Episode 229 Scott Adams: Can’t Wait to Talk About Rod Rosenstein
Date: 2018-09-21 | Duration: 31:01
Topics
Was it a sarcastic joke (Rosenstein comment), or spitballing ideas? Headline: Republicans having trouble attracting female voters Alt Headline: Democrats having trouble attracting male voters Only 5% of Minnesotans believe Keith Ellison did what he’s credibly accused of doing
I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com
## Transcript
## [The Rod Rosenstein Wiretap Story](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=8s)
Bada-boom-boom-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba! Hey everybody. You probably knew I was going to come online because this Rod Rosenstein story is too good. It's so good; I could try to ignore it, but I cannot ignore it.
I would like to give to you now an impression starring Dale the anti-Trumper, and then we'll contrast that to myself. I will be representing Trump supporters in this one-act play. We will both be reacting separately to the story that Rod Rosenstein, in front of lots of witnesses, talked about wearing a wire and recording the President, and possibly getting members of the cabinet to agree to removing the President on the 25th Amendment. Apparently, this was soon after the election or soon after inauguration.
So, I'll start first with the reaction of Dale the anti-Trumper: "What? What?"
And now, playing the part of a Trump supporter, I'd like to give you my impression, and it goes like this: "What? What?"
You probably didn't pick up the difference. This is one of those rare times when I think everybody's having a similar reaction to this. The weird part is that it was in The New York Times. It's a New York Times story. So The New York Times, a famous anti-Trump organ, is running this because they think it'll be bad for Trump. Maybe they thought the mere fact that people inside the government were having serious conversations about this, according to their reporting, would be bad for Trump.
But do you see it that way? Do you see that story as bad for Trump? Because I'm not seeing it that way.
## [Brainstorming vs. Reporting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=133s)
Here's what I'm seeing. Let me give you a little context. Many of you have worked for large companies. Many of you have been in many a high-level meeting. Lots of people in the room, lots of things come up. You've got some brainstorming; you've got some crazy people; you're talking about somebody else's idea. You're just tossing things out to see what people will react to.
Then somebody writes a story about what you said. How does that sound? If you wrote a story based on third-party reporting about a bunch of people talking about various ideas and making sure they've considered all possibilities, what the hell is that story going to sound like by the time you've filtered it through these faulty memories of third parties and it's told to The New York Times?
Well, I'll tell you what it's not going to sound like: it's not going to sound the same as it sounded in the room, that's for sure. It's going to sound "hair on fire." It wouldn't even matter what the topic was. Whatever the topic was that involves some brainstorming—"Hey, what about this? Should we consider this? Does this go too far?"—any conversation like that, which should be normal, responsible conversation, is meant to consider everything, look at every angle, toss it out, see what people say, and then you reject the bad ideas.
That is the normal way a high-level meeting works. By the time you report it, though, and filter it through some angry people who may have an agenda, you're going to get something that doesn't sound like the original.
## [The Context of the 25th Amendment Talk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=257s)
So the first context is: don't trust anything you hear from any meeting in which ideas were discussed, period. If you hear an idea was discussed in X meeting, I don't care who was in the meeting or what the topic was, don't believe that reporting because, taken out of context, it completely changes its meaning.
Imagine how easy it would be for this to be misinterpreted. I'll just give you one example—I'm not saying this happened, just to allow you to imagine how easily the story gets perverted. Imagine if somebody said, "Hey, there are serious people talking about the 25th Amendment. You know that the President's got issues and we should look into that. It's our job to be responsible citizens." If what they're saying is true, that could easily turn into a conversation of, "Well, what are we supposed to do? Get some cabinet members in on this? Do you think any of them would?"
That is a perfectly fair question. If other people are talking about this 25th Amendment thing and somebody brings up the idea because serious people who are not in the meeting are talking about it, you kind of have to respond. So you say, "Well, are there any cabinet members who would do that? Do we know? Shall we talk to them? Because if they're actually thinking about it, maybe we should get ahead of it because even if it's not us behind it, we need to know what's going on here. We're part of the adults in the room, right?"
Then you could easily imagine them saying, "But how could anybody ever know what the President is like behind closed doors? How could anybody else know? The public only sees the public Trump." If the problem, as it was reported, is that the private Trump is totally crazy while in public he's fine—every time, all the time, for 70-whatever years—but as soon as he gets behind closed doors he's a little bit crazy and I've got to remove him with the 25th Amendment, right?
Remember: serious people, high-level people, Democrats mostly but probably some Never-Trumpers, were talking like that—that he's crazy in private. What is the one way that you could find out if he is or is not crazy in private? Somebody's got to wear a wire, right? Somebody's got to record him. I don't think there's another way to determine whether there's any truth to it in a way that could be actionable in a public way.
## [Rosenstein’s Denial and the Deep State Narrative](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=443s)
The first thing you have to ask yourself is: was it a responsible conversation? The answer is, unfortunately, probably yes. Not because they necessarily believed it themselves, but because serious, important people who should be taken seriously—senior members of the government—are talking about this like it's real. If the FBI isn't also considering it real enough for a conversation—which is different than being real, but it's real enough to have the conversation—it seems to me it was a responsible thing to do to at least brainstorm.
Now, how that brainstorming got turned into a story is probably inaccurate. In fact, Rod Rosenstein's denial—his "non-denial," as even CNN is calling it—was so specific that in effect he confirmed it. Because what he said was "the story was inaccurate," and he wouldn't say anything more. That just means that something about it was inaccurate. It doesn't mean that he didn't say those things; just that something about it was inaccurate.
## [The Humor Blindness Theory](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=504s)
The other thing you have to watch out for is that apparently there are one or two sources CNN knows that say he was being sarcastic, and another one saying that it wasn't serious, that he was joking.
What if I taught you about the percentage of human beings who literally can't tell the difference between a joke and being serious? What percentage of the general population? Here is one of the few areas that I'm going to say I'm an expert. I've been writing humor and watching people respond to it for three decades. Here's my estimate—and again, this is a personal estimate, not based on some science—it's about a third. About 30%, somewhere like that.
About a third of the public literally can't recognize a joke. Now, they can recognize the simple setup jokes, like "Why did the chicken cross the road?" They understand that because of the structure. But in conversational humor, where somebody's just throwing out something that's a little too far, a little bit ridiculous, or a little bit provocative for humor? If that was a big meeting, you could guarantee there were people who wouldn't get it. Let's say a dozen people were there. You could so easily have three or four people walk out of that meeting saying, "I don't think he was kidding. That didn't sound like a joke to me."
The mere fact that some people think it's serious and some people think it was a joke tells you everything. Let's say the only thing you knew was that there was a room full of people, something happened, and when they left, some people said, "That was obviously a joke," and other people said, "No, it was serious." What can you be pretty confident about?
You could be pretty confident that it was a joke. Maybe that's not what you want to hear, but if you give me only that information, it's almost always—99% probably—the people who said it's a joke were right. Why? Because they're the people who could recognize a joke. The people who can't recognize a joke will see a joke as "not a joke." They are joke-blind. Humor blindness is a thing. It's about a third of the world. Trust me on that.
## [Impact on Trump and the Deep State Narrative](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=689s)
How is this going to move the needle? Here's what I see. The basic atmospherics of this seem to completely support Trump's notion that the "Deep State" was out to get him. It could be the luckiest week Trump has ever had. This is so positive for Trump because it just supports the idea that people are plotting against him.
At the same time, I'm not sure that was happening. It's entirely possible these were serious people who were open to other serious people saying, "You really should be looking at this." They discussed what that would look like—the only way you could do it is record it—and then they rejected it. To me, that's a story of people doing exactly what they're paid to do. And if someone joked about it—you know, probably something like, "Hey Rod, you want to wear a wire?"—to me, that would have been funny. But other people might have said, "I think he just suggested that Rod Rosenstein wear a wire. I think that was serious," even though he was smiling.
It was probably Rod Rosenstein taking it seriously because other people took it seriously, mulling it, thinking about it, and rejecting it. Exactly what you'd want them to do. But it's not going to play that way. The partisans will line up on both sides, and it seems far more supportive of what Trump has been saying than not. The fact that it came from The New York Times is what gives it its weight, especially because they're famously anti-Trump. You know that they wouldn't intentionally go out of the way to create a positive Trump story. It seems like that's just impossible, but they did it, maybe accidentally.
## [Predicting Rosenstein’s Departure](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=811s)
So, it looks very positive for Trump. Here's the next thing that seems obvious: Rod Rosenstein is going to get fired. I don't know when, whenever is the good time to do that, but it's time for him to start putting his resume together.
Once The New York Times has reported it and you've issued a "non-denial denial," and you're in that job, there's not really any choice, right? Do you think Trump has any choice now? I don't think so. I mean, if Rod Rosenstein had been Trump's best friend for 30 years and he trusted him no matter what The New York Times said, maybe he could stay. But under these conditions? The New York Times reporting what they did, right or wrong?
I'm not happy about this. I can't say this is good news for the country or good news for anybody. I'm just telling you what's going to happen. There's no practical way that Rod Rosenstein can keep his job in the long run under this administration.
Somebody said "Q" sent it a long time ago? Well, I don't want to embarrass you by asking exactly what "Q" said, because I've got a feeling it was a little bit generic. Do you think it's McCabe? Could be McCabe, you never know.
## [The Male/Female Voter Problem](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=936s)
I just saw a poll about a story in which the article said that Republicans are having a "woman problem," meaning having trouble attracting female voters. Then the story went on to say the Republicans were getting male voters and Democrats were getting more female voters. Well, is that the Republicans having a "woman problem"? That's one way to look at it. But couldn't you equally say that the Democrats have a "male problem"? A "man problem"? It works both ways, right?
My prediction is that the Democrats are becoming a party for and about women. Without putting judgment on that—women can have a political party, it's a free country—I'm not even sure that would be a bad idea. I'm just saying that's what's happening.
The Democratic Party is becoming toxic for—I think we're on the edge of it—at least male African Americans and male Hispanics. That's my prediction. More women believe Kavanaugh? When I say that Republicans are not trying to appeal to men per se, they have rather a brand that allows that men can be important—an important part of it—and women are important also. Everybody's important. The Republican brand does elevate men to a level of importance that the Democratic Party does not. Now, you could argue that's good or bad. I don't know how that would play out. It might actually be good; maybe there's a healthy competition of ideas.
## [Senator Hirono and Scott’s "Proven Right" Arc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=1120s)
Somebody just speculated in the comments that The New York Times would like to push Trump to fire Rod Rosenstein early, before the midterms, and then make that part of the issue. Clever. Maybe. I mean, that would fit what we know about all of the entities.
Senator Hirono from Hawaii—that's her name, right? The Senator said that men should just "shut up and step up." Now, I hate to be that guy who says, "Imagine if a man had said that about women," but I guess we don't really have to say that. We can just judge it on its own merits or lack of merits.
By the way, there's something very interesting happening in my life arc that has to do with some things in the news, but I'm going to wait to talk about that. There's nothing I like better than being proven right after years of being told I'm an idiot. It's like the best feeling. If you've never had this experience of making very unpopular predictions in public and being beaten up about it for years and then being found to be totally right, it's a really good feeling. There's one brewing right now that I need a little more texture to put on it, but it's going to be a good one.
"I'm a woman and that was so rude"—what Hirano said was rude. Somebody said, "What is the opposite of misogynistic?" It's misandry. Misandry is hatred or discrimination against men, and that quite clearly is in evidence. But white men are still not allowed to point that out.
## [Trump’s Tweets on Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=1309s)
Did somebody say Keith Olbermann died? I don't think there's a story about that. Don't assume that's true. I just wondered why anybody would ask the question.
What about Trump's tweets? Trump tweeted: if the alleged Kavanaugh event was so bad, why didn't the alleged victim, Dr. Ford, come out earlier? Now, some are saying he did such a good job of staying out of it, why did he wade back in? Why can't he help himself?
Well, the first thing is he did hold back for a while, but ultimately we need to hear his opinion, don't we? There's something so delightfully transparent about Trump tweeting exactly his opinion. He told us what he thinks. He told us a key reason he thinks it. I happen to not agree with that reason—meaning that there are clearly other reasons that somebody could have a bad event and not tell anybody. It's not hard to think of any. But if that's important to his decision, he told us about it.
"ESPN muzzled Keith Olbermann"—is that true? Or are you speculating?
## [The Keith Ellison Allegations](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=1436s)
I'm just looking at your comments here. Why is no one going after Ellison? You saw the poll that only 5% of Minnesotans believe that Keith Ellison did what he is alleged to have done. 5%.
Now, if you were an African American man and you saw the Keith Ellison story, and you thought that only 5% of people were going to believe what looks to be, as they like to say, "credible accusations"—we don't know what's true, but in terms of judging the quality of the accusation, it looks like it has weight to it. That's a pretty welcoming, kind of a forgiving party there. Apparently, if you're in their group, you can get away with quite a bit.
There was the Project Veritas thing—I forget the details to that, I'll talk about that tomorrow.
## [James Woods and Social Media Bans](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=1500s)
"Almost all women are mad as hell about James Woods being shut down on Twitter." Is that true? Well, now you keep throwing these rumors at me which I shouldn't even say out loud, but let's see... no, James Woods is still on Twitter, still going strong.
Wait, do not give me any more bad rumors that I have to check during a live Periscope. "He's not been able to tweet recently?" His last tweet is on the 20th. There are no tweets today. But does that necessarily mean anything? His account is still up, but he can't make posts? How do we know? Did he say that on other social media?
I'll look into that. If it was just because he had a bad tweet, we'll get to the bottom of it. Does anybody think I'm going to get locked out of Twitter? Give me your predictions. You've seen my Twitter feed. Will I get locked down from Twitter? If not now, at some point? What do you think?
Counting suspensions... oh, James Woods had a friend post that James Woods couldn't post. He's been shut out for two days now.
## [Alex Jones and PayPal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXe3Zm9EKA&t=1687s)
Now I hear Alex Jones was banned from PayPal, but I haven't seen that written; I've just seen it on social media. I remind you that I have banned Alex Jones from my app, but he wasn't using it anyway, so I guess that didn't hurt him. I just do it for attention, not because I really want to ban him!
Well, he's got a timeout. I'm sure he said something that broke their rules. We'll have to see what it is. Oh, it's in the news? All right, I'll check the news. He took down the tweet? If I Google it, I'll see the tweets. James Woods' deleted tweet says: "Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real, not likely." What was he talking about? What was the "distinct possibility"? There's a link here, but I can't click on it because it's a screenshot.
Does anybody know what it was that he thought was maybe true but probably not? All right, I'll have to figure that out separately.
Prison Planet is blocked from PayPal? All right, well I'll be talking to you all later. I've got to go read the news and catch up. And yes, I did reinstate Nancy. Nancy is no longer banned on "Coffee with Scott Adams." I think you'll be happy about that; there was a lot of Nancy support down here.
I'll talk to you later.