Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 801 Scott Adams： David Mittelman on DNA Opportunities, Sour Don Lemon, Impeachment, China

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, sorry about that aborted start, I didn't have the options on that I needed.

00:00:17.400 So now I do.

00:00:19.380 And today is going to be a very special day.

00:00:21.840 We're going to be talking about impeachment and China and coronavirus and all that.

00:00:27.360 But before we do that, I'm going to bring on a special guest to talk about some updates in the world of DNA.

00:00:33.820 Some stuff that you will be interested in because it will matter to you either now or later.

00:00:40.060 But first, if you'd like to participate in the simultaneous sip, it doesn't take much.

00:00:44.740 It takes a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:52.060 I like coffee.

00:00:52.760 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

00:01:01.680 It's called the simultaneous sip.

00:01:03.820 Go.

00:01:10.520 Now let me check to see if my guest has found us.

00:01:16.700 Yes.

00:01:16.860 I'm going to bring on my guest and introduce him.

00:01:21.720 David, can you hear me?

00:01:25.500 My guest today is David Middleman.

00:01:27.420 You've seen him before.

00:01:28.240 He's the founder and CEO of Authorum, a biometrics company that uses DNA sequencing and genomics to advance human identification.

00:01:38.140 And especially in the crime-solving domain, which is some of the interesting parts.

00:01:43.160 David, how are you this morning?

00:01:44.960 I'm doing good.

00:01:45.600 How are you?

00:01:45.980 I'm great.

00:01:47.300 Thanks for joining us to catch us up on some stuff.

00:01:51.220 One of the interesting things I wanted to ask you about is I believe Authorum has started a database where you can voluntarily have your DNA stored there for crime-solving purposes.

00:02:05.120 Am I saying that right?

00:02:06.860 Yes.

00:02:07.320 Yes.

00:02:08.200 So what's the name of that and how do people participate if they want to?

00:02:11.720 So we started a database.

00:02:14.100 It's called dnasolves.com.

00:02:16.780 And so you've probably heard, folks have heard from watching your show as well as from reading about the news about the Golden State Killer and a number of other folks that have been caught, victims identified, all because there's genealogical data that's been out on public databases to help triangulate and identify who unknown folks are.

00:02:39.800 And so what we've done with DNA solves is we've built a database that has nothing to do with medical research or genealogy research.

00:02:50.920 This is a database that is broadly available for folks that have been tested and want to contribute their DNA towards identifying the victim or solving a crime.

00:02:59.760 How would they do that?

00:03:00.760 How would they do that?

00:03:01.820 So they've been tested for some other purpose and it's in some other database?

00:03:06.240 How did they get it into your database?

00:03:08.340 Yeah.

00:03:08.760 So folks have tested with recreational testing companies such as ancestry.com or 23andMe.

00:03:15.640 When you test to learn something exciting about yourself, you can then take that profile, that information, and download it from your site.

00:03:27.360 And then you can upload it.

00:03:29.440 Some people upload it to genealogical databases.

00:03:32.100 Some will upload it through tools that predict medical traits.

00:03:34.560 We've built a database that allows you to upload it so that in the event that you're genetically distantly related to someone that might be a perpetrator or a victim in a crime, we can use your data point as kind of like a stepping stone to identify who that person is.

00:03:50.800 So if I've got – let's say I'm afraid that there's somebody in my family, could be a distant cousin, but somebody in my family who might be a serial killer and I don't want to turn him in, I could just register my DNA and let the system do the rest, couldn't I?

00:04:09.040 Yes, and if you know that your sibling is a serial killer and you don't want them to get caught, then you would specifically not upload your data to the database.

00:04:18.380 Now, my data is in 23andMe, and I have not authorized anybody, at least not that I'm aware of, unless I did it accidentally.

00:04:26.980 I'm not aware of telling them to share it or download it.

00:04:30.560 How likely is it that my DNA would be available to law enforcement right now with no change?

00:04:37.300 Could they get at it?

00:04:39.840 There's been discussion about whether or not there's an ability to essentially, like they used to do in the 90s with the ISPs,

00:04:47.700 they've kind of used the court system to request data from these companies.

00:04:53.740 I think 23andMe has a very clear position.

00:04:56.380 They don't work with law enforcement.

00:04:58.040 I think they've done a stellar job of protecting data.

00:05:00.520 And in fact, if you've been a 23andMe customer for a long period of time, you'll notice they used to have a third-party API where you could authorize people to look at your data.

00:05:09.840 They killed it.

00:05:10.460 So I would say 23andMe is a very secure place to keep your information.

00:05:14.780 The only way your data leaves 23andMe is if you go in there and specifically click a button that says, I would like my raw data.

00:05:22.080 And again, some people will do that for a variety of reasons, research, genealogy, whatever.

00:05:26.100 But 23andMe will not move your data on your behalf, even if you ask them to.

00:05:30.120 You have to actively pull it yourself.

00:05:32.720 So what percentage of all Americans, let's say adults, what percentage of them have at this point at least one relative who's close enough that would help identify them,

00:05:45.100 who's in one of these databases that law enforcement can get at?

00:05:48.740 Are we closer to 10% or closer to 90%, meaning that you've got at least a cousin or something who's in the database?

00:05:59.280 So GEDmatch, which was a public database, before they moved to the opt-in model, I think there was about a million profiles in there.

00:06:07.640 And I think with that size of a database, there was pretty good odds that closer to 90% of people would have some connectivity to someone that's tested.

00:06:19.440 It may not be a first or second cousin, but at least a third cousin or closer.

00:06:24.020 And how close does a relative have to be before it becomes, let's say, useful for law enforcement?

00:06:33.140 I know every situation is going to be different, but you said a third cousin. Can you go even further?

00:06:39.500 You can. You can. And it obviously depends on luck and the size of your family and even to some extent, like where in the world you're from.

00:06:51.660 Obviously, Americans are enriched for these databases.

00:06:55.120 But, yeah, the answer to your question is that, you know, if you have a first, second, or third cousin, and a third cousin is pretty far out,

00:07:03.400 it's very easy to then use that to figure out the identity of an unknown DNA sample.

00:07:09.960 If you go further out, you can solve it.

00:07:12.200 But as you move past fourth and fifth cousin, it becomes, you know, more difficult.

00:07:15.940 Now, I made a provocative claim without really knowing what I'm talking about the other day.

00:07:23.220 And I said that this technology is very close to making all serial crimes, at least the violent ones,

00:07:30.600 to make all serial crimes solvable by the end of the year.

00:07:35.920 In other words, if somebody is doing a serial sex crime or serial killer,

00:07:42.760 they're always going to leave DNA, wouldn't you say?

00:07:44.880 Would you say it's close to 100% of the time?

00:07:48.420 I mean, it's a matter of time, yeah.

00:07:50.440 And the way technology has moved, you know, Offerum, unlike, you know,

00:07:55.660 so Offerum's a laboratory, so we actually work on not just the integration of data,

00:08:00.320 but the collection of DNA.

00:08:01.820 And we've been able to collect, you know, decent amounts of DNA from touch DNA.

00:08:06.420 So it's not just that you're leaving DNA.

00:08:08.440 It's that the limit of what you can leave and still generate useful information for

00:08:12.860 has continuously dropped as well.

00:08:14.520 So I would say, I'd say you're right.

00:08:16.720 Like, if you're a serial, you know, rapist, you're probably going to leave DNA at some

00:08:22.140 point somewhere.

00:08:23.560 How many people do you think have already figured out that they're adopted or at

00:08:29.840 least not related to their father without doing much work?

00:08:34.140 In other words, are the databases such that if you've done one of these tests and you download

00:08:41.140 your own data and upload it somewhere else, is there any way that you can just find out

00:08:46.040 if you're really related to your parents?

00:08:47.680 There is.

00:08:49.960 And since that's a non-law enforcement application, you can do that at 23 Me or Ancestry.

00:08:56.140 They have giant databases.

00:08:58.380 You know, 23 Me's database is over 10 million people.

00:09:01.120 I think Ancestry just announced that they surpassed 16 million people.

00:09:04.360 So with that size of a database, it would be very straightforward to look for what they

00:09:10.520 call MPEs, which are non-praternal events.

00:09:13.200 So situations where your father is not your father.

00:09:15.480 And there's stories all the time.

00:09:16.780 People discover relatives they didn't know they had.

00:09:19.440 On the other side, and kind of the less cheery side, people discover that relationships that

00:09:24.440 they thought were real or not real.

00:09:25.640 So, and it's a personal decision if you go on that journey.

00:09:29.300 But there's a story, it seems like, all the time.

00:09:31.720 And that's actually how things were done prior to this application to law enforcement.

00:09:37.520 I mean, it's basically taking the adoption agencies and these kind of family mysteries

00:09:42.860 and applying it towards folks who are not your family, right, that could have been involved

00:09:47.440 in a crime.

00:09:49.180 And what about, I know you're not specifically working on the medical stuff, but you probably

00:09:54.520 know about it.

00:09:55.080 I keep hearing about, there are some people who might have a natural immunity to, let's

00:10:00.480 say, cancer, or certain types of cancer.

00:10:03.820 Are you going to be able to identify people who have DNA that just won't get certain kinds

00:10:09.440 of problems?

00:10:11.120 And therefore, would we be able to commercialize that and say, if these people can't get this

00:10:18.240 disease, we can figure out what it is and take some proteins or whatever the hell you 0.77

00:10:22.680 do?

00:10:23.280 Is that a thing?

00:10:24.160 Is that a real thing?

00:10:26.240 It is a thing.

00:10:27.480 So I will tell you, you know, in my opinion, it's a really good idea to separate medicine

00:10:34.060 and medical traits from human identification.

00:10:37.640 And so 23andMe, for example, doesn't participate in human identification, but they do medical

00:10:42.600 research.

00:10:43.080 And what you're describing is kind of the direction 23andMe is headed, right?

00:10:47.980 Are there DNA components that would help predict if someone responds positively to a drug or

00:10:53.820 not?

00:10:54.040 Are there new drugs that can be developed based on DNA markers that would make them more effective

00:11:00.520 than some folks that otherwise are benefiting from a drug?

00:11:06.160 But at Offerum, we're the inverse company.

00:11:08.740 So what you're saying, I think, is very likely and true.

00:11:12.020 But at Offerum, it's not about a science issue.

00:11:14.920 It's more of a policy issue.

00:11:16.000 We simply do not use any information for medical work.

00:11:20.440 And if you look at the dhsolves.com website, you'll see that we're very clear the only

00:11:26.020 application, and this is consistent with the DOJ policy, the only application of human

00:11:30.760 identification, because we don't want to create any anxiety or make people think that we're

00:11:37.120 mixing multiple topics together, trick them into participating.

00:11:41.000 People should come to the site for no reason other than to solve a crime, not because they're

00:11:45.420 trying to, like, cure cancer or find a new drug.

00:11:49.360 All right.

00:11:49.700 I can tell my audience is itching for me to talk about the impeachment.

00:11:54.360 They're coming here primed.

00:11:55.820 So just tell us again how they can find this database to voluntarily upload their data if

00:12:03.040 they want to help with law enforcement.

00:12:05.320 Yeah.

00:12:05.540 So the website is dnasolves.com, and anyone can participate.

00:12:11.000 And, you know, obviously, you know, whoever it is, we appreciate it.

00:12:16.140 And you'll probably be seeing in the news, you know, over the next year or two, just dozens

00:12:20.400 and dozens, not just perpetrators found that commit crimes, but I think a lot of victims

00:12:24.180 that otherwise would have remained anonymous being identified and being reanchored into society.

00:12:29.300 So I think that's a great thing as well.

00:12:31.780 All right.

00:12:32.000 Great.

00:12:32.340 And, David, thanks for coming back.

00:12:34.180 We're going to have you on in the future as we have.

00:12:36.920 I know there's going to be lots more DNA news, so it's great having somebody who's immersed

00:12:42.440 in it to sort us out.

00:12:44.420 So thanks so much, David.

00:12:45.860 Thanks for having me.

00:12:47.340 All right.

00:12:47.880 Take care.

00:12:50.320 All right.

00:12:50.800 Let's talk about the news, some other stuff that's happening.

00:12:54.480 Here's an interesting idea.

00:12:55.980 Bernie Sanders may have the opportunity to completely win the nomination by using a poison pill.

00:13:06.540 Now, a poison pill is a term from mergers and acquisitions of companies.

00:13:13.600 And what it means is if you don't want your company to get purchased, you can pass some

00:13:18.280 internal rules that are called a poison pill, meaning that if somebody tries to buy your company,

00:13:24.020 they will wish they hadn't because the purchase will trigger something.

00:13:28.680 For example, if you didn't want your company to be bought by a larger company, but you were

00:13:34.260 a public company, so there's nothing you could do to stop it because they could just buy your

00:13:38.080 stock and own you, you could say, I'll pass a rule that says all the employees get a 500%

00:13:45.240 bonus if we get purchased, which would make you unpurchaseable because the moment you are

00:13:51.840 purchased, all the money in the company would be given to the employees and the purchaser would be

00:13:57.140 out of luck.

00:13:58.200 So that's called a poison pill. 0.90

00:13:59.580 There's something you do that makes you unbuyable.

00:14:03.340 Bernie Sanders could do a version of this, just by analogy here, he could do a version of this if

00:14:11.240 his supporters decided to claim that if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, they'll vote for Trump.

00:14:18.760 In other words, if you can get enough Bernie Sanders people to say either signing up or

00:14:25.680 they sign a petition or just say it on social media, if they say, look, if Bernie gets screwed

00:14:32.280 out of the nomination again, two years in a row or two cycles in a row, that they're just

00:14:39.860 going to protest to vote for Trump.

00:14:41.880 Now, there are a lot of people who probably believe that, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.

00:14:47.880 Now, think about this.

00:14:49.180 It would make it impossible for any of the other Democrats to get elected in the general

00:14:55.240 election.

00:14:56.500 So Biden's argument that he's the only one who could beat Trump just disappears.

00:15:01.620 Because the moment anybody but Bernie gets elected, the protest vote kicks in.

00:15:08.120 It's a poison pill, and it makes it impossible for the actual nominee to get elected.

00:15:12.780 Now, you could say to yourself, well, every politician has that option, right?

00:15:17.560 Anybody could do that.

00:15:18.980 So why are you saying this about Bernie?

00:15:21.440 No, not everybody could do that.

00:15:23.760 There is something special about Bernie's supporters.

00:15:27.620 Bernie's supporters are just sort of, I would say, a mirror version of Trump supporters in

00:15:36.000 this one special way.

00:15:37.780 I mean, they favor different policies, obviously.

00:15:40.580 But in one way, they're the same.

00:15:43.900 Trump supporters wanted somebody to burn down the system.

00:15:49.140 Bernie supporters want somebody to burn down the system.

00:15:52.160 So if they don't get somebody to burn down the system, they're not going to be terribly

00:15:56.460 concerned about who it is, because it's just going to be more of what we already had.

00:16:01.080 So I think Bernie supporters could actually form a poison pill and make it impossible for

00:16:05.880 anybody else to win the nomination and have a fair chance at winning in the general.

00:16:11.920 But I don't know that that will happen.

00:16:13.760 But the play is there.

00:16:15.560 Let's talk about the impeachment.

00:16:16.760 I've been watching, of course, the president's attorneys argue against impeachment, and I've

00:16:24.820 got a few observations in no particular order.

00:16:28.940 Pam Bondi made a really good argument that Burisma is sketchy and that the Biden's association

00:16:36.700 with it just needs to be looked into.

00:16:39.400 That is key, because if you accept that Burisma was worth looking into, then that's the end

00:16:48.160 of the story, because that's what the president asked for.

00:16:51.380 Obviously, it would have a national interest.

00:16:54.040 And there you are.

00:16:55.420 There's nothing else to be said as long as Burisma was worth looking into.

00:17:00.560 Pam Bondi made that argument. 0.65

00:17:02.600 Now, there's one part of her case which I don't know why all conservatives keep saying

00:17:08.240 this, because it's just inaccurate as far as I can tell, and that is that there's something

00:17:16.160 important about the fact that Biden asked for the prosecutor in Ukraine to be fired when

00:17:22.780 that prosecutor either had an open case or some kind of paperwork involved about looking

00:17:31.400 into Burisma.

00:17:33.380 Now, the transporters and lawyers are saying, well, that just shows that Joe Biden pressured

00:17:42.900 Ukraine to do something.

00:17:44.760 But in fact, it's a ridiculous argument, because Biden was doing what was national policy. 0.66

00:17:51.000 It was national policy that that guy was rotten, that he wasn't really going after Burisma.

00:17:56.180 Lots of other entities wanted him gone.

00:18:00.260 So I think including that part of the argument in why the Burisma Biden thing is all sketchy,

00:18:08.940 I think that just really weakened the argument, because it's a part of the argument that is

00:18:14.960 just demonstrably false.

00:18:16.860 So if you make an argument with a fact that is just so easily debunked, that's just not

00:18:25.180 a strong play.

00:18:26.460 So I thought Pam Bondi made a good argument that Burisma is dirty and worth looking into, 1.00

00:18:31.680 but that one fact about the prosecutor, that's just fake news.

00:18:37.020 So you throw that in there, it weakens your case.

00:18:38.960 Let's talk about Alan Dershowitz.

00:18:45.200 Now, I just caught up with his presentation.

00:18:48.420 I watched it on delay.

00:18:51.300 And as I imagined, it was a total kill shot.

00:18:57.160 If you think that Alan Dershowitz made a good presentation, it doesn't matter what anybody

00:19:03.380 else says, it doesn't, because he made a very convincing argument, very convincing, that

00:19:12.240 the articles of impeachment are not impeachable offenses.

00:19:16.620 And the argument goes to what is high crimes and misdemeanors.

00:19:22.360 And Dershowitz walked through the entire history of it, what the various founders who were important

00:19:27.000 to it, what they said, what people misinterpret about it because they've conflated things.

00:19:32.160 And he clears that up.

00:19:34.000 So he gives you a real clean history of how we got here.

00:19:37.940 And I would say it was 100% persuasive.

00:19:41.820 You know, obviously, people will just stick to their sides because they want to.

00:19:45.840 But if you were even a little bit open-minded and you heard his presentation, you would say

00:19:50.540 to yourself, oh, yeah, they really did mean something like a crime or something that's

00:19:56.920 so like a crime, even if it's technically not a crime, it's still a crime.

00:20:03.280 And the example he used was, what if the president did something terrible, such as taking a bribe

00:20:08.380 or whatever, but it wasn't on American soil?

00:20:11.120 Well, and it was in some country where it wasn't illegal or it couldn't be prosecuted.

00:20:16.360 Is that impeachable?

00:20:17.800 Well, yes, because that crime is exactly a crime in our country.

00:20:21.360 And even though there's a technical reason why he couldn't be prosecuted, it's no doubt

00:20:26.760 about it.

00:20:27.180 It's a crime.

00:20:27.720 That is, that would be crime-like.

00:20:31.140 So that would be impeachable.

00:20:32.620 But as Dershowitz points out, there is no law against abuse of power, nor, and this is

00:20:39.280 the important part, nor could there be.

00:20:43.060 Not only is there not a law against abuse of power, but the framers were very clear, and

00:20:49.520 Dershowitz walks you through their thinking, about how you can't have a vague standard.

00:20:54.360 Because if you have a vague standard, like what is abuse of power?

00:20:58.660 You can't even really tell when it's happened.

00:21:01.000 As long as you can have that kind of vague standard, then it makes the presidency a puppet

00:21:07.760 of the House and the Senate, I guess.

00:21:12.660 So Congress would actually own the presidency if they could get rid of a president just by

00:21:18.100 claiming something they did was an abuse of power, because apparently every president

00:21:22.500 abuses their power, according to someone.

00:21:26.060 So you can never have a constitutional rule about removing a president that is so subject

00:21:32.540 to interpretation, you can't even tell if the standard has been met.

00:21:36.460 That's all you need to know.

00:21:37.980 In fact, there's nothing more predictive about all this legal stuff than if you see that there's

00:21:43.560 something where legal experts can't even agree if any kind of a crime has happened.

00:21:48.500 Anytime you're in that situation, you're going to go free.

00:21:53.600 It doesn't matter if you're president and somebody's trying to impeach you.

00:21:57.040 It doesn't matter if you get picked up on the street for some alleged crime.

00:22:00.860 If lawyers look at the activity and they're not arguing about the facts, they're looking

00:22:05.920 at the same facts, and some of them say, yeah, this is a crime, but others, just as experienced

00:22:11.660 and unbiased, say, I don't know, I don't see it, you're almost certainly going to go free.

00:22:17.480 So whenever you see that much ambiguity about whether it even is a crime, that's good for

00:22:23.160 the defendant.

00:22:24.440 So I thought Nershowitz put the hammer down.

00:22:27.120 Now, in our world in which people aren't really going to change their minds, pretty much everybody

00:22:34.180 knows how they want to vote, but you've got a handful of senators who are in these swing 0.80

00:22:39.680 districts, and they need some backing.

00:22:43.760 In other words, the Republicans probably would prefer to vote with the other Republicans because

00:22:50.160 it's less trouble, but they also want to win re-election.

00:22:53.260 So they need a reason to vote for the Republicans that's clean, one they can explain to their base

00:22:59.640 and say, look, here's my reason, let's call it a fake because.

00:23:05.780 Sometimes people have already decided, but they need to have a reason to give to other

00:23:10.540 people.

00:23:11.480 This sounds good.

00:23:13.140 And the reasons that don't sound good are all the things that the other lawyers were

00:23:17.980 talking about.

00:23:19.180 Was it quid pro quo?

00:23:20.760 Was it not?

00:23:21.960 Did anybody know about it?

00:23:23.340 Was the money withheld?

00:23:25.120 All of that stuff, all of that stuff will get you not re-elected.

00:23:30.380 If you're arguing in the weeds, there are too many weeds.

00:23:33.700 You can't argue them all.

00:23:35.500 The other side has weeds too.

00:23:37.340 You just can't win if you're at that lower level.

00:23:40.380 Dershowitz just provided the senators that are in that danger zone.

00:23:45.600 If they vote one way, they might lose their job, but if they vote the other way, they might

00:23:49.160 lose their job.

00:23:49.780 That very few senators just got a simple, clean, fake because.

00:23:57.880 So should they decide to vote with the other Republicans, here's what they say.

00:24:04.240 Alan Dershowitz's presentation on whether or not these were constitutional charges was

00:24:10.440 so strong that we could ignore the specifics because it doesn't pass the first test of being

00:24:17.460 something worthy that rises to the level of an impeachable offense no matter what the

00:24:23.100 facts are.

00:24:24.040 So we don't need to have an opinion about whether it was a good idea for the president

00:24:29.020 to do this.

00:24:30.220 We can still say it wasn't.

00:24:32.640 We don't have to have an opinion about whether it was quid pro quo or not.

00:24:36.700 We don't have to have an opinion about any of that because you can stop with Dershowitz's

00:24:41.760 opinion that it's not impeachable.

00:24:44.640 Tell your base, you know, I've got two responsibilities.

00:24:48.020 One is, of course, to the people, but another is to the Constitution.

00:24:52.800 And I'm not going to degrade the Constitution by turning something that's kind of specific

00:24:58.080 into something that's kind of vague by precedent because then we'll never have another president

00:25:03.300 who completes a term if the Congress is the other party.

00:25:08.500 So I think Dershowitz did what he needed to do, which is he gave the people on the fence

00:25:13.160 a clean argument.

00:25:16.380 Just look at Dershowitz.

00:25:18.660 What he said is what I said.

00:25:20.520 And now you can vote for the president.

00:25:23.620 Rush Limbaugh, again, was talking about my tweet about Bolton.

00:25:28.080 The so-called Bolton bombshell.

00:25:32.520 Somebody unironically called it a bolt of lightning.

00:25:36.840 They should have called it a Bolton of lightning, but they missed that opportunity.

00:25:42.960 And what you see when, and the reason I'm mentioning that Rush Limbaugh was talking about

00:25:50.120 my tweet, it's the second time this week on the same topic of impeachment, a different

00:25:54.640 tweet this time.

00:25:55.280 And what I tweeted was that the Bolton manuscript proves that the president should not be impeached

00:26:03.920 because Bolton's story is that the president was worried about Ukraine and corruption.

00:26:14.020 So once you've established that the president genuinely cared about corruption and Ukraine 0.54

00:26:19.780 and other countries not paying their share and other things, that's all you need to demonstrate.

00:26:24.720 As long as there's a national interest, it doesn't matter if it's also good for the president,

00:26:29.560 as Dershowitz also explained.

00:26:31.080 But here's my point.

00:26:35.420 And every time I see an example of this, I'm going to call it out until you see the pattern.

00:26:39.980 We are no longer a constitutional republic the way we always had been through history.

00:26:45.860 Because of the Internet, there are voices, in this case it was mine, where I simply had an idea

00:26:53.720 that was worthy of being shared.

00:26:56.660 So because my idea was good, a lot of people saw it, and then apparently they were tweeting at

00:27:02.360 or sending him to Rush Limbaugh and saying, you should read this on the air, and then he did.

00:27:07.860 So Rush Limbaugh has a far bigger audience than I do.

00:27:11.240 Mine's pretty big.

00:27:12.580 His is far bigger.

00:27:13.940 And then basically everybody's seeing it at that point.

00:27:16.800 And I think that we've reached something like an idea meritocracy, meaning that if you have

00:27:24.200 a good idea, it's going to get to the right place.

00:27:28.160 Because we've developed somewhat accidentally, and I think Jack Dorsey gets the win on this

00:27:35.540 one, for building Twitter.

00:27:37.840 Twitter allows a good idea to find supporters and then grow from that small good idea into

00:27:45.900 something that actually forces the politicians to move in that direction, because the public's

00:27:51.140 already there.

00:27:53.340 So keep watching for that.

00:27:55.180 We have an idea meritocracy instead of a constitutional republic, and we just sort of drifted into it.

00:28:05.300 I was looking at the CNN pundits who were trying to find something wrong with the president's

00:28:11.900 legal case.

00:28:14.820 And so here was a funny one from Jen Psaki, writing for CNN.

00:28:20.220 And she said that President Trump's defense team failed at their most important job.

00:28:25.740 And I thought, uh-oh, his defense failed at their most important job?

00:28:31.260 You mean the president's going to be impeached?

00:28:33.640 You mean they failed to keep him from being impeached?

00:28:35.660 No, no, that's not what she meant.

00:28:38.360 She says they failed at their most important job, which was making a clear and compelling

00:28:43.020 argument that there was no need to hear from Bolton.

00:28:47.880 Well, did he hear anything I said about Dershowitz?

00:28:51.320 I would say that they absolutely hammered the thing they needed to do.

00:29:00.880 The thing they needed to do was to give the senators on the fence a clean, easy way to

00:29:07.220 vote for the president instead of against them, and they did that.

00:29:11.340 Is it going to matter that Bolton testifies?

00:29:14.920 Nope.

00:29:15.360 Not if you accept the Dershowitz argument, and it's so strong that you should.

00:29:22.240 If you accept the Dershowitz argument, and he said directly more than once, he said it

00:29:27.640 at the beginning and he said it at the end, no matter whether the new Bolton information

00:29:33.760 is correct or not correct, it has no bearing on the decision because none of it's impeachable.

00:29:42.220 The true version or the fake version, they're both not impeachable.

00:29:46.660 It doesn't matter.

00:29:47.960 So Jen Psaki saying that they missed their most important job, and that's just not true.

00:29:54.800 They made her entire question irrelevant.

00:29:57.620 That's as good as you can get.

00:30:01.060 All right.

00:30:03.580 Here's a question for you, just sort of a general way to predict what's going to happen.

00:30:07.900 And I've seen a few people ask this question on social media.

00:30:10.960 How many people would switch from Trump, let's say they voted or supported Trump in the past,

00:30:17.980 and vote for a Democrat, versus how many Democrats are likely to, for the first time, switch

00:30:25.540 and support Trump?

00:30:28.140 It reminds me a little bit of those old Apple computer and IBM commercials.

00:30:33.060 And somewhere along the line, when IBM was still making personal computers and they were

00:30:37.740 the main competition for Apple, somewhere along the line, someone at Apple cleverly realized

00:30:44.100 that when people move from the IBM PC over to Apple, they almost never move back.

00:30:51.860 But very few people will move from Apple to IBM.

00:30:56.560 So it's basically, it was always a one-way direction.

00:30:58.800 And sure enough, that predicted where we are today.

00:31:02.760 Where I live in Silicon Valley, you don't even see a Windows computer.

00:31:07.600 I mean, it's the rarest thing.

00:31:09.460 If you see a laptop, at least within the Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Bay Area, if you see

00:31:16.520 somebody with a laptop and they happen to be in the technical world, it's an Apple.

00:31:21.580 Well, pretty much every time.

00:31:24.740 So Apple won, because they did have that quality where when people changed their minds, they

00:31:29.760 only changed it in one direction.

00:31:31.800 I think that's starting to develop with Trump versus at least the generic Democrats.

00:31:39.740 Anecdotally, I'm hearing, and this is just anecdotal.

00:31:42.980 Anecdotally, I'm hearing people who are going to vote for Trump for the first time.

00:31:47.520 But I'm not hearing people saying, Trump disappointed me, I'm going to go vote Democrat.

00:31:55.500 Now, I'm not saying it won't happen.

00:31:57.440 I'm just saying that it's starting to shape up like it's a one-way path.

00:32:03.400 So watch for that.

00:32:06.560 All right.

00:32:07.620 Let's talk about closing the borders.

00:32:11.400 So apparently Tibet is going to close their border with China,

00:32:15.480 and Hong Kong is talking about closing traffic coming in and out of Hong Kong.

00:32:22.280 And I think even since yesterday, the number of people infected has maybe doubled,

00:32:28.560 and the estimates are climbing every day.

00:32:32.500 And so here's the question, which I'll just ask every day.

00:32:35.460 I guess I'll just ask this every day.

00:32:37.120 Why does our government not tell us why they've decided to not close all of our traffic coming in from China?

00:32:46.680 Now, I know they've expanded the checkpoints,

00:32:49.860 so there are more airports being checked from more destinations from China.

00:32:53.980 That's great.

00:32:55.200 I'm glad that they're checking people coming in.

00:32:57.540 But we do know the checks don't work, meaning that unless somebody's already feverish,

00:33:04.700 and I think that's the main symptom, maybe cough, I'm not sure.

00:33:08.080 But if they don't have symptoms yet, you can't tell.

00:33:11.260 And apparently there might be tens of thousands of people with no symptoms.

00:33:15.480 So we know our government has implemented a set of processes that can't work completely.

00:33:24.060 They can slow it down.

00:33:25.520 They can get the obvious cases.

00:33:27.120 But we know it can't stop everybody.

00:33:30.080 So how much do you let in?

00:33:32.000 Well, I saw some really bad arguments.

00:33:35.180 Well, first of all, let me say this.

00:33:37.000 Look for the dog that isn't barking.

00:33:38.840 Can you tell me who is the face in our government who's in charge of deciding if the airports are open or closed?

00:33:50.400 Right?

00:33:51.660 Do you remember seeing anybody who was identified as being in charge of that decision?

00:33:57.580 Do the airports stay open or closed?

00:33:59.500 Do we let, you know, what do we do with China traffic?

00:34:03.300 Who is that?

00:34:04.680 Because, you know, on some level, of course, it's always the president.

00:34:07.540 But isn't there a cabinet-level person, somebody?

00:34:13.540 Is there not a person we should see on the news every single day explaining to us why what we're doing is better than closing the airports?

00:34:25.360 Where's that person?

00:34:26.620 The fact that you haven't seen that person tells me the government is failing you.

00:34:32.780 All right?

00:34:34.100 If the government could give you a person, this is a person responsible.

00:34:39.460 Here's why we have not yet closed the airports.

00:34:42.140 We might.

00:34:43.120 But this is why we have not yet.

00:34:45.880 Even if you don't agree with the reason, if you don't have that person with a face, with a job, whose job it is, you know, maybe with the president's approval, of course.

00:34:55.380 But short of that, you haven't seen it, have you?

00:35:00.560 People are saying the CDC, but who?

00:35:03.020 Who's the face?

00:35:04.460 Who's the person?

00:35:05.700 Why are they not in every interview, every 10 minutes on TV all the time?

00:35:09.860 There's something missing, right?

00:35:12.200 That missing part should make you distrust your government's motives.

00:35:17.020 Because if everything was on the up and up, you would know who that person is, and they would be interviewed every day.

00:35:25.580 Every day.

00:35:27.760 So there's something about this process that isn't working.

00:35:31.340 And let me just put this thought out there.

00:35:33.280 If this is somehow a political decision, and it might be, right?

00:35:39.660 It might be a political decision.

00:35:41.720 I hope it's not a political decision.

00:35:43.800 I hope it's a health and welfare and security decision.

00:35:47.340 But what if it's a political decision?

00:35:50.080 I would like to put this thought out here.

00:35:53.040 No president ever got, ever lost his job or her job by being too cautious about a pandemic.

00:36:03.280 Let me say that again.

00:36:05.260 Nobody ever lost their job by being too cautious about a pandemic.

00:36:11.920 But if President Trump is not cautious enough, you can definitely lose your job for that.

00:36:20.900 Indeed, if we don't close our airports, and this thing gets into our country and starts killing people by the hundreds or thousands,

00:36:29.300 how could you possibly support Trump for re-election?

00:36:31.920 I couldn't.

00:36:34.340 Could you?

00:36:35.340 So he has a political risk of losing the election, but there's nothing he could do in terms of being overly cautious that could cost him even one vote.

00:36:45.740 There's not one person who would vote against him if he went too tight and was too cautious.

00:36:51.400 But I'm telling you, I'm getting close to voting against him just for not talking about it enough.

00:36:56.980 So I'm close to the edge where this issue, should it grow and more people in the United States get it and the deaths are coming in,

00:37:07.180 if we see that, how do you support the president?

00:37:11.540 I mean, really, how could you?

00:37:13.380 That would be such an egregious failure.

00:37:15.280 All right, egregious.

00:37:19.380 I'm seeing some people who are bad at economics argue that we shouldn't yet close travel from traffic because of the economic cost.

00:37:28.720 And I want to just dig into that a little bit.

00:37:33.580 Would there be a, let's say, a formidable or a cost that's just so high that we can't stand it if we close travel for, let's say, 30 days?

00:37:45.900 Because 30 days is a long time in the life of one of these pandemics.

00:37:50.720 Maybe if you could stop travel for 30 days, just to pick a number, we can get a good foothold.

00:37:59.040 Now, what's the economics of that?

00:38:01.220 Now, remember, we're not talking about stopping trade.

00:38:05.060 Trade wouldn't stop.

00:38:06.480 We're only talking about human beings.

00:38:08.100 How much trade would be lost because for one month, human beings could only talk to each other on the phone or video chats or e-mail or whatever.

00:38:21.220 How many deals would be lost simply because people had to wait a month to fly?

00:38:27.800 Close to none, right?

00:38:29.820 How much would the travel industry lose if the people who wanted to fly, you know, between China and the United States this month, suppose they had to wait till next month?

00:38:41.200 Well, first of all, most of those people who waited a month still have to go.

00:38:46.160 So most of the people who didn't go this month, let's say, hypothetically, the travel was shut down between China and the U.S.,

00:38:53.060 the people who didn't go still have to go if they were visiting family.

00:38:57.740 They still got to visit their family.

00:38:59.580 They just do it later.

00:39:01.020 So it might not even have that much of an impact on travel except that one month would be low,

00:39:06.980 but you'd probably have the best month you ever had the month after.

00:39:10.440 It wouldn't be enough to compensate, but probably 80% of it would just come back the next month.

00:39:18.320 And then other people were making this terrible economic comparison.

00:39:22.460 This is why I wrote Loser Think, my book that you should read.

00:39:26.080 People were saying that so few people have died from this coronavirus compared to, let's say, a regular flu,

00:39:35.920 which actually can kill thousands of people every year, or let's say car crashes.

00:39:41.500 So somebody said, well, if you're going to be that cautious, shouldn't you stop people from driving cars?

00:39:46.980 To which I say, analogies do not win arguments.

00:39:51.840 You may have heard me say that.

00:39:53.660 It is a ridiculous comparison of a mature risk that is basically woven into the fabric of our entire economy

00:40:04.760 versus a risk that's just starting, and we don't know how big it could get.

00:40:09.900 You can't compare those things, because on day one of the AIDS epidemic,

00:40:16.740 more people died from stepping on rakes.

00:40:21.460 On day one, the first day that anybody ever found an AIDS virus,

00:40:27.100 this is more hypothetical than literal,

00:40:29.680 the first day that somebody got AIDS and died, a human being,

00:40:32.620 there were more deaths from people stepping on rakes that year, right?

00:40:38.720 So would you say, well, AIDS is no problem,

00:40:41.560 because look, one person died versus all these people drowned in swimming pools

00:40:46.280 and car accidents and drank themselves to death, 0.68

00:40:48.620 so why worry about AIDS?

00:40:51.440 Because AIDS is going to grow quickly.

00:40:54.240 That's why.

00:40:55.000 You can't compare day one.

00:40:57.960 You'd have to look at what it could become

00:41:00.940 and make your decision based on risk management.

00:41:06.200 So a lot of people were really bad at comparing things

00:41:08.820 and looking at the economics way in,

00:41:11.540 and it's a good thing I'm here to fix that for you.

00:41:15.380 Apparently, Boris Johnson over in Great Britain

00:41:18.220 has decided they're going to use China's Huawei company

00:41:23.140 for their networks.

00:41:27.860 Now, that's a problem,

00:41:29.640 because China, the government,

00:41:32.340 we believe, at least the United States believes,

00:41:35.140 they use this company to spy on anything that crosses the network.

00:41:39.740 So this would, in theory,

00:41:41.240 give China, the government,

00:41:42.540 the utility to snoop on all of the Great Britain traffic.

00:41:46.400 And so you might ask yourself,

00:41:48.500 what the hell is Boris Johnson thinking?

00:41:51.660 To the point where people are suggesting online

00:41:54.260 that we not do a trade deal with Great Britain

00:41:57.460 because we don't want to be dealing with them

00:42:00.340 because all of our information will be stolen.

00:42:03.480 Anything that you do with Great Britain from now on

00:42:06.100 presumably would be known by China or could be.

00:42:11.540 So Piers Morgan tweeted on this,

00:42:15.360 and he said,

00:42:15.920 big call by Boris on Huawei,

00:42:18.540 not least because it will infuriate President Trump.

00:42:22.900 He's not saying that's a good thing,

00:42:24.420 but he's just saying that's what makes it big.

00:42:26.740 And this should end any fears

00:42:29.020 our prime minister will be a lapdog to the White House.

00:42:32.540 Well, maybe, 0.99

00:42:33.840 but doesn't this make him a lapdog to China? 0.99

00:42:37.040 Isn't it better to be a lapdog to the United States, 0.98

00:42:39.620 if you're Great Britain, 0.99

00:42:40.860 than to be a lapdog to China? 0.97

00:42:43.660 Looks like those are the only two choices, 0.96

00:42:45.640 and he picked the wrong one.

00:42:49.860 Here's a question that keeps coming up,

00:42:51.500 and again,

00:42:51.880 here's another economic lesson for you in small.

00:42:56.840 I've been saying that,

00:42:58.120 wouldn't it be great

00:42:58.600 if there were some way to bet on climate change?

00:43:01.640 Because then all the people

00:43:02.660 who are so certain of their views

00:43:04.480 that it's a problem or not a problem

00:43:05.860 could bet.

00:43:09.360 They'd just get into the betting market,

00:43:11.080 and everybody would think

00:43:11.860 they would have an advantage.

00:43:13.860 And I suggested

00:43:14.880 that we already have that opportunity

00:43:17.060 because there are insurance companies,

00:43:19.580 there are big insurance companies

00:43:20.820 that insure lots of stuff,

00:43:23.220 and therefore,

00:43:24.400 you could just bet on the insurance companies.

00:43:26.400 If you think climate change

00:43:28.240 is not going to be a problem,

00:43:30.300 well,

00:43:30.760 they probably can charge

00:43:32.320 greater premiums for it every year,

00:43:34.060 because every year

00:43:34.700 they'll adjust their rates.

00:43:36.400 So next year,

00:43:37.020 they might say,

00:43:37.600 hey,

00:43:38.220 we'll throw a 2% on there

00:43:40.120 for climate change risk.

00:43:42.380 So in theory,

00:43:43.600 if you believe climate change

00:43:45.280 is not a risk,

00:43:46.720 these insurance companies

00:43:47.720 would look like pretty good bets

00:43:49.120 because they would charge

00:43:51.280 for this risk

00:43:52.080 but not have to pay it out,

00:43:53.440 according to you.

00:43:55.340 Now,

00:43:55.640 people said,

00:43:57.000 no,

00:43:57.160 that doesn't work

00:43:57.980 because these are big

00:43:59.440 multi-business,

00:44:00.800 multi-national

00:44:03.800 insurance companies.

00:44:06.040 And one type of risk

00:44:07.220 isn't necessarily

00:44:08.580 going to move the stock

00:44:09.620 enough that you could isolate it.

00:44:11.780 So it's not a clean play.

00:44:14.320 To which I say,

00:44:16.440 if that's not a clean play,

00:44:19.240 then we don't have a problem with,

00:44:21.900 we wouldn't have any problem

00:44:24.720 with climate change

00:44:26.580 if it doesn't reflect

00:44:28.300 into the profits

00:44:29.220 of the insurance companies

00:44:30.520 in a big way.

00:44:31.320 Let me say this cleaner.

00:44:33.460 If it were true

00:44:34.520 that we would not notice

00:44:36.860 any particular insurance company

00:44:38.600 having a really bad year

00:44:40.060 because of climate change

00:44:42.000 now or any time in the future,

00:44:43.600 if there's no insurance company

00:44:45.340 that's going to go out of business

00:44:46.400 from this,

00:44:47.680 it is also true

00:44:48.740 that climate change

00:44:50.060 is not that big a problem.

00:44:52.900 Right?

00:44:54.120 It can't be a problem

00:44:55.300 if all insurance companies

00:44:56.900 are going to say,

00:44:57.480 well, yeah,

00:44:58.820 our losses on climate change

00:45:00.520 were pretty big

00:45:01.080 but we made it up

00:45:01.880 on car insurance

00:45:02.820 and life insurance

00:45:03.800 and stuff.

00:45:05.040 There's no world

00:45:06.120 in which climate change

00:45:07.900 can go bad

00:45:08.760 the way the people

00:45:09.900 who say it could go bad

00:45:10.940 will go

00:45:11.420 and insurance companies

00:45:13.200 can still make money.

00:45:14.320 It's not a thing.

00:45:15.460 At the very least,

00:45:17.380 they would have to stop

00:45:18.460 covering things

00:45:19.300 they used to cover.

00:45:21.060 So in every scenario,

00:45:22.760 even if they found a way

00:45:23.720 to limit their losses,

00:45:25.840 the number of things

00:45:27.440 in which they could insure

00:45:28.440 would drop like crazy.

00:45:30.700 So there is no world

00:45:31.760 in which the insurance companies

00:45:33.020 are not hugely affected

00:45:34.920 by climate change

00:45:36.060 if climate change

00:45:37.900 is the risk

00:45:38.620 that the scientific community

00:45:40.500 is telling us.

00:45:42.560 I saw an idea

00:45:43.640 from Balaji Srinivasan

00:45:48.060 talking about

00:45:49.280 some kind of a blockchain situation

00:45:51.560 where you could have

00:45:54.000 a certain set of thermometers.

00:45:55.920 You'd have to agree

00:45:56.540 on which thermometers

00:45:57.620 were part of this

00:45:58.880 but the thermometers

00:45:59.780 would just automatically

00:46:01.220 register their temperatures

00:46:02.620 ideally without

00:46:04.100 human intervention

00:46:05.000 if you could control

00:46:06.160 such things

00:46:06.700 and it would report it

00:46:08.460 and then people

00:46:09.580 could gamble

00:46:10.420 using their cryptocurrency

00:46:11.620 just for this purpose.

00:46:13.780 They could gamble

00:46:14.360 whether the temperatures

00:46:15.340 could be higher

00:46:15.940 or lower next year

00:46:16.780 and then over time

00:46:17.820 maybe any given year

00:46:19.780 there's some noise

00:46:21.660 but over time

00:46:22.720 if you placed your bet

00:46:23.740 every year for 10 years

00:46:24.920 you could find out

00:46:27.060 if your temperature predictions

00:46:29.600 are better or worse

00:46:30.520 than the experts.

00:46:32.060 So you actually could build

00:46:33.160 a betting situation.

00:46:38.160 Did you all see

00:46:38.940 it's just huge news today

00:46:41.540 the Don Lemon interview

00:46:43.980 he was talking to Rick Wilson

00:46:45.760 big anti-Trumper

00:46:47.040 and another gentleman

00:46:48.860 I didn't recognize

00:46:49.700 Ali somebody 0.81

00:46:50.680 I can't remember

00:46:51.560 his last name

00:46:52.100 but the three of them

00:46:53.480 got yucking it up

00:46:54.460 about how Trump supporters 1.00

00:46:56.900 are stupid 1.00

00:46:58.180 southern hillbillies 1.00

00:46:59.640 basically.

