Episode 1205 Scott Adams： I Tell You How Democrats Pulled off the Perfect (Alleged!) Crime, With Whiteboard
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 1 minute
Words per Minute
152.15866
Summary
Scott Adams talks about the lawsuit , and case against the Supreme Court by Ted Cruz. Scott Adams joins me to talk about as well as .
Transcript
00:00:00.000
hey everybody come on in it's time time for coffee with scott adams best part of the day
00:00:11.400
oh yeah every single time it's the best part of the day especially when you're prepared what do
00:00:19.560
you need a cup or mug or glass a tank or chalice or sign the canteen jug or flask a vessel of any
00:00:24.520
kind fill it with your favorite liquid allow me to put my microphone on and join me now for the
00:00:33.180
unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine here of the day the thing that makes everything better it's
00:00:37.200
called the what is it simultaneous sip that's right go
00:00:41.960
so good so good well i've been trying to come up with a name for something there's a category of
00:00:57.780
thing happening that doesn't have a name and it's always fun to be the person who could come up with
00:01:05.940
the name of a thing that nobody has named yet and i'd like to come up with a name for the people on
00:01:12.300
twitter probably social media in general who come into a conversation after it looks like you know
00:01:19.200
how it's going to go and they couldn't they couldn't hang with the actual debate because they don't
00:01:25.440
understand the law and thinking and logic and any of those useful things that you would need to be part
00:01:33.020
of a debate but once they think it's settled there's this group that comes in to add sarcasm
00:01:40.640
and that's all they do they don't bring a debate an argument a point they don't bring information
00:01:47.560
they bring just sarcasm and so i've decided to call them the sarcasm guppies because they're not
00:01:54.900
they're not full-grown fish because the full-grown fish can have an actual conversation with
00:02:01.240
data and reasons and arguments and stuff but they're not them they're they're like the the
00:02:08.200
sarcasm guppies and they swim in afterwards and if somebody if somebody yesterday yesterday thought
00:02:14.740
the sun would be out but it turned out to be a cloudy day instead the sarcasm guppies will come in
00:02:21.220
they'll say finally finally something i'm qualified to interact with i couldn't hang with the logic
00:02:27.800
and i couldn't hang with the facts oh but now but now they said it was going to be sunny but it
00:02:35.240
wasn't it wasn't watch this hey i thought you said today would be sunny but not wearing my sunglasses am i
00:02:47.220
i guess i left my sunglasses home oh zing zing zing owned owned so those are the sarcasm guppies
00:02:59.640
you've seen a lot of them today did you see the uh lawsuit uh i think this is a petition to the
00:03:07.940
supreme court i might be using the wrong legal words here but ted cruz has apparently put together a uh
00:03:15.220
appeal in which he's challenging the pennsylvania part of the pennsylvania result and here's the thing
00:03:28.360
where you're thinking to yourself gosh i i hope someday there's a stronger case
00:03:36.820
for the trump side well uh if you don't know this already ted cruz has argued in one cases at the
00:03:44.940
supreme court so ted cruz is a guy you don't want to mess with if you're going to be in a legal uh battle
00:03:52.160
you know you imagine yourself you get in the legal battle and you're thinking to yourself
00:03:56.820
god i hope the other side doesn't bring somebody good and then ted cruz shows up as the attorney for
00:04:02.720
the other side and you just say to yourself damn it damn it it's ted cruz so here's the argument he's
00:04:10.200
going to make i'm going to butcher this and i'm um i'm uh i'm drafting off of uh jack basabic who
00:04:19.080
yesterday did a live stream on this so i'm basically going to tell you what jack basabic said on his
00:04:24.380
live stream because i don't understand this field but he did a good job of breaking it down and it goes
00:04:30.640
like this so there was uh i don't know if i can get into the details but the the essence of it was
00:04:40.520
that prior to the election there was no standing meaning that nobody had been injured by anything
00:04:48.600
until the election happened and the and the the charge was there's some changing in the rules that
00:04:54.960
didn't go through the constitutional system created an unconstitutional thing which uh happened
00:05:04.520
and the claim is that those votes that were part of this unconstitutional decision uh should be thrown
00:05:12.620
out and the argument is really really clever in a legal way which is why i'm going to butcher it
00:05:18.080
probably but the the thing is that until the election happens nobody nobody has been harmed
00:05:24.320
and apparently you can't bring an action to the court and say hey there's this thing that happened
00:05:30.980
when it hasn't happened you're simply worried that a thing will happen so at the beginning you have no
00:05:37.040
standing so you don't have a legal remedy then the election happens
00:05:40.440
and then the court says too late because you knew about this thing a long time ago but you waited
00:05:50.260
until now and there's this thing called the doctrine of latches that i heard about one day ago and that
00:05:57.900
says you waited too long to bring your case and that is a disadvantage to whoever you're bringing your case
00:06:03.560
against so you can either be too early and have no standing or you could be too late
00:06:10.260
because it's too late and there's no there's no there's no room in between
00:06:16.800
now ted cruz has said you've done something that is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional
00:06:24.000
and indeed i don't even think pennsylvania would argue the point i don't even know if there's an argument
00:06:30.160
that says it was constitutional because they very publicly did something non-constitutional
00:06:36.380
right in front of everybody the i don't think there's any question of fact that it was a
00:06:43.240
non-constitutional means the problem is that in addition to doing something non-constitutional
00:06:49.040
on top of that like that wasn't already enough reason to reverse it on top of that the courts created
00:06:56.940
a situation where it couldn't be addressed in the courts because there was no time between the you
00:07:02.360
don't have any standing and it's too late there was no time so let me ask you this if you're the
00:07:11.020
democrats and you hear that the you know the angel of death uh ted cruz has has decided to put his name
00:07:20.180
keep in mind ted cruz has a you know a track record a reputation of success with the supreme court
00:07:28.320
he's putting his name on this damn thing right do you think he'd put his name on it if it were not
00:07:34.320
pretty solid i don't think so now i'm no expert on law and you know when you hear about stuff like the
00:07:42.700
doctrine of flashes and you say to yourself oh i thought i kind of understood things and
00:07:47.380
until i heard that and i don't know what the hell that's all about so i don't like to think that i
00:07:53.040
know too much about what will happen in a court case but as a lay person if you tell me this story
00:08:01.900
you know the way that ted cruz has laid it out you tell me that ted cruz put his name on it
00:08:07.040
he put his name on it i'd be a little bit worried about that if i were a democrat so what do you think
00:08:15.320
are the odds that at least pennsylvania will be reversed if you had to bet now some of you haven't
00:08:23.420
seen the the uh the legal documents the claims but if you had to bet what are the odds that just that
00:08:31.000
one state we'll just talk about that in isolation what are the odds that that would be reversed based
00:08:36.620
on this pretty good right pretty good i think it's closer to a hundred percent than zero but beyond
00:08:47.940
that you know i would just be flailing so i'll have to see uh what the counter arguments are it's
00:08:56.960
always easy to be seduced by the initial argument because lawyers are good at making the initial
00:09:03.100
argument no matter what it is sound pretty good you have to wait for the other side or you don't
00:09:08.460
know anything all right let's talk about how the democrats may have allegedly allegedly not proven in
00:09:18.860
any court of law pulled off the perfect alleged crime and it goes like this and i gotta tell you
00:09:29.080
if it sounds like i'm a little bit excited by this you're right i absolutely love seeing a new
00:09:41.040
business model i'm sort of a business model geek but i would include a perfect crime if somebody pulls
00:09:48.900
up pulls off a perfect crime i don't like it especially if i'm a victim of the crime but i'm still
00:09:57.040
impressed by a really good crime all right so similar to the way that i could be uh totally amused and
00:10:04.820
entertained by president trump's you know aggressive personality toward his critics um i can simply
00:10:13.100
appreciate things without without losing sight of the fact that there's a downside to a lot of things
00:10:18.540
all right so here's here's the perfect crime as i see it alleged did you hear me say alleged
00:10:26.260
all right so these circles represent the alleged instances of fraud in all the many places in the
00:10:37.280
many different precincts and counting areas now let's just limit these to the swing state cities the
00:10:45.060
ones that are under question and let's say hypothetically so this is not a claim of fact this is a
00:10:52.340
hypothetical but it's looking like it's shaping up this way hypothetically suppose that these black
00:10:58.840
circles represented real fraud but they are all cleverly sized such that if somebody discovered one
00:11:08.220
of these what would the court say the court would say yeah it does look like that happened but it's so
00:11:16.200
small compared to the whole election it's not going to reverse it so there's no point in even hearing it
00:11:25.140
because even if it's true what's the difference now there might be a separate criminal case if there's a
00:11:31.720
person who did something bad but in terms of reversing the election the court is going to say yeah you
00:11:38.220
you've got a pretty strong case but we don't care because it's not big enough to reverse the election which
00:11:43.920
is the whole point so they packetized their crime so that if you found that somebody brought in i'll
00:11:52.960
just use some uh hypothetical examples so these are not scott claiming facts it's just an example so
00:12:01.240
suppose one of these was somebody brought in a truck full of fake ballots and there were 20 000 of them
00:12:08.380
and they catch that truck and they say we're throwing out those 20 000 ballots doesn't matter
00:12:13.480
wasn't enough wasn't enough then somebody else was putting in a you know a usb stick into something
00:12:20.680
and changing some votes and somebody else was running the same votes through and somebody else was changing
00:12:26.500
the sensitivity on the signatures somebody else was doing a little uh ballot harvesting in a state
00:12:32.440
where you're not supposed to do some ballot harvesting and on and on and on and on now
00:12:38.680
the second part is these red circles represent disinformation intentional disinformation and
00:12:47.600
on top of the intentional disinformation which you know exists you can be pretty sure that the
00:12:54.000
democrats did hire disinformation professionals actual people who don't do anything else well they do
00:13:00.800
other things but they're experts at disinformation i would say there's pretty much a guarantee that they
00:13:07.100
were at work and they seeded this with a bunch of fake stuff so that if the news found one of these fakes
00:13:15.980
and then two of these fakes and then three of these fakes and then four of these fakes and then 25 of them
00:13:22.480
what is the public going to think because the fake news says well yeah they're making a lot of claims
00:13:30.180
fake claim fake came fake claim you lost in court you lost in court you lost in court you lost in court you lost in court
00:13:36.180
what is the public think what would the public think who is not following things at the detail that many
00:13:44.760
of you are what would they think well they would be quite um you could forgive them for thinking that
00:13:52.100
this was a completely clean election and even the people in charge of the election told you it was clean
00:13:58.960
so the experts told you it was a good election the news told you every time they made a claim
00:14:05.660
it got debunked debunk debunk debunk what the hell are you going to think you're going to think the
00:14:12.480
election was clean the losers a sore loser is complaining all right but on top of this you've got this
00:14:20.400
excellent timing situation that i alluded to that before the before the alleged improprieties happen
00:14:28.160
it's too soon to make it to have a problem with it because there's no standing in court because nobody's
00:14:34.840
injured yet and then after it's done the timer starts because the constitution requires you to certify
00:14:42.660
and move to each step and to be done with it in a in a specific time how much time did let's say
00:14:51.620
durham take for his investigation well he's not done yet how much time did muller need for the muller
00:15:00.480
report a long time so we know that how how long it takes to do a complicated investigation especially
00:15:10.520
with all this disinformation here imagine if imagine if muller and john durham had to spend 75 percent of
00:15:20.540
all of their time chasing disinformation i'll bet they didn't because i don't know that anybody was
00:15:28.460
i don't know there's any reason to do it to inject disinformation into the muller report i mean the
00:15:34.620
obviously the uh the things he was investigating were disinformation but i don't think on top of
00:15:41.940
that people were injecting disinformation to make it harder so anybody who would want to find a real
00:15:51.100
fraud and prove it and get the level of evidence you would need would have the most compressed time
00:15:56.960
frame to do it and on top of a compressed time frame would have the entire media against them
00:16:03.860
and would have um uh and would have so they would have the timing problem and then they would have
00:16:10.800
all the the disinformation that they have to wade through which would take them even longer so
00:16:16.900
it's the perfect crime it's the perfect crime because i think that after this is all said and done
00:16:25.280
the history will record okay it took us a long time might take you five years and five years later you
00:16:34.180
get a a whistleblower says yeah you know i drove that truck and then maybe it's six years later and
00:16:42.140
somebody comes out and says i gotta admit i did mess with those machines a little bit gotta admit i'm on
00:16:48.080
my deathbed i'm just gonna tell you so you could imagine the history will piece it together eventually
00:16:57.120
the security on these machines well so dizzy brad on twitter twitter twitter user uh tweeted this
00:17:09.340
talking about the uh the security of the voting machines which have a usb drive and dizzy brad says
00:17:16.580
for our pipeline operations control system now obviously it would be pretty important to have good
00:17:23.920
control on a pipeline because if the pipeline goes nuts you got lots of problems right so the pipeline
00:17:31.240
operations control system they weld the usb port closed to prevent unauthorized access need an update
00:17:40.080
call instrumentation team plus the mech shop so you actually you would have to actually call engineers
00:17:46.520
to engineer a brand new usb port if you wanted to change their software now that is computer security
00:17:56.320
right if you think computer security is hey don't put anything in that usb drive that's not computer
00:18:04.920
security if you take a torch and weld that usb uh hole shut that's computer security likewise
00:18:14.600
likewise likewise oh i had another point on that i'll get back to it um oh here's here's an example of
00:18:26.820
what a bank would do so this is also from the tweet uh somebody said i've sold integrated software to
00:18:32.420
large banks three times now so this is banks buying software what do they do when they buy software
00:18:38.640
he says each time there was an extended and rigorous code review where every line of my code was looked
00:18:46.060
at by their technical experts if i would have refused to cooperate they would have refused to buy
00:18:53.140
basic security policy that's what that's what computer security looks like so these are two examples
00:19:01.760
of what you should look for do our voting systems have this level of security doesn't look like it
00:19:09.920
doesn't look like it so here's something i learned today that is interesting apparently all of our
00:19:16.520
election devices the voting machines have to be certified by an accredited lab so any anything that
00:19:25.560
will be part of the federal election has to go through an accredited laboratory wouldn't you like to hear
00:19:32.820
from the employees of the voting uh machine accreditation laboratory doesn't doesn't that feel like a gigantic
00:19:43.520
uh thing that we should have been hearing about by now so i tweeted this at uh tucker carlson's
00:19:50.000
account because i would love to see tucker carlson or somebody somebody who's smart enough to ask the
00:19:57.480
right questions bring the lab on and say hey you've had these machines in here and you've accredited
00:20:03.640
them what are your standards for accreditation is it just that you looked at it and you ran some you ran
00:20:11.640
some tests and it worked on the one machine you had access to or do you check every machine
00:20:17.580
or do you check and determine that if the one of them is fine that there's no way that the other
00:20:25.040
ones could have been altered because the one you checked was okay what does it mean to you know what
00:20:32.780
kind of standard do they use wouldn't you like to know that now i'm not sure that uh tucker carlson would
00:20:39.500
be the right personality to ask these questions because ideally you'd want to you'd want somebody who knew
00:20:45.780
uh computer security and technology to ask those questions i don't know who would be the best
00:20:51.460
person in the comments yeah somebody says no on tucker because you don't trust him because he's
00:20:58.080
being too honest the reason you're mad at tucker is because he's being honest with you all right i can
00:21:05.900
find reasons to disagree with tucker on you know various things but if you're mad at him for being honest
00:21:11.580
with you that the evidence has not yet been proven in a way that he as a legitimate voice on television
00:21:19.440
talking about the news could repeat without being embarrassed
00:21:23.040
don't be mad at tucker for being honest because that's all that's happening that is all that's
00:21:31.680
happening show me show me one thing that tucker has said that's not true all right if you can do that
00:21:39.500
then i will have some sympathy for your argument that something happened to tucker and he's he's gone
00:21:45.780
bad but if you can't show me one thing he said on this election question that isn't true
00:21:51.440
i'd like to see it maybe you can make your case but i kind of doubt it so give me give me some
00:21:58.980
suggestions of who would be the best person to interview a technical expert from a voting machine
00:22:07.600
accreditation lab i mean i can do it i can i can ask 80 of the right questions probably
00:22:14.760
but i feel like we could come up with somebody a lot better than me
00:22:19.200
tim pool i don't know what his uh technology background is you dr shiva might be too smart
00:22:27.660
you know there's sort of a there's sort of a middle ground here because if you've got a technical
00:22:33.420
expert and then the person asking the question knows even more than the technical expert
00:22:38.580
you may have confusion on confusion so you need somebody who is capable of asking the right question
00:22:45.540
and there aren't too many people who are in the news business who are also capable of doing that right
00:22:52.140
somebody suggested john mcafee but he's dying in a spanish jail if there were a way to get john
00:23:01.860
mcafee out of his spanish jail to to do this interview he would be in fact the perfect person
00:23:09.380
i i hear you say uh uh i'm seeing robert barnes and matt brainard being suggested but we're looking
00:23:18.920
for technical experts not legal and or data analysis experts peter teal well i'm looking for somebody who's
00:23:27.400
actually a news person would be ideal all right anyway i'll put that out there maybe the news can
00:23:33.000
settle that let me talk about what are the strong arguments against the election being uh fair so
00:23:41.360
strong argument number one is the pennsylvania case now that's not an allegation of fraud per se
00:23:47.920
because everything that pennsylvania did was public it's a weird kind of fraud because they did it right
00:23:54.840
in front of you here's our constitution and now watch us ignore it and just make up some laws
00:24:01.980
so would you call that fraud if the government just says hey guys uh we have a bunch of laws
00:24:10.100
just want to let you know we're going to be ignoring the laws we think it's good for you
00:24:15.220
we have an argument we're you know there's a reason we're doing it but we're doing it right in front of
00:24:20.860
you and we think we're doing what's right in other words they were allowing a kind of uh mail-in ballot
00:24:28.420
that the constitution did not allow but they thought that mail-in ballots would be good so they did it
00:24:34.920
right in front of the public does that make it a fraud technically i'd say no i don't know the sort of a
00:24:45.620
legal question right you know i don't want to just use the word you know and make an argument just
00:24:50.960
based on a word but if you do it right in front of people and you tell people while you're doing it
00:24:57.040
what's that called i mean it might be unconstitutional but is it a crime if your stated intention
00:25:07.380
is to do what's good for your people and i'm sure that they said it in those terms right that was the
00:25:14.340
whole point hey our people want to vote mail-in ballots there's a coronavirus why wouldn't we
00:25:20.400
want to give this to our public you know it's an emergency situation so we're gonna we're gonna cut
00:25:25.920
some uh cut some corners on the whole legal thing but we're doing it for the benefit of the people
00:25:31.840
what is that is it a crime i actually don't know because it's not a fraud because there's nothing
00:25:40.800
hidden it's not a fraud if nothing's hidden right and it's not exactly a crime it's just
00:25:49.880
unconstitutional for a good purpose i think the supreme court still has to rule in favor of ted
00:25:58.120
cruz's uh claims because i don't think the constitution can say i'm sorry i don't think there's a case where
00:26:07.080
the supreme court wants to start a precedent that if you think the constitution isn't what you want
00:26:13.500
you can ignore it because that's what happened right pennsylvania is saying all right with all
00:26:19.500
good intentions we think our state constitution is flawed for this situation so we're just gonna
00:26:26.680
ignore it i don't know that the supreme court can ever let that stand but i will warn you
00:26:35.740
that the supreme court and i think uh i think alan dershowitz told somebody recently i heard anyway
00:26:43.100
third hand that he he agrees with the general notion that the supreme court will favor um stability of
00:26:51.320
the country over maybe the the technicalities of the law and the constitution so there is a there's a
00:26:59.940
very real possibility that the supreme court will say yeah you made your case but that's worse than if
00:27:08.700
you had so we're we're gonna just sort of act like you didn't and and uh deny it so that's possibility
00:27:15.820
all right so the pennsylvania case i think is strong argument number one strong argument
00:27:21.840
number two i would need a fact check on this but the news has made this claim that the uh the dominion
00:27:30.500
software people have denied an audit of their system because of proprietary information now the first
00:27:37.540
thing you have to say to yourself is is that true did they really just say no you can't look at our
00:27:43.180
software because it's the sort of thing where you look into it and there's probably a little nuance
00:27:48.160
there so it might be something along the lines of they're just using that as a stalling motion
00:27:54.220
or i don't know so there's probably more to the story but here's my claim if we can't audit our
00:28:02.360
nation's vote counting software because the company claims it's proprietary information i'm totally cool
00:28:09.040
with that because i think you can have proprietary information if there's if there's an entity that wants
00:28:15.060
to claim their technology is proprietary i think they have every right you know short of a court case
00:28:21.600
i suppose but they would have a right to keep that secret wouldn't you say don't you think the the people
00:28:28.740
who have vote the make voting machines have every right to keep their technology proprietary
00:28:35.140
i think they do you're saying no but they have that right oh oh i left down a part i'm not done with
00:28:44.040
my point they have the right to not let us look at their machines we have the right to throw out the
00:28:52.060
election because they wouldn't look at our machines so their right i'm okay with i feel i feel like they can
00:29:00.140
keep that right to not let us look at their proprietary information but they don't have any
00:29:06.120
control over our rights our right is that we can throw out their ship all of it and i would say
00:29:13.940
that that one fact should throw out all of the votes from the voting machines if i were you know
00:29:21.600
benevolent supreme court ruler of the universe i don't think you need to know anything else
00:29:28.340
i think you just have to know that these the system that counted our votes we can't look at
00:29:35.740
that's the end of the story let me let me present my entire case to the supreme court
00:29:41.440
supreme court there's a voting system that we used in a lot of swing places and
00:29:50.200
they have proprietary software and we're not allowed to look at it so we should throw out all those votes
00:29:57.500
what's the supreme court say uh but scott that that would be bad because if we disenfranchise people
00:30:06.600
um that would be bad for the system well they might vote against me because they want to protect the
00:30:13.980
system but do you think they would disagree with this point that you don't really know who won
00:30:20.640
so long as you can't look at the code right you wouldn't know who won we we wouldn't be able to
00:30:28.460
certify an election meaning the the elected officials who have to certify an election they can't really
00:30:35.120
certify an election if they can't look at the most basic information that would tell them an election
00:30:41.740
happened i would i would argue that because we can't um audit the software if it turns out that
00:30:49.060
this is true that we can't audit it we don't know if an election actually happened not only can we not
00:30:56.320
certify that the election was fair we actually can't certify that it occurred right because an election
00:31:06.260
would be people vote those votes are counted and then you know something happens because of the vote
00:31:12.240
we don't have evidence that is that is you know solid evidence that that actually happened we have
00:31:19.340
evidence that people you know pushed buttons on machines and we have evidence that we have a
00:31:25.100
president-elect what we don't have is all that stuff in between which is called the voting process
00:31:31.300
we it just doesn't exist so if i'm the supreme court i say uh are you telling me you had a vote and
00:31:38.580
you can't prove that you even had the vote i would think that the minimum requirement to say a vote
00:31:45.840
occurred is that you can tell right that you can identify it you can detect it it's not detectable
00:31:54.580
you can't find the vote because you can't look at the software so there's this whole black hole
00:32:01.160
you know your votes went into the black hole but you don't know what happened after that
00:32:06.040
so can you certify that a vote happened when you can't tell that's a pretty strong argument isn't it
00:32:15.080
i haven't heard anybody make that except me on twitter but that's the argument i'd make
00:32:20.220
all right so now you've got the pennsylvania argument looks pretty strong you've got the
00:32:25.380
uh you've got that argument that looks pretty strong that you can't audit it you can't confirm it
00:32:31.680
and uh i had one other argument oh the organized bullying if you heard any of the witnesses uh in
00:32:44.740
michigan and i think pennsylvania too but the michigan one was especially strong and the one you have to
00:32:51.880
if if you want to go look at it on youtube and see what i'm talking about there was a blonde woman
00:32:57.960
in michigan uh i'm going to call her a a super karen in a in a complimentary way all right so
00:33:06.220
everything i say after this is a compliment even though i started it with super karen that sounds
00:33:11.000
like i'm going to go the other way so super karen who was uh complaining about management if you will
00:33:17.620
you know complaining she was one of the witnesses for the uh the election now here's the interesting
00:33:23.900
part i believe she was trained and or paid by dominion so she was paid by the people who were
00:33:31.860
in charge of having a good election i believe fact check me on that i think she said that and she
00:33:37.500
witnessed a whole bunch of stuff that if any of that stuff is true this was a very bad election but
00:33:45.440
part of what we heard from the witnesses is the bullying now the bullying has sort of a special
00:33:53.400
place in american hearts wouldn't you say let me let me ask you this uh there are two bad things that
00:34:02.460
happened to you today just hypothetically one of them is you know just some bad thing happened and
00:34:07.640
the other thing is that you got bullied which one takes over your brain the bullying one right
00:34:14.320
the other stuff is just bad news but when you get bullied that's really
00:34:20.380
that that's where all the controls come off of my brain in my world uh bullies are the ultimate crime
00:34:31.060
because they leave you damaged forever but you've got nothing you can do about it because you're
00:34:36.540
damaged mentally and so bullies uh i i hold as my greatest villains in life you know short of mass
00:34:46.060
murderers i suppose but bullies for me are just like the worst of the worst of the worst and it appears
00:34:52.200
according to these witnesses that the bullying was it looks like it was trained and organized
00:34:58.020
in other words that the bullying the bullies were using actual techniques that they had been trained to
00:35:05.100
use allegedly this is the allegation trained to use to bully the republican uh witnesses out of the
00:35:12.980
witness area and there are lots of reports that it worked they found tricks one of them was hey why
00:35:19.960
don't you go get a snack and then they lock the door and don't let them back in uh one of them was
00:35:25.400
complaining that somebody was playing with their mask too much and so it was not healthy that they're in
00:35:30.600
the same room so it looks like they have a sort of a a list of things okay try if this doesn't work
00:35:37.000
try this if this doesn't work try this but the bullying included you know physical intimidation
00:35:43.500
and it included you know words about your mother sexual insults i mean really bad bad stuff so here's my
00:35:52.640
take if it can be demonstrated that the bullying was widespread in the in the keys the key swing cities
00:36:01.080
only if it can be demonstrated and clearly there are multiple witnesses to it i would say that any uh
00:36:09.560
any voting precinct in which they were counting votes under the uh under the pressure of bullying
00:36:16.980
they should all be thrown out now this is my strongest point not legally so i don't know you
00:36:26.160
know the odds of getting any any legal action for this are probably low but in terms of just you know a
00:36:34.460
person on this world you know a citizen a patriot somebody who just wants to get a good result so let's not
00:36:41.680
talk about the legality of it per se if you put me on the supreme court and you parade several witnesses
00:36:48.440
in front of me who are credible and you tell me that those witnesses were physically intimidated
00:36:53.840
during the process of an american election i throw out every one of those fucking votes
00:36:59.840
every one because you know what my tolerance for bullies is fucking zero not one percent not a little
00:37:10.260
bit's okay fucking zero now the big argument against picking out any one of these little little bubbles
00:37:19.580
and saying hey you know this little bubble looks like fraud but it's too small i kind of agree with
00:37:28.800
the the court system not throwing the country into a you know civil war if they can avoid it and that
00:37:36.620
might mean shading their opinions a little bit to ignore the technicalities of the law to just keep society
00:37:44.060
together let me tell you where my limit is i'm very much about agreeing that the supreme court especially
00:37:52.300
if their intention is to keep society together i'm kind of okay with that even if the even if the case
00:37:59.320
doesn't go my way but here's my exception bullying bullying is my exception if you give me a choice of
00:38:08.140
accepting that this election had bullying and the bullying worked and i have to live with that
00:38:16.000
to avoid a civil war fuck you civil war civil war first bullying is after that in terms of my preferences
00:38:27.700
no if you want a civil war with actual violence allow bullying to continue in our and you know prove
00:38:36.980
it's true and then allow it to continue if you allow this bullying to go untreated and uncured
00:38:46.340
it has to happen next time there isn't any chance it won't happen next time and nobody thinks otherwise
00:38:53.340
there's nobody in the world who would believe that the bullying happened and worked who wouldn't also
00:38:59.080
believe it'll happen next time that is worse than a civil war it's worse suppose you said scott
00:39:08.240
a civil war a million people are going to get killed let's do it you can't have a system that allows
00:39:17.560
bullying as the main process of how elections happen the reason we fought a revolution is because we had
00:39:25.340
that kind of a system right that the bullies in in uh in england were bullying the bullying the uh
00:39:34.540
the people in america and the people in america said you know i would rather have a civil war
00:39:41.180
than to be treated this way because if you think about it the entire civil war was about how they
00:39:47.900
were being treated it wasn't even about you know it wasn't somebody trying to build an empire
00:39:53.540
it wasn't religious based exactly it was people who didn't like bullies we are an entire country
00:40:01.460
built on don't fucking bully us we will leave your goddamn i'm sorry i know you don't like when i swear
00:40:10.560
that way we will leave your entire continent we will get on a little boat and go across the whole
00:40:17.800
freaking ocean into uncharted territories to get away from people telling us how to live our lives
00:40:24.680
no bullies bullies are the limit no bullies in our system so if this gets to the supreme court
00:40:34.380
and bullying can be demonstrated as not only something that happened in one of these key places
00:40:41.320
but it looked kind of similar in other places that would establish at least the suggestion that it was
00:40:48.080
organized now imagine if you take these allegations that are in individual places
00:40:53.760
and you can establish that they used similar techniques or worse you can you can actually find
00:41:01.200
the flow of communications in which they were trained to do it you're the supreme court
00:41:08.060
hypothetically and you've seen witnesses and you are convinced that systemic bullying
00:41:15.500
was a planned operation what do you do with those votes well if you're the supreme court and you learn
00:41:23.240
that the voting outcome is tainted by bullying even if you don't know how much it changed the votes
00:41:29.080
if you don't throw out all of those votes you're not doing your job because that is far more important
00:41:37.340
even at the risk of civil war even at the risk of civil war real civil war it's more important
00:41:44.120
bullying cannot survive if you have to die to get rid of bullying do it because you're not going to live
00:41:54.860
under bullies that's the limit there's no negotiating there's no compromise there there's no let's put up
00:42:03.320
with it a little bit bullies that's that's a yes no boom there's no there's no nuance for bullies
00:42:13.760
bullies gotta lose or you gotta leave you either have to beat them or leave you don't live with them
00:42:20.100
right so beat them or you leave the country but don't live with bullies just don't do it
00:42:26.680
all right so i'd like to compliment uh super karen the michigan witness uh and here's the
00:42:34.460
compliment part uh she was really credible you ever you ever listen to somebody who there's just the way
00:42:41.680
they talk it's not like they're trained you know persuaders necessarily but the way she talked
00:42:48.440
if you heard her carried uh carried some intelligence and credibility that you can't really fake
00:42:56.620
if any of that wasn't real i mean she could be mistaken about observations of course but that
00:43:04.100
looked pretty honest to me and she looked super credible and she wasn't the only credible person
00:43:09.000
some of them were less credible but there were plenty of credible ones um where are the dominion
00:43:14.820
employees on television being interviewed and asked to address the many claims about security etc
00:43:22.980
well apparently they've decided to go quiet for legal reasons probably smart in a in a legal sense
00:43:29.260
but how how good do you feel about the fact that the people who really could tell us you know the
00:43:36.160
counter argument the ones who could say yeah yeah we know those usb ports are open but here's the
00:43:42.680
reason it doesn't matter wouldn't you like to hear that or the ones who say uh well okay we were actually
00:43:49.900
in network to the internet we said we weren't but yes now that you mention it we were um but it doesn't
00:43:57.680
matter and here's our reason why you're mistaken don't you want to hear that why is that missing
00:44:04.500
shouldn't dominion be all over the news saying uh these are crazy claims limit let me show you the
00:44:13.760
machine here i'll hold it up you can see for yourself look there's no usb thing look there's no
00:44:20.980
connection or whatever should they not be trying to defend against these claims in public obviously
00:44:27.740
they have a legal strategy but i feel like you know maybe it's a good legal strategy but it
00:44:35.140
certainly makes the public have less trust not more all right um
00:44:42.220
so did you see have you seen some of the project veritas uh they're starting to drop little audio
00:44:50.880
tapes from apparently they got the phone numbers to listen in on cnn executives do their planning
00:44:57.940
call once a week or whenever it is and so uh james o'keefe was personally listening in on all the cnn
00:45:05.680
like uh executive calls which is hilarious by itself and one of the things they caught answered a big
00:45:13.360
question for me don't you ever wonder if the cnn executives believe their own news have you ever
00:45:20.480
wondered that because you you look at it you say to yourself i'm not even sure they believe it
00:45:25.840
do they are they telling you something they want you to believe but privately they don't believe it
00:45:32.220
because that was always a mystery to me you know how much did they really believe and on the call
00:45:37.440
you hear one of their executives saying that uh that fox has a white supremacy hour that is the
00:45:46.040
tucker carlson the tucker carlson show and then it is quote naked racism now given that this was a
00:45:52.900
phone call among people who knew each other and was not meant to be public i take this as confirmation
00:45:59.500
that they believe their own fake news and i'm thinking i don't know i don't know if that's good or bad
00:46:07.680
like on one hand i guess i'm happy that they're not intentionally telling us one level of news
00:46:14.780
while at the same time thinking it's not true but maybe it's just as bad that they believe it
00:46:20.780
because you can't spend too much time watching tucker carlson without hearing him say over and over
00:46:28.400
again that race should never be part of any of our process or our country or our decisions
00:46:33.580
tucker carlson objectively speaking is the most anti-racist person on television because most people
00:46:43.420
only go halfway they say we don't want to be racist against this group of people tucker carlson
00:46:50.120
completes the picture and says uh i don't believe the constitution i'm paraphrasing of course i don't
00:46:55.720
believe the constitution says that only some people you know are special i believe the constitution says
00:47:02.920
very much the opposite that you know the the freedom from racism should apply to all people not to
00:47:10.740
some so he is indeed the least in terms of what he says on television the most anti-racist person on
00:47:20.380
television period there's nobody even close name anybody who is willing to call out racism on both
00:47:27.060
sides just him he's the only one everybody else just picks a side so um they actually believe they're
00:47:38.260
fake news it was kind of interesting to know that um apparently a lot of people have now i tweeted this so i know a lot of
00:47:46.280
people are agreeing with me that the fraud will eventually be proven and proven to the point where it would have
00:47:53.640
changed the election but probably won't matter probably biden will be will take the job anyway but here's what's
00:48:01.380
interesting about this and i'm gonna say i think it's unprecedented or unprecedented which is have you
00:48:09.820
ever had a president who got uh who's leaving office after one term who realistically might run again
00:48:19.080
in four years have we ever had that somebody who was in the job uh got replaced and then ran again in
00:48:28.100
four years or you thought they might i can't think of any other time that happened but here's the bad
00:48:33.640
situation or good depending on your point of view that that creates um trump is now going hard at the
00:48:42.200
tech companies so he's he's saying he's not gonna he's gonna veto some i don't know defense bill or
00:48:48.260
something national defense authorization bill that uh unless they put into it getting rid of the
00:48:54.420
section 230 protections for the social media companies which would make them um subject to
00:49:01.720
being sued for doing bad things now trump it looks like he's going to lay waste to all of his enemies
00:49:10.080
who would be enemies when he runs again in four years this is a really kind of a dicey situation isn't
00:49:19.640
it now i'm clearly you know pro trump but even i am uncomfortable having a sitting president
00:49:28.720
who's going to mow the lawn before he leaves and the lawn is going to be everybody who is on the other
00:49:34.820
side and might give him problems in four years so the lawn includes the social media companies
00:49:40.520
it looks like he's trying to take them out before he leaves office now i believe his case is solid
00:49:47.020
in other words i don't think he's just flailing around at his enemies the section 230 thing is
00:49:52.940
widely you know widely popular by lots of smart people who say we just need to do this change
00:49:59.400
so it's not some kind of a crazy unfair attack you could argue it either direction but it's not an
00:50:05.440
unfair attack and i don't know how good this is that he has the power of the presidency
00:50:12.420
and he can he can really change things to set the table for him in four years for example he could
00:50:21.160
take out you know the fake media the social media companies he could he could do a lot of damage
00:50:26.960
just setting himself up for 2024 now if we only take this one example that's a perfectly fair thing
00:50:34.120
to do but it would certainly help him in 2024 if he wins on that um
00:50:40.540
so the other news john durham apparently bar turned him into a special counsel and now that he's a
00:50:50.140
special counsel it's less likely that biden will fire him although biden could but it's less likely he
00:50:56.180
would do it because of the political blowback so i don't have a comment on that it's just a thing that
00:51:01.580
happened um here's a uh a disturbing theory that i saw recently uh it was a ray dalio i think was
00:51:13.480
saying this that civilizations follow a or at least world powers follow a predictive cycle of growth and
00:51:21.980
then decline and i'm going to summarize it so it's a little less accurate but so you have a society let's
00:51:31.020
say america that becomes prosperous but the prosperity turns into inequality and that turns
00:51:38.280
into calls for you know solving the inequality which which turns into debt because you got to print money
00:51:44.580
to give everybody enough money you're printing money you're creating debt and then basically you
00:51:49.320
have civil war and decline so that's the cycle prosperity inequality printing money debt civil war decline
00:51:59.520
now why is it that you think the united states is the biggest power in the world today it's because
00:52:12.540
a hundred percent of all the other powers before the united states became the dominant power
00:52:18.440
a hundred percent of them who were once dominant powers
00:52:22.920
like that none of them last at least hundreds of years they don't last
00:52:27.400
so is the united states trapped in this inevitable uh cycle of growth and then decline and are and are
00:52:36.060
are we on the back side of this where we're into the printing money and revolution
00:52:40.800
somebody's calling that the fourth turning uh that might be related to this as well
00:52:47.480
well here's what i think i feel as though history doesn't work anymore meaning that everything that
00:52:57.080
used to work used to also be predictive if if things always went this way before that's a pretty good
00:53:04.620
indication it's going to go that way again because there's just something about it but you know the
00:53:09.740
world isn't the same place it ever has been we are connected by communication we have we have abilities
00:53:15.980
to adjust in ways we couldn't do before uh even gigantic problems we can handle and shrug off
00:53:22.960
you know if you were a major power in the past and you had a gigantic problem
00:53:27.520
probably took you out but today a major power could have a gigantic problem
00:53:33.940
and just handle it so i just don't know that the cycles that made complete sense in a pre-internet world
00:53:42.080
still make sense for example uh economic let's say economic upheavals that just you know destroy your
00:53:50.160
economy in in the old days we didn't have good communication and we didn't have good economists and we didn't
00:53:57.040
have good data we didn't have all the mechanisms we've developed to address those shocks
00:54:03.840
so the shock could just you know take out your civilization but today same shock i think we
00:54:11.740
would just get our experts together and we just sort of work it out so i i would present to you
00:54:17.720
that probably uh the most famous last words of everybody who thought they were smart but they
00:54:25.380
weren't is that it's different this time how many times have people been wrong saying
00:54:33.640
well it's different this time um so that's sort of the biggest trap you have to watch out for but
00:54:39.780
i do think that a world with internet is not the same as the world pre-internet and when you take
00:54:48.240
those pre-internet patterns and imagine they will repeat post-internet i think that has to be tested
00:54:54.180
has to be tested so i don't think we're in decline i think we're probably closer to the golden age than
00:55:01.460
decline and that's my show for today i hope you enjoyed it and i will remind you again that if
00:55:09.940
you'd like to see my extra stuff i'm going to start putting more things uh in december on the locals
00:55:15.260
platform locals.com subscription platform where i put my uh my life advice lessons micro lessons
00:55:25.460
little two minute lessons and and other content that's not the only thing on how to uh live your
00:55:32.180
life better so that's on locals and i will see you again tomorrow right back here
00:55:37.580
all right you youtubers you know i'm gonna hang around after i turn off periscope
00:55:44.380
um oh good somebody somebody there saying you love locals yeah one of the things i didn't uh
00:55:52.460
uh i didn't see coming about locals is that it attracted people who think like me which is
00:56:00.080
sort of why they wanted to be part of that community in the first place and so a lot of the content that
00:56:05.180
the other people who are part of the community are bringing is really good stuff and i don't have all
00:56:11.160
the trolls over there uh trump martial law now i don't think there will be any trump martial law
00:56:18.100
uh odds of a revote close to zero uh somebody saying something anti-semitic
00:56:26.900
uh is the supreme court hostage to the threat of riots yes yes and they should be i don't i don't
00:56:35.360
think you want that to be different necessarily i think they do need to look at the big picture and
00:56:41.380
you'd kind of want them to um how does the bully issue get resolved i don't know i feel as though
00:56:49.620
the supreme court might be able to do something with it but i don't know how you turn it into a
00:56:53.960
supreme court case you know because because bullying isn't exactly a crime right or maybe it is maybe it's
00:57:02.380
assault i don't know um is this the best time to be a political pundit absolutely the time of trump
00:57:11.520
is the best time to be a political pundit just because all the energy is there but the number of
00:57:16.080
people like me who have gone into this realm of podcasting is really interesting and i would argue
00:57:23.860
that the um the balance of power is changing because of it you know the the people who used to be the
00:57:31.060
gatekeepers of truth where you know the news and your politicians and stuff but i would say the
00:57:36.200
gatekeepers of truth um that's that's migrating over to the podcasters and the reason is that the
00:57:43.520
podcasters typically not all of them but typically um have more independence and so the podcasters can
00:57:51.600
say whatever they think is true and that's their business model if you are a tv news company
00:57:59.640
what can you say about pharmaceutical companies when they are your entire their your entire support
00:58:07.320
and basically most of the news networks are beholden to pharmaceutical companies because that's
00:58:14.520
their advertisers i i don't have that problem who am i beholding to anybody i can't think of anybody
00:58:22.860
so if you were to look at the podcasters you know the the political pundits were growing up in this
00:58:28.360
new media you've got the ones who take advertising as their business model joe rogan would be an
00:58:34.540
example of that now do you think that joe rogan has complete freedom in a way maybe he did in the
00:58:41.640
beginning i would say no i don't know that it makes his product any worse probably doesn't because he
00:58:48.280
has more freedom than you know 99 of the world to say what he wants he he's built a he's built a brand
00:58:54.680
around that so he can get away with stuff you can't get away with such as smoking a joint on tv he can do
00:59:01.320
that i can do that when i was on his show but not many people are in that position where it wouldn't
00:59:06.520
hurt them to do that but i would argue that anybody who's taking advertisement has a little less free
00:59:13.400
speech not not not in a technical sense but certainly in a practical sense because you you just have this bias
00:59:23.240
that says i don't want to say something that costs me all my advertisers reasonably right now how often would
00:59:32.040
joe rogan even want to say anything that was so bad he would lose his advertisers probably not often i mean it probably
00:59:39.360
doesn't come up a lot but it's a it's his force you know you can't say it's nothing and i think he would agree if you
00:59:45.720
asked him you know do you feel the pressure of having advertisers does that you know do you feel the pressure of
00:59:52.080
spotify and i would say he's doing an amazing job of pushing back against that pressure especially when he had uh
00:59:59.360
alex jones on his show the spotify people rebelled against some of his content including alex jones so
01:00:10.160
what does joe rogan do when spotify rebels against his content he picks the most provocative thing he
01:00:16.880
can do and he puts it on now that's that is exactly how if you were a fan of mma fighting and strategy
01:00:25.680
you would go at them you wouldn't say oh i'm sorry let me take down all of my old content you would go
01:00:33.600
right at them because a good offense is a good defense so that's what joe rogan does i think i think
01:00:39.380
he's going directly on offense at his critics and that's a really good strategy so he'll have more free
01:00:45.700
speech than most people because of his brand of who he is and and the fact that he understands
01:00:53.100
that offense makes more sense than defense in these situations but what about somebody who has
01:01:00.900
a similar kind of a job and they don't take any advertising well i take advertising indirectly
01:01:08.640
because on youtube you know there's an advertising model but people can be subscribers to youtube but
01:01:15.120
never see ads and then i started locals as a subscription service specifically so i wouldn't
01:01:23.340
be so beholden on youtube so tomorrow if youtube says we've decided your content is all going to be
01:01:30.620
banned i'll just go over to locals and just carry on it'll be fine so i don't have to worry so much
01:01:37.880
about the the economics of advertisers so i feel like you know in terms of who's