Episode 468 Scott Adams: Avenatti, Charlie Brown, Exoneration

Date: 2019-03-25 | Duration: 35:57

Topics

Michael Avenatti arrested, charges sound serious, yay Nike! Golan Heights is a “free money” genius move by President Trump Anti-Trumpers saying the President was NOT exonerated by Mueller

Please donate to support my YouTube channel:
https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays
I also 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

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:12]

microphone well I decided to wear my Nike jacket I'd been boycotting Nike but Nikes back on my good side again that wasn't really boycotting Nike but they're definitely on my good side at the moment I had to come back because you know sometimes it's a - Coffee Day this is a - Coffee Day please join me grab your cup your mug and and please enjoy the simultaneous up so by now you all know that Michael a vanetti is being indicted separately on completely different things coincidentally the same day one of them is for trying to extort Nike telling them that the you if he doesn't give

[1:13]

them that the you if he doesn't give them 20 million dollars or whatever they he'll do something to tank their stock now apparently yet a client involved so there was some claim I don't know what it is and then there's the claim that he he once received a settlement on behalf of his client and then changed the date on the settlement so that he could keep that money for himself for three months now I just heard what experts say well he might be able to argue that the extortion thing was just good lawyering but the other thing kind of a problem now so so I had to come on and enjoy the the timing of this has this president ever had a better week it's just crazy that you know it's just coincidence all these things are happening at the same time but it leaked so in the larger context

[2:14]

context one of the things this president does really well is that when somebody leaves money lying on a table he picks it up you know that sounds like like an obvious thing right but I don't know I've never noticed any other president doing it if somebody leaves money on the table he says this is free money all right he picks it up and I think that the Golan Heights issue is free money and what I mean by that is that the the larger news context for the last several weeks has been held members of the Democratic Party are anti-israel see where I'm going with this
so I'm sure the President does like Netanyahu in office because they have a good working relationship and I'm sure that you know there are no coincidences about you know his his timing etc but the larger context was the Democrats he

[3:16]

the larger context was the Democrats he was painting them as the anti-israel side and he knew that their normal instinct would be to criticize whatever he does so he does this unambiguously pro-israel thing to just there's no way around it it's just good for Israel I mean you could say it's good for the ally is because we're all holding hands and we have common interests and such but really it wasn't in the national interest of the United States and any direct way except that is good for an ally so the president seizes money laying on the table which is wait a minute are you telling me I could just pick up this money and nobody's going to be able to complain because they're all trapped and they are trapped they're trapped in terms of the news cycle so he looks at it goes how about if I just say we recognize the Golan Heights Israel's property and Netanyahu probably said

[4:16]

property and Netanyahu probably said that would be amazing why don't you do that or maybe the suggestion came from the other side we don't know but there's
we'll just blow up a Hamas headquarters well I'm sure they have lots of headquarters so Trump realizing that the Democrats have been trapped by their own bad rhetoric from some members about Israel and about a PAC apparantly that they really couldn't complain oh they would try but they kinda couldn't they were trapped he'd already painted them as anti-israel there's just nothing they can say I mean they could try it by everything they say it would just make it worse for them so so he sees this opportunity to do something that's good for Israel it works against the idea that that he ever said the racists and

[5:19]

that that he ever said the racists and charlottesville were fine people because those racists were saying anti-jewish slogans so he does something that he didn't have to do if there was just no reason he had to do this the Golan Heights executive order did not have to happen it was a completely optional decision and have you how do you understand that if you think that this president was on the side of the racist saying anti anti Jewish stuff those two things can't go together had he been sort of forced into this making a decision then people could say hey yeah he's just pretending he had to he was forced into it but there was no force there was no influence that had any real determining effect out of it all it was just a choice it was a good time to do it now I like also the following fact if you're looking at the Middle East the

