Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 795 Scott Adams： Impeachment Theater Winners and Losers, Shadowbanning Update, Food From Air

00:00:00.000 Oh, what good luck.

00:00:05.400 You're all here, and it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.

00:00:09.560 It's really not the same without you.

00:00:12.120 I'm glad you could come.

00:00:13.680 And, are you ready?

00:00:15.220 Are you ready?

00:00:16.000 We're going to be talking about this impeachment stuff,

00:00:18.220 impeachment theater, as we call it.

00:00:21.420 But first, you've got to get primed.

00:00:24.620 You've got to get ready.

00:00:26.160 You've got to be in your best frame of mind for this,

00:00:28.500 and all it takes is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein,

00:00:33.620 a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:00:37.060 Fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:39.280 I like coffee.

00:00:40.920 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day,

00:00:43.860 the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.

00:00:49.040 You ready?

00:00:50.300 Go.

00:00:54.740 Oh, yeah.

00:00:56.360 Special impeachment flavor.

00:00:58.500 How does it taste?

00:01:01.560 Very impeachy.

00:01:04.620 Somebody in the comments section is saying,

00:01:08.480 white privilege with Scott.

00:01:11.340 Is it always about that?

00:01:15.060 I'm sorry if I'm displaying my white privilege by using a public platform.

00:01:19.880 And so I continue to be amazed that my trolls disappeared suddenly.

00:01:29.500 And I don't know why.

00:01:30.960 It could be because I was playing with the filters.

00:01:34.160 So Twitter has some filters to allow you to get rid of.

00:01:38.600 I think some of the filters are you can block people who don't have a picture in their photos.

00:01:45.880 I think you can block people who are new accounts.

00:01:49.260 Some other options.

00:01:51.040 But I don't know if that's it.

00:01:53.740 They suddenly just disappeared.

00:01:55.420 And I'm talking about the ones who would always come in with the same three or four comments.

00:02:00.800 And they only happened in 2016 and then they disappeared for a while, but they would flare up now and then.

00:02:06.720 But for reasons I don't know, they all disappeared.

00:02:12.440 But that doesn't mean that we have reached the end of our questions about conservatives especially being throttled or shadow banned.

00:02:23.800 So let me give you an interesting update.

00:02:25.700 I noticed a few days ago that when I tried to follow Richard Grinnell, Ambassador Grinnell, that I thought I had followed him.

00:02:36.880 But then it suggested that I follow him on the list of suggested people to follow.

00:02:41.500 And I thought, what?

00:02:43.300 What's going on?

00:02:44.360 I'm already following him.

00:02:45.740 So I checked and I wasn't.

00:02:48.220 And I thought, huh, did I imagine that?

00:02:51.200 So I followed him.

00:02:53.800 So I followed him.

00:02:56.600 And then it suggested that I follow him again the next day.

00:03:02.540 And I thought, is it possible that twice I thought I followed him and didn't?

00:03:08.840 So I tweeted out the question to my followers.

00:03:12.420 And I said, have any of you tried to follow Ambassador Grinnell and found that you were automatically unfollowed?

00:03:20.040 Guess what the answer is?

00:03:22.840 Yes.

00:03:23.400 A lot of people.

00:03:27.020 A lot of people.

00:03:28.600 If you look at the comments to that tweet, and I tweeted again today just to alert people to look at the comments.

00:03:39.040 It's massively happening.

00:03:42.380 Now, Ambassador Grinnell noticed that I was talking about this, and he thanked me just for raising this issue.

00:03:55.880 He did get a few thousand extra followers.

00:03:59.260 It was just because I gave him some attention.

00:04:01.880 But if you look at the number of people in the comments who are quite sure they followed him and are quite sure they got unfollowed, many of them just discovering because I pointed it out.

00:04:14.400 So a lot of people didn't know it, they just said, well, I'm following him, let me check.

00:04:19.220 And then they checked and they had been automatically unfollowed.

00:04:21.700 Now, here's the question.

00:04:23.120 And I did put in a message to Jack Dorsey to ask him if there's some official Twitter response, because I don't know what the official company position is.

00:04:36.140 But I'll tell you my hypothesis, all right, and it's just a hypothesis, so don't put too much credibility on it.

00:04:44.860 I think we're all confused.

00:04:46.900 But I think there are roughly three main possibilities.

00:04:52.640 The one would be that Twitter senior management is intentionally ordering their employees to game the system for some political game.

00:05:03.420 I would call that deeply unlikely for this particular topic, the following and the unfollowing. 1.00

00:05:12.840 It is so, to imagine that they're doing it intentionally and that it's coming from the top, would imagine that they were all idiots. 1.00

00:05:23.860 And that's clearly not the case. 1.00

00:05:25.760 Because you'd have to be really an idiot to bet your entire company, because that's what this would be. 0.99

00:05:31.060 I mean, you'd really be betting the company. 1.00

00:05:33.420 Betting the entire company and your reputation that something so easily discovered by me, and obviously many of you can discover it just as easily.

00:05:44.100 So if it's completely obvious and heavy-handed, those two don't go together.

00:05:50.520 Because you wouldn't do a clever political scheme to bias the elections if it were also perfectly obvious and discoverable by anybody who looked.

00:06:04.340 So what are the odds that senior management, again, we're talking about very smart people here.

00:06:13.300 Not even ordinary smart people.

00:06:16.240 We're talking about people who have started billion-dollar companies and people who are at the top of that management heap.

00:06:23.040 They know what they're doing.

00:06:24.140 I don't believe, I mean, it just stretches my credibility to beyond where I can take it, that it would be intentional and obvious at the same time.

00:06:37.800 It just doesn't make sense.

00:06:38.980 The other possibility is it's just a bug.

00:06:42.760 And it's a bug that, you know, happens to everybody, but maybe we just notice it in cases where we're looking.

00:06:49.400 And it could be a case of where you think you've followed somebody, you think you've liked something,

00:06:54.600 but maybe your app is not doing a good handshake with, you know, the central processors.

00:07:02.160 But here, again, that would be so hard to believe.

00:07:08.200 Because it's such a massive bug that it would certainly at least be public.

00:07:15.260 In other words, if it were a bug that size that is affecting, you know, God knows how many people,

00:07:21.500 and it happens on a regular basis and has been happening for years,

00:07:25.120 if that were the case, it would just be public knowledge.

00:07:30.260 It probably would be included in the direction somewhere.

00:07:33.580 You know, if you press this, we can't guarantee it'll take or something like that.

00:07:39.080 But more to the point, do you think in the year 2020 that Twitter doesn't know how to build an app

00:07:45.880 where if the app sends some information to the central processor,

00:07:50.160 it doesn't have a process to make sure that the handshake happened?

00:07:54.900 Seriously?

00:07:55.420 I mean, maybe, maybe it's a bug, but it seems so unlikely.

00:08:04.060 So unlikely.

00:08:05.520 So I'll tell you my hypothesis.

00:08:09.060 Again, just speculation.

00:08:11.160 But I'm looking at the main possibilities, and I'm just putting some odds on them.

00:08:15.540 So I think the odds that it's intentional and coming from Twitter management, almost zero.

00:08:21.880 The odds that it's a bug, and we don't, first of all, know about it and it isn't getting fixed,

00:08:30.180 feels like zero?

00:08:32.500 Again, could be.

00:08:35.180 I mean, you can never really completely rule out stuff like this.

00:08:39.840 But very low.

00:08:41.680 Here's my hypothesis.

00:08:42.800 There's somebody who has control of their system that is not in the management chain.

00:08:51.780 Could be just a rogue employee.

00:08:54.840 Could be somebody who took a bribe.

00:08:57.240 Because one of the easiest ways to get access to somebody's algorithm is find some programmers

00:09:03.740 who have access and offer them millions of dollars to tweak something.

00:09:10.000 Now, if I had to guess of all of the possible explanations, there's one of them that's actually

00:09:16.480 kind of normal and typical, and it's that last one.

00:09:20.480 Unfortunately, we live in a world where it would not be hard for a motivated, bad actor

00:09:27.900 to find an employee in one of these big social media companies and just bribe them.

00:09:33.360 How much would it cost to bribe one employee?

00:09:36.940 It's not that expensive if you're talking about billionaires and maybe foreign countries

00:09:42.360 and God knows what.

00:09:43.920 And maybe they didn't even need to be bribed.

00:09:45.760 Maybe they were just partisans who found themselves in the right job and took advantage of it.

00:09:53.360 But I'm going to go with bad actor somewhere under the hood as my top hypothesis.

00:10:02.240 So I've got a message in to Jack Dorsey asking if there's any official explanation I'll be

00:10:09.900 happy to share.

00:10:11.440 But that's where we sit.

00:10:12.400 Now, I've also been keeping you updated that my Twitter feed, I'm sorry, not my Twitter

00:10:19.000 feed, my YouTube videos get routinely demonetized.

00:10:24.000 But apparently I have now complained about that enough that I have Google's attention.

00:10:29.380 And although I haven't followed up, I did get an email yesterday from somebody whose job

00:10:34.980 it is to follow up on exactly this.

00:10:38.080 So it turns out Google's a big company and there's a job for everything.

00:10:41.980 And apparently there's somebody whose job, their actual job, includes the responsibilities

00:10:47.820 of figuring out why people like me are complaining about being demonetized.

00:10:53.740 So apparently it's enough of a problem that there's somebody whose job it is to find out

00:10:57.860 what's wrong.

00:10:58.300 Now, a preliminary hypothesis there is that trolls are reporting it.

00:11:07.220 So it could be that Google is just responding to the fact that there are lots of complaints

00:11:13.700 and until we manually ask for a review, they don't notice that the complaints don't match

00:11:19.700 up with the material until they look at it manually.

00:11:22.080 Maybe, because it wouldn't be crazy that Google's system would automatically block something if

00:11:33.680 it got a lot of complaints until they sorted it down.

00:11:36.760 It seems like that would be a reasonable thing to do, but it would allow just this huge gaping

00:11:43.380 problem, which would be that trolls could illegitimately get you demonetized. 0.99

00:11:48.920 So if I had to guess, that's my top hypothesis, is that trolls are complaining and they just

00:11:56.000 figured out how to game the system.

00:11:57.760 Now, there might be a workaround, so I'll talk to Google and let you know how that goes.

00:12:02.060 So, I guess we need to talk about impeachment, eh?

00:12:09.700 Let's talk about impeachment.

00:12:12.000 Who did you think won the first round of impeachment theater?

00:12:16.100 Because it's sort of like, it's turned into sort of a reality TV show.

00:12:21.340 Honestly, I'm watching this impeachment stuff and I don't even feel that it has something

00:12:26.880 to do with government, because I think both sides have acknowledged that we know how it

00:12:32.880 ends.

00:12:34.240 And if you know how it ends, and how it ends is not going to affect the government, at

00:12:39.560 least in terms of removing a president, all that's left is the theater.

00:12:44.280 And it's obvious that the participants are playing to the audience.

00:12:49.040 Unfortunately, they're also boring the heck out of the audience.

00:12:52.320 It's hard to watch it too long.

00:12:56.760 But if you're like me, did you have, I watched enough of it yesterday, that I felt as though

00:13:03.300 I felt as though I was learning a lot.

00:13:09.720 It is so impressive to watch the best, you know, some of the best attorneys in the world

00:13:14.760 argue two sides of a case.

00:13:17.900 Because you may have the same experience I had.

00:13:20.600 You'll hear one of the attorneys make their case, and I'll be sitting at home and I'll

00:13:23.940 think, wow, that was pretty good.

00:13:27.180 That was very persuasive.

00:13:29.340 If I heard that argument, I'd be inclined to agree with that lawyer.

00:13:33.000 And then the other lawyer from the other side gets up and just demolishes the argument

00:13:38.020 and makes another argument that's so strong you say, huh, guess I've got to change my opinion.

00:13:44.520 Now I'll go with that lawyer.

00:13:45.520 And then the next lawyer gets up to infinity.

00:13:49.400 So it's fascinating to watch my view of reality change in real time.

00:13:54.800 It's like, oh, they've got a good point.

00:13:56.240 Oh, no, they don't.

00:13:57.400 It looks like they've really, really nailed it.

00:13:59.720 No, they didn't.

00:14:01.160 And are you having the same experience?

00:14:03.120 Now, you may be, those of you who are a little more partisan are probably saying, oh, one

00:14:08.860 side is winning every time and the other side is losing every time.

00:14:13.160 But I'll tell you what's the most absurd part about this whole process.

00:14:19.060 The absurdity is that it's something called a trial.

00:14:22.460 And yet, there's apparently, there's nothing in the process that stops people from standing

00:14:31.580 in front of the public and lying like crazy.

00:14:34.700 I mean, seriously lying.

00:14:37.580 Now, I'm not going to say it's only happening on one side.

00:14:41.020 All right.

00:14:41.420 Because of the news sources I'm watching, I'm seeing more of it, more of the accusations

00:14:46.840 about Schiff lying.

00:14:48.000 I don't even need to check MSNBC and CNN.

00:14:52.520 I don't need to check because I already know they're saying that Trump's lawyers are lying

00:14:57.760 and they're going to show their evidence and they're going to show what they said, etc.

00:15:01.780 Now, I can't necessarily sort it all out, but I can say with some confidence that people

00:15:08.280 are intentionally lying in front of the public and there's no repercussions.

00:15:13.900 No repercussions.

00:15:14.980 They can just stand up there and say anything they want as long as they don't, as long as

00:15:20.660 they're not mean to each other, Chief Justice Roberts is going to let them go.

00:15:25.420 I guess he, I guess he warned them to be a little more professional.

00:15:31.180 I missed that lie.

00:15:32.500 But that's the only thing he warned them on, you know, to be a little more respectful to

00:15:37.580 the other side.

00:15:39.360 But in terms of lying, it's just a, it's a free, it's a free market.

00:15:47.140 They can just lie any way they want.

00:15:49.380 And so I ask you, if there are no rules of evidence, you know, no normal ways that you

00:15:55.700 get to the bottom of whether the fact is really a fact or not, what the hell good is this?

00:16:00.540 I mean, it's one thing that we all think we know where it ends, and that makes it a ridiculous,

00:16:07.140 you know, theater exercise.

00:16:09.720 But how could that process possibly work?

00:16:13.860 In what universe could the process as it exists possibly work?

00:16:19.340 Because both sides are deeply, they're deeply incentivized to lie.

00:16:24.240 Why would you tell the truth in that setting?

00:16:29.500 It would, it would be a losing strategy.

00:16:32.380 You might as well lie, because the system rewards it. 0.98

00:16:36.720 It's the damnedest thing, the worst system I've ever seen. 0.97

00:16:41.240 All right, let's talk about some of the fun, small stories within the big story. 0.97

00:16:46.040 First of all, I can't tell, I don't think the public can tell who's winning or losing in

00:16:51.300 any of this.

00:16:51.840 People are just going to grab whatever fact they understand and say, well, I understand

00:16:56.380 this one variable, so I base my decision on it.

00:16:59.640 Probably that's all of us.

00:17:01.440 But here's the most fun thing that came out of yesterday.

00:17:07.360 And I could not enjoy this more.

00:17:10.420 What I'm going to tell you next is just delicious.

00:17:16.380 I've never been so entertained by the news.

00:17:19.100 News, I mean, news has just become entertainment now.

00:17:22.260 I mean, this whole impeachment thing, it's hard to see it as anything but a reality TV

00:17:26.920 entertainment.

00:17:28.080 But by far the coolest, best, most entertaining thing that came out of it came from Alan Dershowitz's

00:17:35.160 mouth when he was interviewed by Sean Hannity.

00:17:38.640 And he said, oh God, I love this.

00:17:40.960 I love this so much I can barely even say it.

00:17:42.940 Dershowitz says that everybody's wrong about the president already being impeached and that

00:17:50.420 it's a stain that will last forever.

00:17:52.560 Because as Dershowitz explains, if the Senate acquits him, he's not impeached.

00:17:58.260 That's the first time I've ever heard that.

00:18:03.080 Is that the same with you?

00:18:04.840 Have you heard anybody who actually knows what they're talking about?

00:18:07.880 I'm talking about a constitutional scholar type person like Dershowitz.

00:18:12.780 Has anybody but him said on an interview, no, you're all wrong.

00:18:19.800 There is no impeachment if the Senate votes it out.

00:18:23.540 Now, I assume that by today we'll see experts on the other side saying, no, no, no. 0.91

00:18:32.120 Alan Dershowitz is crazy.

00:18:34.160 It's definitely impeachment.

00:18:35.640 Oh, yes, it's impeachment, even if the Senate votes against it.

00:18:39.460 It's impeachment.

00:18:41.240 But here's the delicious part.

00:18:44.000 It's not that they disagree.

00:18:46.360 It's not that somebody's saying something I would love to hear, because I think it would

00:18:50.700 just be amazing if that were true.

00:18:52.920 I'd like the Dershowitz opinion on this to be true.

00:18:57.240 Here's what's the fun part.

00:18:59.960 Both positions are supportable by experts.

00:19:04.240 Our two world, you know, two movies on one screen is preserved, no matter what happens.

00:19:10.780 So the vote's going to happen, and the people who say, he's impeached forever, he's got a stain

00:19:17.660 on him forever.

00:19:19.220 They're going to be able to say that, because they have their argument, and the people who

00:19:24.260 support the president, who don't want to say that, are going to say, well, you know, you

00:19:28.220 can say that, but let's look at the constitutional expert, Alan Dershowitz, says no impeachment,

00:19:34.160 assuming that the Senate votes that way.

00:19:37.000 Anyway, now, here's the fun part.

00:19:41.420 Who gets to Wikipedia first?

00:19:44.600 Because that's the whole game here.

00:19:46.920 Whoever gets to Wikipedia and makes their edit a stick, wins.

00:19:51.960 Because you can't trust the news to tell you if he was impeached or not impeached.

00:19:57.500 I already know how that's going to go.

00:19:59.760 Fox News, he wasn't impeached.

00:20:02.220 CNN, he was totally impeached.

00:20:04.620 You know how that's going to go.

00:20:06.140 So nobody's going to look at the news to find out if he's impeached.

00:20:10.600 They're going to try to find a history book.

00:20:13.340 But there isn't really a history book written yet.

00:20:15.980 It's too early.

00:20:17.900 They're going to go to Wikipedia.

00:20:19.320 And Wikipedia is going to be a battleground of competing editors who say,

00:20:24.000 here's my source.

00:20:25.920 I got a source.

00:20:27.720 Now, maybe Wikipedia will battle to a standstill,

00:20:31.500 and they'll just put both points of view and say, well, there's a controversy,

00:20:35.600 so we've got two points of view.

00:20:37.380 We're not going to judge it.

00:20:38.700 We're just saying there are two views.

00:20:40.180 They might end up there.

00:20:42.440 But I love the fact that Dershowitz is very clearly giving cover

00:20:47.300 to anybody who later wants to make the claim that the president wasn't impeached.

00:20:53.580 Do you know who else is going to make that argument that the president wasn't impeached,

00:20:58.020 assuming the Senate votes that way?

00:21:01.460 President Trump.

00:21:03.260 Do you think President Trump is ever going to say in public,

00:21:06.240 I was not impeached?

00:21:09.800 I think he will.

00:21:11.840 I think he might.

00:21:13.740 So that'll be a fun battle for whose reality wins.

00:21:20.360 Something else that Dershowitz says.

00:21:23.680 Now, I told you yesterday that Alan Dershowitz had said in 1998 about the Clinton trial

00:21:30.180 that impeachment doesn't necessarily have to be a crime.

00:21:34.700 You know, it could be, you know, it doesn't have to technically be a crime on the books.

00:21:39.700 And then he's clarified, and then he said he retracts his old statement.

00:21:46.120 If it was in any way in conflict with his current views,

00:21:50.880 he retracts his old views and says, you know, I've done more research.

00:21:55.660 Here's my current view.

00:21:57.600 And the current view is that it still needs to be, it doesn't need to be a crime.

00:22:02.020 So he's consistent from 1998 to today.

00:22:05.100 He always said it doesn't need to be a technical crime.

00:22:08.780 But based on his scholarly research, updated, it needs to be crime-like.

00:22:16.740 Now, what the hell does that mean?

00:22:19.020 What is crime-like that's not a crime?

00:22:22.540 Well, helpfully, Dershowitz gave two examples.

00:22:27.680 And I thought they were excellent examples.

00:22:29.880 Now, they're not exhaustive.

00:22:31.500 They're just two good examples to give you the idea.

00:22:34.120 One is, let's say some president had done something, and it was discovered.

00:22:40.740 But let's say, and I'm going to amp up his example a little bit.

00:22:44.700 Let's say it was one day after the statute of limitations had just run out.

00:22:49.360 It was a horrible crime, but we don't find out about it until the president's in office and it's one day past the statute of limitations.

00:23:00.900 Or maybe he already had to be in office.

00:23:03.500 I think he would have had to do it in the office, and then the statute of limitations still expires or something like that.

00:23:10.280 But anyway, so one example would be society definitely means this to be a crime.

00:23:15.900 It's just that for a technical reason, it wasn't.

00:23:20.000 Let's say somebody got accused of a crime and they were acquitted by the courts, but only because there was some problem with collecting the evidence or something.

00:23:31.760 That's my own example.

00:23:32.720 Another one was, suppose he did a horrible crime, but he did it while he was overseas.

00:23:39.240 He was in a different jurisdiction.

00:23:41.440 You can imagine a president going to some other country, and I don't have to give you examples because you can think of your own.

00:23:47.740 Something horrible happens, let's say, in his personal dealings.

00:23:51.800 You can fill in with any details you want.

00:23:54.780 But it's not a crime because he happens to be in the country where that's just not criminal.

00:23:58.720 But maybe we want to treat it like that in this country because to us it's exactly like one of our crimes, so it's crime-like.

00:24:09.500 Now, I love those examples because they begin to give you a little bit of a sense of what it means to be like a crime, but not actually being a crime.

00:24:20.580 So there could be those examples.

00:24:21.880 And then you can imagine that the framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that they picked up all the exceptions, so they just threw that crime-like thing, understanding, in there.

00:24:33.960 But here's where it gets interesting.

00:24:36.840 The impeachment articles do not allege a crime.

00:24:43.040 So what would be crime-like in terms of abuse of power?

00:24:50.060 What would be the most crime-like, what is a crime that's not abuse of power but is, like, really close to it?

00:24:59.340 And the answer is nothing.

00:25:02.540 Nothing.

00:25:03.600 There's nothing that's almost like abuse of power by the president that's also a criminal act.

00:25:10.860 There's nothing there.

00:25:14.020 Now, corruption and bribery, those are pretty specific.

00:25:18.400 But coercing a foreign power to do something that may or may not be for the national interest, there's just nothing on the books that's sort of in that ballpark, apparently.

00:25:31.180 So it looks like, and Dershowitz says what I've been saying, which is they should just vote on the constitutionality of it and be done with it.

00:25:40.160 Because digging into the details does nothing but give Schiff lots of opportunity to show the public details in his maybe biased, lying way, and that's not good.

00:25:53.120 So I don't know why there's somebody on the president's team who's not taking Dershowitz's advice on, you know, just vote on the constitutionality of it and go home.

00:26:04.880 But they must have their reasons.

00:26:07.560 They're very good lawyers.

00:26:08.860 One of the things that Schiff did, and then I think one of the other Democratic impeachment managers showed, was they actually showed a hoax video.

00:26:22.560 Oh, my God.

00:26:23.840 And by hoax video, I mean it's deceptively edited to change the meaning.

00:26:27.740 And it's the video where the president says in his own words, I think this is close to his own words, that I can do anything I want.

00:26:37.720 And they take it out of context, so it looks like he's saying that as a president, I'm above the law, I can do anything I want.

00:26:45.700 If you see it in context, he was talking about I can do anything I want on, I forget what it was, but a specific question in which he could do anything he wanted.

00:26:54.040 So what he said is not, what he actually said is not in dispute, I don't believe, by anybody.

00:27:01.980 There's no lawyer anywhere who disputes what he actually said.

00:27:06.340 But if you cut out the context, which they did, and they showed a hoax video in the Senate.

00:27:14.780 Just think about this.

00:27:16.100 An intentional hoax video twice on the same day.

00:27:24.040 I was, I'm being told in the comments, reminded that when he said he could do anything he wants, it had to do with whether he could hire or fire people in the executive branch.

00:27:38.020 The answer is, of course.

00:27:39.660 He's the boss.

00:27:41.080 He can do anything he wants in terms of hiring and firing, within reason.

00:27:45.700 So, don't you wonder what Chief Justice Roberts was thinking?

00:27:53.780 Because apparently he doesn't have power to jump in and manage the proceedings other than just the ceremonial parts that he's doing.

00:28:04.900 What do you think he was thinking?

00:28:06.640 Now, maybe he didn't know that it was a deceptive hoax video, maybe, but he probably knew.

00:28:14.640 And he had to sit there, the head of the Supreme Court.

00:28:18.760 Just imagine his mindset, you know, just for a moment.

00:28:22.500 You know, I'm not going to say that I know what he was thinking, but imagine what he was thinking.

00:28:26.080 He, he's the person who is most, let's say, he has the greatest responsibility in the entire country for making sure that the citizens play fair with each other.

00:28:42.580 Right?

00:28:43.180 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, that's his primary thing in life, is that people play fair.

00:28:52.120 Now, within the legal system, of course.

00:28:54.380 But he had to sit there and watch, in the Senate, the most respected, often it's said, the most respected body, governmental body, of just about anywhere.

00:29:08.180 Right?

00:29:08.920 And he had to watch Schiff play a hoax video, and then another one play a hoax video right in front of him.

00:29:14.420 And he had to just sit there and watch it.

00:29:17.140 Oh, my God.

00:29:18.580 That would have made me crazy.

00:29:20.100 I think I would have stopped it right there.

00:29:21.880 I think I would have held up my hand and said, you know, I understand my role, and it's not to get involved.

00:29:27.420 But you just showed a video that's a hoax video in front of the whole world in the Senate.

00:29:33.220 It doesn't get any worse than that.

00:29:35.000 I mean, I suppose there's a lot of verbal lying in the Senate, so people are used to it.

00:29:40.120 But, man, showing a hoax video?

00:29:42.840 That's as bad as it gets.

00:29:45.840 All right.

00:29:49.120 One of the things that Schiff and company are suggesting, and this is my own words I'm putting on this,

00:29:56.540 is that the president mounting a legal defense is tantamount to admitting guilt.

00:30:06.680 What?

00:30:07.540 Now, of course, I'm putting my own words on what they're saying.

00:30:11.540 But their version of it was, and one of the impeachment managers said this, I can't remember her name.

00:30:16.620 She said that she had worked in law enforcement before being in government

00:30:22.140 and that she knew that anybody who had evidence that did not hurt them or show their innocence

00:30:30.400 would be happy to show it to you.

00:30:33.140 And therefore, because the president is not allowing these documents

00:30:37.640 and the people associated with the presidency,

00:30:41.260 not allowing them to talk under the assumption of executive privilege, presidential privilege,

00:30:48.640 that that alone is strong evidence of his guilt.

00:30:53.480 To which I said, what country are we in now?

00:30:57.960 Are we still in the United States?

00:30:59.880 Because in the United States, you can fight like a wounded badger for your defense.

00:31:09.640 And the smartest thing you can do is to block every, if you can, if you can do it legally,

00:31:16.160 you have to do it legally, but if you can, you want to block every source of information from the prosecution.

00:31:24.100 Because there might be something in there.

00:31:25.960 Remember, there's lots and lots of documents, lots and lots of people whose memories are maybe different

00:31:32.540 about what happened, people making assumptions.

00:31:35.620 If you open all that up, you're guaranteed that the other team is going to find some snippet,

00:31:43.160 a text message, an email that could be taken more than one way.

00:31:48.340 Now what do you do?

00:31:49.600 You just gave the other side some ammunition and it wasn't even real.

00:31:53.680 It's just something that looked real, because in a context, you'd say,

00:31:57.560 oh, if I saw that out of context, that would look kind of damning.

00:32:02.140 I don't want the jury to see that, right?

00:32:05.100 You don't want the judge to see that, because it's just something they're taking out of context.

00:32:10.560 So the only way you can prevent stuff taken out of context

00:32:14.800 is that you fight as hard as you can legally within the legal system

00:32:19.400 to prevent the prosecution, or whoever's acting as a prosecutor in this case.

00:32:25.140 You want to limit all their information.

00:32:27.880 It's exactly the same reason why a president with, let's say,

00:32:32.280 President Trump's complicated tax return situation,

00:32:37.960 people said, well, if he had nothing to hide, why wouldn't he just let us look at him?

00:32:44.120 That is just so inexperienced. 0.99

00:32:47.320 Nobody who has experience in the real world would say something so dumb. 0.97

00:32:51.980 The reason you don't let the public and your critics see your tax returns, 0.97

00:32:56.960 I mean, one reason could be you're trying to hide stuff,

00:32:59.040 but an equally strong reason, and just as compelling,

00:33:03.060 which has to be the first reason you would consider,

00:33:06.080 is that nothing good can come of it.

00:33:08.200 It can only be bad.

00:33:10.020 If you're totally innocent, it's only bad,

00:33:13.460 because it gives them stuff to, you know,

00:33:16.140 criticize that may or may not even be valid,

00:33:18.840 but it's plenty of material.

00:33:20.600 You don't want to arm your enemies.

00:33:22.700 So I would say that's the most offensive thing that the Democrats are saying,

00:33:29.680 is that the Trump team using the legal process,

00:33:35.380 legal process,

00:33:37.220 to put some obstacles in the way of the prosecution,

00:33:41.520 that somehow that's evidence of guilt.

00:33:45.260 Wow.

00:33:46.680 It's amazing that we elect people who can say things like that in public.

00:33:52.700 Have you noticed all of the loser-think going on in the arguments?

00:33:59.280 And this is both sides. 0.57

00:34:00.900 Both sides have done two of the biggest loser-think errors,

00:34:05.400 as I read about in my best-selling book called Loser-Think,

00:34:10.460 which you can see behind me here.

00:34:13.700 One of them is they imagine that they can read the minds of strangers.

00:34:18.400 Yeah.

00:34:18.860 The mind reading is massive.

00:34:20.300 Once you start looking for it, you see it everywhere.

00:34:23.500 And what they'll do is they'll say,

00:34:25.780 and the reason he did this is to hide this,

00:34:28.200 or the reason the president doesn't want to have this

00:34:30.480 is because he knows we'll get the goods.

00:34:32.900 No.

00:34:34.000 You can't read his mind.

00:34:36.500 And you certainly don't get to read his mind

00:34:38.940 and put the worst possible interpretation on it

00:34:41.260 when there are other interpretations.

00:34:43.940 So both sides are doing it.

00:34:45.440 They're both saying that they know the motives of the other.

00:34:47.940 Now, they may be right,

00:34:50.380 but it's just the worst thing in the world to assume that.

00:34:56.780 Now, remember, one of the arguments from the president's staff

00:35:00.220 is that they're doing mind reading about his intentions,

00:35:03.980 and you don't want to have a system that lets people get punished

00:35:08.200 because other people are mind reading.

00:35:10.240 Here's the most interesting sort of legal argument factoid I've seen.

00:35:21.060 And it's a little bit technical,

00:35:23.800 but I think I can simplify this to the point where you understand it.

00:35:28.000 Now, Joel Pollack,

00:35:29.540 one of the few people who probably read all these documents

00:35:32.600 in terms of the arguments coming from the White House,

00:35:36.200 pulled down one of the arguments and highlighted it in a tweet.

00:35:42.100 And this is just so interesting.

00:35:44.980 Listen to this argument from the lawyers for the president.

00:35:49.340 So this will be my version of it,

00:35:51.140 so I hope I don't mess this up.

00:35:54.300 In order to get a conviction on impeachment,

00:35:57.700 you have to have two-thirds of the Senate vote,

00:36:02.560 meaning they'd have to agree and vote the same way,

00:36:05.760 on the specific basis for conviction.

00:36:09.140 In other words, they have to vote

00:36:10.420 that this is specifically the reason they're impeaching.

00:36:15.460 Get that? That makes sense, right?

00:36:17.520 You want two-thirds of the Senate to be very specific.

00:36:21.120 This stuff is why we're impeaching you.

00:36:24.060 But, because of the way the impeachment has been structured,

00:36:31.120 it's a laundry list.

00:36:32.900 It's a laundry list of bad things the president has done.

00:36:36.560 And they're trying to get the Senate to vote

00:36:38.760 on a laundry list for impeachment.

00:36:42.860 Now, listen to this argument.

00:36:44.160 It's so clever.

00:36:46.200 If the Senate votes on a laundry list,

00:36:49.660 no matter how convincing that list is,

00:36:53.000 you cannot, at the end of it, know

00:36:56.720 if any one of those things on the list

00:37:00.180 caused two-thirds of the people to vote the way they did.

00:37:05.540 In other words,

00:37:07.860 by its structure,

00:37:09.540 it's not proceedable.

00:37:12.520 You couldn't proceed

00:37:13.640 with a laundry list of reasons

00:37:15.860 because you would never know

00:37:17.580 why the Senators voted the way they did.

00:37:20.260 You wouldn't know if you got two-thirds for any of them.

00:37:23.880 It might be,

00:37:25.060 and I'll just do this hypothetically,

00:37:27.260 it could be that one-third of the Senators

00:37:29.440 voted because of one of those points,

00:37:32.800 but were not persuaded by,

00:37:34.620 let's say, two others.

00:37:36.700 Another third voted for another one,

00:37:38.560 but were not persuaded by the other two.

00:37:40.440 And so on.

00:37:41.020 You could actually have 100% of the Senate

00:37:44.040 vote to convict,

00:37:46.480 in other words, vote to impeach,

00:37:48.300 and carry it through,

00:37:49.940 and yet not satisfy the Constitution

00:37:53.080 because the Constitution requires

00:37:57.040 that they know that they're voting for the same thing.

00:38:00.620 Otherwise, you don't know if you got two-thirds

00:38:02.300 for any one of those things.

00:38:03.920 And I thought,

00:38:05.040 what's the counter-argument to that?

00:38:07.880 I suppose lawyers are clever,

00:38:12.320 so maybe they have one.

00:38:13.940 But isn't that the end?

00:38:16.920 Couldn't you just say,

00:38:18.300 well, let's just talk about this one thing.

00:38:20.640 Is there even anything we have,

00:38:22.740 the way it's structured,

00:38:24.240 that we could vote on?

00:38:25.900 Is it votable?

00:38:27.500 Apparently it's not even votable.

00:38:29.960 You could not constitutionally

00:38:32.020 get from here to there.

00:38:34.480 Very interesting.

00:38:35.160 One of the things I'm liking the most

00:38:40.000 about this

00:38:41.280 is that the Senate has decided

00:38:44.120 to literally torture themselves

00:38:46.240 while we watch. 0.82

00:38:49.200 Now,

00:38:50.120 you could not write

00:38:53.500 a better reality show,

00:38:56.300 and in some ways,

00:38:58.440 it was always heading this way.

00:39:01.100 You know, people have joked for years

00:39:03.520 that the government is just becoming

00:39:05.240 a reality TV show.

00:39:07.100 And then when President Trump gets elected,

00:39:08.900 it looks more like a reality TV show.

00:39:11.320 And then the way he manages

00:39:12.420 is a lot like a reality TV show.

00:39:15.740 You know,

00:39:16.000 right down to the fact that

00:39:17.100 apparently he wanted lawyers on his team

00:39:18.960 who look good on camera,

00:39:20.560 allegedly.

00:39:21.220 I don't know if that actually happened,

00:39:23.000 but it would be consistent

00:39:24.020 with his very smart way

00:39:26.760 to look at the world,

00:39:27.580 which is,

00:39:28.840 you certainly want,

00:39:30.200 you want to be good on every level.

00:39:32.620 You want to be visually good,

00:39:34.240 good arguments, etc.

00:39:37.520 So,

00:39:38.220 we got to the point

00:39:39.320 where the Senate

00:39:40.900 is literally

00:39:41.640 locking its members up,

00:39:43.820 taking away the only thing

00:39:45.020 that could save

00:39:45.640 their poor, bored minds,

00:39:47.900 which are their electronic devices,

00:39:49.700 their phones and stuff,

00:39:51.040 and making them sit there

00:39:52.220 for 12 hours a day

00:39:54.060 and then come back.

00:39:56.520 Oh, my God.

00:39:58.140 It would be...

00:39:58.840 Can you imagine being in that room?

00:40:00.520 How in the world

00:40:03.060 can you listen to all that stuff?

00:40:04.740 And especially

00:40:05.220 all the motions

00:40:06.820 about the 50 or so

00:40:08.560 things that they're voting on.

00:40:11.760 But,

00:40:12.360 I got to say,

00:40:13.620 I like the fact

00:40:14.360 that I can, you know,

00:40:15.200 dip in and dip out.

00:40:16.660 So if I get bored,

00:40:17.740 I can go do something else.

00:40:19.260 But when I leave,

00:40:20.100 I know they're all still

00:40:20.880 locked up on their robe.

00:40:22.300 And they're going to be there

00:40:23.300 for God knows how long.

00:40:24.360 So,

00:40:27.180 it's just great

00:40:29.000 that the Senate

00:40:29.580 is actually torturing

00:40:30.960 their own members.

00:40:32.080 I mean,

00:40:32.340 actual torture.

00:40:33.980 I mean,

00:40:34.640 not in the wartime sense,

00:40:37.540 but I would feel tortured

00:40:39.520 if I had to sit there

00:40:40.480 for 12 hours a day

00:40:41.400 without a phone.

00:40:42.480 I mean,

00:40:42.860 I would be pretty unhappy.

00:40:44.720 I imagine it's the same with them.

00:40:48.980 All right.

00:40:51.360 Let's see what else

00:40:52.240 we got going on here.

00:40:54.360 so we've got the question

00:40:58.600 about

00:40:59.100 about the

00:41:02.780 whether or not

00:41:04.260 the presidential,

00:41:06.820 what's it called?

00:41:07.420 The,

00:41:07.760 I forget the word.

00:41:12.000 The executive privilege.

00:41:15.360 So,

00:41:15.840 so there's some history

00:41:17.700 about,

00:41:18.580 I guess there are some situations

00:41:19.800 in which the

00:41:20.700 the president's

00:41:22.480 close aides

00:41:23.700 did have to give up

00:41:25.060 their information

00:41:25.820 and did have to testify

00:41:27.080 or their documents

00:41:28.280 could be discovered

00:41:28.960 or whatever it was.

00:41:29.980 But there is some history

00:41:31.120 in which that veil

00:41:32.640 has been penetrated

00:41:33.740 in the past.

00:41:35.120 And one of the arguments,

00:41:37.060 apparently,

00:41:37.560 the better argument

00:41:38.960 about it

00:41:39.460 is that

00:41:39.920 what's different

00:41:41.300 about impeachment

00:41:42.500 is that the stakes

00:41:43.900 are so high.

00:41:45.160 So that in general,

00:41:47.000 you know,

00:41:47.300 you wouldn't want

00:41:47.940 the president's

00:41:49.020 close advisors

00:41:50.140 to have to give up

00:41:51.740 any of their communications

00:41:52.920 because it would make it

00:41:54.200 harder for any future

00:41:55.400 president to get

00:41:56.440 good advice.

00:41:57.280 Nobody would want

00:41:57.940 to do it

00:41:58.420 and nobody would even

00:42:00.400 want to send an email

00:42:01.240 to somebody to,

00:42:02.300 you know,

00:42:02.660 get some information

00:42:03.540 if they thought all their

00:42:05.020 electronic communications

00:42:06.120 were going to be grabbed.

00:42:07.040 So the argument is

00:42:08.680 that only in this

00:42:10.680 very special case

00:42:11.980 where it's an impeachment,

00:42:14.060 you know,

00:42:14.260 the fate of the republic

00:42:15.520 rides on it,

00:42:17.240 et cetera,

00:42:17.840 that in those

00:42:18.460 very important cases

00:42:19.540 of impeachment,

00:42:20.540 that's the exception

00:42:21.580 where they can

00:42:22.580 penetrate that

00:42:24.420 privilege

00:42:26.000 and get to that,

00:42:28.060 get to the assistants

00:42:29.180 and the advisors.

00:42:31.020 But here's the thing.

00:42:33.760 Wasn't all of that

00:42:35.120 before impeachment

00:42:36.480 became a big 0.99

00:42:37.380 fucking joke? 0.99

00:42:39.800 Sorry, 1.00

00:42:40.560 that slipped out.

00:42:42.760 Is impeachment

00:42:43.460 this year

00:42:45.200 the same as what

00:42:46.600 impeachment used to be?

00:42:48.560 I don't think so.

00:42:50.640 I don't think so.

00:42:52.640 Today's impeachment

00:42:53.540 is not yesterday's

00:42:54.580 impeachment.

00:42:55.660 So the argument

00:42:57.120 that impeachment

00:42:57.940 is such a high-stakes

00:42:59.320 game because the fate

00:43:00.460 of the country

00:43:00.940 depends on it,

00:43:02.160 that you should make

00:43:02.920 an exception

00:43:03.440 and penetrate that

00:43:04.500 executive privilege,

00:43:06.480 that doesn't

00:43:07.540 really apply

00:43:08.560 to today's

00:43:09.700 form of impeachment.

00:43:12.020 Today's form

00:43:12.940 of impeachment

00:43:13.480 is literally

00:43:14.360 theater.

00:43:15.920 It's just a show.

00:43:18.160 Do you think

00:43:19.040 that the republic

00:43:20.140 is at risk

00:43:22.080 with this

00:43:22.580 impeachment process?

00:43:24.160 Not even a little bit.

00:43:26.120 Not even a little bit.

00:43:28.120 There are no stakes

00:43:30.140 whatsoever in this.

00:43:31.540 We already know

00:43:32.320 how it ends.

00:43:33.420 The impeachment

00:43:33.980 is a bunch 1.00

00:43:34.500 of crap. 1.00

00:43:35.400 It's just theater. 1.00

00:43:37.080 Under the situation

00:43:37.940 where impeachment

00:43:38.940 has,

00:43:39.800 thank you,

00:43:41.620 Nancy Pelosi,

00:43:43.200 she has trivialized 1.00

00:43:44.700 one of the most

00:43:45.720 important parts

00:43:46.620 of the Constitution

00:43:47.460 down to the point

00:43:48.680 where it's

00:43:49.620 the lowest stakes.

00:43:52.780 Impeachment

00:43:53.180 should be the highest

00:43:54.060 stakes, right?

00:43:55.240 The whole country

00:43:56.240 depends on it.

00:43:57.800 Not anymore.

00:43:59.160 They've made a joke

00:44:00.160 out of the whole thing.

00:44:01.000 I mean,

00:44:02.000 literally a joke.

00:44:03.000 We're literally

00:44:03.680 laughing about it.

00:44:05.260 Every day that I

00:44:06.000 watch it,

00:44:06.880 I'm watching it,

00:44:08.180 this is not,

00:44:09.020 you know,

00:44:09.640 no hyperbole here,

00:44:11.120 I watch it

00:44:12.160 as entertainment.

00:44:13.820 I don't even

00:44:14.700 watch it like

00:44:15.340 there's anything

00:44:15.900 at stake.

00:44:17.100 Because I know

00:44:17.900 there isn't.

00:44:18.960 I mean,

00:44:19.240 not in the sense

00:44:20.100 that the government

00:44:20.600 will change.

00:44:21.720 So,

00:44:22.180 I would say

00:44:22.580 the best argument

00:44:23.520 for why the stakes

00:44:25.000 are not that high

00:44:26.160 that this should be,

00:44:27.300 the veil

00:44:28.820 should be pierced,

00:44:29.640 is that there

00:44:30.940 are no stakes.

00:44:32.380 They've ruined

00:44:33.160 impeachment

00:44:33.860 forever.

00:44:36.220 And guess what?

00:44:37.020 If Alan Dershowitz

00:44:37.980 is right,

00:44:38.520 or even if he isn't,

00:44:40.100 President Trump

00:44:41.260 is going to

00:44:41.820 credibly claim

00:44:42.880 that no impeachment

00:44:43.680 happened.

00:44:45.020 That's how

00:44:45.660 unimportant it was.

00:44:48.640 All right.

00:44:49.580 I'd like to tell you

00:44:50.760 news

00:44:51.680 that looks

00:44:53.160 optimistic.

00:44:55.040 Here's one,

00:44:56.120 although it could

00:44:56.700 destroy the entire

00:44:57.520 planet,

00:44:58.480 but at the moment

00:44:59.060 it looks optimistic.

00:45:01.460 There's a country,

00:45:02.780 there's a company,

00:45:04.260 I forget which

00:45:04.880 country it's in,

00:45:06.200 that's making

00:45:06.960 food out of thin air.

00:45:10.640 What?

00:45:12.620 No,

00:45:13.100 that's not exactly

00:45:13.800 what they're doing.

00:45:14.360 So they're starting

00:45:14.880 with microbes

00:45:15.740 and liquid

00:45:16.300 and some kind

00:45:16.900 of a fermentation

00:45:17.560 tank,

00:45:18.580 and then they can

00:45:19.860 breathe these microbes

00:45:21.660 into some kind

00:45:22.420 of a protein

00:45:23.380 that doesn't have

00:45:24.720 a flavor,

00:45:25.320 so you can add

00:45:25.820 it to anything.

00:45:27.120 But here's the twist.

00:45:28.280 normally you would

00:45:29.900 feed your microbes

00:45:32.160 some kind

00:45:32.880 of sugar,

00:45:33.820 but they found

00:45:35.060 a way to grow

00:45:36.160 these things

00:45:36.740 by feeding it

00:45:37.620 CO2.

00:45:39.860 So they could

00:45:40.720 actually pull

00:45:41.320 CO2 out of the air,

00:45:43.860 pump it into

00:45:44.640 their little mixture

00:45:45.680 of fermented

00:45:47.500 microbes,

00:45:48.600 and turn it

00:45:49.460 into protein.

00:45:52.220 Now,

00:45:53.320 apparently they're

00:45:54.300 already doing it,

00:45:55.320 so we don't

00:45:55.880 have to wonder

00:45:56.460 if the science

00:45:57.760 works,

00:45:58.380 because they're

00:45:58.700 already doing it.

00:45:59.880 Now,

00:46:00.200 the question

00:46:00.600 of whether

00:46:00.900 it could scale

00:46:01.680 up is a big

00:46:03.140 question,

00:46:04.160 but when I was

00:46:05.220 laughing at how

00:46:06.080 I'm not sure

00:46:06.840 if this is good

00:46:07.460 news or bad

00:46:08.040 news,

00:46:08.700 because it would

00:46:09.260 be really easy

00:46:10.160 to imagine

00:46:10.820 that you could

00:46:12.280 build these

00:46:12.820 inexpensive

00:46:13.580 things that

00:46:15.200 make protein

00:46:16.640 out of the air,

00:46:17.480 and that you

00:46:18.640 would use it

00:46:19.280 to feed,

00:46:20.340 let's say,

00:46:22.080 African tribes

00:46:23.960 or something

00:46:24.440 that didn't

00:46:25.380 have other

00:46:25.780 sources.

00:46:27.060 But what

00:46:28.100 happens if it

00:46:28.740 becomes the

00:46:29.260 main way we

00:46:29.960 get protein?

00:46:32.200 How much

00:46:32.940 CO2 do you

00:46:34.820 want to take

00:46:35.260 out of the air?

00:46:36.560 Because you

00:46:36.980 sort of have

00:46:37.580 to have a

00:46:37.960 limit on it,

00:46:38.900 because the

00:46:40.220 vegetation of

00:46:42.680 the earth

00:46:42.940 requires a

00:46:43.600 certain level

00:46:44.100 of CO2.

00:46:44.680 So it's

00:46:46.580 one thing,

00:46:47.440 you know,

00:46:47.780 I've talked

00:46:48.200 before about

00:46:48.800 companies that

00:46:49.420 are making

00:46:49.720 these scrubbers,

00:46:51.000 they're pulling

00:46:51.460 it out of

00:46:51.800 the air,

00:46:53.320 but the

00:46:55.320 scrubbers you 0.52

00:46:56.620 could just

00:46:57.000 turn off.

00:46:58.340 If you're

00:46:58.940 pulling CO2

00:46:59.700 out of the

00:47:00.060 air just to

00:47:00.600 get it out

00:47:00.980 of the air,

00:47:01.940 and you

00:47:02.820 decide that

00:47:03.380 you've got

00:47:03.760 enough,

00:47:04.260 and if you

00:47:04.820 took more

00:47:05.280 of it,

00:47:05.580 it would be

00:47:05.920 bad for the

00:47:06.520 earth,

00:47:06.780 not good,

00:47:07.480 well,

00:47:07.700 you could

00:47:07.860 just unplug

00:47:08.420 them.

00:47:09.540 But if you

00:47:10.180 get people

00:47:10.620 addicted to a

00:47:12.400 machine that

00:47:12.900 uses CO2 to

00:47:13.940 produce food,

00:47:14.680 and that

00:47:16.340 becomes a

00:47:17.240 major food

00:47:18.220 source,

00:47:19.000 especially if

00:47:19.840 it's feeding

00:47:20.220 poor people,

00:47:21.980 are they

00:47:23.300 going to

00:47:23.520 turn it

00:47:23.840 off?

00:47:25.760 Or is

00:47:26.360 there so

00:47:26.680 much CO2

00:47:27.260 in the air

00:47:27.600 that we'll

00:47:27.900 never reach

00:47:28.400 the limit

00:47:28.820 of it?

00:47:29.140 Who knows?

00:47:30.340 But,

00:47:30.820 as I

00:47:31.240 said yesterday,

00:47:33.500 it does

00:47:34.180 look like

00:47:34.660 President Trump

00:47:35.440 has,

00:47:37.140 let's say,

00:47:37.900 taken a

00:47:38.300 more nuanced

00:47:39.000 approach to

00:47:40.220 climate change.

00:47:42.020 He approved

00:47:43.200 the United States

00:47:44.060 entering this

00:47:44.760 trillion trees

00:47:46.120 situation,

00:47:47.580 which you

00:47:48.060 wouldn't do

00:47:48.580 unless you

00:47:49.100 thought there

00:47:49.460 was some

00:47:50.100 risk of

00:47:50.700 climate change

00:47:51.940 being a

00:47:52.740 real problem.

00:47:54.480 But his

00:47:55.280 take on it

00:47:55.880 is that we'll

00:47:56.320 figure it out.

00:47:57.880 And I

00:47:58.320 completely agree

00:47:59.340 with that,

00:48:00.200 that it's

00:48:00.920 probably a

00:48:01.420 problem,

00:48:02.000 at least it's

00:48:02.720 a big enough

00:48:03.140 risk,

00:48:03.480 we should

00:48:03.740 treat it

00:48:04.080 seriously,

00:48:04.800 but we

00:48:06.480 can figure

00:48:06.880 it out.

00:48:07.200 And maybe

00:48:10.700 some of

00:48:11.460 these new

00:48:11.840 technologies

00:48:12.380 are exactly

00:48:14.080 what's going

00:48:14.540 to happen.

00:48:15.460 I told

00:48:16.160 you that

00:48:16.820 House

00:48:18.040 Minority 0.93

00:48:18.720 Leader,

00:48:20.240 Kevin

00:48:21.000 McCarthy,

00:48:22.500 was working

00:48:24.380 with a few

00:48:25.000 other people

00:48:26.080 in Congress

00:48:26.540 to come

00:48:27.800 up with a

00:48:28.440 version of,

00:48:30.500 let's say,

00:48:31.260 I won't

00:48:31.760 call it a

00:48:32.340 climate plan,

00:48:34.620 but an

00:48:34.920 energy plan,

00:48:35.660 in which

00:48:36.700 they would

00:48:37.000 go to

00:48:37.300 more clean

00:48:38.460 energy,

00:48:39.100 including

00:48:39.540 nuclear,

00:48:40.600 etc.

00:48:41.120 And I

00:48:41.640 heard from

00:48:42.060 a member

00:48:43.660 of McCarthy's

00:48:45.260 office who

00:48:47.000 offered to

00:48:47.820 brief me on

00:48:49.200 it, so I'm

00:48:49.560 going to

00:48:49.740 follow up on

00:48:50.240 that, and I'll

00:48:51.220 get you more

00:48:51.620 details on

00:48:52.200 that.

00:48:55.620 His

00:48:56.060 announced

00:48:56.420 support for

00:48:57.080 nuclear.

00:48:57.800 Yeah, the

00:48:58.140 president said

00:48:59.260 generation, I

00:49:00.720 think he said

00:49:01.140 generation four

00:49:01.920 nuclear in his

00:49:03.300 list of things

00:49:04.040 we should look

00:49:04.560 at, but he's

00:49:05.540 not called it

00:49:06.200 out as

00:49:06.640 something to

00:49:07.120 emphasize.

00:49:11.280 Let me tell

00:49:11.960 you the worst

00:49:12.820 arguments for

00:49:14.340 the skeptics on

00:49:15.280 climate science.

00:49:15.900 These are the

00:49:16.460 ones you should

00:49:17.140 abandon and

00:49:18.620 of embarrassment.

00:49:20.000 Number one,

00:49:20.760 they forgot to

00:49:21.560 look at the

00:49:22.180 sun, it's all

00:49:22.920 about the

00:49:23.280 sun, and the

00:49:23.920 sunspots, and

00:49:24.680 the sun

00:49:24.980 cycles.

00:49:26.200 The experts on

00:49:27.460 warming did not

00:49:28.340 forget to look at

00:49:29.120 all the elements

00:49:29.720 of the sun.

00:49:30.920 Now, like

00:49:31.880 anything, anybody

00:49:33.340 could be wrong,

00:49:34.140 sun, but they

00:49:36.060 looked at the

00:49:36.580 sun.

00:49:37.440 The other

00:49:37.920 one is that

00:49:39.460 more CO2 is

00:49:40.520 just better.

00:49:42.600 No, it's

00:49:43.500 not.

00:49:44.460 More CO2 is

00:49:45.800 good for

00:49:46.200 plants, but if

00:49:47.560 it's also raising

00:49:48.520 the temperature to

00:49:49.400 the point where

00:49:49.960 you can't live or

00:49:51.000 it's causing

00:49:51.520 major problems, it

00:49:53.220 is not a smart

00:49:54.240 response.

00:49:55.380 It's just not a

00:49:56.000 good argument to

00:49:57.320 say that we

00:49:58.020 need more CO2,

00:49:59.240 lots more than

00:49:59.820 we have now.

00:50:00.960 It just shows

00:50:02.880 you haven't

00:50:03.180 looked at it

00:50:03.680 in enough

00:50:04.180 detail.

00:50:05.360 So, please

00:50:06.820 abandon the

00:50:07.500 bad arguments.

00:50:08.820 There are

00:50:09.060 plenty of

00:50:09.460 good arguments.

00:50:10.580 I'm not saying

00:50:11.160 there are no

00:50:11.520 good arguments.

00:50:12.340 I'm just saying

00:50:12.740 don't use the

00:50:13.240 bad ones.

00:50:13.820 It just makes

00:50:14.240 you look like

00:50:14.700 you haven't

00:50:14.980 looked into it

00:50:15.540 enough.

00:50:18.720 And the

00:50:19.580 best argument

00:50:20.480 is that we'll

00:50:22.380 be able to

00:50:22.840 figure out how

00:50:23.460 to deal with

00:50:24.340 it in plenty

00:50:25.860 of time.

00:50:27.160 All right,

00:50:27.520 why do I

00:50:28.060 reject the

00:50:28.620 sun?

00:50:28.860 Why do I

00:50:33.920 think the

00:50:35.380 sun should

00:50:35.840 not be

00:50:36.340 considered the

00:50:37.300 real reason

00:50:37.900 of the

00:50:38.260 warming?

00:50:39.660 My head's

00:50:40.400 going to

00:50:40.620 explode.

00:50:41.240 Please,

00:50:42.000 please.

00:50:43.420 It goes

00:50:43.840 like this.

00:50:44.400 I'll just

00:50:44.700 say it one

00:50:45.060 more time.

00:50:47.680 If you

00:50:48.340 believe that

00:50:49.840 all of the

00:50:50.540 experts in

00:50:51.620 the world,

00:50:52.060 the scientists

00:50:52.720 who are

00:50:52.980 looking at

00:50:53.460 why the

00:50:53.860 earth is

00:50:54.300 getting warmer,

00:50:55.680 if you

00:50:56.340 believe they

00:50:56.920 have not

00:50:57.340 looked into

00:50:58.100 all aspects

00:50:59.060 of the

00:51:00.120 sun,

00:51:01.740 you're not

00:51:02.340 a serious

00:51:02.880 participant in

00:51:04.360 the conversation.

00:51:05.820 Of course

00:51:06.580 they have.

00:51:07.740 Could they

00:51:08.060 have made a

00:51:09.420 mistake?

00:51:09.900 All of them?

00:51:10.460 Yeah,

00:51:10.720 anything's

00:51:11.200 possible.

00:51:12.280 But they

00:51:12.740 looked at

00:51:13.340 it.

00:51:14.060 Stop saying

00:51:14.740 they didn't

00:51:15.100 look at

00:51:15.500 it and

00:51:15.760 that you

00:51:16.020 know a

00:51:16.340 guy who

00:51:16.880 has something

00:51:18.720 he posted

00:51:19.280 on Twitter

00:51:19.820 that says

00:51:20.500 that they

00:51:21.060 forgot

00:51:21.700 something about

00:51:22.260 the sun.

00:51:23.080 That's not

00:51:23.580 real.

00:51:25.500 All right.

00:51:25.800 all the

00:51:27.680 grand solar

00:51:28.360 minimum

00:51:29.180 stuff.

00:51:30.220 Don't be

00:51:30.900 amateur

00:51:31.380 scientists

00:51:32.520 and imagine

00:51:33.160 that you

00:51:33.560 know more

00:51:33.980 than the

00:51:34.280 actual

00:51:34.620 scientists

00:51:35.200 because you

00:51:36.360 looked up

00:51:37.080 at the

00:51:37.340 sun and

00:51:37.780 you thought

00:51:38.100 they didn't

00:51:38.440 think about

00:51:38.920 it.

00:51:39.820 Just don't.

00:51:41.260 Please don't.

00:51:43.760 Somebody says

00:51:44.620 all the experts

00:51:45.660 are lying.

00:51:49.180 Really?

00:51:51.140 They're all

00:51:51.860 lying?

00:51:52.180 If you

00:51:54.220 said some

00:51:55.340 of the

00:51:55.580 experts

00:51:56.000 are lying

00:51:56.800 or if

00:51:57.200 you said

00:51:57.660 the

00:51:58.440 experts

00:51:58.820 might be

00:51:59.280 wrong,

00:51:59.800 I'd say

00:52:00.060 well,

00:52:00.420 maybe.

00:52:01.520 Could be.

00:52:02.760 But when

00:52:03.400 you say

00:52:03.760 all the

00:52:04.340 experts

00:52:04.680 are lying,

00:52:06.140 you're not

00:52:06.600 a credible

00:52:07.180 participant

00:52:08.260 in the

00:52:08.660 conversation.

00:52:09.460 That's just 0.99

00:52:09.800 ridiculous. 0.98

00:52:16.280 All right. 0.99

00:52:17.020 Scott asks

00:52:22.700 the question,

00:52:23.360 how is it

00:52:23.800 that the

00:52:24.100 climate

00:52:24.440 maintains

00:52:25.280 itself so

00:52:26.580 tightly?

00:52:27.240 The answer

00:52:27.660 is it

00:52:27.980 doesn't.

00:52:29.420 You can

00:52:29.760 look at

00:52:30.220 the history

00:52:31.720 of the

00:52:31.960 Earth and

00:52:32.280 you can

00:52:32.500 see that

00:52:32.800 the climate

00:52:33.260 has changed

00:52:34.000 substantially

00:52:35.240 over that

00:52:35.720 time.

00:52:36.400 It's just

00:52:36.740 that our

00:52:37.100 little human

00:52:39.200 timescale is

00:52:39.980 so short

00:52:40.640 that we

00:52:42.620 don't

00:52:42.800 notice.

00:52:44.620 Can you

00:52:45.280 name one

00:52:45.780 credible

00:52:46.200 scientist

00:52:46.740 that has

00:52:47.200 refuted

00:52:47.640 the sun?

00:52:48.920 How about

00:52:49.240 all of

00:52:49.560 them?

00:52:50.900 Maybe all

00:52:51.580 of them.

00:52:52.540 100% of

00:52:53.320 them?

00:52:57.480 All right.

00:52:58.140 So I'm

00:52:58.440 not going to

00:52:58.760 argue climate

00:52:59.320 science on

00:52:59.880 here today,

00:53:01.160 but I will

00:53:01.560 talk to you

00:53:02.000 tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 22, 2020

Episode 795 Scott Adams： Impeachment Theater Winners and Losers, Shadowbanning Update, Food From Air

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript