Episode 2176 Scott Adams: End Of Wokeness, Media Badness, Whistleblower Goodness, Lots Of Politics
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Wokeness, media, whistleblowers & politics
Politics, Mayor Jacob Frey, Governor DeSantis, ESG Failing, DEI Scaling Down, President Biden Scandals, Hunter Biden Scandals, President Trump Scandals, IRS Whistleblowers, Joe Scarborough, RFK Jr., Congress Censorship Hearing, Vivek Ramaswamy, Get Woke Go Broke, Derek Chauvin SCOTUS Appeal, George Floyd, Emma Jo Morris, AG Merrick Garland, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 and possibly aliens.
It's Cold Coffee with Scott Adams and there's never been a better time.
And we got news for you, like news all over the place.
You can be saturated with funny, absurd news.
It's the best kind.
And if you'd like that experience, to go to levels that, well, people say can never be matched, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or Chelsea 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 abs.
Now.
Go.
So, well, If you're on Twitter, you should know that I just, just, just now tweeted a clip of me from my man cave explaining how to predict the future of the news using nothing but a Tim Pool hat.
Right, and your finger.
You'll need a finger and a Tim Pool hat and you too can predict the future of the news.
I just tweeted that if you want to see it.
But don't leave.
Don't leave.
Stay here now.
Later, you can go look for them.
Alright, apparently Mayor Jacob Frey in Minneapolis, he's telling the police to not arrest people who have mushrooms.
And I guess everybody is realizing that mushrooms are going to save the world.
They're going to fix all your mental illnesses and make you happy.
So that's a little sign of goodness.
We're going to ease into the hard news, because we got some hard news.
And by hard, I mean funny.
But it's still hard.
Hard and funny.
I've been described that way.
But that's another story.
Let's not talk about that.
So what else we got going on?
In Wall Street Journal, James McIntosh, an opinion piece says, well, is it an opinion?
I guess it's an opinion.
That China's lost decade for investors has already happened.
And hopes for a post-pandemic reopening and a rapid economic recovery are looking bad.
So, turns out that investing in China is looking like a bad idea.
You're welcome.
Well, you know that product that's competing with Twitter?
It's called Threads?
I don't know if anybody's said this yet, but I'd like to be the first.
You know that product, Threads?
I think it's coming unraveled.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah, it's coming unraveled.
I'm pretty sure somebody already said that.
But I didn't say it yet.
So there's that.
So I guess engagement is just tanking and it's looking terrible and all the time spent, basically every metric is in the toilet, big time.
Now, as I said before, that doesn't really mean it's dead.
That just means that the big launch was sort of not typical of a launch.
So they got a bunch of people, but they weren't really people who were necessarily going to stick around.
So you shouldn't be surprised if it got a big bump and then went down 70%.
And then maybe it grows from there.
Maybe.
I mean, Zuckerberg has the resources to keep it, you know, chunking away until it gets better.
So we'll see.
Also in the Wall Street Journal, there's an article that says, some activities people associate with happiness.
You'll be surprised.
But things people associate with happiness, like meditating, working out, and spending time in nature, lack scientific evidence to prove they lift your spirit.
So, all of the hundreds of millions of people who have found immediate improvement in their moods, from meditating, working out, and spending time in nature, I think you should be a little less happy about it from now on.
Because according to the Wall Street Journal, you don't have the scientific backing for your happiness.
So if you go for a run and then you find that your mood is instantly improved, probably just an illusion.
Get back to your scientific roots and be skeptical.
You probably are still angry.
And if you meditate, And you feel great when you're done?
Could be an illusion.
It might be an illusion.
Science needs to weigh in.
Are you really happier?
Are you pretending that you're happier and you're just fooling yourself?
And then, of course, walking in nature.
You've all had the experience of walking in nature and it just pisses you off.
Am I right?
You'll be in an average mood, you take a walk in nature, you're like, ah!
Screw this nature, it's pissing me off, ah!
And you'll be in a bad mood.
So what I think, is we should take our limited money for science, and we should put a lot of it into testing the most obvious fucking things in the world!
Or you could just go for a run.
And you'll feel good, promise.
Alright, just to cause trouble, there's a new service, I don't know where it is, because I didn't care, but there's a new service that's advertising that they'll provide you with handy workers, not handymen.
No, no, no.
No handymen.
These are handy workers, and they advertise that they will all be female, well, I think 90% of them, will be female, lesbian, and trans.
So if you want handy workers who are female, lesbian, and trans only, you can call this company whose name I don't know and I don't know where they're from.
But good luck if you can find them.
I just have a few things to say about that.
None of them are productive, if you know what I mean.
Now, I say this before I give you my joke portion of the story.
I love the LGBTQ community.
There's no such thing as like, I was walking through an LGBT community of high crime.
All right?
Is there even one high crime neighborhood of LGBTQ people?
None.
Basically none.
One of my favorite, one of my favorite groups in America.
Because they do a good job, basically.
But anyway, I cannot help Weighing in on the humor of this topic.
If you'll forgive me, I wondered what would happen if you called them and asked for a handiworker, but specified that you would only accept a trans.
And they'd say, we've got a woman, we can, but a woman is good.
And maybe, maybe this would be a woman, but I'd really need trans.
I really need trans.
And they say, we also have a lesbian.
We could send a lesbian right over and say, lesbian is great.
That's great.
But lesbian feels a little 1990s.
Can I say that?
It feels a little dated.
I mean, I need something with a little more, a little more edge.
Can you give me a trans?
And then they're going to say, which direction?
And then everything goes off the rails at that point.
Which kind of trance?
Yeah, it all gets bad after that.
But the funniest sexist comment that I saw was from, on Twitter, somebody named Mike.
And Mike said, this is so sexist.
It's hilarious.
If we could just be human for a moment, And just to enjoy what a dick comment this is.
It's funny because he's being a dick.
Alright.
So if you know that, then I think you can deal with it.
So Mike says, Dunno.
I feel like I would want to pay to see that circus.
After making sure they are insured, haha, I would even bring out the popcorn maker.
Oh, Mike, you're such a dick.
Oh, I disavow you so hard.
Alright, well, we're on the topic.
As long as we're being offensive.
Let's do a little bit more, shall we?
Alright, today I learned on Twitter from Twitter user FisherKing He tweeted, did you know they just had the Women's World Chess Championship?
And Fisher King says, neither did anyone else.
And he says, ask yourself why there's even such a thing.
It's not tennis or MMA.
Is it just me, or is it hilarious that there's a woman's only chess?
Is that in case nobody can't move the pieces?
It's like, all right, I'm going to move pawn to...
Can you help me move this chess piece over here?
I need a little more muscle on this.
Anyway, meanwhile, while we watch the hilarious death of wokeness all over, DeSantis said he's kneecapping ESG in Florida.
He's going after, I guess there's some... So the parent company for Bud Light You all know the Bud Light story.
I guess there's some Florida entity that still has an investment in him, so he's trying to cut that out.
But he's kneecapping ESG.
So, there's that.
So at the same time he's kneecapping ESG, and you've got the head of BlackRock, Larry Fink, saying that ESG has become sort of a dirty word.
And then we're seeing, skipping ahead a little bit, There's a bunch of DEI professionals getting fired lately.
So the Wall Street Journal is saying that, you know, these are companies have gotten rid of DEI employees lately.
Netflix, Disney, Warner Brothers, Discovery.
Have high-profile people leaving.
And Now here's sort of a summary of that.
They're in the crosshairs, so to speak, because of all the reasons.
Basically, none of it's working.
And the reporting is that the executives who brought in all these DEI people were just trying to look good, and nothing good came from it.
It just caused them more work, apparently.
So yeah, there's a woke purge.
So ESG is failing.
DEI is Scaling down.
And we have at least three, you can give me the real number, but there's at least three major Republican candidates who want to get rid of all ESG and DEI.
Am I right?
Three major candidates.
But I think it might be all of them.
So I might be undercounting.
I think it might be, do all of the Republican candidates say they want to get rid of all that stuff?
All the racism?
So that's pretty good.
It sounds terrible that I have to be happy that there are major candidates for president who are opposed to racism.
I guess that's good for, you know, it's like you have to say it now.
They're actually opposed to racism.
Okay, good.
It's a step forward.
All right.
I guess we're gonna have to talk about all of the scandals.
So we got some Biden scandals.
We've got some Trump scandals.
And I don't know about you, but I'm starting to mix up all of the Biden scandal stories.
They're all starting to sound too much alike.
And then all of the Trump legal problems as well.
They're all starting to emerge in my mind.
I can't tell which is which.
But can you help me out and see if I've forgotten anything?
All right.
So my understanding is that the Hunter Biden and his father, the big guy, have the following three legal problems.
Can you give me a fact check on this?
So one of them is the whistleblowers say that The FBI, I think, was slow walking the investigation into Hunter's tax returns.
Is that correct?
So number one is whistleblowers, very credible ones, say the entire government was basically just not doing their job intentionally to protect Hunter.
Second one was the FBI, now we know that the FBI knew The laptops were real, or the one with the laptop.
So apparently the FBI knew it was real and told the public it wasn't.
So that's new, right?
Now we know that, that's documented now, so we're not guessing anymore.
It's now documented that they knew and they decided to lie.
And now the third one is this so-called 1023 form.
Which is what is used to interview people.
And there is a witness, or maybe more than one, give me a fact check, is it just one witness, who makes some claims about money from Burisma going to the Bidens and going through a series of concealing accounts in corporate shells and banks and stuff like that.
And even an alleged statement that the reason they set up this whole labyrinth was to conceal the payments, and that they were expecting that the Bidens would help them out getting rid of the prosecutor, and that they were expecting that the Bidens would help them out But we don't know if it's because of that, but that's what allegedly they were hoping for, but actually did happen.
Now, all of this stuff on that so-called...
Again...
Fact check me if I'm wrong, is dependent on audio recordings and maybe other documentation that we have not seen.
So that basically the only backing for that 1023 is just the people who were interviewed, right?
Is that true?
So could it be said that the 1023 could be just another Steele dossier?
Is there anything that would rule out the 1023 being fake?
Has anything ruled that out?
Now, the part we know is there appear to be bank records.
Yes, there appear to be bank records.
But there could be bank records and shell companies for more than one reason.
None of them are good.
I don't think there's any legal, legitimate reason to have all those shell companies.
We all agree on that, right?
Whatever all that I doubt anybody would argue it.
of financial confusion was about, it definitely wasn't about anything legal.
We all know that, right?
So that's not even a dispute, I think.
I doubt anybody would argue it.
But you still need the actual crime.
Just because somebody set up a structure that you would only set up for crime and money actually flew through it, exactly like you would for crime, money laundering, or at least hiding it from the IRS, and had However, if we don't actually have backup for that 1023 beyond the financial records, is it going to hold?
Do you think that could?
I don't think it will.
I think it's just short of being enough, but I'm not positive.
Because, you know, it's not my domain and there'll be lots more, we'll find out.
But, to me it looks just short.
Just short of being... Now, I'm not saying it's not true.
I want to make sure that I'm saying it correctly.
I'm not saying that the allegations are untrue.
I'm saying that in terms of a court case or, you know, really proving it, it feels like it's just lacking.
So, we have not ruled out that it's just another Steele dossier.
It could actually be Russian disinformation.
Like, actually, literally, it could be.
In the real world, actually, literally, this time, it could be Russian disinformation.
But what's funny about it is that the Democrats can't use that excuse again, even if it's real.
You'd just be laughed at.
Oh, it's Russian disinformation again.
Isn't that convenient?
Which does open up an opportunity for some Russian disinformation, if Putin's paying attention.
All right, so then Trump is in trouble for... We'll get back to the 1023 thing.
He's in trouble for his boxes, right?
He's in trouble for inciting J6 stuff.
There's some charges that are going to come from that.
And is he still in trouble in Georgia for the Find the Votes phone call?
Is that still alive?
Yes?
And then there's that F. Gene Carroll thing, but that's civil.
So does it look like a tie?
Does it look like the two main candidates for president have three scandals apiece?
Maybe more.
Well, they all have three and a half, because they both have a sex accusation.
So three and a half scandals apiece.
I put the sex scandals as just one scandal.
All right, well, so it's sort of a tie.
Now, what do you think the public is going to make of all this?
So, you know, I watch the news, and you probably have this experience too, I'll watch the news, it'll be the major headline story for like days, and it won't be that difficult to understand.
And I'll think, well surely everybody's heard this story.
And the very first person I meet outside of my own house, you know, you just run into somebody, haven't seen them in a while, and politics comes up, they haven't heard any of these stories.
The average person isn't watching any news at all.
No news at all.
They're just not watching anything.
So what happens when you take not just regular news that they're not watching, most of the country, but what happens if it's a really complicated legal thing where even the lawyers can't figure out what's true?
I'm not sure it affects the election.
I think the level of confusion about all this stuff is so great That the voters are just going to go, I don't know, it looks like two people with legal problems.
I call it a tie.
It's going to look like a tie.
Unless one of them is in jail.
It's going to look like a tie.
Now that doesn't mean it is.
It's just that the public won't be able to sort it out.
It'll be too complicated.
All right.
So the 1023 story is that there were payments made to the Bidens.
For getting a prosecutor fired.
Biden has bragged in public that he got that guy fired.
But said the reason was because he was crooked and everybody wanted him fired.
Which might be true.
I don't know what's true over there.
I just figure everybody's lying about everything.
If it's Ukraine, everybody's lying about everything.
So we'll see if any of that turns out to be true.
Jonathan Turley is pointing out that NBC is trying to cover for the Bidens by calling the whistleblower the IRS whistleblower.
Actually two of them.
Two whistleblowers who confirm each other's story.
It's the most credible thing you could ever say.
They're the most classic, exact examples of government whistleblowers.
And what does NBC call them?
So-called whistleblowers.
So-called whistleblowers.
I guess the so-called whistleblowers were at the so-called hearing at the so-called Congress.
In the so-called United States.
In the so-called earlier part of the week.
Yep.
That really happened.
Scarborough.
What's his first name?
Scarborough.
Joe, yeah.
Morning Joe.
Yeah, I should remember that.
Scarborough says we have these so-called whistleblowers.
And he says it's... I'm out of my asthma meds.
So it's going to be tough to get through the show, actually.
Says it's a clown show with the House Republicans.
It's just a clown show.
All right.
There was this censorship hearing yesterday, and RFK Jr.
was one of the main people testifying.
And believe it or not, this sounds like a joke, the Democrats tried to censor him so that we couldn't see the hearing, so it'd be a secret hearing.
That actually happened.
Can you believe that?
It was actually a censorship hearing, government censorship, and the government, the Democrats, tried to have it censored.
I'm not making that up.
I'm not making that up.
That's a real thing that happened.
And they didn't even hide it.
They didn't even hide it.
It was just completely open.
Let's censor this guy who wants to talk about censorship.
Again, if the public were paying attention, That would probably be pretty bad for Democrats.
But I don't think they are.
Plus it's summer.
Nobody believes any summer stories anyway.
Or they shouldn't.
So RFK Jr.
did something awesome.
Everybody's heard about it by now.
He had some opening statements prepared.
But he did that dramatic thing where he sets them aside.
And then he goes off on probably The most impressive extemporaneous speech you might ever see in your life.
It was actually, it was just, it was mind-blowingly amazing.
And he did it with his, you know, his speech issues.
And I gotta say, every time he does this thing, It's impressive.
He makes you listen to something you don't want to listen to, if I can be frank about it.
You don't want to hear his voice, but if you take a minute of it, if you listen to the first minute, you'll be hooked.
And you'll stay for 10 minutes, and you'll be glad you did.
And when you're done, you're gonna say, damn, we got some good people running for president.
He might not be your choice, I get it, policy-wise, but he is really impressive, right?
We've got, you know, now we've got Vivek, impressive as hell.
You know, people like Trump, I think DeSantis is solid in his own way.
We have really good candidates, really good candidates.
Joe Biden is not one of them, but we really do, you should be really happy about that.
In my opinion, this is the best field of candidates we've ever seen.
And I don't think there was, you know, name another candidate who could have done what RFK Jr.
did.
And by the way, you should listen to it.
If I tried to characterize it, it would lose all of its steam.
But the basic idea is he talks about the degree to which he was personally censored.
And I was not aware.
I was not aware how overtly political it was.
I thought it was just a lot of people thought he was nuts, so they were just, you know, sort of acting accordingly.
But no, it looked pretty organized, and it looked like the timing was not coincidental, and it looked like it was entirely political.
It was actually political censorship.
And it was jaw-dropping to hear the evidence, but it was also inspirational I'd love to hear a Kennedy speaking in a Kennedy-esque style.
And the beauty is you can say that he was speaking in a Kennedy-esque style, and it's not like an analogy or anything.
He's a Kennedy.
Apparently they learned that at birth or something.
They learned how to talk that way.
That was just impressive.
So I recommend it.
I recommend it if you just want to feel good about the country.
If you just want to feel good about being an American for like 10 minutes, Just listen to RFK Jr.
talk about America.
What it should be and what it isn't.
So good on him.
By the way, I absolutely love that I can say unambiguously positive things about somebody whose policies don't line up with mine exactly.
I love that.
I like that I can just treat him with respect and that that could be the end of the conversation.
We just disagree on a few things.
All right.
There's a story that Vivek Ramaswamy has beaten DeSantis in some Kaplan Strategies poll that most people who don't like the result are saying is a BS poll and you should not believe it.
So I don't believe polls in general at this point, but it's the story.
So although the polling entity may be questioned, And certainly the recent straw polls, like the TPUSA straw poll where Vivek came in second.
You can say that's not a real poll, that's a straw poll.
And then I saw Kanekoa the Great on Twitter.
He ran his own poll.
Again, a Twitter poll is completely unscientific, but Ramaswamy came in second.
To Trump.
So there are three instances recently, in the last week, in which Vivek placed second or competitively with DeSantis.
Now, I'll say again, none of that data is reliable.
And some of it could be wildly unreliable.
Probably is.
But that doesn't matter to the narrative.
It doesn't matter to the momentum, right?
So there's a momentum issue.
So we're already looking at what might happen in the upcoming primaries.
Vivek might make a dent there.
We're already talking about DeSantis having to retool his campaign and why isn't he doing better with all the money he has.
The news is already talking about DeSantis has all this funding, yet Vivek is operating on a shoestring.
And killing it using new techniques, basically, and smarter techniques.
Who does Vivek remind you of in his campaigning?
Tell me who he reminds you of.
Vivek campaigning.
Trump 2015!
Yes, Trump 2015.
Yeah, he's using, he's using, what would you call it, asymmetrical Uh, techniques.
Basically he's going on to enemy podcasts and owning them.
Who did that?
Who said I'm going to go on all the most critical podcasts and TV shows like CNN and I'm going to own them and that's how I went.
Yeah, it's sort of a Trump method, in a way.
So I think Vivek is doing a, you know, modified, improved, it's an improved version of Trump.
And it works.
So every time you see Vivek do something smart, tell yourself this.
When was the last time you saw him do something that wasn't smart?
You haven't.
He's running the best campaign by far.
How many would agree with the following statement, regardless of whether you want him to be your president?
How many would agree, so far, Vivek has the best campaign on either side, and somewhat obviously so?
I would say he's floating well above the other candidates in skill.
Yeah, and basically I'm seeing every one of you agree.
Almost 100%.
Are you gonna tell me that's not predictive?
That's very predictive.
Because remember, Vivek doesn't have a government experience.
So you can't say you liked him as a governor or something.
The only thing you're gonna see, since you didn't see him running his businesses, you're gonna see him running a campaign.
Right?
So the more he does a good job of running a campaign, the way he has, the more you're going to say, well, that guy can do stuff.
He can do stuff.
And he's in a field where he's competing against all the other people who are the highest quality candidates doing stuff.
And the stuff that all of them are doing, he's doing better.
You can't ignore that after a while.
Right?
And I also think he's the sexy story.
Here's a Here's a tip about getting free press.
The press does not care that somebody's doing a good job.
That's not a story.
Because people do good jobs.
It's a story if you do a good job in a different way.
And that's what he's doing.
He's doing a good job in a different way.
You know, the podcast, the shoestring, even his policies being as clear as they are and provocative, etc.
And eventually you just notice that.
So every sign is starting to start to indicate that he will rise.
Now, don't believe the polling yet.
I think if you see a national poll, it's going to be lower than these sketchy polls.
But the sketchy polls do pick up, in my opinion, if there's enough of the sketchy ones, and they all look the same, it's picking up an early indication.
Think about the fact, just hold this in your mind, that I asked, I don't know, there's probably several thousand people watching right now, I asked several thousand people to agree with the statement that Vivek has the best campaign by far.
And the by far thing should have definitely got me some no's.
Some of you should have said, no, you know, somebody else is doing just as well.
But nobody did.
None of you.
Every single person that I saw, I may have missed one, but every answer I saw streaming by was agreeing, oh yeah, it's the best campaign by far.
You tell me that's not predictive.
That's completely predictive.
Completely.
Polls are not.
Polls are not predictive.
But a stream of yeses with no nos?
Completely predictive.
A lot will happen.
So you can't say, excuse me, you can't say that's the end point.
But it's very predictive.
All right.
Even Trump praised Vivek in, I guess it was in a truth, saying that he had pulled into second place and he was doing great.
Do you think that that's an accident that Trump is boosting Vivek?
And that when Vivek is asked to criticize Trump, he won't do it.
He says Trump was a great president.
He says, Vivek says I'm not running against anybody.
That's pretty much exactly what I want to hear.
Don't you love that?
I'm not running against anybody.
I'm running for the United States.
So I'm running for the United States.
I'm offering you a set of skills and a set of policies.
If the other people are better, vote for them.
I mean, he doesn't say that part.
But he's saying this is my offer.
It's not my job to make them look bad.
Just look at my offer.
It's really strong.
Very strong.
Because The weak play.
The weak play is to say that the other one is worse.
Oh man, Biden's falling apart, he's 100 years old.
That's the weak play.
At least I'm alive.
His play is the strongest play you can make.
I'm not even running against competition.
I'm not even running against anybody.
You can't get stronger than that, messaging-wise.
Alright, so let's do a little Take a look at Go Woke, Go Broke, how that's going.
So Bud Light did poorly, getting woke.
Target stores, I believe they're still down.
Stock Price, Disney taking a hit.
Ben and Jerry's taking a hit.
Stanford Law School is getting rid of their DEI administrator, who accosted a sitting federal judge.
Yeah, during one of their speaking events.
She was in the crowd and accosted the speaker.
For his political views, I think.
Or not even political, just for his views.
They invited a speaker and then she heckled him.
She worked for the school.
So she is going.
And then Derek Chauvin is appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court.
Now, what do you think about that?
In my opinion, so this is my opinion of the whole George Floyd situation.
While I'm no expert on police procedure, so I don't have an opinion on whether he violated police procedure, but I did not see him murdering anybody.
I watched the video too and I didn't see it.
I saw a tragic situation and I saw a prisoner who made every mistake That led to his own death.
Probably he took a bunch of pills when he got stopped just so he wouldn't get caught with them.
Probably that's what killed him.
Probably if he had said he had fentanyl in him, that he would have been treated differently.
Probably if he said, I think I'm overdosing on fentanyl, he would still be here.
So if he hadn't been a criminal, a drug addict, and a liar, right till his final breath, he'd probably be alive.
That said, it was still a tragedy.
Nobody wants to see anybody get killed, accidentally or intentionally.
It was just a tragedy.
And I do think there's a reasonable argument that maybe a police officer in that situation should have known that there was more of a problem than it seemed.
And maybe he was playing to the crowd a little too much.
Maybe.
I think you'd have to be in his head to know what was really happening, and you can't be.
So what would be your guess of what would be the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling on this case?
Now that the temperature has gone down and we see how much was, you know, propaganda and how much was real, do you think that the Supreme Court will change it?
Overturn it?
I don't know exactly what basis he's appealing though.
Does anybody know upon what basis it's being appealed?
What was it that didn't look fair?
Some of you... Yeah, we don't know what it was.
Oh, was it the jury was scared?
Jury tampering?
That's pretty good.
That would be a good argument.
A good argument would be there wasn't a possibility of a fair trial because the jurors would be afraid for their own deaths.
If you took that to me and I was under the Supreme Court, I'd set him free with that argument.
If you made the argument that the jurors could not have possibly been independent as a Supreme Court Justice, I wouldn't even have to listen to the argument.
Anybody who watched the news knows that the jury couldn't possibly feel safe.
They had to live in that town.
To me, that would be a slam dunk.
It would be obvious evidence that he did not get a fair trial.
Which doesn't mean he's innocent.
You could have an unfair trial, independent of whether you're guilty or innocent.
But to me, the unfairness of the trial is completely obvious.
Completely obvious.
There isn't any chance he could have gotten a fair trial in that situation.
But again, I'm not saying he was fault-free.
Not at all.
But this could be, I mean, this is the sort of case that could determine the presidency.
Right?
If the conservative court overturns the George Floyd thing, you're not going to get a Republican president.
Is that too far?
If the George Floyd thing gets overturned before the vote, there will not be a Republican president.
Because the country will flip out.
It has nothing to do with facts or what's right or wrong.
The country would just flip out.
You've got one side of the country that's unbalanced.
You know, not all of them of course.
But there are many unbalanced people who would literally cause riots and flip out.
And of course the Democrats would fuel it because it would be good for their voting chances.
So yeah, this could be the only thing that matters to the who gets picked president.
Could be the only thing that matters.
It also might be an advantage for Ramaswamy, because you want the brownest, or Tim Scott, you want the brownest or blackest candidate if you're going to be arguing against George Floyd.
If George Floyd, the ghost of George Floyd, enters the conversation, you're going to want to have a Tim Scott or Just to give you a little bit more feeling of cover, even though it's irrelevant.
I mean, all of this is how you feel about stuff.
None of it is logical.
All right.
Let's see what else is going on.
How many of you saw the former New York Post editor, I think he's at Bright Bird now, talking about the, I think it was the laptop story that got suppressed?
If I have that right, do my fact checking.
And here was the best part about it.
So first of all, she did a tremendous job of her public presentation.
It was just really strong.
My takeaway was, wow, that's a strong person.
I was just impressed with her as a person.
She had that sort of natural inward strength thing.
You know what I mean?
Very impressive.
Anyway, the best part was that she laughed at the attempts to cover up the story because they were so ridiculous.
And you have to hear her laugh.
Because the laugh, I've been telling you, you have to get to the laugh.
You have to get to the point where you can mock the ridiculousness of You know, at least half of the country's actions.
And she laughed genuinely and spontaneously.
And she wasn't planning to do it, I don't think.
It didn't look planned.
It looked like when she thought about it, it was hilarious in retrospect that such a clown show had ever happened.
And when you watch a serious person laugh out loud at Congress, and laugh out loud, genuinely laugh, Genuinely.
And mock the fucked upness of the other side that was suppressing the story.
It was a great moment in congressional hearings.
It really was great.
So RFK Jr.
hit it out of the park.
But can you give me the name?
For some reason I was looking for a name and everybody was talking about her as a former New York Post editor.
Emma Jo Morris.
Thank you.
Yeah, the news was weird about it.
The news was like weirdly, at least in the headlines, they were suppressing her name.
All right.
So more of that, more of that laughing and mocking of things which should be laughed at and mocked, because they are genuinely funny.
All right.
I would like to give you now the most provocative speculation you'll hear all day.
You ready?
Attorney General Merrick Garland is the Rosetta Stone that will allow you to figure out who's running the actual country.
Now, if you don't know what the Rosetta Stone was, it was an ancient stone that had three different ancient languages of the same message.
And because it was the same message, it was three ancient languages, this one stone allowed you to figure out Egyptian hieroglyphics and other stuff.
So the Rosetta Stone was the thing that unlocked the language and the understanding of a whole bigger world.
It's starting to look like Merrick Garland.
And let me tell you why I come to this conclusion.
It looks like the DOJ and the FBI are totally dirty.
It looks like he was put there because he's part of that.
He gives me the impression of someone who is not in charge of himself.
Can everybody agree on that?
He gives the impression of someone who is not in charge of himself.
He does not look like somebody who is strong.
He does not look like he comes up with opinions and then he makes everybody agree or tough luck.
He looks like a puppet.
He has the personality and the presentation of a puppet.
Now, when, was it the Clintons who originally tried, who was it, was it Obama?
Who tried to get him on the Supreme Court?
It was Obama, right?
So, who do you try to put on the Supreme Court if you're a Democrat?
A puppet.
You want somebody who's absolutely, definitely going to vote the way you want.
Now, I don't know if that's true on the right.
Like, Kavanaugh did not come off as a puppet.
Did he?
He came off as, you know, maybe Republican-y.
But he didn't look like a puppet.
Gorsuch, you know, no.
So the other ones don't, the other ones never struck me that way.
They just don't have that demeanor.
But Merrick Garland, he looks like a puppet.
Now, could you understand everything about the allegations about the Bidens that were not being pursued by him being the agent of the Deep State?
To me, it looks like they put their most trusted puppet in the Attorney General job because they know they're all criminals.
Right?
So here's what you do.
You find out who Garland is closest to in the real world, who's he have dinner with, who's he worked with in the past, what law firm was he in, and you can piece together the entire network of who's actually in charge.
Because they're all going to have some connection that emanates from him.
He is the Rosetta Stone of who is actually in charge, and it's not the Bidens.
It's clearly not.
Do you know why I say it's not the Bidens?
I'm not doing that old thing like, oh, Joe Biden is old and he doesn't know where he is.
That's not what I'm doing.
It has nothing to do with his age, infirmary, or his mental condition.
You see what's happening, right?
Merrick Garland can put him in fucking jail anytime he wants.
Merrick Garland is in charge, because he can put Biden in jail anytime he wants.
You know that, right?
You know that.
You know he can, because he's got the goods.
But Merrick Garland will not do that.
Do you know why?
Because Merrick Garland is not in charge of Merrick Garland.
It's very unlikely he's in charge of himself.
And if he's not in charge of himself, it means somebody controls Garland, and Garland controls the Bidens.
Because they've known for a long time that Hunter was crooked.
In fact, I would go further and say the reason that Biden was chosen is because he was controlled.
I believe the only reason Biden was ever a candidate, and won, is that he's a controlled candidate.
So look for Merrick Garland and who he's connected to and that'll tell you who's running the country.
And no, I'm not joking about any of it.
Not joking about any of it.
That's the most logical explanation of what we observe.
The least logical explanation is that the Democrats thought Biden would be a good president.
Am I right?
Nobody's buying that.
They might think that he was good enough to get the job done, but do they really think there was nobody?
Do Democrats really believe nobody was qualified by him?
He was the one.
I doubt it.
So you've got a president who's got a criminal rap sheet, or at least allegations, a mile long, and it all looks obviously true.
To me it looks all obviously true.
The only thing keeping the Bidens out of jail has got to be the Attorney General.
And I would also argue that some member of the Democrats, they pretty much had to rig the election to make sure they didn't lose.
Because if you were a Democrat and you lost, you went to jail.
Potentially, because there were a lot of crimes there, it looks like.
So to me, it looks like the most reasonable explanation of what we've seen, and I'll say this as clearly as possible, there is no evidence that I'm aware of that the 2020 election was rigged.
I'm not aware of any evidence of that.
However, it is the most reasonable interpretation of everything we've seen is that it was.
But no evidence.
But could it be rigged and leave no evidence?
Of course.
Of course.
It's only the idiot media that tells you it's impossible.
Oh, there's no way to rig an election.
That can't happen.
So, you know, I'm not claiming there's any evidence.
There's no evidence that I'm aware of.
None at all.
Zero evidence that I'm aware of that's, you know, that I would call credible.
However, when you look at the totality of the situation, it was a can't-lose situation.
In a can't-lose situation, you don't leave it to the voters, do you?
If you thought you could go to jail, If you lost the election, would you leave it to the voters if you're already a criminal?
If you're already a criminal, you're going to do the second crime to stay out of jail, for sure.
You're not going to say, well, I did that crime, I'm going to go to jail, but I'd hate to do anything illegal to stay out of jail.
No.
So the most reasonable explanation is that Garland is owned.
He's the one who owns Biden and that somebody else is in charge.
Or more, it might be more than one.
I mean, it's not necessarily one person.
It might be a group of people who have something in common.
How do you like my speculation?
You loved it because it agrees with what you wanted to think anyway.
If I had to bet on it, gun to head, gun to head, I'd bet it was true.
Gun to head, I would bet it's true.
But I don't know.
And I can't give you any evidence.
So.
Anyway.
Let's see what that does.
If you're subscribed to the Dilbert Reborn comic, either on Twitter, you can subscribe, see my profile, or you're subscribed on the Locals platform at scottadams.locals.com, you would know that Dilbert is still in an Elbonian jail with the Taint brothers.
And today they're teaching him how to be a man.
That's all I'm going to tell you.
The Taint brothers are teaching Dilbert how to be a man in jail.
So, can't tell you the rest.
But you won't see that in newspapers.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I still have four minutes to go for my hour.
Is there any story I missed?
You know, I could have spent all day long talking about the hearings, but honestly, it's too complicated.
Like, you get into the minutia so much, that it sort of loses its sparkle.
Optimists Tesla's what?
Optimus?
Tesla's humanoid robot?
Does Tesla have a humanoid robot that we've seen?
Is it ready to go?
I cannot, oh, yeah?
I guess I missed that story.
How much do you want to have a Tesla robot?
I think the first ones are just going to be industrial, right?
They're not going to be for the home.
I think they just carry heavy boxes in factories and stuff.
Now, the reason I discourage Super Chat is not that I don't want your money.
It's that it's disruptive to the flow.
Dr. Shiva interview?
If you haven't seen it.
Why is the media covering them all?
Covering what?
How long until we have robots building a pyramid?
Super pyramid.
Oh, Anthony Weiner on the Patrick, Bette, David podcast.
How many saw Patrick, Bette, David PDB?
And Anthony Weiner go off at each other.
It was useless.
Yeah, nobody, I don't think either of them looked good.
It was two completely unreasonable people yelling at each other.
And neither of them, there were no winners.
Let's just say it didn't look good for either one of them.
It would have been really easy to make that a A real conversation.
Let's call it an RFK Jr.
kind of conversation, where people are not just yelling at each other.
So yeah, to me that was just worthless.
All right.
He's usually very composed.
There's been-- AW, what?
All right, well, yeah, there were no winners in that.
All right.
Yeah.
Who's the best podcasters now?
Who are your favorite, let's say, political podcasters?
Well, me, of course, but not counting me.
Show me your favorites, Roseanne.
Dave Rubin, Bon Geno, Pac-Man, Tim Pool, Grinwald, Barnes, Corolla, JRE, Shapiro, Levin, The Sticks, Kelly, well there's quite a few of them, Matt Walsh, Theo, Viva, Jimmy Dore, Dr. Drew, Tim Dillon, Wow.
So I asked the other day if somebody would make a sort of a TV viewing schedule that would include those podcasters.
Because a number of us do a show at the same time, or the same time every day.
Wouldn't you like to see the master list of who is when?
Because I don't know where I would go to get that.
But somebody should make that.
And it would help because then somebody who comes in with a new show doesn't have to compete if they put it in the right place.
There should be an actual TV guide for podcasters, and then it just replaces television entirely.
All right.
Crowder, Joe Rogan, Trigonometry.
You know, as the names are going by, it's sort of It's really sinking in that a number of these podcasts are like, you know, broadcast TV, right?
Bungino, Greenwald, etc.
They have all the shows.
I mean, it's just a whole TV show.
And I'm pretty sure they've, yeah, Russell Brand, very high production values.
Federalist podcast.
All right.
Well, somebody needs to put that together and tweet it at me so I can retweet it for you.
If you tweet it at me, I'll retweet it.
So if somebody wants to take that on.
If more than one of you do it, I'll tweet all of them.
Because one of them would be better than the others, probably.
And then keep it on Eastern Standard Time, I guess.
Standardize the time.
All right.
And Hotep Jesus, yes.
Andrew Clavin.
Yeah, there's so many of them.
There are probably 30 podcasts that are quite high quality that you would enjoy in politics and stuff.
All right.
Oh, Dark House.
Yeah, Zuby.
There's so many.
I got Mark Dice, Tim Dillon.
So I did agree to do Roseanne's podcast.
Did I tell you all that?
I can't remember if I told you.
So I'll do Roseanne.
We're recording on August 8th or 9th or something.
I'll let you know when it gets close.
But I don't know yet if it runs live or if it's recorded.
Yeah, I never closed the circuit with Russell Brand.
But when my next book comes out, Reframe Your Brain, which should be out in a few weeks, we're getting very close.
All the hard stuff's done.
We're just working through some details of getting it listed, et cetera.
But once the book is available, I'll do some podcasts.
So that's when I'll reach out to people who have asked me in the past, but I was not doing them.
So Jordan Peterson had invited me Before I got cancelled?
I think it was before.
I'm not sure he still wants to talk to me, but if anybody wanted to do something dangerous it would be him.
So I'll follow up with Russell Brand and I'll follow up with Jordan Peterson and some of the other people who had asked me.
I think Megyn Kelly had asked me at one point, I believe.
So yeah, Megyn Kelly, I'll follow up with her as well.
Trigonometry, I've never been invited on that.
Yeah.
All right.
Who would be my best podcast combination?
I'm thinking it might be Roseanne.
That's why I was so quick to say yes.
Michael Malice.
Okay, there's no way that would be anything but fun.
Me and Michael Malice.
That would be fun.
Greg Gotfeld?
Always fun, of course.
Lex?
Would I fit with Lex?
Do we have the right energy?
Tim Ferriss, you're saying?
Tim Ferriss would be great.
Love Tim Ferriss.
Bill Maher.
Still, isn't it weird that I haven't been invited to Bill Maher's Club Random?
I don't know who would be more an ideal person to be on that than me, but oh well.
Tim Poole?
Yeah, I should talk to Tim.
I think his guests have to be in person, right?
Does he like most of his guests to be there in person?
