Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1986 Scott Adams： Joe Biden's Classified Documents, And All Manner Of Government Gaslighting

00:00:00.000 to the highlight of civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and there's never been

00:00:04.600 a finer moment in the history of moments. And if you'd like to take it up to a level,

00:00:11.760 it's hard to imagine. Well, all you need is a cupper mugger, a glass of tanker, chalice of

00:00:17.980 tine, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:22.920 I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day,

00:00:29.220 the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. Go.

00:00:41.400 Now, if you were a member of the local subscription site, you've already seen three of my Robots Read

00:00:48.580 News cartoons that I did today. These are the ones that are usually a little too rough for

00:00:55.200 the regular public. But I'll read them to you. I think I can read them to you.

00:01:02.080 First one is, you know, they're all just so you know what it looks like. All of the Robots Read News

00:01:07.340 are just the same robot sitting at a desk reading the news. The art never changes. But anyway,

00:01:13.800 the robot says, a satanic temple heated by dozens of gas ovens was discovered in the basement of Joe

00:01:21.020 Biden's Delaware home. Biden's spokesweasel reported that Biden was, quote, surprised to learn of it.

00:01:28.980 Fifty current and former intel professionals have labeled it, quote, obvious Russian tradecraft.

00:01:35.180 tradecraft. Now, also, if you were, if you happen to be on the, if you happen, if you have to be,

00:01:46.240 I'm sorry, I'm going to change my topic here for a moment. I did the micro lesson, which I talked

00:01:55.380 about choosing the right words. The word tradecraft is a perfect humor word. So here's a little lesson

00:02:04.440 on writing. So this, I did a lesson on the locals channel that's a subscription, a lesson about

00:02:12.740 picking the right words. And this is just a perfect example. The word tradecraft is unusual,

00:02:19.460 meaning it's not often used in the sentence, but it has a funny sound. Ch and krift, you know,

00:02:27.400 those are good sounds for humor. Tradecraft. It's also a little wonky, and it's also in the

00:02:34.060 news lately. So it has a whole bunch of qualities that make it the right word. Tradecraft. So

00:02:41.520 that was the, that was the first one. Yeah, let's see what else we got here.

00:02:48.520 The second one was, a new study indicates Democrat gaslighting causes asthma symptoms in Republican

00:02:57.560 voters. A science denier in the Biden administration explained it this way, quote,

00:03:03.520 that's not asthma. They just do a lot of gasping for air when they hear the shit we propose. 1.00

00:03:10.740 All right. And then finally, finally, number three, Robots Read News. Representative Eric Swalwell 0.99

00:03:19.540 got too close to an open flame and went up in a giant fireball. First responders said it was the worst

00:03:26.620 case of gaslighting they have ever seen. Scientists blamed climate change and, quote,

00:03:32.460 a universe that consistently favors irony. So there you go. Three Robots Read News jokes in one day.

00:03:42.580 Can I take the rest of the day off? Are we good? Have I done enough for today? I mean,

00:03:48.960 that was all before 5 a.m. I mean, I don't know what you've done today, but I'm killing it.

00:03:55.320 I'm killing it today. Probably still a little bit hypomaniacal. All right. Here's some, 0.99

00:04:05.580 well, I like to call out when any of my followers on Twitter or on live stream, when any of them have

00:04:13.400 like a success in their life, I like to call it out. Don't you agree that's good to do? You know,

00:04:19.480 if somebody has like a big moment in their life, I just like to give them a little attention.

00:04:22.940 So I'd like to do that today. I saw a tweet from a user called, on Twitter, he's called

00:04:28.660 Den Lesks, and he announced this today. I was really happy for him. He said,

00:04:33.200 the wife and I are very excited. We just closed escrow on a dozen eggs. So congratulations to you.

00:04:40.680 I know it's hard to get a loan like that, but proud owners of a dozen eggs. And given the price of

00:04:48.380 eggs, that's quite an accomplishment. And I respect the effort that you put into that.

00:04:54.920 Speaking of inflation, apparently it's cooling off. Were you expecting that? Let me do a quick

00:05:03.000 informal survey. Did you expect that inflation would keep going up? Or did you think it kind

00:05:10.300 of capped and was going to start to drift down? I expected it to cap and drift down. So this,

00:05:17.680 can anybody confirm that I said something like that earlier? Can you confirm that I said it wouldn't go

00:05:24.680 that much higher? Yeah. It was part of the Adams law of slow moving disasters. For some reason,

00:05:33.900 inflation, when we can all see the same problem, and we've got enough time to work on it, we're really

00:05:40.100 good at solving stuff. It's amazing. So I don't think inflation is going to come down quickly.

00:05:46.860 But it doesn't really need to. Because, you know, it's doing two things. It's eating up the debt,

00:05:54.320 while it's also strangling the public. And the public needs both of those things, right? The public

00:06:00.600 needs the debt to be a little bit strangled, because it's so high. But they also need to eat.

00:06:06.040 So it's a tough balance. I think coming down slowly will build some confidence in the economy. And if

00:06:14.800 you have confidence in your economy, what works out? What's the predictable outcome of confidence in

00:06:24.340 your economy? Basically, everything's better. Just everything. So you only need to be directionally

00:06:32.260 correct. And if inflation is drifting down, even slowly, it just has to go in that direction.

00:06:39.380 Confidence will be up. People will invest. It will make enough money to get out of this, maybe.

00:06:44.520 So that's the good news.

00:06:48.660 There's a new study that says sitting causes excess mortality. So apparently sitting is really

00:06:56.020 deadly, which is scary, because I've been sitting in this chair now for...

00:07:05.520 Okay, just kidding. I didn't die. But wouldn't that be funny if I did? I think we could all agree

00:07:12.500 that you could laugh at that. Can I make a deal with you? I'm going to make a deal with

00:07:18.220 all of you. In the unlikely event that my death is hilarious, like it's ironic, or like it's

00:07:29.500 really weird, I would like to authorize all of you to enjoy it as much as you can, because

00:07:35.240 I'm going to be dead either way. Can you agree? I mean, if I'm dead, you might as well enjoy

00:07:41.260 it. But only if it's interesting, right? If I just die of some ordinary comorbidity, nobody

00:07:48.680 cares about that. But if I get a blood clot, you are authorized to enjoy the hell out of

00:07:56.080 that. You have my total approval. And when somebody calls you on it, you point them to

00:08:02.460 this live cast and say, he said we could. He's a professional. It's okay. Yeah, I'm a

00:08:09.340 professional. So go nuts. Well, here's what I say about this sitting thing. So now we know 0.99

00:08:16.760 that sitting can kill you, and it can give you cardiac problems. We also saw a tweet from

00:08:25.200 a Twitter account called The Rabbit Hole that 15% of men reported having no close friends in

00:08:31.700 2021. In 1990, it was only 3%. So five times more lonely men than there were just in 1990.