[6:21]

you're looking at the Middle East the president is the I would call the president the expert is setting the table because people are saying my god he's poisoned any hope of a peace plan in the Middle East has he first of all the odds of any kind of a peace comprehensive peace in the Middle East most people would say as well as so small it would be hard to hurt it I mean there's not much you can do to make it worse because it's probably close to zero I happen to have a more optimistic view which is that this president and this set of leaders in that area have the best opportunity to get something done piecewise this ever existed but here's what he did with the Golan Heights and if you haven't if this hasn't occurred to you yet I guess it will now every time somebody starts firing in the Middle East Israel gets

[7:25]

firing in the Middle East Israel gets bigger have you noticed the pattern every time somebody aims a rocket at Israel or even just starts a war over there whether it's Isis or someone else every time Israel gets a little bigger and once you've and I've said this a million times but it applies here once you've developed a sense of a trend or a direction the trend or the direction influences your thinking far more than where things are at the moment you're looking at oh my god it's going in that direction we got to stop it from going in that direction that's really ways of the psychology so he is once again established this pattern which already existed but it was you know it was sort of an ageing pattern he just refreshed it and he just said fight all you want but the outcome is the bigger Israel would you like to attack Israel any

[8:26]

would you like to attack Israel any anybody anybody anybody want to attack Israel because if you do wait a few years and Israel will be bigger now so that's that actually is a good way to set the table because you want the people that you're negotiating with to think that waiting waiting is a bad strategy you want them to think there's a time pressure you want them to freeze the losses you want them to think my god if I don't do something now it's just gonna be worse my she a ting position will be less the next time we have this conversation if it's five years ago Israel will be twice as strong maybe larger and I won't have any extra negotiating leverage might as well do it now so the president's timing on this Golan Heights thing and even just the

[9:26]

Golan Heights thing and even just the decision to do it at all are kind of so perfect you know both domestically and as a table setting and and people had argued that the United States can't be a credible player for Middle East peace if we're too strongly favoring of Israel president Trump is testing that theory and I think it needed to be tested we don't know where this is gonna go yet but I absolutely agree with testing the theory I probably wouldn't have thought of it and I I'm sure I wouldn't have done it like it would not have occurred to me that the right way to set the table is by making it very clear that all the power all the benefits just everything is going Israel's way and then you go into the negotiations you say you see which way things are going is this the way you want them to keep going because we don't have to talk peace we can just let you have more of what you already have which is you know Hamas and and you

[10:31]

have which is you know Hamas and and you know that the bad guys are shrinking ice is shrinking you can have more of that or we could just lock it down down and you can start building yourself back up so you decide so I don't know yet but there is a distinct possibility that this was exactly the right way to set the table for the negotiations and what it does also here's another thing that the the Golan Heights thing does have you read in the paper the angry the terrible angry protests from the other Arab countries I haven't have you I'm sure they I'm sure they've made statements right have it haven't hasn't somebody made a statement or something but suppose your your Hamas your Hamas and you depend on you know some allies

[11:32]

and you depend on you know some allies in the area and the president just said watch this here's the Golan Heights I'm gonna say that we recognize it as Israel now watch see what happens hello protests don't hear it you see you're all alone now right Hamas so it has the effect of isolating Hamas now it's possible that you know we asked some of the key countries how they were going to treat it before we did it I don't know that we did that but maybe and it's possible we already knew that we would get a muted reaction and if we did it's just great there's a garage O's takedown I don't know what that's about you see on TV now I'm noticing a I'm noticing a lot after you address a

[12:36]

noticing a lot after you address a comment that went by somebody is telling me that Q made a correct prediction let me point out that everyone who was not an anti-trump er made the same prediction that you know there wouldn't be anything coming out of this and of this collusion thing so if you think Q has been proven by saying the same thing that every Trump supporter has been saying for three years your you need a stronger argument than that so there are two push backs I'm saying to the Imola report one is that well three really one is that have you seen all the word thinking I've told you I taught you about word thinking word thinking is when you try to win a debate by talking about a what a word means as opposed to talking about what the facts are and the reasons now they're doing that with the word exonerate and you're watching them say things such as Muller

[13:40]

watching them say things such as Muller specifically said he is not exonerating and they say that hold on hello yes hello good thank you my name's Jeremy and I'm calling from green arrow we did the maintenance on your furnace a while back we take no claim on my Chi's air filters as well our invoice is showing that we did not expect daddy for the court across basis for bacterial build-up rhodium tonight critter infestation is coming hmm today we're sending off technician Shane okok to you and at your convenience to complete the service and do the full inspection to make sure he can got me up and up it takes less than an hour half an hour tops hmm yep morning in daytime no thanks I

[14:45]

hmm yep morning in daytime no thanks I was going to be nice to him I have to I have to admit that I take my spam calls now and I do one of two things with him first of all that he was saying that he had done some work on my furnace which never happened so the call was a scam it's somebody I've never worked with before but I do one of two things one is I keep them on the phone as long as possible before I let them go sometimes I just answer and let it stay there because I want them to spend as much time as possible not making money the other thing I do is sometimes if I'm in a bad mood I use them to yell at them and I was going to do it but I decided not to swear as much as I do so usually I just start yelling a string of profanities into the phone because it's sort of a free punch I mean they're terrible people they're literally criminals and so I yell at them too because it feels good there are very few cases where you could just

[15:46]

very few cases where you could just scream with somebody with you know the filthiest language you could ever think of
of but this is one so I don't recommend it it's just something I do for fun if somebody says I asked them to hold I like that all right where was I I was talking about exonerated so now they're saying but well I need to bring in my my assistant Dale to show you their argument what do you mean he's exonerated he was only exonerated by his own appointment e bar and residence line but I'm not going to talk about roses I'm gonna talk about bark so it doesn't really count cuz he's only exonerated by his own appointee not by Muller who said he's not not not exonerating well Dale in the

[16:48]

not not not exonerating well Dale in the same Muller report he did say that he's not exonerating him but he also said there's no evidence of a crime and that there won't be any more indictments coming so what exactly was Bob Barr supposed to do with the report from his own person who reports to him after three years when it says there's no evidence of the crime was Bob Barr supposed to start over and looked for evidence of a crime himself spend another 25 million or was Bob Barr supposed to look at there is no evidence of a crime and come to a decision because that's what bosses do but but Butler said he's not exonerating him he said he's not yeah we heard that and but

[17:48]

said he's not yeah we heard that and but you also heard that he said there's no evidence in the crime what was Barse supposed to do when there's no evidence of a crime it's like you don't hear me Muller said not exonerated nah not exonerated okay Dale settle down I hear you and I will stipulate that Muller said that he's not exaggerating will you stipulate that he also said there was no evidence of a crime he said not exonerated he said that exonerated exonerated and scene so that's that is the one best argument I'm hearing today the other the other argument I'm hearing is what I call the Charlie Brown and the football argument

[18:49]

Charlie Brown and the football argument have you heard it it goes like this okay okay I knew we were positive Trump would never get elected okay you fooled me once sure I was wrong about that I get I get that but it was Russia once we find out all this Russia collusion business he's out okay okay there's no collusion so you did get elected fairly there was no collusion but man wait for the Southern District of New York the Southern District of New York that's where all the funds gonna be plus all the detail in the molar report how about that huh how about that so that's what I call the Charlie Brown football approach where no matter how many times Lucy puts that football down Charlie Brown is gonna still come around to that saying he'll never get elected wait for the

[19:51]

he'll never get elected wait for the molar report no I meant wait for the Southern District of New York report sorry Chuck the Charlie Brown strategy so the funniest thing happening lately is that the White House communication group has sent a memo to some of the networks I saw this CNN one in which the White House calls out the people that they've been putting on their programs saying wildly inaccurate things about the Russia clusion stuff and so the White House is respectfully suggesting that they never have those people on again and he names them so they're actually named you know who I have to look at it now let me read that if you haven't seen this it's worth knowing which names they call that because these are people were having a bad day today I would think if the white if if the White House gets personally

[20:54]

if if the White House gets personally involved trying to get you fired from your job you're a bad employee but let me just put this in context if the White House ever contacts your employer to strongly suggest that you be fired you up you're not a good employee you're just gonna you just gotta have to admit you're not a good employee all right sorry I didn't mean to swear but the people they're calling out are Richard Blumenthal senator Adam Schiff of course Geraldine avold and Jerry Nadler they're not calling out in Adler's entire band you know Nadler and the dingleberries but they're calling out Natalie yeah Eric's wall well it was got a lot of explaining to do Tom Perez and CIF former CIA director John Brennan they don't mention clapper isn't that weird why is clapper not on there how is

[21:57]

weird why is clapper not on there how is clapper not the worst of the bunch I don't know but as I look at if things look different now don't they things look different when you see sois well and you see you see any of the the people who are still sort of the dead Enders you know the people who are still in that cave on Okinawa waiting for world war to end you know the swallow ELLs like like that Japanese soldier who you know hid in the cave until the war was over but he didn't know it was over so he just kept hiding when you hear him talk now it no longer feels like just normal political talk and I don't know how much of this is just my bias maybe a hundred percent is just my bias probably a hundred percent I want to see if I'd see if you're having the same same impact now what I'm

[22:57]

having the same same impact now what I'm watching somebody still try to you know beat this dead horse to death I don't see them as credible people anymore I used to see them as people who maybe believed there was something there and you know sure they were being political but it wasn't outside the bounds right they they thought there might be something I think some people were legitimately convinced there might be something there now when I watched one of those anti choppers clinging to their their beliefs they look sad and pathetic and I can't tell if that's just my changing context or if they are both sad and pathetic maybe there's no difference if it's my opinion that they're pathetic so somebody says you saw clapper as credible god no clapper is the least credible person on television so here's my

[24:01]

person on television so here's my question when as you're watching them now and then I saw should I say this I'm gonna say this but I know I'm gonna get in trouble so now I watched one pundit in particular who is a woman who I think she has some made as a shower at least she appears on MSNBC yet out in our name but
but her vibe was ex-wife I don't know if I need to say more but the way she was treating it was like somebody was angry in a personal relationship and none of it looked credible like a commentator and it didn't look credible like a news person it didn't even look credible like a reasonable person it was somebody who was so angry about a relationship that nothing they said made too much sense

[25:02]

nothing they said made too much sense because it's just it's the anger talking yeah I'm not gonna tell you who I was but look for that look for look for reactions that look like angry ex-wife
one of you may have guessed correctly but I won't tell you all right I watched Don Lemon who oh yeah I'm trying not to get myself in too much trouble but I'm gonna make a dog analogy I'm not comparing Don Lemon to a dog it's just an analogy right so in this what follows is not me calling Don Lemon the dog I wouldn't do that nonetheless when I chastise my dog Snickers there's a look the Snickers has

[26:05]

Snickers there's a look the Snickers has have you seen it when you yell at your own dog and the dog is just sort of like
Don Lemon looked like just the facial expression I'm not calling him a dog all right be clear about that that would be inappropriate I'm saying that the look he had is what I've seen before but I've only seen it from Snickers which isn't again that totally could be my imagination so I might be I might be infusing things with my my own filter and maybe there's nothing that's really different I'm just saying I'm just saying he had he had the look of someone who'd been chastised CNN Chiron on Geragos its own contributor all right so there's some new is about Garre goes see

[27:05]

there's some new is about Garre goes see and and I don't know what that is yet
CNN legal analyst Mark drag dose is a vanadis co-conspirator oh my god
co-conspirator on what this was this for this was for the Nike thing according to the indictment avenatti and the alleged co-conspirator met with lawyers from Nikes holy cow that's interesting well that is a very bad day for CNN Wow Wow oh did Gray Ghost represents mullet my

[28:13]

oh did Gray Ghost represents mullet my god I think he did didn't he oh he was just me smallest lawyer Greg us oh my god they just fired him we'll see the oju attorney I don't remember that bad I was sad now
somebody says I can prove you wrong on transgender sports now you can't somebody said I can prove you wrong about my opinion about transgender athletes I don't have to hear your argument because I already know what it is your argument is that I said X and you've got a great argument about somebody who you imagine says some

[29:14]

about somebody who you imagine says some different thing so you can take your argument that will have nothing to do with any of my opinions and pretend that it has something to do with me and argue with yourself all right I'm I'm just saying there's there's no chance the only reason I say this is I've been in I don't 25 debates and all 25 of them start with well you think that gravity goes up and I say no don't believe that so so rarely in my life have people disagreed with me while also understanding what I said it's a very rare thing maybe 5% of the time
here's Michael Jackson's attorney all right let's see what I just have to see what I just got a look at CN what are

[30:19]

what I just got a look at CN what are they doing the American people have a right to the truth so CNN I don't know if you saw that but CNN just showed a clip of Brennan and it was in the context the people who are saying all the wrong things are gonna need to answer for it
interesting so somebody says no more women's sports well you're wrong again because Renee Richards who is

[31:19]

because Renee Richards who is transgender played played she was born a man but played in women's sports and didn't make any difference to tennis because it turns out there aren't many people in that situation but we don't want to talk about that today we've got better things to say so so it wasn't oj it was Michael Jackson he was Scott Peterson's lawyer you know it's funny if it's true that Mark Geragos was Michael Jackson's lawyer Scott Peterson's lawyer and Jesse's smallest lawyer would you pick him as your lawyer given that just selecting him is a signal that ending is a signal that you're guilty because mcdougal went to jail too right is it as gray ghosts literally the world's worst lawyer

[32:21]

his most famous clients we're all guilty as hell wouldn't that just tell that if you were let's say you this is pretty funny let's say you're in the jury say you're a jury trial and you don't know what anything what the trial is about you've just been selected for the jury trial and the accused comes in and you see that the QS lawyer is my is Garrigus Mark Geragos and you say to yourself huh where have I seen him before and you say to yourself and Leo later because you can't Google it while you're in the jury box so later you're like I feel like I've seen this guy before you google it you go oh he was the lawyer for mcdougal who is guilty for Michael Jackson who thanks to that special we just watched we know is guilty but he also did Jessie Smollett

[33:24]

guilty but he also did Jessie Smollett who was guilty do you even have to listen to the evidence oh he also did Scott Peterson who was guilty you don't even have to listen to the evidence do you you can just get the evidence part of the trial and say I'd like to call the defendant to the stand and you say the defendant did you hire Mark Geragos and the guy says yes I did he's my lawyer and then the judge says I called the trial let's take it to the jury and the jury says I'm pretty sure he said he hired Mark Geragos so that means he's guilty right why else would you hire him so I mean seriously how in the world if you wanted to look not guilty how in the world will you do it by hiring the guy who is most famous for defending guilty

[34:25]

who is most famous for defending guilty people that seems like exactly the wrong way to go has he won any I'm sure he's won some trials but they must not be the famous ones
somebody said Ted Bundy - that's not true is it did he really did he do Ted Bundy why No - Ryder - all the only guilty people Chris Brown - I think I don't know if these are real so don't don't take this as well Khafre deck was Kaepernick was not guilty of anything was he I think Kaepernick I'm still Pro Kaepernick in many ways at least for the effectiveness of his protest although it led to nothing by him losing his job so Bron foon to a 10 X IBM's the cult leader

[35:29]

Adam Carolla does a show with him well probably not anymore oh why don't I ride her - all right I think we've said enough for now I've enjoyed this thoroughly I'm gonna go away for a little while meaning I'm just gonna end the periscope for now if there's any more great news I'll be back but probably not and I'll talk to you later