Episode 2140 Scott Adams: Trump's Bathroom Boxes, Daniel Penny Indicted For You-Know-What, Lots More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump bathroom boxes
Daniel Penny indictment
Oral contraceptives and depression
Schiff escapes
Tom Fitton's advice
Ukraine and more
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
And welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never a better, better time.
And if you'd like your experience to go up to, dare we say, UFO level, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard shells this time, 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 of the day.
A thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
I feel like the right word to say, if you just ate or drank something delicious, well, Why do I feel like the right thing to say would be burismo?
I don't know, it's the name of a Ukrainian energy company, but it feels like if that were a foreign language, you would sip it and you'd say.
Burismo.
I don't know, it just feels like the right word.
But that's not why you're here.
What you'd like to hear is this new study.
Jordan Peterson tweeted it out today.
It says oral contraceptives make you depressed.
So oral contraceptives can make you depressed.
Mostly the woman.
Mostly the woman who's taking it.
Not other people around her, but other people around her too.
They didn't study that, but I've got a feeling that the husband, not so delighted.
So I think the oral contraceptive causes depression, possibly, according to one study, in the person who takes it, but I think they should study the husband.
I've got a feeling that guy's not so happy either.
Now you know what I say about studies, right?
What reliability should we put on a study?
Hey, it's a study.
It's science.
It's all science-y.
Yeah, maybe 25% tops.
So I would not say this is confirmed science.
However, I remind you of my BS filter.
Now this is not a reliable filter, as in 100% reliable, but the one that I use is that if the science agrees with observation, I'm more likely to believe it.
So for example, the science that says cigarette smoking could give you lung cancer, well I actually know people who smoke cigarettes and got lung cancer.
I know one who didn't, who got lung cancer, but the correlation seems pretty clear.
So that's science that I largely believe, because in my real life, I can see it play out.
And I would say that's the same for oral contraceptives.
In my vast experience on this world, It looks true to me.
I've seen people's personality change on oral contraceptives.
In my opinion.
Just my opinion.
I saw personality changes.
So, I tend to think it's true even if that study was not reliable.
Daniel Petty was indicted for being white.
Should I say that a different way?
Or is it just so obvious I can just say it out loud?
Is that obvious?
Or do you think a black person would have been indicted for the same actions?
Like, exactly the same?
Suppose there'd been a black Marine and a black person he was subduing and the person who was subdued died tragically.
Would a black person be indicted for that?
Do you believe they would?
Because I don't believe they would.
You know what, I feel like the public has a right to know.
I don't know if we have a legal right, but we have a moral and ethical right to know this.
My understanding is that the indictment is because there was a grand jury.
The grand jury, I understood, had 23 people and they only needed 12 people to vote yes for indictment.
12 and a 23.
Wouldn't you like to know the racial composition of the 12?
You don't think that's important?
You don't think that for the safety and equity and protecting our constitutional rights, you should know if a situation that looks obviously racial, looks obviously racial, you don't want to know if the people who voted to indict were all black?
I have no reason to believe they were.
I have no reason to believe that white people didn't vote exactly the same as everybody else.
I have no reason to believe it.
Except that it's kind of suspicious that he got indicted.
So under those circumstances, in our highly charged racial environment, I believe the public, and I believe that Daniel Penney, has a right to know the racial construct of the people who voted against him.
If he got 12 black votes and no non-black votes, what would you feel about the indictment?
Would you feel that was our justice system doing its job?
I wouldn't.
I would think obviously that should be, I don't know, whatever you do if there's a bad indictment.
But we don't know that.
It could be that 100% of the people were white and they just said this is too far and let the court work it out because it's not obvious at our level.
It's not obvious whether it was a crime or not.
But they will look into it.
So I'm not saying I know what happened there.
I'm saying that not knowing is wrong.
Under our current climate, Daniel Penney has an absolute moral right, probably not a legal right, but he has an absolute moral right to know the composition of the people who voted for his indictment.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Again, I don't think it's legal.
Probably, you know, those people are shielded in some way.
But absolute moral right to that information.
All right.
So Shifty Schiff escaped his censure, and apparently the censure had attached to it a $16 million fine for his lying to Congress and the country about various things.
And I guess 20 Republicans joined the Democrats voting against it, and that was enough to kill it.
Now what do you think about the 20 Republicans who voted against censuring Schiff?
What do you think of those 20 Republicans?
Somebody says, good job.
Somebody says, jerks.
Somebody says, unit party.
Traitor.
Not Republicans.
They're not really Republicans.
Name only.
Cowards.
Rhinos.
Rhinos.
Bastards.
Disgusting.
Fuckers.
That's all the things you're saying in your comments.
I'm just reading them.
Gutless.
All right.
Well, I back the 20.
I back the 20 that voted against it.
So let that settle in a little bit.
So I'm on the side of the gutless traitors on this one.
And the reason is that it wasn't a precedent that you want.
You don't want Congress fining each other $16 million.
You don't want that.
Now, if this had been just a clean censure that just said, hey, you lied to us and that's bad and we want to put it on record, fine.
Fine.
A clean censure?
Yeah.
But do you really want your Congress people to be fining each other amounts of money that destroy them?
No.
No.
I do not want that precedent.
I thought I saw Thomas Massey say he'd vote against it, but then I didn't see him on the list of 20.
So I don't know what happened there.
But no.
No, that's too far.
The reason that Republicans have, in my opinion, let's say, a more respected brand That's just my opinion.
But I think the Republicans have a more respected brand because sometimes they will vote against their political interests to vote for what they think is right.
This looked like an example of 20 people whose moral and ethical standard did not allow them to play what looked like pure politics.
I was actually going to ask for the names of the 20 who voted against it so that I could give them some credit.
So I can give them a little pat on the back and say, that's what I want.
That's exactly what I want.
What you did is exactly what I want.
That's some governing there.
Because just going along with their own team is not anything I want.
I really don't want the Republicans who all line up against Republicans, you know, just line up.
I like a little fight.
I like some people who will go against the grain.
Robert in all capital says, Scott is so wrong, no accountability!
Do you want Congress to be able to vote to fines against the minority?
Is that what you want?
Just say that you want that.
Don't say you disagree with me.
Say you want the outcome.
So it's not about me.
Take me out of it.
Just take my personality out of this.
How many of you want the outcome where the party in charge will be fighting the other party for stuff they don't like?
Fighting them.
Some of you are saying yes, that you would like a world in which the ones in charge get to punish the ones who are not in charge for whatever they want, as long as they have the votes.
That's the world you want.
Some people say yes.
I will accept your yes.
I would point out that that would be the destruction of the Republic.
Is that not obvious to you?
Is it not obvious that would be the end of the Republic?
Okay, well, if you don't see it, you don't see it.
Let's go to the next story.
Well, Tom Fitton's getting some heat today on Twitter.
This story is so funny, I'm not sure I believe it.
Alright, so here's the gist of the story.
That Tom Fenton, who is the head of, what's the name of his organization?
Judicial Watch, right?
Judicial Watch?
No, although he's the head of Judicial Watch, he's not himself a lawyer.
Now, I made the mistake once of referring to him as a lawyer in some social media context, and he corrected me.
Tom Fenton corrected me.
He said, oh, I'm not a lawyer.
You know, I just run this organization.
So it's not like he's pretending to be a lawyer.
So that's the first thing you need to know.
Don Fenton is telling you he's not a lawyer.
He's saying that publicly.
I'm not a lawyer.
So if you didn't know that, then that's sort of on you because he's transparent about it.
However, The story says that he was giving Trump some advice at some point about his secret documents and believed that the Clinton sock drawer precedent, which is where Clinton took stuff, and in the end some confidential tapes that he had, recordings, and in the end it was decided that the act of simply taking them was enough to classify them as personal.
And therefore, there is no legal jeopardy.
So that seems like the same precedent.
Well, the act of taking them makes them personal by definition, according to that precedent.
End of the story.
Now, Tom Fitton is getting all kinds of shit for what they think is bad legal advice from somebody who's not a lawyer.
Do you see it that way?
Do you see that the sock drawer case is bad legal advice?
Well, I think the bad legal advice was that because he had the right to the documents, that he should resist giving them back.
I think it's the resisting giving back that is the real problem.
So, I looked at some MSNBC crap today to see what they were saying about the sock drawer defense.
Do you know what they say about the sock drawer defense?
Which to me looks, in my non-lawyer brain, looks airtight.
To me, that looks like the beginning and the end of the whole conversation.
But I'm not a lawyer, right?
And as Alan Dershowitz points out, the Espionage Act has to be read in coordination with the Presidential Records Act.
In other words, you can't look at either of them individually.
You have to look at them as an entangled pair.
Now, does your legal experience allow you to look at those things as a tangled pair?
Can you do that?
That's a little bit outside of my sweet spot.
I mean, I can guess what something will happen with one simple situation.
Sock drawer?
Yes, no.
I mean, I feel like I can take a guess on that.
Maybe a wrong guess, but I can take a guess.
But I can't even take a guess on an entangled, you know, Two-part, detailed, historical precedence.
I mean, I don't know how you'd untangle all that stuff.
But here's what the Democrats say about the sock drawer defense.
Let's talk about something else.
Would you like to see that impression again?
All right, it goes like this.
What do you think about the Clinton sock drawer defense?
Talk about something else.
How about the obstruction?
It's the obstruction.
We're not even going to talk about the sock drawer.
Sock drawer?
What's this got to do with a sock drawer?
There's no socks in the story.
And then they act all weird like it wasn't a thing.
But apparently even Jonathan Turley, a famously balanced and wise attorney, once he saw the indictment he said, whoa, there's more jeopardy here than I thought.
Do you know what the jeopardy is that Turley saw that maybe he didn't see in the early reporting?
The photographs of the mishandling of the boxes.
So he thought, for example, the pictures of the boxes in a stage area and in a bathroom was just really damning.
All right, what do we know about the boxes?
Let's talk about what we know about the boxes.
So we know that there was a photo of boxes in a bathroom, right?
How many of the confidential documents were in those specific boxes in the bathroom?
How many?
Well, that's clearly in the indictment, right?
That's not being reported every day?
Because that's such a big part of the story.
The big part of the story is all those boxes.
We've got a picture of boxes.
So what's in them?
What's in the fucking boxes?
If you have not told us that those specific boxes have secrets in them, that's not part of the story.
If it turns out that those boxes do have things that are classified, but if you and I saw them we would laugh because they're not important, that's a big part of the story.
Is there anybody who told you, yes, there were boxes in the bathroom and there was a document in there, but it's sort of dated and old and doesn't matter and the public already knew it anyway?
Did you hear that?
I mean, I don't know what's in the boxes, but I know that a photograph of fucking boxes doesn't put you in jail.
You better do better than that.
We know that most of the boxes were personal items.
We've been sold on the idea that every one of those fucking boxes has secrets in it.
The entire amount of secrets... Who was it on Newsmax who did this?
Give me the name of the...
The host on Newsmax who showed the number of documents.
I think there were 600 pages.
Greg Kelly.
So Greg Kelly did the visual persuasion very well, by the way.
So he showed you one box and then he showed what it would look like to have 600 pages of documents in one box.
It was this tall.
Right?
This tall in one box.
Would be the total contents of all.
Now, if you assume that some of these secrets were spread across different boxes because nobody really was paying attention, right?
There wasn't any order to it.
They were just in different boxes.
Then how easily could Trump have looked through all those boxes to give them back the stuff that they wanted versus the stuff that he knew was his private stuff?
I don't see any scenario where anybody could get Trump to sit down and look through his own boxes.
There are just too many of them.
When does Trump sit there and say, alright, that document, how many more boxes?
500.
Alright, this one, I guess I'll keep this one.
What's the next one?
There's no way he actually looked through the boxes.
And I don't think that anybody's told us which boxes had what, and they certainly haven't told us how secret it was.
Every part of this is sketchy as hell.
You don't think there was any part of the conversation where somebody said, these boxes, maybe they need to be locked up, but these other boxes, you can just put it in that bathroom because there's nothing in them.
Important.
I feel like somebody probably at least asked the question, do these boxes have any secrets in them?
Right?
Because I think they, didn't they treat some of the boxes differently?
Some of them were treated like they needed to be stored somewhere, right?
But maybe the storage came after the DOJ got involved.
So, here's what I saw.
I saw, at least according to the Clinton sock precedent, that President Trump had a legal access to everything he took with him by the process of taking it with him.
The process of removing them turned it personal, according to precedent, and therefore that's not the legal jeopardy.
The legal jeopardy, and Turley suggests this as well, is how he handled things after the The records were asked back.
Now let me put this in context.
The thing that Trump did, as far as I can tell, with my limited legal knowledge, looked legal to me because of the precedent.
The part that he is in trouble for is obstructing the injustice of them asking for things that were legally his.
Now is it justice to ask you to give somebody to say, give me your stuff that is legally yours?
Is that justice?
Or is that, sounds like injustice to me.
Seems like the very definition of an injustice is taking somebody's private property from them.
So Trump is literally at risk of going to jail for obstructing injustice.
Am I wrong?
The thing he obstructed was not justice, because he believed he owned those documents.
And I would say that he's probably right.
But the obstructing was obstructing not justice, but injustice.
They were trying to take his stuff, according to him.
So he could actually go to jail for obstructing injustice.
And we're just going to watch that happen?
All right.
I'm going to say it again.
Trump's not going to jail.
Not over anything that we've heard about so far.
I mean, if there's something we don't know about, that's different.
But he's not going to jail.
And when I say that, I don't mean that as a prediction.
You understand that, right?
It's not a prediction.
It's also a prediction.
But I'm just telling you, the country's not going to let him go to jail for this.
It's just not going to happen.
So if there's anybody on the Democrat side who thinks they can get away with this, Putting him in jail for obstructing injustice?
You've got a surprise coming.
I don't know what that surprise will look like, but I wouldn't want to be living in this country when it happens.
PJ says, Scott is quite the spin doctor.
You know what people say when I'm right?
Stop spinning!
You're spinning.
Do you know what people say when I'm wrong?
Oh, here's why you're wrong.
And let me show you the link that proves you're wrong.
But what do they say when I'm right about everything?
That I'm a troll?
Is that right, PJ?
So please continue saying those things you're saying.
They feel good.
All right.
Twitter account Kenakoa the Great, who I often recommend you should be following, is one of many people talking about, there's some document that came out about the vaccinations.
I think it was, was it a Pfizer document?
And the alleged story, and my take on this is I don't believe this story.
All right?
So there's something wrong with the story, but I don't know what it is.
But I'm not believing this story at all.
That there's some document that shows Pfizer shot was like massively dangerous across all of your organs and everything from your eyesight to your guts would fall out and every part of your body would be damaged and there were like over a million cases of this and they knew it before they put them out and the FDA continues to criminally label these safe, says Conoco the Great, etc.
Now, because I know at least 25% of you are not going to understand what I say next, I'm going to try to be as clear as possible.
75% of you will get it right away.
25% of you are going to go, whoa, whoa, whoa.
All right, you ready?
25% of you, get ready to flip out!
See if you can understand this nuance.
Independent from the question of whether the vaccinations are safe or unsafe, in other words, that's not my topic.
I'm not going to tell you that the vaccinations are safe or unsafe.
That's not my topic.
So when you comment on that, you'll be on the wrong topic, because you're going to comment on that.
Go ahead.
Scott says the vaccinations are safe.
Go ahead.
25% of the idiots, you just need to get it out of your fucking system.
Just get it out of your system.
By the way, I was up all last night with food poisoning, so I'm not in a good mood.
I'm not in a good mood at all.
So all you fucking idiots who want to say that what I say next is supporting the vaccinations, just get it out of your fucking system.
Just do it now, will you?
Alright.
Here's what I'm going to say.
I don't believe the study because it's too on the nose.
Too on the nose?
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
Here's the part the 25% won't understand.
They're getting confused already.
That I don't know what is true or not true about vaccines, it's just that this information is just way too on the nose.
That's all.
There's something wrong.
There's either some context missing... something.
Now, again, there it is.
Clod Adams debunked again.
So all the 25% over there who fell for the 4chan hoax about my pandemic opinions believe that I was pro-vaccination.
Do you want to admit it?
Is there anybody here who wants to admit they fell for the 4chan hoax about my opinions?
Go ahead and admit it.
I want to see you admit that, that you actually believe the 4chan hoax.
Go ahead.
All right.
Somebody asked me what I ate.
This actually is funny.
Because I did it to myself.
So I've been eating super, super basic and clean.
Not even much in the way of sauces or anything.
I'm not even using soy sauce.
I'm just taking it down to a basic.
Butter on a piece of broccoli and a piece of salmon sort of thing.
And yesterday I decided, you know, things were going well.
And I wanted to experiment by doing a door dash of a local restaurant.
And so I picked my favorite local restaurant.
Got a meal that was amazing.
Like, really just amazing.
Because you know if you don't eat good food for an extended period, And then you put something delicious in your mouth, your head explodes.
I don't know if you've ever had that experience.
Like if you had dental problems and you couldn't eat for a few days, then the first thing you put in your mouth is like, oh my God, my God, what is this?
So I ordered some food, ate it up, and it was all, you know, highly seasoned, spicy, and it just, it just ripped my guts out.
So it was a long night.
Anyway, That's enough about that.
Rasmussen asked this question.
What was the result?
That's right.
25%.
Do you need to hear the question?
You already know the result because it's always 25% or roughly.
All right, here's a question.
So the question was set up for this from Rasmussen.
Vivek Ramaswamy said on Twitter, quote, this is an affront to every citizen.
We cannot devolve into a banana republic where the party in power uses police force to arrest its political opponents.
It's hypocritical for the DOJ to selectively prosecute Trump, but not Biden.
So 58% agreed with that.
50% of likely voters agreed with that.
And how many people do you think strongly disagreed with the idea we should not be arresting political opponents?
Yeah, 25%.
It's exactly what you guessed before you even saw the question.
That's how smart the viewers of this live stream are.
They know answers before the questions.
Every time.
All right.
Well, California wants to make it illegal for a parent to refuse their kid's gender choice.
Now, how many parents do you think agree with that?
How many voters?
How many voters in California do you think agree that a parent should not have the right 28% think it's abusive for parents to encourage their kids to say with the gender identification with which they were born.
28% think it's abusive for parents to encourage their kids to say with the gender identification with which they were born.
28%.
All right.
Which means that Californians overwhelmingly think the parents should be in control of that decision, and yet the legislation is moving forward.
short.
Just think about that.
An overwhelming majority don't want this to happen in California.
And it looks like they're going to do it.
Going to do it anyway.
So there's your government working for you.
Now I suppose the counter-argument for it would look like this.
The counter-argument would be there is one situation in which the majority should be ignored.
What would that be?
And I'm not talking about national defense, I'm talking about a state.
But within a state, there is one situation in which the will of the people should be completely ignored, even if everybody has the same information.
I'm not talking about lack of information.
What would it be?
The will of the people should be ignored when?
Exactly.
Minority rights are involved.
That is the one time that you want your leaders to overrule the majority.
Because I'm not sure what majority of people would have ever voted for a lot of things which have made the country better in terms of minority rights.
So I do think minority rights is the one time where I'll say, all right, maybe Maybe the majority isn't the best way to go on this one.
But this particular minority that we're talking about is minors.
Do you treat the minority of people under 18 the same?
I mean, we have a pretty large precedent of not treating children as adults.
I feel like we could stick with that.
So I don't think this falls into the protecting minorities category.
To me, this looks like parents making a cost-benefit, risk-reward analysis, and somebody has to make the decision.
Somebody makes it.
Does the state make it, or the parents make it, or does the child make it?
Having the state make it seems dumb, having the child make it seems dumb.
The parents could get it wrong.
But I think they have an unrestricted, or should have, an unrestricted right to make those decisions.
The health of their child, I don't see what's more important than that for a parental right.
All right.
I'm loving that CNN got all mad, and they say it's outrageous, and that Fox has launched a, quote, sinister attack on Biden.
Because they outrageously labeled, I talked about this and I wasn't even sure it was true.
You convinced me it was, and now CNN says it's true, that Fox really did have a chyron, Fox News, labeling Biden a wannabe dictator who was imprisoning his political rivals.
He was trying to arrest his political rivals.
Now, here's what's funny about that.
What's funny about it is it looked like a parody to me.
I don't know who was thinking what.
I can't read any minds, so I don't know what they were thinking when they did it.
But to me it looked like a parody.
Because after years of Trump is Hitler, which CNN and MSNBC have been doing with no shame whatsoever, he's a dictator, he's an authoritarian, he's the next Mussolini, dictator, dictator.
I thought it was hilarious.
When Fox News used their technique against them.
That's what I saw.
I saw them just using the CNN, MSNBC technique because it was funny.
So I'd love to talk to the producer, or get a quote from the producer who put it up there.
I think it's the producer who puts the chyrons up.
I would love to hear, did you just think that was funny?
Like, was that a parody?
Because if it was a parody, thumbs up.
Thumbs up.
You nailed it.
If it wasn't a parody, then I think there's a discussion to be had there with management.
The management might not have been too happy about that.
But if he meant it as a joke, it was a really good one.
It was like first rate.
I'm so in favor of that, Kairon.
But of course, it wasn't technically accurate.
All right, Ukraine.
Looks like it's devolved into a drone war.
So you know all that equipment that you and I paid for to be sent over to Ukraine?
You know, we paid for it with our taxes.
All kinds of really good stuff, right?
Lots of really expensive tank-like vehicles and all kinds of armored things that sit on the ground.
Well, it turns out that the Russians had a few more suicide drones than we thought.
These Kamikaze Lancet drones.
And they're just picking them all off.
Apparently, if you can see them from the air, they're dead.
And that's pretty much the whole story.
And they can see all of them from the air.
So, it looks like we're going to run into some kind of a tie in which both sides have no big equipment left.
Because both sides are going to take out all the big equipment on the other side.
As long as neither of them can break through the lines, which looks like it's kind of stable at the moment, they're just going to be sending drones and artillery and stuff to pick off the big assets.
We're about six months away from neither side having any big military assets.
Nothing.
It'll just be people with, like, guns running toward each other.
It's gonna be medieval.
There'll be nothing left.
Now, I know what you're gonna say.
Let me say the NPC thing before you did.
Alright?
Here's the NPC thing.
There is always a new weapon to thwart the old weapon!
Right?
Right?
Somebody jump in.
Say there's always a new way.
You always think the tank will be the ultimate weapon.
Then there's anti-tank weapons.
You think airplanes will be the ultimate weapons, but then there's anti-aircraft.
None of that applies to drones.
The thing that's different about drones is you can make them in bulk.
You can make as many as you want.
It doesn't matter how good the defense is.
You can always make more than the defense can handle.
Just economically, it's always going to be the better play.
So I don't see that there's any future in which big pieces of assets win wars anymore.
I think it's just going to be kamikaze drones as fast as you can produce them, and they just take out every tank and every big piece of equipment.
Cyber warfare to take control of them?
Well, good luck.
Maybe.
You know, I was told that the drones wouldn't work because of all the anti-drone technology.
What happened to all that anti-drone technology?
Eh, I don't think anybody's going to do an EMP.
Because the EMP... Yeah, it's... I don't see it.
Don't see it happening.
Alright, fifth generation warfare?
All right.
Well, it's becoming like the Religion War, the book I wrote in 2004, in which drones are going to be the only thing.
Because they'll be so cheap and so plentiful that there's no technology that can stop them all.
So they can get anything you want.
Oh, Tom Brady and the football.
Yeah, if we send Tom Brady over there, he can knock down drones with footballs.
That could work.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I had today.
Was there any story I missed?
Anything happening that matters?
Well, stock, should he buy for the drone boom?
Well, it's probably too late for that.
Did you hear me supporting Schiff?
Did anybody hear me supporting Schiff?
Is that what you heard?
That's what you heard.
You're being silly.
Don't be silly.
I don't think there's anybody I support less than Schiff.
No.
James says, no.
No, you do support Schiff.
You do.
Because I support not destroying the Republic.
That's exactly the same.
Exactly the same?
Are you joking?
Jotep Jesus has been on fire lately.
I have to catch up with whatever he's doing there.
I am cranky.
Sorry, I didn't get any sleep last night.
I'm surprised I got all the way through this.
I believe you suggested he could be charged with a death penalty.
Exactly.
I'm still in favor of the death penalty for Schiff.
I think the death penalty is appropriate for what he did.
Because that was literally trying to overthrow a government.
If you're trying to overthrow a government by lying?
I don't know.
Looks like a death penalty situation to me.
Oh, did I redeem myself because I said he should be charged with a death penalty?
You couldn't handle that nuance, could you?
25% who couldn't handle it.
The Burisma bookkeeper had a mysterious death according to Giuliani.
Well, I think if you add according to Giuliani to any statement of fact, we have a problem.
Am I right?
I don't think you're making your point by adding according to Giuliani.
That's not helping you at all.
All right.
HOTEP isn't taking prisoners.
You had a bad idea on the grand jury and knowing the racial makeup.
But what makes it a bad take?
The worst comment is that's a bad take.
That's a comment you should never make.
Because you're just wasting everybody's time.
Just say what the problem is.
You can say what the problem is.
You have all these words.
You can put them in a sentence and stuff.
Just say the problem.
Have I ever shied away from arguing the facts?
You could just use facts.
It's fine.
Don't be afraid.
All right.
Anything else happening?
All right.
Thank you.
DMV records.
What about that?
You'd want to know how many white women were on the grand jury.
Interesting.
The Hatch Act.
I forget which story that was.
What was the...
Well, thanks, King Neptune.
Talk stock market.
it.
All right, let me talk stock market.
How are we doing today?
Up again, holy cow.
Do you mind if I beat myself up for selling my Apple stock too soon?
But everything else looks up, so that's good.
Ulta came back after being dumped on for all the shoplifting.
All right, here's my take on the stock market.
Where else are you going to put your money?
I think the stock market is benefiting from the, where else are you going to put it?
If you keep it in cash, inflation eats you up.
If you put it in companies, in theory, the companies can raise their prices if they need to.
And so they should keep up with inflation over time.
So if you're trying to avoid inflation, You're probably going to keep your house and not sell it, because your house will inflate, and so you can stick with things that way.
So what we have is a lack of alternatives.
And I think the lack of alternatives supports the stock market.
But I wouldn't buy anything with a high multiple.
I mean, just in general, I wouldn't buy anything with a high multiple.
Although I have, but in special cases.
What about real estate?
Well, there's supposed to be a commercial real estate collapse that's coming, which should affect the banks, but for some reason we talked about it a lot and then we stopped talking about it.
I don't know why.
Because if it's as big a problem as it looks, we should be only talking about it.
Well, there wouldn't be any other problem.
It's the biggest of all big problems if it takes out the banks.
But I just wonder if we know anything about anything anymore in terms of economics.
The experts have done such a bad job of predicting that it feels like predicting is just nonsense now.
You know, how many of you predicted, besides me, and by the way, can I get a fact check on this?
I believe I was the one of the first, there had to be others, but I think I was one of the first people to say in public that the economy would not go into a deep recession.
And that if there was one at all, it would be a glancing recession and probably not one at all, right?
Now, was I exactly right?
So far.
I would say I had the most accurate... There may have been other people who said the same thing, but I didn't hear them.
Yeah.
But well before we knew what would happen, I said, minor recession or none at all?
That's what we got.
That's exactly what we got.
I, of course, like everybody said, there would be inflation, but I was a little less certain that we knew that would end us.
I didn't think it would necessarily take us out.
I thought we'd figure out some way to work through it.
So far, so far we're working through the inflation, I would say.
You know, it is dropping slowly, but if it's dropping at all, you're probably going to be fine.
Remember I told you that jobs were the one thing to watch.
Watch the jobs.
If you get the jobs right, usually everything else can, you know, work its way out and adjust.
But lack of jobs is just a killer.
That one you don't get over too easily.
And our jobs stayed good.
Surprisingly good.
And that's probably why we avoided a recession.
So, I would look at my My predictions.
So here's what I think about the stock market.
I think the stock market will just be an average good stock market.
Because things are returning from pandemic levels, we're working through the inflation, jobs are staying good, we're repatriating some stuff from China, but that's not the biggest thing that's happening.
If you were to look at what's happening, there's a whole lot of good stuff happening.
A whole lot of good stuff happening.
So I would expect that the stock market is a reasonably good place to have money if you're going to keep it there for five years or more.
But that's always the case.
If economists could predict anything, they'd be billionaires.
And some are.
Some are.
That's how Soros made his money, by predicting what would happen next.
That's how Warren Buffett made his billions, by knowing what would happen.
Did that sound like I was supporting Soros?
It's a weird day today.
I don't know what that's all about.
All right.
Video Biden says he will build railroad across the Indian Ocean.
What?
Biden says he wants to build a railroad across the Indian Ocean?
That can't be real.
Is that real?
That doesn't sound real.
Did you watch the jobs?
So there was some jobs news today, right?
The jobs underperformed.
Is that right?
There was some job news today.
But it didn't look like it was such a big change from prediction that it matters.
From the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean.
What?
Is he trying to, he misspoke, okay.
Yeah, short-term T-bills, 5%.
Sure.
I mean, if you want your money right away.
But for your investing money, I'm not sure you want it there.
Yeah, my main investments are S&P 500 and the QQQ. my main investments are S&P 500 and the QQQ.
NASDAQ.
It's hard to get a job in app support now.
because of AI?
All right.
Give up dude, he won't go back.
Claims to be open to feedback.
There's probably just some comments that I didn't see go by.
Of course I'm open to feedback.
What is it you're trying to tell me that I missed?
What's your...
You meant to say?
Never answered your question.
All right.
Well, I don't see what it is you were complaining about.
All right.
Daniel Penney... How many of you think Daniel Penney should have been indicted?
Is there anybody here who thinks he should have been indicted?
None of you think this is anything but a racial outcome, right?
It's just racism?
That's what it looks to me like, just racism.
Which I can say out loud, but some of you cannot.
I tell you, this free speech thing is working out great for me.
I'm liking it a lot.
So I understand the Dilbert Reborn comic didn't publish this morning on Locals, but I will fix that as well as on Twitter.
So if you want to see the new Dilbert comic that is far spicier than anything you've seen before, because it's behind a paywall, you can see it on Twitter, if you subscribe to me, and you can see it on the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com.
All right.
With inflation, Daniel Penney should be at least a nickel.
All right.
I approve of that dad joke.
By now, Daniel Penney is worth at least a nickel.
And 50 cent is worth 10 cent.
How about going live on Twitter?
I don't even know how you do that.
No, I don't think Turley has turned.
He just saw a bunch of photographs of boxes that were alarming.
In spaces?
What would I do in spaces?
Just more of this.
Just once, don't you want to see the family of the deceased say, yeah, I have to admit, he had it coming? - Like, just once, don't you want to see that?
Like, yeah, it's a tragedy, but honestly, the way he was acting, I totally understand.
I guess that's hard to do if it's your own family.