00:47:00.500 They didn't use those words

00:47:01.780 but they were pretty clear

00:47:03.240 what their meaning was

00:47:04.040 and I think

00:47:06.660 everyone who was

00:47:07.940 a Trump supporter

00:47:08.740 looked at that

00:47:09.420 and a lot of people

00:47:10.040 were not

00:47:10.440 and said

00:47:10.860 you know

00:47:11.900 if you want

00:47:13.560 a landslide for Trump

00:47:14.900 do more of that

00:47:16.780 because

00:47:18.600 the Democrats

00:47:21.060 seem to consistently

00:47:22.800 make the same play

00:47:24.180 which is instead of

00:47:25.800 going after the leader

00:47:26.920 or the policies

00:47:27.660 they go after the people

00:47:28.760 I mean they're going

00:47:30.280 after people

00:47:31.180 citizens

00:47:32.740 just for having

00:47:33.700 different opinions

00:47:34.460 and

00:47:35.860 most people

00:47:38.120 regard that

00:47:38.800 as just

00:47:39.260 way too far

00:47:40.400 and I think

00:47:40.860 the adjustment

00:47:41.420 to that

00:47:41.880 is that

00:47:43.200 Trump is likely

00:47:44.200 to win

00:47:44.580 in a landslide

00:47:45.320 if you see more

00:47:46.040 of that

00:47:46.420 you know

00:47:47.160 one incident

00:47:48.140 may be

00:47:49.160 a lot of nothing

00:47:49.920 but

00:47:50.220 Netanyahu

00:47:52.120 is flying out

00:47:52.940 to meet Putin

00:47:53.840 right now

00:47:55.180 I guess

00:47:55.560 to talk about

00:47:56.600 the peace plan

00:47:57.140 now

00:47:59.420 I keep telling you

00:48:00.420 that

00:48:00.740 we've never been

00:48:01.860 closer to

00:48:02.700 Middle East peace

00:48:03.600 even though

00:48:04.700 most of you

00:48:05.200 think it's impossible

00:48:06.040 right

00:48:06.340 most of you

00:48:07.300 are going to say

00:48:07.820 it's impossible

00:48:09.000 Scott

00:48:09.480 thousands of years

00:48:11.040 of history

00:48:11.560 tens of thousands

00:48:12.340 years history

00:48:13.120 it's never

00:48:14.260 going to be

00:48:14.700 peaceful over

00:48:15.380 there

00:48:15.660 but to that

00:48:17.660 I say this

00:48:18.420 we've never

00:48:19.800 had this

00:48:20.580 strong a team

00:48:21.680 meaning the

00:48:22.960 leaders of the

00:48:23.820 various countries

00:48:24.460 are all strong

00:48:25.160 leaders

00:48:25.540 and they're all

00:48:27.280 deal makers

00:48:27.800 and they all

00:48:29.200 and most of them

00:48:29.940 get along

00:48:30.420 with the exception

00:48:31.040 of the Ayatollah

00:48:31.860 who just got

00:48:34.220 isolated

00:48:34.760 because he lost

00:48:35.520 his general

00:48:36.540 his economy

00:48:37.200 is falling apart

00:48:37.920 and the entire

00:48:39.300 Middle East

00:48:39.780 is sort of

00:48:40.340 anti-Iran

00:48:41.120 at this point

00:48:41.960 except for

00:48:42.580 the places

00:48:43.260 that Iran 0.91

00:48:43.780 actually controls

00:48:45.020 so we've never

00:48:47.260 had a more

00:48:48.600 conducive situation

00:48:49.980 the people who

00:48:51.080 would stop it

00:48:51.780 are more flexible

00:48:52.640 probably

00:48:53.340 because their

00:48:54.600 economies are

00:48:55.260 in shambles

00:48:55.760 and we've got

00:48:57.320 the right people

00:48:57.880 which is probably

00:48:59.000 at least half

00:49:00.120 of the battle

00:49:00.600 now

00:49:01.500 I know what

00:49:02.860 you're thinking

00:49:03.320 still Scott

00:49:04.940 even with all

00:49:06.080 of these

00:49:06.520 so-called

00:49:07.480 advantages

00:49:08.100 you're talking

00:49:08.720 about

00:49:09.060 I still don't

00:49:10.420 think it can

00:49:10.900 happen

00:49:11.180 because these

00:49:11.800 people will

00:49:12.320 just fight

00:49:12.860 forever

00:49:13.240 it's just

00:49:14.260 impossible

00:49:14.820 well

00:49:16.020 let me confess

00:49:17.720 something

00:49:18.280 I'm not

00:49:21.100 just predicting

00:49:22.020 that's

00:49:24.040 that's not

00:49:24.440 what I'm doing

00:49:24.940 if you've

00:49:25.380 watched me

00:49:25.800 long enough

00:49:26.340 especially

00:49:27.220 if you've

00:49:27.740 watched

00:49:28.000 if you've

00:49:28.560 read

00:49:28.720 win bigly

00:49:29.340 you know

00:49:30.500 that sometimes

00:49:31.620 I'm just

00:49:32.240 predicting

00:49:32.720 but sometimes

00:49:34.460 I'm trying

00:49:35.080 to change

00:49:36.360 something

00:49:36.740 and here's

00:49:38.080 specifically

00:49:38.640 what I'm

00:49:39.140 trying to

00:49:39.580 change

00:49:40.060 in order

00:49:41.280 for anything

00:49:41.920 to get

00:49:42.580 done

00:49:42.900 by humans

00:49:43.620 in order

00:49:44.620 for humans

00:49:45.200 to say

00:49:45.660 okay let's

00:49:46.340 do this

00:49:46.800 and then

00:49:47.100 go do it

00:49:47.680 there's one

00:49:49.200 really important

00:49:50.240 thing that has

00:49:50.900 to happen

00:49:51.280 first

00:49:51.940 and that is

00:49:53.900 you have to

00:49:54.680 believe it's

00:49:55.460 possible

00:49:56.020 if you believe

00:49:57.460 something's

00:49:57.920 impossible

00:49:58.460 you will put

00:50:00.360 no effort

00:50:00.820 into it

00:50:01.360 well it's

00:50:01.900 impossible

00:50:02.360 and so

00:50:03.680 in the

00:50:03.960 Middle East

00:50:04.480 the first

00:50:06.100 most important

00:50:07.020 thing which

00:50:07.600 must be

00:50:08.020 accomplished

00:50:08.560 is that

00:50:09.460 for the

00:50:09.900 public

00:50:10.180 to say

00:50:10.680 you know

00:50:11.680 no matter

00:50:12.880 how unlikely

00:50:13.760 it is

00:50:14.420 for the

00:50:15.780 first time

00:50:16.600 it does

00:50:18.240 look possible

00:50:19.020 and so

00:50:20.360 that's what

00:50:20.740 I'm doing

00:50:21.120 I'm doing

00:50:21.680 it overtly

00:50:22.500 I'm not

00:50:22.940 trying to

00:50:23.320 hide it

00:50:23.720 I'm trying

00:50:24.780 to tell

00:50:25.180 people

00:50:25.540 everybody

00:50:26.240 I can

00:50:26.640 talk to

00:50:27.060 that it's

00:50:28.340 possible

00:50:28.880 and only

00:50:29.960 because

00:50:30.260 something's

00:50:30.740 different

00:50:31.140 what's

00:50:31.820 different

00:50:32.100 is the

00:50:32.500 group of

00:50:32.960 leaders

00:50:33.280 are unusually

00:50:34.320 strong

00:50:34.880 very strong

00:50:36.180 leaders

00:50:36.500 and deal

00:50:36.920 makers

00:50:37.240 it's very

00:50:38.320 important

00:50:38.680 and Iran

00:50:40.180 is weakened

00:50:40.620 to the point

00:50:41.180 of being

00:50:41.460 flexible

00:50:41.900 probably

00:50:42.440 they lost

00:50:42.980 their general

00:50:43.520 probably makes

00:50:44.560 a big

00:50:44.780 difference

00:50:45.220 so I

00:50:47.600 think

00:50:48.040 we should

00:50:49.820 act as

00:50:50.320 though it

00:50:50.820 is possible

00:50:51.500 because if

00:50:53.040 we act

00:50:53.560 as though

00:50:53.900 it's

00:50:54.100 possible

00:50:54.600 you've

00:50:55.820 created

00:50:56.140 at least

00:50:56.580 the first

00:50:57.200 necessary

00:50:57.820 condition

00:50:58.440 for it

00:51:00.300 to be

00:51:00.520 possible

00:51:00.940 so it's

00:51:01.920 sort of

00:51:02.300 a self

00:51:03.380 fulfilling

00:51:03.800 prophecy

00:51:04.600 I'm going

00:51:05.740 to tell

00:51:05.980 you it's

00:51:06.240 possible

00:51:06.660 because I

00:51:07.100 really believe

00:51:07.620 that

00:51:07.900 and based

00:51:09.140 on observation

00:51:10.200 and the

00:51:10.700 variables

00:51:11.060 and the

00:51:11.540 players

00:51:11.880 etc

00:51:12.240 so I

00:51:14.280 would ask

00:51:14.700 you to

00:51:15.200 at least

00:51:15.540 accept

00:51:16.040 even if

00:51:17.320 you think

00:51:17.600 it's deeply

00:51:18.160 unlikely

00:51:18.640 I'm just

00:51:19.660 trying to

00:51:20.060 move you

00:51:20.480 to but

00:51:22.020 it's

00:51:22.220 possible

00:51:22.660 but it's

00:51:24.260 possible

00:51:24.680 all right

00:51:28.220 here's a

00:51:28.560 funny story

00:51:29.180 sort of

00:51:31.080 sort of

00:51:31.620 funny story

00:51:32.240 there was

00:51:33.520 a football

00:51:34.900 coach

00:51:35.420 at Grand

00:51:37.360 Valley State

00:51:37.980 University

00:51:38.480 who got

00:51:38.860 fired

00:51:39.280 because he

00:51:40.480 responded to

00:51:41.400 a student

00:51:42.220 interview

00:51:42.760 so he was

00:51:43.700 interviewed by

00:51:44.180 a student

00:51:44.600 and the

00:51:45.740 student asked

00:51:46.360 name three

00:51:47.820 people you'd

00:51:48.560 like to

00:51:49.000 have lunch

00:51:49.460 with

00:51:49.680 and the

00:51:52.460 coach said

00:51:54.420 Adolf

00:51:54.940 Hiller

00:51:55.300 was one

00:51:56.060 of the

00:51:56.280 three people

00:51:56.840 he'd like

00:51:57.220 to have

00:51:57.480 lunch

00:51:57.660 with

00:51:57.920 because

00:51:58.920 he was

00:51:59.740 very clear

00:52:00.180 to say

00:52:00.640 he doesn't

00:52:01.400 support

00:52:01.840 any of the

00:52:02.420 bad stuff

00:52:02.940 that Hiller

00:52:03.360 did

00:52:03.720 but he was

00:52:04.820 noting in

00:52:05.420 his opinion

00:52:05.980 that Hiller

00:52:06.560 was a strong

00:52:07.220 leader

00:52:07.620 got people

00:52:08.860 to do

00:52:09.240 stuff

00:52:09.580 and he

00:52:10.440 would like

00:52:10.740 to have

00:52:11.180 lunch

00:52:11.440 with him

00:52:11.720 to learn

00:52:12.160 that

00:52:12.460 technique

00:52:13.040 well he

00:52:14.500 got fired

00:52:14.940 for that

00:52:15.360 but there's

00:52:16.960 a punch 0.99

00:52:17.300 line here

00:52:17.800 what was

00:52:19.700 his exact

00:52:20.380 job title

00:52:21.260 and I'm

00:52:21.820 not making

00:52:22.240 this up

00:52:22.700 this is

00:52:23.920 the simulation

00:52:24.640 winking at

00:52:25.320 you

00:52:25.480 the guy

00:52:26.640 who said

00:52:27.080 that he

00:52:27.320 wanted to

00:52:27.640 have lunch

00:52:28.100 with Hitler 0.84

00:52:29.100 just to learn

00:52:30.320 his technique

00:52:30.940 not because

00:52:31.400 he was a

00:52:31.820 friend of

00:52:32.100 Hitler 0.78

00:52:32.320 and got

00:52:33.860 fired for

00:52:34.400 it

00:52:34.600 his job

00:52:35.600 description

00:52:36.080 was

00:52:36.720 offensive

00:52:38.380 coordinator

00:52:39.100 that was

00:52:41.000 his actual

00:52:41.500 job

00:52:41.960 offensive

00:52:43.100 coordinator

00:52:43.780 and he

00:52:45.080 got fired

00:52:45.600 for being

00:52:46.140 offensive

00:52:47.640 that's

00:52:49.820 all

00:52:50.020 he got

00:52:50.980 fired

00:52:51.220 for being

00:52:51.580 offensive

00:52:51.960 and he

00:52:52.400 was an

00:52:52.660 offensive

00:52:52.980 coordinator

00:52:53.520 well if

00:52:54.520 he wants

00:52:54.820 somebody to

00:52:55.300 not be

00:52:55.700 offensive

00:52:56.100 maybe you

00:52:57.160 should hire

00:52:57.540 an inoffensive

00:52:58.540 coordinator

00:52:59.140 that's what

00:53:00.140 I'm saying

00:53:00.500 all right

00:53:02.040 so I guess

00:53:03.380 there'll be

00:53:03.660 some more

00:53:04.100 of the

00:53:05.540 president's

00:53:06.480 defense

00:53:07.760 I think

00:53:08.860 so far

00:53:09.300 the president's

00:53:10.060 defense

00:53:10.480 team

00:53:11.540 A plus

00:53:14.980 really

00:53:16.420 really good

00:53:17.120 one of

00:53:18.120 the things

00:53:18.420 that's

00:53:18.660 interesting

00:53:19.060 too

00:53:19.420 and the

00:53:19.980 president

00:53:20.300 always gets

00:53:20.940 he gets

00:53:22.620 some heat

00:53:23.440 for this

00:53:23.900 the president

00:53:25.720 is famous

00:53:26.700 for saying

00:53:27.280 that he

00:53:27.620 likes people

00:53:28.180 who look

00:53:28.500 like they

00:53:28.860 came from

00:53:29.320 central

00:53:29.800 casting

00:53:30.300 people who

00:53:31.460 look good

00:53:31.960 on television

00:53:32.640 people who

00:53:33.640 play the

00:53:34.040 part

00:53:34.420 and so

00:53:36.020 the president

00:53:36.420 gets heat

00:53:36.840 for that

00:53:37.140 but I

00:53:37.940 gotta tell

00:53:38.420 you

00:53:38.600 it does

00:53:39.440 matter

00:53:39.920 the president

00:53:41.260 is so

00:53:42.220 right about

00:53:42.820 that

00:53:43.160 because if

00:53:44.360 you look

00:53:44.680 at the

00:53:45.080 team

00:53:45.880 that's

00:53:46.220 against

00:53:46.520 them

00:53:46.820 Nadler

00:53:48.180 Schiff

00:53:49.140 these are

00:53:51.500 not

00:53:51.900 television

00:53:53.420 ready

00:53:53.860 personalities

00:53:54.740 if I can

00:53:55.640 be kind

00:53:56.240 there are

00:53:57.400 people who

00:53:57.860 have maybe

00:53:58.580 a face

00:53:59.960 for radio

00:54:00.760 could I

00:54:01.880 say

00:54:02.200 and they're

00:54:04.920 against

00:54:05.380 and I'm

00:54:05.840 watching the

00:54:06.520 president's

00:54:07.780 the president's

00:54:10.800 councils

00:54:11.380 and they're

00:54:12.780 all kind

00:54:13.500 of good

00:54:13.860 looking

00:54:14.220 and even

00:54:17.520 yeah

00:54:18.000 have you

00:54:18.580 seen

00:54:18.940 Jay

00:54:20.180 Sekulow's

00:54:20.960 hair

00:54:21.320 I was

00:54:22.620 looking at

00:54:23.000 his hair

00:54:23.400 yesterday

00:54:23.700 he was on

00:54:24.380 there and

00:54:24.800 he was

00:54:25.060 doing a

00:54:25.340 close up

00:54:25.760 and I

00:54:26.540 was like

00:54:26.920 leaning into

00:54:27.440 the television

00:54:27.960 to look at

00:54:28.460 his hair

00:54:28.900 because I

00:54:29.680 just thought

00:54:30.160 that is the

00:54:31.380 finest head

00:54:32.140 of hair

00:54:32.740 I've ever

00:54:34.080 seen on a

00:54:34.620 human being

00:54:35.360 like you

00:54:36.500 could do

00:54:36.840 anything with

00:54:37.380 that hair

00:54:37.760 you could

00:54:38.240 pick any

00:54:38.680 kind of

00:54:39.000 hairstyle

00:54:39.400 I mean

00:54:40.500 that's some

00:54:41.360 seriously

00:54:41.920 good looking

00:54:42.800 hair

00:54:43.200 and then

00:54:44.400 his other

00:54:44.900 lawyers are

00:54:45.580 tall and

00:54:46.700 good looking

00:54:47.140 and they've

00:54:47.540 got powerful

00:54:48.280 voices and

00:54:48.920 stuff

00:54:49.120 and I would

00:54:50.060 even say

00:54:50.560 if you were

00:54:53.080 going to pick

00:54:53.420 the odd

00:54:54.340 person out

00:54:55.060 in that

00:54:55.620 group

00:54:55.940 and by the

00:54:57.940 way even

00:54:58.700 Pam Bondi

00:54:59.580 looks great

00:55:00.220 on camera

00:55:00.780 they're just

00:55:02.140 people who

00:55:02.580 look great

00:55:03.000 on camera

00:55:03.500 Alan Dershowitz

00:55:06.560 80 years

00:55:07.300 old

00:55:07.620 and in

00:55:09.320 the past

00:55:09.760 he's had

00:55:10.180 some weird

00:55:11.920 curly hair

00:55:12.580 situation

00:55:13.140 which somebody

00:55:13.820 needed to

00:55:14.320 tell him

00:55:14.680 to shave

00:55:15.720 off

00:55:16.120 but at

00:55:17.840 80 years

00:55:18.520 old

00:55:18.940 he's now

00:55:20.620 looks like

00:55:21.900 he's cut

00:55:22.320 his hair

00:55:22.660 close to

00:55:23.220 his head

00:55:23.620 and looks

00:55:24.100 great

00:55:24.560 he looks

00:55:25.680 great

00:55:26.160 I mean

00:55:27.140 he just

00:55:27.800 stood up

00:55:28.200 there and

00:55:28.500 did this

00:55:28.800 long

00:55:29.100 presentation

00:55:29.720 that didn't

00:55:30.920 look like

00:55:31.320 it missed

00:55:31.720 I don't

00:55:32.500 think he's

00:55:33.080 I don't

00:55:33.760 even think

00:55:34.200 he's a

00:55:34.720 tenth of

00:55:36.040 a step

00:55:36.460 slow

00:55:36.980 if you

00:55:38.080 saw it

00:55:38.640 there was

00:55:39.560 no point

00:55:40.180 in Dershowitz's

00:55:41.420 presentation

00:55:41.880 when you

00:55:42.500 said to

00:55:42.820 yourself

00:55:43.060 no point

00:55:43.700 when you

00:55:44.720 said to

00:55:45.000 yourself

00:55:45.260 wow

00:55:46.160 he's 80

00:55:46.720 didn't

00:55:48.400 happen

00:55:48.720 he did a

00:55:50.060 presentation

00:55:50.460 like he

00:55:51.180 was 62

00:55:52.320 and at the

00:55:53.080 height of

00:55:53.460 his

00:55:53.720 analytical

00:55:54.820 powers and

00:55:55.840 strength

00:55:56.280 so first

00:55:57.300 of all

00:55:57.460 his haircut

00:55:57.820 looks great

00:55:58.440 let me

00:55:59.140 say that

00:55:59.620 that looks

00:56:00.380 great

00:56:00.740 he should

00:56:01.360 have done

00:56:01.600 that years

00:56:01.960 ago

00:56:02.160 I mean

00:56:02.680 it just

00:56:03.000 totally

00:56:03.540 improved

00:56:03.980 his overall

00:56:04.940 credibility

00:56:05.980 and look

00:56:06.640 and he's

00:56:07.600 in good

00:56:07.880 shape

00:56:08.260 he's 80

00:56:09.300 very impressive

00:56:10.960 all right

00:56:12.220 that's all I

00:56:12.660 got to say

00:56:13.140 about that

00:56:13.840 and I will

00:56:14.320 talk to you

00:56:14.900 tomorrow

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 28, 2020

Episode 801 Scott Adams： David Mittelman on DNA Opportunities, Sour Don Lemon, Impeachment, China

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript