell you what the process is.
So the president can legally decide in his head that the process is, if I walk out the door with these, they're declassified.
Because in my head, that's the process.
Completely legal.
100% legal.
In my head, I thought, well, these are declassified.
I don't need to tell anybody.
There is no process.
Taking them out the door is a very clear indication that I no longer want these classified.
That's unambiguous, isn't it?
There's no ambiguity with a president with a box full of documents walking out the door.
That leaves nothing to the imagination.
These are documents that I do not plan to have the same security control as those ones I left back in the secure place.
What could be more clear that he doesn't want them declassified than taking them out the door?
That's 100% clear.
And there is no process that he has to live to.
So CNN is, you know, the same day that Christina Amanpour is saying, oh, CNN, we've got to report these honest things.
It's the same week they're getting lambasted for, you know, the Russia collusion reporting.
And the same time they're trying to conflate the fact that some procedure was made up and used with whether one exists.
It's complete fake news.
And they must know it.
Don't you think?
I mean, I don't know.
I can't read their minds.
You don't think Stephen Collinson knows that there's no process.
And yet he's still reporting it like there was.
Of course he knows.
Because everybody knows.
I'm not even a news person.
I know it.
How many of you knew that?
How many of you already knew that there is no written or constitutional process for declassifying if you're the president?
Look at all the people who knew that.
Like, we all knew it.
And you think CNN, like, somebody who does it for a living.
He covers Trump for a living.
You think he doesn't know that there's no process?
And he reports that there is.
That's purely fake news.
What else could it be?
How else could you interpret this?
Other than they're lying.
And know they're doing it.
Lying by omission.
You know, leaving out an important part of the story.
All right, so I saw Fox News, at least the website, looks like they're going hard at Jake Tapper.
You know that it's a big chessboard and if the left can take Tucker Carlson's piece off the chessboard, Yeah, they're gonna do it.
So there's still some disagreement whether there was a secret verbal agreement with Dominion to get rid of Tucker.
Do you believe there was a secret verbal agreement to get rid of Tucker?
I don't.
By the way, Tucker is saying that a, reportedly, a board member told him that.
Now, I don't disagree that a board member may have said it.
So that part I don't have a feeling about.
A board member might have said it.
But I don't live in a world where any lawyer would let you do that.
Am I wrong?
Are there any lawyers here who can tell me that with a deal of that size and that visibility, everything would be written down?
Or it wouldn't apply?
I see no chance of a verbal agreement.
Because he wasn't let go until the deal was made, right?
The deal was done, and then they let him go.
Who in the world would have trusted that after the deal was agreed on, that somebody would do something that damaging to their own business?
I don't believe that.
I do believe Tucker.
Meaning that somebody told him it happened.
So that part, there's no history of Tucker just making shit up.
Right?
I mean, he can be wrong like anybody can be wrong.
But he has no history of just making shit up.
So I'm sure somebody told him that.
I just don't think it's true.
The deal hasn't closed yet?
I get that, but it's been announced.
And that would be, you know, too much pregnant to try to pull it back and renegotiate.
All right.
But anyway, Fox News is going after Jake Tapper as part of his Russia collusion hoax reporting.
He had James Clapper on and all kinds of people to lie.
I guess I'll defend Jake Tapper a little bit here.
Which is, it is news if people make claims.
If James Clapper is making a Claim, you know, of this size.
It is appropriate to have him on.
So, you know, I can't push back on him for having guests on that lied to him.
Because Tucker had guests on that lied as well.
Or were wrong.
We don't know.
But, you know, having people on who lie, that's not a crime.
So I don't think you can hold that against him.
But we can compare the following.
When Tucker Carlson had Cindy Powell on, he listened to all her story, which is his job, and presented it.
And then when he tried to get it verified and couldn't get it verified, he did a monologue in which he said, there's no evidence for these claims.
And he was pretty clear about it.
There is no evidence And showed his lack of believing it.
I don't believe that Jake Tapper ever doubted the Russia collusion story in a public way.
I don't know what he privately thought.
But I don't believe he ever publicly said, you know what?
This story is not checking out.
Yeah.
So I'd be surprised if Tapper is still there by the election day 2024.
I feel like...
I just feel like he's not going to survive the new era.
Yeah.
And...
Yeah, I just don't see him lasting.
Absolutely.
All right.
Jonathan Turley, who is rapidly becoming my favorite political observer, He's dumping on Philip Bump at the Washington Post because Philip Bump is still trying to...
I think he's still trying to say that the Russia collusion is sort of true.
And Turley just takes him out and he bayonets him in public.
I don't.
It's the most wonderful bayoneting of a public figure you'll ever see.
Because the Washington Post and the other The other entities, they just got murdered.
Just got murdered by the Durham report saying they'd all been reporting bullshit for years.
And the Washington Post is among the worst of the bullshit reporters.
I mean, they're clearly a fake news company, primarily.
They're primarily a fake news company.
And Phil Mudd has come after me on Twitter.
And I was always wondering, why is this one guy So after me, like no matter what I do, Phil Bump will come in and insult me personally on Twitter.
And I always thought, God, he doesn't even look like he means it.
Like he looks like he's just being paid to say shit about anybody on one side.
He looks, this is not an accusation that he is paid.
He acts as someone who's not a real reporter.
He doesn't even act like he's supposed to be doing a good job of reporting.
He acts like he's just some kind of Democrat or CIA operative.
There's nothing about him that screams he's really a journalist.
It just seems he's an operative of some kind.
And watching Turley take him out and bayonet him for all of his past behavior is just a wonderful read.
I recommend it.
So just Google that.
And you should follow Jonathan Turley in general.
His writing is spectacular.
So this next story goes into the category of, why did this take so long?
So Congressperson Anna Paulina Luna She filed a motion to expel Adam Schiff from the US House of Representatives for lying about the Russia collusion.
Now, what took so long?
There could never be a more obvious case where somebody should be losing their job.
Have you ever, in the history of jobs, Have you ever heard any situation that was as bad as what Adam Schiff did?
He literally tried to change the government based on looking at the secret information that he was privileged to see and then lying about it in public repeatedly to change the nature of the government.
That's as low as you can get.
On the list of crimes, that should be execution.
That's not a joke, by the way.
In terms of the severity of what Adam Schiff did, as far as I know, it's probably legal to lie to the public if you're in Congress, because otherwise they'd all be in jail.
So it's probably completely legal.
So I'm just going to say, if it were not legal, the correct penalty would be death.
What he did to the country, in my opinion, deserves the death penalty.
Because he destroyed the integrity of the Republic.
He did it intentionally.
He did it for personal and other gain.
And we know it for sure.
We're not guessing.
You know, all the guesswork's done.
We now know what the truth was.
That he intentionally lied to the public about the biggest thing you could possibly lie about.
That would have changed the entire government.
That would be the death sentence if it were illegal.
Am I wrong?
What would be a bigger crime than intentionally destroying the integrity of the entire nation?
It's hard to imagine.
I mean, other than, you know, some outrageous mass murder, what would be worse?
What's more damaging to more people?
I mean, it's insanely bad.
So, Why did it take so long?
There was not one other Republican who was willing to say, you know, we all do some bad things, but not that bad.
That's a whole different level of lying.
That's not normal lying.
That's using his privileged security clearance to tell a lie that could destroy the country.
I mean, that's just so bad.
So, It's a disgrace that only one Republican stepped up and it took so long.
I'll let go of the, why did it take so long?
Because I always mock people who say that.
Everything that's good should have been done sooner.
Would you agree?
Everything that's good should have been done sooner.
So I don't like that, you know, criticism because it's just, it's like air.
It's just universal.
But the why didn't anybody else do it?
Or why didn't anybody else sign on to it?
That part I don't understand.
So this is somebody who picked up the free money.
Anna Paulina Luna.
Just want you to hear that name.
Maybe we have another superstar?
Do we have somebody who is an up-and-comer?
Somebody who's a DeSantis who can pick up the free money?
This was free money.
Do you think there's anybody who's a Republican who's gonna have a problem with this?
No!
No, this is gonna be super popular.
So why nobody else did it?
Like, why only one person could figure out how to, you know, make some money from this?
Is that her real picture?
With two rifles?
All right, we'll keep an eye on her.
She might be one to watch.
Did you know that economics is just a big word for guessing?
You know, this is a true story.
My degree is in economics, as I say too often.
And one of the reasons that I didn't pursue economics as a field is that it felt too much like just guessing.
Because it doesn't predict anything.
If economics could predict things, well then you'd have something.
Right, there you'd have something.
Now, you can predict maybe the most obvious things.
But do you remember when we said a trillion dollars in national debt was way too much?
There's no way we're going to survive that.
And now it's like 30 trillion.
Obviously, we had no understanding of how much debt we could handle.
Now, I do think maybe we can't handle this much.
But the one trillion was never a risk.
And yet, economics.
We thought it was.
Here's a couple more examples.
What would you say about people leaving New York?
Do you think that there are rich people?
Do you think rich people are leaving New York?
The news would suggest they are, right?
You say no?
Now, because we know there's less occupancy of the office buildings, but don't you think that residents are also leaving New York?
Well, I don't know the answer to that question.
I don't know if they are or not, but I thought they were.
But here's the surprise.
The average rent in Manhattan is way up.
It's actually more expensive to live there.
It's like at an all-time high.
Didn't you think that the rent would come down because people would get out of the city because it's crumbling?
So was that predictable?
To me that was opposite of predictable.
Now I understand, yeah, inflation, blah blah blah, but office buildings are losing residents and they're lowering their prices.
So if offices in the same city have to lower their prices, And I get that's because the hybrid working situation, but I thought people were moving out.
Anyway, so my point is that I don't think that was predictable.
You want another one that's not predictable?
Black employment is the strongest it's ever been.
At the same time that we're having masses of immigration folks coming over the border.
Didn't the economists tell us Didn't you think that black employment would be really a problem because of all the immigration?
because all these workers would be coming in and competing for jobs and underbidding and stuff like that.
Didn't you think that black employment would be really a problem because of all the immigration?
It's not.
It's not.
Apparently blacks are doing great in terms of the best unemployment level that we've ever seen in the history of the country.
Yeah, there's probably an age difference in that, you're right.
But that was not predictable, right?
Economics would have said all this competition coming in at the low end of the economic scales should have affected the other people at the low end of the economic scale in a predictable way.
But it was the opposite.
We're terrible at predicting.
Many of you who are opposed to the massive wave of illegal immigration, which I also oppose, but for slightly different reasons, how many of you are sure that's bad for the economy?
How many of you are confident that we have this field of economics that can really obviously tell you what's going to happen next?
And that all these immigrants coming in, that's going to be bad for the country, right?
Because they're not paying taxes right away?
And they might have a drag on medical stuff and bring some crime in.
Not a lot, but they do bring in crime.
So I don't think you can predict anything anymore.
My personal prediction is that immigration, even at its out-of-control levels, ends up positive in one generation.
Not right away.
So it's expensive in the short term.
But I think it's one generation because those kids go to school and they end up citizens.
They pay their taxes eventually.
But I do think that it's becoming a good political I saw a video of some kind of YouTube of four young black guys just talking about politics and stuff.
I guess it's a regular show.
And they were talking about the immigrants coming in and the four young black guys all said this basically were on the same page.
It's like what?
They're not paying taxes?
Which was really good to hear.
Like, every once in a while, you think, oh, the country is all divided.
But there's one thing that we're not divided on.
We don't like taxes.
And we don't like other people not to pay them.
So the four young black guys who are on the video were just saying, are you kidding?
They're letting all these people in.
They're shipping them to Chicago, putting them in black neighborhoods, and they don't pay taxes.
How is that helping us?
Which is the right question to ask.
It was exactly the right question.
Now I disagree with them on the economics of it.
Right?
Because I don't think that's predictable.
But they're asking the exact right question.
Their logic is solid and their analysis of the situation Is on point.
Don't know if it's right, because again, economics is hard to predict.
But they're asking all the right questions.
I think that's going to be an important factor in the next election.
All right.
So let's talk about Ukraine.
They either shot down 29 of the 30 Russian missiles that came in last night to Kiev, or, as Russia says, they had massive success attacking.
So it's one of those.
Either it was a massive success, or nothing happened.
