Real Coffee with Scott Adams - February 13, 2020


Episode 818 Scott Adams： Coming in HOT. There Will be Cursing


Episode Stats


Length

45 minutes

Words per minute

146.80629

Word count

6,748

Sentence count

462

Harmful content

Misogyny

4

sentences flagged

Hate speech

10

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Roger Dooley's new book, Friction, is out now, and it's a great example of how to use friction to your advantage. And how to get your audience to pay attention to you when you don't want them to.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.680 Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum 1.00
00:00:11.100 bum bum bum bum hey everybody come on in. 0.71
00:00:16.000 It's time for coffee with Scott Adams.
00:00:18.860 There will be cursing yeah a little bit later there will be cursing.
00:00:25.120 I know I know I know I said I wouldn't do it anymore.
00:00:27.920 or it's bad for my monetization,
00:00:31.300 and it's certainly inappropriate in many situations.
00:00:40.800 But some days, you just have to do it.
00:00:44.160 But we'll get to that.
00:00:45.520 First, the good news.
00:00:47.720 You can enjoy the simultaneous sip.
00:00:50.240 It's that great feeling that starts your day.
00:00:52.720 And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass,
00:00:55.180 a tank or a chalice or a stein,
00:00:56.300 a canteen jug or a flask,
00:00:57.360 a vessel of any kind.
00:00:58.520 Fill it with your favorite liquid.
00:01:00.120 I like coffee.
00:01:01.540 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure,
00:01:04.040 the dopamine hit of the day,
00:01:05.100 the thing that makes everything better.
00:01:07.480 It's called the simultaneous sip.
00:01:09.880 Go.
00:01:13.860 Ah, good morning, San Ramon.
00:01:16.980 Neighbor, good to see you.
00:01:21.500 So, I want to start with some good news.
00:01:26.360 And a positive thing.
00:01:28.780 Oh, we're going to get to the coronavirus.
00:01:31.380 We're going to get to Roger Stone.
00:01:35.240 But let's do some good news first.
00:01:38.320 So, yesterday I got a package in the mail.
00:01:40.880 And I want to tell you about how that went.
00:01:44.500 This is a marketing story.
00:01:46.240 It's a persuasion lesson.
00:01:48.700 Okay?
00:01:49.420 So, I get something in the mail and I open it up
00:01:52.580 and it's this box.
00:01:54.240 There's something in it.
00:01:55.340 It's something sort of heavy.
00:01:58.120 So, I think, huh, what could it be?
00:02:00.000 Now, the first part of the story is,
00:02:02.580 this is a really good box.
00:02:05.300 It's not quite Apple computer quality
00:02:08.880 where you're opening your iPhone
00:02:10.640 and it's like an essential experience.
00:02:13.360 But it's not bad.
00:02:14.880 It's not bad.
00:02:16.080 It's sort of a smooth thing
00:02:18.080 and it just sort of slid open pretty well.
00:02:21.660 And I open it up
00:02:23.000 and there's some packing in there
00:02:25.700 and I have to sort of dig around in the packing.
00:02:28.980 And I start taking out items.
00:02:31.580 And the first one I see is this.
00:02:33.900 WD-40.
00:02:34.720 I'm like, what?
00:02:36.720 Why is somebody sending me WD-40?
00:02:39.500 And then the next thing I take out is this tape.
00:02:43.480 It's a black electrical tape.
00:02:46.800 What?
00:02:48.280 And then the next thing is these goggles.
00:02:54.680 What?
00:02:56.460 Right?
00:02:57.020 And then I get to the real meat of it,
00:03:00.780 this book.
00:03:01.960 It's called Friction by Roger Dooley.
00:03:04.520 Now, you'll see that I just did his podcast
00:03:07.960 and it's in my Twitter feed.
00:03:11.680 You can find the link to it.
00:03:13.340 So, my interview with him.
00:03:15.040 Now, I talk about friction all the time on the podcast
00:03:17.620 and I think Roger Dooley was,
00:03:21.900 that may have been one of the reasons
00:03:23.400 he wanted to talk to me
00:03:24.460 and interview me.
00:03:25.800 And he sent me his book.
00:03:28.360 Now, here's the payoff here.
00:03:32.240 A lot of people send me books.
00:03:34.980 I try to discourage it
00:03:36.360 because my house would actually just be full of books.
00:03:39.580 Because if you can imagine
00:03:40.660 how many authors would like me to mention their book.
00:03:43.520 And, you know,
00:03:44.700 it's a common practice to send a book out to other people.
00:03:48.460 Now, I don't know,
00:03:50.120 hundreds of people over my career,
00:03:51.800 hundreds and hundreds have sent me books in the mail.
00:03:56.640 And usually it's just wrapped in a mailer
00:03:59.420 and you open it up
00:04:00.580 and there'll be a little note on the inside.
00:04:02.880 And I don't pay much attention to them
00:04:06.460 and I don't read them generally.
00:04:08.960 And then I have something I don't want to throw away,
00:04:11.020 but eventually I do.
00:04:13.480 So generally, everybody fails at that task
00:04:16.760 of getting my attention.
00:04:18.840 But this one caused me to stop and focus.
00:04:21.520 And it gave me things I can't throw away.
00:04:24.160 I'm not going to throw this away, right?
00:04:26.960 And it's a size I wouldn't buy.
00:04:28.920 I actually have WD-40 in the garage,
00:04:31.320 but I don't have this size.
00:04:32.900 So every time I see this,
00:04:34.600 I'm going to say,
00:04:35.060 oh, that's that Roger Dooley book, Friction.
00:04:39.260 And then because the book is called Friction,
00:04:42.920 he's got something about friction in there.
00:04:45.940 And then the goggles,
00:04:47.120 there was a little note,
00:04:48.380 a very nice little note that came with it
00:04:50.140 from Roger explaining that the goggles
00:04:52.380 are so you can see the friction, et cetera.
00:04:54.320 Now, it's a book, I think,
00:04:57.500 that involves persuasion and friction.
00:05:00.520 I haven't dug into it yet.
00:05:02.500 I hear good things about it.
00:05:05.100 Got great reviews.
00:05:07.580 And here's my point.
00:05:09.940 Look how different the level of marketing skill was
00:05:14.160 in this example compared to basically everybody else.
00:05:18.520 Everybody else.
00:05:19.840 So it was quite memorable.
00:05:21.980 Let me promise you,
00:05:23.220 I'm never going to do this again.
00:05:25.760 I'm never going to open a cleverly packaged book
00:05:29.840 and then show it on Periscope.
00:05:31.920 So if you're an author
00:05:32.980 and you just said to yourself,
00:05:35.060 aha, now I know what to do.
00:05:37.460 I can get some attention
00:05:38.480 if I send a cleverly packaged book.
00:05:41.620 It only works once.
00:05:42.960 I'm never going to do this again.
00:05:45.200 Don't send me another cleverly packaged book.
00:05:47.760 It's not going to work.
00:05:49.320 All right.
00:05:49.800 But this was a great job.
00:05:50.980 Roger Dooley,
00:05:52.940 if your book is as good as your marketing,
00:05:55.420 you should all read that book.
00:05:56.760 All right.
00:05:57.460 Let's talk about the coronavirus first.
00:06:01.740 There are 570 confirmed cases of it outside of China.
00:06:06.400 But there should be,
00:06:11.180 let's say there's a 2% death rate.
00:06:14.180 So that would be around 11 people
00:06:16.040 who should have died outside of China 0.97
00:06:18.220 who were not actually just people
00:06:21.860 who were in China just recently.
00:06:24.780 And I'm still waiting
00:06:26.740 for the reports of non-Asian deaths.
00:06:31.540 I think there was an 80-year-old
00:06:34.040 who died recently.
00:06:35.660 Not sure that counts
00:06:36.740 because any kind of a flu
00:06:38.260 can take out an 80-year-old.
00:06:40.420 So we still have that open question
00:06:43.420 whether there's something about this virus
00:06:45.740 that has a preference for,
00:06:48.420 the speculation is that there's something
00:06:49.980 about the receptors in the lungs
00:06:52.640 of Asian men in particular,
00:06:55.260 more so than women. 0.90
00:06:57.920 But we'll see.
00:06:59.040 So I would say that's just an open question.
00:07:00.560 I'm still waiting.
00:07:02.020 And the absence of confirmation
00:07:04.140 that it's affecting everybody equally
00:07:06.560 is starting to get noticeable, isn't it?
00:07:10.560 So we'll wait for that.
00:07:13.960 Think a little bit into the future
00:07:15.600 and see how we're going to handle
00:07:17.300 the next pandemic.
00:07:19.340 So I hope we're doing a good job on this one.
00:07:21.360 But think a little bit in the future
00:07:22.540 and imagine the technology that we'll have.
00:07:27.140 China in particular, of course,
00:07:28.780 will have the ability to remove,
00:07:30.440 and already have,
00:07:31.680 remove all sense of privacy.
00:07:34.680 So the Chinese, basically, 0.96
00:07:36.240 they're losing their privacy.
00:07:38.020 In the United States,
00:07:39.840 I'm going to guess
00:07:42.020 that our penetration of cell phones here
00:07:44.040 is probably higher,
00:07:45.580 smartphones,
00:07:46.720 than China,
00:07:48.040 if you look at the entire country of China.
00:07:49.720 So our country,
00:07:52.440 in theory,
00:07:53.380 already has the technological ability,
00:07:56.340 maybe not the will
00:07:57.640 and maybe not the legal authority,
00:07:59.860 but certainly the technological ability
00:08:01.880 exists for our government
00:08:03.840 to immediately know
00:08:05.520 where everybody who has a phone is.
00:08:09.440 Imagine,
00:08:10.380 so that's the first thing.
00:08:11.820 So in the future,
00:08:12.520 we'll know where everybody is.
00:08:13.640 And in theory,
00:08:15.520 that would be enough
00:08:16.280 to tell you
00:08:16.840 who is associating with who
00:08:18.460 and you could quickly
00:08:19.760 clamp down on a pandemic
00:08:21.300 because you say,
00:08:22.260 oh, this little cluster.
00:08:24.540 Send a text to their phones
00:08:26.080 and tell them to wait there.
00:08:29.500 That's just an example.
00:08:31.100 So most of them wait there,
00:08:32.720 some of them don't,
00:08:33.860 but you can still follow them
00:08:35.160 if you catch up to them.
00:08:36.360 But also,
00:08:39.340 what if a technology
00:08:40.640 like that Clearview app
00:08:42.980 someday in the future
00:08:44.900 could identify somebody
00:08:46.540 who recently traveled to China?
00:08:49.160 Because I assume
00:08:50.540 that in some databases somewhere,
00:08:53.040 there must be records
00:08:54.080 of who traveled where.
00:08:57.380 I don't know where
00:08:58.040 those records exist,
00:08:59.900 but you have to think
00:09:00.680 that any plane coming in
00:09:02.220 from the United States,
00:09:03.580 we probably have
00:09:04.720 some kind of accounting
00:09:05.700 of where they came from, right?
00:09:07.940 I mean, that seems obvious.
00:09:09.640 So suppose you have
00:09:10.480 the Clearview app
00:09:11.600 which identifies faces of people
00:09:14.140 and puts an identity on them.
00:09:16.580 At the moment,
00:09:17.560 it's being used by law enforcement.
00:09:20.320 And maybe you can assume
00:09:21.620 that it's always only used
00:09:22.980 by law enforcement,
00:09:24.000 but I assume that kind of app,
00:09:25.920 if it's not that one,
00:09:27.000 some other one,
00:09:27.700 will be generally available.
00:09:29.720 Imagine having your
00:09:31.480 augmented reality glasses on,
00:09:34.940 Snapchat is making one.
00:09:37.220 I think Google's got one.
00:09:38.360 I'm sure Apple has one.
00:09:40.320 And you're walking down
00:09:41.420 a public street,
00:09:43.000 and you've got something
00:09:44.280 like the Clearview app technology
00:09:46.820 that can recognize faces
00:09:48.200 and put identities to them.
00:09:50.100 And then,
00:09:51.380 only if there's a pandemic,
00:09:53.520 and remember this part,
00:09:55.160 because this is the part,
00:09:56.160 if you don't catch this part,
00:09:58.300 you'll have a totally
00:09:58.960 different idea of it.
00:09:59.860 only in an emergency,
00:10:02.000 and only in a pandemic,
00:10:04.040 let's say,
00:10:04.580 this is just hypothetical,
00:10:05.640 we're just brainstorming here.
00:10:07.080 Let's say the government
00:10:08.000 of the United States says,
00:10:09.220 oh, in this one case,
00:10:11.680 we're going to let
00:10:12.340 that facial recognition app
00:10:14.160 have access also
00:10:16.160 to the database
00:10:17.560 of who's just been in China.
00:10:19.640 So imagine walking down the street,
00:10:22.140 crowd is going by,
00:10:23.580 and one of the people
00:10:24.640 in the crowd
00:10:25.140 is just glowing.
00:10:27.600 It just has an aura around them.
00:10:29.540 And that's how
00:10:30.080 your augmented reality
00:10:31.180 has identified
00:10:31.900 that it's recognized the face
00:10:34.360 and matched it to a database
00:10:36.160 and found out
00:10:37.300 that person just came from China.
00:10:39.780 You'd keep your distance, right?
00:10:41.900 You walk into a coffee shop,
00:10:43.400 you look around,
00:10:43.960 you're like, whoops,
00:10:45.660 sitting at that table,
00:10:47.500 I'm out.
00:10:48.860 So I don't know
00:10:50.240 if this would work.
00:10:51.800 I don't know
00:10:52.640 if the violations of privacy
00:10:56.680 might be so extreme
00:10:58.020 that we'd never do it.
00:10:59.800 Maybe the entities involved
00:11:01.400 would never be able
00:11:02.160 to coordinate.
00:11:03.580 You can see lots of reasons
00:11:04.960 why there would be obstacles
00:11:06.340 to this,
00:11:07.400 but the technology is all there.
00:11:10.200 All the technology is there.
00:11:12.040 And all it's going to take
00:11:13.420 is one pandemic
00:11:14.560 that's like the bad one.
00:11:17.620 I don't know
00:11:18.540 if coronavirus
00:11:19.640 will rise to the level of,
00:11:22.220 you know,
00:11:23.460 big enough to change
00:11:25.420 how we do business.
00:11:26.460 I'm not sure if it will.
00:11:28.100 It might.
00:11:29.680 But I think there's a guarantee
00:11:31.680 that someday our phones,
00:11:33.160 our apps,
00:11:34.040 will allow us
00:11:35.220 to avoid contamination
00:11:36.840 and tamp down on it.
00:11:39.040 I think that's a guarantee.
00:11:40.820 I would say
00:11:41.360 if you fast forward
00:11:42.320 10 years,
00:11:44.060 pandemics will be handled
00:11:45.220 by app.
00:11:46.660 That would be my prediction.
00:11:49.100 All right.
00:11:50.000 Of course,
00:11:51.060 not the app alone,
00:11:52.340 but the app would be
00:11:52.940 a big part of it.
00:11:53.740 All right.
00:11:56.460 Bill Barr is reviewing
00:11:57.820 the Roger Stone sentence
00:11:59.660 because nine years
00:12:00.880 seemed like a lot.
00:12:02.260 Should have been closer
00:12:03.040 to two or three,
00:12:03.940 say some people.
00:12:05.160 But apparently,
00:12:06.060 according to Trey Gowdy,
00:12:07.500 there's some kind
00:12:08.780 of enhancements
00:12:09.720 that were added to that.
00:12:11.040 Had something to do
00:12:11.920 with what Stone did.
00:12:14.100 Maybe,
00:12:15.580 I don't know the details,
00:12:17.040 but there's some kind
00:12:18.100 of enhancement
00:12:18.840 that allowed the judge
00:12:20.980 to give him nine years.
00:12:22.520 That seemed excessive
00:12:23.760 to pretty much
00:12:25.000 everybody who didn't
00:12:26.720 hate the president.
00:12:28.640 So Barr is looking into it
00:12:30.260 and the president
