Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1193 Scott Adams： I Tell You How Trump Will Win This Legal Battle if he Wants

00:00:00.000 Bum bum bum, bum bum bum, bum bum bum bum bum bum bum, bum bum bum.

00:00:09.840 Hey everybody! Come on in. Yeah, it's time. It's time. Time for the good stuff.

00:00:18.160 You came to the right place. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chelsea,

00:00:23.120 a steiner canteen jug or flask or vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:27.520 I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day,

00:00:32.880 the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. When's it happen? Now, go.

00:00:43.880 Mmm. Delightful. Some of the best. All right. Well, COVID deaths, I think, are starting to get out of

00:00:54.140 control here. The psychology of the pandemic is fascinating in a sort of a morbid, tragic way.

00:01:06.060 Have you noticed that your feeling about the fear, that your feeling about the risk just keeps going

00:01:14.940 down, even as the pandemic is getting worse? We sort of just got used to it. Imagine, if you will,

00:01:25.180 that you had been born into a world in which 2,000 people a day die just routinely from a virus. And

00:01:34.460 suppose that it had just always been that way. And you were born into that world, and it's just the way

00:01:39.900 it was. 2,000 people per day die from the virus. How would you feel about it? You wouldn't even notice.

00:01:50.700 You literally wouldn't even notice. There you go.

00:01:56.060 So we're getting to the point where even if the pandemic gets worse, we won't necessarily be less

00:02:07.660 happy, which is weird. Let's see. I moved the camera so you can see now. I'll try to get that right in

00:02:19.740 the future. I've got two iPads, and sometimes I have one overlapping a little bit. That's what happened.

00:02:25.820 All right, let's talk about all this stuff. A little bit more on the pandemic.

00:02:34.380 So my smart Democratic friend said to me, see, this pandemic's out of control, and a quarter million

00:02:42.540 people are going to die, maybe more. And he said to me, it's because Trump set a bad example with masks.

00:02:53.180 What's wrong with that analysis? So my Democrat friend says Trump killed a lot of people

00:03:01.740 by not modeling mask behavior better. Now, he didn't say he should create a law where you would

00:03:09.820 go to jail if you don't wear a mask. He said it was about setting an example.

00:03:15.580 Doesn't that assume that if you had a different president, some different president could have

00:03:21.340 set the example, and people would have been more adaptive to it? Do you believe that? Do you believe

00:03:29.500 if Obama had been president during the pandemic, and President Obama told the Republicans they should

00:03:36.780 wear masks, would Republicans say, well, I wasn't inclined to wear a mask, but now that President

00:03:44.060 Obama has said it's a thing, I'm going to put my mask on? Do you think that could have happened?

00:03:51.340 How about Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton tells Republicans to put on their masks, and Republicans

00:03:57.740 say, you know, if anybody less pleasant than Hillary Clinton had asked me, I might say no. But she's so nice.

00:04:07.340 And I believe her in all things. So I'm going to mask up. How in the world do you imagine that you

00:04:15.820 could think of some different president who would have gotten a different result? It's kind of hard

00:04:21.740 to imagine. And even if you were to say, now, I'm still pro-mask. I know many of you are not,

00:04:30.940 but I'm still pro-mask. But even I don't think it's like a switch. I think you're barely going to

00:04:38.140 notice the difference sometimes. But if it saves some lives, I'm all for it. Right? I don't mind some

00:04:44.060 inconvenience to save some lives. But I don't know that you would even necessarily notice it in the

00:04:50.620 statistics. Here's another question. Do you have inequality if people are equally happy?

00:05:00.620 I don't know why I'm thinking of this. But when you're looking at inequality in society,

00:05:05.100 shouldn't the ultimate measure be, how happy are you? Because that's what we're all trying to do,

00:05:11.980 right? We're not trying to just get money. We're trying to get happiness. Sometimes we think money

00:05:17.260 helps that. But if you had two groups, and one has all the disadvantages of life and one has all the

00:05:24.820 advantages of life, say there's systemic racism or not, what if you measured their happiness and it was

00:05:33.960 the same? What's that tell you? Because I feel like it would be. I feel like regardless of your situation,

00:05:43.140 your baseline happiness stays about the same. So what are we trying to fix? Of course, I'm in favor

00:05:49.860 of trying to fix unfairness and inequality wherever it's found. I think you have to do that to have a

00:05:56.800 functioning society. But think about it logically. If the goal of life is happiness, and of course,

00:06:05.320 you have to do lots of things right to get the minimum requirement to be happy. But if happiness is

00:06:11.740 the ultimate goal, what if two people are equally happy, but one has lots of unfairness, and one

00:06:19.720 doesn't? Do you have to fix it? Because if you fix it, it's not going to change their happiness.

00:06:25.860 Probably. If it wasn't changed before with that difference in their situation, why would it change

00:06:32.800 in the future? All right, let's talk about more interesting things. Did you all see, or some of you

00:06:37.400 see the press conference, the legal press conference yesterday? CNN refused to cover it and called it

00:06:44.500 bananas. Clown show, full of BS. Do you know how they knew that? Magic. That's right. Because the way

00:06:55.820 you know what's going to happen in a press conference is by not watching it. You just know in advance.

00:07:03.120 So the fake news has gotten to the point where they not only know what happened before in a fake way,

00:07:11.100 but they also have fake future news. They actually knew what was going to happen at the press conference

00:07:17.260 before it happened. Amazing. Amazing. And let me ask you this. In what world does something that's

00:07:28.240 described as bananas not get on television? When was the last time a news program didn't air something

00:07:39.860 because it was too interesting? Because I feel like that's what they said. If you told me that there

00:07:48.180 was a press conference and it was totally bananas, do I want to see more of that or less of it?

00:07:55.780 I don't know about you, but if I hear there's a press conference and it's totally bananas,

00:08:01.580 I'm going right to it. That's the one I want to see. Is it newsworthy when the president's legal team

00:08:10.060 has a press conference and it's bananas? It's very newsworthy. In fact, I would argue there wasn't one

00:08:19.320 fucking thing on the whole fucking planet that was more newsworthy than that was, even if it was bananas.

00:08:28.320 Now, I would say it wasn't, but even if it was, it's still the most interesting news in the whole

00:08:34.940 fucking world. And they decided not to cover it. You know, every time you think to yourself,

00:08:42.040 well, CNN can't go any lower than they've already gone, then they surprise you. And they did it again.

00:08:53.040 Somebody's asking me if I'm on prednisone again because I'm too aggressive. No, I'll tell you what

00:08:58.680 it was just before I came on. I was trying to get my printer to work again. Let me read to you the

00:09:04.800 printer instructions. And this will be a little bit of a foreshadowing of a printer that may or may not

00:09:12.440 be thrown off my second floor balcony on live stream. Here are the directions for how to get

00:09:19.400 the Wi-Fi reconnected, unconnected somehow. All right. So here are the directions for me who are already in

00:09:27.820 a, let's say, less than sanguine, less than relaxed attitude about my printer. Now, there aren't many

00:09:38.540 things in life that make me genuinely angry. Not really too many. But when my printer fails to work,

00:09:47.080 it does get me a little triggered. I'm going to admit, a little bit triggered. But let me read to you

00:09:52.200 the directions that the printer prints out to get the Wi-Fi connected. For instructions on how to

00:09:58.980 connect the printer, I'm like, oh, okay, good. I can get some instructions on how to connect it. And

00:10:04.300 how hard could that be? Connect to Wi-Fi. If you were going to make a device that only had basically

00:10:11.180 two functions, print, connect to Wi-Fi, you'd probably put a button on there for that, right? Just push the

00:10:17.780 button. So that's probably what it's going to tell me. It says, press and hold. Press and hold. Uh-oh.

