Episode 499 Scott Adams: The Mueller Report and Mental Illness

Date: 2019-04-19 | Duration: 41:08

Topics

Presidential critics trying to spin bad news for them, into good news Coincidences, unimportant things, but nothing illegal Actual witch hunters in Salem believed they had good reasons When is it illegal to listen to information from a person? “Collusion” charges require an agreement between parties Chris Cuomo’s laundry list of unimportant, normal, legal things Part II of Mueller’s report is pure political vaporware No crimes, just lots of unimportant and legal things Anti-Trumpers are attempting to lawyer their way out of being wrong Attempting to define or redefine “witch hunt” The difference between “spying” and “surveillance Chris Cuomo discusses things that are legal…but you shouldn’t do That’s a tell for “I have no reasons” CNN pushing narrative that Barr framed report to support President Anderson Cooper says CNN never made claims against President Coincidence that all their panel guests made claims perpetually Investigating someone, down to the molecular level…and finding no crimes Is that the same as being cleared of potential crimes? Anderson Cooper has attempted to take down Trump for 2 years Anderson hasn’t been cleared of collusion with Russia Is Anderson therefore guilty of collusion with Russia?

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

[0:07]

Papa Papa Papa Papa Papa Bobo's hey everybody happy Good Friday it's sort of an extra-good Friday it was good already but then it's also good Friday sort of a double Good Friday situation do you know what makes you a good Friday a great Friday I think you do I think you do it's called the simultaneous if and it's about to happen now and if you have your cup your your tankard your chalice maybe your mug your thermos or your Stein possibly a flask it is the weekend it's time to join me now for the simultaneous simple I like coffee well I hope you were enjoying as much as I am watching the critics of the president try to spin incredibly bad news for them into incredibly good news

[1:09]

news for them into incredibly good news my favorite so far is James clapper the least credible person on the planet earth who also happened to have been in charge of you know intelligence services I can't think of anybody less credible than James clapper except for yeah well actually a lot of lot of non credible people in the world lately but clapper says that the I want to do a an impression of James clapper it starts with the mouth has to be and then you got a twitch a lot when you say things that you know are not true well I think
it's pretty clear to me that the that the mullah report is a roadmap for

[2:10]

the mullah report is a roadmap for impeachment
so but he's not the only one who's 20 you have to you have to spend at least a minute watching the video I just tweeted around where Anderson Cooper is talking to I can't remember his name the one of the White House guy works for who's the guy who works for Sarah Sanders the other spokesperson big league lead iggly know you know yes anyway you have to watch me understand Cooper's I know just his his twitchiness and discomfort about the entire situation now to be fair the things that the that Anderson Cooper was calling out as being factually you know

[3:12]

calling out as being factually you know problems I think he was probably mostly accurate about that but to watch his mannerism and his lack of confidence were seemingly you know I can't read his mind but just the way it's projected is pretty funny it is as funny as Chris Cuomo with his laundry list of why it really really was not a witch-hunt so here's my favorite part and I had to had to take a picture of it so if he doesn't see it so this is Chris Cuomo standing in front of his screen with all of the reasons that it wasn't a witch-hunt now bear with me the reason that Chris Cuomo says it wasn't a witch hunt is not because the result you know we know the result was no no more indictments but it was a wit it was not a witch hunt he Gidley yes thank you Hogan Gidley is the person

[4:14]

yes thank you Hogan Gidley is the person I couldn't think of he has our name to remember Hogan and Kidd Lee that's a tough one all right but Crisco was talking about all the reasons it wasn't a witch-hunt and so his argument is that it's not a witch-hunt if you have all this evidence for investigating so in other words even though the result was the happy result that our president is not colluding with Russia yay it still was not a witch-hunt says Chris Cuomo because there were lots of good reasons to investigate now I want to ask you this what does witch-hunt mean except to mean you see you think you have lots of reasons but there's nothing there that's the very definition of a witch hunt a witch hunt is when you have lots of stuff there might be a coincidence or you might be