00:08:43.120 10% of women reported having no close friends in 2021, and that was only 2% in 1990. So we

00:08:51.860 got sitting in chairs, less exercise. We've got probably less sun, because people just didn't

00:09:00.940 go outside as much either, probably. So people are obese, lonely, and sitting in chairs more.

00:09:10.060 And feeling hopeless. Yeah, isolated, hopeless. And probably doing more drugs.

00:09:16.440 Wouldn't it be surprising if there were not a huge increase in excess mortality? How could there

00:09:24.180 not be? Right? Now, on top of that, you've got any vaccine problems? Because no matter what you

00:09:32.100 think of vaccinations, you call them shots. The one time I use the word vaccinations, you'll

00:09:37.660 decide that's what I think they are. So clot birds will go crazy. Clot birds, that's for you.

00:09:43.500 So I'm going to throw the clot birds a little treat. I'm going to use the word vaccination. 0.95

00:09:51.600 But this time, I'm not going to correct it, because I want to see them go nuts, okay? It's

00:09:56.140 just for them. So the vaccinations might cause some harm, but also might give some people benefits.

00:10:04.100 So given all of those reasons, it's kind of understandable that there's a big uptick

00:10:13.180 in deaths. Now, the exact timing of the uptick, I'm not sure if we can trust the data, of course,

00:10:20.260 because all the data is bad. Oh, new study? Somebody says breaking. New study, 17% of kids

00:10:29.880 suffering cardiac symptoms after, that can't be true. Really?

00:10:37.960 If it's true that 17% of kids were having cardiac symptoms after the shot, 17%. If that's true,

00:10:48.340 Pfizer would not only, you know, have a legal problem, they would be executed.

00:10:54.420 Let me just say this. If it ever turned out, I don't think this will happen, but if it ever

00:11:02.700 turned out that you actually got the name of somebody in Big Pharma, like an actual person,

00:11:08.500 an executive, let's say, who knew that statistic and hid it, if that's not the death penalty,

00:11:19.360 I don't know what is. Seriously. I mean, that should be a public execution. And I'm not even

00:11:25.300 joking. That's not a joke. I don't think this will ever be true. Because I think what's true

00:11:32.860 is I think Pharma people convince themselves they're not bad. What do you think? Do you think

00:11:40.740 that Pharma people are literally just saying, if I lie, lots of people will die, but I can make a lot

00:11:48.140 of money. I mean, there are people who exist of that nature. But I feel it's far more likely

00:11:55.720 that they convince themselves it's not as bad as it looks, right? They tell themselves, well,

00:12:02.780 these numbers look bad, but we'd better double check them. I don't want to say anything until

00:12:08.300 they're double checked, right? You could easily see executives talking themselves out of their own

00:12:13.760 evil, even while they do things that you and I would say, well, that's pretty evil. So I kind of

00:12:20.960 suspect that they would have an argument. Might be a weak one. They'd probably have some argument.

00:12:28.740 However, if it turned out that they were exactly as bad as you thought, a public execution, I mean,

00:12:38.980 it's not in our legal code, of course, but a public execution would feel about right. You know,

00:12:45.420 if somebody intentionally murdered, I don't know, thousands of children, nobody would complain about

00:12:51.260 a public execution, except the really prickly people. All right. So there's that. I saw a account on

00:13:03.740 Twitter, a woman who was suggesting that porn be banned online because it's distorting people's

00:13:11.600 sexuality and how they act and causing people to be worse people to each other than perhaps they

00:13:18.540 could is, I guess, the argument. To which I say, what are the people who can't have sex with real 0.92

00:13:26.540 people supposed to do? Why would you take away the only thing they have? You realize that we're

00:13:32.900 heading to a point where only 10 or 20 percent of humans are having sex at all. Like, I don't know

00:13:38.560 what the percentage is in general. All right. I'm going to do a little survey.

00:13:47.660 How many of you on, let's see, I'm not going to ask on locals because I know too many of you too

00:13:54.480 well, but on YouTube where you're a little bit more anonymous, how many of you have not had sex in a 0.85

00:14:01.940 month? Go. Have not had sex in a month. One month. I think it's most, I think it would be the majority 0.79

00:14:14.220 actually. Yeah. Quite a few people. Now, I don't know what that is as a percentage because, you know,

00:14:20.300 there's no way to know. But if I had to put a number on it, at least half, probably at least half of all

00:14:29.680 adults did not have sex in the last month. What's your guess? I've never looked into it, but I feel

00:14:35.460 like it's at least half. Because half of the people would be too unhealthy anyway. They're either, you

00:14:41.180 know, they're aged out or they're unhealthy or their marriage isn't working out or, you know,

00:14:47.040 they're too busy, something. Yeah, I think it's common for people to go to a month without sex.

00:14:54.860 More common than people having sex. And I think that number is going to go down to like 10 or 20%

00:14:59.560 are actually having sex with other humans. I think that's where we're heading. Slowly, but I think that's

00:15:05.800 where it's going to go. Because the rest will just not have an option. So where we are at the moment

00:15:11.720 is because everybody has really good information. The beautiful people can find each other and say,

00:15:19.840 wow, you're beautiful. I'm beautiful. Let's do this. And then everybody below, you know, a certain

00:15:25.480 level of physical attractiveness just won't have anything. So, I mean, that's where we're heading

00:15:31.780 already. So I would say getting rid of porn would be very cruel to those who basically don't have

00:15:38.260 anything else to take care of that particular hormonal need. All right. I saw a tweet by Steve Molloy,

00:15:48.460 who often talks about climate change. And he said this, I think this is NASA reporting it, that climate shocker,

00:15:57.820 not a single extreme weather record set in the U.S. during 2022 per NOAA, not NASA. What's NOAA?

00:16:06.120 National Organization of Atmospheric Association. Or something. Something oceanic. All right.

00:16:18.060 Whatever it is. Some governmental group has said that there was not a single weather record

00:16:24.820 in the U.S. I don't believe that. Do you? Do you believe there was no record in the U.S.?

00:16:33.460 That doesn't sound right. Does it? Maybe there's something like a national average or something that

00:16:44.380 didn't set a record. But don't we set records at least in some town, like every month? Aren't there

00:16:52.540 records set almost every day, at least somewhere? So I'm not sure what it means to not set a record.

00:16:58.060 Maybe they have very specific things they're tracking, such as hurricanes or extreme high

00:17:03.980 temperatures or something. But I don't know. So it says no record temperatures for rain, snow, or wind.

00:17:12.800 I'm not buying that. But maybe on average it wasn't any worse. If it were no worse on average,

00:17:19.120 then that's a good point. All right. Yesterday I was flipping through Instagram and I saw a video

00:17:29.460 that mockingly suggests 9-11 wasn't what you thought. And it was a big conspiracy theory.

00:17:38.100 They don't say who did it. Obviously our government, but nothing more specific.

00:17:42.780 Now, what if I told you about seeing documentaries on one side? Super persuasive. Because if you only

00:17:54.460 see one side of an argument, well, what are you supposed to think? Now, so this was a brilliant

00:18:01.740 one side of the argument presentation. And by that I mean when it was done, I was convinced

00:18:08.840 that 9-11 was an inside job. It was very persuasive. Now, here's the thing you need to know.

00:18:20.440 Five minutes later, if somebody debunked that, do you know what I would say? Probably.

00:18:26.780 Oh, well, that's a pretty good debunk. Okay, nothing there. So my level of certainty that I got from it

00:18:36.260 is wholly unrelated to reality. It has only everything to do with the fact that documentaries,

00:18:42.920 in this case a little video that was a one-sided thing, they're super persuasive.

00:18:47.980 That thing was terribly persuasive. And then you put that in the context of not believing anything

00:18:56.000 the government's told you and watching our government literally run conspiracy theories,

00:19:01.140 I mean actual schemes that look like conspiracy theories, then they get caught. So given that

00:19:09.360 we know our government is not above that, they have a history of doing it, the 9-11 situation

00:19:17.480 does look different. If you pull it forward into today's context, it looks completely different.

00:19:23.380 And the approach that this video used, which was really good, was they mocked each part of it.

00:19:35.040 So they'd say stuff like, yes, a guy with just a satellite phone in a cave in Afghanistan

00:19:41.300 pulled off the most complicated operation in the history of the world.

00:19:45.660 And one of the pilots, who couldn't even pass a Cessna flying test, managed to do one of the most

00:19:53.940 complicated maneuvers a giant jet could ever do to hit the Pentagon at exactly the time that they had

00:20:03.180 said they were missing a few trillion dollars, and it coincidentally blew up all the records of the

00:20:08.880 lost trillion dollars. Now, if you do a fact check on that, I don't believe, I don't believe that the plane

00:20:17.160 hit and destroyed. Yeah, so on September 10th, they were reporting that 2.3 trillion went missing.

00:20:26.940 And on September 11th, their building blew up.

00:20:31.960 Now, I'm not laughing at the tragedy. I'm laughing at the fact that if anything ever looked like a 1.00

00:20:38.220 conspiracy theory that was true, it's got all the markings of it now. But it's funny how if you

00:20:45.280 just looked at it in the context of 2001, the conspiracy theorists just looked nuts. If you look

00:20:54.860 at it in the context of today, it's a pretty good theory. It's a solid theory. Now, I'm not saying it's

00:21:04.340 true. All right. So this is one of those things that if I tweeted about it, well, actually, no, I didn't

00:21:11.400 tweet about it. If I tweeted about it, the Klopp-Bertz would say, he believes this theory because it would be

00:21:18.460 fun and entertaining. But the Klopp-Bertz only see things out of context. So they only see, they only

00:21:23.400 see, yeah, this. By the way, question. I've been asked a number of times if I would do a Spaces

00:21:30.340 event event on Twitter. And I haven't really been too interested because I've got enough going on anyway. But I did

00:21:40.280 think it might be fun just to have people, let's see, what would you say, accost me with my own past tweets and

00:21:50.460 ask me to explain them. Say, are you saying this or that? Because they're all easy to explain. They just take more than a

00:21:58.340 take more than a tweet to explain. So I feel like, I feel like letting all the Klopp-Bertz just wildly, you know, pile on me 0.97

00:22:05.920 in public would be fun. What do you think? Would that be fun?

00:22:13.360 And I suppose I could live stream, you know, my participation. It just wouldn't be good audio.

00:22:19.060 Yeah. Well, you know, you wouldn't have to attend. But my proposition is I would just go right into the

00:22:28.300 snake pit. I just sort of lower myself into the snake pit and see if I can get out. I might be a little

00:22:36.520 too cocky, but I'm pretty sure I could get out of that pretty easily. Meaning that everything I said,

00:22:42.980 I stand by. People are pulling all of my past tweets to embarrass me. And they keep tweeting them. And I keep

00:22:51.320 looking at my past tweets and saying, no, that's exactly what I thought. What's the problem? So, all right,

00:23:00.100 maybe I'll do that. Maybe I'll do a spaces. Well, let's talk about those Biden classified documents. Now we know that

00:23:09.260 there are at least two places. It was Greg Gottfeld who was saying, those Bidens like to leave,

00:23:16.000 leave important things everywhere. We've got, you know, Hunter Biden's laptops are spread all over

00:23:23.220 the world. And Joe Biden apparently is just dropping trade secrets or government secrets wherever he goes.

00:23:30.620 We've got, you know, Ashley Biden's diary. I feel like the Bidens are not good with secrets. Not good with

00:23:37.880 secrets. But here's what CNN's Stephen Collinson says. And I love the effort that the Democrats are

00:23:48.140 putting into this. They're trying to make a, you know, do the best they can to, you know, weaken the

00:23:54.200 criticism. All right. Listen to this sentence from Stephen Collinson. Now you should know that he's

00:23:59.380 he's got a long track record of being a, mostly an anti-Trump opinion person on CNN. And he writes

00:24:08.120 this, while Trump's retention of hundreds of documents and attempts to thwart their transfer

00:24:13.440 to the National Archives as required by law appears more serious at this stage.

00:24:19.460 Really? Really? The Mar-a-Lago documents, which we don't know what the contents were,

00:24:29.960 seems more serious than the Biden documents that we don't know what the contents are.

00:24:37.400 What? Doesn't it matter what the contents are? How could you say what is more? That's ridiculous.

00:24:45.140 That is so patently ridiculous. How could you take that seriously? It's ridiculous. Now I think 1.00

00:24:53.160 the argument has to do with Trump was resisting, you know, the government's attempts to get him

00:25:01.580 back. But two things are worth noting. Trump was claiming they were personal property. And he was

00:25:10.680 president. He could, he could declassify anything. Now you could argue that, you know, he shouldn't

00:25:16.940 have or he didn't. But that's a pretty weak problem compared to whatever might be in Biden's thing. Now I

00:25:25.180 would be equally, equally wrong if I said the Biden stuff looks more damaging than Trump stuff. Because

00:25:33.140 they're both complete unknowns. Complete unknowns. But nobody is suggesting that Biden's documents

00:25:39.760 were something he thought that he owned. Because he didn't have any right to declassify anything

00:25:45.600 as vice president. Yeah. Well, here's things we know. The University of Pennsylvania got way more

00:26:03.780 Chinese funding for the school in general when Biden opened his little office there, his think tank,

00:26:11.860 ironically. And of course, the University of Pennsylvania says, no, no, no. Biden didn't get

00:26:18.760 any money from China. That did not happen. What happened was when Biden showed up, there was a huge increase

00:26:25.760 in money from China to the university, which then made it the university's money, not Chinese money.

00:26:32.060 And then the university took the money that used to be China's money, but it's definitely not China's

00:26:36.740 money, because they gave it to the University of Pennsylvania, which changes it from China's money

00:26:41.560 into University of Pennsylvania's money. And then they give it to Joe Biden, which now changes it

00:26:46.960 into Joe Biden's money. So really, nobody is to blame. Because once they gave it to Joe Biden,

00:26:54.000 it was his money. So there's nothing to see here. All of it is so stupid. It's like incredibly stupid.

00:27:04.220 And this is clearly how the Bidens were laundering corruption. Clearly. But it's all legal as far 1.00

00:27:12.760 as I can tell. As far as I can tell, if you do it right, it's totally legal. And I think that's what

00:27:19.200 Hunter Biden was doing for them. He was doing a bunch of things that were sketchy, but just totally

00:27:24.940 legal. So here's how you legally take a bribe. You ready? I will not take a bribe from you. Come on,

00:27:33.320 take a bribe. I will not take a bribe from you. I will not do it. All right, darn it, we tried to give

00:27:39.180 you a bribe. So you got any relatives who need funding? Any friends or business acquaintances? 0.98

00:27:48.180 Oh, yes, I have plenty of friends and business acquaintances who have businesses that are looking

00:27:53.340 for investment. Yes, but that has nothing to do with me. Is one of them your brother who shares 10%

00:28:01.740 with you? Maybe, but that has nothing to do with me. Well, maybe we'll talk to your brother and make

00:28:08.960 an enormous investment that we wouldn't normally make. Now, would you like to do what we say?

00:28:17.300 Don't ask again and don't put that in writing. It's obvious corruption. Now, correct me if I'm

00:28:24.960 wrong. Trump has never even come close to anything like that, has he? Is anything in the Trump world

00:28:32.820 even close to what is obviously corruption? Obviously. Like, obviously. You know, if all of the trips

00:28:43.980 with Hunter weren't enough, if all the Burisma stuff wasn't, if that were not enough, I mean, 1.00

00:28:50.280 there's no doubt anymore. The weird thing about these stories is because all the Hunter stories

00:28:56.160 trickled out, and then this story is kind of trickling out, that it's giving us time to get

00:29:02.380 used to it. We shouldn't get used to this. It's completely obvious corruption. Completely obvious.

00:29:12.440 Now, I don't think you need to know anything, any extra stuff, do you? With Trump, it was always,

00:29:18.520 if we keep digging, we're going to find something, right? They never said we found it. They said,

00:29:24.780 if we keep digging, we're going to find, you know, some stuff. And then they dug and never found

00:29:29.280 anything. But with Biden, do you need to do any digging? No. The public reported stuff tells the

00:29:39.080 whole story. There's no confusion there, no ambiguity whatsoever. It's very clearly corruption.

00:29:45.300 It just doesn't seem to be illegal, because the Chinese know how to do it in a way that is legal.

00:29:56.020 So I don't think anybody's going to go to jail for that stuff, and probably won't even have any

00:30:02.160 effect on re-election. That's the weird thing. Democrats absolutely won't care. Absolutely won't

00:30:09.680 care. All right. Rasmussen is talking about the border situation. Did a poll and found out that

00:30:17.240 69% of likely U.S. voters believe the current situation with migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border

00:30:24.940 is a crisis. 69% believe it's a crisis, which is even higher than it was in May.

00:30:33.400 Okay. Now, how do you get re-elected when 69% of the public thinks you blew one of the biggest

00:30:42.820 problems? I mean, border security should have been a gimme. In every other country, border security is

00:30:52.260 something they can get done, apparently. But we can't. I mean, it's the one thing you should have

00:30:57.460 been able to depend on our government to do, like just build a wall, you know, guard it. But we didn't.

00:31:05.460 So now 69% of the people think it's a crisis, and we've got a government that clearly is not

00:31:10.960 super interested in fixing it. So how in the world does he get re-elected? It's amazing.

00:31:19.360 Yeah, they blame, I guess they blame Republicans. All right. Michael Schellenberger is reporting more

00:31:26.440 on the Twitter files. Many, he said in a tweet, many think social media companies only censored

00:31:33.500 vaccine misinformation. Klopbertz, when I said the word vaccine, that's actually a quote from a tweet.

00:31:44.780 Had I used the word vaccine, you should start yelling, my God, don't you know it's not a vaccine?

00:31:52.240 My God, it's not a vaccine. Why do you keep supporting the vaccine, Scott? No, it's just

00:31:57.840 a quote. Settle down. Settle down. It's just a quote. And it's in quotes. It's a quote about

00:32:05.440 a quote. So it's like a double quote. So don't blame me. Anyway, apparently they were also trying

00:32:17.340 to censor stuff that was accurate. And they said so directly. Because some of the accurate

00:32:25.600 information was damaging to the narrative. They said it directly. It's actually in the

00:32:34.440 emails. I guess Dr. Scott Gottlieb was one of the ones asking. Now here's the context.

00:32:40.040 The context is, I think, because they were a little unclear about what the true information

00:32:46.960 they wanted to stop was. I think it's probably the anecdotes. So I think the quote true information

00:32:54.280 they were trying to block probably was lots of people saying, look at this person. They

00:32:59.840 got the shot and then they dropped dead. Because that would actually be somewhat consistent

00:33:07.160 with what the official people were saying. Which is that sometimes you're going to drop

00:33:12.320 dead. We got to do that. Because that's true with medicines and vaccinations in general. Somebody's

00:33:19.420 going to drop dead. We just didn't know. No, that's informed consent. Everybody who got

00:33:24.360 a shot should have known there was a risk of death. That's pretty basic knowledge. By the

00:33:30.820 time you got it, you should have known. But that's pretty basic knowledge. We just don't

00:33:36.980 know how many. So what do you think of this? So here's your ethical question. I think I

00:33:42.820 know which way you're going to go. Suppose you were an official in charge of trying to

00:33:47.700 save the country from this coronavirus. And suppose you knew that every time somebody put

00:33:55.060 out one of these anecdotes of this one person died after getting vaccinated, that the anecdotes

00:34:01.340 are not science are not science. They're just things people saw. We already knew that people

00:34:06.260 would have bad outcomes. And the only point of it was that maybe not having the shots would

00:34:12.300 be even worse. That was the thinking. So anyway. So I think that the moral argument for trying

00:34:24.720 to block the true stories is that they would be misleading because people can't tell the difference

00:34:32.260 between an anecdote and a study. Do you agree that individual stories of people could be terribly

00:34:40.320 misleading? And that if it caused people to make the wrong medical choice, that they would die

00:34:48.740 because of that misleading information. So do you think that the social media platforms should

00:34:54.960 err on the side of letting everything that's true be on, even if it causes massive people to die?

00:35:04.000 Should they go with free speech knowing it would kill people? I mean, it would kill people,

00:35:10.220 for sure. I don't know how many, but it would definitely kill people. 0.99

00:35:13.800 So, so most of you say with free speech and let them die. Now, is there any, is there any limit to 0.91

00:35:22.000 that? Is there any upper limit? So let's say I said a hundred thousand people died so you could have

00:35:29.580 your free speech on social media. Are you okay with that? Would you accept 100,000 American deaths

00:35:36.100 for no censorship? Right? I, I respect those answers. So I'm saying a sea of yeses on the locals platform.

00:35:45.640 Yes, yes, yes. Yeah. That, that's how serious we take free speech. How seriously. And I'm okay with that.

00:35:54.880 I'm okay with that. Yeah. I would agree with you, I guess. Because it's two impossible choices, isn't it?

00:36:00.740 You can't be, I don't think you can make the moral choice. You can't make the moral choice because

00:36:08.080 there's two immoral choices. That's it. But here's what you can do. And I, I've, I've probably modeled

00:36:17.700 this a number of times, but here's why you would choose free speech. Because that protects the system.

00:36:24.500 And that's more important than a hundred thousand lives. We've proven it a million times. If the

00:36:32.500 United States lost free speech, that's going to cost you more than a hundred thousand lives. You just

00:36:37.720 have to wait a little while. Am I right? A hundred thousand lives, unfortunately, is cheap. That's the

00:36:46.100 worst thing I'll ever say, right? It's the worst thing ever come out of my mouth, that a hundred thousand

00:36:51.640 souls, you know, dying a horrible death is cheap. But compared to losing free speech in American

00:37:00.920 specifically, probably is. It's probably cheap. Probably cheap. So I'd agree with you on that.

00:37:08.300 All right. Is it amazing to you that there's, the Democrats are gaslighting us about literally

00:37:22.060 gas stoves? Like, what were the odds that that would happen? I mean, that just feels so simulation-y.

00:37:33.080 It's like we all caused that to happen just by thinking about the puns. I feel like we caused it to

00:37:40.040 happen. Like, it wasn't going to happen on its own. But that is just too weird.

00:37:47.400 Anyway, Andreas Backhaus looked at the little study that seemed to indicate that indoor gas stoves,

00:37:56.040 of course, that's where they usually are, was causing asthma. And this is what Andres says.

00:38:04.920 He said, the gas stoves and childhood asthma research is a three-pager that does one calculation

00:38:12.300 and presents one figure based on a meta-analysis coefficient and aggregate data from nine U.S. states.

00:38:20.040 And as Andres sums it up, let's hope no policies will be based on this paper, despite the overblown

00:38:27.860 attention it is receiving. Now, do you still, are you still angry at Andres for criticizing all bad

00:38:36.340 studies? You do see he goes after just all the bad studies. It has nothing to do with the topic of

00:38:43.200 the study. He's one of the few people that I've seen go through the entire pandemic, and I can't

00:38:50.180 even identify a bias. I mean, I'm sure he has them because he's human. But I haven't seen one. I haven't

00:38:56.080 seen one. He's just a maniac about bad studies and letting you know when they're bad. Now, that doesn't

00:39:02.100 mean that this study is wrong. It just means it's not credible enough to act on. It might turn out to

00:39:10.320 be right. You know, maybe it's the first one, and then they repeat it, or they replicate it. Maybe.

00:39:16.220 Could be. But it gets back to how important ventilation is. If we had better ventilation,

00:39:22.740 the kids wouldn't have asthma. If we had better ventilation, COVID would not have been as spready

00:39:28.080 as it is. Kids could go back to school. So we really need to get serious about ventilation.

00:39:33.540 I'm going to add to my prediction that the biggest market of the future is people completely getting

00:39:43.320 rid of their classic old kind of homes and building homes that are more livable. And one of the things

00:39:50.920 you could do today that you could get right is making the ventilation way, way better. So that's

00:39:57.960 just one of the things. Yeah. Bad ventilation equals energy efficient. Yeah, there's that.

00:40:07.680 All right. Are you ready for the greatest moral conundrum you've ever heard? This one's going

00:40:19.240 to make your head just go, what? All right. So Democrats are in favor of abortion. Correct? Correct.

00:40:29.660 Democrats are very strong supporters, as am I, of the LGBTQ community. It would be hard to be more

00:40:37.980 supportive than I am. Very supportive. Republicans may be a little less so, but I think, you know,

00:40:46.120 in 2023, it's not really even the topic they care about, mostly. Now, fact check. It is widely understood.

00:40:59.020 There's a consensus view of this in the medical and, I think, social community in general, that 0.71

00:41:05.540 being gay, we'll just pick one part of LGBTQ, that being gay is something you're born.

00:41:13.260 Now, I'm sure there's some debate. Some people probably say no. But would you agree with the

00:41:20.000 setup here? The setup for my moral conundrum is that it's widely understood that you're essentially

00:41:29.280 born gay. Of course, there's an environmental factor. You know, you could imagine that there's 0.96

00:41:35.000 some gray area where the environment flips you one way or the other. But generally, generally,

00:41:41.000 most gay people are born without wiring, wouldn't you say? Now, at the moment, I don't believe 1.00

00:41:49.980 science can study a baby's DNA and determine they're gay. It's not like there's a gay gene,

00:41:57.940 you know, yes, no. It's more like a complicated, let's say, web of connections. And a variety of 0.85

00:42:08.440 connections might be able to get you to the same place. Right? So it's a little not quite

00:42:15.100 understood what exactly is happening in a person that predisposes them to be gay. But don't

00:42:25.660 you think we're going to figure that out? Do you think in 20 years we won't know that a baby

00:42:32.420 will become gay? I think we will know. I think we'll just keep honing in on it until we can say, 0.95

00:42:40.340 oh, okay, if these five factors are here, it's, you know, 95% chance it's going to be gay. Don't 1.00

00:42:46.120 you think? Oh, some of you are saying no. You think we'll never get to the point where we could

00:42:52.200 untangle the complexity that predisposes somebody to be gay? Okay. Well, some of you are going to

00:43:00.480 disagree with the assumption then. So I'll let you take a pass and you don't have to answer this

00:43:05.240 because you've, you basically, you tested out of this question by saying you don't, you really

00:43:10.860 think that won't happen? I'm really surprised that you think that's not an obvious thing that'll

00:43:16.500 happen. I think it'll obviously happen. All you have to do is take everything we know about a person

00:43:22.240 and turn AI loose on it. Just say, here's everything we know, everything, every blood test,

00:43:30.920 every, you know, chromosome, every, every part of your DNA. And then they'll just say, hey, AI,

00:43:38.780 look at all the people who have given us all this information and tell us what you can find and see

00:43:43.380 if you can predict. I would put a very big bet that you'll be able to predict with, let's say,

00:43:51.040 95% accuracy that a baby will grow up to be predisposed to be a gay man. You don't think so. 0.84

00:43:59.640 Now, is it because you think it's not genetic? You're saying epigenetic meaning a combo?

00:44:06.120 All right. Well, let me finish my, finish my question. What happens when Republicans start

00:44:15.020 aborting gay fetuses? Will abortion remain legal? You say that will not happen? No, that would 1.00

00:44:27.040 happen. Oh, that would happen. I wouldn't do it, but it's going to happen. Right? Yeah. No.

00:44:36.120 I agree with you that mostly it wouldn't happen. Mostly it wouldn't happen. But somebody's

00:44:43.380 going to do it. You don't think that there'll be, maybe it's not even Republicans. Maybe it's

00:44:48.900 not even Republicans. Maybe it's just anybody who's a bigot, anybody who thinks it's, you

00:44:53.420 know, going to cause them problems. Maybe they're selfish or something. Right? But you don't

00:44:57.580 think that somebody is going to start trying to abort gay fetuses. Right? You're way more 1.00

00:45:05.160 trusting than I am. I don't know how you got so trusting. All right. Well, I thought

00:45:12.540 you were going to agree with my assumptions, but since you disagree with the assumptions,

00:45:16.040 it turns out that wasn't much of a moral dilemma at all. I guess Republicans will just say,

00:45:21.460 let all babies be born, and Democrats will have a different view. All right. Well, okay. Let

00:45:30.200 me take a moment here to compliment my conservative-leaning audience. You know, I don't identify as conservative,

00:45:38.340 but I always appreciate people who are consistent with their view. And I just saw an amazing amount

00:45:46.460 of consistency there. So good for you. It's actually kind of impressive how consistent you

00:45:52.520 are. Even at the hardest question, you remain consistent. I do respect that, I got to say.

00:45:59.200 I respect that. So turns out that is the breaking news. I heard that Pfizer missed a deadline for

00:46:13.260 reporting the, what is it, the cardio problems from the shot on young people. Is that breaking that I

00:46:24.200 just saw? Did they just, while I was on the live stream, did Pfizer just announce the results?

00:46:31.000 Can you confirm that? Or was somebody just guessing? They did. Somebody says yes. And the results are

00:46:38.060 horrible? Is anybody looking at it right now?

00:46:43.640 Breaking? Breaking? It's heart-stopping? So is that the biggest news at the moment? They're just admitting

00:46:55.960 that it's bad for young males, mostly? Is that now just something that Pfizer says right, straight out?

00:47:05.240 Wow. Okay. Well, so the note I made to myself is that if Pfizer is not giving us the results and we

00:47:18.840 don't know why, you have to assume there's a reason. I guess that was the reason. It was exactly what you

00:47:25.500 thought, huh? Yeah, I got a feeling that good news comes out right away. When you miss your deadline

00:47:31.360 for something that could be really bad, but not necessarily, I think missing the deadline,

00:47:38.620 you presume guilt. Remember, a company is not a person and the government is not a person.

00:47:47.200 Persons have the assumption of innocence. Big organizations, you have to start with the 0.98

00:47:52.960 assumption of guilt. And if they don't offer you transparency, just keep your assumption.

00:47:56.940 Just assume guilt and act as though that's just a fact. That's the only system that works.

00:48:04.760 You know, trusting big organizations who are not transparent makes no sense at all.

00:48:08.640 You couldn't have a world that way. Well, we'll talk more about the Pfizer stuff when I know more

00:48:16.600 about it. So there's another Russian general shakeup, I think the fourth one since the military action.

00:48:24.180 And in Ukraine, so the new guy, so the speculators are all speculating. So the new general was already

00:48:33.540 the top general of all the generals. But he was more of an office kind of a general. And

00:48:40.380 you're already assuming that I'm going to be biased toward one side.

00:48:47.200 Give me a minute. Give me a minute, will you? So some pundits say that one of them is getting

00:48:59.500 demoted and it's a sign of things going wrong, etc. The other take is that he's exactly the right guy

00:49:06.920 to have in position for a spring offensive that the Russians are getting ready for.

00:49:12.080 I lean toward that view, that it's a positive Russian strategy. I'm leaning against the 1.00

00:49:21.820 interpretation that it shows that Russia is falling apart. Because the person they're putting 0.51

00:49:27.840 in charge was the office person in charge of the generals who were there. And they just told

00:49:32.760 the office person to get out of the office and get to the front line, or at least get into

00:49:36.960 the war. And the thinking is that the person who, and he's still, he has the same job, so he's still

00:49:43.360 ahead of the other generals. But if that general can get the various parts of the Russian military to work

00:49:50.340 together better, which was one of the biggest issues they had, then he's exactly the right person.

00:49:57.480 And if he's ahead of the generals and he's not, doesn't have, let's say, the urgency that he should,

00:50:02.940 then putting him in the theater would certainly give him more urgency. So it's way too early to know

00:50:09.840 if this is a good thing or a bad thing, and in what way. But I'm leaning toward, it's a, it's a Russian 1.00

00:50:19.060 strong move, and they're getting ready for a big offensive in the spring. Is that what you expected

00:50:24.860 me to say? Because you expected me to say over and over again that Ukraine is winning everything,

00:50:32.180 even when the evidence suggests otherwise? See, sometimes I follow the evidence. To me,

00:50:39.640 that doesn't look like a mistake. It looks like they strengthened their chain of command.

00:50:43.680 By the way, by the way, I, I was on YouTube yesterday, and YouTube suggested a story about

00:50:56.900 Stalin. It was a story about the last days of Stalin. And, oh my God, I think we all knew that

00:51:06.960 Stalin was, you know, a Hiller-like bad character. I had no idea. I thought I knew how bad it was. 0.51

00:51:16.280 I did not know. I did not know at all. He was actually basically just a serial killer who enjoyed

00:51:25.120 killing people. He actually just liked it. He, he killed most of his in-laws. 0.97

00:51:31.280 He, he, he, he was mad at his wife because she, uh, committed suicide when she figured out what a 0.99

00:51:37.820 monster he is. So because he was mad at his wife who killed herself, he sent most of her, uh, relatives 0.85

00:51:45.200 to the gulags and shot the guys. You know, one by one, not all at once. The, the sister of one of the

00:51:55.560 sisters who went to the gulag just for being a sister and, you know, complaining that about her sister,

00:52:01.280 the one who went, had a meeting with him and, and just gave a letter from the sister that was in

00:52:06.340 the gulag, you know, asking for mercy. And so instead of giving her mercy, he transferred her to a much

00:52:13.560 worse gulag and then took the sister who complained and delivered the letter somebody new, like a family

00:52:22.380 member, and put her in the gulag and then, you know, executed her later. And that's, and that's not like a rare

00:52:31.480 story. Apparently that was every day. Like he had a huge list of people he was executing. He executed, uh,

00:52:39.040 seven hundred and fifty thousand people in like one year.

00:52:44.480 Seven hundred and fifty thousand. Twenty million he killed altogether.

00:52:51.480 Well, I, you know,

00:52:53.180 as crazy as, you know, our other dictators are, I've never seen anything like that.

00:52:59.120 Because it, it did seem like he was enjoying it. It did not seem like, like he thought it was

00:53:06.240 necessary, necessarily. Well, you never know. I mean, any story about dictators is shaky.

00:53:16.000 Um, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I needed to say today. Is there any new story I missed?

00:53:23.040 We'll check out that Pfizer stuff. Oh, uh, I tweeted a long thread from a professor

00:53:29.780 Baloo. I like all of your opinion on it. Because he, coincidentally, he represents my exact opinion 0.99

00:53:40.600 of where the consensus of experts are on the data. Now, you all understand I didn't say that that means

00:53:50.780 I'm right. But my current belief, subject to change at any time, is that, um, his description

00:53:58.960 of, of whether the so-called vaccinations helped or hurt is at least consistent with the data that

00:54:05.860 we can see. And basically, he's saying that, uh, of the vulnerable group, the older people primarily,

00:54:13.320 that it was wildly successful. Like, wildly successful. Saving lives. Not in terms of infections.

00:54:22.080 But he said everybody should have known it wouldn't help with infections, you know, spread. Because,

00:54:28.620 you know, it should have been obvious. That's, that's the reason I predicted it wouldn't work.

00:54:33.880 Because, never worked before. And again, it didn't work this time. But his take, his take is that even

00:54:42.600 at the beginning, it was probably a bad idea to give the shots to young people. Young, healthy people.

00:54:49.560 And he, and he's saying that's what looks to be the case. That it was a mistake to give it to young

00:54:54.620 people. But that it was a huge success to give it to the older people. How many of you think that's

00:55:02.060 true? And again, I'm just saying that matches my current thinking of what the current thinking is.

00:55:08.920 My own thinking, my own thinking is useless, because, you know, how do I know? I'm just saying

00:55:15.740 my thinking of what the current thinking is matches that. Until Omicron. And then you think it changed?

00:55:23.880 Yeah. I'm not aware of any data that would be counter to his, his view of what the current view is. I

00:55:34.760 haven't seen any. But that doesn't mean it's not true. Now, I would agree with you on the following

00:55:41.420 statement. In the, in the context of Omicron, I don't know why anybody would get any, you know,

00:55:51.800 any additional things put in their body. I mean, I'm not. You know, I did the, I did the minimum

00:55:57.820 I needed to fly and then I'm out. So, but if you, if you were to stop today, was the shot

00:56:08.160 wildly successful at protecting old people? So far. Now that doesn't mean they won't fall 1.00

00:56:14.180 over tomorrow. So some, so this is a two movies, one screen, right? It's the, would you

00:56:23.200 agree that it's the single most important thing to know? Like if you could know one thing

00:56:29.160 for sure, wouldn't you want to know if the vaccinated had a much better chance of living

00:56:34.580 than the unvaccinated and like, and be confident of the numbers? Yeah. It's the most important 1.00

00:56:39.160 thing. And we don't agree on it. And we don't agree. All right. So I will accept anybody who

00:56:47.180 disagrees with the data because all of our data has turned down to be unreliable so far.

00:56:52.880 So if you're, if you just take the position, all of our data is fake, you're going to be

00:56:58.420 right a lot. I'm not even going to argue with you on it. But it's entirely possible that that

00:57:05.080 will end up being the historian's take on it. I think the historians are going to settle

00:57:10.920 on the vaccination saved lives, but it was a mistake to give it to the young where it 0.54

00:57:15.940 probably costs lives. I think that's where it's going to turn out. But that doesn't mean

00:57:20.540 it's true, right? That just means that's, I think that's where the historians are going

00:57:24.080 to settle. We'll never know what's true. All right. No is a default answer until proven.

00:57:31.620 Yes. Oh, let me test this logic with you. Generally speaking, would you agree with the following

00:57:38.400 statement? Don't do a medical intervention if you don't know you need it. How many would

00:57:48.820 say that's, that's just basic? Don't do a medical intervention if you don't know you need

00:57:54.200 it? Yeah. Yeah, you're all wrong, by the way. Every one of you got the wrong answer. Totally

00:58:05.020 wrong. Is there anybody who's going to disagree with you? Am I the only one? No, that's totally

00:58:11.560 bad thinking. That's bad analysis. The fog of war decision is completely different. The fog

00:58:21.260 of war decision is if you think you have a weaponized biological weapon, and that's one 0.84

00:58:31.220 of your choices. You know, it's fog of war. You don't know what this thing is. And then

00:58:35.340 on the other hand, people on your side-ish, the pharma people in the government, you know,

00:58:41.800 sort of on your side, are saying, you know, we don't know for sure, but this looks like

00:58:47.420 a better bet than this. Do you think just automatically don't put anything in your body

00:58:53.160 under any condition? All right, how about this? Suppose you get bit by a wild animal, and

00:59:03.280 you don't know if you have rabies. You don't know. Do you get the rabies shot? Yes or no?

00:59:08.840 You don't know if you have rabies. Oh, you all changed your opinion. Look at that. Every

00:59:16.060 one of you just reversed your opinion. Now suddenly, you're putting drugs into your body.

00:59:23.040 You're putting drugs into your body without knowing, without knowing if you have a problem.

00:59:29.000 Now, are you going to say to me that's a special case? You should, right? You should say that's

00:59:35.000 a special case, right? So is the fog of war. So was this. This was the most special case.

00:59:44.640 Now, it's not exactly, but let me be consistent. Analogies are not arguments. So if I were to say,

00:59:53.760 because, you know, because of one kind of shot, they treat it that way, therefore, you know,

00:59:59.220 another shot should be treated. That doesn't make sense. Analogies don't work that way, right? So if

01:00:04.960 you're saying bad analogy, yay, you should be saying that. The analogy is just to bring your mind to

01:00:12.400 something. It's not an argument. It's just to bring your mind to another place or to explain something,

01:00:16.860 right? No argument. Here's the argument. In a special case, which would be rare,

01:00:26.580 you can consider both options and you're not crazy, right? And if you're trying to avoid maybe a

01:00:34.700 Chinese bioweapon and your option is a, let's say, a drug made by people who are less likely to want 1.00

01:00:44.140 you dead, do you take the one for people trying to kill you or the ones from the people trying to 0.80

01:00:51.360 save you, but maybe they did it wrong or they're lying to you? Right? Yeah. So I'll just make one

01:01:03.600 statement. If the rabies thing didn't convince you, if that didn't convince you, the only thing I want

01:01:13.940 to tell you is there are exceptions. But as a general rule, I agree with you. As a general rule,

01:01:18.720 don't put something in your body if you don't know it's going to help you or has a good chance.

01:01:24.540 Yeah. And every day, every day we put alcohol in our bodies and all kinds of stuff.

01:01:31.680 Somebody needs me to reframe a McDonald's McMuffin addiction in the morning.

01:01:35.460 What's wrong with a McMuffin?

01:01:40.320 Of all the things you could eat, isn't that one of the less bad ones? At least there's an egg in there, right?

01:01:47.060 Is a McMuffin bad for you?

01:01:48.500 Oh. Well, you know, the bread, but like having a little bit of bread isn't going to kill you.

01:02:00.800 Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm not sure you need that, but if I were looking to reframe it,

01:02:06.900 the way I would do it is that I would call it entertainment.

01:02:10.340 So if you're eating it because it tastes so darn good, which is probably the case,

01:02:17.040 because you have options, you know, there are other ways to eat,

01:02:19.860 so you're probably eating it because it tastes good.

01:02:21.440 If you're eating it because it tastes good, it's entertainment.

01:02:24.760 So tell yourself you don't need entertainment, you need food.

01:02:31.140 So try that one.

01:02:33.040 So that's entertainment.

01:02:34.840 Fast food you should think of as entertainment in general.

01:02:37.220 Right. Junk food, all junk food is entertainment.

01:02:42.680 So if you're hungry, do you say, oh, I'm hungry, I need some entertainment?

01:02:47.280 No. When you're hungry, go get some food.

01:02:50.140 Get some protein first, you know, eat clean, and then go from there.

01:02:59.740 No way it's good for you?

01:03:01.500 Well, you know, unfortunately, we live in a world where

01:03:04.740 our options are things that are terrible for us

01:03:07.740 and things that are just bad for us.

01:03:11.440 Or you're going to spend a lot of money and a lot of time,

01:03:14.040 you know, growing your own organic food or something.

01:03:18.920 Yeah, I don't think there's any food that hasn't been called bad for you at one point.

01:03:26.520 Yeah, I don't know.

01:03:27.420 Well, don't take my advice on eating at McDonald's.

01:03:32.580 But I would guess that on the McDonald's menu,

01:03:36.080 I'm going to guess the egg McMuffin is the least bad thing for you.

01:03:41.500 Just a guess.

01:03:42.840 I have no data to back that up.

01:03:46.020 All right.

01:03:47.840 Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube,

01:03:51.760 and thanks for joining.

01:03:53.840 Best live stream you've ever seen.

01:03:57.420 All right.

01:03:58.460 Lift your back up.

01:04:01.080 Candlestick at McDonald's.

01:04:03.840 We'll see you next time.

01:04:12.960 Cheers.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 12, 2023

Episode 1986 Scott Adams： Joe Biden's Classified Documents, And All Manner Of Government Gaslighting

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript