Scott Adams describes a recurring pattern used against political figures: anonymous sources start a claim, legal action gives it credibility, media amplifies it with speculative scenarios, then the story collapses when facts emerge. He names Adam Schiff and Ken Dilanian as repeat participants in what he calls the wrap-up smear.
Chapters
So the hoax pattern works like this. You start with some anonymous sources, then you add some legal action to make it seem real. So there has to be some action. So the action could be an FBI investigation, it could be a special prosecutor, it could be some kind of lawsuit that you heard of, there could be some kind of action in the New York area, but there has to be some actual legal activity of any kind. So then you can say, well, we have a story and then we have some legal activity. This is, this is sounding pretty real. You got anonymous sources, you've got. Yeah. So then you go to the amplifying the what if? And as you're saying in the comments, this needs a name. This is the wrap up, the wrap up. What do you call it? The wrap up hoax. No, the wrap up smear. It's the wrap up smear. Wrap up smear. So that happens at about the same time as you get the what ifs. So the what ifs are how they amplify it. What if he's talking to Putin? What if he sold his secrets to Xi? What if he's working with Iran to build a bomb? What if? What if? So you can what if this thing into reality and the people doing the what if ing are the deep state fake news. And then here's your real tell. Are you aware that NBC is considered and I'll say alleged so I can stay out of trouble. Alleged. Alleged that they're basically just a CIA operation, Meaning that if the if NBC is telling you to interpret a story a certain way, you can reliably assume that the CIA is guiding them into that coverage. Now, there's one name that I hear more often than others as being the most identified with CIA NBC. That's Kendelanian. Now, this is not my accusation. This is things I read on Twitter. But, but talk to Glenn Greenwald if you want to get a complete picture of how this works. So Glenn Greenwald does the best job and I don't want to get into his turf too much, but basically, whenever you see this tell that the, that Ken Delaney and has come on to say, what if it's nuclear secrets? What if it's the worst case scenario, this usually is your tell that the CIA has joined in this case, joined the FBI and the rest of the deep state and the fake news. So now you can see the full form of it. Right? So there's not really much question. And as I tweeted today, even if you're dumb enough to not recognize the pattern, this is the same hoax pattern for most of them, if you. If you're dumb enough to rec. Not recognize the pattern by now, at least you can recognize it's the same actors. You got that right. It's the same people. It's not every member of Congress or some of these have some people of Congress or some groups or it's a different group. No, the same people. And the people would be like Adam Schiff, Ken Delaney, and you know, we've got the same FBI agents working on January 6th as working on the Mar A Lago thing, at least one of them. And then of course, you see McCabe, you know, ex FBI guy McCabe comes on CNN to give his opinion, and it's all the same play. So here's where we are now. This is what I call shift and a skiff. The skiff is a secure place where you can go look at a secret document, but you can't copy it. You can't take your phone and basically it sits there and you can be near it, but you can't do anything with it. You can just read it. So Schiff has now said exactly as we expected. And remember, I called the plays in advance. You know, once you see it developing, you can say, oh, it's going to take this form. So we're up to the Schiff and the skiff form. So Schiff has said that he is demanding some kind of defense review of these documents taken from Mar A Lago. Now, who do you think is going to look at those documents? It's only going to be the people with the top clearance. Who would be somebody who has the top level of security clearance in Congress. Adam Schiff, who has lied to us how many times about what he saw in the Schiff in a skiff? I think. How many times has Schiff lied to us about what he personally saw in a skiff? It's happened, right? That's a real thing. We know for sure. We know for sure that he lies about what he sees in a skiff. That is just solid, confirmed fact. And that's where we are now. The next phase is to draw down as long as possible to make sure there's some kind of an investigation, legal process, some kind of hearings. You got to keep this thing alive, got to keep feeding it stuff, stuff. But eventually, after the elections are over or after the primaries or whatever it is that they're trying to get past, I think in this case, the 2024 election period, they're going to say, oops, oops, we finally talked to the people who packed the Boxes? Yeah, the GSA employees who actually packed the top secret boxes. We waited until the end to talk to them. Do you know why we didn't talk to them in the beginning? And when I say we, I mean the public. Do you know why? The public doesn't know who those people that pack the boxes are, doesn't know what their opinion is, doesn't know what they saw. We don't know what Trump asked them to do. We don't know if Trump was there. We don't know if Trump was aware of anything in the boxes. We don't know if those boxes had only top secret things in them or some top secret. But basically they were general boxes. We don't know if the boxes got reused. We don't know anything. And don't you think that would be easy for us to know? You don't think we can find the GSA employees who actually packed the boxes? Now, I don't need to know their names necessarily. I'd be happy if, you know, somebody who's a Republican knew their names just to make sure they're real people. But I don't need to know them. The public doesn't need to harass them or dox them or anything. It's not about that. I just need to hear from them. And the question I ask is this, what right does the public have to know who these accusers are? Because they're not just accusing Trump, are they? They're, they're doing something that would change the entire political landscape of the United States that affects me. Do I have a right to know that there are some government employees, people that my taxes pay? Do I have any right to know what they think about this situation? Like right now, not later, right now? Do I have a right to know that I feel like I have a moral and ethical right? Probably don't have any constitutional right. But why do you think it's going to take so long to hear from the only people who matter in the story, the only people who can clear this up? We've not heard from and we won't. I don't believe you will ever hear until it's too late when they do the oops. Now, after the oops, there's another step where the Democrats don't know that it's been debunked. They will never hear it because their news will never report it. And every time you encounter them on social media, it'll be like they're in a different world. You know, someday in the future you'll say, and remember when that Mar A Lago thing got debunked. And every Democrat you encounter will say, what? That didn't happen. Show me. Show me the link to that. And then you'll find that there are more links that say it didn't happen than did because the news is completely fake. So there will be far more news stories saying that this thing was always real, even after it's debunked. So Democrats will be completely lost. They'll think it was true.
