Episode 414 Scott Adams: The Mueller Non-Report, Wall Funding, Russian Oligarchs, GND Vote

Hey, everybody, come on in here. Get out in here. Come on, Gather around, grab your beverage. Because even though it's a rainy day here in California, it's time for coffee with Scott Adams. And it's time for you to get in here and grab your mug, grab your cup, your stein, your vessel, your chalice, your thermos, if you will, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the simultaneous sip. Oh, yeah, that's the good stuff. So I hope that many of you saw my Periscope from yesterday afternoon in which I talked to Naval Ravikant and I used the new periscope feature where you can add a guest. So we talked for an hour and a half, and it's probably, no, definitely the most interesting 90 minutes I've ever spent in my life. It was. It was so much fun. Oh, darn. It appears that I'm still in guest mode now. When you're in guest mode, it doesn't give a notification to Twitter automatically. So I didn't notice that I was starting this in guest mode. So there will be fewer people here today because they will not be getting their notifications or something like that. But anyway, the talk with Naval yesterday was so good that I listened to it as a. Just as an audience member after it was done. So after an hour and a half of talking to him live, an hour later, I played the entire hour and a half again for my own entertainment. It was great all the way through. So if you don't watch anything else this year, watch that. You might have to go to my periscope to see it too. Or actually I tweeted it. So it's on my Twitter feed now. All right, let's talk about a few things in the news. So apparently this just blows my mind, but the President's ex lawyer Dowd, on an interview yesterday, said that he doesn't think Mueller will reproduce a report. To which I said, what? And he said, literally, there may be no report. He might just say, okay, I'm done, and that's it. Because if there's nothing illegal, nothing to follow up on, no need for a report, because apparently the law does not require a report. Think about that. The law doesn't require a report. So according to somebody who's close to it and who has seen a lot of the evidence and has a good idea that nothing's going to come out of it, says he doesn't think there will be a report. It's totally mind blowing. How in the world did we get to February 13, 2019. And for the first time we're hearing, you know, that Mueller report. Maybe not. There's no reason he has to give a report. He might give a report, maybe he won't. That was just mind blowing that we got all the way here and it's the first time we're hearing that. So it is looking more and more certain that the Mueller Russia collusion thing will be a big nothing, as I and most of you predicted. All right, let's talk about the wall funding. So the Wall committee, which spit it in the face of the voters, and there's just no other way to put it, the committee that worked on the wall funding absolutely disrespected the voters by producing nothing that shows us what the experts said and then compared it to what they decided to do. Without that, they didn't do anything. They didn't do anything. You can respect. They didn't do anything. You should back. They didn't do anything. That's a good job. And they all deserved to lose their jobs. So they should all be voted out, both Republicans and Democrats. It was a big old waste of time. No, I don't think that'll happen. But I'm just saying that they have let us down completely. This is as a complete failure as you could even imagine. You couldn't even draw it up on paper as more of a complete failure. What I mean by that is that they had experts. They have experts, and they're trying to figure out what to do that makes sense. And if they're not showing the public, here's what the experts say, here's what we're going to do and why it's different. If it's different, they've done nothing. Complete waste of time. Now, there's some thought that the President might sign it. Anyway, here's the funny part, Here's the funny part about all this, and I think this is going to be maybe hilarious. Funny doesn't even cover it. This might be hilarious, and here's why. So the way we've been thinking up until now, literally until today, we've been thinking that either this committee will give Trump his money, or the other plan is that Trump would do something unilaterally. And apparently there are several ways he can do that. One of those ways is a declaring an emergency totally within his powers, totally normal. It's something presidents do all the time and would totally take care of things. You know, there's always going to be a legal challenge, but it appears fairly straightforward that he could do that. And then There are a couple other budgets that he has access to as well. Now, is that what we got? Did we get a binary situation in which either the plan is approved with way less money than he asked for, or he does an emergency declaration? Nope. It's way better than that. It turns out, and I'm not making this up, I'm pretty sure this is true. He can sign the bill, take the money they gave him, and then declare an emergency, too, and have both. There's nothing that stops him. There's nothing. There's no prohibition. There's no law. I don't think there's any legal obstacle whatsoever. He can take all of their money, which is way less than he asked for, start building, say, these guys are idiots. I don't respect their output. I don't agree with it. It's not best for the country. But I'll take their money. Why wouldn't I take their money? Why would you not take their money? That. That wouldn't make sense. Take the money and then do what you got to do. So it's the funniest outcome. For some reason, I don't know why this never occurred to me. And I think it has to do with the way the news coverage tries to make everything a team sport, you know, that there's no such thing as, you know, partly winning or, you know, coming together. It's always who won, who wins, who loses. But I think that he can take the W and still win. I mean, he can take the L. You know, he can lose on the negotiations and still win if he wants to. We'll see if that. If it goes that way. Now, the other funny part about that is, apparently El Chapo got convicted. I assume there's some money that gets confiscated from El Chapo. I don't know. Do we have it already, or we can get it. Not sure how that works. But in general, what would keep the president from going after the cartels and their money and just using it to build the wall? Because that wouldn't be making Mexico pay for the wall. So even if most of the money doesn't come from El Chapo, I keep hearing this, $14 billion that El Chapo has, but I don't imagine we can get our hands on it. You know, I don't imagine that we can just, you know, subpoena his money or whatever the hell lawyers do, but there's probably a whole bunch of other cartel people who have a whole bunch of other money, and we're probably seizing that money on a regular basis. It would Be hilarious to just say, all right, everything we seize, that's an asset that has some kind of a Mexico connection that goes toward the wall. I don't know if anybody would. Somebody says, our government already confiscated it. If that's true and the President decides to use that money, it would be hilarious. Now, apparently, that is one of the sources, meaning that confiscated. Confiscated drug money is explicitly one of the sources that Trump has control over. So he actually can use money. I don't know how much is El Chapo money? People here are saying that we already got 14 billion. I would say that's not confirmed by me, but that's what people are saying in the comments. All right, here's some other funny things happening today. So, apparently, the United States has drawn up a list of Russian oligarchs who are close to Putin. And it's basically. It's exactly. Not basically. It's exactly the same as Forbes list of the richest Russians. So we now have this list where we put these Russian oligarchs on notice. What are we doing with the list? This is the funny part. Nothing. We just made a list of all the oligarchs, and we said, hey, all you oligarchs, you're now on our list. And the oligarchs are saying, wait a minute, wait a minute. Why am I on the list? What's the list do? Nothing. It's just a list. But we're watching you, and you're on our list now. So apparently just being on the list, which is really our way of saying, you're just on the list now, but you could be sanctioned. You're on the first part of the process to sanction you. It might be enough that people will stop doing business with them. Like it's in their head. It's a total mind game. So it's a psychological play, which is kind of brilliant. I love it. It doesn't cost us anything. We literally just made a list. There's nothing legal about it. There's nothing threatening directly about it. It's just a list. But if you're on that list, there's a pretty good chance, pretty good chance that some bad is coming your way if you don't shape up. And apparently even Putin said, what's all this list about? We don't even know what this is about. So it's a total mind game. But it's backed by real potential for escalation to being sanctioned and banned from travel and all kinds of stuff. So it's a. Hilariously, I'm not going to say it's effective, because we don't know that yet. But it's a hilariously good risk management on the part of the United States, because what did it cost us to make a list? It basically is free. You know, it's risk free. We just made a list of oligarchs. Hey, it's just a list. I'm just telling you. We're just looking at our list. Oh, you're on the list. Don't know what that means, but I wouldn't want to be on this list, let me tell you. Here's a list. I wouldn't want to be on that list. You know what I mean? You know what I mean? I'm not saying we're doing anything with the list. It's just a list, but I wouldn't want to be on it. So that's making me laugh this morning. All right, what's even funnier than that? What's even funnier than that is McConnell taking the green New Deal to a vote. Did you see that news? Now that's funny. All right, so let me give you some background. So the Green New Deal, as you know, is the aoc and Senator Markey, I guess, co sponsored it. And the end, it's got all these pie in the sky ideas about, you know, getting rid of fossil fuels and making everybody happy and moving us towards socialism, et cetera. Now, the defining characteristic of the Green New Deal is that it's thoroughly impractical and very popular among the Democrats, at least the ones running for President and about 70 others, I think. So McConnell, with this Shitt eating grin that he can't get off his face, says he's going to take it to a vote. Now why this is funny is that the only purpose of the vote, and he says so, is to get people on record because the plan is so ridiculous in terms of being a practical set of steps. It's so impractical that he thinks it's hilarious to make the Democrats commit to being on that team because it's so attackable that it's literally just funny. It's just funny that he's doing this. And I have to admit, I was never, you know, until the era of Trump, I was not a big Mitch McConnell fan. But people said, yeah, he's really good at what he does and, you know, he's very effective and stuff. And I was always saying, well, you know, I don't care. He's not necessarily doing the things I want him to do anyway. So he wasn't really on my Radar. But since watching him operate in the era of Trump, I have to say whether, whether you love or hate what he does. Damn, he's good. What do you say? He seems really good, like, effective, you know, in the same way that Nancy Pelosi is. I've said the same thing about Nancy Pelosi. I think Mitch McConnell and Pelosi are a plus politicians in terms of, you know, their effectiveness. I'm not sure Schumer's on same level as either Pelosi or McConnell. So that is hilarious. He's going to bring it to a vote just to show how stupid it is. Now, I, of course, have said that the Green New Deal is brilliant as persuasion. So it's brilliant persuasion because it's this big pie in the sky stuff, free things. It's bold, it gets your attention. So on all the levels of persuasion, it's just great. But when you come down to let's make a law out of it, there's just nothing there. And it's going to be a wonderful way to shine light on the nothingness. All right, Jennifer Rubin, who writes for the Washington Post, who is widely considered the least credible journalist in all of journalism. Would you say that's true? Is there anybody less credible as a journalist than Jennifer Rubin? I put her right at the top of the least. The least believable of all the journalists anyway. So if you saw that Beto had his. Oh, is somebody saying Jim Acosta. Yeah. No, I don't know. I don't see Jim Acosta as a journalist because he's more of a TV personality. Right. But of the people who write articles, I would say Jennifer Rubin would be the least, least credible writer who's working today. And she, she has some comments about Beto. Beto o' Rourke or Beto. Beto. Beto. And, you know, Beto did his, his deal. And there's this perfect example of the two movies playing on one screen. So Jennifer Rubin referred to his speech as soaring rhetoric. He had soaring rhetoric. Sounds almost like Martin Luther King, right? Sounds. Sounds almost like, I don't know, Abraham Lincoln with his soaring rhetoric. He's lifting us above our small problems with his soaring rhetoric. Now, that's what one movie looks like. That he was. He was a Kennedy. He was. He was. His soaring rhetoric inspired us all at the same time. Max Boots, wife, I forget her name, tweeted. Was it. Was it she that tweeted? No, it wasn't. I'm mixing up stories. Somebody tweeted to me, so I won't assume it Was her. But somebody tweeted that he looked like a college boy on coke. And I thought, he doesn't. You know, I didn't even look at the clip before I thought I heard that somebody goes, he looks like he's on coke, and he's, you know, some frat boy jumping around awkwardly on coke. And I thought to myself, he doesn't look like that. And then I played the clip, and you play the clip, and I'm thinking to myself, he looks exactly like a frat boy on coke. Now, I'm not saying he was on coke, so I want to be clear. I'm not making an accusation he was under the influence of any kind of drug. I'm only saying he sure looked like he was under the influence of drugs. Maybe that's just his personality. But what I saw did not look like soaring rhetoric. There were big words, but it kind of looked disturbing. Sort of a hyper doofus. And, yeah, he was sort of jumpy and hyper, and his body was going around and beto ho, coke. All right, let's be careful. Let's not make any accusations, all right? We're not making any accusations. There's no evidence of any of anything like a drug use. So I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that if you're looking at it and somebody's already put that in your head, it's hard to get it out of your head, because when you're looking at it, you're. I don't know what he's really on or if he's on anything, but he sure looks like it, which was funny. All right? And there's not much else happening today except the CNN ran this long, boring article about things that the Trump administration has claimed about Mueller investigations, you know, various things about the Don Jr. Meeting and blah, blah, blah. And they run this big article of things that they had said once and then things that they said later that are different than what they said the first time. And I tried to read it, and it was just. It was unreadably boring. It was unreadably unnecessary, because on some level, you knew that, okay, the story is changing. Blah, blah, blah. What difference does it ever make to any of us? Doesn't make any difference. You know it's true. You know, the report, I'm sure, is true. They showed their sources. Here's what they said this time, here's what they said later. But I just couldn't find myself caring because just being true is not really enough to make it news. And there's like scratching for the last, the last little grains of stuff they can get out of this Mueller report while it's still active. Oh, then apparently Cory Booker is coming out against against barbecue. So Cory Booker has eliminated himself from any chance of becoming president by, by being anti meat. Apparently he's a vegan. Now I do not disagree with his dietary choices. So in terms of whether that would be good for the world or good for people, he may be ahead of his time. But in terms of a political message, man, is that a loser. The odds of the United States electing a vegan to president is about the same as electing what would be less like an atheist. The odds of an atheist becoming president are equal to the odds of a vegan becoming president. Hitler was a vegan. There's a Hitler analogy for everything. All right, he's a twig. Get bug eyes. Never even heard of a vegan to live past 90. Well, that might be because there aren't any vegans who started long enough ago that they would be 90. I think you might be, might be looking in the wrong place for that. All right, any thoughts on Andrew Yang for 2020? Not really. He hasn't, he hasn't told us enough about him, but could be interesting. All right, I'm going to keep this short today because I have nothing else to say. And you should all watch the interview with Naval. If you haven't watched that, that's the one to watch. It'll make your head spin in ways you never imagined. Sam Harris for president and atheist vegan. Well, that would be interesting. All right. Oh, let me give you one update on. An update on climate science. So now that I've tested out successfully this new Periscope feature where I can have a guest, I am planning to bring some one or more climate scientist experts on the show to have them battle it out. Now, I think the best format would be to have a pro and a con with me as the, let's say, as the host and I'm trying to decide who that would be. My first choice for the climate science critics would be Tony Heller and my I don't have a first choice for a pro climate scientist alarm. So if there's somebody who would like to suggest themselves as the person to debate. I haven't, by the way, I haven't asked Tony Heller, but based on other conversations online, I would assume he'll say yes. But I haven't asked him yet. If he does say yes, I would like to figure to find somebody who is the equivalent level of Knowledge and somebody who could be on this periscope at the same time. Bill Nye. That would be interesting. You know, the trouble is I would want. I would want Tony's adversary to be the strongest adversary possible, because I'm not sure Bill Nye has the gravitas that, you know, if the, let's say the debate didn't go his way, people would say to me, well, that's because it was Bill Nye. Get a. Get an actual scientist. Somebody saying skeptic, Bjorn Lombard, he would be great to talk to, but he's not a skeptic in the classic sense. The classic skeptic would say there's something wrong with the way you did the science. So that would be Tony Heller's position, that you've measured things wrong or you've, you know, you've, you're doing your science wrong. Lombards Lomborg's position is that we haven't done the economics. Right. Essentially, he's basically saying that the economics are not that bad, so don't get so worried. And that's a great message and he could be a great guest, but he's not the right person to talk the science with Tony Heller. Now, here's where I'm heading with all this. Where I'm heading is I'm trying to figure out the few, let's say, fewer than five claims that the skeptics make that are their best five skeptical claims. Right. Because the trouble is there's so many of them. There are just, you know, dozens, literally dozens of skeptical claims. You know, Judith Curry would be great as well. And I have to look into that a little bit more. She would be a great person to invite, and I might do more than one of these because it might take more than one to get to it. But if I could get just five claims that are the strongest ones, the ones that the skeptics would die on that hill. In other words, if the five things are true, then the skeptics win. And if those five things are debunked, we can ignore the other 25 skeptical claims. Right. If the top five fall apart, then I'm not even going to look at the rest of them. So I'm going to try to limit it to the best ones and see if we can focus our fire on those and try to come to some kind of understanding. All right, I will talk to you all tomorrow.