Episode 186 Scott Adams: The Manafort Jury, “Punishing” Brennan, Black Support for Trump
Date: 2018-08-18 | Duration: 31:01
Topics
MSM seeking juror names and home addresses (Manafort trial) Judge noted he has received threats, has U.S. Marshal protection Rasmussen poll says 36% black voter support for President Trump CNN says only 9%…but agrees it has increased Candace Owens is a major political force Building new communities from scratch, innovative ideas
Transcript
[0:06] Bing-bing-bing-bing bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum! Hey everybody, come on in here. Hello Nicole and JP, Tyler, Ken. Come on in here. Donna, Sheldon, it’s good to see you all. Hey Jack, we got stuff to talk about today. It does seem like it’s slow news again, but a few things are going on. For example, the President has canceled the expensive military parade. Yay! I’m very happy that that parade got canceled, and it got canceled for exactly the right reasons. It sends a really good message, doesn’t it? The President asked for something, then he got the price, and then he said the price is too high, and then he canceled it. That’s pretty good stuff. Whoever is complaining about the audio, the audio is fine, so there’s something wrong on your end.
[1:07] Let’s talk about the news reports about Brennan losing his security clearance. Now, the way it was reported is that the President changed his story because the original reason given was that Brennan was erratic—his behavior was erratic. Apparently, that’s sort of a magical word when it comes to security clearances. If somebody is erratic, then they don’t get their security clearance. So that was the original reason given, and then later President Trump said that the reason was the Russia hoax. The news reported that as inconsistent, but was it?
[2:08] Is that inconsistent? The first version is Brennan is erratic. The second version is that Brennan was pushing this Russia conspiracy narrative. Those are the same thing. What was he being erratic about? The Russia conspiracy thing and the way he reacted to it. To call those two different stories is a bit of a stretch. It’s a bit of a stretch, wouldn’t you think? Because his erraticness followed that topic. Nobody’s complaining about how he is at home. It was just about that. We haven’t heard him say anything else, right? Has Brennan talked about anything else? It’s the only topic. So that’s your fake news flag for the day.
[3:09] Now some of you are watching the story about apparently CNN and some other outlets—Politico, I forget which others, might be Washington Post, might be New York Times—they’ve colluded to try to get the judge in the Manafort case to allow them to have the names and addresses of the jurors. Now, I didn’t know a lot about the topic of jury privacy, but apparently, in normal regular cases, the juries are not anonymous. But there are cases, such as a RICO case or something high-level where a juror could get killed or influenced, then in those cases, it’s the judge’s decision; they can keep it private. In this particular case, the Manafort trial, I feel like privacy is really important for these jurors.
[4:10] It seems to me that what the press is lining up to find out is—fact-check me on this—but doesn’t the fact that the press is trying to figure out who these jurors are suggest to you that the press expects it’s not going to be a guilty verdict? Because let me ask you this: if the jurors all voted guilty, let’s say on every count, would the press have any compelling reason to talk to them? Maybe to fill a little time, but it wouldn’t be terribly important because if it was guilty, they would be unanimous, and there’s not much point in talking to people who are unanimous because we saw the same information they saw, essentially. So there’s not much to ask. It feels like the press is expecting a hung jury, at least on some counts.
[5:12] There are 18 counts; I don’t know if they’ll all be hung. But don’t you think that the press also expects that the potential reason for the hung jury might be political? In other words, there might be a Trump supporter or two on the jury who just isn’t willing to let the government do what it wants to do with their President. It might be that there’s some mole on the jury who is just trying to fight the Deep State and just won’t vote guilty no matter what. Now, let’s get to the question of revealing the identities of jurors. My prediction is that Judge Ellis will not allow the press to have the names and addresses, so I think it’s probably a lot of worry about nothing.
[6:14] Everything that we’ve seen about this judge would suggest that he is smart. Has he ruled already? Oh, he said no already? Did he? I saw a report that he said it was a bad idea, but I didn’t know if that was the final ruling. I guess it wasn’t a prediction because I’m predicting something that’s already happened, but it didn’t seem to me likely in any case. But here’s the thing: if you were on a jury and you knew that the press had asked for your identity, how would you vote on the crime? Now you’re saying to yourself, “Well, it depends on the crime.” No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t depend on the crime at all. If you put me on a jury and you tell me that the defendant will know who I am and be able to find my address, I’m voting innocent.
[7:14] I’m voting not guilty. I would absolutely throw a trial over the issue of my own privacy being outed if I especially thought it was a danger. That’s my take on it. If the judge had said, “Yeah, go ahead, you can have the identities of the jurors,” those jurors would be absolutely within their ethical and moral right to just say, “Not guilty, we’re going home. Not guilty. Don’t—I don’t even want to hear your arguments.” It wouldn’t require all of the jurors to say not guilty. It would only take one of them to say, “I’m done. You guys can do all of the deliberating you want, but I’m not going to listen to the deliberations. I’m not going to be part of it. I’ve already said not guilty. It’s not going to change.” That would be me. They wouldn’t want to have me on that jury.
[8:19] Keep in mind that the reason that we have juries is to get to something that’s like justice, because you are human beings who use a little bit of judgment about what justice looks like in any case. I would consider that the greater justice—the greater justice is to keep the jury from being outed. That’s a little bit higher priority. So I wouldn’t have even a skosh of guilt or feeling that I was in the wrong if the jury’s identities had been outed had I just said, “Not guilty, we’re done. I don’t care what the defendant did. I’m absolutely uninterested at this point.” Mobsters are loving this. Yeah, now mobsters—those are cases in which the jury is not identified for that very reason.
[9:21] Now let me ask you this: if you were me and you were recognizable by sight—now, not by everybody—but if you had a bunch of people in a jury trial, chances are somebody would recognize me. Do you think it would be safe for me to be on a jury where there was, let’s say, some kind of violence involved? Not so much. On the trials in which there was violence and a potentially violent defendant, I have used a little bit more effort to make sure I did not serve on those. But as I’ve said before, I do recommend that you do jury duty. I’m very pro-jury duty. Even if you can get out of it, you should serve because it makes you feel part of the system and you gain an appreciation like you’ve never had before. Being on a jury is a very humbling experience because you actually can feel how serious the jurors are about getting it right.
[10:25] That always impressed me. I’ve been on two juries, but I was always impressed at how dead serious the jury was about justice and getting it right and trying as hard as they could. It’s a very sobering experience. It makes you like your country a lot more. So what were the other topics? Oh, so there’s an article in CNN obviously trying to respond to the Rasmussen poll that shows that black support was up to 36% for the President. I can’t remember if I said this on Periscope or I was talking to somebody else, but here was my theory on that: not a frickin’ chance that’s real.
[11:26] Not a frickin’ chance that 36% approval level is real. I don’t think there’s the slightest chance that’s a real number or really even close to it. Now, I’d like that to be true. You know my bias, right? If there were any number I wanted to be true, it would be that one. That would be at the top of my list for something I’d want to be true because it would be such a healthy sign. But CNN does their reporting, and their conclusion looking at other polls is that it’s more like 9%. Now, based on your observation of the world, does it feel to you that it’s more like 36% or more like 9%? I’m going to go with 9, just based on people I know, people I’ve talked to, and reactions I’ve seen.
[12:29] My sense of it is that the number is a lot closer to 9 than it is to 36. Now, having said that, even the CNN article concluded that it’s going up. So even if it’s only 9%, CNN concludes—and let me read it to you because keep in mind this is in the context of debunking that high number of 36%, and I think it did a good job of debunking it, frankly.
[13:31] So they’re talking about it—listen to this—this is CNN, no friend of the President here, right? It says: “Still, the importance of even a slight shift in African-American voter sentiment shouldn’t be underestimated. They make up greater than 10% of the U.S. electorate.” Isn’t it more like 15%? I thought it was a lot more than 10% and more in key swing states. Here’s the important part: the population is greater in key swing states like Florida, Michigan, and Virginia. “If you apply the changes we see in Trump’s approval rating among blacks compared with his vote chair in 2016 and all other groups have voted the same, it would mean a shift in the national margin of about 1% toward Trump, and in these swing states mentioned, it could be even greater.” Somebody’s saying 13%—that sounds about right. “One point may not seem like a lot, but remember that’s half of Clinton’s national margin in 2016. If Trump is able to hold on to his additional African American support, it could aid him in 2020.”
[14:31] So even CNN says it is up, and it’s up in a way that’s definitely substantial. But their definition of a boost is only this: if African American support for the President were 36%, Republicans would sweep the midterms. Am I right, or am I wrong? I don’t think there’s any chance that they—well, there’s some chance, but not a big chance that the Republicans will just dominate. I don’t think there’s going to be a gigantic red tidal wave. If black support for President Trump were 36%, that’s the only thing you could get. You couldn’t have a legitimate 36% approval of this President from the black voters and have any result other than a gigantic Republican victory of massive proportions.
[15:31] Do you think we’re going to get that? No, we’re not going to get that. Now, it could be that Republicans actually win by a little bit. Could be that they don’t lose much, don’t lose the House. Could be that it’s close, but they do lose the House. There are a lot of possibilities here, and I don’t have a specific prediction for it, but you’re looking at the predictions for the midterms and they don’t reflect anything like a 36% approval by black voters. However, I do think it is absolutely true that the President’s support has gone up. Consider the things that have been thrown at this President and the fact that it has gone up; it’s remarkable. I’ve been reminded that we have not enjoyed the Simultaneous Sip.
[16:37] Candace Owens is creating the red wave, someone says. Well, she’s definitely moving the needle. We’ll see how big the wave is or isn’t, but there is no doubting the fact that Candace is now a major political force in the country. That’s pretty impressive. How old is Candace? I don’t remember how old she is, but why don’t I Google it? The answer is she’s 29 years old. Look at that—look at the size of her influence at 29. Is there anybody else who has that much influence at 29? Can you think of anybody who’s ever had that much influence at age 29?
[17:39] I’m trying to think. Those Parkland students got a lot of press, but I think in the end, they didn’t really move the needle, did they? They just sort of faded away. Candace is 29. Oh, yeah, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—good one. So on the other side, Ocasio-Cortez was having a pretty big impact. Kanye is 41, I think. Would I appear with Candace? Well, I haven’t been invited. Those questions are just a little too hypothetical, but would I appear with her? Of course, of course I would.
[18:42] I might do another afternoon Periscope today on a special topic. I want to talk about the Blight Authority and want to talk about some ideas. I want to get your thinking caps on and see if we can think our way into the Golden Age. I’ll give you a tease for it. My take on the cost of living—which is a big part of poverty, which is a big part of the economy, etc.—is that the cost of just owning a home or a place or even renting, the cost of just living, is too high. Homes are designed in a vacuum. In other words, when somebody designs a home, they design something that looks good, people will buy it, but it’s really not about the entire way the community is organized.
[19:44] I want to get your ideas later so you can think about it between now and then. If you were to start from scratch and say, “Throw out every way that things have been done before,” how would you design a small community? It doesn’t have to be a whole city—just several blocks. It could be something maybe the size of a small college campus. If you were to design it from scratch from bare dirt and you were to say: What’s the best way to feed them? What’s the best way for them to travel? What’s the best way for them to get educated? What’s the best way for them to have security? Best way to care for the pets? Best way to have good light and energy and low energy costs? What’s the best way for people to interact with each other and be with people their age? What’s the best way to take care of the elderly? What’s the best way to do childcare in a safe way? What’s the best way to have food equality?
[20:45] This is one of Gavin Newsom’s, I think, really an innovation—probably one of the best. I’ll give Newsom some credit for this. I’m not sure if he’s the original thinker on this, but he’s the one who’s popularized the idea of food equality. Because your ability to be effective in this world is very much influenced by the food you eat, because the food changes your chemistry. Chemistry changes how you think, how you feel—everything from your ability to handle pressure to your concentration and everything else. I think he makes an extraordinarily important point that if there were some way to close the food equality gap, you might see some big gains. It’s worth experimenting with that in any event.
[21:46] So you put on your thinking caps. I’ll ask you for ideas later, and you could put those ideas on the website at blightauthority.com. Blight is spelled B-L-I-G-H-T—BlightAuthority.com. Go to the forum and you can put your own ideas down there as much as you want. But just let me give you a snapshot of that: if you were to build a community today, could you imagine that you would not build it to take advantage of smartphones? Just think of that one variable. Every home that’s been built from the beginning of time through today has ignored the fact—largely ignored except for trivial reasons—the fact that people own smartphones above the age of 10 or whatever.
[22:50] How would you design a place if you just assumed everybody, including the kids, had smartphones? Well, one of the things you might do is, instead of a kitchen in every home, your community might have a central cafeteria. Then everybody, including the kids, could just go to their smartphone and say, “Oh, peanut butter and jelly sandwich.” Now, below some age, maybe the parent has to approve it, but imagine the teenagers being able to feed themselves by just saying, “Okay, I’ll choose from this,” and again, maybe the parents can limit what types of foods their kids can order so that they get only healthy stuff, for example. Then the cafeteria brings it to your house and you’ve got a Dropbox on your house that either has a warmer or a cooler on it, and you just stick it in there.
[23:51] Imagine having runners—some teenagers or something—who, when the orders come in from all over the community, they just grab it and take it. A central cafeteria would not only provide jobs for people who had never worked before—young people could become runners, they could learn to cook, etc.—but they would be buying food in bulk and preparing it in bulk, and that should bring the cost way down. I don’t know for sure, but I think it would. Then it would allow, for example, single parents—if you’re a single parent and you’ve got to take care of feeding your kids and working, that’s a pretty big load. But if the kid can come home after school with an app and say “give me a sandwich” and the sandwich appears in 15 minutes in the Dropbox of their own house, the single parent can just keep working and the kid has a good meal.
[24:54] That’s just one small example. I’m not saying that’s a good idea, by the way; I’m just trying to expand your thinking that if you were to build a community from scratch, you would most certainly include phones. A modern community today—I’m not even sure it needs a garage because you could easily imagine ride-sharing using your smartphones. You could imagine using Uber. You could imagine knowing the bus schedule and exactly where the bus is. Imagine if you could see the bus on the map just like Uber; it would be so convenient to take the bus. You could just stay in your house until it was time to go outside and there’s the bus. Imagine if you had security cameras everywhere and every resident of just the community—not the whole world, but every resident—could look at the security cameras on their phone and they could see their own house only, but they could also see the cameras on the street.
[25:56] They could check their kids on the street. Nothing bad happening out there. But the point is—oh, the other thing is—I put a home theater in my house because I make too much money and when I built the house I was like, “Ah, home theater, I’m gonna put this big screen in these comfortable chairs and everything.” That was 10 years ago. If I were to build a house today, would I put a home theater in it? I would not. No amount of money would encourage me to build a home theater in a house I built today. Why? Because let me show you how I watch movies today. That’s it. I consume all of my television shows, all of my movies, all of my content on my phone because my phone comes with me.
[26:57] I can do other things. I can stick it in my pocket and keep my earphones on. I can do the laundry while listening to the news. I can lay in bed in the dark. There’s no loud TV on; no two people want to hear the same content at the same time. So you could be in the house with three other family members, they’ve all got their headphones on and they’re looking at their phones. If you were to build a home from scratch today, would you even include a screen like a TV screen? Every home designed today has a place for the TV. Would you even bother if you were going to design one from scratch? Maybe not. So just think about how living in a community could be completely different with smartphones.
[27:57] Here’s another app that you should absolutely have. There’s an app called Nextdoor. It’s basically like a private Facebook for your neighborhood. That’s a bad way to describe it because it’s not for posting pictures of your family; it’s for borrowing things, or saying your dog is lost, or “Does anybody have a babysitter?” It’s basically a sharing information app for just your immediate neighborhood, or you can define it to be as much of your neighborhood as you want. I’ll tell you, you use that for a while and you can’t live without it because people are finding pets that have gotten away. In my neighborhood, we have coyotes and some dangerous animals that wander down once in a while, and the word goes out: “Put your cat inside, there’s a coyote out.” It’s just amazingly useful.
[28:59] So just take that idea—Nextdoor, WhatsApp groups, etc. Imagine how effective Neighborhood Watch would be if you just had apps and cameras. “Too much sharing, nothing private anymore.” One of the elements of a new neighborhood designed from scratch would be how much privacy people are willing to give up for how much benefit. It seems to me that people who are moving from a crime-infested area—if you said to them, “Here’s the deal: for very low cost, you can live in this awesome community, but the trade-off is there are going to be cameras on all the public spaces,” would you say, “I don’t like cameras in the public spaces, but I do like living where there’s no crime and my kids can go play outside, so sign me up”?
[30:01] As long as it wasn’t required, nobody would have to live there. You would simply choose to live there if the costs and benefits made sense. Would you give up some of your privacy while you’re outside? I’m not talking about any privacy in your house, but would you give up some public privacy for safety? A lot of people would. Is this for low-income folks? Yeah, everything I’m talking about so far is at least mentally—I’m trying to design that for low-cost housing for the future for people with low incomes. That’s enough for now, and I’m going to talk about other things later today. Community cafeterias? Hard pass. Well, what if they were optional? Talk about things later. Bye.