Now, I heard a theory on the news that I had myself, but since I'm not a military person, I kept it to myself until somebody smarter said it.
And it goes like this.
When Zelensky is asked, when is the counteroffensive starting?
Have you heard his answer to that?
Soon.
You know, we're not quite ready, but we're almost.
I can't tell you when.
You know, because putting a date on it would be a mistake.
But yeah, we're getting ready.
So here is my interpretation of that, which I heard somebody else have the same theory.
It already started.
He's not going to tell you it started.
Because that would be a disadvantage militarily.
He's going to tell you it started well after it starts.
You don't announce your attack.
You say, I don't know, could happen anytime now, when you're actually doing it.
So I think that the counter-offensive is well underway.
And our news is not smart enough to fact-check him on that.
Because they do seem to be, at least they're reporting, taking some territory.
I don't know.
Who knows?
You can't believe anything that comes out of the area, but definitely don't believe Zelensky.
When he says, So Joe is mocking me for my lack of military strategy genius.
Are you new?
Are you new, Joe?
First time you've been here?
You know I've been making military predictions for a long time, and they've been unusually correct.
I don't claim any expertise, but I will tell you that my military predictions have been pretty freaking great.
Compared to the experts.
So far.
So far.
All right.
I'm also hearing that, not from reliable sources, but from sources, that Ukraine is losing something like five to eight times as many people as Russia.
Do you believe that?
That math doesn't work.
I believe that their casualties are heavy and it might be worse than Russia, but five to eight times more?
Nah.
I'm sorry.
The math of that just doesn't work.
They would have run out of people already.
I just don't see the math working.
I certainly believe that they don't report correctly.
So I don't believe the official numbers, of course.
But five to eight times more?
I just don't see it.
Yeah, casualties mean injury.
Doesn't mean death, but still.
Counting defectors as casualties, maybe.
Yeah.
Troops are mostly Polish, somebody says.
Oh, yeah, I want to give a correction.
I saw somebody in the comments talking about this.
I had referred to NLP when I was talking about the AI.
I thought that Brian Rommel was talking about Hypnosis, NLP.
But NLP in that context is natural language processing.
Not neuro-linguistic.
Whatever.
They're surrounded, somebody says.
You get the good stuff, the real stuff.
Tell us how.
Somebody else, okay.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen, that It's the conclusion of my prepared thoughts.
Was there anything I missed?
Anything happening today that I forgot to mention?
The Nutria leasing...
I don't know, the massacre...
Anything about Ukraine, I just shrug.
I don't know what's true.
It's cheap labor.
Will the reframe book cover stress?
Yes.
Some guides.
Carrie Lake voter fraud.
Was there something that happened in the Carrie Lake legal stuff?
I didn't see a story about that.
Wasn't there supposed to be something that happened?
All right.
Harry and Megan.
Riley Gaines.
I feel like the trans story got completely off the headlines.
Did you notice that everything was trans, trans, trans, and it just sort of stopped?
There's not much of it lately.
I was getting pretty tired of it.
The verification case should go on.
So Carrie Lake had a minor success.
I see the comment that there are 500 military-age Chinese citizens crossing the border.
Is that because we suspect that they're part of the communist regime and they're going to be part of a military takeover?
Or do you just think that they're the ones who are just trying to get into America to become Americans?
Yeah, no, I believe it's true.
I mean, I just don't know that I should worry about it.
Because I'm not, you know, I feel people are far more likely coming here because they want to come here as opposed to sabotage.
Okay.
Okay.
Yes, and I will say again that AI, I think, is overrated.
I don't think it'll ever reason, and I don't think you're going to confuse it for a human in the foreseeable future.
Yeah, you've got to at least consider it.
That's true.
You have to consider the risk.
All right.
Yeah, it doesn't take too many terrorists to be a problem.
That's the problem.
Large language models, they're never going to be logical.
They can't.
All right.
In a long enough timeline, anything's possible, but they would have to invent a new method.
The current method of AI doesn't get you to where the machine is smart.
I'm going to tell the people and locals of a little experiment that's too dangerous for you, YouTube.
Sorry.
Sorry.
I can't let this thought be into the general public.
But I can tell the people and locals because they're special.
