Episode 1283 Scott Adams: I Tell You How Trump's Lawyers Eviscerated Democrats' Impeachment Case, Lots More
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 22 minutes
Words per Minute
147.59073
Summary
I'm in a good mood because of the news. I love digging into the fake news, but I especially like it when President Trump is in the headlines. Biden's strategy is to make politics so boring that nobody checks too much on what he's doing, but we miss the excitement of Trump back in the fight.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey, everybody. Come on in. Come on in. Gather round. It's going to be a barn burner today.
00:00:09.980
Yeah, I'm in a good mood. Good mood because of the news. Do you know what it takes to put me
00:00:16.260
in a good mood because of the news? Lots of juicy fake news. I love digging into the fake news,
00:00:24.820
but I especially like it when President Trump is in the headlines. Because have you noticed the
00:00:33.000
great darkness that has descended upon us when we have nothing to talk about?
00:00:38.680
Because Biden's strategy is to make politics so boring that nobody really checks too much on what
00:00:47.720
he's doing. And it's working. But we miss the excitement. The excitement of Trump back in the
00:00:56.020
fight, even when he's not there personally. Even not there personally. He's still the most exciting
00:01:02.720
thing happening. Well, before I tell you how his defense team eviscerated the Democrats' case,
00:01:10.160
let us prepare for this properly. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or
00:01:15.560
stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like
00:01:20.900
coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day. The
00:01:25.700
thing that makes everything better. It's called the Simultaneous Sipping Habits Now. Go.
00:01:36.080
I got a very sincere, let's say, constructive criticism about my live streams yesterday.
00:01:45.560
And one of my viewers said, I'm paraphrasing, I hate to tell you this, don't take it wrong,
00:01:54.880
but you're a slow talker. You're a slow talker. And when I watch your live streams, I have to speed
00:02:01.940
it up to 1.5 times the speed just to get through it. To which I say, is there any other way to listen
00:02:11.500
to a podcast? When I heard that, I thought to myself, are you telling me there's some people
00:02:17.660
who don't speed up podcasts? And I think that the difference is, and I'd like to check this with you,
00:02:27.740
the audience. Tell me if this is true or false. I believe there are two ways that people consume
00:02:35.280
my live streams. One is they're just trying to pick out some good ideas or any tips or just useful
00:02:41.780
stuff. In which case, listening to it at 1.5 speed is a good idea. Speed it up a little bit. Get to the
00:02:48.580
point. But I also believe that some of you use it almost like having company. Almost like it's more
00:02:58.920
about the hour and the coffee than it is about the specific information that's being transmitted.
00:03:07.540
Now, that's the way I watch the TV show The Five. When I watch The Five, which I try to watch pretty
00:03:15.560
much every episode, when I watch it, it's more like watching five people that I like talking about
00:03:23.060
stuff I'm interested in. And I like the time. So it's not just the information. I just like the time
00:03:30.560
that we spend together, so to speak. So there are two reasons to watch this. One is you just enjoy the
00:03:37.040
time, and the other is to get some nuggets out. But certainly, if you didn't know you could speed
00:03:42.300
these up, now you do. Just look in YouTube menus. You'll find out how. All right. Here's some
00:03:49.580
thoughts. We'll get to the impeachment, of course. You know, we're trying to figure out who,
00:03:56.380
what Republican will be the strongest candidate in 2024. I had been thinking that Tom Cotton would
00:04:03.700
be the strongest candidate eventually. You know, there's a lot of bubbling around, but he seemed
00:04:10.840
like he would be a strong candidate. And then I realized he has one really big problem working
00:04:16.740
against him, which is, and this is going to sound like some kind of a racial joke, but it's not.
00:04:25.060
All right. So this is not a racial joke. This is deadly serious. It's also funny, but I'm not making
00:04:32.780
fun of any racial group. Okay. So this is not disrespectful. It is an honest observation that
00:04:40.640
just happens to be funny. How can you expect the black population of America to literally pick
00:04:49.240
Cotton? Think about it. His last name is Cotton, and we're asking people to pick him for president.
00:04:58.940
Now, there's no way that people are not going to realize that that's got a little, there's a little,
00:05:05.780
just doesn't feel right. And how do you win the presidency if you don't get, you know, an unusually
00:05:12.560
big share of the black vote in this country? Now, again, I'm not making fun of any group.
00:05:19.280
This is not a joke, right? It's funny. It is funny just because of the simulation and the coincidence
00:05:25.300
and the irony, but I swear to God, I'm not being disrespectful to anybody. This is a genuine problem.
00:05:31.740
It's like an actual problem. Because just do this exercise. Put yourself in the head
00:05:40.920
of any black American who's got the legacy of slavery. I don't know. I just wouldn't,
00:05:50.300
it would be hard to pick a candidate named Cotton. It actually would be hard. No joke. So I just put
00:05:59.280
that out there. The fake news that I'm enjoying the most today is about the nuclear football.
00:06:05.440
Now, the nuclear football, as you know, is sort of this attache case with the nuclear codes,
00:06:12.020
allegedly, so that the president and or the vice president as a backup, because both of them have
00:06:17.880
a football. I understand there might be one at the at the White House as well. So there might be three
00:06:23.540
footballs. But there's a person who carries it around wherever the vice president or the president
00:06:28.400
is. And during the capital assault, we now know that at least the one that was following the vice
00:06:36.760
president got really close to the protesters. In other words, there was a real risk that the
00:06:42.780
protesters could have gotten a hold of the football. Do you think that's true? And if they did,
00:06:50.460
if they had gotten a hold of that football, do you think that would have been something really bad?
00:06:55.400
No. No. All right. I don't know for sure that anything that I say next is true. I don't know
00:07:06.960
it's true. I'm just going to speculate. Okay. Let's say that you got close enough to the guy with the
00:07:15.740
football that you actually got your hands on it and you're a protester. How long would you still be
00:07:21.980
alive once you, as a protester, physically touched the football? What would be the expected life
00:07:31.520
expectancy of any citizen who touched the football in a protest? Well, it should be zero, right? You
00:07:41.560
should die almost instantly because don't we assume that the guy who carries the football is armed?
00:07:46.660
Doesn't he have one hand on the football and the other hand is going to go right in here and take
00:07:53.140
out a very large weapon, I would think? Right? I don't know that. I have no reason to know that
00:08:00.480
that's true. But if you're letting the guy who carries the football walk around without being strapped,
00:08:08.780
No. So the first thing that I would say is that if the protesters had gotten that close to the
00:08:15.160
football, there would have been massive bloodshed and it would not have gone the way of the
00:08:19.960
protesters. So in reality, them actually getting their hands on it, unless they were going to bring
00:08:26.400
out their own weapons, and we didn't see that, we didn't see the intention to bring out their own
00:08:33.120
weapons. The protesters, that is. If they were, we assume some of them had had firearms, but didn't
00:08:40.020
brandish them, at least in terms of aiming them at anybody. So that's the first thing. The first
00:08:48.220
thing is probably it would not have been a close call. There would have been a lot of dead people,
00:08:54.500
but I don't think it would have been a close call. Somebody would not have actually gotten their
00:08:58.660
hands on the football. That's my guess. Now, I don't know that, so I would look for a fact check
00:09:04.160
on that. Number two, do you believe that in the year 2021, that if somebody captured the football,
00:09:11.960
they could launch the nuclear arsenal? Of course not. There are no experts who tell you that if you
00:09:19.380
captured the football, no matter who you are, that you could then use it to launch an attack. It doesn't
00:09:25.760
work that way. They would still need to know that you're really the president, and there are other
00:09:30.240
safeguards that it's better if we don't know about them, right? But there was no risk that somebody was
00:09:38.000
going to capture the football and launch a nuclear strike. None. Zero. Just no risk, right? But one
00:09:46.940
expert did say if they had stolen the football and acquired its contents, which include pre-planned
00:09:54.200
nuclear strike options, nuclear strike options, that they could have shared the contents with the
00:09:59.140
world, he told the network. Now, do you believe that if somebody captured the football, they could
00:10:05.660
open it up? Maybe they'd have to do some hacking to get into the system, right? You know, it must be
00:10:12.040
some kind of password or whatever. But let's say they could hack it. Could they hack it and figure out
00:10:19.160
from the contents of the football, the pre-planned nuclear strike options? Do you believe that that
00:10:27.540
information is contained on the football? I hope not. I hope not. I hope not. Right? Do you think
00:10:41.800
that you can literally get that information from the football? I mean, maybe. But if so,
00:10:51.540
it's really designed poorly. Like, really poorly. So I don't believe that for a second. I do not
00:10:59.720
believe that there was anything that anybody could have gotten from the football that would have been
00:11:04.440
useful or you could sell it or enemies would care about it. And secondly, what if you did find out
00:11:10.840
where we plan to attack with our nuclear weapons, what exactly was the other team going to do?
00:11:18.880
What were they going to do about that? If we were aiming our, let's just say hypothetically,
00:11:26.200
somebody found out we had nukes aimed at Moscow. What are they going to do? Put up an anti-nuclear
00:11:34.780
shield? I'm sure they already figured out Moscow might be one of the targets.
00:11:40.840
If they have, if it's a military location, I suppose they could relocate their military. But
00:11:48.520
aren't we watching that stuff? I mean, I feel like we're watching. If they were to move some
00:11:54.720
gigantic military assets somewhere, enough military assets that we would have targeted them with a
00:12:01.400
nuclear weapon. I mean, you'd have to have a lot of them to make it worth a nuclear weapon.
00:12:05.140
So the whole thing is rather ridiculous. All right. I remember when people were mocking me for saying
00:12:12.360
that Trump was both smart and persuasive. Do you remember that? Years of me being mocked. Oh,
00:12:19.100
he's so persuasive. Isn't he, Scott? Oh, why are you saying he's persuasive? Why couldn't he do this or
00:12:25.760
that? Or why don't Democrats like him if he's so persuasive? Oh, you think he's smart when he's
00:12:32.220
clearly just a clown? He's just flailing around. He's a flailing clown. For four years, I listened to
00:12:40.460
that nonstop. And what are they going to impeach him for? Being too persuasive
00:12:46.820
and being smart enough to know exactly what was going to happen. They had to reverse
00:12:56.380
four years of belief system to gin up some kind of a claim against him. So you have to automatically
00:13:04.260
assume that everything you've been saying for years didn't matter. Well, he actually is smart
00:13:09.700
enough to know, even though you and I wouldn't have known, but he was smart enough to know exactly what
00:13:16.280
his words would cause. In fact, he was smart enough to know that his words would cause action in the
00:13:23.260
past. Yeah. Yeah. Apparently the, the, uh, assaulters of the Capitol had planned it before the speech
00:13:29.900
and Trump was so smart that he knew talking about it today would cause them to plan it in the past.
00:13:38.340
Pretty smart. So I just enjoy watching them, uh, reframe Trump as being, uh,
00:13:46.280
both highly capable and persuasive, which is the entire basis, entire basis for the claim.
00:13:52.520
Now you heard the, uh, I heard CNN pushing back on the, uh, the clips that the defense showed,
00:13:59.820
Trump's defense showed lots of Democrats using angry fighting words. And even Jake Tapper said,
00:14:06.420
you know, he wouldn't support what Schumer said in some instances, because they were a little bit
00:14:11.940
beyond the political realm into a little bit, uh, irresponsible talk. So everybody agrees that
00:14:20.960
Democrats talk this way, similar to the way Trump talks, similar to the way everybody talks,
00:14:27.760
but why is Trump being impeached by Schumer's not? Do you know why? Because Schumer is assumed
00:14:35.660
not to be persuasive. It's assumed that his talking didn't cause anything to happen.
00:14:42.800
Why? I guess he's not very good at his job. He's not persuasive. Oh, but Trump is. Trump is so
00:14:50.480
persuasive. He can cause a coup just by the way he talked. So, uh, little inconsistencies there in the
00:15:01.680
way people have looked at this. Um, here's a question from Scott Moorfield, who writes for
00:15:07.900
town hall. And he tweeted this. Let's see if you agree with this. He said, uh, if Trump had won
00:15:14.060
instead of Biden, these are the things that would have happened. So if Trump had won instead of Biden,
00:15:19.580
the riots that would have ensued would have made January 6th look like a Girl Scout cookie convention.
00:15:26.120
I feel like that's a safe statement. Don't you? I mean, there's no guarantees in this world,
00:15:32.800
but I feel as if a Trump victory would have been national, you know, nationwide,
00:15:38.360
every major metropolitan area. It would have been massive bloodshed, wouldn't it? I mean,
00:15:46.000
I think so. Am I being unreasonable to say that that's obvious? Because I don't even think that that
00:15:52.000
was much in question, right? Would anybody doubt that? Would even Democrats doubt it? Do you think
00:15:59.580
Democrats would doubt the statement that there would have been widespread riots under the, you know,
00:16:06.100
under the umbrella of protests, but you know that it would turn into bad stuff? All right, here's the
00:16:11.520
second thing. Uh, anyone shot by police like Ashley, uh, Babbitt, the woman who was shot going through the
00:16:17.660
door window there, would have been a celebrated martyr. Is that an unreasonable assumption?
00:16:26.660
Speculation? Is that unreasonable? That if a, uh, a protester, um, associated with the Democrat side
00:16:34.340
had been shot by police protesting in a Trump election, that the person shot would be a martyr.
00:16:42.440
I feel like that's a safe, safe speculative assumption. All right. How about the third one?
00:16:50.920
Uh, Democrats would have defended it and called for more of it. I think so. I think so. Because
00:16:59.820
everything that we saw about how they handled the BLM, uh, Antifa business would suggest that this is
00:17:07.140
accurate, that the situation we got was the least violent potential outcome. It was the least violent
00:17:17.620
potential outcome. It was the best outcome for violence-wise. So just keep that in mind. Um,
00:17:26.540
here's what I like to say every now and then to make sure that I maintain my, uh, freedom of speech.
00:17:33.460
So you know that any right you don't exercise gets lost, right? There's sort of a, a principle
00:17:40.640
in the legal system that if you have a right, but you don't exercise it to establish that, you know,
00:17:48.220
it's a real right that you're going to keep, you can lose it. So that's true with copyrights,
00:17:53.400
for example. If you make no attempt to enforce a copyright, you can lose it. You can lose it.
00:17:59.840
If you make no attempt to enforce, let's say, trespassing on your land,
00:18:04.660
I think there's some danger there. You can lose some rights. I'm not sure of the details of that.
00:18:09.440
So, um, it's, uh, it's important to, uh, stretch the boundaries of your rights to make sure you can
00:18:19.380
keep them. So I'm going to do that right now. So I'm going to say something that if I said it wrong,
00:18:23.980
I would get kicked off of social media, but I'm going to say it right so that I don't,
00:18:30.340
but I'm going to push the boundary a little bit. Okay. And it's this, it is entirely reasonable to
00:18:37.100
say that the courts found no proof of widespread fraud in the election. That's true. The courts
00:18:45.260
found no widespread fraud in the election. That's just true. But at the same time, we can say the result
00:18:52.520
of the election was not credible. There's no conflict there. There's no conflict in saying
00:18:59.500
that the courts found no proof of widespread fraud. At the same time, we can say that the
00:19:04.860
election was not credible because credibility is based on a perception, right? You know, we,
00:19:12.020
the public, how do we perceive it? Now you can perceive things accurately or inaccurately,
00:19:17.900
but we're talking about perceptions and the credibility would be based, I would say an
00:19:24.180
election's credibility would be based on either full transparency. So you can see every vote and
00:19:31.100
it went all the way in and it got counted correctly or, and or is a big word here, a lack of motive to
00:19:39.400
cheat. So if nobody had any reason to cheat and everybody involved had a reason to prevent cheating,
00:19:46.560
well, I wouldn't worry too much because nobody had a reason, nothing to gain. Everybody wanted it to
00:19:53.100
be fair. If that were the case, I'd say, well, that's a pretty credible system, but we don't have
00:19:58.740
that, right? Nor do we have full transparency. We have some level of transparency. We can do a recount
00:20:07.320
in some cases. There's some things we can look at, but if you were to say, how transparent is our
00:20:13.640
entire election process from, from beginning to end to the final count in the, in the digital
00:20:20.260
database, what percentage of that entire path for each vote is transparent, meaning that you could
00:20:28.360
easily check to see if it got recorded right and nothing was left out, no votes got thrown away,
00:20:34.940
no votes got counted wrong. What percentage of the whole system do you think has that quality where
00:20:42.620
you really could check and find out if anything was wrong? What percentage? Now, I don't know the
00:20:49.940
answer to that, but we, we have a, a fake news industry that won't, won't tell you either. Now,
00:20:58.380
I don't know that you could put a percentage on it. That, that might be a nonsense idea because it's a
00:21:06.160
whole bunch of different situations. It's sort of weird to say, well, it's 75, 75% transparent. That
00:21:13.360
would just be a sort of a weird subjective estimate. But we do live in a world where we have to make
00:21:19.580
weird subjective estimates about just about everything in order to function. So I'll give you,
00:21:24.760
I'll give you my weird subjective estimate of how much of our election process is transparent.
00:21:32.980
I could be wrong by a lot, right? It's just my feeling. Based on, you know, the totality of
00:21:40.640
what I observed, plus the totality of my life and experience, I would say 10 to 20%. That's my best
00:21:48.220
guess. 10 to 20%, you could actually check and find out if that part you were checking was legitimate
00:21:55.380
or not. I'm guessing something like 80 to 90% of it isn't checked or can't be checked, at least in all
00:22:05.460
the ways that you'd want to check. For example, how would you know if ballots had been thrown away
00:22:12.060
just by the post office? Would, do we have a system that would tell us if we checked later
00:22:19.080
that somebody's ballots had been thrown away? Now, I have no evidence that anything like that
00:22:24.460
happened. You know, no court has found anything like that happened. But would we find it? Do we
00:22:31.280
have enough transparency that you could possibly know that that happened? What about when the votes
00:22:37.280
get into the digital system? So they've left the paper world behind and now they're in the system.
00:22:43.780
What level of transparency do we have to make sure that each precinct, their votes get all the way
00:22:51.400
into the system and never change and all that? I don't know. I don't know. But I'll bet it's not
00:22:57.320
much. It's probably 20% transparent. Now, if I'm completely wrong about that, and the real answer is,
00:23:05.760
let's say, 95% transparent, I would consider that a fairly credible system. Wouldn't you?
00:23:13.780
What percentage credibility, or let's say transparency, what percentage transparency
00:23:20.200
would tell you that things are okay? Because I don't think you need 100% because nothing really
00:23:27.040
could be 100%. But maybe over 90% would make you feel that if anybody tried to game the system,
00:23:35.060
they'd get caught. So it wouldn't be a good play to even try because you got a 90% chance of getting
00:23:39.920
caught. Unless you only targeted the place they can't check. I suppose you got that risk.
00:23:47.300
All right. So the reason I put that out there is that the fake news industry and all the bad people
00:23:54.340
in the country want you to believe that because the courts, which are the wrong tool for this,
00:24:00.340
right? It's a very rough tool for checking an election. The courts can only check those few
00:24:06.400
things that courts can check. The courts can't do an audit. They can't change the rules. You know,
00:24:13.620
there are a lot of things the courts can't do. So they're the wrong tool. It's the only tool we have.
00:24:18.700
But it's the wrong tool, or a bad tool, I'll say, for finding out if an election is real.
00:24:26.820
All right. But at the same time, it could be low credibility. All right.
00:24:30.480
All right. Let me ask you this. When did intentions stop mattering? Because a lot of our
00:24:40.280
political stuff that we debate about is imagining other people's intentions as if we could do that.