00:10:25.540 Okay. Why do I have to hold it? Hold the information button for three seconds until all lights are lit,

00:10:32.380 and then press the information button and the cancel button at the same time.

00:10:37.400 Now, one way that they decided to give me instructions were to print it on a piece of

00:10:46.620 paper so I could read it. But they could have just curled this into a little ball and shoved it right

00:10:56.120 up my ass. Because you know what never works? Let me give you an example of what has never worked

00:11:02.740 in the history of technology. Press and hold the information button and the cancel button at the

00:11:11.420 same time after waiting three seconds. That doesn't work. It didn't work when I tried it.

00:11:18.880 Didn't work the first five fucking times I tried it. Probably won't work the next five fucking times

00:11:24.460 I tried it. Because there's just enough ambiguity in here that you're not quite sure. Wait, do I let go

00:11:32.580 or hold? Am I supposed to use a different hand? Do I use my tongue? Could they have made this any

00:11:40.680 fucking harder? I just want one button. Push the button. A light comes on. Hey, your Wi-Fi is working.

00:11:48.780 Look, you push the one button. And where do they put the button? They hide it in the back below another

00:11:55.580 button where it's really hard to find in the dark. So if it seems like I'm mad at politics, I'm really

00:12:02.820 not. I don't have any particular anger about anything that's happening in the news today.

00:12:09.680 But I'm going to try one more time after this live stream to get my printer connected to Wi-Fi again.

00:12:17.060 If I don't, I'll open up tomorrow's show by throwing it off the balcony. So that's my promise to you.

00:12:24.820 It's a tango, HP tango. All right. So we have this Bananas Press Conference. And what do you think?

00:12:35.480 What was your impression? Now, obviously, the anti-Trump people said it's crazy and it's bananas and it's

00:12:43.280 all garbage and BS. What did you think if you are a Trump supporter? Did you think they made the case?

00:12:54.380 Now, even Tucker Carlson, who you might expect to be at least, you know, Trump friendly or Trump

00:13:02.720 curious, you would expect that he would say, yeah, there was some good stuff there. But let's talk

00:13:10.620 about the evidence. And I'll tell you which parts you should believe and which parts you should not.

00:13:17.680 Because it's not all equally believable, wouldn't you say? There's some stronger evidence and some

00:13:24.700 weaker evidence. And we should treat it as such. But first, Alan Dershowitz has weighed in to tell us

00:13:34.440 how this is going to go. I was kind of waiting for that. Did it seem to you that Alan Dershowitz was

00:13:40.340 missing? Like he was the most obvious person who should have been in the conversation about where

00:13:46.940 the election is going to go. I don't know where he's been. But he finally came in and he told us

00:13:53.760 the only thing that's useful. You know, there's a million things that we're talking about and thinking

00:13:59.220 about and, you know, arguing about about the election and the lawsuits and the legal challenges

00:14:04.700 and the vote counts and everything. So there's all this, this blizzard of complexity. And then Alan

00:14:10.960 Dershowitz does what he does. He looks into this avalanche of complexity. And he says, oh, there's

00:14:18.700 only one thing that matters. It's this thing. So just ignore all this other stuff. Because there's

00:14:25.060 only this one thing. And it goes like this. If the election outcome is not clearly, let's say,

00:14:37.060 unambiguous, the state legislatures, state legislatures, the Republican ones, can choose not to certify

00:14:46.260 the election. Now, do they require that there is a successful lawsuit and that the courts have ruled

00:14:55.840 that the election was fraudulent? Do the legislators require that? Nope. The Constitution does not require

00:15:05.740 that. They can simply say, this process does not satisfy my own personal patriotic requirements of

00:15:17.020 being fraud free. So I'm not going to certify. If the legislatures do not certify, in other words,

00:15:26.260 enough of them or all of them or whatever you need to get to get to your 270, then it goes to the House

00:15:32.180 of Representatives where it would go to Trump. Because there are more Republican states than there

00:15:37.500 are Democrat states. That's the way the system works. So when everybody was saying, hey, Trump has

00:15:45.460 no path to the presidency, you just sort of think that's true for a while, or at least half the country

00:15:53.320 thinks it's true. And you wait and you say, hey, these lawsuits are getting tossed down. I think nine

00:16:00.220 lawsuits got tossed down on Friday. So he's losing the lawsuits. And we're not seeing the evidence.

00:16:08.240 And Sidney and Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, where's the evidence? You say it, you say you have

00:16:15.640 it, but why don't we see it? Right? That's all misdirection. It's all misdirection. The courts kind

00:16:24.060 of don't matter. Now, if the courts, you know, made some decision and overthrew the election or

00:16:30.740 forced a re-vote or something, then they would matter. But probably won't. It probably is not

00:16:36.800 going to happen. Probably what will happen is the courts may not have enough to change anything or

00:16:42.360 may not be inclined to change the vote, because they wouldn't want to make people feel disenfranchised,

00:16:48.800 even if they thought it was fraudulent. So I wouldn't look to the courts necessarily to overturn

00:16:55.620 anything. They could. I would say it's a very real possibility if evidence, you know, was presented

00:17:03.480 that I haven't seen yet. So I wouldn't rule it out. But I don't see that as obviously going to happen,

00:17:10.440 some kind of a court decision that puts Trump back in office. I think far more likely,

00:17:16.300 the legal team will create enough reasonable doubt, well, beyond reasonable doubt. I think

00:17:23.240 probably some level of certainty in a lot of Republicans that the election was stolen,

00:17:30.360 even if it wasn't, even if it wasn't. So Trump could win based on the current setup,

00:17:39.580 whether he has a case that's solid, or whether he doesn't. It actually probably doesn't matter at

00:17:48.380 this point. Because the argument is good enough. Right? You don't need a case that can win in court

00:17:57.240 if you can convince the Republicans who need to certify or not certify. That's the whole game.

00:18:03.680 So let me ask you this. Did Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani say something in the press conference that

00:18:11.300 you think would be so persuasive it would win in a legal court of law? No. No. No, there was nothing

00:18:20.580 that we saw as the audience that would be persuasive in a court of law. There's simply a claim that they

00:18:28.660 have those things and they're putting those things together. And that when they're ready to show them

00:18:33.880 to a court of law, and when they're required to show proof, they say they can get it. They've got

00:18:40.220 lots of, you know, lots of people who have testified under oath. Lots of them. Like hundreds of people

00:18:49.980 have testified to fraud. But I don't know if you add them all up, that they come to enough. Not sure a

00:18:56.740 court would decide that, but maybe a legislature would. If you were a Republican legislature person

00:19:06.580 and you knew that half of the country, which is all of the Republicans, if you knew that all of the

00:19:12.460 Republicans thought the election was rigged and you were a legislator for a state and you voted to

00:19:19.540 certify it anyway, could you get re-elected? Think about the people who have to certify this.

00:19:28.420 They would be certifying something, in all likelihood, if things go the way it sort of looks

00:19:33.240 like it's going to go. In all likelihood, they would be certifying a vote that nearly all of their

00:19:40.340 voters think was fraudulent. Even if it wasn't. Even if it wasn't. They're going to think that.

00:19:47.340 So can they do it? It's a kind of a dangerous situation, isn't it? Pretty dangerous. All right.

00:19:57.860 Why is it that Trump always has a plan, according to his critics, he always has a plan if it's

00:20:06.600 something evil? It's like by their definition, it would be evil for him to win re-election with his

00:20:15.440 clever mechanisms. And for that, he has a plan. So they can see the plan clearly. It's like,

00:20:23.520 we can see the plan. The plan is to put doubt into the legislatures and send it to the House

00:20:29.280 of Representatives. And we can see your plan from a mile away, Trump. But when it comes to something

00:20:35.480 like the coronavirus, the plan is completely obvious, and everybody will say, there's no plan.

00:20:43.280 No, he only has plans to do evil. But when it's evil, when it's evil, he has a really long-term,

00:20:50.420 complicated plan with lots of steps, and it looks pretty good. He's a darn good planner for evil.

00:20:56.420 But they don't believe he does any planning at all for the good stuff. All right. Here's my take

00:21:09.340 on what you should believe and what you shouldn't believe about the claims and allegations so far.

00:21:14.860 Sidney Powell talks about a Venezuelan military person living now in the United States who alleges

00:21:22.000 that when he was in the Venezuelan military, he was in the room and directly connected with efforts

00:21:28.980 to make sure that this Smartmatic software and whatever Dominion, I don't know which entities

00:21:35.560 were involved, but that the software was designed to make it easy to rig an election. And he alleges

00:21:42.680 that he was present when it was used exactly that way and watched it all happen. Pretty good evidence,

00:21:49.640 direct evidence, sworn testimony, I assume it'll be sworn at some point if it isn't,

00:21:56.840 from a high-ranking military person with direct knowledge, he's in the room. What level of

00:22:05.140 credibility do you give his story? In the comments, tell me where you're at. Just that piece alone,

00:22:13.320 if you are only to judge it from that one testimony, a military person, high-ranking military person,

00:22:21.520 who was high-ranking enough to be in the room when Venezuela was, I'm seeing your numbers,

00:22:28.800 6 out of 10, 50%, 30%, 50-50, 10, 6.5, I don't know what that is. Somebody says low, low,

00:22:37.580 50%, 50%, credible enough. I think the comments come in faster a little bit on YouTube, so I'm

00:22:47.560 seeing those before Periscope. But it looks like you're sort of all over the board. I'm seeing 100%,

00:22:53.720 5%, 7 out of 10, 75, 50. It feels like where you're at is between 50 and 100%. Not all of you, but maybe

00:23:07.160 if I'm just eyeballing this, probably 60% of you are saying it's greater than 50% confidence. A number of

00:23:18.480 you are saying 10%. Here's my take. Have I ever told you about the two-on-the-nose technique for finding

00:23:30.660 lies? So the technique goes like this. If a story in the news is a little too perfect, it's probably not true.

00:23:40.620 And when I say probably, I mean 10 to 1. Not even close. If it's a little too perfect, like right on

00:23:48.580 the nose, you can usually count on that not being true. And the reason is that real life is messy.

00:23:56.520 Things that really happen in real life tend to be almost you can't believe them because they sound

00:24:02.100 stupid and ridiculous and absurd, because that's how real life works. It's messy. It's just ugly.

00:24:08.560 But when you hear a story that's this clean, this is a clean story. This is like the cleanest story

00:24:16.840 of all time. He's exactly the right person in exactly the right country, Venezuela. Is there any

00:24:26.520 country in the world that would have been more perfect for this story? Nope. Short of this software

00:24:35.880 actually being China's CCP, whatever, own software. Yeah. Okay. North Korea and China and Russia might've

00:24:44.700 been worse. But Venezuela is sort of on point because we're trying to elect a socialist leaning,

00:24:54.840 a socialist curious President Biden. So Venezuela is a little too perfect, isn't it? Because you're

00:25:04.020 saying if you elect Biden, you get a socialist, sort of like Venezuela. So if you were going to make up a

00:25:14.260 story, you would use Venezuela because you want to believe this story. You want to believe that we're

00:25:22.420 heading in a Venezuelan direction because that was the story before. You're already pre,

00:25:28.080 your brain has been primed. You are primed to more easily believe things you've heard before and

00:25:37.200 suspected before and worried about before, as opposed to something brand new. Suppose you had heard the

00:25:44.460 software was, let's say, what would be a good country I could pick? Let's say you thought it was

00:25:53.280 Belgium. So it was like, nah, I could pick a better country than that. Let's say you think it's Turkish

00:26:01.340 and you say to yourself, yeah, it's Turkish. They're a NATO ally.

00:26:08.560 So that's good. But, you know, you worry about Turkey a little bit. So, you know, I don't know,

00:26:15.300 they might be, maybe they're not so democratic. Maybe they're not so friendly. You can't really

00:26:20.960 trust them. So suppose the story had been that it was Turkish software. Would you be as worried?

00:26:30.080 It would be the first time you'd ever heard that anything about Turkey and our election and having

00:26:35.900 anything to do with each other, it would be a brand new concept. It wouldn't be very strong.

00:26:40.540 But as soon as you connected to Venezuela, of all the countries in the world, Venezuela,

00:26:47.340 Venezuela, is that a coincidence? Could be. And it could also be that this story is exactly the way

00:26:55.360 it sounds. It could be, not impossible, that this whistleblower is the real deal. He was there,

00:27:03.480 he saw it, and it's exactly what he says. It's rigged software, it's built to do that, and it did it.

00:27:09.580 Possible. However, I would say that the whistleblower, high-ranking military person from Venezuela fits very

00:27:20.120 neatly into the category of things which are almost never true. How about those weapons of mass destruction

00:27:29.360 in Iraq? Does this sound exactly like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Because it should.

00:27:40.580 What is more perfect than having a whistleblower from Iraq who personally has knowledge of those

00:27:47.340 weapons of mass destruction? Because you think they're there, right? You were sort of primed to

00:27:53.060 think that Saddam had those weapons. So the only thing you needed was a high-ranking insider, or just

00:27:59.780 an insider, who could tell you that they're there. Yeah, so I'm going to say that although Sidney Powell

00:28:07.000 is a credible person, she also doesn't have, let's say, she doesn't have an incentive to debunk

00:28:16.200 this witness. She has a current incentive to simply tell you what he's saying. Now that's fair, right?

00:28:25.300 So as a lawyer, she's not fooling anybody, she's not lying, she's not doing anything unethical

00:28:31.200 if she simply says there is this person who has this claim, and this is his situation, so you could judge,

00:28:39.480 you know, the credibility of the claim. That's fair, even if he's not telling the truth, because

00:28:45.400 presumably Sidney Powell would not know for sure, she wouldn't have any way to know that, so she

00:28:51.720 kind of has to pass it along. That is her job. That is 100% her job. She has to pass it along.

00:28:57.880 She has to treat it seriously, because doing so is good for her client. But do you think that she

00:29:04.720 personally believes the Venezuelan, the high-ranking military whistleblower? I don't know. You can't read

00:29:14.640 her mind. I will tell you that I don't believe it. I don't believe it. Could be true, right? If there's

00:29:23.860 one thing that I will hammer over and over and over again, is this is all, we're dealing with

00:29:29.120 probabilities, not certainties. So if I told you he was definitely real or definitely not real,

00:29:35.020 you should not take me seriously whatsoever. I'm just saying the odds of that one being real,

00:29:39.740 I wouldn't bet on that one at all. Now, separate from whether that whistleblower is real

00:29:46.980 is the question of whether the software has been compromised by anybody for any reason at any time.

00:29:55.240 And I would say that that's a certainty. I would say it's a certainty that at least foreign and even

00:30:02.940 domestic intelligence agencies would have to try to compromise it. That's really their job.

00:30:10.200 They would have to try to compromise it. So by now, do you believe that none of those

00:30:16.280 intelligence agencies that would have to be trying, none of them succeeded? And there's no insider they

00:30:23.340 could get to, or even an insider who just wanted to do it on their own? I would say the odds,

00:30:28.540 if you were just to look at the odds, close to 90%, probably, that the software is compromised,

00:30:37.320 which is different from saying that mattered to the election. That's still separate. But has it ever

00:30:44.540 been compromised? Is anybody trying to compromise it? Oh, yeah. Almost certainly, it's been compromised.

00:30:52.360 You just don't know how much, whether it mattered, in what way. All right. How about the claims of the

00:31:01.720 signed affidavits from the witnesses to all of the mischief? Do you think that the many, I guess

00:31:09.340 there are hundreds of them, could be thousands, hundreds of witnesses to fraudulent activity,

00:31:15.580 allegedly? Are they credible? In the comments, tell me if you think the signed, sworn, under oath,

00:31:25.500 testimonies of eyewitnesses to individual, some of the examples are somebody who is told to backdate

00:31:34.220 ballots. That's a very specific claim. We were trained to backdate ballots so they would be

00:31:41.440 turned from illegal into legal. Yeah, so I'm seeing in the comments that people are saying yes to that.

00:31:48.240 Now, again, if you have hundreds of eyewitness reports, how many of them are mistaken?

00:31:57.140 How many, if, let's say, if there were a hundred reports of fraud at the election, what percentage of

00:32:05.220 them, if you didn't do any research, just based on living in the world and, you know, having some

00:32:10.720 experience in life, how many of a hundred would you expect not to be valid? Looking at your numbers,

00:32:19.840 everything from 1% to 75%, 95%, somebody says, 15, 33, all right, so you're all over the board.

00:32:27.920 But I think we all agree that if there were a hundred eyewitness reports of a crime,

00:32:33.540 they wouldn't all be right, right? Have you ever seen the famous experiment

00:32:38.960 experiment where a professor, a college professor will set up in advance to have a confederate run

00:32:46.300 in during the class and steal, I think, steal a purse right from the front of the room and then

00:32:52.780 run out the door? And it's a setup, but the students don't know it. The students think they witnessed a

00:32:58.720 crime. And then the experiment is this. You ask the subjects after the fact to describe what they saw.

00:33:08.960 And their descriptions will be a person of a different race. You know, some people will say

00:33:14.500 he's black. Some people will say he's white. Pretty big difference. They'll have all different

00:33:19.800 clothing. Clothing will be all over the place. He was wearing a jacket. He was wearing a t-shirt.

00:33:26.740 They're eyewitness descriptions of the same moment that isn't even very complicated. Just somebody

00:33:32.900 comes in, grabs a purse and walks out. That's it. That's the whole thing. And you can't get a hundred

00:33:38.120 people to agree even who was there. It's that different. So out of a hundred, I would say my

00:33:45.500 own personal estimate would be no more than 50% of them would be real. That's just, you know, top of

00:33:53.760 the head. And let me give you another example. I was a bank teller in my early 20s, my first real

00:34:02.040 adult job. And I got robbed a few times in the bank as a teller. So the bank robber would come up.

00:34:09.640 One of them puts the gun in my nose. The other one had the simulated gun in the pocket situation.

00:34:16.520 So I got robbed twice. One time I was asked to go pick the robber out of a lineup. And it was real

00:34:23.620 easy. I recognized him. There were other bank tellers with me who had also been robbed by the same

00:34:29.760 bank robber at different times at different banks. And every one of us said, that's the guy.

00:34:35.040 It's easy. Definitely that guy. The second time I got robbed, the FBI asked if they could have a

00:34:42.060 meeting with me. And I said, what? Is that normal? Do you normally have a meeting after I've already

00:34:50.440 given my testimony? They said, you know, we looked on the video from the bank robbery,

00:34:57.020 and we don't see anybody who looks even remotely like the person you described.

00:35:02.900 So we'd like you to come in and look at the video and tell us if you see the person you described.

00:35:09.740 Because we're looking at it. We don't see it. And we're looking at the time. You know,

00:35:14.100 we know what time it happened. We just don't see it. So I go into the secret FBI headquarters.

00:35:19.880 And they have, at the time, it was a million years ago. So it was actually like a physical tape.

00:35:26.900 And they had it in this big machine. And they could forward it or make it backwards at any speed

00:35:32.860 they wanted, just by hand cranking it. And so they show me at the window. And they show this guy at

00:35:39.840 the window with me. And they go, is this the guy who robbed you? Now, the guy they showed looked like a

00:35:44.860 young Clint Eastwood with a kind of a sport jacket, big mustache, you know, good, you know, thick, dark hair,

00:35:53.460 maybe late 30s. So that's who was on the video. And I said, no, not even close. The guy who robbed me

00:36:03.560 was probably close to 70. He had a salt and pepper beard. He was maybe about my size. The guy in the video

00:36:10.120 looked to be about six feet tall. Yeah, I'm shorter than that. And he was wearing a full length trench

00:36:18.240 coat. And he was sort of, his hair was sort of like mine now. You know, he was losing his hair,

00:36:24.380 but it was kind of shortish, salt and pepper look. Now, does that sound anything like Clint Eastwood?

00:36:32.340 So I said, yeah, not even close. The guy who robbed me was this old guy. So they said,

00:36:37.080 watch this. And then in slow motion, they forwarded it. And I watched this Clint Eastwood

00:36:45.480 looking guy robbing me and me handing over the money. And I watched that thing. And I just said,

00:36:53.800 I don't know what I'm watching here. Because whatever this is, it's clearly happened because

00:36:59.440 I'm watching it on video. But I have no memory of anybody remotely looking like that guy.

00:37:04.620 You want to, it's weirder. You want a little bit weirder? My boss at the time also was an eyewitness.

00:37:12.560 Because right after I got robbed, I immediately alerted management. And my boss went outside and

00:37:18.820 followed him for a little while. So he got a good visual look at him. Independently, without hearing

00:37:24.940 my description of him, my boss described him as this old man, just like I described him.

00:37:31.880 So both of us described an entirely different person, the same way, that was not on the video.

00:37:42.240 It just didn't happen. We both had a false memory that wasn't even close to the actual event.

00:37:49.900 So now go back to the election. 100 people watched with their own eyes. They were in the room. And they say,

00:38:00.380 look, I was standing there when my boss said, do this or do that. Do you believe it? That's as good

00:38:09.960 an eyewitness as you could be. I was there. He said it to me. It was very clear. About 50%.

00:38:17.760 About 50%. It's unbelievable. I know. And if you're not a trained hypnotist, if you've never been in this

00:38:26.880 situation like I was, where you can see it and feel it and live it, how wrong you can be about a memory

00:38:33.060 like that? It's just mind-blowing to see how fragile our memories are. I've got a little warning message

00:38:43.220 on my iPad here. So if I plug this in, maybe that won't die in a minute. Hold on a little bit. Bear

00:38:51.220 it with me. I'm going to lose a little bit of visual here. All right. Back. I'm back. All right. But I would say

00:39:01.360 that with so many eyewitness reports, even if you discounted 50% of them as being mistaken or liars or

00:39:09.240 anything else, you probably have a lot of witnesses of actual fraud. So I would say that the Rudy Giuliani's

00:39:16.220 evidence of all the specific fraud, probably pretty good. Then you've got also the data

00:39:23.320 version. I tweeted this morning. There's another person who's good with data. I don't know anybody's

00:39:30.620 qualifications in these public tweetings of claims. But the claim is that, and he's showing his evidence,

00:39:38.520 so you can look at it yourself, that the election was stolen and that the way it was done was not as

00:39:46.960 simple as just deleting Trump votes or adding Biden votes. But there was a little laundering of votes

00:39:55.100 through third parties to make it less obvious. So something along the nature of some votes would be

00:40:01.840 moved to the third party from Trump and then from the third party to Biden. So it'd be a little less

00:40:07.560 obvious when he looked at the data, what was happening. I don't know what kind of credibility

00:40:14.080 to put on that claim. I guess I don't have an experience or a frame of reference. I will just

00:40:21.940 say that 95% of all the claims will not be true. So I'll say that in general. But there are lots of

00:40:31.200 claims about data irregularity, and people will be trying to debunk them. What was the

00:40:37.520 claim? There's a claim, I think Rudy said, there's a whole bunch of places where there's more votes

00:40:45.040 than there are registered voters. So it could be just that. I mean, if the only thing you knew is that

00:40:54.280 there are a whole bunch of places that more people voted than there are voters,

00:40:57.680 voters, that would be enough to throw the election down, I would think. All right.

00:41:05.920 Let's, so I would say that the case for whether or not there was a lot of, I won't use the word

00:41:16.460 widespread. I'll use my own word here. Whether there was a lot of fraud, I think that case will

00:41:22.520 be made. I would say that case has not been made, because you and I have not seen the, the sworn

00:41:29.920 affidavits. You and I can't analyze the data so well. So you and I don't know. But I would say that

00:41:37.420 the credibility of the lawyers and the types of types of evidence they claim to have would suggest

00:41:45.460 that their claim is pretty strong. But I don't know if that would add up to flipping the race or not.

00:41:51.160 It will add up to putting pressure on Republican legislatures. So the only thing it needs to do

00:41:58.600 is put pressure on Republicans. It's definitely going to do that. All right. Here's some,

00:42:05.320 here's some tricks. Did I, did my printer not print off my page? Oh wait, I got a second page here. Okay.

00:42:19.240 Okay. So here are the brainwashing tricks. I tweeted on this so you can see it if you want to review it.

00:42:26.080 So the Republican, the Democrats are using a lot of propaganda tricks. So I'm going to list them all

00:42:33.760 so that when you're watching them, you can see how much technique is involved versus just people

00:42:39.440 talking. When you see how much technique is involved, it's, it's a little scarier picture. Okay.

00:42:45.820 So here are the things I've talked about some of them before, but if you see them all together,

00:42:50.180 they're stronger. One of them is they use the word audit to refer to a recount. Now a recount is as

00:42:59.040 Rudy Giuliani said, they're just counting the same fraudulent ballots. So if these ballots are real,

00:43:05.300 or if they're fraudulent, they still just get counted. That's what a recount is. Is that an audit?

00:43:11.840 Would you use the word audit to refer to the process of recounting ballots that you don't

00:43:19.120 know are real or not? That would be the opposite of an audit. My definition of the word audit is

00:43:26.680 opposite of the way they're using it. So they're trying to slip that in and just use the word audit

00:43:33.960 wherever they can to make it seem like they're really looking for fraud. When in fact, the process

00:43:41.020 is the opposite of looking for fraud. It's the process of actively ignoring fraud and just

00:43:47.460 counting it, literally just counting. Oh, we don't care who signed it. We don't care what it came from.

00:43:52.960 We don't care if there's more votes than voters. We'll just count them. Did you get the same number

00:43:57.820 you got before? Yep. Good enough. So that's the first trick. The other is you see this every day.

00:44:05.540 They use the word widespread when the claim is not widespread. So they're denying a claim that's not

00:44:13.260 being made. So the claim is that there's targeted specific fraud in just the places where it mattered,

00:44:22.200 you know, the few cities and the swing states. That's the claim. So when the news, so-called news,

00:44:31.080 tells you there's no widespread, there's no evidence of widespread voting irregularity. Well, that might

00:44:39.320 be true, depending on how you define widespread. But widespread is intended as a propaganda brainwashing

00:44:46.820 word. Nobody uses that word widespread unless they're trying to deceive you. It's a deception word.

00:44:54.820 If they were trying to give you accurate information, they would say there are some number of claims of

00:45:02.540 fraud. And they'd let you decide whether you thought that was widespread. Because widespread is kind of

00:45:09.280 an opinion, isn't it? You know, wouldn't you say it's a little bit subjective? Why don't they just tell you

00:45:14.600 how much there is? Let you decide. Is that widespread? Well, we have these claims. These in the past,

00:45:22.160 we've had this many prosecutions. If you figure this year is similar to other years, would that be

00:45:29.160 widespread? That should be up to you. They're telling you it's not widespread. That's propaganda.

00:45:37.580 All right, how about, this is the best one they're doing. They say that Trump refuses to concede.

00:45:44.760 Which persuasion technique is that? Do you recognize it? He refuses to concede. That's the most common

00:45:54.420 persuasion technique. But if you don't study this stuff, you don't know it. You know, you wouldn't

00:45:59.520 know it just automatically. It's called making you think past the sale. The most common, yeah, the most

00:46:06.420 common persuasion technique. The sale is that he lost the election fair and square. So they don't want you

00:46:14.140 even think about the question, which is the only question. There's only one question. And they're

00:46:19.380 making you think past that. Nobody who's honest does that. Honest people will deal with the question.

00:46:28.080 Yes or no. You know, we think there's some chance or not a chance of fraud. But they're not going to go

00:46:34.620 right past that, all the way to he refuses to concede. So I tweeted that Joe Biden refuses to

00:46:43.400 concede, despite all of the evidence of and all the allegations of fraud. Same thing. They both

00:46:52.760 refused to concede. It's just that they thought to say it about Trump first. If the Trump team had

00:46:59.480 thought of it at first, they could say the same thing about Biden. It wouldn't fit as well because

00:47:04.960 the alleged number of votes went to Biden. But they could have said it. They could have said,

00:47:11.180 look, we've got tons of sworn affidavits that the election was fraudulent. Why don't you concede?

00:47:20.260 Look at all this evidence. It's obvious. Biden, why do you refuse to concede with all this evidence

00:47:28.280 that it was fraudulent? I mean, this is good evidence. And you refuse to concede? See, it's

00:47:34.900 just, it's propaganda. And you should recognize it as such. Then there's the bad analogy, fear

00:47:45.580 persuasion. And there are three parts of this. Jim Scuto, I never know how to pronounce his name,

00:47:54.240 CNN. He said, quote, the parallels between yesterday's Giuliani press conference and Joseph

00:48:02.040 McCarthy's infamous, quote, I have in my hand speech are chilling. So Scuto is comparing Giuliani to

00:48:14.860 McCarthy. All right. So that's the first bad analogy. Now that is making you think past the sale,

00:48:22.800 isn't it? Because McCarthy did not have evidence. He simply claimed he did. And then in the long run,

00:48:30.680 you found out it didn't exist. Is that the case with Giuliani? Does Giuliani have no evidence,

00:48:39.180 but he's saying he does? No, it's opposite. It's opposite of that. Because Giuliani has sworn

00:48:46.540 statements from hundreds of witnesses. Did McCarthy have sworn statements from hundreds of direct

00:48:54.840 witnesses? No. No. Different. In the comments, somebody's saying that McCarthy was right. But

00:49:03.240 that's a different argument. Now, so Trump is being called a dictator who, you know, his authoritarian

00:49:10.040 reflexes are making him stay in office. They're saying that, let's say, he's a racist. They're

00:49:18.860 saying he's a racist because it turns out that where the allegations of fraud are highest, let's say

00:49:26.160 the places where they didn't check signatures, is also heavily a black population. So even AOC was

00:49:34.340 tweeting that the president challenging those specific places which are more black than anything else

00:49:40.640 is racist. Now, is it the president's fault that that's where the problem appears to be?

00:49:51.540 It wasn't like Trump decided, well, I think I'll just pick these three places with a large black

00:49:59.340 population. That didn't happen. They just looked at the data. And the data seems to say, well, it looks

00:50:06.300 like these places have some questions that need to be answered. That's it. And they've turned that

00:50:11.840 into racism. When I looked at AOC's tweet about that, she referred to it as disenfranchising black

00:50:21.480 voters. I don't think she used racism in that tweet. I think she said disenfranchising. And I thought to

00:50:28.940 myself, that is so diabolically clever. Because what she's saying is, I guess you could say it's

00:50:39.480 technically true, right? If you were a black voter in one of those cities, and the Trump legal team

00:50:45.240 succeeded in getting some number of those votes thrown out, you'd have to wonder if you had been

00:50:51.760 disenfranchised. Now, it might not be the biggest problem in your life. It's probably the smallest

00:50:56.940 problem in your life. But it's technically sort of somewhat accurate. But that's not why he did it.

00:51:07.860 You know, if there's no intention of being racist, you know, nobody said, let's get rid of all the

00:51:14.920 black votes. Nobody had that thought. So to make this into a racist thing, even though the outcome

00:51:22.660 certainly had as more of a racial, more of a racial outcome, but to turn that into, you know,

00:51:29.960 he's a racist is propaganda and brainwashing. All right. So those are the main, oh, here's some more.

00:51:38.560 They also say that because the evidence has not been presented to the court in a way that the court has

00:51:45.780 agreed and, you know, accepted the lawsuit and sided with it, that the news is saying there's no evidence

00:51:52.120 of fraud. And Giuliani's going crazy. He's going, what do you mean no evidence? I have hundreds of direct

00:51:59.700 witness evidence, plus, you know, all these other things. That's pretty direct.

00:52:06.900 But as long as the fake news can disappear stories from half of the country, you know,

00:52:13.640 the half that watches that brand of news, they can just say there's no evidence. They can just claim it

00:52:19.800 and just keep saying it. And it will become true by repetition because there will be no counter

00:52:27.080 argument that half the country sees. They'll be in their bubble and they won't know there's any

00:52:31.560 counter argument. They will just say no evidence. The news says there's no evidence. What else do I

00:52:38.200 need to know? Isn't that the end of the conversation? No evidence. Doesn't every conversation end with

00:52:45.420 there's no evidence? We're done. Now, of course, the reality is a little more complicated. Probably

00:52:53.080 these initial lawsuits were about keeping the argument alive. The argument being that there's

00:52:59.240 something wrong with this election. Maybe Trump did not lose. So I would say, and a lot of the

00:53:05.080 lawsuits came from individuals, not from the legal team. So first of all, some of the ones that are

00:53:12.660 lost were not from Trump anyway. But I don't think that the legal team cared too much. In other words,

00:53:20.760 they didn't have too much invested in the first batch of lawsuits. I think that was just to keep the

00:53:26.700 argument alive. Make sure everybody was in that frame of mind that there's still something to look

00:53:32.020 at. Buy a little time because it takes a while to get hundreds of sworn testimonies. You know, normally

00:53:37.980 this is a process that could take a year that they're trying to compress into two weeks. So it looks like

00:53:44.640 a buying time strategy to me, but the fake news turns that into no evidence. As opposed to give them a

00:53:52.780 little time, there is clear indication that there's a problem or could be, could be wrong, but there's

00:54:01.380 clear indication that there's something that needs to be looked at. Give them some time. All right.

00:54:07.800 The other thing is they can get people in authority to say that there was no fraud or irregularities

00:54:15.820 detected. Is that true? No, there was no irregularities detected. And somebody on Twitter

00:54:23.380 forwarded me, um, the Republican head of elections who said just that, I think it was Pennsylvania.

00:54:31.060 It doesn't matter which state could have been Georgia, but it's a Republican and he's on, he's on

00:54:36.740 camera and he's saying to the public, I did not witness any irregularities in this election.

00:54:43.640 Do you know what's wrong with that? It's that guy's job to make sure there were no irregularities.

00:54:53.060 They're talking to the guy whose job it is to prevent those things. Do you think if you talk

00:54:59.260 to an employee and their job is to prevent something from happening and the only way you

00:55:04.300 know if it happened or it didn't happen is you ask the person whose job it is and it gets paid

00:55:09.220 to tell you that they did a good job and it didn't happen? It could not be a less credible source than

00:55:18.040 the person whose job it was to make sure it didn't happen. All he said was he didn't see it.

00:55:24.460 And if he says he didn't see it, does that mean it didn't happen? Because let me explain how fraud

00:55:30.600 works. Let's say you're a fraudster and there's a person whose job it is to catch you. And that's

00:55:38.080 that Republican guy who's the head of the elections, right? It's his job to catch you and it's your job

00:55:44.540 as a fraudster to avoid this guy. And you do. It's not really a fraud if you do it in front of that

00:55:54.240 guy. So really, if you can imagine the fraudsters, if allegedly any existed, and they'd be looking

00:56:01.760 around and they say, where's that guy? And they'd say, he's over there. And they'd say, keep an eye

00:56:08.160 on him because he's the guy we don't want to know we're frauding. Just that guy. And then that guy

00:56:16.140 says, I didn't see anything. Well, of course he didn't fucking see anything. He's the guy you don't

00:56:22.040 show it to. By his job description, he's the one you don't want to let see this happen. All right?

00:56:29.680 If allegedly there were people giving, let's say, postal people giving directions to other postal

00:56:35.740 people to backdate ballots, if that happened, where did it happen? Did it happen in front of that guy?

00:56:46.940 No. If it happened at all, it happened at the post office. It didn't happen in front of that guy.

00:56:54.580 So if he says he didn't see it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's amazing persuasion. All right.

00:57:04.760 The other one is that if there were widespread, and they'll throw in the widespread part there,

00:57:09.740 if there were massive cheating in the election, it would be obvious, Scott. It would be obvious.

00:57:18.740 How can you claim that there was election cheating that was like so big, so big, that it would actually

00:57:24.600 change the outcome of this election when Biden won by, you know, the 5 million votes or whatever it is?

00:57:30.160 It would have to be such a big fraud that you would notice. To which I say, that's why we're talking

00:57:38.880 about it. Because we noticed. We're not talking about it because we didn't notice. Everybody noticed.

00:57:50.380 Do you think that Biden got that many more votes than Obama? Do you think that he couldn't get 12

00:57:57.960 people to attend his rallies, and he got the most votes of anybody in history? Does that sound

00:58:05.900 like maybe your eyebrow goes up a little bit? Is it a coincidence? Now, it's an allegation. I can't say

00:58:14.320 this is true. But the allegation is that the so-called irregularities in the data seem to happen in just

00:58:21.400 the right places at just the right time. Is that something I didn't notice? Because I feel like people

00:58:28.620 noticed that. Is it a coincidence that Trump gained with every minority group? He got more votes than

00:58:40.240 before, and historically more than Romney, more than most Republicans for decades. And yet he lost votes

00:58:50.060 with his core base after four years of doing what they would consider a great job. You think that happened? It could have

00:58:59.020 happened. It could have happened, right? So you can't rule out other explanations for every single thing you see.

00:59:07.700 But to tell me that it's not obvious, even if I'm wrong, even if I'm wrong, that's just not true.

00:59:16.720 It looks obvious to me, even if I'm wrong. So that's the other persuasion is that you'd see it,

00:59:25.720 but we do. All right. And the other word is enabling and apologist. So they actually trotted

00:59:35.480 down Carl Bernstein again. Every time CNN trots out Carl Bernstein to say this is worse than Watergate,

00:59:43.000 I just laugh. Because what he should be saying is that if this fraud is real, as alleged, it's way worse

00:59:51.760 than Watergate. But you can't really get him to say that on CNN. All right. I believe it's just about

01:00:00.420 all I want to talk about. Oh, here's here's some more. Democrats tell us we should listen to the

01:00:07.920 experts. Am I right? Am I right? Am I right? That's right. We should listen to the experts.

01:00:15.400 Would you say that Rudy Giuliani and his legal team and Sidney Powell, would you say that they're

01:00:24.460 experts? I would say they're experts. Wouldn't you say that Rudy Giuliani is about as good as you could get

01:00:33.600 as an expert on organized crime techniques? Yeah. Who would be better than him? I mean,

01:00:41.760 he did prosecute the mafia and he was mayor of New York City. So if I had to pick an expert in anywhere

01:00:49.720 in the world who could tell me that they had accurately seen election fraud at a local level,

01:00:56.940 meaning managed at the local level, who would be a bigger expert in the whole country than Rudy

01:01:04.460 Giuliani? Shouldn't we listen to him? He's an expert. All right. Here's another thing you're not hearing.

01:01:14.340 I tweeted about this because I think it's hilarious. Wouldn't you expect that by now you would see

01:01:21.860 somebody who is anti-Trump, somebody who says the election was fair or fair enough, wouldn't you expect

01:01:30.400 somebody would come out in public and say, I don't know what you people are talking about because

01:01:36.040 Philadelphia has clean elections and always has. Where's that guy? Kind of missing, isn't he?

01:01:44.700 Don't you think that the most obvious thing that you should put on the air is somebody who will say,

01:01:55.800 you know, I've been studying Philadelphia politics for years. I wrote a book on it. I was an insider.

01:02:04.660 You know, I was actually in politics or I covered it. And I'm here to tell you that if you're saying

01:02:10.460 that Philadelphia politics is dirty or that they rigged an election, I don't know what you're talking

01:02:17.300 about because Philadelphia doesn't do stuff like that. Where's that guy? Right? Where's the one from

01:02:28.460 Detroit? Where's the pundit who goes on CNN and says, I can't believe they're impugning the integrity

01:02:37.600 of Detroit politics. I've lived in Detroit all my life. I've worked in politics. I've covered it. I wrote a book

01:02:45.500 about it. And I'm here to tell you, if there's one clean city, it's Detroit. So they picked the wrong town.

01:02:54.580 I mean, just on the face of it. It's like saying the Pope is a murderer. How does it even make sense?

01:03:02.240 How do you even, you know, conceive of that? Philadelphia and Detroit? How could you think

01:03:10.880 that they would throw an election? It's kind of crazy. A little bit crazy. Bananas, if you will.

01:03:17.860 It's bananas, as CNN likes to say when they can't tell the difference between an apple and a banana.

01:03:24.100 All right. I believe that's all I wanted to say today. Have I said enough? Too much, really. Too much.

01:03:39.420 Somebody says, what does Gene Simmons say? That is the most random question of the day.

01:03:45.400 Slaughter meter is at 98% with this provision. Okay. Here's the provision. I separate the question

01:03:56.580 of whether the president will prevail in making his case that the election was stolen and that he was

01:04:03.900 actually the one who got the right enough votes in the electoral college. I believe that there's a 98%

01:04:09.860 chance that the president will succeed in making that case, wait for it, to his base.

01:04:21.220 That's the important part. Will he succeed in making that case to the courts? I don't think the courts

01:04:28.440 are inclined to overthrow an election, even if the case is made. So I think the courts would say

01:04:35.440 the last thing we want to do is disenfranchise all these people, even though the law would allow us

01:04:42.240 to do that and would even indicate maybe we should. But the bigger benefit for society is keeping the

01:04:50.800 world together, keeping the country together. So I think that in terms of winning a slam dunk in the

01:04:58.460 courts, probably low. I'd say the odds of just outright winning the election,

01:05:05.440 because the Supreme Court said, oh yeah, it's Trump's election. He won. I think that's low,

01:05:12.400 10%, less than 10% maybe. Now, of course, that's not his only path. He also has the path

01:05:20.680 that he can get the legislatures to just say they don't certify. Now, that path only requires

01:05:35.100 that he convince his base. So that his base says, hey, you Republicans who might want to certify this

01:05:41.740 election, if you do, you're going to lose your job. Is there a 98% chance that Trump will succeed

01:05:49.880 in convincing his base that the election was stolen? Yes. There's a 100% chance of that, actually.

01:05:59.400 I don't think there's any chance you won't do that. Because you can't prove a negative. And that's

01:06:04.840 what the Democrats would have to do to convince Republicans. And it's not logically possible.

01:06:14.620 It's not just hard. It's an impossibility. You can't prove something didn't happen. You can only

01:06:21.000 prove you didn't find it. And as long as you say, well, the best we can do is we didn't find it,

01:06:25.900 that allows Republicans to say, well, we found it. I think I see it. So that's good enough for me.

01:06:32.640 And I think that they are saying that, and they will. So the likely path of this

01:06:39.760 is that the legislature is going to have a hiccup on this, could end up at the House of Representatives,

01:06:49.540 in which case it goes to Trump. But here's the next part of the prediction. I don't think the

01:06:58.540 country could handle it. In other words, the amount of upset that would be caused by having this go to

01:07:09.460 Biden, at least in the minds of Biden supporters, and then having it yanked away in what would look

01:07:15.840 like an illegitimate process. Now, there's nothing more legitimate than following the actual steps of

01:07:23.300 the Constitution, which is what would happen in this scenario. But it wouldn't look that way.

01:07:29.760 To the Democrats, it would look like a technical lawyer thing. It would look like it's stolen. It

01:07:34.880 would look like an autocrat. So I can't see that the Democrats have any chance of living with it.

01:07:40.700 And I think they would go violent, or enough of them would, that there would be

01:07:45.020 massive unrest. And I would go back to my George Washington path. And that allows that President

01:07:55.200 Trump, through technical processes, actually wins the election and can be seated, but chooses to step

01:08:03.680 down for the good of the country. Now, if I were him, I would not choose to step down.

01:08:10.340 Unless I were cleared of all of my legal, future legal problems. See where this is heading?

01:08:19.820 Trump's biggest risk, according to his critics, are future legal problems that are not easy to avoid

01:08:26.740 if you're no longer the president. So the president has this big honking thing hanging over him that he

01:08:33.720 can avoid either by being the president, which might rip the country apart, or getting some agreement

01:08:40.760 that going George Washington and stepping down preserves his freedom in the future, and he becomes

01:08:49.780 George Washington. He will always be the person who gave up power. Now, the story will be he gave up

01:08:55.940 power to, you know, avoid legal problems. But since we don't know how the legal problems would have

01:09:01.240 turned down, it's going to look George Washington-y. Now, the other possibility is he just lives with the

01:09:08.720 street violence and tries to last it out, which could work, could also work. So those are the

01:09:18.080 possibilities. And that's where I see it's going. And I will talk to you later.

01:09:22.680 All right. Said goodbye to Periscope. All you YouTubers, you have my full attention.

01:09:34.840 Seal Team 6. I don't think Seal.

01:09:42.160 I've seen a lot of people who believe that I'm operating in bad faith and that I should just

01:09:49.800 cut it out. Which part? What is it that I should cut out doing? Should I cut out putting percentage

01:09:59.700 odds of things happening? Why? Why should I stop that? Why should I stop putting odds of things and

01:10:08.620 predicting them? It's actually a useful thing to do. But a lot of that is trying to make me think

01:10:15.220 past the sale. The people who want me to stop talking about even the potential that the election

01:10:21.560 could go the other way, they are trying to make me think past the sale. And they're trying to make me

01:10:27.880 think that there's only one way it can go. And so clinging to any other hope is just bad for the

01:10:35.240 country. But that's just simply not true. If I were to place a bet today, I would think that Trump has a

01:10:48.840 path. Somebody says violence is coming regardless. Well, you know, one of the beauties of getting into

01:10:56.540 the winter, especially with the lockdowns and stuff, is that between the cold and the coronavirus and the

01:11:02.340 fact that there's some protest fatigue, I would think by now, it might be a good time to have a, you know,

01:11:10.160 to have some protesting because it might not get too big just because the weather is so bad. When you have

01:11:19.380 bad weather, especially cold, it does put a crimp on your protesting.

01:11:25.780 Somebody says Trump fired Esper so he could use the military. I don't think there's any chance of

01:11:34.260 that. Well, I'll be consistent and say that nothing has zero chance, but that's pretty close to zero.

01:11:43.940 Adams is mind reading now. Give me a specific for that. You know, I always talk about people mind

01:11:50.820 reading and how you shouldn't do that. But it is also true that you can't really avoid it.

01:11:56.940 Because if you're operating in the real world, you have to make assumptions about how other people

01:12:01.260 are thinking, or you couldn't operate. So you have to do it. But you should you should stop and remind

01:12:07.680 yourself that you're not good at it. And adjust your your predictions from that. So if I did something

01:12:14.400 that would be called mind reading, just tell me I might have done that. Is the golden age still

01:12:21.600 happening with Biden? You know what people are calling the great reset or whatever?

01:12:29.700 There is a whole bunch of stuff that's going to be way better after the pandemic. Like way better,

01:12:36.800 like way better than you could have imagined even a year ago. So everything from the way we do

01:12:42.080 transactions and the way food is is created and delivered, our healthcare system, I mean, just

01:12:48.880 everything, you know, zoom meetings, so much. There are so many things that changed because of the

01:12:58.540 pandemic. And many of them are opening up opportunities. So I would say the golden age probably does come

01:13:04.260 regardless of who is president. Can we ever trust elections again? Well, we shouldn't have trusted them

01:13:11.340 in the first place. But yeah, I think we could figure out how to do it, right?

01:13:19.360 Did my inside information come to pass? The stuff that I've seen, some of it I have not seen

01:13:29.180 debated in public. And I don't know if all of it is part of any lawsuits. So what I've seen is data

01:13:36.820 related. But you haven't seen too much, at least on the news, you see it on social media. But the

01:13:44.280 things I've seen, I've not seen covered in the news news. It's hard to eat a turkey with a mask.

01:13:54.320 You know, one part of the, there's a whole bunch of that Venezuelan whistleblower story that just in

01:14:05.220 the way it's told, just to my ears, I'm thinking, it just sounds made up. I don't know, we'll find out.

01:14:13.760 Elections should be blockchained? Probably. I think that's where it's heading.

01:14:21.080 All right, that's all for now. And I will talk to you all later.

01:14:23.740 Later.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - November 20, 2020

Episode 1193 Scott Adams： I Tell You How Trump Will Win This Legal Battle if he Wants

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript