Episode 95 - What Scott Would do About Iran

Date: 2018-06-14 | Duration: 46:20

Topics

Iran’s Khamenei tweet about Israel’s eradication I would ask him to clarify his tweet If he does clarify…what will he say? Should he at least clarify to his own people? Scott’s Amsterdam coffee house experience Rookie weed mistakes Not knowing the difference between Sativa and Indica Not knowing the difference between Sativa strains (or Indica strains) Vaping is not yet scientifically proven to be safer Avoid edibles, they’re unpredictable and probably 90% of bad experiences No opinion on McCabe immunity till Alan Dershowitz weighs in Should Trump pardon Hillary?  Maybe. America does NOT have “equal justice” Our legal system was intentionally designed to NOT have “equal justice”

Transcript

[0:10]

Hello. Hey, look who’s here. I’m in a different time zone than usual. Sorry my Coffee with Scott Adams is a little bit late, but goes well with lateness? I think you do. What goes well with lateness is Coffee with Scott Adams. Might be a little late for you; doesn’t matter.

I saw some news today about Dennis Rodman going to Singapore, but the article said two completely opposite things. The headline said Dennis Rodman is going to go to Singapore for the summit, and then you read it and it says his manager says he’s not made any plans to go to Singapore. It’s one of those two things.

[1:13]

So I want to read you a tweet from the Ayatollah Khamenei. That’s probably the worst pronunciation of that you’ve ever heard. This is from the leader of Iran, Khamenei, and I think it’s funny that he tweets. He’s got an English-language Twitter feed in addition to his Arabic-language one and probably a Farsi one. He said, I think it was a couple days ago, he says, “Our stance against Israel is the same stance we have always taken. Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen.” Now, you think that’s a fake tweet? I don’t think so. He’s got half a million followers. I’m pretty sure that’s his real one. So you think he quoted himself from 1991?

[2:18]

Well, in any event, it’s a current tweet. So he’s reinforcing his point that Israel—and the wording is important here—this is the English-language version of it. He says that Israel has to be removed and eradicated; it is possible and it will happen. Now, here’s what I would do if I were Nikki Haley, President Trump, Mike Pompeo. If I was them, I would do the following thing: I would ask him to clarify. Nobody gets mad if you ask them to clarify, right? Because there’s a little bit of ambiguity and there might be a translation thing, etc. But I would like to see Khamenei say to the world: what does he mean that Israel has to be removed and eradicated?

[3:18]

Does it mean that all the people must be killed? Does it mean that the name Israel must be changed to something else and become more inclusive rather than a Jewish state per se? Would that be an example of eradicated if they just evolved to a different form that included more Palestinians? Would Iran say, “Yes, we won. We eradicated Israel. That old Israel doesn’t exist anymore. Now we’ve got this new entity that’s included some extra land”? Would that make him happy? I don’t know. Now, I know what you’re saying. Somebody’s saying “eradicated” is not clear. And here’s the thing: I believe it’s intentionally unclear, and asking him to clarify it would be a huge step forward because where do you go in front of the world?

[4:18]

Let me be specific: “eradicate” means they all have to be killed. Would he say that? I don’t think he’d say that. Would he say, “Well, I’m not going to clarify”? If he doesn’t clarify, then you have to imagine that it is the worst-case scenario and act as if that’s true. Now, if you’re Israel, you’re always going to act like it’s the worst-case scenario because that’s the smart thing to do, which is essentially what they do. But suppose you said to Khamenei: “What if there was a regional deal in which the Palestinians were satisfied that they got something they can live with?” It might not be the ideal situation; maybe there’s no right of return, maybe there’s a little bit in special cases, maybe some of those people get paid off. But whatever it is, do you think there’s any situation that would make Khamenei happy?

[5:21]

Is there anything that would make him happy that does not include exterminating the individuals who live in Israel? Could it be just a system change? Could it be a long-term evolution to something different? So the power of this is that I think we would first be surprised if he were asked to clarify, because you can say in public, “Yeah, I think I want to eradicate that state.” Because here’s the beauty of that from an Iranian point of view: everybody’s going to see what they expect to see. So you saw that a number of you, as soon as I said “eradicate,” said, “Well, isn’t that obvious? You know exactly what that means. It’s the Holocaust.” And it might be exactly what they mean. But if you ask them to clarify, are they going to clarify?

[6:23]

Are they really talking about another Holocaust? That’s the only thing that’ll make us happy? I don’t think they will. Here’s why: if they clarified it that way, they would be vaporized fairly quickly, I think. And I mean—that’s an exaggeration; they wouldn’t be vaporized right away—but we would stop worrying about negotiating. We would just treat it like a current mortal military threat. We would shut down their economy. We would starve them out. We’d bomb whatever needs to be bombed if that’s what they said. But suppose he didn’t say that. Suppose he said, “Well, we’re not being specific. God works in many ways. We just want the situation to be resolved and we’d like it to be resolved in a way that Israel no longer is a threat to us and is no longer a threat, in our opinion, to anybody else in the region and Palestinians, folks in Gaza, that sort of thing.”

[7:25]

Which way do you think he’d go? Now, independent of what you think is his real purpose, how do you think he would clarify? I want to see your comments. How many of you think he would clarify in public that he really means killing everybody in Israel? How many think he would say, “Well, it’s more of a ‘we need a deal where everybody’s happy’ situation,” and maybe Israel includes more Palestinians in the state, something like that? So I’m just looking at your answers. Some say he won’t clarify, and you might be right. He doesn’t want to deal. Some say he won’t stoop to clarify. Well, it’s not really stooping because we would ask him for his opinion.

[8:28]

Somebody’s saying, “Adams, you effing idiot.” Why is it that everybody calls me an idiot when they don’t understand what I’m saying? Well, I suppose the same reason my dog thinks I’m an idiot. So let me—somebody says “seriously cringe-worthy”—but you don’t know where I’m going with this yet. Think of the possibilities once we’ve asked them to clarify. One possibility is that they refuse to clarify, which is a clarification, isn’t it? If they refuse to clarify, then it means the worst-case scenario. It doesn’t matter if anybody disagrees with you; you have to treat it like it’s the worst-case scenario. It’s also a free pass after that point because right now the world is looking in and saying, “Hey, let’s work something out.” But if you ask Iran, and they say no, there’s no working this out—doesn’t matter how long it takes, doesn’t matter how much it costs us…

[9:29]

…doesn’t matter how much it costs us in terms of pain in Iran, we’re just going to make sure that everybody in Israel is killed. They can either say that directly, in which case you’ve got a free pass to do whatever you want, or they can refuse to clarify, in which case you still have a free pass because a refusal to clarify is the same as saying you want to kill everybody. But what if they said, “Look, if we had a comprehensive deal, we could talk about that”? Wouldn’t that get you closer to knowing at least what your options are? Because I feel right now they don’t have any pressure on them to clarify what would make them happy. So here’s the better way to describe it: describe an end state that is both possible and the only thing that you’ll settle for. It would be interesting to see what they did with that.

[10:30]

This would never ever have been a conversation in 2013, maybe not. What about “Death to America”? Iran has been saying “Death to America” for a long time. But if you imagine that the United States pulled its support for Israel and just got out of the region—legitimately just got out of there—would Iran still be saying “Death to America”? I don’t think so. I think we would be out of sight, out of mind at that point. So I think we’re owed a clarification, and no matter which way it goes, it gives us more information and we’d have a plan. Keep in mind that the cleverness—I think I missed my main point, so let me back up to it. The Iranian people themselves are also looking at this language about eradicating Israel.

[11:33]

Because it could be interpreted in different ways, I think the Iranian population is thinking, “Maybe he doesn’t mean that really literally.” The ones who don’t want it to happen. But the ones who do want it to happen—maybe it’s 20% of the hardliners, maybe it’s less, maybe it’s more, have no idea—but the people who do want it to happen also hear, “Oh, it’s on now. It’s eradication now.” So everybody’s hearing what they want to hear. How about we ask Iran to clarify it to its own public? What if we ask the Ayatollah: “Look, do us a favor and at least clarify it to your own people what that means and what kinds of outcomes would be acceptable.” Because if their public hears with no ambiguity that their plan is to eradicate Israel…

[12:38]

…how long are they going to sit there waiting to be destroyed? Because that plan would get them to an “all dead” situation in Iran. Now, whether or not Israel also suffered some major catastrophe from an attack, the Iranian citizens would have to know that their leader just set them up to be wiped out. Now, that doesn’t mean they would be, but they’d have to start thinking about it at that point. So here’s my view: if Iran doesn’t clarify, you have to assume it’s the worst-case scenario, in which case screw everybody. We don’t care about anybody else’s opinion at that point. At that point, it’s just war. Let’s treat it that way. And if they say, “No, we really mean eradication and we’ll stop at nothing,” well, that’s the same thing. And then it’s just war and there’s just no point even talking. But if they say, “Well, we’d be flexible…”

[13:40]

…flexible, then at least their own population would have a reason not to revolt. Because it seems to me that the Iranian public is getting close to the end of their patience with their own leadership. And if their leadership would simply clarify their plans for their preferences for Israel, the Iranian public would know their future. If the leader clarifies that they really want to wipe out Israel and actually literally kill all the people, or if they refuse to clarify, then we help them clarify and say, “Okay, the lack of clarifying only means one thing: Iranian public, your leader just gave you a death sentence.” Because that’s what it would be. Doesn’t mean it’s today; doesn’t mean it’s next week. But if that’s what their leadership—if the only thing that would make them happy is that, it’s a death sentence to the Iranian people. They should know that.

[14:42]

They have a choice of alternatives. I realize it’s not a democracy. It’s also not a stable country. There are enough young people in Iran who are restless and have been born into our world—that’s a bad economy and an imperfect situation. It’s not a situation about voting the leader out of power; they have options, but it’s not our business. I would be mostly concerned that the Iranian people know what they’re signing up for if they keep their leadership in power. And if their leadership clarifies that they want to kill all the people in Israel, then I don’t think they have any future—the Iranian public—and that would be an enormous tragedy. So let’s ask for a clarification and see where it gets us.

[15:53]

Somebody’s saying that the religious doctrine is what’s capturing the imaginations of the young. Well, that may be true, but I’m hearing the opposite. I’m not sure we ever know what’s happening in other countries. Why won’t you talk about California? Okay, I’ll talk about California. So apparently we have—this is somebody named Cox who is going to be running against Kimberly Guilfoyle’s ex, what’s his name? I forget. And the Democrat’s going to win. Gavin Newsom. My understanding is that the Republican is not—I hate to say this, it’s not what you want to hear—my understanding is that the Republican candidate is not strong enough that I would get involved…

[16:56]

…involved in trying to negotiate or trying to persuade. Yeah, he’s Trump’s pick, but that’s because he’s a Republican. Remember, being Trump’s pick doesn’t mean he’s the best candidate. So I think there’s just not much to say about California. I think Gavin Newsom is going to get a shot. Travis Allen, is that over already? Right? It’s just the two finalists who run. There’s down-ticket help from Cox being there. Yeah, maybe. All right. Giuliani actually said that North Korea was begging on hands and knees? I hope that’s not true. Did he really say that? Can somebody confirm? And is that recent? Is that something he just said? Because if it is—seriously? Oh my god. Well, that’s a firing offense, in my opinion. I like Giuliani, but if he really said that, that feels like a firing offense.

[17:56]

He has not been nailing it lately. He seems to have been causing more problems than he’s fixing right now. Somebody out here just said that Giuliani said that North Korea came begging for the summit on their hands and knees.

[19:01]

If he really said that, that’s not good teamplay, let’s put it that way. I hope he didn’t say that. It could be fake news; Wall Street Journal reports it. I don’t 100% trust the news that I see in my comment feed here. Fox News said he said it? Oh God, that is so bad. When people ask me the biggest criticism that I ever get on Twitter, I think the most common one is that people say anything Trump does you will say is genius. But he hired Giuliani and that’s not working out. I can’t stay here and tell you, “Well, that sure was a good thing.” Based on what we see, we don’t know if Giuliani is actually doing—it’s possible, it’s likely that we don’t know…

[20:03]

…what’s really happening behind the scenes. Who he’s negotiating with, who was his high school friend that really makes a difference because he can talk to him. There’s probably a whole bunch of stuff that Giuliani can bring to this that we don’t know about. But if you’re basing it on his public appearances, he’s just screwed the pooch about three times in a row now. I would get him off-camera at the very least. Somebody said they can’t find a reference to the remark, so let’s call this an unconfirmed thing that a number of you think is true. That’s all I know right now. I’m not the one who can confirm it. So a number of you are saying it is confirmed, and it’s more likely that you’re right than wrong. It’s just that I can’t confirm it personally.

[21:22]

Yeah, I am in Amsterdam right now. Just took a stroll through the city. By the way, since I’m in the city where this is completely legal, I can tell you this story. One of the things that you need to do when you go to Amsterdam, besides walking through the red-light district and looking at women in the window and saying, “Yeah, it’s just like they said.” There’s not much to it except you walk by and go, “Oh yeah, it’s just like the pictures. There’s a live woman in the window.” That part was sort of underwhelming, but it’s one of those necessary things you have to walk through that area. But the other thing of course is they have these coffee shops. They call them coffee shops, in which they sell marijuana products, and you can smoke it there. Or I think you’re not allowed to smoke it outdoors, but there’s not much enforcement of anything like that here. So I stopped in last night and I got a little confused…

[22:24]

…on the menu. So I said, “Hey, I’ll have this joint.” He hands me a joint, and there’s a little smoking room in there—just has a door to keep the smoking in, I guess. There was only one other person in there. It was 10:30 at night. So I go in and I light it up and took a few hits on it. I started tripping so bad that I didn’t know if I’d be able to make it back to my hotel, which was all of a block and a half away. I thought I was losing my mind, and I thought, “Holy hell, what kind of special marijuana do they have in this place?” Because I don’t like to brag, but I built up a little tolerance over the years, and I certainly would not expect somebody who’s been living on California weed to have any kind of trouble handling the Netherlands variety. But here’s…

[23:27]

…what I didn’t know: I ordered the wrong thing off the menu. Whoops. I thought I was smoking a joint. Whoops. It wasn’t. It did have marijuana in it, but it was a tobacco/marijuana joint. And if you have never experienced the combination—and I’m not a cigarette smoker, but I also don’t have a sense of smell, so anybody else would have immediately known what it was, I think they just would have smelled it. But I lost my sense of smell years ago. So I fired this thing up, and I had heard this before: that the combination of tobacco and marijuana just gives you this wild media rush high. It makes you dizzy. And I walked outside, and this is a true…

[24:29]

…story. There was still a little—I always smoke like less than maybe a quarter inch of it, something like that—and I walked outside and I was just going to put it out on the sidewalk and the curb. I couldn’t find the ground. I’m not even kidding. I couldn’t find the ground. Like, getting it from three feet down to the ground… I kept stumbling and I almost fell into a canal. True story. So I won’t be trying that again. If you ever go to Amsterdam and somebody talks you into buying a joint at the coffee shop, I recommend that you read the menu carefully and make sure you’re not getting the combo tobacco slash… I didn’t get sick, but I also only had a little bit of it. But it just…

[25:30]

…about took my head off. I don’t recommend it at all. Even if you think, “Oh, that sounds good,” it’s very powerful. It wasn’t powerful in any kind of a good way. I understand that people like it, but definitely not my thing. They have edibles; I would never touch edibles, by the way. Edibles is where all the problems happen. The people who don’t understand marijuana always make rookie mistakes. Here’s some rookie mistakes with marijuana: Number one, not knowing that there’s a difference between the two major types that really have a different effect. And number two, not knowing that there’s a pretty big difference within each category of what strain you’re getting and what kind of effects you get. Some will make you more paranoid, some will make you more creative, some wake you up, some put you to sleep. They’re opposites in many ways. If you don’t know at least that much, you’re just putting some mystery…

[26:31]

…thing into your body that may or may not be anything like what you’re hoping for. So that’s one of them. The other myth is that vaping is safer. You’ve seen the vape things that turn the marijuana into sort of a vapor of water and THC, I guess. And it might be; it’s possible that it’s safer. But I would never use that as my main go-to because unlike regular marijuana that people have been burning and smoking in a normal way for decades and decades, the vaping hasn’t really been studied. It also lacks a lot of those CBDs and the things that might be offering their protective quality of the marijuana. People who smoke—the studies on it have shown that they have the same mortality as people who don’t smoke marijuana (that is, not cigarettes, just marijuana). The same mortality rate as everybody else, but they might actually have stronger lung…

[27:33]

…function. I think that’s a study that needs to be replicated, but apparently there are studies to show people who are chronic marijuana smokers have better lung function. So if you’re vaping because you think it’s safer, it might be, but you’re not on the side of science; you’re just guessing. If you want to be using the thing which has been studied the most and consistently shown to have little or no issues beyond the ones that you know about, then smoking is probably safer. And then the last thing—the biggest mistake people make—is they say to themselves, “Well, I don’t know about all this smoking because I don’t know how to do it, or I don’t want to get that high, or I don’t want to smell like smoke.” Whatever reasons. And they say, “I think I’ll play it safe and I’ll just get an edible. I’ll eat a brownie or something.” Those people make up—I’m just guessing—but probably 90% of all the bad things…

[28:35]

…you’ve ever heard about people under the influence of marijuana. Probably 90% are from edibles. It’s the same reason that you can’t tell your dose. You don’t know how much you’re getting, and because it kicks in slowly, you start chewing on the brownie. Because you’re not smart—and by the way, I would fall into this category as well; it doesn’t matter how smart you are, people make the same mistake—they would eat it and they say, “Huh, I don’t really feel that difference. I was hoping to feel different, so I’ll eat another brownie.” And they’re like, “Yeah, I feel a little bit. It’s been 45 minutes, yeah, I can feel a little bit, but I was hoping for more. I’ll have a third brownie.” And that’s when you start taking your clothes off and driving on the wrong side of the road. So don’t do edibles. Even if you only do one, you don’t know how much is in there unless you made it yourself and you’re used to making it and you know what type of weed is in there.

[29:37]

Edibles are just bad business. Stay away from them. Tell us why hypnotics are bad? Yeah, hypnotics is a class of pharmaceuticals like Ambien that put you into the sleep, basically. It just closes down your mind and puts you to sleep. Now, the only reason I say that’s bad is not based on science, because I’m not aware of all the science, but the fact that anything that makes your brain shut down—if it’s not happening before major surgery, I just have questions whether that could ever be a good thing. The Volcano is another form of vaping that I would also not assume is safe because again, there have been—those things are newer.

[30:37]

So there have been fewer kinds of tests. People addicted to Ambien… somebody said, “Am I productive when high?” Well, I wrote my last two books while I was pretty high. They came out okay. So let me give you a more responsible answer to that. My experience has been that the right marijuana will make people more of what they already are. So if you’re already creative and you have the right strain of marijuana and it’s the right minute after you’ve done it—because you can’t wait too long, you don’t want to do it right away, there’s sort of a sweet spot in there—they can make you more creative. I would say that at least 75% of the topics that you see me do on…

[31:39]

…Periscope, I at least conceived of under the influence. And it’s things that I would not have conceived of under ordinary circumstances. So if you ask me, “Does it make you more creative?” I would say there’s a very big dependence. You would first of all probably have to be a chronic user, because if it was the first time you used it, you wouldn’t be able to operate the same way. So you’d have to be a chronic user, and since I don’t recommend anybody be a chronic user unless you have legitimate medical uses, I can’t recommend it. Next, you’d have to take the right strain, because if you don’t get the right strain, you don’t get the creative feeling; you just get tired or paranoid or something else. And you have to have the right kind of job where it makes sense. My job—the hardest part of my…

[32:41]

…job is coming up with a new way to look at things. So in my specific case, I check all the boxes. So I do know what strain to use. I am a daily user. I do use it for medical purposes, so I would be using it anyway. I wouldn’t recommend you do it just to be creative. But since I’m using it anyway, it’s just a bonus. And yes, that’s the main thing; I check all the boxes. But most people would not. Somebody says Thomas Jefferson smoked weed. I once tried to look that up and I think that is not confirmed. I believe that the idea that the Founders smoked weed comes from the fact that at least George Washington, maybe others, they grew hemp as a crop. But I don’t believe it was the THC type of…

[33:43]

…hemp. I think it was a variant that is just good for making fabrics. Somebody says, “Why not use it to be more creative by itself?” Let me clarify what I said: I’m not a doctor, so I would never recommend that anybody use marijuana. It doesn’t matter what you said that you wanted to use it for; my answer is the same. Am I a doctor yet? No. Is marijuana a medicinal thing? Yes. So cartoonists should not be giving you medical advice. Independent of whether or not it would be good to use it for your creativity, I would not recommend it because I’m not a doctor. John Cox thinks marijuana users should be hospitalized? Really? Did John Cox say anything about dispensaries? Yeah, that…

[34:44]

…doesn’t sound like it’s true. How does it help me medically? In so many ways, it’s hard to even list them all. But it’s good for sleep apnea. It eliminates my allergies like no other pharmaceutical does, and it does it immediately. So it clears up my head; I can breathe better. It’s an anti-inflammatory, so I can exercise far more efficiently. It’s not an accident… I’ll try to say this next thing without being a giant douchebag, but I’m hoping that most of you know me well enough that I’m going to power through this. So the next thing I’m going to say is very douchey, but in order to make my point, I don’t know how to get there any other way: I’m 60 years old and I’m in phenomenal shape for my age. Now, I don’t mean phenomenal like the people who run Ironman; I mean for…

[35:44]

…just a guy who is not an Ironman athlete or something, I’m in ridiculously good shape. And I would say that a huge part of that is medicinal marijuana. Now, I don’t take it for that purpose, but because it’s an anti-inflammatory, I can work out, I don’t get sore, and it makes me want to work out the next day. It makes me enjoy it. So I enjoy it. Somebody says, “You look old for your age.” Well, I make no claims about my face, which is the part you get to see. There’s no bragging about my face. From about here up, this is all bad news. All right. So I would love to be more narcissistic and say, “You know, this is pretty good,” but I live in the real world. However, from here down, just in terms of fitness, etc., I’m in pretty good shape. All…

[36:47]

…right. It lowers testosterone levels? I think temporarily. Does that persuade us? Can we address the giant fish in the room? Well, I have a roommate; there was a giant fish. Lemon Haze—that’s the answer to the question. To the person who knows what that question was, the answer is Lemon Haze. All right. What’s my take on McCabe? I’m a little bit behind the news. I haven’t been following it as much because I’m on the road. But my understanding is… yes, for immunity, right? McCabe asks for immunity. That’s one of…

[37:53]

…those legal questions. So I think—you know my rule on legal questions. Anybody tell me what is my rule about legal questions and opinions on them? Somebody will tell you here in a moment. Yes, it’s the Alan Dershowitz rule. Correct. My rule on stuff like this is that until Alan Dershowitz tells me what to think, I’m just wasting my time, because he’s going to be the one who’s the smartest one in the room as usual and he’ll have an opinion. And when he goes on Fox or CNN and gives this opinion, then I’ll come on here and say, “You know, I’ve got an opinion on this now. Coincidentally, it matches Alan Dershowitz.” There’s big news breaking on Khamenei? What’s that?

[38:54]

I’m just looking at your comments to see if there’s anything else we need to talk about before I go. And I think not. Oh, let me run this by you: suppose that one of these investigations—and I think Hillary’s email is back into the investigative pipeline, right? Is that true? Can somebody confirm that? That there’s somebody in law enforcement somewhere who’s looking into the—is it just the IG? So suppose we get to a point where Hillary is in serious legal trouble, but not for things that are unlike what we already suspect. Let’s say hypothetically that the only crime involved—at least that’s been proven—is that she had a server and email that was not within the government’s requirements, and it was illegal. What if that was her only crime? But it’s definitely a crime, right?

[39:56]

Everybody would agree there’s no question it’s a serious crime. Should Trump pardon her even before going to jail? I think you could do that, right? Do you have to wait for the conviction or can you pre-pardon? I’m not sure how that works, but again, I’d have to wait for Alan Dershowitz. So I’m looking at your answers. So there’s some—a sprinkling of “yeses,” but it looks like a few more “nos.” Let me make the argument for “yes” to pardon her. Are you ready for it? That’s a good precedent. You remember when Trump started talking about pardoning Blagojevich or whatever it is, the Democratic governor? And people were thinking, “Why? Why is that even on the radar?”

[40:57]

And that’s one of those pardons—if he pardons a Democrat for something that clearly looked like a crime but it also had some political overtones… There’s sort of an argument that there was a little bit politicized, but I don’t know exactly how that makes sense. It sets a precedent, because if Trump needs to pardon somebody who might be closer to Trump and who might be a Republican, wouldn’t it be nice to have a Hillary pardon in his back pocket that he’s already issued? For purely defensive reasons, pardoning Hillary would be a great play. Here’s what else it would do: heads would explode, because nobody would expect it. And maybe you’d expect it now because I said it, but the country would expect that Trump would be mean old Trump the dictator and…

[41:58]

…then he would be jailing his political opponent. The smartest thing he could do is to say, “Yep, she broke the law. Ordinary people go to jail for this, but I don’t want to be part of putting my political opponent who lost in jail because I can.” I think it would be an amazing strong play. And more importantly, even Hillary’s supporters who think, “Okay, if you broke the law, you’ve got to pay the penalty”—even the ones who know she broke the law, hypothetically, if she did—they would feel very uncomfortable living in this country if that happened. So I’m going to go on record as saying that if facts come out that make Hillary look like there’s something seriously like…

[42:59]

…jail time at risk… whatever the process is, whether you have to wait for the conviction before your pardon—I’m not sure how that works—but I would recommend, and strongly, strongly I would recommend a pardon. I don’t think this was a close call, honestly, because the president can pardon anybody he wants. He has this unconditional power, at least for federal stuff. And giving a pardon because it’s good for the country? Forget about the person; it’s just good for the country. It’s more of a healing thing. Definitely the right play. Those of you who say “no mercy,” you’re not thinking of your own self-interest. I would encourage you to think more selfishly. Yeah, those saying “No, I’m so mad, lock her up, lock her up.” If the only crime is this…

[44:00]

…email stuff and nothing else comes out of any consequence, it’s not in your best interest. You, as a citizen, that she goes to jail, because there’s going to be—there would be revolution. I mean, that would be—I think even a lot of Republicans would be very squeamish about that. I’ll bet you members of Congress, I’ll bet you Republicans in Congress would have a real hard time with her going to jail because it’s just bad for the country. Now, those of you who are saying, “Hey, it’s equal law and everybody has to be treated the same,” that’s not true. You know why that’s not true? That there’s equal justice and everybody should be treated the same? Let me tell you: that’s not the system we live in. It wasn’t designed that way. We were not designed to have equal justice. If we were…

[45:00]

…designed that way, the president would not have the right to pardon. The whole point of the right to pardon is that you’re giving unequal justice to some select people. That’s built right into the system. So if the president uses the system the way it’s designed, and using powers they have given him for just this sort of thing—that there’s a good reason this time you’ve got to pardon somebody—there was maybe a serious miscarriage of justice and the legal system isn’t fixing it. Maybe it’s just better for the country. We don’t live in a system that has equal justice under the law, and more importantly, it’s specifically designed to prevent equal justice. It’s made that way by really smart people who knew what they were doing. There are no accidents here. We don’t have legally equal justice. We don’t want it. The system wasn’t designed that way and you wouldn’t want that changed. And I realized that would…

[46:02]

…make you unhappy, but sometimes you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do. All right. I think that’s enough for today. I’m going to say have a good day and maybe I’ll talk to you tomorrow.