Episode 753 Scott Adams: The Incompetence-Coup, Drug Cartels, Fake News, One Term Biden

Hey, everybody, come on in here. Get in here. Will there be cursing today? Well, I don't know. It's early. I can't tell yet. Sneaks up on me. But one thing I do know is that the people who are nimble of finger, the people who woke up early, you are available for the simultaneous sip. It's one of the best things ever. And all you need, you know, all you need is a cup of margarita glasses, snifflers tine can, chalice, tankard, thermos, flask, canteen, grill, goblet vessel of any kind, Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. The simultaneous sip. Go. Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes. I would like to start out with an impression, and this will be my impression of what I call Don Lemon Face. Now, Don Lemon face is not limited to CNN anchor Don Lemon. It's sort of a CNN face, but Don Lemon does it the best. And I was watching him do it in which he was talking about the Trump campaign. Put out a. Put out a meme showing Trump as Thanos from the movie, one of the Avengers movies, where he snaps his fingers and all the seven impeachment democrats disappear into dust. And I would like to do Don Lemon face my impression, which is how you turn a perfectly funny meme, which has no real meaning in the world except it's funny, into a dreadful, dreadful thing. All right, here is. Here is a normal person looking at a humorous meme. That's pretty good. Pretty good. Did you catch that? That's a normal person watching a funny meme. I'll do it again. Watch. It's pretty good. It's sort of subtle, probably. Don't laugh out loud. You're just looking at your phone or your computer. Now, I'd like to give an impression of Don Lemon having just viewed the same meme on live tv. What? What? What is wrong with them? What? What? Now, the key to it, if you'd like to do Don Lemon face at home, the key to it is all up here. This part of your face right above the nose. You need to get the wrinkle. See, this is. This is non Don Lemon face. And then this is the wrinkle there. Keep the wrinkle. You got to get a couple good wrinkles there. Your eyes need to look sad. Keep the mouth down. Keep the mouth down. Like this. What? What? All right. I hope you've all learned that that's called Don Lemon face. And it's how you turn something funny into something horrible. Horrible. Now I'd like to show you that you can do Don lemonface for almost anything. It works for every object. I'll find a random object on my desk here. All right, here's a bottle of water. Here would be normal face when having a bottle of water. Oh, bottle of water. Think I'll taste my bottle of water. Good water. Okay, that's normal face. Now, I wanted to give you Don Lemon face when you've been given some water from a Trump campaign. What? I don't know what to say. Oh, my God, are we children? I mean, water. Are you serious now? Water. All right, I think that's enough of that. Possibly too much. So here's my big. So the funniest thing when there's news like there was yesterday is watching the losing team try to explain it. Now, the losing team in this case is CNN and everybody on the left who's been promoting various fake news for, I guess three. So CNN always trots out their opinion people to try to paper over the fake news. And Stephen Collinson is my favorite 1 favorite because his opinion pieces are so laughably absurd that they read like humor to me. And I'm not even joking. I actually read them all the way through and I'm giggling the whole time because of how much work he has to do to turn good things into bad things and vice versa. So this is a sentence from Stephen Collinson's article. Today, Donald Trump is looking to survive impeachment the same way he built his powerful presidency by assaulting facts and seeking to expand the limitations of the office he is accused of abusing. Does that sound even slightly similar to the major news of yesterday? When you hear this sentence, does that map to what you experienced yesterday when you watched the news? Because I did not see the President expanding the limitations of his office. Of course he's always assaulting facts, but I don't know which one in particular because it does seem to me that the Horowitz thing pretty much, pretty much completely cleared Devin Nunes view of what the findings would be, completely showed that Adam Schiff was lying about what he saw before we got to see the full Horowitz report. So now that you know with complete clarity that the some of the worst claims that the president was making about the FBI were all true. All true. What do you do with that? So CNN is spinning and looking for some way to make this a bad thing for the President, but it's not. Now, you may have noticed that yesterday I was in a bad mood. Anybody catch that? Some of you may have noticed I was little bit. A little bit mad. And I was trying to examine why it was that I was so mad yesterday. And I actually didn't know. I was actually wondering if it was, you know, some, some cold meds I'd taken or what it was. And so I went back and I looked at the, the video clip that triggered me. It was a video clip of the seven Democrats pretending to be sad while they announced the impeachment. Impeachment grounds, I guess. And here, I guess what's bothering me. When President Trump fails the fact checking, it's because he's failing a fact, an actual fact. So in other words, he says a fact and then the fact checkers say, no, the fact is this. So there's a difference in a fact. And I've said this often, but when the President does that, it's either a trivial difference, meaning in the real world it doesn't make any difference, or it's directionally correct. In other words, you might exaggerate something that's good or exaggerate something that's bad, but that's good leadership style. If you're a leader, it does help. In other words, it's just useful for the job of leader to exaggerate what you did well, so people have confidence and they think the economy is going to be doing well and they invest. And likewise, it's good to exaggerate what's going wrong so that people will pay attention and they'll put resources there, etc. So the way the President fails the fact checking is in a way that is either benign or useful. Typically, I'm sure maybe somebody can find an exception. But as a general rule, of his 13,000 or so violations of the fact checking, they're either benign or leadership useful. Now, compare that to what Adam Schiff did, which is read the investigation materials ahead of time and then completely lie about it. Just blatantly lie about what was in it, while Devin Nunes read the same materials. And now we know that's confirmed that Devin Nunes was completely accurate, mostly about the FISA abuse. And now that we know that, compare Adam Schiff's lie to the way the President fails the fact checking. Was Schiff's lie unimportant? It was not. It was really, really important. We're talking about lies that could pull apart the entire Republic. Were they directionally correct? In other words, were they moving the country in a positive direction? Not even a chance, because everything was going well. The economy was going well, etc. Removing a sitting president, especially this close to an election, is all bad. There's no good in that. And the transparent, really stupid lie that the Democrats are telling is, well, we've got to be careful, because he's going to use another country again to try to try to rig the election is the weakest rationalization anybody ever heard. So I don't think you can compare the President's continuous departure from the facts, which he even labels as hyperbole. I mean, he told us before he was elected, literally wrote a book called the Art of the Deal, in which he says, in clear language, I use hyperbole. Hyperbole works really well. And then he used it in the election and he won, and then he uses it as president, and things are going really well in the economy in general. Now. This is a long way of saying, here's what I figured out about what bothered me so much about the seven dwarfs, the Democrats who announced impeachment. What bothered me was they weren't lying about facts. Because when you lie about facts, that just feels routine, doesn't it? You know, if you see a politician lying about facts, doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican, you kind of just brush that off, right? Because you're like, you know, you brush that off. But here, I think, is what was bothering me. The Democrats were not, at least in that announcement about the impeachment articles, they were not lying about facts because they weren't really presenting facts. They were lying emotionally. What I mean was there were seven people that, you know, were glad to be there and glad to be announcing impeachment for the President. They'd been working for three years to make it make it happen, and they were actually lying with their faces about their emotions. Congressman Tom Reed, again, thank you for your time. Stop it. Phone, phone. Stop it. And I wanted to call up a picture of this so you could actually see the seven of them because they all had to work hard at unhappy face. And I have to tell you that there's. The way it registers with me is completely different. If you lie about a fact while doing the job of politician, what is your impression about that? Well, the first thing I say is, is it hyperbole in the right direction? Is it a trivial lie? It's just something somebody says to bolster their record or whatever? Simple, factual lies don't mean a lot in politics because we. We just discount them. But an emotional lie makes me want to kill them. Not really. Nobody should get killed. I'm just saying that from a. Just a biological reflex when I see all seven of them lying emotionally, to pretend that it's a solemn moment when you know it's not, that doesn't. It doesn't hit me the same way. That feels much the way. Let me give you an example. When you go to buy a car, you know how the dealer always lies to you to your face? I hate buying cars. Now, I'm capable of negotiating. Well, you know, I can do it. But I hate the process more than I hate any other fake commercial process. And the reason is that the car salesman looks you right in the eye and lies to you while he knows that you know he's lying to you. That's not the same as anything else. Because usually when you lie, you've got some expectation that the person is at least uncertain. Well, it might be true, or maybe they believe it. That would be an ordinary lie. But when you know somebody's lying, and this is the part that gets me, they know that you know they're lying right to you, right to your face. I don't know if we can do this. We're losing money on this deal. I'd better talk to my manager in the back. I. I'd like to get you the deal. I'm going to do what I can with my manager to try to get you the good deal. Now, when the car dealer lies to you like that, he's lying to you in facts, but he's also lying to you emotionally. He's looking you right in the eye and pretending that he's working for you instead of himself and his boss. You know none of that's true. You know it with complete certainty. There's no ambiguity in that situation whatsoever. And so there's going to be a little swearing coming up. Are you ready? If you got, you know, young ones at home, earmuffs on. Won't be a lot of swearing in this one, but when I'm talking about car salesmen, I fucking hate them, all right? So I don't have that reaction to anybody else in the commercial world. If I'm negotiating with somebody, which I do all the time. Even being a cartoonist, I had lots of contracts and negotiations and of course you know that the other side is exaggerating and playing their case and you know, you're doing your thing all normal. But the car dealer looks you right in the eye and lies to you when you know he's lying and you know he knows you're lying. And he lies emotionally, factually. That fucking asshole I hate him every time. I've never bought a car without walking out. Absolutely fucking hating the salesperson every time. So that's the experience that I had watching the seven Democrats. It was like the car salesman pretending, oh, I'm working for you. I'm going to try to get you in a good car. Oh, fuck. All right, so I'll try to calm down. Can you see what it did to me? Like, I was completely in a good mood before I even started talking about that topic. But when people lie to you emotionally and you know they're lying to you emotionally and they won't drop the act, I just have no use for them. I have no use for them. The Democrats now are saying that multiple impeachments are likely. In other words, if this one doesn't work, they'll just queue up another one. Doesn't that dismiss the entire system as nothing but bs? I mean, even if you were on the fence and you thought to yourself, well, maybe there's something to this impeachment stuff, wouldn't that tell you there's nothing to it? Isn't that all you need to know? So let's talk about a few other things. Representative Matt Gaetz continues to be the most entertaining Republican who is not named President Trump. He had a line and a tweet that was really good. If you remember the, the testimonies the other day in the House Judiciary Committee. And one of the people testifying was actually a major Democratic donor, which is mind boggling when you think about it, that there was a lawyer there who was a major donor to the Democratic group party, trying to pretend as if he's just being a lawyer that day. And here's how Matt Gaetz describes it in his tweet. He said, gates goes, where I'm from, you stand behind your work. If Representative Adam Schiff really believes the president should be impeached, Schiff should have shown up and taken our questions. Instead, it was, quote, take your donor to work day in the House Judiciary Committee. Take your donor to work day. That's really good. Take your donor to work day. The reason that's good is that you read it and then you chuckle about it for an hour later because it's like, oh, that's pretty good. Take your donor to work day. All right, so keep an eye on Matt Gates, because he's going to be your president someday. Don't know when, but someday. You should read an article in Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi. Matt Taibbi, as you know, is. Well, he's In a small group of, I don't know, on the planet Earth, There are what, 7 billion people or so? There are probably five or maybe six people on the entire planet who are capable of writing an objective article about politics. Seriously, I'm not even joking. There might be five or six people on the whole stupid planet of 7 billion people who are even capable, much less willing, but just capable of writing an objective article. So he did it again. Every time Matt Taibi writes something, if I see it, I'm probably going to recommend it because it's just such good writing. So he called out one. He's really good at getting to the central heart of things. And, you know, yesterday was very confusing because the news was just this dense wall of claims and counterclaims. And so waiting for somebody like Taibbi to pull out the things that are worth knowing is really good practice because he's sort of. He's penetrating the complexity. And because he's such a good writer, he can find the way to simplify it to the parts you want to know. Here's an example. This is from Taibi's article in Rolling Stone. He says in one episode, an FBI attorney inserted the words quote, not a source in an email he'd received from another government agency. This disguised the fact that Page, talking about Carter Page, had been an informant for that agency. What? Somehow I missed this yesterday. I think I sort of heard it, but maybe I didn't. You know, there was just so much going on. I heard it, and it just got lumped in with all of the things I was hearing. But there was an actually FBI attorney keyword attorney, who inserted the words. In other words, this was a choice, not an oversight. He put into a document that wasn't already there the words not a source, when that was exactly the opposite of what Carter Page was. He had been a source. And if the paperwork had known that all along, in other words, if the FISA court had known that along, it could have changed their opinion of things. It certainly would have changed my opinion of things. And then that attorney's email got passed along and ended up being part of the process for the FISA warrant against Page. Now, there are some things you could look at and say to yourself, well, maybe that's incompetence, and maybe this is incompetence. The thing you can't rule out is that this FBI attorney didn't know. It's possible. I mean, maybe you didn't know, but certainly this is either. Well, here's the thing. If the FBI attorney Didn't know if Carter Page had ever been a source. If he didn't know, how could he be sure that he wasn't? So somebody says it was a typo. Well, maybe possible. So I suppose it could have been a mistake, but that one you really have to pay attention to. And then I had not heard this exact quote from the Horowitz report because, you know, all the talk is about whether the Steele dossier was essential or non essential. And this is what Horowitz said, Quote, we determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 9th played a central and essential role in the FBI and Department's decision to seek the FISA order. It was central and essential, meaning it wouldn't have happened without it. That is a big deal because we know now that the Steele dossier was completely debunked and fairly early on. And then the Horowitz report, this is, according to Taibi said, is especially hostile to Schiff's claim that the FBI provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting. In other words, that was an absolute and complete lie from Schiff. Now, Schiff stood in front of the country and told these lies multiple times, I believe. And these are lies that could actually destroy the Republic. Here's my question, Congress, what are you doing about Adam Schiff? Now, I've heard all the claims against the president and I've dismissed them as largely unimportant. But somebody says you're lying, Scott. Well, I'm not. But you just got banned. Goodbye. All right, I could be mistaken, but I'm certainly not lying. All right? And so I asked that question again. So there's this character who we know with complete certainty now, Adam Schiff, we know that he was lying. We know that he knew he was lying because it's obvious what he looked at, and then it's obvious what he said he looked at, which is just effort. So we know he's been lying now for years and that the net effect of that was to almost remove a president from office and to put the country into terrible turmoil. And so I ask yourself, could you trust the Republican Party if they did not try to have him removed from his job? Because I don't know, you know, what it takes to be removed as a representative or as a senator, if maybe the process is a little different for each. So I don't know what the process is, but they do have a process for things that are just so bad that you have to get Rid of them. And doesn't Schiff have to go now? Maybe it won't be successful, but can you seriously tell me that the Republicans would be doing the job of the people if they don't at least try now? I'm sure the Democrats will protect him, but doesn't the country need to see what he's done to the country? I mean, he's attacked the country for his political advantage. He actually attacked the country. That is the worst thing I've ever seen from. From a politician, I think, who wasn't named Hiller. All right, let's see what else we got going on. Are you sick of the phrase from the Democrats we can walk and chew gum at the same time? So they keep saying that, and they're saying it especially connected to the usmca, which it looks like that there's now some movement to get that thing passed. We'll see. Mitch o' Connell strategically delayed it so that they can't get their victory. The Democrats can't have anything good for Christmas, but also neither can the country. So I have mixed feelings about Mitch o' Connell delaying that until after impeachment. Politically and strategically, it's probably pretty clever. Nobody said that Mitch McConnell is not clever. Probably pretty clever, but does that help you and me? Let me ask you. If everybody on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, agree that this USMCA thing is very important and apparently there are enough votes, people think it'll get passed pretty easily. What do you think of Mitch McConnell saying that he'll delay it for, I don't know, a month or whatever to get past the impeachment hearings? What do you think of that? How can you like that? Can you make any argument that Mitch McConnell is doing the work of the people by delaying this for purely naked political purposes? No. Mitch McConnell. Fuck you. This. This law is supported by the left and the right, and it's good for the people of the country. And you just delayed it, you motherfucker. You just delayed it a month just to make a show, just to score some points. You are a fucking asshole. Sorry, did I tell you I wasn't going to swear anymore? How can you be happy with your own team? Let's say you're a Republican. If you're a Republican, how can you be happy with Mitch McConnell delaying for a month, something that's good for the country, unambiguously, and everybody wants it, and the votes are there, and the Democrats have said we can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can certainly take a vote. How can you support Mitch McConnell delaying that thing just to make a score, a cheap political point. Fuck an asshole. He needs to be voted out of office for that alone. All right, seriously, if Mitch McConnell had whatever, he's got 40 years of great service and you thought every bit of that was great. Everything he did for 40 years, I agreed with. It was terrific. Still, delaying this for a month for no reason other than politics should get you fired. If he worked for any of you, if you were his boss, and he delayed this for a month when the entire country knows it's good for the country and he did it for naked political reasons. No question about it. There's no ambiguity. There's nobody arguing the other side. Wouldn't you fire him? I mean, you should, right? You should fire him immediately. That's a fireable offense in the normal business world, no matter what your record is. So, Mitch McConnell, you got some explaining to do there because I think you should be fired for that. All right. As if firing is a real thing. All right, let's see what else we got. There's some chatter, according to Politico, that Joe Biden, who's already 77, is sort of talking softly privately about maybe being a one term president. So Joe Biden is trying to soften the impact of his age by saying, you know, I'll just do one little term. I won't be running for reelection when I'm in my 80s, I'll be serving as president in my 80s, but I won't run for re election. So just give me one term, a little transitional term just to get us out of the Trump era. And then, you know, we'll work it out after that. So. And then some advisors apparently are thinking, well, maybe he should announce it because otherwise his side will be spooked that they might like him now, but even they might be worried about a second term. So they're thinking maybe it'd be better if we just say right from the start he's just going to do one term. What would you think of that idea from a persuasion perspective? From a persuasion perspective, Biden's dead either way. The fact that he's talking about not being able to be competent for a second term, because that's really what this is. If Biden is talking about in advance saying I won't run for a second term, he's really acknowledging that he's too old. Would you vote for a president who couldn't reasonably serve a second term? Well, in a special case, maybe, but I don't think this is one so that looks more like Biden has no chance than anything I've seen, because that's his own team saying he doesn't have a chance. It's one thing when the opponents say you can't win, but if your own team is telling you maybe just one term, one's good, you don't need two terms, one might be good. If you're hearing that from your own team, you don't have a chance. I guess Bernie is surging in some polls. But could Bernie have any chance of winning in the general election? I'm trying to think who would lose the hardest in a general election? Let me ask you this question. Who would lose the hardest in a general election? Wouldn't it be Bernie? Don't you think Bernie would lose the hardest? And here's my thinking. Elizabeth Warren is younger and energetic, fresh. She hasn't already lost a presidential election, but at least she's got the woman thing going for her. So she'll at least get women. What does Bernie get? Bernie's got his big socialist plan that will destroy the entire economy, as far as we know, and it will take the best economy we've ever had and basically eviscerate it. How in the world does that beat Trump? Because Bernie doesn't have a natural constituency within the Democratic Party. He's not black, he's not a woman, he's not gay, he's not anything. He's just a boring old white guy with the worst economic plan that's ever been conceived. How does that win if you replaced him with aoc, I'd be telling you something different. If you just switched down Bernie for aoc, let's say she was old enough to run for president, I would have a completely different opinion, because I'd say, oh, aoc, she's going to get women, she's going to get people of color. She's going to get people who just say she's talking hyperbolically. Maybe they don't believe that she's going to do what they think Bernie would do. If you just slotted in AOC to replace Bernie, I'd say that that would be a dangerous candidate. But Bernie, that's Trump landslide material. There's more chatter about Clinton, Hillary Clinton getting into the race at the last minute, and apparently she's even polling at the top. If she were to jump in tomorrow, the Democrats would prefer her, but the preference is only like 21%. And the second best would be at 20%. So not really. I would say that if you only have 21%. And you actually won the popular vote the last go round, and this time you're down to 21%. If people have a choice of you or other candidates. I don't know how you read