Episode 2201 Scott Adams: The Newest Brainwashing Op, I'll Give You The Play-By-Play. Bring Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, President Trump, Georgia Indictments, Brainwashing Machinery, Ruby Freeman, Vivek Ramaswamy, Entertainment Prosecutions, President Biden, Outrage Dilution, 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
You know, the important question is, I'd like to ask Rick about his breakfast.
I hear there was some homemade sausages involved and maybe some eggs from your chickens.
Now that's the most important thing we have to talk about today, and I'm glad we covered that first.
But if you'd like to take this experience, which I believe will be sublime, all the way up to incredible, I can't even believe it.
How did I even get here?
Why am I so lucky?
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous up, but it happens now.
Ah!
Well I hear there's some news today.
Maybe exactly why you came here, to hear about it.
And we'll talk about that, but let's get to the little stuff first.
Apparently there's some concern that people are having sex in self-driving cars.
Which was a confusing story to me.
People are having sex in self-driving cars.
What am I missing about this story?
Wasn't that the whole reason for self-driving cars?
What was the other reason?
I don't know.
But did you see the story?
I don't know if it was real.
Elon Musk was going to drive his self-driving Tesla to Zuckerberg's house and knock on his door and see if he wanted to fight.
And I saw that tweet.
Was it true?
It was a true tweet, right?
The tweet was true.
Yeah, and then he says, suck my tongue.
You know, based on the Buddhist thing.
So I read that tweet and I said to myself when I read it, I didn't think this could get any more entertaining.
You know, once they said we might fight in the Coliseum, like the moment I heard that, I thought, OK, all right, this can't get any better.
There's no way this story can get better.
So we've reached the pinnacle.
And then he tweets he's driving his self-driving car to knock on his door and see if he wants to fight.
Come on, that is the best entertainment all week.
Now allegedly the fight is off, right?
I think Zuckerberg tried to call it off because he thought Musk wasn't being serious.
But who knows?
Who knows?
Maybe it's all part of the act.
Maybe the calling it off is just part of the spectacle.
Who knows?
Maybe we'll see it.
All right.
But if you're alone in a self-driving car, act accordingly.
If you're not following the new Dilbert Reborn comic, that's a little spicier than the original, which you can only see if you're watching it on, subscribing on Twitter, or you're a member of the Locals community.
Uh, however, what you would be missing if you're not seeing it is that Wally is using a dating app called 23andMe.
But don't worry, don't worry, Wally is just looking for people who have things in common with him.
And he warns that he will stay well below the 1% shared DNA level, so don't worry about it.
He's just looking for people who have the same love of cilantro and sun-sneezed reflex that he has.
And that's a good starting place.
Anyway, that's what you're missing, and stuff like that.
The best thing.
By the way, let me see from the people who are actually following the new Dilbert Reborn.
Can you give me an answer in the comments?
Since I was cancelled, is the comic better or worse?
Since cancellation, better or worse?
Alright, well the locals are 100% better.
Let's see how we're doing over on YouTube.
100% people say better.
Yeah, it's way better.
And it's not a surprise why it's better.
Because now I can write it the way I want to write it.
I don't have to write it for the lowest common denominator in the newspaper, which is children.
You have to write a comic for newspapers so that a 10-year-old child would not be offended by it and would understand it as well.
So the standard has changed and I am free.
So you're going to be missing some good stuff if you're missing that.
All right.
Have I told you that... Have you ever heard me say that all news about public figures is fake?
And you said to yourself, well, obvious exaggeration.
It's not all news is fake.
Well, I don't mean if somebody died.
That's almost always true.
Right?
They get that right.
Somebody died or they got a new movie deal.
That's probably true.
But any interpretation of why anybody's doing anything, that's never true.
For public figures.
It's never true.
Not ever, ever it's true.
Just some basic facts of, you know, yes or no things that happened.
But here's another one.
Do you remember the movie The Blind Side?
And it was Sandra Bullock and she played the wife of a couple who adopted a promising, I think teenage at the time, black football player.
And they helped guide him into his best self and he became a football star.
So that was the story.
So they adopted him and they nurtured him into becoming the best that he could be.
Made a movie out of it.
Turns out that the gentleman who was the subject of that movie, Michael Oher, he's now a retired football player, but he's filing a petition with the Tennessee court that alleges he was never adopted by the family, and they profited from his story, and it was all sort of a money-making scam.
Does that feel like a good base to get the rest of my livestream going?
Have I set the stage?
Do you feel properly primed?
All news, all news about public figures is fake.
When they're talking about interpretations of why anybody did anything, right?
Now, is it true he was a football player?
Yes.
Is it true his name is Michael O'Hare?
Probably.
Is it?
Yeah.
But that's about it.
You know, once you get the basics, all the interpretation of who, why anybody did anything, it's all fake.
Always has been.
Once you learn that, you'll be in good shape.
All right, if I were to ask you, or let's say randomly somebody said to you that they know a person who doesn't seem to understand the concept of cause and effect.
Suppose you heard about somebody, just a stranger, and somebody told you, you know, I don't know, it's weird, but they don't seem to understand that the things they do Would have pretty predictable outcomes, and why would they do those things?
Would you say that person was most likely a Democrat or a Republican?
Go.
Yeah, of course, I primed you for that.
So you're all saying Democrat, because you know that was the right answer.
Now, like every other generalization, it's not 100%, right?
Are there not plenty of Democrats who can plan ahead and see the future like everybody else can?
Of course.
Here's a good example.
Do you know the, let's see, I guess he's the majority leader now in the Senate.
His name is Scummer, Scummer.
That's his name, Scum, E-R.
No, you're spelling it with an H in the name, Scummer.
It's Scummer, not Schumer.
Now the reason I know that is because I read Fox News today, and they spelled his name twice.
S-C-U-M-E-R.
Scummer.
What?
Are you telling me that the news isn't right?
It's on Fox News' homepage.
They show a picture of him, and they say his name and the title, and then again, and the story.
They spell it very carefully.
Scummer.
So is that, well, you're acting like that's wrong or something.
Okay, it's really Schumer.
And they really do have a typo that really does call him a scummer.
That's a real story.
I'm not making that up.
They actually called him a scummer in the headline today.
It was a typo.
Or was it?
Or did they hire back the Chiron guy?
Did the Chiron guy from Fox News come back with a promotion?
Is he the headline guy now?
God, I hope so.
I hope he's the headline guy now.
Please.
Well you might know that the Fox News Chiron guy, who got fired for his humorous Chiron, has a job now at Robots Read News, the other comic that I do that's only available within the Locals platform.
So the Chiron guy is quite busy, within my comic anyway.
So do you remember when Schumer, let's call him Schumer for now, Do you remember he said that when Trump went after the intelligence community, that that was stupid because they had a hundred ways from Sunday to get back at him?
Do you remember that?
And then they did?
So we know that Schumer understands cause and effect, because he called it out very directly.
If Trump does this, the intelligence community is going to get back at him, and then we watched it happen in real time.
You know, the laptop thing, blah blah blah blah blah.
Rush occlusion, you name it.
So, cause and effect.
But it doesn't seem like the progressive side of the Democrats understand it at all.
It's like they don't understand that if you reward bad behavior, you get more of it.
Like, are they actually not understanding why there's a crime wave?
Does anybody not know why there's a crime wave?
Apparently only the people on the left.
Everybody else understands completely.
Oh, if you make it legal.
I saw a tweet from Jake Shields today.
He said, why is anybody paying for goods in stores in California?
If it's under $950, you won't get arrested.
And I thought, well, I'm not going to be some kind of criminal.
I'm not going to join the bad guys just because I could get away with it.
That's not a good enough reason.
You can't just pick up merchandise because you're not going to be prosecuted.
However, if I go to a store and I realize I got there and I forgot my wallet, I'm not driving all the way home.
So I'm not that pure.
I'm gonna do what makes sense.
Just kidding, I'm not gonna steal because I forgot my wallet.
I might steal and then bring the money later, but I'm not gonna, you know, I'm not gonna walk out of the store without the goods if there's no penalty.
I mean, if I really need that, you know, box of Cheerios, I don't eat Cheerios.
But if I did, that would be the funny thing to say.
All right, well, you're all watching the big news that Trump has been indicted for the fourth time for indictments.
How many impeachments?
Two?
Two impeachments, four indictments so far?
Yeah.
You know, have you heard that President Trump, he was famous for not using text.
He didn't send text messages.
And he also never used email.
Do you ever wonder about that?
Like, first you think to yourself, what, a troglodyte?
What kind of a cave person?
See, I said cave person because I'm modern.
What kind of a cave person doesn't use email and never texts?
But then you realize, well, maybe it's about protecting his digital footprint.
And then you say, well, why would he need to do that?
Well, let me suggest one reason he might want to not leave a digital record.
Every time he makes a phone call, he gets impeached or indicted.
I don't know.
I think that would make you cautious about what you said on the telephone or on a text or an email.
You know, I think he's about this far from never using a telephone again.
He's literally been indicted and impeached over two different phone calls, both of which he calls his perfect phone calls.
All right.
How many of you think that we're seeing a legal process, and how many of you think we're seeing a political process accompanied by a massive brainwashing operation?
Massive brainwashing operation.
So everybody on the left is going to say, or I'm sorry, everybody on the right sees it as a political operation.
What do you think the left sees it as?
In their private moments, what do you think they see it as?
Do you think they see it as real?
You think they don't know it's political?
I think they know it's political, but they think he's so dirty that they don't care if it's Al Capone and his taxes.
They just want him gone, because they figure he's so bad it doesn't matter what the details are.
You just got to get rid of him.
So I'm not sure they care.
Don't think they care.
I mean, I've never seen, I haven't seen anybody care.
Well, let's dig into that a little bit.
My take on this is that if you know you're in the middle of a massive brainwashing operation, you can learn a lot.
So the first thing you want to look for is what characters they push to the front of the line.
So who's on CNN, who's on MSNBC, and what are they saying?
If it looks like the usual liar class, you know the Democrats have a set of professional liars?
You're aware of that, right?
If they send Schiff or Swalwell or J.B.
Raskin, Goldman, they seem to be in the job of only lying.
They don't seem to be even, you know, slightly interested in an accurate estimation.
Now, that's probably true of all politicians, wouldn't you say?
Pretty much all the politicians, if you cornered them, they're going to say what their party says.
But here's the difference.
Most of them you would have to corner.
You'd have to corner them.
They're not going to volunteer or be the first ones to go on TV to say things that they know are not exactly true.
But there is a small group of Democrats, and there may be the same on the Republican side.
I don't know if this is exclusive or not.
But I recognize the ones on the Democrat side, and when you see them, You should say to yourself, ah, that's the signal that this is not real news.
It's a brainwashing operation.
So would you expect, for example, that you will see Carl Bernstein tell you that it's worse than Watergate?
Would you expect to see him?
Of course.
But he may not have been available because CNN got John Dean to say it was worse than Watergate.
So, I mean, if Bernstein is on vacation or something, you've got to get the second Worse Than Watergate guy.
Now, is that not obvious?
If you're an actual news watcher, and they trot out a Worse Than Watergate guy, or you substitute Worse Than Watergate guy, you know it's a brainwashing op, right?
That's a total tell, for we're not, this is not real news, it's, you know, it's an influence campaign.
All right, some other tells for influence.
One is the number of charges.
I'd call it laundry list persuasion.
If you have a long list of technical charges, then what does the public do when it's a long technical story that even the lawyers disagree on?
What do human brains do when they can't understand the details?
When they can't understand the details, they default to sort of a team, you know, simplistic situation.
So if there are enough charges, you know, they don't say there are six charges, they say there are, you know, 72 or 10.
Oh, by the way, so if you want to know the exact number of charges, that was the first thing I looked for, and the exact number of charges is 10.
10 charges.
10 charges. No, 13. 13 charges. Wait, 72.
No, 13.
72 charges.
No, 10.
13.
Actually, I don't know, but I've seen all of those numbers today.
I've actually seen all of those.
I don't know.
Some bunch of charges.
But the news is, they're reporting them as different numbers.
I don't know why.
So here are the, here's some phrases to look for if you thought that things are, it's gonna be all fixed.
Let's see.
Your most famous phrases are... I know I wrote that down somewhere.
Alright, we'll get to it.
So here are some of the charges.
Let's see.
We got your Georgia RICO Act racketeering.
Racketeering sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?
Do you know what racketeering is in this context?
If you're not watching the news too closely, and somebody says racketeering, you think mafia, don't you?
I mean, just automatically.
What does it mean in this context?
Well, if you're a Republican, you would describe it this way.
Are you telling me that you talked to his lawyers and got their advice?
And then they talked to a bunch of people to find out what was practical and what you could do, and what was legal and what was not legal?
That's actually what the Racketeering is, I think.
The conspiracy.
The conspiracy and racketeering are people trying to figure out what is legal and practical to do in this situation, given their beliefs about it.
So there's that.
How about solicitation of a violation of oath by a public officer?
What do you think?
That sounds pretty bad, right?
Wow.
Sounds pretty bad.
What do you think that really was?
If a Republican were to explain the same thing, what words would they use?
I think it would be, just guessing, something like, they talked to a public official, and they said, this is our interpretation of what you can do, and we think you would be allowed to do this under our interpretation.
Would you agree that, you know, you could do this?
Now, I don't know, but I think it's probably sounding like something like that.
Just speculating here.
How about conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer?
Oh my god, that sounds terrible.
Are you telling me that they actually got somebody to pretend to be somebody else's identity?
That sounds really super serious.
But what do you think that really was?
I don't know, but I think this is referring to trying to get an alternate slate of electors, which they believed under some legal theory would be not unprecedented, And not illegal, under their interpretation of the law.
Now, suppose they had been wrong.
Suppose they'd gotten away with it, but they were wrong.
It would have gone to the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court would say, no, we don't buy these electors, perhaps.
And then what would happen?
They would continue to run the country?
I don't think so.
I think they would say, ah, we tried.
And then it would just be part of the legal negotiating process, just like everything else.
But no, that's trying to commit a forgery.
Well, anyway, there's another charge about forgery.
Forgery in the first degree.
Do you even know what story that refers to?
Is anybody even aware of what a forgery allegation is even involved with?
But I would imagine it's something about the electors, right?
Now, would that get to the fact that if you were a fake elector, then if you signed something as a real elector, then you're a forger?
Even though everything's transparent, you're not trying to be the other person.
You're just saying that you're the elector?
So is that the forgery?
I don't know.
Who knows?
How about false statements and writings?
False statements and writings.
Does that refer to their belief that the election was rigged?
Is that the false statement?
I don't know.
How about filing false documents?
Is that related to the legal theory that they thought they could have different electors?
I don't know.
How about solicitation and violation of oath by a public officer?
That's also the same thing, right?
All right.
By the way, every news story you read has a different set of charges.
I don't know why.
Different number of indictments, different set of descriptions of the charges.
I don't know why.
I'm trying to figure out what's true and I'm not sure the news knows.
It's almost confusing by purpose.
But there's also a sub-story here.
About Ruby Freeman.
You remember the Ruby Freeman story?
Apparently Biden gave her the Presidential Medal of Honor.
I didn't know that.
So she was an individual who worked as an election worker.
And she was accused by various Republicans of trying to rig the election because they saw something on video that was later demonstrated to be an edited video.
And that she did nothing that anybody could determine.
The officials, when the officials looked at it, they could determine no crimes or improprieties at all.
Now, if you wanted to brush up on this and say, whoa, I don't remember the details of the story.
You remember I told you we're in a brainwashing operation?
So look for the tells, because these are the ones that will tell you what's going to happen.
What does it tell you when the top search result is NBC News?
Well, NBC News is often accused of being the news that is most controlled by the intelligence operations in the United States.
That's the accusation.
And so the, let's say, hypothetically, if it was a big brainwashing operation with all of the usual elements in play, so that would include the media, it would include the intelligence people, and the Democrats in general.
If that's the case, and it looks exactly like it is the case, but you know, we don't know details, but it looks like it, you would expect that Google would start manipulating the results I'm not saying they did.
I'm saying this is what you would expect to see.
You would expect to see that if you looked for the Ruby Freeman situation and the details, you would find them under normal circumstance.
You would see what she was alleged to have done, then you would see how she was cleared and the details of why what you thought you saw was not true.
For example, they could show you the original video And then show you the highly edited video and say, okay, this is like the fine people hoax.
You can see what he said, and you can see how they root-barred it, as we call it.
And then you can see for yourself, oh my God, I thought there was something bad happening.
But now that I see that the video, and I see the video has been manipulated, I see I've been fooled.
Now wouldn't that be a really useful thing for a news organization to do?
Given that the news is, There's a complete one, and there's a fake one.
But if you don't have access to one of them, let's say you don't have access to the complete one, don't you think the story should at least say, the part where she, I'm just making this up, but let's say it would say, for example, the part where it looked like she fed the same ballots more than once, perhaps they should say, that didn't happen.
They edited it so you saw the same ballots go through twice, but it was only one time.
They just edited it so it looked like twice.
Right?
Now, I'm not saying that's what happened.
I'm saying that if that was the explanation, it would be right at the top of the story.
It would be almost in the first paragraph, right?
She was accused of running ballots twice, but it was an edit that made it look like they ran twice.
How hard would it be to explain that?
Because that is the story.
Just put it in the top.
But instead they just say it was a highly edited video.
I feel like I needed a little bit more.
Edited in what way?
Did they add something?
Was something added or something subtracted?
So when the story first broke, I remember seeing a story in the news in which an official who understood how the process works for that very voting center Stood there and watched the video in the presence of a news reporter and pointed to what was happening and said, yes, that's totally appropriate.
And then you're like, hey, but that looks sketchy.
And then the official said, that's not sketchy.
This is the normal process.
You're watching the normal process.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Now, I've never seen that again.
But wouldn't that be useful?
Wouldn't you like to see that?
If you're trying to understand what is true and what is not, that would be the most useful thing.
The expert standing there, pointing to the video, and saying, you think that's illegal, but that's actually normal procedure right there.
I can tell you that's normal procedure.
Where's that?
So here's what's missing when I Google it and the NBC News link comes up.
What's missing is, How was this editing done?
To fool us.
And what was the official explanation of specifically why there was no problem?
It's almost like they don't want you to know there was a problem, but here's the catch.
It's like they don't want you to know that there wasn't a problem.
Why would they do that?
If you were an intelligence agency influenced news media, if you were, I'm not saying they are, but if you were, why would you want that story to be unclear when it would be so easy to make it clear?
She's accused of doing this, they edited it to make it look like that, but what she was really doing was running it once.
How hard is that?
Why would it still be unclear to this day?
Here's why, I think.
I think that the Ruby Freeman story was to draw your attention to the weakest part of the story.
I always thought on day one, don't believe that story.
I saw the video like you did.
The moment I saw it, I said, ah, ah, ah, don't believe that.
There's something wrong here.
The reason you would do that is if you can get all the election deniers to focus on Ruby, and then that's the easiest thing to debunk, you have your wimp.
You collect all their information.
It's sort of like the Kraken.
My speculation about the Kraken Is that somebody in the intelligence community fed Cindy Powell a credible sounding lie that she thought she got from such a good source that she could go on TV and say it safely.
And that that was always a trick to give her the weakest story, the most ridiculous story, so that she would go public with the most ridiculous story and it would debunk all of her other credibility that she'd built up over an entire career.
And that's what happened.
Because the story was so ridiculous, it made you think nothing else she says can be believed.
Where do you think she got that story?
Have you ever heard?
Has anybody ever told you where Sidney Powell heard the story about the General?
Has she ever said?
Do you think it might be a source that she trusted to be part of the intelligence community?
Do you think?
Do you think it might have been somebody associated with the intelligence community?
Can you do a fact check?
See if you can find who she says was her source.
I've never seen it reported.
Have you?
It's kind of conspicuously missing from the story.
So what I think is that sometimes the intelligence community gives you a fake piece of evidence, some red meat, to draw all your attention to it because that's not the good one.
Because if there's a good one, or let's say a real, any real problems with the election, All of your attention would be drawn away, you would be completely disgraced by believing it, and then when you started talking about the real one, everybody would say, yeah, yeah, yeah, we've heard from you, disgraced, you know, lying idiot, go back to your hole.
So to me, the Ruby Freeman thing looks like somebody who probably did not, my belief is that she didn't break any laws.
I don't think she did.
Because she was a little bit too public about it, right?
I mean, she was very, you know, upfront.
Like, you know, there's nothing to hide.
I don't think she broke a law.
I think that maybe the rumor started on the right, and then the intelligence people and the left said, let's keep this alive.
Because once this dies, they'll realize that they were in the wrong hole.
That's what I think.
So I think that was part of the op.
Yeah, let's see.
It's the fourth indictment of the year.
That's amazing.
I'll say some other things about that.
Thirteen felonies.
Pushing false claims of fraud.
So apparently it's illegal to have an opinion that you lost.
If you talk about it.
Then there's this weird part where the former publicist for Kanye West was pressuring Ruby Freeman to say that she was part of some conspiracy, but she wouldn't do it.
So that's just like a weird little side thing.
And of course, the whole Trump urge to find enough votes.
Isn't it amazing to you that in the context of believing the election was rigged, and wanting to make sure that the votes were counted properly, and that he lost by around 12,000 votes, and he said, I only need to find 12,000.
That that sounds like mafia talk.
That's the worst mafia talk.
I mean, we should be blaming him for being bad at mafia talk.
Really?
That's your best mafia talk right there?
I can do better mafia talk than that, like with no practice whatsoever.
Hey, you know if you don't find those 12,000 votes, some people might be quite angry at you and you might regret it later.
Now that's mafia talk.
Let me give you not mafia talk.
I only need to find 12,000 of the votes I believe are miscounted.
Oh no, the Mafia's after me!
He wants me to recount the votes, which is the normal process.
We always audit things when we suspect there's a problem.
Oh no, the Mafia!
Was Ruby Freeman's supervisor her daughter?
I think I did see that, but it wouldn't be relevant to anything.
All right.
The scariest part is that, give me a fact check on this, how many of Trump's lawyers are also indicted?
Four?
Although Jenna Ellis may not have been acting as a lawyer, maybe she was more of an advisor in this context, I'm not sure.
But there are at least four people who were as advisors with legal degrees that got indicted, right?
At least four?
If you were a lawyer, how would you feel about that today?
Making it illegal to give legal advice?
Oh, and then Michael Cohen.
Yeah.
So, as others have said, it does look like part of the play is to make it impossible for Trump ever to get good legal representation.
It's because lawyers won't want to work with him.
And also to poison him, if he were to win, it would poison him again, because everybody who seems to be associated with him gets indicted.
Let me say very clearly, I would never work for Trump.
I would never go to work for Trump.
In my wildest stupidity, I would never go to work for him.
And it's not because of Trump.
It's because you're going to get indicted if you work for Trump.
So this threat of, if you work with Trump, you're going to go to jail, that's very real.
That is completely real.
Coward.
Idiot.
Coward.
Somebody's calling me a coward.
You know there's this slight difference between cowardice and fucking stupid?
Do you know what side you're on?
You're on the fucking stupid side if you take that job.
Now, bravery has a place.
Bravery has a place.
Sometimes I go there when there's some payoff that's worthy.
This would just be stupid.
Because they've criminalized being his advisor.
They've criminalized it.
Now, if you thought I wasn't brave, You know I've been talking about Trump for five years, right?
You know that I've lost everything because I have, right?
I mean, not that it's bothering me too much, but you know I lost my entire career and reputation and there are places I can't even travel to because I don't hate Trump.
So fuck you and everything about you for imagining that bravery is part of this conversation.
Fuck you very much.
Go examine yourself.
And the other thing is, figure out who's on your fucking team.
If I'm on your side, give me a little bit of a break, huh?
Just figure out how not to be an asshole, and maybe you can get more people to agree with you.
Coward.
Fucking piece of shit.
Alright.
More mind reading from the NPCs, I guess.
And then part of the charges are that, this is just insane, that the Trump team is allegedly charged with, or indicted, for breaching voting machines in Coffey County.
Breaching voting machines.
Now when you read that, do you say to yourself that it sounds like they were trying to hack the election?
Because they're trying to make it sound like that.
Do you know what really happened?
They were invited to have access to the machines to see if there was any problems.
They were invited to have access by the people who had access.
And they said, oh, we should do this.
I mean, it's just crazy stuff.
Crazy stuff.
By the way, did you see the video clip of Marianne Williamson telling Bill Maher that he sounded like a Republican or a conservative or something?
And he just went at her hard.
So you have to watch it because basically that's what just happened to me.
You know, somebody making a ridiculous claim that's so counterfactual.
And he just, he got in her face.
So you have to watch Bill Maher lean forward and get in her face and tell her, if you want to make this personal about you, we can.
It was fucking awesome.
He actually threatened her.
He actually threatened her.
If you want to talk about you personally, we can do that.
It was awesome.
All right.
And by the way, I thought his reaction was the correct one.
I thought that he should have replied in a very impolite way and aggressively.
And he did.
And he nailed it.
He did that while he was inebriated, so good for him.
All right.
Ben Shapiro points out that The glass seal has been broken and that both sides just being a politician or helping a politician can get you in jail and the Democrats should expect that when Republicans get power, if they do, they will be looking to jail as many Democrats as they can in ways that they normally would not have.
What do you think of that?
Good idea or bad?
Mutually assured destruction?
Does it work that if you have a threat that it works both ways?
Under normal circumstances...
Mutually assured destruction would be appropriate.
Are these normal enough circumstances where simply having a threat of response will work?
I would say no.
I believe we're so far from a normal stable situation that all threats sound like all other threats.
It's just a world of everybody threatening each other.
So no particular threat seems to have a weight because we feel at this point that everybody will do everything they can all the time.
Nobody's holding back, right?
Did you feel like somebody was holding back?
If nobody's holding back, there's nothing to bargain.
Because everybody's all in all the way.
So I don't think that mutually assured destruction works in American politics in 2023-24.
I think that everybody's just doing whatever they can.
And I think that There are people who are legitimately, you know, have been brainwashed to be afraid of Trump, that there's no limits to what fuckery they will be willing to pursue.
No limits at all.
So things are gonna get spicy.
Oh, here's a little aside.
Rasmussen did a poll, found that 48% believe the defeat of Biden would be good for the economy, and only 34% think Biden's defeat would be bad if he gets defeated.
And Trump, four years ago, 58% of voters rated the economy good or excellent.
Wow, that's a lot.
58% said good or excellent when Trump was, that's a high number.
But 44% said it would be good for the economy if Trump was defeated.
So really, you should read this story as just inside politics, people voting for their team.
Because 44 and 14 are not that different.
All right.
What else has happened?
Let's see.
How many of you think that the Georgia indictment is, well, you've already said it's political.
I guess I don't need to ask a different form of that question.
But do you understand that these are state charges?
And therefore, they cannot be pardoned by a future president because the president can only do federal charges.
So does it look to you like they tried to federalize state charges?
Some of these are clearly just state charges, but it does look like they're searching for a way to get them.
I don't know how you can interpret this any other way than they're trying to keep him out of office using lawfare.
I mean, it looks clearly like that.
All right.
What do you think this does for Vivek?
So, do you think it's possible that Trump will be taken out of the election?
I don't know if he'll be convicted of anything, but do you think he'll be taken out as a candidate?
I think he would definitely run for office while he's in jail.
And I'd be happy if he did.
I mean, if he gets the nomination.
But the problem is that if you were hoping that Vivek would be the sword of revenge, he won't be able to pardon him.
Won't be able to pardon him.
But here's what I wonder.
I wonder if the people involved in prosecuting Trump could themselves be arrested for illegal prosecution.
And have we reached a point where you can arrest the people who are doing the arresting, as long as your team is in power?
Is now everybody just arresting the other team anytime they can?
I don't think Vivek would do that, because that would seem like a system destruction move, and he's not the system destruction guy.
But you wonder.
You wonder if somebody would try to do it.
All right.
How many of you think this is going to turn into a positive for Republicans because of the overreach?
Do you think this is such an overreach that it will ever turn into a positive?
I think it's too early to say.
Too early to say.
Yeah, it could.
But definitely the stakes are the highest.
I've seen them.
It's definitely playing into the Republicans' frame that they've weaponized the government.
Do you think that there are no Democrats who understand this as weaponized government?
Do you think that all Democrats see this as just a long overdue legal process?
Or do you think they see it as what it is?
And I feel comfortable in saying what it is in this case, because it's just so obvious.
I don't think there's any, I mean, there's no mystery to it.
I think the TDS is so great, they might actually believe this is legitimate.
The scariest thing is watching people enjoy it.
Did you see the clip of Hillary Clinton learning while she was on MSNBC, learning that the indictments came down?
And she couldn't get the laugh off her face?
Who does that?
Who does that?
Who laughs at somebody being indicted and might go to jail for the rest of his life for this, for political crimes?
And then I saw Mehdi Hassan, who's identified with the left, who said that Quite happily, he said, state crimes can't be pardoned by a president.
In Georgia, even the GOP governor lacks the power to pardon.
And then he says, and this is his words, oh, and just for fun, trials are televised in Georgia.
Just for fun.
Don't you think that he's literally enjoying this as entertainment?
So somehow, this has become entertainment, it's a comedy.
So for half of the country, it's a comedy.
Would you be laughing out loud if Joe Biden went to prison for, you know, collecting money overseas?
I don't think I would find that funny.
Like, I would make my usual, you know, wry commentary about it, because that's what I do.
But, you know, if I'm sitting at home alone, I wouldn't laugh at that.
You're talking about my president, right?
I know it bothers some of you when I say that, but Biden's my president.
If my president goes to jail for anything, that's a bad day.
Even if I want it to happen, it's a bad day.
And watching the delight that people are having with Trump is another tell for what?
What's it a tell for?
Brainwashing, of course.
Yeah, it's brainwashing.
You would not have this reaction if you were operating under your normal, you know, your own feelings.
In order to laugh at this out loud in public, like Hillary did, she has to believe that she's part of a world which would enjoy the same laugh, right?
If she were embarrassed by the laugh, she would have suppressed it.
But she was not only not embarrassed, it was like she was sharing it with you.
Let's all laugh at this, finally!
Yeah, we took him out with lawfare.
Maybe the worst day in American history.
It might be.
This might actually be the worst day in American history.
I mean, you could say that when there was violence, it was worse.
But for a nonviolent day, this might be one of the worst in American history.
But it also might be nothing at all, which is weird.
I can't tell.
This could turn into it helps Trump's campaign.
He raises more money.
The charges get worked through and defeated or postponed.
You know, the legal process will just grind this down until you're just bored with it.
So it could go in any direction.
I don't even have a guess of which way this is going to go.
I assume that the Trump team will beat the charges down over however many years it takes until there's no jail.
But I do think it might absorb all of his time and attention and take him out of the race.
Maybe.
You just can't know.
I do worry that the Democrats know that if they run against Vivek, they got trouble.
But do they know that?
I think the people who are really paying attention might know it.
But I don't think they understand the power he's bringing to this.
If they're looking at him based on his reputation, let's say, he's not been a politician, looks like a newbie.
He's too young, they would say.
So I've got a feeling that they're not taking him seriously.
Polling third, down with the low-end people.
I don't think they see this coming.
If they take Trump off the field, the only thing you should be mad about is that they took Trump off the field.
If the end result is that Vivek uses it as his club to get elected, which he could and would, he would use it as a club and should, then you might come out ahead.
Would you hate having somebody who had Trump-like, let's say, political views But you put it in a younger, less baggage candidate who has a bigger future and in some ways is even more bold than Trump.
Would you say you lost?
You would definitely have lost what I would call some rule of law and some belief in the value of your country.
I mean you'd lose a lot emotionally and intellectually and maybe even legally.
You could end up with a stronger Republican president.
And maybe one of the strongest of all time.
Right?
Because I don't know how many times I'm going to say this until people figure it out.
Vivek is not a normal candidate.
What you're seeing is something we've never seen before.
I said it on the Man Cave yesterday, so I'll say it again.
I think yesterday alone, he had two earned media hits in which the point of the story was, my God, did you see how well he did that?
One was a conversation with an LGBTQ pansexual.
Where you saw the best example of a conservative talking respectfully to somebody with very opposite views and laying out his views in a way that did not look bigoted, did not look like anything but somebody who's trying to figure out what makes sense and what works.
That's it.
No hatred, no bigotry, no attitude.
I just think this works and this doesn't.
And there was a second story, I can't remember what it was, but he once again got the media hits that made you talk.
It wasn't about the border, it must have been about the indictments.
But how many media successes did DeSantis have this week?
None?
And Vivek is one or two per day.
One or two per day!
Nobody's ever done that, right?
Even Trump, when he makes news, it's negative news half the time, right?
The Democrats, at least, are reporting it in a negative way.
But when Vivek makes news, it was because he had the best public conversation with somebody deeply on the other side.
Who does that, right?
Who does that?
You've never even seen it before.
That's like a story you've literally never seen.
In the middle of a primary, where things are the most divided because people are talking to their base, in the middle of a primary, he showed you the high ground with somebody who would presumably have very opposite views, you'd think.
All right.
I'm going to double down on saying that, so Biden has been back from vacation for a few days.
And he's still completely blowing the Maui communication thing to the point where even his spokesperson was visibly embarrassed.
Do you feel that's mind reading or no?
If you watched Jean-Pierre, whatever she is, I can't remember her name.
If you watched the spokesperson, did she look visibly embarrassed at how Biden was handling the Maui thing?
Yeah, Corinne Jean-Pierre.
I thought she looked embarrassed.
How hard is it to embarrass your own spokes-liar?
It's literally her job to conceal the news from the news.
Right?
And she looked embarrassed.
Here's what I think is happening, and all the signals are there.
I believe Joe Biden, and I said this before, but the evidence is mounting.
I believe that Jill Biden told Joe when he was at the beach or during the vacation, I think that's the period that was picked, probably by her and other advisors, to tell him that he just isn't fit to run.
And his response to Maui can only be explained Well, that's the only one I can imagine.
Because he's never been an incapable politician when it comes to, hey, here's an obvious place you should show some empathy.
Everybody can do that.
Everybody.
Everybody in politics, when they see a situation like that, they know what to say.
We're thinking about the victims.
We'll do everything we can.
We're highly engaged.
This should never happen again.
We've got to get to the bottom of it.
Yeah, but mostly you think about the victims today.
How hard is that?
And he couldn't do that.
If he couldn't do that, it's probably not just because of his health and competence, but because he already is out of the job.
So what you should look for is a level of engagement or interest in his job that's so low you can't believe he's even serious about the job anymore.
Because I don't think he is.
So I'm gonna call it I believe the decision has come down.
You just don't know it yet.
I believe the decision is made.
I think he's out.
Now this is speculation, not mind reading.
It's speculation.
So I'm presenting it as, it looks like it's happening based on the evidence.
Mind reading would be, I'm sure he's thinking X. I didn't say that.
I'm saying all the signals are all in the same direction.
That's all.
All right.
What else we got going on here?
That's about it.
So, did you expect me to be angry about the indictments today?
How many of you are surprised that I'm not outraged?
Because I am outraged, but sort of on the inside.
Because part of this feels like we're being suckered into overreacting.
Like January 6th.
January 6th feels like being suckered into overreacting.
The Ruby Freeman story and the fact that the people who say it's not true won't show you the obvious and clear evidence of it not being true.
It's like they want you to be suckered into arguing it.
Just like the Kraken.
It feels like we were being suckered into believing something that would make us look ridiculous later.
And it worked.
So I'm trying not to fall into the same trap of saying, what do you think people are going to say today?
Well, it's a good thing I have my gun.
And next January 6, we'll be back at the Capitol.
Right?
Isn't that what the Democrats would love you to say?
They would love you to say that.
Because then they can, you know, say you're extreme, you're extreme mega, January 6th was exactly what you thought it is, they said they're going to do it again.
This time they say they're really going to overthrow the government, so probably they meant it last time.
So basically, overreacting is giving the bad guys everything they want.
If you're going to overreact, do it with your wallet.
Just do it quietly.
Just do it with your wallet.
Don't do it with your ammo.
I'm seeing that comment.
Don't make comments about the Second Amendment.
Just don't.
Because... Let me explain to you what a Republican actual revolution would look like.
It would look like Republicans getting really quiet.
That's when you need to be afraid.
I'm not going to be afraid until Republicans stop talking.
As soon as they stop talking, you better hide.
But right now, they're talking plenty.
So we're definitely in the talking, you know, we're well into just talking.
And we could stay there.
I think it'll be talking plus lawyers, etc.
But don't give them what they want.
What they want is for you to act like a crazy asshole.
And then they go, oh, crazy.
Vote for our team.
They're all crazy.
They're showing it now.
All we're doing is showing that nobody's above the law.
Nobody's above the law.
That was the thing I was looking for.
Did I really not write that down?
I was writing down the things that you can tell are an op.
So they're going to say, the walls are closing in.
You can help me on this.
The walls are closing in.
Nobody's above the law.
Give me the other ones.
Oh, what do you do with your wallet is you support your candidate that you want to support.
Worse than Watergate.
It's worse than Watergate.
These are all the tells for a brainwashing operation.
So, let me arm you with this.
The next time you see online, and it'll take you about a minute, somebody's gonna say, nobody is above the law.
Here is the response to that.
Absolutely, nobody is above the law.
But also, the law is not above the Constitution.
Eh?
The law is not above the Constitution.
Checkmate.
Checkmate.
The law is not above the Constitution.
So those who are saying that Trump is not above the law, absolutely.
He's not above the law.
And the law is not above the Constitution.
Don't lose sight of that.
And I don't know if the Constitution says that Trump is not allowed to talk.
Do you remember, you know, I'm no expert on the Constitution.
Is there a part of the Constitution that says the President is the only person who's not allowed to give his opinion in public?
Well, apparently there's a law that says you can't, according to some legal people.
Disagreement on that, but... 39th Amendment.
Do not lose sight that the law is not above the Constitution.
That's why you have the Supreme Court.
The whole point is that the Supreme Court will tell you when your laws aren't doing it.
All right.
Borky met it.
All right.
All right, give me your state of mind right now.
So those who are leaning right, tell me your state of mind.
Okay, Juan, I see that.
Calm, numb.
You know, numb is a little bit what I'm feeling.
I'm feeling overwhelmed with fuckery.
I mean, there's so much badness in all these stories that I don't even know where to focus my anger.
I have badness, there should be a name for this, something like outrage diversification or, no, what do you call it when something's watered down?
Dilution.
It's outrage dilution.
Not overload, dilution.
Because you know you should be outraged at all the individual items, but they're just too much.
Just too much.
Outrage, delusion.
That's where we are.
So, put your outrage into your wallet if you're going to support a candidate, because apparently money makes a difference.
You can have some small influence on events.
But also make sure that you're presenting this correctly.
You're framing it correctly.
If anybody thinks it's not a political event, I wouldn't get into the weeds with them.
Because you wouldn't really be talking about a serious person at that point.
That would just be an NPC or team player or something.
So I wouldn't get into the weeds about the details with anybody who thinks these are real crimes.
And by the way, I don't know if they're real crimes or not, but I know that under normal circumstances, there would be no charges.
All right.
Yeah.
Feeling thirsty?
Well, The way I'm going to play this is as a play-by-play announcer, and I'm just going to call out the brainwashing machinery.
So, as I've been telling you ad nauseum, the one thing that's different about this year and the last, really, maybe the last two years or so, is that we've started to see the machinery of all the, you know, how everything works.
So we know how the fine people hoax was done.
We know how to do a Rupar.
We do the cover-up smear.
We know that the anonymous source is never real.
So there's a lot of the mechanics that we can see now.
And this is the best example you'll see.
Once you understand mechanics, you'll be able to spot them all.
So watching the nobody's above the law stuff, that's your sign of a I mean, it's obviously an op.
It's obviously coordinated.
And it's obviously doing exactly what the charges say Trump did.
So I would say that there is a conspiracy theory going on right now.
What's the RICO word?
A Ricoh-like conspiracy that would include obviously the media, the Democrats, Iraq, the Democrats, and obviously intelligence entities, at least entities, people within, I mean, and it appears that they have conspired to use lawfare to take Trump out of the election.
Is that description not obviously what you're saying?
You're saying a organized attempt To use a non-political process, the legal system, to stretch the law beyond where reasonable people think it should be stretched, to stay maybe technically within the law, but that this is just an op.
And that it should be illegal and they should all be arrested, based on the legal theory that they're presenting about Trump.
Now, have we ever seen this?
I don't know if I've ever mentioned this, that they do to you exactly what they're doing.
They accuse you of what they're doing.
It appears they're accusing Trump of trying to change the election, but it's in the context of them conspiring to change the results of an election for the second or third time in public.
Because the Russian collusion hoax, under the same theory, they should all be in jail.
So Hillary should be in jail, etc.
Under the legal theory they're putting forward.
What about the laptop hoax?
Nobody went to jail for that.
Because there's no crime committed.
Do you know why there was no crime committed with the laptop thing?
Even though it was an organized conspiracy to change the election?
Because they had free speech.
Apparently you can say something, anything you want, as long as it's your opinion.
Yeah, it was presented as opinion.
But Trump's opinion is gonna put him in jail.
But not those 50 Intel people who clearly knew they were lying.
Well, I won't read their minds.
I'll say of the 50 or so Intel people, one assumes that most of them knew they were lying.
One assumes.
Can't know what they were actually thinking.
And that's only because I'm giving them credit for being reasonably smart.
I'm not giving them credit for being honest, but I think they're smart enough to know that it was, you know, that they were covering for something.
Some had to know, we just don't know which ones.
Yeah, Nordstrom is having a 100% off sale in San Francisco.
You can just go take where you are.
Up to $950.
100% off sale.
I just copied that from the comments.
Not my joke, but it's pretty good.
All right.
If you saw my show yesterday, you know I did a little segment within it with my whiteboard.
So I've clipped that and I'm going to retweet that today.
So if you see that and you liked it when you saw it on the whiteboard, did anybody like it enough to retweet it?
Do you know what I'm talking about?
About the glass ceiling for black American kids?
They don't have as easy access to imitating successful people.
Yeah.
All right.
So I'll make that available if you want to send it around.
But I think the news cycle is going to wipe out anything that's not Trump related.