00:12:30.920 weighed in on it.
00:12:32.480 Now,
00:12:32.980 what do you think
00:12:33.920 about the president
00:12:34.720 weighing in on
00:12:35.780 a question
00:12:36.940 in the justice system?
00:12:38.820 Well,
00:12:39.380 all the smart people
00:12:40.260 say the same thing.
00:12:41.240 Trey Gowdy said this.
00:12:42.820 Probably everybody
00:12:43.480 will say this.
00:12:44.340 Doesn't matter
00:12:44.860 if you're Republican
00:12:45.560 or Democrat.
00:12:47.200 There's a general sense
00:12:48.460 that you don't want
00:12:50.360 the president
00:12:51.020 to be putting his finger
00:12:52.260 on the scale.
00:12:53.700 The Justice Department
00:12:55.020 should do its thing
00:12:55.920 and the president
00:12:57.240 should just stay quiet
00:12:58.760 and let it play out.
00:13:01.580 I agree with that
00:13:03.180 99% of the time.
00:13:07.180 But 1% of the time,
00:13:09.060 or some small number,
00:13:11.180 there's going to be
00:13:12.540 a violation of justice
00:13:15.700 so blatant,
00:13:19.080 so obvious,
00:13:21.060 so disgusting,
00:13:23.500 so divisive
00:13:25.540 to the country
00:13:26.780 that it would be
00:13:28.420 an abdication
00:13:29.700 of responsibility
00:13:30.820 for the president
00:13:32.120 not to step in.
00:13:33.800 It would be
00:13:34.420 a miscarriage
00:13:35.080 of justice.
00:13:37.820 So if your president
00:13:39.420 steps in
00:13:41.220 on the extreme case,
00:13:43.460 one that is
00:13:44.120 clear to everybody
00:13:45.440 watching it,
00:13:46.100 and I think it is,
00:13:46.960 and I'll talk a little bit
00:13:47.900 about why it's so clear,
00:13:49.760 but I think it's clear
00:13:50.700 to everyone
00:13:51.900 who sees it
00:13:52.920 that there's something
00:13:54.080 wrong with that,
00:13:55.240 the nine-year thing.
00:13:56.660 All right?
00:13:57.220 And it looks,
00:13:57.780 there are at least
00:13:58.300 two things wrong with it.
00:13:59.360 One is the
00:14:00.020 extremeness of the,
00:14:02.280 or the degree
00:14:03.540 of the penalty
00:14:04.980 more than,
00:14:06.100 you know,
00:14:06.400 some pedophiles
00:14:07.820 and bank robbers get.
00:14:10.420 But beyond that,
00:14:12.460 we're now learning
00:14:13.340 that at least
00:14:14.400 one of the jurors,
00:14:16.120 and I think it was
00:14:17.020 the jury foreperson,
00:14:19.320 was not only
00:14:20.240 an attorney,
00:14:21.700 which you say
00:14:22.360 to yourself,
00:14:23.000 what?
00:14:24.020 But somebody
00:14:24.660 who ran for office
00:14:25.640 as a Democrat
00:14:26.440 is an anti-Trumper
00:14:28.380 and was pushing
00:14:29.580 online on social media
00:14:30.920 the Russia collusion.
00:14:33.380 exactly the person
00:14:35.780 you don't want
00:14:36.520 on a trial
00:14:37.240 for Roger Stone.
00:14:39.640 I mean,
00:14:39.900 I don't know
00:14:40.280 how a lawyer
00:14:40.760 gets on a jury
00:14:42.100 to begin with.
00:14:43.060 I mean,
00:14:43.460 that alone
00:14:44.120 is already
00:14:45.060 a little,
00:14:45.840 you know,
00:14:46.460 a little flag.
00:14:48.060 But,
00:14:48.380 you know,
00:14:48.760 I think in some cases
00:14:49.640 lawyers do serve,
00:14:51.460 but if you're
00:14:52.320 a known anti-Trumper
00:14:54.140 and you've got
00:14:55.260 a long history of it
00:14:56.380 and it's documented
00:14:57.500 and you're an attorney
00:14:59.680 and they make you
00:15:01.160 the foreperson,
00:15:01.840 how is that
00:15:04.100 not the most obvious
00:15:05.760 miscarriage of justice
00:15:07.060 you've ever heard of?
00:15:09.620 Yeah,
00:15:10.220 that's somebody
00:15:10.620 reminding me
00:15:11.580 in the comments
00:15:12.160 that jury foreman
00:15:13.740 was tweeting
00:15:14.440 anti-Trump stuff
00:15:16.120 during the trial.
00:15:19.180 During the trial.
00:15:20.860 Now,
00:15:21.280 here's something
00:15:21.760 I'm going to add
00:15:22.440 to the mix.
00:15:23.900 I've served
00:15:24.740 on jury trials
00:15:25.660 and in one case
00:15:27.940 in my 20s,
00:15:29.200 I was selected
00:15:30.580 as the jury
00:15:31.400 foreperson.
00:15:33.080 Now,
00:15:33.280 it's funny
00:15:33.940 the reason
00:15:34.380 I was selected.
00:15:35.780 The reason
00:15:36.340 I was selected
00:15:36.920 is I'm the only
00:15:37.520 person who wore
00:15:38.160 a suit
00:15:38.660 to every day.
00:15:42.160 And the reason
00:15:42.560 was I was going
00:15:43.460 to work
00:15:44.000 before and after
00:15:45.040 that at a bank
00:15:46.120 and I was just
00:15:47.160 fitting in,
00:15:48.000 you know,
00:15:48.200 the jury trial
00:15:49.080 in the middle
00:15:49.560 and then I would
00:15:50.100 just walk back
00:15:50.820 to work
00:15:51.240 because it was
00:15:51.680 pretty close to work.
00:15:53.160 So I was wearing
00:15:54.040 my work clothes
00:15:54.720 which back in those
00:15:55.820 backward times
00:15:56.460 was a suit.
00:15:57.080 so the other
00:15:58.320 juror said,
00:15:59.340 well,
00:15:59.800 there are 11 of us
00:16:01.100 in casual clothes
00:16:02.600 and there's this guy
00:16:04.300 in a suit
00:16:04.980 so who are we
00:16:08.240 going to pick
00:16:08.600 for the jury
00:16:09.080 foreperson?
00:16:10.160 How about
00:16:10.740 suit guy?
00:16:11.960 So I became
00:16:12.720 the jury
00:16:13.180 foreperson
00:16:14.100 because I
00:16:15.000 accidentally
00:16:15.520 wore a suit.
00:16:16.960 Accidentally
00:16:17.440 meaning coincidentally.
00:16:19.640 And as you
00:16:21.740 all know
00:16:22.240 because I
00:16:22.600 mention it
00:16:22.980 too often,
00:16:24.540 even by then
00:16:25.460 I was a trained
00:16:26.820 hypnotist.
00:16:28.700 What kind of
00:16:29.580 fair trial
00:16:30.480 do you get
00:16:31.200 if your jury
00:16:33.260 foreperson
00:16:33.860 is a trained
00:16:34.580 hypnotist?
00:16:36.080 Well,
00:16:36.620 I've said this
00:16:37.160 before.
00:16:38.160 I don't know
00:16:39.040 that the other
00:16:39.560 11 people
00:16:40.240 were necessary
00:16:41.060 because things
00:16:42.740 were kind of
00:16:43.460 going to go
00:16:43.900 the way I
00:16:44.400 wanted them
00:16:44.880 to go.
00:16:45.840 How do you
00:16:46.340 think it
00:16:46.640 turned out?
00:16:47.920 Things went
00:16:48.680 the way I
00:16:49.180 wanted them
00:16:49.680 to go.
00:16:50.940 It didn't
00:16:51.640 start that way.
00:16:53.020 You know,
00:16:53.320 on the first
00:16:54.440 vote,
00:16:55.560 it was very
00:16:56.360 different
00:16:56.840 from how
00:16:58.080 it ended
00:16:58.500 up.
00:16:59.820 And if
00:17:00.240 you're
00:17:01.100 guessing
00:17:01.440 that it
00:17:01.980 ended up
00:17:02.860 very similar
00:17:04.420 to what
00:17:04.940 the hypnotist
00:17:05.720 who was also
00:17:06.380 the jury
00:17:06.840 foreperson
00:17:07.420 wanted it
00:17:07.960 to end
00:17:08.220 up as,
00:17:09.240 well,
00:17:09.620 you would
00:17:09.860 be correct.
00:17:11.040 Was that
00:17:11.420 a fair
00:17:11.780 trial?
00:17:12.980 Well,
00:17:13.320 I think
00:17:13.680 it was
00:17:13.880 fair because
00:17:14.580 the result
00:17:15.440 was a
00:17:16.740 hung jury
00:17:17.260 and I
00:17:18.820 don't think
00:17:19.200 that they
00:17:19.540 tried it
00:17:20.000 again because
00:17:20.480 it was
00:17:20.680 something like
00:17:21.140 six and
00:17:21.600 six.
00:17:22.520 So I
00:17:22.980 don't think
00:17:23.360 you normally
00:17:23.840 try a case
00:17:24.500 again.
00:17:25.360 It was a
00:17:25.900 drunk driving
00:17:26.560 case.
00:17:27.440 I don't
00:17:27.660 think you
00:17:27.960 try it
00:17:28.220 again if
00:17:28.560 it's a
00:17:28.760 hung jury
00:17:29.160 six and
00:17:29.620 six,
00:17:29.980 but maybe
00:17:30.280 there's
00:17:30.500 some
00:17:30.660 exception
00:17:31.080 to that.
00:17:33.840 Just so
00:17:34.460 you know,
00:17:34.820 there were
00:17:35.020 some
00:17:35.220 extenuating
00:17:35.800 circumstances,
00:17:37.080 et cetera,
00:17:37.500 so it
00:17:37.720 wasn't as
00:17:38.100 clear as,
00:17:39.180 it wasn't
00:17:39.580 an obvious
00:17:40.160 guilty thing
00:17:41.820 as you
00:17:42.120 might imagine.
00:17:42.600 so here's
00:17:45.800 the thing.
00:17:46.760 If you
00:17:46.980 put a
00:17:47.480 trained
00:17:47.920 attorney who
00:17:49.600 is also
00:17:50.100 a Trump
00:17:50.700 hater on
00:17:52.120 a jury,
00:17:53.080 does an
00:17:53.820 attorney have
00:17:54.500 more influence
00:17:55.420 than the
00:17:56.060 other people
00:17:56.540 on the
00:17:56.880 jury?
00:17:57.340 Yeah,
00:17:57.520 of course,
00:17:58.360 of course.
00:17:59.420 A trained
00:18:00.000 attorney is
00:18:01.740 going to have
00:18:02.100 more influence
00:18:02.740 on the other
00:18:03.260 jurors.
00:18:04.040 I would
00:18:04.880 listen to
00:18:05.300 an attorney
00:18:05.740 if I were
00:18:06.440 on a
00:18:06.900 trial in
00:18:08.080 a jury
00:18:08.460 and somebody
00:18:09.720 I knew
00:18:10.360 to be
00:18:10.980 an attorney
00:18:11.440 or this
00:18:12.120 is just
00:18:12.480 as good.
00:18:13.580 Somebody
00:18:13.940 who simply
00:18:14.440 presented
00:18:15.120 themselves
00:18:15.800 in a way
00:18:17.200 an attorney
00:18:18.120 would,
00:18:18.560 meaning that
00:18:19.060 they spoke
00:18:20.060 knowledgeably
00:18:20.820 about the
00:18:21.320 law,
00:18:22.320 added some
00:18:22.840 context,
00:18:23.980 they were
00:18:24.260 persuasive,
00:18:25.100 they were
00:18:25.320 clear,
00:18:26.140 all the
00:18:26.520 things you
00:18:26.820 would expect
00:18:27.280 from a
00:18:27.720 professional
00:18:28.240 attorney.
00:18:29.220 I wouldn't
00:18:29.820 even need
00:18:30.180 to know
00:18:30.460 they were
00:18:30.720 an attorney,
00:18:31.600 but I
00:18:32.100 would imagine
00:18:32.560 that they
00:18:32.920 would influence
00:18:33.440 me just
00:18:33.900 by being
00:18:34.320 good at
00:18:35.760 communicating
00:18:36.300 and persuading.
00:18:37.060 So I
00:18:39.760 would think
00:18:40.280 that you
00:18:41.640 could throw
00:18:42.160 out the
00:18:42.500 trial for
00:18:43.100 no other
00:18:43.620 reason,
00:18:44.220 and it
00:18:44.480 would be
00:18:44.720 perfectly
00:18:45.120 legitimate
00:18:45.600 than the
00:18:46.780 fact that
00:18:47.160 we've
00:18:47.360 discovered
00:18:47.720 that the
00:18:48.600 jury
00:18:49.120 foreperson
00:18:49.760 was exactly
00:18:51.060 the last
00:18:51.660 person you
00:18:52.100 want.
00:18:53.160 Exactly
00:18:53.720 the last
00:18:54.320 person you
00:18:54.820 want.
00:18:55.580 Now,
00:18:56.640 had it
00:18:57.060 gone the
00:18:57.460 other way,
00:18:58.800 let's say
00:18:59.200 there was a
00:18:59.740 jury
00:18:59.960 foreperson
00:19:00.540 who was
00:19:00.900 an attorney,
00:19:02.100 but was
00:19:02.800 pro-Trump,
00:19:04.440 and then
00:19:05.000 let's say
00:19:05.420 that the
00:19:06.040 result was
00:19:08.040 innocent.
00:19:08.820 Twelve
00:19:09.260 people in
00:19:09.920 the end
00:19:10.320 decided to
00:19:11.640 acquit.
00:19:12.620 Let's say
00:19:13.300 they had
00:19:15.660 decided to
00:19:16.180 acquit,
00:19:17.000 but the
00:19:17.540 foreperson
00:19:18.180 was also
00:19:19.000 kind of
00:19:20.520 questionable
00:19:21.260 in terms of
00:19:22.160 bias,
00:19:22.940 but questionable
00:19:23.480 the other
00:19:23.880 way.
00:19:24.480 Would that
00:19:24.920 be okay
00:19:25.380 with me?
00:19:26.740 Yeah,
00:19:27.000 it would
00:19:27.140 be.
00:19:27.780 It would
00:19:28.120 be.
00:19:28.740 Because
00:19:29.260 our system
00:19:30.620 is designed
00:19:31.500 to have a
00:19:32.720 very high
00:19:33.380 threshold
00:19:33.920 for putting
00:19:34.940 people in
00:19:35.480 jail.
00:19:36.040 It's a
00:19:36.880 high
00:19:37.100 threshold.
00:19:38.280 So if
00:19:38.580 the jury
00:19:39.540 foreperson
00:19:40.200 can convince
00:19:40.960 all the
00:19:41.560 other people,
00:19:42.660 in my
00:19:43.260 extreme
00:19:43.580 example,
00:19:44.080 they all
00:19:44.360 agree in
00:19:44.720 the end,
00:19:45.860 I think
00:19:47.040 that probably
00:19:47.600 means the
00:19:48.140 case wasn't
00:19:48.800 that strong.
00:19:50.700 I don't
00:19:51.480 think anybody
00:19:52.400 could turn
00:19:53.420 11 jurors
00:19:54.620 if it was
00:19:55.680 a slam dunk.
00:19:56.980 If the
00:19:57.520 evidence was
00:19:58.140 just,
00:19:59.020 here's the
00:19:59.420 guy on
00:19:59.820 video,
00:20:01.420 here are
00:20:01.880 the three
00:20:02.220 witnesses
00:20:02.660 who were
00:20:03.360 part of it.
00:20:03.760 If it's
00:20:04.100 that kind
00:20:04.480 of a
00:20:04.660 case,
00:20:04.960 here's his
00:20:05.340 DNA,
00:20:06.040 if it's
00:20:06.900 that kind
00:20:07.240 of a
00:20:07.440 case,
00:20:08.220 it doesn't
00:20:08.620 matter how
00:20:09.020 persuasive
00:20:09.540 the foreperson
00:20:10.240 is.
00:20:10.880 But if
00:20:11.160 there's a
00:20:11.440 little bit
00:20:11.720 of judgment
00:20:12.260 involved,
00:20:13.340 a little bit
00:20:13.920 of gray
00:20:14.300 area,
00:20:15.100 or let's
00:20:15.480 say that
00:20:15.960 the attorneys
00:20:16.540 on both
00:20:16.940 sides sort
00:20:18.180 of fought
00:20:18.600 to a tie,
00:20:19.620 it looked like
00:20:20.660 they both
00:20:21.020 made a good
00:20:21.500 argument,
00:20:22.480 in those
00:20:22.940 cases,
00:20:24.000 a super
00:20:24.920 influential
00:20:25.460 person on
00:20:26.040 the jury
00:20:26.500 is going
00:20:28.520 to determine
00:20:28.960 the outcome.
00:20:30.060 You heard
00:20:30.640 it from
00:20:30.880 me.
00:20:31.080 Trump was
00:20:36.340 asked what
00:20:36.960 impeachment
00:20:37.400 taught him
00:20:38.020 and he
00:20:38.760 gave the
00:20:39.100 best answer
00:20:39.600 I've ever
00:20:39.960 said.
00:20:40.840 He said
00:20:41.260 that Democrats
00:20:42.040 are crooked,
00:20:42.960 thanks for
00:20:43.340 coming.
00:20:45.080 I just
00:20:45.800 shortened what
00:20:46.960 he said
00:20:47.380 into my own
00:20:48.080 words,
00:20:48.800 but essentially
00:20:49.280 he said,
00:20:49.720 what did you
00:20:50.400 learn from
00:20:50.780 impeachment?
00:20:51.320 Well,
00:20:51.560 I learned
00:20:51.880 that Democrats
00:20:53.400 are vicious
00:20:54.080 and crooked
00:20:54.840 and no more
00:20:56.640 questions,
00:20:57.100 thanks for
00:20:57.420 coming.
00:20:57.620 It was
00:20:58.360 kind of
00:20:58.700 the best
00:20:59.000 answer I've
00:20:59.480 ever seen
00:20:59.980 for that
00:21:00.960 kind of a
00:21:01.340 question.
00:21:02.440 All right,
00:21:02.680 but we're
00:21:02.880 not done
00:21:03.180 with Roger
00:21:03.600 Stone.
00:21:04.180 That was
00:21:04.420 just in
00:21:05.000 my notes
00:21:05.400 in the
00:21:05.640 wrong
00:21:05.780 place.
00:21:07.360 So can
00:21:08.520 somebody
00:21:08.940 fact-check
00:21:09.700 me on
00:21:10.080 this?
00:21:11.900 I first
00:21:12.900 noticed
00:21:13.420 the reporting
00:21:14.420 about this
00:21:15.200 Roger Stone
00:21:16.200 juror from
00:21:18.300 Mike Cernovich.
00:21:20.380 And then
00:21:20.780 not too long
00:21:21.600 after that I
00:21:22.220 saw lots of
00:21:22.780 tweeting and
00:21:23.460 other news
00:21:24.100 sources and
00:21:25.240 now it's
00:21:25.620 headline news
00:21:26.320 everywhere.
00:21:27.620 Did
00:21:28.500 Cernovich
00:21:28.880 break this?
00:21:30.640 And are
00:21:30.880 they not
00:21:31.560 giving him
00:21:32.040 credit again?
00:21:32.760 Because that's
00:21:33.080 happened,
00:21:33.440 right?
00:21:34.380 Have there
00:21:35.280 not been
00:21:35.680 other situations
00:21:36.480 where Mike
00:21:37.820 Cernovich broke
00:21:38.620 a story,
00:21:39.700 became a
00:21:40.200 national story,
00:21:41.120 and then they
00:21:41.620 don't give him
00:21:42.760 credit for it
00:21:43.420 because it's
00:21:43.960 Mike Cernovich?
00:21:45.660 I'm seeing some
00:21:46.640 confirmation here.
00:21:47.900 I think that's
00:21:48.760 the case.
00:21:49.780 And every time
00:21:50.340 I would read a
00:21:50.940 story, I'd
00:21:51.820 start it out and
00:21:52.400 say, okay,
00:21:53.700 somewhere in the
00:21:54.440 first, maybe
00:21:55.040 the second
00:21:55.520 paragraph, it's
00:21:57.080 going to say
00:21:57.500 something like,
00:21:58.180 you know, Mike
00:21:58.680 Cernovich broke
00:21:59.400 this story, and
00:22:00.200 then I finished
00:22:00.860 the story, and
00:22:01.460 it's like, where's
00:22:04.620 Mike?
00:22:05.920 So that's an
00:22:07.480 open question.
00:22:10.340 So I tweeted
00:22:11.220 this morning,
00:22:12.660 what's the
00:22:13.240 difference?
00:22:15.060 I'm asking a
00:22:15.960 lawyer.
00:22:16.260 So this is an
00:22:16.820 actual question.
00:22:17.700 It's not a, I'm
00:22:20.040 not trying to win
00:22:21.120 a point.
00:22:21.660 I'm actually
00:22:22.800 asking the
00:22:23.380 question, and it
00:22:24.060 was in my
00:22:24.460 tweet, and I
00:22:25.840 asked, is
00:22:26.640 there any
00:22:27.040 lawyer who
00:22:27.860 can explain
00:22:28.360 to me whether
00:22:29.860 the, is it
00:22:31.560 accurate to say
00:22:32.320 Brennan and
00:22:32.940 Clapper broke
00:22:33.900 the same or
00:22:34.700 equivalent laws
00:22:36.400 as Roger Stone?
00:22:38.000 Now, I keep
00:22:38.740 hearing pundits
00:22:39.540 say something
00:22:40.360 like that on
00:22:42.040 social media and
00:22:43.000 on TV news, but
00:22:45.060 is that accurate?
00:22:45.700 I think I
00:22:47.920 would have to
00:22:48.300 know a lot
00:22:48.700 more about
00:22:49.240 their individual
00:22:49.940 cases and a
00:22:50.880 lot more about
00:22:51.400 the law and a
00:22:52.340 lot more about
00:22:52.900 the precedent to
00:22:54.340 even know the
00:22:54.920 answer to that
00:22:55.380 question.
00:22:56.760 But somebody's
00:23:00.300 clarifying that
00:23:01.240 the juror outed
00:23:02.320 herself on CNN,
00:23:04.080 but Mike is the
00:23:05.160 one who looked
00:23:05.740 into her social
00:23:06.740 media record and
00:23:09.220 found out there
00:23:09.920 was a problem.
00:23:10.580 So that sounds
00:23:11.460 right, but let's
00:23:12.760 just say I don't
00:23:13.520 know all the
00:23:13.920 details there, but
00:23:15.260 I suspect that
00:23:18.340 Mike Cernovich is
00:23:19.120 not getting the
00:23:19.720 credit that is
00:23:20.960 completely due, but
00:23:22.100 we'll wait and
00:23:23.860 see.
00:23:26.620 So I don't know
00:23:27.420 the answer to
00:23:27.920 that.
00:23:28.760 Did Brennan and
00:23:29.600 Clapper actually do
00:23:31.020 something that's the
00:23:32.780 same as what Roger
00:23:33.840 Stone did, or does
00:23:35.180 it just remind us
00:23:36.280 of it, but one is
00:23:38.160 legal and one is
00:23:39.060 not?
00:23:40.060 Because I don't
00:23:40.580 know the answer to
00:23:41.280 that, and I'd
00:23:41.840 really like to,
00:23:42.640 because that will
00:23:44.040 determine how it
00:23:44.840 pissed off I am.
00:23:46.900 That will determine
00:23:47.980 how angry I am.
00:23:50.100 Now, as somebody
00:23:50.640 said, cases are not
00:23:53.200 related, meaning I
00:23:55.020 shouldn't look at
00:23:55.680 some unrelated case
00:23:57.080 of Clapper and
00:23:58.760 Brennan and say,
00:23:59.620 well, therefore I
00:24:01.360 draw judgment about
00:24:02.340 this Roger Stone
00:24:03.260 thing.
00:24:03.500 I'm not doing
00:24:03.920 that.
00:24:04.900 I'm only trying to
00:24:05.960 decide how mad I
00:24:06.860 should be, because I
00:24:08.320 can certainly compare
00:24:09.360 them to find out how
00:24:11.040 mad I should be.
00:24:11.840 I don't think that
00:24:13.180 either of them should
00:24:14.400 be entered as
00:24:15.320 evidence in the
00:24:16.540 other trial or
00:24:17.320 anything like that,
00:24:18.640 but I'm a citizen.
00:24:20.540 I can watch both of
00:24:21.860 them, and I can say
00:24:23.220 one is different from
00:24:24.180 the other, if they
00:24:24.940 are.
00:24:26.680 So I think it's fair
00:24:27.840 to know that question,
00:24:28.860 and I believe the
00:24:29.600 public is owed that
00:24:30.620 answer.
00:24:31.680 The public is owed
00:24:34.200 that answer.
00:24:35.440 We really need to
00:24:36.460 know that.
00:24:36.980 because if you
00:24:39.180 listen to the, let's
00:24:40.440 say, the right-leaning
00:24:41.940 media, it's being
00:24:44.180 described as probably
00:24:46.480 the most grotesque
00:24:47.780 miscarriage of
00:24:49.580 justice I can ever,
00:24:52.400 I don't know, since
00:24:53.180 OJ, your mileage may
00:24:56.400 vary, but what's worse
00:24:57.900 than this?
00:24:59.240 Is it true?
00:25:00.320 Is it true that
00:25:01.120 Brennan and Clapper
00:25:01.840 made the same, broke
00:25:04.040 the same, or some kind
00:25:05.200 of equivalent law, and
00:25:07.100 yet they're getting
00:25:07.700 away with it, and
00:25:08.380 nobody's even indicting
00:25:09.380 them?
00:25:09.660 Is that what's
00:25:10.460 happening?
00:25:11.700 Or do I just not
00:25:12.980 understand the law, and
00:25:14.740 there's something about
00:25:15.480 their situation which is
00:25:16.660 not nearly as serious
00:25:18.600 in terms of how the
00:25:19.740 law treats it as the
00:25:21.300 Roger Stone case?
00:25:22.400 I don't know.
00:25:23.600 It's a question.
00:25:27.220 So, here's what's
00:25:31.760 different about this
00:25:32.580 case.
00:25:32.940 Of course, everybody
00:25:33.580 is asking if Trump
00:25:36.380 will pardon Roger
00:25:37.280 Stone and General
00:25:39.360 Flynn, similar
00:25:40.720 situations in terms
00:25:41.820 of pardons.
00:25:43.340 And I'm watching
00:25:45.780 social media start
00:25:47.380 to erupt, and I'm
00:25:49.740 going to ask you
00:25:50.220 this.
00:25:51.420 Is the president
00:25:52.260 really going to make
00:25:53.060 that decision?
00:25:54.980 Or is social media
00:25:56.660 in the process of
00:25:57.820 making the decision,
00:25:59.280 and the president
00:26:00.300 will follow that
00:26:01.300 decision?
00:26:01.720 Which one of those
00:26:03.500 things is happening
00:26:04.200 right now?
00:26:05.360 The way it will be
00:26:06.880 reported is that the
00:26:08.280 president made the
00:26:09.060 decision to either
00:26:09.920 pardon or commute
00:26:12.320 or not.
00:26:13.400 So that's the way
00:26:14.560 we'll understand it.
00:26:16.140 But I don't know if
00:26:16.980 that's what's
00:26:17.360 happening.
00:26:18.400 I suspect that part
00:26:20.100 of the reason the
00:26:20.740 president is waiting
00:26:21.560 is that there's more
00:26:23.260 information that could
00:26:25.300 be very important to
00:26:26.600 that decision.
00:26:27.220 This information
00:26:29.320 about the juror is
00:26:30.180 important.
00:26:30.820 I don't know if
00:26:31.260 there are any
00:26:31.600 appeals that matter.
00:26:35.140 And it could be
00:26:35.840 that because it's
00:26:36.600 an election year,
00:26:38.680 I hate to say this,
00:26:40.400 but there's a good
00:26:40.960 chance that the
00:26:41.620 president is saying
00:26:42.500 to himself, you
00:26:43.920 know, I don't want
00:26:44.460 him to go to jail.
00:26:45.380 Here, I'm just
00:26:45.880 speculating.
00:26:46.500 I can't read the
00:26:47.100 president's mind,
00:26:47.860 obviously.
00:26:48.680 But if I put myself
00:26:49.960 in that position,
00:26:50.660 this is what I'd be
00:26:51.620 thinking.
00:26:52.800 If I pardon him
00:26:53.860 right away, even
00:26:55.900 though I want to,
00:26:57.480 it's an election
00:26:58.320 year.
00:26:58.900 And then this will
00:26:59.400 be used as a club
00:27:00.400 against me.
00:27:01.260 You can see the
00:27:01.820 Democrats are already
00:27:02.760 framing this as the
00:27:05.560 president becoming a
00:27:06.540 dictator and
00:27:07.380 interfering with
00:27:08.220 justice.
00:27:08.960 And what will he
00:27:10.580 do if he'll do
00:27:11.340 this?
00:27:13.680 And so I wonder,
00:27:17.660 I hope he's not
00:27:18.440 waiting for the
00:27:20.560 election to be over
00:27:21.500 so that he can do
00:27:22.980 it after the
00:27:23.800 election.
00:27:24.400 Let's say he
00:27:24.860 thinks he's going
00:27:25.420 to win.
00:27:25.900 And then he can
00:27:27.160 pardon anybody
00:27:27.820 he wants and he
00:27:28.560 doesn't have to
00:27:28.980 worry about
00:27:29.340 re-election.
00:27:30.740 Maybe that's part
00:27:31.780 of the decision.
00:27:32.940 I don't know.
00:27:34.300 But the suggestion
00:27:35.380 has been made that
00:27:36.940 there's a perfect
00:27:37.600 time to do this.
00:27:39.300 And I concur.
00:27:42.140 Super Tuesday.
00:27:44.580 Super Tuesday,
00:27:46.480 if he's going to
00:27:47.480 do it, would be
00:27:49.580 my pick.
00:27:50.200 And I'm going to
00:27:52.420 ask this directly.
00:27:53.360 Mr.
00:27:54.580 President, would you
00:27:56.720 use Super Tuesday
00:27:57.780 to counter-program
00:28:00.200 the Democrats, who
00:28:01.840 are going to get a
00:28:02.280 lot of attention
00:28:02.800 that day, and do
00:28:04.160 your pardons?
00:28:05.540 Just totally put a
00:28:08.860 shiv into the
00:28:09.940 Democrat-leaning
00:28:12.760 news media, because
00:28:14.740 I think they've earned
00:28:15.600 it in this situation
00:28:16.820 in particular.
00:28:18.960 And Super Tuesday
00:28:21.240 is coming up, what,
00:28:23.360 in the first part of
00:28:24.420 March?
00:28:24.920 I don't have the
00:28:25.680 exact date on that.
00:28:27.120 But it's coming up.
00:28:28.500 Now, I don't know the
00:28:29.880 timing of when Stone
00:28:31.220 would have to report
00:28:32.160 to prison, or even if
00:28:34.660 all the legal paths
00:28:37.000 have been exhausted.
00:28:37.960 I don't know how that
00:28:38.480 works.
00:28:38.760 I don't know enough
00:28:39.400 about the legal
00:28:39.960 process, or his
00:28:41.140 case.
00:28:43.200 But could the
00:28:44.440 President wait that
00:28:45.300 long without him
00:28:46.960 spending a day in
00:28:47.800 jail?
00:28:48.080 I don't know.
00:28:49.460 Would the President
00:28:50.420 let him spend a few
00:28:51.680 days in jail, and
00:28:53.480 then do it?
00:28:54.240 I don't know.
00:28:55.320 But the President
00:28:56.020 was asked directly
00:28:57.060 whether he was
00:28:58.300 considering pardoning
00:28:59.840 Roger Stone, and I
00:29:02.400 don't have his exact
00:29:03.140 words, but the
00:29:03.800 President's answer
00:29:04.580 was something like
00:29:05.520 somebody's saying
00:29:06.460 March 3rd in the
00:29:07.360 comments for Super
00:29:08.220 Tuesday, but
00:29:09.320 confirmed that for
00:29:10.080 me.
00:29:12.040 And the President
00:29:12.960 gave this answer,
00:29:15.540 and I'm paraphrasing,
00:29:17.080 it wasn't his exact
00:29:17.860 words, he said
00:29:18.820 something like, I'm
00:29:19.620 not ready to talk
00:29:20.440 about that yet.
00:29:22.760 If somebody is not
00:29:24.540 considering a pardon,
00:29:26.540 how do they answer
00:29:27.760 the question, are
00:29:28.640 you considering a
00:29:29.520 pardon?
00:29:31.320 Well, the only way
00:29:32.300 you answer the
00:29:32.900 question, are you
00:29:33.840 considering a pardon,
00:29:34.980 if you're not, is
00:29:37.000 no.
00:29:38.220 Right?
00:29:39.800 So anything that
00:29:40.840 isn't no, I'm not
00:29:42.360 considering this, I'm
00:29:43.300 not going to be
00:29:43.800 involved.
00:29:45.000 Anything that's not a
00:29:46.000 no is literally he's
00:29:48.360 considering it.
00:29:49.380 So the President has
00:29:50.620 essentially confirmed by
00:29:52.920 his choice of words that
00:29:54.560 he's at least open to the
00:29:55.700 conversation, and
00:29:57.020 common sense tells you
00:29:58.420 he would be.
00:29:59.920 Now let me ask you
00:30:00.900 this.
00:30:01.220 what would feel more
00:30:05.100 delicious than
00:30:08.060 pardoning both Stone
00:30:09.960 and General Flynn
00:30:12.320 just for revenge?
00:30:15.900 Because, you know, I
00:30:17.040 don't think revenge, I
00:30:19.040 think revenge is
00:30:19.840 underrated.
00:30:21.180 There are certainly
00:30:22.120 situations where a
00:30:23.340 little bit of revenge,
00:30:24.980 I'm not talking about
00:30:25.880 killing somebody, but in
00:30:27.640 a political sense,
00:30:28.560 revenge, it would feel
00:30:31.120 like revenge, wouldn't
00:30:32.060 it?
00:30:32.500 Because you know that
00:30:33.460 the Democrats really,
00:30:34.940 really want some kind
00:30:36.320 of a scalp.
00:30:37.740 They want it bad.
00:30:39.800 Yeah, throw Assange in
00:30:40.980 the mix too.
00:30:41.960 Let's pardon Assange too
00:30:43.180 and really make it
00:30:44.600 interesting.
00:30:45.520 Now Manafort, I have a
00:30:46.720 different opinion on.
00:30:48.120 I'm sure they went after
00:30:49.220 him for political reasons,
00:30:50.520 but what they found was
00:30:51.540 real crime.
00:30:52.560 Manafort stole from
00:30:54.260 me, and he stole from
00:30:57.280 you if you're a
00:30:58.080 taxpayer, because what
00:30:59.420 Manafort did was avoid
00:31:00.540 taxes on very large
00:31:02.540 amounts of money.
00:31:03.760 If somebody criminally
00:31:05.780 and obviously and
00:31:07.080 intentionally avoids
00:31:09.000 taxes, well, part of
00:31:12.120 that debt accrues to me
00:31:13.300 and you if you're a
00:31:14.160 taxpayer.
00:31:15.240 So Manafort stole from
00:31:16.740 me and you.
00:31:19.160 I don't have the same
00:31:20.280 feeling about a pardon
00:31:21.120 for him.
00:31:22.540 I'm not sure I would
00:31:23.620 care either way, but
00:31:25.100 Manafort did a different
00:31:26.620 level of badness.
00:31:30.180 Geraldo Rivera asked
00:31:32.460 this provocative
00:31:33.560 question.
00:31:36.620 So apparently there
00:31:37.760 were four high-level
00:31:38.800 federal prosecutors who
00:31:41.380 resigned over the fact
00:31:45.460 that President Trump
00:31:46.940 tweeted about, and A.G.
00:31:49.540 Barr was mostly about
00:31:51.840 Barr.
00:31:52.520 He demanded a reviewer
00:31:53.720 the recommendation of a
00:31:54.760 nine-year sentence.
00:31:57.020 And it's important to
00:31:58.300 note that Roger Stone is
00:31:59.320 67 years old.
00:32:00.660 So a nine-year sentence
00:32:01.920 is at least potentially a
00:32:05.480 life sentence.
00:32:07.020 And here Geraldo continues
00:32:09.600 with what I thought was a
00:32:11.180 really good point.
00:32:12.380 He says, which begs the
00:32:13.780 question, why were four
00:32:16.200 high-level federal
00:32:17.520 prosecutors even assigned
00:32:19.160 to this lame,
00:32:20.960 crimeless case?
00:32:21.780 Why were there four
00:32:24.080 high-level attorneys on
00:32:26.000 this case?
00:32:27.340 Now, I wouldn't have
00:32:28.340 known to ask that
00:32:29.020 question, but I think
00:32:29.800 Geraldo knows what he's
00:32:30.720 talking about in terms of
00:32:31.860 the legal system.
00:32:33.000 He's a lawyer.
00:32:34.540 And you have to ask
00:32:35.580 yourself, is that another
00:32:36.760 gigantic flag that this
00:32:38.260 was not legitimate?
00:32:39.560 That they were going to
00:32:40.380 do everything they could
00:32:41.480 to get this one person
00:32:43.640 the maximum sentence?
00:32:45.160 It looks crooked based on
00:32:50.300 how they staffed it.
00:32:51.640 It looks crooked based on
00:32:53.680 who they allowed on the
00:32:54.740 jury.
00:32:55.540 And it looks crooked based
00:32:57.840 on the degree of the, at
00:33:00.160 least the initial nine-year
00:33:03.540 sentence.
00:33:04.880 And I'm thinking that is
00:33:07.080 three really strong pieces of
00:33:10.000 evidence that this was a
00:33:11.240 crooked process.
00:33:12.220 Under those conditions, do
00:33:15.400 you want your president to
00:33:16.740 stay, let's say,
00:33:17.680 traditional?
00:33:19.200 Traditional?
00:33:20.040 Should he remain traditional
00:33:21.600 and just say, you know,
00:33:23.620 it's traditional that a
00:33:25.420 president not get involved
00:33:26.840 with the justice system?
00:33:28.640 Yeah, I might, even if I
00:33:29.680 had a problem with it, it's
00:33:30.520 traditional.
00:33:31.520 It might, it might lack
00:33:33.140 decorum.
00:33:34.860 Should a president, you
00:33:36.420 know, depart from good
00:33:38.500 decorum to weigh in on a
00:33:41.100 justice case?
00:33:43.580 Well, here's what I think.
00:33:47.560 Fuck them.
00:33:49.320 Fuck your decorum.
00:33:51.680 Fuck your tradition.
00:33:54.120 Fuck your, this is the way 1.00
00:33:55.900 presidents do it.
00:33:57.660 Fuck everything.
00:33:59.200 And fuck you if you 0.96
00:34:00.480 disagree.
00:34:01.860 This is a complete
00:34:04.040 travesty of justice.
00:34:07.440 It's obvious to all of us.
00:34:08.740 Let's not pretend it's not
00:34:10.920 fucking obvious.
00:34:12.280 It's fucking obvious.
00:34:14.060 I want my president to
00:34:15.940 weigh in.
00:34:17.200 I want my president to
00:34:18.760 interfere with
00:34:19.880 travesty of justice.
00:34:23.120 Fuck your tradition.
00:34:24.220 Fuck the way your
00:34:25.180 president is supposed to
00:34:26.300 act.
00:34:27.280 Fuck everything you're
00:34:28.360 going to say about this.
00:34:29.380 Fuck every one of you if
00:34:30.540 you disagree.
00:34:31.760 Most of you agree, so I'm
00:34:33.200 not talking to you.
00:34:33.860 No fucking way should
00:34:37.320 this president stay out of
00:34:38.860 this.
00:34:39.960 Now, I certainly want him to
00:34:41.100 stay out of, you know, the
00:34:42.760 legal system in general, of
00:34:44.960 course.
00:34:45.760 But this is not like every
00:34:47.220 other case.
00:34:48.280 This is obviously publicly
00:34:51.080 corrupt.
00:34:53.720 Obviously and publicly
00:34:55.580 corrupt.
00:34:57.280 If my president won't weigh in,
00:34:59.440 I don't care who the
00:35:00.080 president is, if my president
00:35:02.040 won't weigh in on a case
00:35:04.080 that's obviously and
00:35:06.380 publicly corrupt, well, fuck
00:35:09.380 the president, too.
00:35:10.960 Fuck him.
00:35:11.980 If he won't do that little
00:35:13.060 thing that the country
00:35:15.720 certainly deserves, certainly
00:35:18.400 ought to get it.
00:35:19.860 Now, here's my prediction.
00:35:23.720 You elected the right guy.
00:35:27.100 I don't see any possibility,
00:35:29.280 honestly, I don't see any
00:35:31.920 possibility that Trump will
00:35:34.000 not pardon Stone.
00:35:36.100 I assume
00:35:36.760 Maniford, I'm sorry, not
00:35:37.940 Maniford, I assume Flynn will
00:35:39.720 get a pardon, too.
00:35:40.840 Maybe there's some different
00:35:41.980 issues there that need to be
00:35:43.440 played out before that
00:35:44.740 happens.
00:35:46.000 But, oh yeah, and fuck the
00:35:48.600 media, too.
00:35:49.280 Thanks for suggesting that.
00:35:51.920 All of you fucking assholes in
00:35:53.800 the media who are trying to
00:35:55.460 make Roger Stone go to jail so
00:35:57.600 you can jerk off to it. 0.82
00:35:59.680 Fuck you.
00:36:01.080 Fuck all of you.
00:36:01.980 You know this is just for
00:36:02.940 pleasure.
00:36:03.960 This is a pleasure
00:36:05.040 prosecution.
00:36:06.120 This is a feel-good
00:36:07.240 prosecution.
00:36:08.420 It's corrupt.
00:36:09.820 And fuck anybody who thinks
00:36:11.120 that this is the way this
00:36:12.760 country should run.
00:36:18.880 Man.
00:36:19.360 So, if there's still anybody
00:36:24.020 out there who says that
00:36:26.060 having this juror who is an
00:36:27.760 attorney and a documented
00:36:30.000 Trump hater who is tweeting
00:36:32.760 against Trump during the trial,
00:36:35.040 if anybody thinks, well, you
00:36:37.280 can't say some people are more
00:36:38.760 persuasive and so this person
00:36:41.340 will sway the jury, I give you
00:36:43.640 this analogy.
00:36:45.320 You've got a pickup basketball
00:36:46.720 game in the park.
00:36:48.220 It's you and some of your
00:36:49.240 friends.
00:36:50.160 None of you are professional
00:36:51.300 basketball players.
00:36:52.060 You're just having a pickup game
00:36:53.280 in the park.
00:36:55.360 Michael Jordan walks up in his
00:36:56.880 prime.
00:36:57.660 Not retired Michael Jordan,
00:36:59.560 but in his prime, Michael
00:37:00.640 Jordan, he says, can I play?
00:37:03.180 And you say, oh, all right.
00:37:06.000 And Michael Jordan joins your
00:37:07.660 team.
00:37:09.100 Who wins?
00:37:10.460 Which team wins?
00:37:11.400 The team of people who play
00:37:13.440 basketball on the weekend
00:37:14.320 sometime?
00:37:15.320 Or the team that plays on the
00:37:17.500 weekend sometimes and has
00:37:19.200 Michael Jordan on the team?
00:37:21.120 It's Michael Jordan's team.
00:37:23.140 He wins every time in the
00:37:25.700 playground.
00:37:27.380 That is the degree of
00:37:28.940 difference between having your
00:37:30.400 jury foreperson, a trained
00:37:32.180 attorney, or a trained
00:37:34.800 hypnotist.
00:37:36.220 If you have that situation,
00:37:38.720 you just added Michael Jordan
00:37:40.640 to the jury, and you made the
00:37:42.600 other 11 people irrelevant.
00:37:44.580 You could trade them in.
00:37:45.600 You could switch them out.
00:37:46.580 It doesn't matter if they have
00:37:47.440 functioning brains.
00:37:48.660 It doesn't matter what their 0.63
00:37:49.460 bias is.
00:37:50.160 It doesn't matter.
00:37:51.600 Because add Michael Jordan to
00:37:53.820 your pickup basketball game, and
00:37:55.280 you know how it's going to go.
00:37:57.220 So it's a travesty of justice.
00:37:59.980 It's horrible.
00:38:00.980 Let's talk about other
00:38:01.860 assholes. 0.57
00:38:02.600 John Kelly is talking out about
00:38:05.260 Trump's, in his opinion, not
00:38:08.180 succeeding with North Korea.
00:38:10.600 And John Kelly, who is being a
00:38:13.340 bit of an asshole here, says that
00:38:15.540 he predicted that North Korea
00:38:18.780 wasn't going to be serious, and
00:38:20.200 they were just going to stall for
00:38:21.280 time.
00:38:22.480 And so therefore, and he thinks he
00:38:24.000 could have maybe had an impact on
00:38:27.360 that, I guess.
00:38:27.920 No, I guess he didn't have an impact,
00:38:29.220 so he wouldn't say that.
00:38:31.700 Here's what's missing from that
00:38:32.980 analysis.
00:38:33.400 President Trump removed the
00:38:36.620 reason for North Korea and the
00:38:40.000 United States to even care who has
00:38:41.600 what weapons.
00:38:42.880 He removed the reason.
00:38:45.480 Are we at war with North Korea?
00:38:47.940 No.
00:38:49.000 Does North Korea think we're going to
00:38:50.540 attack any minute, and therefore
00:38:51.960 they need to get ready?
00:38:53.440 Probably not.
00:38:54.920 I think Trump convinced them that we
00:38:57.280 have no interest in attacking them.
00:38:59.160 Why was Kim Jong-un rattling his
00:39:01.820 saver and aiming his nukes at us and
00:39:03.920 testing nukes?
00:39:05.280 Well, because he thought we might
00:39:06.800 attack him.
00:39:08.420 Trump basically solved the problem
00:39:10.620 without solving the problem.
00:39:12.400 He took away the reason.
00:39:14.100 If you're not bright enough to see
00:39:15.740 that he took away the reason, I'm not
00:39:18.200 sure you should be talking in public.
00:39:20.580 So, John Kelly, that was not your
00:39:23.500 finest moment.
00:39:24.360 All right.
00:39:29.740 So, I think that's a, oh, one other
00:39:33.760 interesting tidbit.
00:39:36.940 So, Adam Schiff, his district is, you
00:39:40.260 know, hugely, solidly Democrat.
00:39:42.840 It's here in California, Southern
00:39:44.100 California, not my district.
00:39:46.260 But he has a challenger, I've mentioned
00:39:48.240 before, Jennifer Barbosa.
00:39:49.880 And she's running as an independent.
00:39:52.960 Now, her argument is that you need to
00:39:54.620 be an independent to have a chance
00:39:57.040 against Schiff, because he has the
00:39:59.980 vast majority of Democrats.
00:40:01.920 Well, there are far more Democrats in
00:40:03.740 the area than anything else.
00:40:05.860 In fact, there are only 16% GOP in
00:40:10.740 Schiff's area.
00:40:12.640 But there are 30% independents.
00:40:16.300 Now, I don't know how independent
00:40:18.240 independents are, all right?
00:40:20.160 I'm not sure that real independents 1.00
00:40:22.300 exist, but let's say they do.
00:40:26.500 And the reason I say that is that most
00:40:28.340 independents reliably vote one way or
00:40:30.840 the other.
00:40:31.680 It's sort of an exception if they ever
00:40:33.580 cross lines, or if they ever vote a
00:40:37.200 different way.
00:40:37.840 Let's say it's a surprise.
00:40:41.000 So, if you add the 30% independence and
00:40:43.540 the 16% of GOP, you get 46%.
00:40:47.360 If she could cleave off enough Democrats 0.99
00:40:50.740 who are mad at Schiff for one reason or
00:40:52.460 another for not doing his job and just
00:40:55.440 playing around, trying to...
00:40:57.700 Basically, he's playing Moby Dick, and
00:41:01.660 he's just trying to harpoon the great
00:41:03.920 white whale, but it's not happening.
00:41:06.860 So, I'm just calling her out because I
00:41:10.120 think the country would be better off
00:41:11.900 without Adam Schiff in government.
00:41:13.660 I don't really care if it's another
00:41:16.560 Democrat who gets elected.
00:41:18.340 I mean, I'm not anti-Democrat or
00:41:22.000 anything, but Adam Schiff, he's a
00:41:25.280 character, and he's done more harm to
00:41:27.640 the country than, I think, anybody.
00:41:31.840 Anybody?
00:41:32.440 Would that be true?
00:41:33.480 Could you reasonably say that Adam Schiff
00:41:36.880 has done more damage to the United States
00:41:39.160 than anybody else alive at the moment?
00:41:45.720 Can anybody think of anybody who did
00:41:47.740 more damage to the United States than
00:41:50.600 Adam Schiff?
00:41:51.320 Who's still alive?
00:41:52.840 Anybody?
00:41:53.780 I'd like to see some suggestions.
00:41:55.620 I assume there are people who have done
00:41:56.900 worse, but I can't think of one.
00:42:01.060 I mean, he's really driven the world,
00:42:02.820 the country apart with one hoax after
00:42:05.260 another, that I don't know what could be
00:42:07.720 more destructive than that.
00:42:10.000 Does anybody have a suggestion?
00:42:12.680 It's a serious question.
00:42:14.360 No matter if you're Democrat or
00:42:15.880 Republican, you'd have to agree that he
00:42:18.720 pursued a Russia collusion hoax and a
00:42:22.640 Ukraine case that never really was going
00:42:25.520 to go anywhere, and he wasted all of our
00:42:27.820 time and made our government ineffective and
00:42:29.960 deepened the divide, added fake news to the
00:42:34.480 mix, is there anybody who did more damage to
00:42:39.340 the United States than Schiff?
00:42:42.200 I mean, honestly, that's just an honest
00:42:43.860 question.
00:42:44.260 I can't think of anybody.
00:42:46.300 Pelosi, I think, was sort of carried away
00:42:50.320 by the stream.
00:42:51.640 I don't know that Pelosi, her options were
00:42:55.780 limited by the situation.
00:42:57.740 It feels like it was mostly Schiff.
00:43:00.240 Now, you could throw Nadler in there, but I
00:43:03.040 think Nadler by himself would have been less
00:43:06.400 effective and therefore done less damage.
00:43:08.380 I think for all of his flaws, of which I see
00:43:13.560 many, Schiff was a very, let's say, energetic and
00:43:19.600 disciplined and passionate and well-spoken
00:43:24.400 advocate for his evil position.
00:43:26.880 He had lots of skill that went into pursuing
00:43:32.360 something that shouldn't have been pursued and
00:43:34.180 all ended bad.
00:43:35.340 So his judgment is terrible, or his bias is
00:43:38.400 terrible.
00:43:38.860 It could be one or the other.
00:43:40.860 And so give a thought to Jennifer Barbosa.
00:43:45.400 If you're thinking of donating, you could probably
00:43:47.680 find her easily.
00:43:49.360 Just Google Jennifer Barbosa, B-A-R-B-O-S-A for 0.73
00:43:56.840 Congress.
00:43:57.820 She'll pop right up.
00:43:59.220 And I'm sure she has a page for donating.
00:44:01.380 But if anybody wants to reduce the chance of more
00:44:05.460 Schiff, that would be one way to do it.
00:44:08.660 Okay.
00:44:12.680 All right.
00:44:13.300 I'm looking at your comments.
00:44:14.700 What about AOC?
00:44:20.360 The whistleblower, blah, blah, blah, blah.
00:44:23.180 All right.
00:44:23.620 I think I've said what I need to say.
00:44:26.700 I hope my swearing was just right.
00:44:30.300 And I hope we see a return to justice.
00:44:34.460 And let me say, as a supporter of this president, by
00:44:38.240 the way, for context, I think I've supported every
00:44:41.700 president.
00:44:42.060 It didn't matter what team they were on.
00:44:45.600 When somebody becomes the president, I'm almost
00:44:48.080 automatically a supporter.
00:44:49.860 Because I think that's the way it should work, regardless
00:44:52.960 of which team they're on.
00:44:55.180 Your mileage will differ, but that's fine.
00:44:58.020 So I'm a supporter of the president.
00:45:00.200 And if he pardons, I'm going to be far more enthusiastic about
00:45:08.260 supporting him for re-election.
00:45:09.840 I mean, I would do it anyway.
00:45:10.840 I'm sure I'll support the president for re-election.
00:45:13.700 But it would make a difference to me.
00:45:15.900 I would feel differently.
00:45:17.360 I would have a different energy about it.
00:45:19.480 And if there's blowback from the pardon or commuting the
00:45:23.440 sentence, whatever it is, if there's blowback, I will be a
00:45:27.680 tireless patriot to try to reduce the impact of that.
00:45:33.940 So that's where I'm at.
00:45:36.960 I hope some of you are on the same team.
00:45:40.480 And, well, thank you.
00:45:44.900 Somebody's saying nice things about me.
00:45:46.660 Always appreciate it.
00:45:48.960 What about coffee?
00:45:50.040 We already had our sip.
00:45:52.660 All right.
00:45:53.200 That's all for today.
00:45:54.040 I will talk to you all tomorrow.
00:45:55.140 You're welcome.
00:45:55.380 All right.
00:45:55.800 All right.
00:45:55.980 Well, you're welcome.
00:45:57.520 Let's get started.