statistics, but the way I read it is if only 21% would want Hillary Clinton in the race, even if that's the highest percentage of all the other candidates, it's only 21%. She won the popular vote just recently. If you're already down to 21%, your party is sick of you. So I will say again that Hillary Clinton, and this is a compliment, Hillary Clinton is very smart, generally speaking, right? Now, I know I always say you hate it when I do this, when I give a compliment to people that you don't like. But I always think it's important. It's a good practice for your, let's say, your bias checking. It's just a good practice to make sure that you can compliment somebody on the other side for something, something that they do well. And Hillary Clinton is super smart. And if you're super smart, you know this is a bad move to get into the race. Now, even your own party would hate your guts. So the slaughter meter is at 200%. All right, Tom Cotton, Senator Tom Cotton has introduced some legislation, or I guess he's about to. They expect him to, in which it would subject the cartels, the Mexican cartels, to. To terrorist group designations so that we could use some of the tools that we use against terrorism. I don't think this includes military action. I think it's more about banking and what kind of penalties they get if they're caught, et cetera. But some have suggested that that would extend to if somebody was just a drug dealer in this country and they were selling drugs that they got from the cartel that they could get a life sentence for selling, presumably opioids that came from the cartel. Ask me what I think of that down. I would say that any dealer in the United States who is selling fentanyl, and I'll make an exception for quantity. All right? If you're just somebody who bought some pills to share with your friends or something, you're technically a dealer. But that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about somebody whose job, their actual job is to sell fentanyl into the United States, and they know that fentanyl came from the cartel. Under those situations, I'm in favor of a life sentence for the dealer or execution. I would also be in favor of capital punishment for a fentanyl dealer in the United States, who, who did it as a job, not just somebody who casually passed them on. Now, as you know, the president of Mexico has asked President Trump to sort of hold off on designating the cartels as a terrorist organization. I don't know if this Tom Cotton legislation that's coming up is exactly the same as what the president was talking about and designated in them a terrorist organization. I don't know if they, if they overlap or map together. But, you know, the president of Mexico said hold off on that. And is there any other way to interpret that other than the Mexican government is unable to move against the cartels because it's just too dangerous? It makes me wonder if you shouldn't have some kind of an international, let's say, say an international, what do you call it, mercenary army who is, let's say, associated with some other country, or maybe let's say it's an international mercenary armory so that the members of the army are coming from lots of different countries so that no single country can be blamed. And let's say they're funding is ambiguous. Let's say the funding is ambiguous. So you don't even know who funded them. Could you send somebody like that down to deal with the cartels because nobody knows who their family members are. You know, they wouldn't even have real identities and stuff so that there could be no retaliation directly because you wouldn't even know what country. You wouldn't know who is funding them. You don't know who their families are. You need some kind of an untouchables situation against the cartels. So perhaps. All right, all right, here's the question. Let me just ask this question. I don't know if this is legal or illegal. So I'm not suggesting it because I think I might go to jail if I suggest it. So I'm just going to ask the question whether this is like a thing that could work or not work. Suppose you had some kind of GoFundMe where the public could contribute by crypto. Let's say they could buy Bitcoin and fund this thing. I don't know, the details don't matter. But that you could fund mercenaries for a specific purpose and the specific purpose would be to take care of the cartels. Suppose it was just publicly funded and it was funded by millions of Americans who gave a few dollars. Well, the cartels are not going to get revenge against an American who donated $10 to a GoFundMe that went to, you know, you'd all be safe because you only gave $10 and there would be millions of you. So it wouldn't even necessarily have to be the U.S. government. Could you, would it be legal, in other words, in this country, Would it be legal to start a GoFundMe that's only purpose was to hire a mercenary army to go kill the cartels. Is that legal? I don't know. Can somebody tell me if that is? That's crowdsourcing a contract hit and it's still illegal. Is it, let's say you, would it be illegal to do a contract hit on a known terrorist? Maybe. It might be. Actually, could you do a contract hit on the head of ISIS knowing that the government also wanted to kill him? But let's say that you were a private citizen and you put together a mercenary and, and you killed the same terrorists that the United States was actively also trying to kill. Would that be illegal? It might be. It might be. Now let's say it is illegal in this country to have a GoFundMe that puts a hit on an individual. Would it be illegal to have a GoFundMe that funds a defensive military? I don't know. Because you're not really targeting individuals. It's a security situation. So I don't know. I just have some questions. My main point here is that the cartels have probably grown so powerful that governments can't deal with them. And if governments can't deal with them, you need another process. What is the other process? If it's not governments, what is it? And the United States doesn't want to go rogue because we have to be a respectable nation and deal with especially our neighboring nations on a government to government, let's say traditional way. Even our government can't go down there and solve that problem because their government can't do it. So what do you do? If governments can't solve a problem, what do you do? Could you create any legal situation that would allow people to donate money to a paramilitary organization to go take care of it? I don't know. I don't know. Somebody says no, it's not legal to privately fund assassinations. But what if it's not assassination? What if it's a defensive force and you say the cartels are attacking the United States, killing tens of thousands of people a year? All true. Through their drugs. If you defend against that. Is it illegal to pay somebody to guard your house? It's probably illegal to hire a guard to hunt somebody down and shoot them. That's probably illegal. Let's agree that's illegal. All Right. Apparently the reason that the quid pro quo and the bribery stuff was taken out of the articles of impeachment is that they could be used against Biden. That just tells you everything about how messed up the system is. That the primary thing, the primary problem that they wanted to impeach the president for, they ended up taking it out because it would take out their primary candidate who's polling at the top of the polls. That tells you everything. Right? Is there anything else you need to know? Then they had to change their articles of impeachment so it didn't take out their own guy. Kind of funny. Here's a line. Oh, I forgot to read this. This was also from CNN's Stephen Collinson in his opinion piece and he said though former special counsel Robert Mueller did not find a conspiracy between the Trumps team and Russia, he did find alarming evidence that the President expected to profit from Russian election meddling. And I thought to myself, really? Is that a true statement that the President expected to profit from Russian election meddling? Did you see anything like that from the Mueller report? Because that looks new to me. Would you say that's an accurate statement? Now how do we know what the President expected? Isn't that a mind reading thing? We might know, for example, that the President asked in public for Russia to give us Hillary's email or something which most of us took as a joke. But did he expect to profit like he expected that would work? At what point was he expecting to profit? The article just slips this in here without any backup or quote from the report that would support the statement that the President expected to profit from Russian election meddling. What? I feel like that was just something made up. I mean, it must be based on some kind of thinking. I don't even know what it came from. All right. In more bad news for Democrats, I would say Democrats had one of the worst days they've ever had yesterday. Wouldn't you say you always have to watch your bias because it's easy to think your team won even when the other team thinks they won't. So wouldn't you say, what's your opinion? It looks to me like yesterday was the most devastating and crushing day of defeat for the Democrats that I've maybe ever seen in my lifetime. I can't think of any individual day that was worse for Democrats in terms of their future as a party than yesterday. Can you give me one example of anything that's ever been worse, let's say in my lifetime, worse for Democrats, any day that was ever Worse than that. I can't think of one. You can think of days that were worse for Republicans. Richard Nixon getting impeached. That's a bad day for Republicans. But what was a worse day for Democrats? That was pretty bad. In more fake news, Trump is getting ready to sign, or maybe signed an executive order to protect Jews in this country. So I don't know the details, it's a little confusing, but there's something about the way things are classified that is incomplete. And so in order to have the rule give added protection to Jews in this country, there's some executive order that needs to add a little bit extra protection. So this is Trump signing an executive order that the American Jewish population wants. It's for their benefit they've asked for is directly and expressly only for protecting that part of the American population. What did the New York Times tweet? Well, the New York Times botched the tweet and made it sound like it was something it wasn't. And that kicked off a wave of attacks on the President for being anti Semitic. That's right. Everything you need to know about politics is in this one story. The President did something that the Jewish population of this country asked for and wanted and is unambiguously good for them as well as the rest of us, because it's, you know, it's protecting them as a class from, I think, from hate crimes, and by protecting that part of the population. And then the fake news gets in and reverses its meaning and then turns it into an anti Semitic thing, literally the opposite of what it was. However, in funnier news, apparently yesterday, Joe Biden was on the rally circuit, or he's on the campaign circuit. And once again, he repeated the known and debunked hoax that the President once called the neo Nazis in Charlottesville. Fine people. Those of you who follow this periscope and pay attention will know that the President did not say that. He actually explicitly said that that group should be condemned. Totally. He said that. He said it in direct words. But the quote, when taken out of context by the fake news, they can take a piece of it in a context and it reverses its meaning. And that's how the entire Fine People started, is that something was taken out of context. Well, the Trump campaign managed to dig up an old video of Joe Biden talking about the United Daughters of the Confederacy as, quote, an organization made up of many fine people who continue to display the Confederate flag. Now, it was an old video, so I don't know, it might have been 20 or 30 years old. It looked pretty old. But Joe Biden is out on the campaign trail complaining that the President called the racist fine people, which did not happen. Literally the opposite of what happened. Fake news. At the same time he's out there, there's a video that the Trump campaign is tweeting around showing that he called supporters of the confederate flag, which by 2019 standards, completely different than 30 years ago. But by 2019 standards. And by standards, I don't mean everybody agrees then or now. I'm just saying that the, let's say the consensus of opinion has changed, that if you're displaying a Confederate flag, Democrats at least will think you are a racist. That's their own standard. The Democrats believe, as a party. I'm not saying you need to believe it. And it's not a claim I'm making. I'm just saying that the Democrats have a very strong standard that if you want to march around with a Confederate flag, you are a damn racist, period. And so Joe Biden is on tape calling them, and it couldn't be funnier because he used exactly the same phrase. Many fine people who continue to display the Confederate flag. So this brings me back to something that Tucker Carlson has been saying for a long time, that the first 50 times I heard Tucker Carlson say this, I shook my head and said, tucker, you know, that's an over claim. You've gone too far. You're dealing in some kind of magical thinking. Tucker. What Tucker says, which I could not find any logical basis for, is that whatever the Democrats accuse Republicans of is what they themselves are doing. And the first time he said that, I said to myself, that's. That's so partisan. That's just like, there's no logic there. There's no, there's no survey. There's no, I mean, there's just nothing that would support the sentence that everything the Democrats do or what they accuse the Republicans of, and then day after day, he shows examples of it almost every day in the headlines, the Democrats are accusing Republicans of something which you can very easily show is an activity they engage in. This week, for example, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi were engaged in a massive public abuse of power while fakely claiming that the President was abusing his power to try to impeach him. And I thought to myself, how can this keep being true? How can it be so true? Because I don't think there's a. I don't think there's. I still don't think there's any logical connection to it in other words, every time they do something wrong as Democrats, I don't think that they then say, oh, let's accuse the other side of this because we're doing it wrong. I don't think it's some kind of direct connection, but the number of times it's true is staggering. And it makes me think that Tucker's observation, which he reinforces almost every night, is really right on, and I don't know how to explain it. And it is really consistent. Yeah. Somebody says it's 100% true. I think that's actually accurate, that at least within the political realm, it does literally seem to be true. There's something close to 100% of the time they're blaming you for things they're actively doing at the time or have done recently. Don't know why, but there it is. I think those are all the fun things we had to talk about today. Yes, it is. So once again, I asked the question, how does Adam Schiff keep his job? And why aren't the Republicans going after him for this abuse of power? If there's anybody who knows about a candidate who's running against Adam Schiff in California, that candidate, be they Democrat or be they in a primary or be they Republican, I would like to help. So I'd like to offer my services. If somebody's running against Adam Schiff, I will give you some free advice. Just contact me on Twitter. All right. That's all I got for now, and I will talk to you later.