00:24:48.860
We can't. We don't know other people's intentions, generally. I mean, there's some few cases where you
00:24:54.280
would know for sure. But generally, you don't know other people's intentions. And especially if you have
00:24:58.340
a crowd of people, they've probably got different intentions. So knowing people's intentions tends
00:25:05.040
to be pretty important. And let me ask you this. Of the total number of protesters,
00:25:12.980
you could call them rioters if you like, protesters plus rioters, who marched on the Capitol on January 6th,
00:25:21.560
what percentage of them do you think were thinking in terms of overthrowing the legitimate government
00:25:29.200
of the United States? What percentage of them were thinking in those terms? Like, I think I would like
00:25:35.320
Trump to be the president, even if he didn't get enough votes. Do you think there was anybody in the
00:25:42.740
crowd who wanted Trump to be president if it could be shown with confidence so that everybody believed it
00:25:50.140
was true? If it could be shown that Biden had legitimately won this election, got the right
00:25:56.980
amount of votes in the right places, how many people who went to the Capitol to protest would have
00:26:04.420
protested that? Who would have protested Biden getting elected legitimately? I think the answer is zero.
00:26:15.820
I mean, I haven't heard anybody say that they would support that. And when I see the Democrats in their
00:26:25.460
fevered imagination, that the people who attacked the Capitol wanted to overthrow the will of the
00:26:33.500
people. That's exactly the opposite of what they were doing. Clearly, right? Am I wrong about this?
00:26:42.240
Were the protesters not very clearly trying to make sure that the will of the people, as expressed in
00:26:50.920
their votes, was the only thing that determined who the president was? I mean, that plus the electoral
00:26:56.520
college, right? The rules. I don't know that there was even one person there who would have accepted
00:27:04.580
the following proposition. Hey, one person, if you could find out that Trump didn't get enough votes
00:27:11.560
legitimately, would you still want him to be president? Because you know that would destroy the
00:27:17.420
system, right? Could you even get one person to say that? Even one? Because I think Democrats are very
00:27:26.200
confused about what a Republican is, or a conservative, or whatever the people who marched would
00:27:32.540
would identify themselves as, because I don't know any Republicans or conservatives who don't like
00:27:38.320
the Constitution. That's sort of built into the whole conservative Republican thing, right? There is no
00:27:45.820
Republican who wants the Constitution torn up. None. And we're having this whole impeachment trial over
00:27:56.400
this fevered hallucination that there was anybody there who didn't want the system fortified. See, I'm using
00:28:05.120
their own word. Every person there wanted the current system to be stronger, right? And they said there's a
00:28:15.940
weakness in the current system. There's a lack of transparency. We've got these questions. And we still have
00:28:22.100
enough time to do a little bit more of auditing. That's what Ted Cruz was pushing for. That, every
00:28:31.440
bit of that, is to protect the system as it exists. And we allowed, you know, CNN and MSNBC and all the
00:28:40.720
rest of the illegitimate people to sell us on the idea that it was literally the opposite of that, that they
00:28:47.340
were trying to do a coup when they were trying to prevent one. They were trying to prevent one that they thought
00:28:56.660
had happened right in front of them, meaning that the election was not credible in their view. So how did we get to
00:29:04.620
the point where people trying to prevent a coup are labeled as insurrectionists and coup people? Now, nothing I've said
00:29:17.060
should excuse any of the violence or any of the people who actually entered the Capitol. The legal
00:29:22.520
system does what it does. I'm out of that, right? It's not my business. The legal system will do what
00:29:30.520
the legal system does. I don't need to pile on, right? It wouldn't matter who it was. I would still say
00:29:36.580
the legal system has to do what it does. That's just not on me. But I think it's just shocking
00:29:43.240
that literally the opposite of what we can clearly observe, and you could talk to anybody who was
00:29:49.940
there and ask them this direct question. Hey, you were there. If you knew that Trump didn't win
00:29:56.760
fair and square, would you still want him to be your president? Now, they might say, yeah,
00:30:01.840
I still prefer him, but I wouldn't want the system to be destroyed that way. All right.
00:30:07.260
Let's talk about Trump's lawyers. As you all know, I and many people criticized their very first
00:30:18.220
opening statements the other day, and I thought that was exceptionally weak and rambling. But boy,
00:30:27.020
did they save the good stuff for later. Boy, did they save the good stuff. I've never seen anybody win
00:30:33.340
an argument that hard. Generally, you see people debate, and you can go away saying,
00:30:39.000
well, I prefer one over the other, but they both had some good points or whatever. But the Trump
00:30:44.500
lawyers, for all that people said about, you know, Trump isn't going to be able to get good lawyers
00:30:51.660
because, you know, this or that, he got good lawyers. I don't know how good they have been in the
00:30:58.440
past, but my God, they were really good. Like, it was thrilling to just watch them work. I'm always
00:31:08.340
thrilled by anybody who operates at, like, a higher level. You know, I'm not a sports fan per se, but I
00:31:14.860
love watching, you know, Curry shoot three-point shots from half court. Like, everybody likes to watch
00:31:21.400
the best that there is. That's just fun to watch. And watching these lawyers work was just impressive.
00:31:28.220
It was just impressive. They were just good. And so, Schoen and Van Der Veen were the two main
00:31:34.760
stars. And let me tell you what I liked about their presentation. You know where I'm going with some of
00:31:42.000
this, but the first thing I'd like to say is there was a real difference in skill level,
00:31:48.720
especially around voice and mannerism. And I'm going to teach you a little trick about
00:31:56.260
persuasion. If you are arguing your case and somebody else is arguing their case, do not argue
00:32:04.160
your case sounding like a bleating sheep. All right. And I'll have to give you an impression of
00:32:10.680
that. So let me take, I'll take the same argument and show you what it is with a bleeding sheep
00:32:16.560
versus, well, no, it'd be easier if I just give you the example. All right. A bleeding sheep
00:32:22.960
argument sounds like this. And then he, he told people to go and fight in the, in the Capitol.
00:32:30.700
And he made the violence and people hurt. And you can almost, you can almost hear the sheep
00:32:37.560
bleating, bleating, bleating, B-L-E-A-T-I-N-G, bleat. And do you know why people talk that way?
00:32:47.700
They talk that way because they don't believe their own argument, but they're trying to sell it.
00:32:55.220
People don't talk that way when they believe their own argument. They just don't.
00:33:01.060
And you can watch it in real time. The Trump lawyers talk like two people who believe their
00:33:08.380
own argument. All right. Here's what it sounds like, if I can do a good impression of it,
00:33:14.320
of somebody who believes their own argument. And it goes like this. Behind me, you'll see some slides.
00:33:21.240
I'm going to show you what the Democrats showed you. And then next to it, I'm going to show you the
00:33:26.340
full edited thing. And you'll see pretty clearly that they're intentionally trying to fool you by
00:33:32.520
leaving out this part of the video. Go. Was there any bleeding involved? Was I begging you to feel bad
00:33:42.680
with your emotions about how bad we felt in the Capitol? Because the president, he's, he's inciting
00:33:48.940
insurrections. None of that. People who believe their own arguments just tell you what the facts are.
00:33:56.340
They just tell you what happened. And now you probably didn't notice that little persuasion
00:34:03.560
element. Did you? Did anybody notice that, by the way, without my mentioning it? But it's really stark
00:34:09.720
if you go back and watch it. After you hear it, after you hear me explain it, you go back, you will feel
00:34:15.680
that they clearly don't believe the things they're saying. Clearly don't. Now, the things, the number one
00:34:23.460
thing that I liked about the Trump lawyer presentation, you know where I'm going with
00:34:28.260
this, don't you? To say that yesterday was one of my favorite days in the last several years would
00:34:36.320
be an understatement. I'm going to be a little bit revealing here. I actually cried. I actually
00:34:45.200
cried. Now that's good lawyering. If a lawyer can make you cry, that's some good lawyering. Now,
00:34:54.080
of course, I have a personal connection to this, right? So I've been, I've been trying to debunk
00:34:59.920
the find people hoax for, since 2018. I've put a good deal of my reputation on the line,
00:35:07.200
a good deal of my energy, as have a number of other people, Joel Pollack, Steve Cortez,
00:35:13.140
Greg Goffeld, a number of people have been very vocal in debunking this and debunking it. But it
00:35:19.160
hasn't gotten any attention on the left, where the people who need to understand it's not real,
00:35:24.460
all live. So it was, you know, the silo was quite robust. So the people on the right
00:35:32.160
knew it was a hoax. People on the left had never even heard the argument, never even heard the full
00:35:37.840
video. So what I was happy about, and I had said ahead of the defense, I had said that if they don't
00:35:46.640
go directly at the find people hoax, which the Democrats had used as part of their argument for
00:35:51.920
why Trump is evil, if you don't show that that is a complete hoax by showing the whole video,
00:35:58.860
you don't deserve to get paid. And I meant that. I meant if they had not debunked that,
00:36:06.360
they didn't deserve to get paid. You would almost think they weren't even working for the president
00:36:10.780
if they hadn't debunked it. But what did they do? They debunked it. First, they started
00:36:19.520
with debunking it, which is exactly the right place to do it. Because it created, well, first
00:36:27.880
of all, I wonder how many Democrats saw that debunked for the first time. Because don't you
00:36:34.380
wonder what happened to a lot of heads? Must have been millions of people watching it. I'm guessing
00:36:40.560
somewhere in the low millions of people who believed that the find people hoax was an actual
00:36:46.220
real thing, meaning that the president called neo-Nazis fine people, which we know didn't
00:36:52.780
happen. We know that that was a fake edit. So what happened to the brains of the people who saw that
00:36:58.980
for the first time? Now, if you're a normal person, many of you are normal, you would say to yourself,
00:37:06.260
wow, a lot of people have just learned for the first time that they've been lied to by their media
00:37:11.440
for over three years. And that the fine people hoax, which has been reported as fact for years,
00:37:17.380
never happened. And I just found that out. Wow, I guess I'll turn on my own side now and stop
00:37:23.580
believing the people I've been believing. Because now I can clearly see that they lied to me. And when
00:37:28.740
I see the nature of the lie, I believe it probably was intentional. So now I denounce my democratic ways,
00:37:36.940
and I become a Republican. Nobody had that experience. Nobody. So if you're thinking that
00:37:47.560
the lawyers doing a good job changed any minds, no, no, that wasn't even one of the options,
00:37:55.540
right? It wasn't an option that anybody was going to change their mind. And neither did I particularly
00:38:01.260
care because it's a political process. It's going to go the way the politics go. Now, if the lawyers had
00:38:06.840
done a terrible job, it might have made it safer for some Republicans to cross over into the pro
00:38:13.060
impeachment camp. But if they do a marvelous job, like a world class good job, which I believe they
00:38:21.240
did, it doesn't make any difference. Because people will just vote their political side because it's a
00:38:27.660
political process. But it mattered to me. It mattered to me. Because for the first time, historians can't
00:38:40.060
ignore it. You can ignore what the cartoonist says on his live stream, if you're a historian, you know,
00:38:46.080
20 years from now. You can ignore everything that was in Breitbart, Fox News. You can ignore everything
00:38:52.940
on social media that anybody associated with Trump of the right has ever said. You can ignore all of that and
00:38:59.120
write your own little history. But you know what you can't ignore? An impeachment process. You can't ignore that
00:39:09.160
lawyer shown, showed you the video that the prosecution and the impeachment showed, and then right next to it, on the
00:39:19.420
same screen, showed you how they edited it to reverse the meaning. That's history.
00:39:37.520
This is just for the defense team. Trump defense team.
00:39:53.020
Not the real history, but they changed how history will be recorded.
00:39:57.580
Because when I saw the prosecution use the fine people hoax as part of their case,
00:40:04.080
I said to myself, and you may have seen the tweet,
00:40:43.480
that if you know the prosecution made up some of the evidence,
00:40:49.600
you should believe that everything else they say
00:41:04.800
it actually would have been the end of the case.
00:41:16.040
once he found out that the evidence was falsified.
00:41:19.760
I think that would have been the end of the case.
00:41:21.960
Now, that's what the Trump lawyers were indicating,
00:41:25.380
So, doing the fine people hoax first was pure brilliance.
00:42:03.220
And the thing that's really striking about it is
00:42:40.760
that the president called the neo-Nazis fine people,
00:43:23.160
But historians are not going to ignore this anymore.
00:43:32.620
if you don't mention that this was always a fake story.
00:44:08.280
except that he was apparently sleeping with a Chinese spy.
00:44:25.840
which turned out to be a complete misinterpretation
00:46:35.520
But that wasn't the situation with the president.