Episode 2189 Scott Adams: Which Powerful Leader Goes Too Jail First? This Will Be A Good One
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Politics, Room Temperature Super Conductivity, RFK Jr., Indoor Farming, US Credit Rating, Fitch Credit Rating, Devon Archer, Hunter Biden, Influence Peddling, Opinion Laundering, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump, Bill Barr Mind-Reading, Trump Indictment, Election Integrity, Matt Gaetz, Jack Smith, George Floyd Narrative Analysis, Justin Trudeau Divorce, 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
Oh, did I accidentally turn on this live stream when I was trying to actually take a profile picture?
Yeah, it looks like that actually happened.
So I guess it's just us.
Greg and Big Ron.
So the interface on this on YouTube When you first turn it on and it gets ready for the live stream, first thing it does is it asks you for your profile picture and you can change it.
And I was just changing it, except I pushed the live stream button instead of the profile picture.
So, you've got two choices.
You can hang with me for seven minutes, or you can come back in seven minutes.
You have two choices.
And the worst thing is that this is what gets turned into the podcast.
But as luck would have it, Spotify seems to have erased my account.
Don't know why yet, but I disappeared yesterday from all podcasting, and the account that I used uploaded on Spotify.
It's a special account for podcasters.
It wiped my account.
Turned it into some other account with nothing in it.
So what we're going to do is going to keep you going, and I'm going to have to do a few things here to get ready for the locals crowd and to print out my notes.
So you're going to see what the locals people see every day, which is me getting ready for the show.
And I just realized I didn't have my microphone on.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Could you even hear me talking?
Premature live streaming.
All right, well... All right, so here's my process, in case you're wondering.
Right before showtime, first thing I do is open up the locals.
People.
Because they usually get a preview, but you're getting the preview now.
Now you can see what it's all about.
So they get to chat with me before I go live.
Tell me what I should be doing and what I shouldn't be doing.
Alright, let's call her up.
Yeah, I gotta print out some notes and send out a tweet.
But, hmm, why's that light doing that?
OK.
This is also when I adjust the lighting.
So you get to see the whole process.
Let's bring in the locals, people.
Hello, locals, people.
So I did a dumb thing.
I accidentally hit the live button on YouTube.
So we're actually live.
This is the show.
So we're right in the show.
No, no warm-up period today.
However, at the top of the hour, I'm going to pretend I'm starting the show.
But this, today only, the YouTube people and the locals people are on at the same time.
Same time.
So we're just going to go with it.
I got to print out my notes.
It's going to be the best show you've ever seen since yesterday.
Yesterday's was pretty good.
Today's is going to be even better.
I woke up at 2.30 this morning.
No reason.
I just wasn't tired.
Do you ever wake up at 2.30 and you just say, oh, hell.
I'll just get up.
Two and a half hours of sleep.
That was plenty.
No, it was actually three and a half.
Three and a half is plenty.
All right.
I got my notes.
All I need to do is tweet and we're going to be good to go.
Or as I call it, post.
Not tweeting, posting.
All right.
I don't know if it's worth even posting over in truth.
I don't have any sense that anybody comes from that source, but we'll do it anyway.
All right, I've tweeted, I've done lights.
I'm going to take off my microphone for a moment.
Thank you.
Tell me the truth.
Do I have the best situation for a rolling chair?
Let me just look at this.
The best.
All right.
That's why I don't have carpet.
No carpet.
It's got to be all pushing chairs.
All right, here's a true story before we go live.
I want you to picture this.
I'm going to draw you a little image with words.
When I was a kid, I used to get, I used to get babysat by my grandmother.
And she lived on a farm, my uncle's farm, that was walking distance from where I lived.
And She would have, she mostly lived in one little part of the farmhouse, one room.
And the one room that she lived in, she liked to quilt.
So a quilt is pretty big.
If you've ever seen somebody quilting, they have to stretch out the entire quilt, you know, the size of a, I guess, a quilt.
Which took up, I would say, 80% of the center of the room.
So the only space you could walk in this room, and remember, I had to stay there all day.
I'm a little kid, and I have to stay here all day in this room, with a quilt taking up 80% of the center.
So the only place that you could walk, or be, was around the outside of the quilt.
Because, you know, the weather was bad.
So my grandmother, who was a very obese woman, She had a office chair that she would push around to work on the quilt.
So all day long I had to get up and move because Grandma was moving the quilt, removing her chair.
All right.
We are live because I accidentally started early.
So I'm going to pretend as if we didn't start early because this is the starting time.
And just go with it.
As far as you know, I just turned it on and you haven't seen anything until now.
Good morning, everybody.
And welcome to the highlight of human civilization where all questions are answered, all mysteries are solved.
And I'll tell you exactly what to do in the future if you'd like this experience to go up to levels where nobody's ever seen them before.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gels, 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.
It happens now.
Go, go.
Better than usual.
That's just the way I like it.
Above average.
All right.
Let's see what's going on.
Are you following the drama with the room temperature superconductive material?
I told you about it the other day that there was one researcher who said, oh, we can make superconductivity at room temperature.
Now, if that were true, It would change civilization.
Now, it's hard to explain why, but you could fundamentally do things with electronics that would be impossible otherwise.
So you could have your quantum computing, and you could have your lossless energy transmission, and God knows what, right?
So it just really would change everything.
But it would have to be true.
If it's not true, it doesn't change anything.
So there was so much interest that a group got together just to see if they could replicate it.
So scientists are trying to replicate it right now.
And here's the interesting thing.
Apparently they can.
Apparently they can.
Now I'm not, I don't think we can quite conclude it yet.
But the reports are coming in.
That they are successfully replicating it in different places.
That is amazing.
It's amazing.
Now, I'm still not quite ready to say it's all true.
Right?
Because, you know, it could be like fusion.
You always think you're there and then you're not.
Flying cars.
We're almost there, but not.
So maybe.
Maybe.
Now remember the big deal about this is not just that it would be a, you know, a miracle of technology.
The big deal about it is that the materials to do it are common.
It's common materials.
Apparently they could ramp it up.
If this thing works, the ramp up will be maybe astonishing.
You know, the startups will just appear out of nowhere.
So we'll see.
There could be some amazing stuff coming.
Speaking of amazing stuff, RFK Jr., in a tweet, he's saying that if he's elected, he will end chronic disease in this country.
That's pretty good.
Do you think he can do it?
I think what he would be aiming at would be the food supply and our pharmaceutical products.
His belief is that the combination of those two... I think I'm characterizing this right.
I think his belief that in all likelihood some combination of pharmaceuticals plus our food supply are causing all kinds of inflammation and chronic diseases.
I think he's right.
I don't know how solvable that is, but I think he's right.
And I have a prediction.
It goes like this.
Someday somebody's going to make a personal indoor farming product that's scalable and modular and it works.
So that your house can grow most of, you know, maybe 80% of the food you need.
But At the moment, you would need too much space and energy and all that, but I don't think that's going to last.
I feel like if we build up instead of on the ground, you know, you do vertical stuff, you don't need dirt if you use hydroponics, you don't need electricity if you've got solar.
I feel like you don't need, you wouldn't need pesticides if it's indoors.
I feel like all the Components are in place.
The indoor gardening should start working.
But I've been saying that for a while, and it hasn't happened yet.
So I'll continue to be optimistic that we can end chronic disease by growing our own food.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason that our food supply is allegedly so unhealthy would be because of all the additives.
Am I right?
It's the pesticides and the additives.
If you're just eating the food, and it's fresh off the vine, isn't it gonna taste delicious?
You wouldn't have to add a lot of sugars, you wouldn't have to add a lot of salt, unless you liked it.
I feel if you're eating it off the vine, I don't know how many of you have ever had this experience.
You buy a tomato in the grocery store, and you eat it, and you say to yourself, I don't know why anybody buys tomatoes.
They just taste like cardboard.
And that's because they come off the vine green and they gas it to make it red.
So it's not even vine ripened most of the time.
But if you grow your own tomatoes, how many of you have had this experience?
You take one off the vine, you cut it in half, you put a little salt on it, and you think you've eaten the best thing you've ever had in your mouth.
The difference between a grocery store tomato that really you shouldn't eat at all.
There's no right time to eat a grocery store tomato.
Maybe if it's a greenhouse tomato or something, but the gas ripened ones, never.
There's no time to eat that.
There's not enough nutrition in it that you should bother.
And it won't taste good.
So, home farming solves a lot of problems, if we can get there.
Well, you probably heard that the rating agency Fitch has downgraded the US credit rating to AA plus from AAA.
So that would put us around fifth or so of developed nations in credit rankings.
So we'd have places like Sweden would be above us, I think.
And I don't know what to think about this.
Now obviously the Biden administration blamed the Trump administration, and everybody kind of laughed, but maybe it's a little bit true as well.
Because I don't think any of our presidents did a good job on debt, did they?
Who was the president who did a good job on debt?
I don't remember one.
Clinton?
Bill Clinton?
Bill Clinton, right?
Wasn't he the last one?
Weirdly, yeah.
So, I would say there's some blame to share on that one, but if you're the party that's been in power for two and a half years, you got a little bit more explaining than the one who's out of power.
Now, although I have a, as I tell you too often, a degree in economics, and I've got an MBA from a top school, But I have no idea what this debt downgrade means in terms of the real world.
Now obviously you should make interest rates go up because the higher interest rates compensate for the risk of the entire thing.
So we should see higher interest rates.
But we have this weird situation where the economy is kind of strong.
So you've got a generally strong economy with good employment, but you've got a really serious problem with the debt and with the debt and the interest rates and stuff.
I don't know.
I don't know what the net of this is.
So I've decided not to worry about it.
I'm not sure that's rational, but I don't know what else I'm going to do.
Am I going to go out and do something different?
Am I going to act different today?
So one of the things I do to maintain my sanity is if there's something I can't do anything about, and this seems to be in that category, I don't worry about it.
There's nothing I can do.
How many of you are able to do that?
I just do not worry about things I can't have any control over.
So there's, you know, what is it, Desiderato, the famous saying, you know, don't worry about the things you can't control.
But the things you can control, like your fitness, your exercise, your diet, you should control the hell out of those.
That's the best advice I'll ever give you.
If you can't control it, stop worrying about it.
You'll have to deal with it if something goes wrong.
If there's something you can do to prepare, go ahead and do it.
But if there's nothing you can do, let it go.
Because the world is full of things that there's nothing you can do.
If a meteor is going to come out of the sky tomorrow and kill you, well, there's nothing you can do.
I mean, if you didn't know about it.
So don't worry about things there's nothing you can do about.
This debt thing is one of them.
But do worry about those things you can control and control them like crazy.
You'll be much happier.
Fitness and exercise at the top of the list.
All right.
So the current makeup of the Republican and Democrat Party is starting to become clear.
How many of you remember that maybe it was 2016 the first time I said that the Democrat Party is the woman party?
And the Republicans have become a male party.
And it turns out the numbers are backing that, but it's not exactly that.
It has more to do with married versus unmarried.
And well, here are the stats.
Republicans have more married men by 20 points and more married women by 14 points.
So if you're married, you're far more likely to be a Republican at the moment.
Now that could have to do with age.
Age could be a big part of that, because Republicans are older.
But the single women are the, you know, the biggest category, I guess, in the Democrats, or the big standout category.
So what happens if you have one political party that is dominated by the opinions of married people, both male and female, both male and female, but married?
And you compare that to a political party that would be dominated by, not entirely, but dominated by single women.
And I would like you to put on your most bigoted, awful hat.
Oh, just be a jerk for a minute.
Can you?
Just be a jerk for a minute.
Which of those two groups is going to make better decisions?
single women or married people, both male and female?
What do you think?
Would you trust decisions that were made primarily by single women?
And I'm asking you to put on your most bigoted, you know, biased hat.
Because you know what?
It's not really about male versus female.
Because like I said, the married people seem to be on one side, you know, a little bit more than the other side.
And the single people seem to be on the other side, except not the men.
But I could have asked the same question.
Let me reverse the question.
Suppose the situation was that one of the parties, and it doesn't matter which one, it's just hypothetical, was dominated by single men.
Single men.
And let's say the other party had all the single women and had all the married people, male and female.
But one of the parties was mostly single men.
Would you trust their political decisions?
Single men.
I wouldn't.
Are you kidding?
Are you freaking crazy?
Have you ever met a single man?
Single men are the most reckless, untrustworthy group of people I can even imagine.
There's only one group I can imagine that would be as untrustworthy as a bunch of single men.
It would be single women.
Yeah.
Single women.
Now, I'm not going to claim that single women would make worse decisions than single men, but I wouldn't want either one of them in charge.
Right.
Now again, could I do an aside for the dumb people?
Are there any dumb people here watching?
Does anybody need the special dumb people explanation?
I'll give it to you.
All right.
I'll need Dale.
This is true for all conversations in which we refer to groups or group averages.
Why are you saying that every single, single person has to say the same?
Well, I'm not, Dale.
I'm not saying that at all.
It's more like an average thing, you know?
But why are you saying that every single, single person can't make a good political decision?
I'm literally not saying that.
I'm saying nothing like that.
Nothing like that.
Individuals, of course, are all over the map.
It's just sort of a generality.
And yet, you seem to think that every single person can't make a good decision.
And scene.
So for the benefit of the stupid people, it never means all the people.
It never, never, it never means all the people.
All right, but look, all right, how many of you have had the experience of going from single to married, and especially having children, and found that you make different decisions and you have different priorities about politics?
Go.
How many of you found, soon as you got married, well, you were a little more conservative, perhaps?
Right?
So I think getting married makes you conservative, as well as being conservative makes you perhaps more likely to get married.
So, I would say that's a big problem for the Democrats.
And again, if you think that's about women versus men, it's not.
It's about single people.
Single people, they need a little help.
I mean, they certainly should be part of the process, of course.
But I wouldn't trust any single people to make decisions for the country.
All right, let's talk about Devin Archer.
You're all following the story.
Hunter Biden's partner.
He's given up the goods.
But Jonathan Torley talks about this on Twitter.
He says, there was a discussion of a $142,000 purchase of a luxury car for Hunter as part of his payments for the Burisma work, I guess.
And that the Ukrainians wanted Hunter Biden to help relieve pressure from the prosecutors looking into corruption.
They wanted the Bidens to take the heat off.
Biden later insisted on the firing of the prosecutor.
Now that's interesting.
That testimony would seem to be at odds with everything that the mainstream media tells us.
I believe the mainstream media told us that everybody wanted that prosecutor fired.
Oh, other countries, other entities, organizations.
Yeah.
Everybody.
You just ask anybody.
Everybody wanted him.
But it turns out that the people who wanted him fired the most, and we now have documentation of that, good, credible evidence, the people who most wanted that prosecutor fired Were Burisma themselves.
Burisma wanted the prosecutor fired, asked for it specifically, it was a priority, and they asked the Bidens to get it done, and then the Bidens did it.
So, point number one, it doesn't matter how many other people thought it was a good idea, there's a very clear record that the reason it was done is because Burisma wanted it done and they were paying the Bidens to get it done.
And then it got done.
And it's really clear.
Like, there's no real doubt about it, right?
Now, here's my question for you.
It's been how many days, and you could argue years, that we've been arguing about this prosecutor.
And the Democrats keep saying, but everybody wanted him fired.
It wasn't an American thing.
Who were those other people?
Well, give me a name.
Give me an interview.
Show me one person in one big entity anywhere who is asking for him to be fired.
And then, once you have those names, because there probably are some names, once you have those names, tell me where they got their information.
Independently.
Do you think there are a lot of people who are asking about the prosecutor in Ukraine?
Hey, we'd like to talk to you in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu.
How do you feel about that prosecutor in Ukraine who's going after that company you never heard of until recently?
It was never real.
Once you see the mechanism, you can see it everywhere.
Do you remember the 50 Intel people who said the laptop wasn't real?
How was that play organized?
It was organized by some prominent Democrat getting other Democrats who were willing to say literally anything to simply say that something was true so that the other people could look at the people they told to say it was true and say, well, it's not us.
Look at all these people.
But these people, they told to say it was true.
They're not independent voices at all.
So when you do that trick, you can launder your opinions through the media as though it's coming from experts, when in fact the experts were just doing what they were told.
Now take that situation, which you know to exist, so you know that's a play.
That's a known play.
Get a bunch of people to pretend it's true, and then just point to it.
Now, what did they do with the prosecutor?
They got a bunch of people that they said were other credible people to tell you that this guy needed to be fired so they didn't have to make the argument themselves.
They said, look at all these people.
Hey, come on, look at all these people.
It's the same play.
You see it, right?
Once you see their plays, you see it everywhere.
All right, here's another one.
Remember the Democrats always do the play where if they do something, they say the other side is doing it, right?
Whatever they're doing, they say the other side is doing it.
So what did they say when Biden fired the prosecutor?
They said, oh, the other side is trying to protect him because the prosecutor is the problem.
Right?
That's the opposite of what was the reality.
So you see them selling the opposite of truth fairly often.
It's just what they do.
They blame the other side of doing what they're doing.
So what they were doing is Some bad behavior with the prosecutor.
What they accuse the other side of, bad behavior about a prosecutor.
They just blame you for whatever they're doing.
So that's happening.
Now what's interesting about that is, there's not really much doubt About this, you know, this connection of evidence.
It's really... I mean, I suppose you could be surprised at anything, but does anybody think this isn't very clear at this point?
Just the prosecutor part?
Is there anybody who thinks that isn't perfectly clear?
That that was a dirty situation?
There's nobody, right?
Nobody could look at this evidence and say, well, that looked okay to me.
I don't think.
All right.
So Vivek Ramaswamy is today at the courthouse where Trump's going to be arraigned.
And I have one question about Vivek Ramaswamy.
How many of them are there?
Does it seem to me that he's actually physically everywhere the news is?
Like every time there's a story he's standing on the steps of the building where the news is.
How much does he travel?
What the hell is going on?
How is Vivek everywhere?
He's actually creating the illusion that he's just part of every story.
He's killing it.
I'll say it again because I'm so impressed.
It's the best political campaign in my lifetime.
Which is not to say he'll win, because there are lots of other factors.
But it is the best political campaign.
I mean, he's nailing it every day.
He's hitting like three top stories a day, and standing where the story is.
All three of them.
I might be making up three.
But you just have to watch the show.
Compare him to anything that anybody else is doing.
You know, Trump stands out as a singular character.
But compared to Vivek, to any normal person, DeSantis or anything, he's just clearing the field.
There really is no competition in terms of competence of campaigning.
He owns it now.
He just owns it.
All right.
Here's a Here's the funniest image.
I wanted to put an image into your mind, okay?
So you're all going to imagine this as I describe it.
And this comes from Joel Pollack.
So this is not my work, this is Joel's, and I'll read a quote.
There's a distinct possibility that you could see a scene where Trump is in jail or in prison, wins the election, the Chief Justice goes to the prison, administers the oath of office through the bars, I added the through the bars part, and Trump pardons himself and walks out of prison.
Come on!
Come on!
Don't you want to see that?
I don't want Trump to spend a day in jail, obviously.
I don't really want Biden to spend a day in jail either.
But would that be the best third act of any movie?
Can you imagine him winning from jail and pardoning himself and just walking out?
Just walking out.
And can you imagine him walking out in his prisoner outfit?
It would be just so much funnier.
So you imagine the Chief Justice on the other side of the bars, you know, and Trump's in jail.
He just takes the oath.
And then the Chief Justice just looks at the guard and the guard is like, and he just puts the key in and lets him out.
And then everybody's like, okay, well, I guess you're free.
You know, we have to process you.
And Trump goes, ah, don't bother.
Well, we have to give you back your clothes or whatever.
Ah, I got other clothes.
And he just walks down the hallway, and they just open the front door, and probably lots of security doors.
They just open all the security doors until he gets to the front, and he just walks out.
He just walks out in his orange unfair prosecution jumpsuit.
It would be the greatest moment in politics and entertainment at the same time.
And it would be the best movie anybody ever wrote.
And there wouldn't be a movie.
Oh, there would be a movie.
Now, this of course, I don't want to wish him into jail because that would require him being in jail and I don't think that's really a risk.
Alright, let's talk about all the crazy people.
Bill Barr did a double mind reading today in the news.
So here are the two things that Bill Barr says he knows.
He's quite certain that Trump knew he lost the election.
That's based on what?
He's quite sure that Trump knew in his inner mind, unspoken mind, that he knew.
That's based on pillow talk, possibly magic.
Magic?
Ouija boards?
Mind reading.
Mind reading, yes.
So that's mind reading.
But does he have any other mind reading?
Well, it turns out he has an opinion about the prosecutor, Jack Smith, who Bill Barr believes that Jack Smith is really an unbiased prosecutor.
How does he know that?
How does he know that in this case, specifically, Jack Smith is unbiased?
How does he know that?
Is it the Ouija board again?
Is he reading N-Trail's telepathy?
Mind-reading.
It's mind-reading, right.
So he managed to put two mind-reading statements into one story that CNN ran without fact-checking that people can't read minds.
Now, of course, it was an opinion.
But it's an opinion about what somebody else is thinking in their private mind.
How many of you believe that Trump privately believes he lost the election?
Privately.
His own mind.
How many believe that's true?
Now, also, it seemed to me that Bill Barr was playing with language.
Because when he says he believes Trump knew he lost, lost, lost.
Can you define lost?
Because he did lose.
I endorse Bill Barr's statement that Trump knows he lost because the election was certified and he was not the president.
Therefore, Trump knows he lost.
Does Trump know that he can't reverse it?
How would you know?
Does Trump know that the result was legitimate?
Well, that wasn't what Bill Barr said.
He said that Trump knows he lost, but don't we all know that?
Doesn't everybody know that the result was certified?
That's called losing.
The secondary question is whether it was a legitimate result.
What does Bill Barr think about that?
Well, he didn't say that specifically.
But that's a double mind reading for Bill Barr.
His credibility is pretty low at the moment, in my mind.
His credibility went down with that.
To me, that just looks like Bill Barr having some bias, but I'm no mind reader, so I don't know.
Here's the most fun part about the potential for the Trump trial over his 2020 election claims.
I need a fact check on this, but it's my understanding That Trump's attorneys will put the election itself on trial as part of the defense.
Am I right about that?
I saw some claims of that, but I wasn't positive that would all be allowed or whatever.
So, suppose that happens.
What do you think is going to happen?
If he puts the election on trial, keep in mind that the courts have made a bunch of rulings on various things, but often their rulings were of the nature that we don't have standing to decide, or that it was too late, or that they didn't have enough proven votes that it would change the election.
So it's never really been adjudicated as a whole.
They've just been able to poke a little pinpricks here and there that have been adjudicated.
So, I love saying adjudicated.
Did everybody think I was a little bit smarter when I used that word?
You're like, whoa.
You said adjudicated.
Whoa.
Big word.
It's part of the zeitgeist.
I just like to say that too.
All right.
What about that Trump judge?
What about that Trump judge?
Well, what do we know about the Trump judge?
Obama appointee?
Doesn't necessarily make the judge biased.
Because, you know, there are Trump appointees and you don't assume that they're all criminals or anything.
Let's see, what else do we know about the judge that's going to work on the Trump case?
Worked where?
Oh, at the same law firm as Hunter Biden.
Doesn't it feel like that couldn't possibly be true?
But I think it is.
That the judge actually worked at the same place as Hunter Biden.
Now I don't know if they knew each other.
That would be a problem.
All right.
So here's my take on how a trial with Trump in which the 2020 election is put on trial could go.
How many of you think that you could get 12 jurors to agree with the prosecution that they know for sure that the election was fair?
Do you think you can get 12 jurors in DC?
Oh, we'll talk about DC.
Hold on.
Yeah, we'll talk about the jury pool in DC.
You don't need to prompt me.
We're getting there.
It's a big topic coming up.
I believe that I could convince all twelve jurors that the election was suspect, and I could do it in five minutes.
Would you like me to do it to you?
To show you that if I were talking to the jury, I could convince all twelve of them All 12 of them, that they don't know if the election was fair.
Now, I'm not trying to convince them it was unfair, right?
I don't need to do that.
I only need to convince them that any certainty they have about it being fair is unwarranted, okay?
And that should be enough.
So given that the most entertaining and therefore some would say the most likely outcome is that that trial will be put on or that the elections themselves will be put on trial.
Here's what I would argue if I were Trump's attorney.
Some have said that Trump owes me half a million dollars in attorney fees for this excellent summary.
But imagine me now talking to the jury and let's say it's my closing statements.
I'm talking to the jury, and I'm trying to support Trump, and I'm his lawyer, and I make the following argument.
Fact.
Fact.
Any system with lots of participants, complexity, and high stakes will become corrupt over time.
Any system with those qualities will become corrupt over time.
That is true of every observed human-made system since the beginning of recorded history.
The only mystery is when the corruption happens.
For example, we know that Congress is influenced by the military-industrial complex.
Nobody really questions that anymore.
We know that financial markets are increasingly rigged for the benefit of the big players.
I don't think anybody questions that.
And every complex system that's human made of high value becomes corrupt over time, no matter what kind of controls are in place.
So if you think, well, we've got all the controls to stop it, nobody's ever done that.
Nobody's ever been able to put enough controls in place in a complex situation where there's high value and lots of participants, etc.
There's never been an exception.
That's because, here's why there's never been an exception to it.
Because bad actors have an incentive to peck away until they find a hole to crawl through.
So if you have a system that has survived all attempts to corrupt it, the attempts aren't going to stop.
Because it's a high value system, it's complex, people have an incentive to try to corrupt it.
So people are going to pick at it forever until somebody gets lucky and finds a way in through some crack.
So you know for sure that it will be corrupted, you just don't know when.
You can guarantee it by design.
Remember, design is destiny.
It's designed to be corrupted.
If we designed it to not be corrupted, it would look different.
You know, it would be paint on your finger, one written ballot.
You know, it would be easy to design a system that had no questions.
But we didn't.
We designed a system that's guaranteed to have corruption.
We just don't know when.
All right.
Our elections are not fully auditable.
We don't see the computer code for the machines.
We don't know if mail-in ballots were discarded before reaching the drop box.
We don't know if any bad actors hacked any part of it.
And we certainly don't know if there are innovative ways to rig an election that have not yet been discovered.
Do you think we've thought of all the ways it could be done?
Probably not.
Criminals are pretty clever, because remember, they can just keep pecking at it until somebody gets lucky and finds a way in.
Alright.
So we can't know for sure if any particular election, such as 2020, was rigged, but we can know for sure the current design of our election system guarantees rigging at some point.
And we can know for sure that the voting results for 2020 violated historical patterns so drastically that any reasonable person would have some questions.
Now, there are explanations for why the patterns were what they were, something about the changes in the laws of voting and the pandemic, etc.
But certainly the jury would have some questions about, you know, because by then they would have shown that there were patterns being violated.
The jury would know that by the time they got to the closing arguments.
All right.
Now, a reasonable person can believe the 2020 election was fair.
Now this is called pacing.
So you allow that their point of view, if it's different from yours, could still be reasonable.
Say a reasonable person can believe the 2020 election was fair, but ask yourself, how much of your opinion is influenced by your patriotism and wishful thinking about how things should be?
Trusting an American election requires trust in the party that brought you the Russia collusion hoax, the Hunter laptop hoax, and about 20 others.
They could be listening if you wanted to.
With that cast of characters who did all those hoaxes, do you think they would hesitate to rig an election if they could get away with it?
If they could get away with it.
That cast of characters.
And remember, no one was arrested For any of the hoaxes I just mentioned.
Well, actually, I guess one guy got arrested and he's still practicing law.
So basically, you get away with it if you do hoaxes of that nature.
All right, so here's my closer.
President Trump has lived in the real world of business and politics for longer than most of you have been alive.
He knows how the real world works.
He has seen it from the inside.
His instincts told him the election was gamed in some way.
How much of your own money would you bet that Mr. Trump's instincts about the election are wrong?
Your own money.
How much would you bet that he's wrong?
He's got decades of experience of looking at sketchy situations.
Would you bet against him?
Again, knowing that the system he's blaming is designed to be corrupt, eventually.
We just don't know if he's right about it now.
But would you bet against him?
And in order to find Mr. Trump guilty, you have to bet against his experience in spotting sketchy behavior, and you have to believe all 50 states ran clean elections in the context of no other complex human-made system of high value ever being entirely clean.
That's what you have to believe.
Now, You know, if I did the short version, I'd deliver it in five minutes.
How many believe that in five minutes, I could guarantee you don't get 12 jurors to believe that the election was fair?
For sure.
Here's the mind reader.
Kiss the Sky says, Scott isn't as smart as he thinks.
What exactly do I think in my inner thoughts?
Please tell me what I'm thinking about my own intelligence.
Because that was a real insightful comment there.
Goodbye.
All right.
So now you're saying to me, but Scott, you're forgetting it's a DC, it's a DC jury, right?
Let's talk about that.
Well, Is the DC jury pool biased?
Well, you don't have to worry about it, because a senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, who has a focus on the January 6th aftermath.
So it's somebody who writes for Politico, and is really focused on the January 6th, I believe he'd call it an insurrection.
So you've got a real unbiased source here.
And it's Kyle Chaney.
And here's Kyle explaining that you shouldn't worry about the DC juries.
Now, before your heads explode, I'm going to debunk him when we're done.
So don't worry that I believe what his argument is, alright?
Because you're going to go nuts if you think I believe him.
Okay?
I'll just tell you what he said.
He said the trope about DC juries, and quotes the DC juries, has not really played out in practice.
In the two most high-profile January 6th cases so far, juries have acquitted on some of the most serious charges and delivered nuanced verdicts.
Jurors are selected after extensive questioning by lawyers and judges that include extensive review of political leanings and direct impacts of January 6.
Only after that process, if judges and lawyers think they are unable to seat an impartial jury, is motion to change venue in order.
Jury systems in the U.S.
are premised on juries being willing to set aside personal views and judge based on evidence.
If you don't believe that is possible, and that most people won't jail an innocent person just because they have different views, that's a critique of the entire system, people.
That would be a critique of the entire system.
Because you know, people take it seriously.
Alright?
So that's his point.
Pretty good argument, right?
It's a strong argument.
He's saying that history shows that they're not just all voting in one direction.
He says the process guarantees you can talk to them individually and find out what their bias is.
So that should be fine.
Everybody good with that?
DC juries?
No problem.
Right?
Well, I tweeted back at Kyle Cheney after reading his tweet, and I said this.
Now imagine every potential juror has been brainwashed to believe the defendant is literally Hitler-like.
Now put me in the jury pool.
I will lie to your dumb ass all day long to get on that jury and take Hitler off the field.
I hope you would too, Kyle.
None of the normal rules apply to Trump.
Hello.
Wouldn't you like me to be your lawyer?
Nothing that Kyle said about DC jury pools, which by the way, I do believe Kyle's argument.
I do believe that for the ordinary crime, you know, somebody stole something, or even January 6th, if you're talking about the protesters, I believe that even a Democrat on the jury would look at a Republican protester and say some version of, well, that's just a citizen, right?
That could have been me, and might have been me if the results have been the other way.
So it's easy for me to believe that a Democrat citizen would find a Republican citizen not guilty, even when there's a political ramification.
I can see that.
I do think that the jury, I do think our legal system is at least that good.
But it would, that doesn't apply to Trump.
After, what, six years of the media telling you that he's literally the devil and he's Hitler incarnate?
What juror is going to ignore that?
So there's nothing normal about Trump in a jury.
So I would argue that Kyle is right for just about every defendant except Trump.
And in this case, he would be as wrong as you could possibly be.
Because Hitler does not get a fair trial.
Anywhere.
And you would argue that that's right.
I mean, I just said I would lie to get on the jury pool, or I would lie to get on the jury.
And I would.
I promise you, I take an oath, that if Hitler or a Hitler-like character is ever on the stand, I will lie to get on the jury if I have to, just to get rid of him.
I wouldn't care what the legal system told me I had to do.
At all.
It wouldn't even be a factor.
I would just say what is right, what is wrong, what could kill me, what could keep me alive, what could kill my family, what could keep them alive, and then I would act on that.
But I definitely wouldn't be acting on the law.
I promise you, I would ignore the law completely.
And if somebody asked me how I did it, I'd say, oh, I looked at the facts.
Oh yeah, after the fact, I'd say, oh, I looked at all those facts.
I'm sure all those facts were totally convincing me.
That's what I'd say.
I would lie through my ass.
Every one of you would.
I hope.
If you're good people, you would lie too, in that situation.
That's my feeling.
All right, well, here's the funniest thing I read about it, and this is from Twitter user Deplorable Greeny.
Rob Macho.
And he suggested a strategy for Trump's attorneys.
He says the defense could call 81 million witnesses to the stand and watch about 65 million show up.
Okay, that's pretty funny.
That is really funny.
Invite 81 million and watch when only 65 million show up.
That's a good joke.
Good joke.
All right.
Matt Gaetz has a plan that looks pretty interesting to make sure that we're doing the right thing with this Jack Smith prosecutor and Trump.
He's got a four point plan.
He says demand that Jack Smith, the prosecutor, present himself before the House Judiciary Committee for a transcribed interview in the next 15 days.
In other words, get him under oath.
And make him talk about this thing.
Transparency.
If he does not, point two, we should send a subpoena.
If he ignores the subpoena, you know, blah blah, do what you do when people ignore subpoenas.
And then number four, Merrick Garland, Attorney General, if he doesn't enforce the criminal contempt charges, in other words, if Jack Smith doesn't show up and answer the questions, then we ought to impeach him.
Well, I don't know.
This feels a little bit toothless.
Do you think?
Because I don't know what would be the point of asking him to talk in public.
It would just be political, right?
The point of it would be to embarrass him by making it look like it's a political prosecution.
Something like that.
I don't know.
I feel like he could just show up and do a Christopher Wray.
Couldn't he?
You know, Jack Smith, can you tell us why you did X?
Yeah, I can't talk about that because the investigation is ongoing.
All right.
Well, well, can you tell us about why?
I can look into that.
I don't have the notes with me, but I'd be happy to look into that and get back to you.
All right.
Well, how about Z?
Can you tell us about Z?
I don't have that information.
It's an ongoing process.
I can get that information, but not now because there's a current investigation underway.
I don't know.
I feel like that would be a dead end.
But I'm also... I'm going to give Matt Gaetz credit, because he did something.
He did something.
So that's... I'm going to give him the A for doing something.
Maybe you get lucky.
Maybe Jack Smith says something we didn't know.
Maybe.
It's pretty much a long shot.
Probably a waste of time.
But at least it's something.
That's not nothing.
All right, here's an interesting thing.
DeSantis is doing so poorly campaigning that he agreed to debate Newsom.
What do you think of that?
He agreed to debate Newsom.
Now that's a Hail Mary.
That is a Hail Mary.
But he might be smart.
This could turn out to be a good play.
Here's my thinking.
As things stand, It doesn't look like DeSantis will be the candidate, as things stand, even if Trump is in jail.
I've got a feeling he's still going to be the candidate.
So DeSantis has to do something, right?
He's going to have to get out of his little box of talking like a corporate guy and just do something.
Yeah, and Vivek is making him look like a non-competitor at this point.
So I guess Newsom had said he would do it, and DeSantis now says he agrees.
Who knows if it'll really happen?
I suspect it will, because it'd be so entertaining.
Somebody would want to host it.
And how do you think he would do?
So here's my take.
If this were a general election, I would be worried for DeSantis against Newsom.
Because Newsom's not bad on stage.
Would you agree?
He's a governor for a reason.
He's a governor because he's good at this.
This exact thing he's good at.
So, DeSantis is probably good too.
And I think that DeSantis is correctly playing this, because if any Democrat has a debate with any Republican, what do the Republicans say when it's over?
You know.
Any Republican debates any Democrat, and then when it's over, what do the Republicans say?
The Republicans say, that Republican, whoever he was, won that so easily.
That's my guy, right?
So, if DeSantis, this is actually a clever play, because you can count on your base saying you won even if you lost, right?
And you can count on them ignoring CNN if CNN says that Newsom won.
In MSNBC, of course they would.
They would say Doosan won.
But his base wouldn't care about any of that.
They would just say, oh, he said things I agree with, therefore he won.
So in the context of the primaries, it's probably really smart.
I'm going to have to give him an A for this.
I'm gonna have to give DeSantis his first A for campaigning.
I think he's very solid as a governor.
But for campaigning, he's faltered a little bit.
He just hasn't been interesting.
But this is both interesting, it's very interesting, and it's the right play because he can't lose.
He's got a no-lose proposition.
It's kind of Trump-like.
You know, you can win two ways.
So he wins if Newsom doesn't show up.
He wins if Newsom wins.
If Newsom shows up and wins the debate, DeSantis' base will never even know that.
They'll just say, I watched it too, and I saw him win.
Or they'll see the news reports and say, well, the news says DeSantis won.
So it's all upside.
DeSantis could get up there and drool on stage.
Newsom could cream him.
And the base would still say DeSantis won easily.
So there really isn't a debate risk.
I think there would be a debate risk if this were the general election.
But since he's just talking to the base, there's no way to lose.
I say no way.
I mean, he could say the dumbest thing in the world and lose, but he's a capable, strong player.
You'd expect him to do fine.
So, that's fun.
In other news, the so-called George Floyd narrative has taken a hit, the narrative being that the black citizens in Minnesota were being treated differently or worse than the white citizens by the police.
But an analysis found the opposite, that police were harder on, and the justice system in general, all the way through from sentencing to incarceration, was harder on white offenders.
So everything was opposite.
All those riots, all the George Floyd bombings, all based on the fact that black people were getting worse treatment by the justice system.
It was the opposite.
Now, I'm not sure I believe the analysis.
So let me say, I don't believe any data about anything.
Because we live in a world where all data is motivated.
There's always somebody who wants it to come out a certain way, and I was surprised it did.
So I'm not sure I believe this analysis.
What do you think?
But what I do believe is we also don't know if it works the other way.
I do believe that if you showed me data that was literally the opposite, I would say the same thing.
I go, well, I don't believe any data.
But maybe.
I don't know what would be the operating mechanism that would make things worse for white citizens in Minnesota.
What exactly would cause that?
I mean, it's not discrimination in the classic sense.
Would it be active?
It wouldn't even be reverse discrimination.
I don't know.
I guess I would doubt the data more than I would doubt my understanding of why it would happen.
Because I think maybe it didn't happen.
I suspect it's closer to even treatment.
All right.
So, who's going to go to jail first?
Trump or Biden?
Here's my take.
I say neither of them.
Because I don't think we live in a world where the main candidates for president, in all likelihood, are going to be jailed.
This is the very definition of too far.
If, can you imagine Biden winning an election because he jailed his opponent?
Just imagine that.
Or even winning an election because he made the opponent unable to run because they got locked up in the legal system.
Would you be okay with that?
You know, I trust, I trust Americans enough that there would be enough Democrats who would say no to that, that a Republican would somehow be in charge in the end.
I think Democrats, not all of them, but I'd say a solid 10% of Democrats, if you said, all right, Trump did bad things and Biden took him off the field and made it a non-competitive election.
How many Democrats would be okay with that?
I don't think all of them.
You'd only need 10% to side with the Republicans before Republicans get everything they want.
You think it's all?
I don't know.
Well, let me ask you this.
Let's reverse it.
I know it doesn't reverse, but let's try.
Suppose Trump were in office, and he put Joe Biden in prison over the, let's say, the Burisma stuff.
And when I say Trump did it, it would be his Department of Justice that would do it.
Would you be OK with that?
Those of you who lean right, You would.
Literally.
You'd be okay with that.
Jailing his opponent instead of letting the public decide.
Once he's in the election, you would be okay with that.
I would so not be okay with that.
I would be very not okay with that.
And indeed, I would say what Comey said about Hillary's emails or whatever it was.
I think Comey basically said this should be decided by the public.
So I'll tell the public, and I don't think the FBI should be deciding who wins the election.
Now you can say you hate Comey, you can say he was lying, blah blah blah, but I liked what he said.
I liked that he said, we could use the bureaucracy to decide who your president is, or we could just tell you what the situation is, and then you can decide who the president is.
Now, I'm not going to defend Comey, but I'm going to defend the concept.
I love the concept that the bureaucracy should stay under the decision once you get into the final push.
If you can take a candidate out before the primaries, okay.
That's a very different situation.
But once you're polling at over 50%, like Trump, at least for the primary, I just don't think you take him out.
I think you just live with what you got.
And the reason is you don't want to start a precedent where one team, the team in power, is trying to arrest the competition.
That just has to be off the table completely.
Now the downside is that people will get away with crime, and I'm okay with that.
Compare it to the alternative.
I would totally be in favor of unequal justice and some people being treated above the law, because it would be good for me.
If I have a president who's functioning and their only problem was something they may have done in the past that's not likely to be repeated, at least in the same way, I think it's like hiring a plumber who used to drink.
If he used to drink, But he does it now, and he can fix my pipes.
That's good enough.
So you can be selfish and just vote for the candidate who will do the best job for whatever you want done.
You don't have to care about things they did in the past.
You can, but you don't have to.
You can just vote your best interest.
All right.
All right.
Painters can handle booze the best.
Well, all right.
I think I've talked about everything that needs to be talked about except for Justin Trudeau's divorce.
Did you see the Babylon Bee's take on that?
The Babylon Bee said, the country was shocked to learn that Justin Trudeau was married to a woman.
They're pretty edgy.
How many of you expect that his next partner will be male?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But isn't it sort of begging?
It feels like reality is forming up.
And honestly, if he transitioned, I wouldn't be surprised.
Would you?
Would anybody be surprised if he transitioned to a woman?
I wouldn't be surprised at all.
I wouldn't bet on it.
I would bet against it.
But it wouldn't surprise me.
I would say, well, you know, who would say we didn't see it coming?
Or it was totally impossible.
Nobody would say it's impossible.
I think you'd say, well, OK, good luck to you.
Post some shorts, I probably should.
Alright.
He has a twin sister?
Is that true?
Justin Trudeau has a twin sister?
Somebody?
No?
Or he would transition into his twin sister?
Alright, well, we don't know what family members he has, so I'm making that up, I guess.
Alright YouTube, thanks for joining and thanks for joining early.