[5:15]

might be a coincidence or you might be misinterpreting it or it might not be meaningful but there's a lot of it and then when you look into it you find out you dig to the bottom there's nothing at the bottom that's right do you know who else had reasons witch hunters actual people who are hunting for actual what they believed were witches you know let's take the Salem example they had reasons it just turns out that those reasons weren't good ones it's exactly it's exactly like this it was people who believed they had reasons because for example yeah they'd be talking to a neighbor and the neighbor would say yes I came down sick as soon as I talked to the other person you're accusing as a witch I don't know how that could have happened by coincidence the whole point of a witch hunt is that you're putting these coincidences together and making something out of them that there isn't

[6:16]

something out of them that there isn't then Chris Cuomo shows us a whole list of coincidences and unimportant things while arguing that it's not a witch hunt no this is what a witch hunt is it's exactly this it's used to having in front of a board full of bad reasons that's a exactly which ones well well let me get into some of the reasons because they're hilarious what other input some context on this first so all of the alleged reasons for thinking there might have been some collusion if you look at any one of them it just dissolves into nothingness so their argument is well it's not about one reason it's about so many of them how could be so many people having a conversation with Russia or how could there be these tweets or how could so many people have said this or did this but here's what's not said nobody makes

[7:17]

but here's what's not said nobody makes the point that none of them are connected it's just a bunch of people doing a bunch of different things for different reasons that's it people doing different things for different reasons that's all there ever was now let me ask you this a lot of it had to do with a Russia connection one way or another if someone else had won the presidency doesn't matter if it was Hillary Clinton or anyone else if someone else had won this election would they have lots of Russian connections if you looked at their extended you know adding anybody who was involved directly or tangentially with the campaign of this other hypothetical president wouldn't they have a lot of Russian connections I can't imagine how they would not so having a lot of Russian connections a lot of Russian conversations mostly tells you that Russia wants to make contact with anybody they think can be helpful anybody they can influence so

[8:20]

helpful anybody they can influence so you can't really compare the Trump experience in isolation you'd have to say what would it look like if had been someone else and my assumption is since Russia is Russia they would have as many contacts as they could possibly make so here's some of the things on Chris gore was last Trump asked advisors to find Clinton's email well how the hell were they going to find him I don't know you know basically he was just saying some version of I'd sure like to see them if you can figure out how to get him see if he can do it is that colluding with Russia wanting to see the missing emails because I wanted to see the missing emails and I wasn't colluding with Russia so that's sort of the big nothing the Trump Tower meeting that's the second thing on the list let me ask you this when Don jr. and and

[9:21]

me ask you this when Don jr. and and Jared and Manafort when they heard that there was someone who had some information about Hillary Clinton what did they assume about the meaning did they assume that they were talking to a Russian operative no there's no evidence that anybody involved thought that the the lawyer who is going to be there who was Russian I don't think anybody thought to themselves well we're gonna go talk to a Putin you know Putin asset I don't think that ever came up if somebody just happens to be Russian and they have some information are you not allowed to listen to it let me ask you this who is asked the question besides me when is it illegal to listen to information from someone who is from another country do you know who else listened to information from somebody from another country who ever listened

[10:23]

from another country who ever listened to the steel the steel dossier the steel dossier was put together by a Brit if you could listen to Christopher steel talk about the steel dossier if you're allowed to listen to information why is it different if it's a Russian lawyer or it's a British X by and of course there's no such thing as an ex-spy how the hell are those any different if you are telling me that it is illegal to let let me put it in a different way you put you put flatter me Rudin himself personally in that office and you tell me it's illegal for me to go talk to him and hear what he has to say oh it's totally illegal to collude like if we make a plan to do something I can see how that would certainly be illegal but listening to somebody talk you're telling me that's illegal somehow in what world am I going to jail for

[11:24]

in what world am I going to jail for listening to somebody talk no world no world you know if somebody can produce a law that says that's illegal I think that ends up in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court laughs it out right because how in the world could it be illegal to listen to somebody I just I just can't conceive of that but in any event oh let's look at the let me ask you this hypothetically let's say there was a elbonian elbonia is my magical country that doesn't exist that I use for examples suppose there was an elbow elbow knee and citizen who found out some information from China and then the elbonian took it to you an American and told you the information are you colluding with the elbonian where are you colluding with China who you've never met but they were the source of the information well I think

[12:26]

source of the information well I think you'd say you're only colluding with the elbonian because you haven't even met the the Chinese person the Chinese person in this made-up example is just the source of the information they talked to an elbonian and then the elbonian talked to you have you colluded with China if you simply hear the information from the elbonian answer now now let's change this a little bit let's say that the elbonian calls you and says Hank I want to give you some information can you meet me you say sure so you meet and you show up with the elbonian and the elbonian has with them the Chinese citizen and the Oh Bonilla says I I don't want to get the story wrong so just listen to what what my friend says under that situation did you get the information from the elbonian or did you get it from the Chinese citizen well it gets a little bit of gray here doesn't it my point is that when Don jr. went to that

[13:26]

point is that when Don jr. went to that meeting he was invited by a Brit who he knew personally now if you go to a meeting with somebody who's you know personally and they say we got some information I'm bringing somebody with me would you would the way you process it be I'm getting some information from the person he brings with me or I'm getting information from my friend the guy know ya the PR guy Goldstone I can't imagine any world in which any of this could possibly be criminalized so the this is their that was their second thing in the list and then the other thing in list is that Trump jr. told others that he might talk to somebody who had some good stuff on Hillary Clinton do you know what that's called a status meeting that's all that is hey what do you got going on well I got this

[14:26]

what do you got going on well I got this thing going on I'm working on this about you what are you working on well I think I might have some information on Hillary but if that works out I'll let you know that's just talking next Jared Kushner had contact with I guess some Russian again not illegal totally normal how about Erik Prince financing search for emails was that illegal I don't believe it is Erik Prince is his own person there's no evidence that somebody ordered Erik Prince to do something Erik Prince thought wouldn't it be good to have this information for whatever reason he wanted it was it presumably to help the president but Erik Prince can do that there's nothing stopping him from paying somebody to search for some information

[15:28]

sessions met with gisli act again if this were some other president who had been elected how many contacts would there with there a universe of people associated with the administration or the campaign how many of them would have at least a small conversation with the Russian a lot of them means is nothing Papadopoulos met with a Russian probably is set up and if it wasn't the set up it's sort of unimportant so he's got a list of unimportant things there are so similar in at least didn't feel to a witch-hunt that at the same time he's using it to defend why it's not a which up well it's just funny so one of the most amusing days ever now the argument for for the second part of this this is the collusion part so the collusion part if you add all the evidence together it looks like some combination of horoscope you know phrenology you know reading

[16:31]

you know phrenology you know reading scat maybe a little function way throw them in there but there's literally nothing it's just it's just pure vaporware but they're saying because there's a lot of it well it's a good thing you looked into it anyway then the second part is the the obstruction of justice and if you haven't seen bill bars memo that he wrote back in June before he was hired as AG when he was just talking about how obstruction of justice probably could not be could not be legally let's say enforced against the president in this situation you have to read it because first of all he's it really he's really clear thinker so his writing was very accessible even though it's a legal context it's really easy to read so you can see how smart he is just by the way he puts his sentences together it's pretty impressive actually just as a thinker is pretty impressive

[17:34]

just as a thinker is pretty impressive but the the basic theory and I probably am NOT going to do the best job of explaining it so just assume that this is the oversimplified version and that you really want to be the real one but the idea is in alan dershowitz senate version of this that you you don't want to criminalize the normal behavior of the president so if the president is just doing things presidents do doing his job communicating you know hiring and firing it's it's problematic to make that illegal because that would set a precedent now the precedent part is interesting
Dilbert was mentioned as a Russian bot in the Moller report no I don't that's true I just lost my train of thought when somebody sends some fake news across the like the comments here so the the the bar argument about obstruction is that if you start criminalizing the

[18:36]

is that if you start criminalizing the president doing his normal business stuff it would be too easy for that to expand by precedent so for example let's say the President had a you know some kind of legal thing going on there was it was bad for him or her and let's say the president made a budget change or called a meeting that would make a witness less available in the right schedule you could imagine all kinds of normal things the president would do they would have a direct or indirect impact on whoever's whoever's looking into stuff but it would criminalize a whole list of behaviors that would otherwise just be normal president doing their job and you would never know well did the president you know hire this person to make them a little bit giving another example let's say there's somebody on the witness list and and they're not hired by the administration and then the administration is looking for a

[19:37]

administration is looking for a candidate and it's a small universe who wish to work for the Trump administration unfortunately so they say how about how about Bob you know Bob could they hire Bob if Bob potentially could be a witness for the case the answer is I think no because it would look like obstructing justice hey you're trying to influence Bob by giving him a job just when he might be part of the people who get interviewed for this legal case isn't that obstructing justice and the answer is you could you could feel that it's true but if you made that sort of thing illegal too many things would be illegal and then the president just couldn't do the job of a president couldn't couldn't say things couldn't do things couldn't couldn't operate in the normal way it's a pretty good argument but more to the point there's no universe in which a sitting

[20:39]

there's no universe in which a sitting president is going to go to jail for for attempting to shut down something that that president sincerely believes is completely ridiculous and even even Muller came to the conclusion that Trump was sincerely believed that this was a witch-hunt not Moeller's words but you get the idea so so you notice that the the anti-trump errs have resorted to lawyering their way out of the embarrassment and what I mean by that is everything you see on CNN is some version of Bill Clinton saying well it depends what the definition of is is right so for example Cuomo is arguing as I just said about the definition of a witch-hunt does that

[21:42]

the definition of a witch-hunt does that change anything if we can agree or disagree that everything we've observed either does or does not fit under the label witch-hunt would that change anything I don't think it would change anything what it because we're looking at all the base information we're looking at the facts well look at who did what does it matter what word you put on it if you're arguing about whether the word fits you're really arguing about the definition of is you're not really arguing substance so likewise you see them arguing you know the definition of collusion and conspiracy the definition of obstruction yeah the definition does the difference between spying and surveillance does that matter does anybody think that you which word you apply to it in any way changes the underlying facts which we're all at least a little bit aware of my

[22:44]

all at least a little bit aware of my cat is visiting me here I know you like to take a look so yours boo say hi boo all right then and here's my favorite one so this is this is another Chris poem so Chris Cuomo is trying to create a new category of badness you could argue it's an existing category and the the category is things which are not illegal all right this is Chris Cuomo last night things which are not illegal but that you shouldn't do it's not illegal but you shouldn't do it now is that a standard that anybody should be held to I've said this before but when you hear the word should in an argument it means

[23:47]

the word should in an argument it means that they don't have reasons when people have reasons they say no if you do that somebody might die if you do that it might run up the deficit if you do that it might be too complicated those are reasons if you do that someone might go to jail if you do that Russia might influence our elections if you do that you might get fired that's what reasons like here's what isn't a reason well it wasn't illegal but you shouldn't do it it's a whole bunch of things you shouldn't do you should not do those things where's the reason where is the reason give me a reason Chris just give me a reason now the implication of the word shouldn't is that there's something unethical or weaselly or could have some sort of indirect bad effect what would

[24:49]

sort of indirect bad effect what would that be let's look at his list which are the things one shouldn't do should trump not have asked his advisers to find the emails remember he didn't ask his advisers to break any laws he did not ask his advisers to do anything unethical he just wanted to see if if they had sources maybe somebody could find those emails do you know who else does that the press that's what the press does so Trump asked his staff to do the same thing that The Washington Post and The New York Times would do if they could do it find your source is that something he shouldn't have done how about the Don jr. meeting with the with the lawyer is that something he shouldn't have done well I've said it a number of times I would have taken that meeting anybody who doesn't take that

[25:49]

meeting anybody who doesn't take that meeting when you literally just have to walk downstairs it's not even you don't even have to travel it was actually in his own building you walk downstairs you sit in a room and somebody is somebody that you know the the publicist is the one who set up the meeting somebody that you know alleged to give you something valuable which is totally legal right now if he had received something of value from a Russian national you could argue that if it had been a value he would have had to report it and you know maybe take into account that it had some kind of some kind of monetary value you could argue that what it never got to the point where anybody had to make that decision because they didn't have any information so is that something you shouldn't have done I would say the opposite you absolutely have a good reason with a risk reward that makes complete sense that maybe there's some good information and all

[26:50]

there's some good information and all you have to do is walk down stairs and maybe you could get it and if something comes out of that that maybe is a state secret or the FBI needs to be involved well then maybe you let them know why say adoptions yes so there's a lot of a lot being made of the fact that a number of people had a story that did not match the original story in my guess and I don't know and I don't need to know and it doesn't matter to anything important I don't know why so many people told a different story from what happened because you have to think that in almost all of these cases the real story was easily discoverable and they must have all known that so I could throw out with some speculation the first thing I would say is that it's all different reasons probably none of the people who said something that turned out not to match the facts probably none of them had the same reason some of them just didn't

[27:53]

same reason some of them just didn't remember maybe some of them thought it was so trivial it wasn't worth mentioning maybe some of them thought wow I just don't want to have to deal with this it was so minor I'll just I'll just act like I forgot it because nothing good could come from bringing it up I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining why I had a two minute conversation with a Russian about nothing it's trivial I'll just not write this one down and if it comes up and then I'll deal with it then so it's probably a combination of a bunch of different reasons everybody having their own reason you don't need to know why anybody did it it doesn't matter it's not it's not relevant to the the main charges all right one of the things that CNN is trying to push is that the and their pundits up let's say is complaining that the way bar communicated demonstrates

[28:57]

the way bar communicated demonstrates his bias so they're saying that the way the way bar framed the Muller report before anybody saw the details is evidence of his bias at the same time Anderson Cooper was defending CNN's on-air talent including himself by saying that they had never made any claims that the president was guilty of any collusion and that they had never made any claims that he was guilty of anything they had simply brought on lots of pundits who made various claims including those so he was saying well we as the you know professional staff members of CNN had never made a claim that the Muller report debunks because we simply never made those claims now can you say that bringing on an army of

[30:00]

can you say that bringing on an army of pundits who have the same opinion and are blaming the president of being a Russian agent is not is not an intentional bias because communication is not just what you say it's how often you say it and how many people are saying that and versus how many people are saying the other volume matters if you have a hundred people saying he's a Russian agent and you bring on one person who says well I don't think so you can't really say but I the host who invited a hundred people on to say the same thing well I never said that that's not my opinion it's only the opinion of the hundred people I chose to have as my guess I can see there's a difference I recognize that difference but in terms of communicating they have to recognize they're sending people many people with the same or similar opinions is really biasing the communication exactly like bill

[31:01]

communication exactly like bill bargained so I'm not going to make the claim that CNN was biased and Bill borrow was not because they're doing the same thing they're both framing the story in the way that is good for them as they see it for whatever reasons they have now if you're the Attorney General of the United States and a United States citizen even if it's not the president the United States citizen is investigated to this degree and you can't find anything that yes a crime or even really close let's be honest there was nothing in the bar report that was close to being a crime the CNN's reporting that it was because you had all these instances but the instances were not evidence of crimes there were simply things that were worth looking into having ten things that are worth looking into is zero evidence because

[32:02]

looking into is zero evidence because any one of them if they had been shown to be meaningful would have been proof of a crime any one of them none of them were they were simply things they looked into so under those situations if the Attorney General does not say something very much like bill Barr said I would say he's not doing his job because if somebody has not been found guilty after that much looking you should go in front of the world and say you know no evidence of anything bad has been found I mean you should frame it exactly the way Bill Barr did because that is the presumption of innocence it's one of the most basic elements of our civilzation presumption of innocence so of course Barcia let me put it this way of course bar should have been showing bias he should have music word should it's better that Bob that the bill Barr

[33:03]

better that Bob that the bill Barr showed a bias toward the person who was not been found guilty no matter whether it was the president or anybody else wouldn't matter who it was that that is the bias you would want from your attorney general because that's the bias that we prefer as a civilization all right so what's interesting about the NOLA report well a lot of things but the way people process information is that the public will remember something like ten percent of this whole situation so those of us who are following things closely may remember a lot more but the public the ones we're going to vote they might remember about ten percent one of the things they're going to remember is very misleading one of the things that we remember is that Muller could not reach a decision on obstruction of justice the way the public will process that because remember they're not going

[34:05]

that because remember they're not going to remember all the details they're just going to pick out you know ten percent this stood out to them they will remember that Muller couldn't decide and do you know how they will the way that they will process that is that there was plenty of evidence that didn't happen there were plenty of situations and and there were lots of complicated legal things to be decided but the reason that the molar left it to Barr probably had to do more with you know the bigger picture issues and precedent and you know the you know the sort of the the big picture Supreme Court kinds of stuff you guys make up so much it's infuriating I'm not sure which is you guys but I think you can see that both both sides are pretty sure that the other is hallucinating which is

[35:06]

other is hallucinating which is interesting I think that's most of what I want to talk about Oh [Music] the other funny thing is that pro-trump people who were going on TV are saying that the president has been totally vindicated and found innocent and the anti-trump errs are trying to trying to say no no no mauler did not say he is innocent he simply said we investigated him down to the molecular level I could not find anything that looks like a crime I won't say looks like couldn't find any crime now that that they were willing to commit to being a crime now is there a difference between investigating somebody down to the molecular level and finding no crime and

[36:09]

molecular level and finding no crime and declaring their innocence well yes yes there's a difference I'll give you that I acknowledge those are not exactly the same but aren't they aren't they because you know who else has not been cleared of colluding with Russia me nobody cleared me of colluding with Russia I have not been cleared of that crime therefore technically I'm not really innocent am i I'm simply a person who has not been investigated how about an Anderson Cooper is Anderson Cooper found innocent of colluding with Russia because we've all watched him collude with Russia for two and a half years you've watched with your own eyes look there's Anderson Cooper trying to take down the President of the United States

[37:10]

down the President of the United States who wants to do that Rasha Rasha would like to do that now as Anderson Cooper been cleared of his obvious colluding with Russia in public for two and a half years he has not been cleared now does that make him innocent not exactly not exactly innocent are you because simply not investigating you and not concluding that you're guilty well that's not exactly the same as saying you're innocent innocent Cooper's so you got a lot of explaining to do anyway the point is that the he anti-trump errs have been reduced to word thinking trying to make arguments by insisting that their definitions of words should change the way you think about it unfortunately their definition of words do not change how we think about it if

[38:12]

do not change how we think about it if you forced me to say the word surveillance instead of spying will I think any differently about it not really if you forced me to say that the president has not been proven innocent but rather he's been investigated down to the to the molecular level and no crime is indicated I'll say all right if you want me to use those words I'm okay with that does it change in any way what I think happened no so it's just words where it's worse though all right I got lots of things to do today I would like to tell you that it's a good day and the life of me well it's uh it's a good Friday bordering on a great Friday I think I'm finished with my full draft of my upcoming book loser think which as

[39:13]

my upcoming book loser think which as you might imagine will deal with every bad way of thinking that I've talked about I'll have them in a handy book that you can say you can remind yourself of the things you should and should not do and you're using the word should but you know what it means in this context and things which are effective ways of thinking and arguing versus the ways that are ineffective let's put it that way you won't see this book until October late October maybe the first week of November sure yet but I gotta tell you it's a good one you're gonna like it so I hope you do anyway let me tell you one other thing I used the my company's app the interface by wind hub app I called for people who could tell me how to solve a particular home-improvement problem details no matter and I ended up getting a lot of good suggestions just from the tweet I sent a man but it was a perfect

[40:14]

tweet I sent a man but it was a perfect example of wanting to get somebody on a video call interface by wound up is the name of the the app where an expert could actually look at what I'm working on in this case it was a light fixture and could tell me what to do with it it would have been the perfect example but I think I got most of the answers in the comments all right and you should know that the the when token is still picking up new exchanges and picking up volume and it's not an investment but if the startup does well the coins will certainly do well all right I will I think we've got enough today and I will go talk to you later