Episode 705 Scott Adams: Special Guest @NorteyTX About Trump, Then Rotfrancisco

Date: 2019-10-26 | Duration: 1:07:05

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK goes on sale 11/5. Pre-order: https://bit.ly/2NRammu Special Guest James Nortey debates Scott Is President Trump a “Master Persuader”? Wall? What wall? Is “bullying” good or bad, is it persuasion, good strategy? President Trump’s clever visual contrast persuasion tweet Nancy Pelosi and “rotting” San Francisco Favors are the OPPOSITE of quid pro quo How far can impeachment go…without quid pro quo? General Flynn’s initial strategic withdrawal and new developments

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays

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

## Transcript

[0:03]

is 7:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. where you are hold on let me fix this well that's better bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum hey anyway all of you are here for a very special episode of coffee with Scott Adams probably one of the best year ever Gooden see but I can tell you one thing with no ambiguity whatsoever today is simultaneous it will be the best one you've had today by far and all you need to participate it doesn't take much all you need is a couple more glasses snifter stein jealous tankard thermos flask canteen Grail goblet vessel of any kind filling with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of this simultaneous up are you ready are you ready come on you're ready

[1:04]

ready are you ready come on you're ready for the dopamine hit of the day the best part of the day the thing that makes everything better go better than normal and that makes total sense because today is going to be better than normal - let me see if I have my guests ready yet no not quite now that's quite so in a moment I'm expecting guests to join me and I will be introducing him then let's talk about a couple of things while we're while we're doing this all right I don't know if you got to see hold on
let's see if James is here yet James are you here yet well he should be here around 7:05 so before we do that you

[2:07]

around 7:05 so before we do that you show you something I did today I took James clapper and I fixed him well hold on let me take down the temperature on this video okay take there on the temperature so I took James clapper yeah it's hard to see but use Photoshop to turn his frown upside down it's better isn't it it's hard to get a good picture of it alright but trust me if you saw it on Twitter you'd be laughing right now and laughing and laughing oh-ho-ho kind of like that all right let's see if James has joined just yet yes he's about to come on I'm gonna add you James and then I'm gonna do an invitation I'm sorry it's introduction James are you

[3:11]

sorry it's introduction James are you there hey I can I'm gonna play your video as your introduction you ready all right hold on

[4:18]

all right challenge accepted James Norte you are here aren't you I'm here so look my good friend Omar you can follow me Oh Martin katene is a marketing mastermind and he says hey James you have a book for you go read win big Lee and so no James James couldn't can you do anything to make your sound louder we've got a very low audio on you is this any clearer yeah that's a little better thank you let me know but essentially I read your book win big Lee and I loved it because you explained the art of persuasion and how the best persuaders influence others but I challenged the notion that you called Trump a master persuader he is not he is a schoolyard bully he's a con man so iced want to bring up three quick points one I think you overhyped what Trump did right look I think you've glossed over what he did wrong and three

[5:20]

glossed over what he did wrong and three that you're liberal because of an ultra liberal we need you to help democrats avoid loser thing and it helped a message that wins for our future all right give me some specifics i am not persuaded by just relabeling him a con man or a boy give me give me give me give me a specific that affects real people so rather than rather than saying he says bad things tell me how the world is better or the nation is is worse off because of what he's doing connected to the real world for example so the signature policy that trump ran on was that he was going to build the wall at at Mexico pay for it but that wasn't gonna do anything for real working families in America and no one was convinced wait old on hold on okay 60 million people working inst they had a good good take on immigration are you suggesting that

[6:20]

immigration are you suggesting that there's no difference to the average American whether we have a permissive immigration on their southern border or more restrictive are you saying it would have no no effect on the people who are here so this is what's called a scarecrow I didn't say anything but having the permissive border right no one is for just straight open borders what we want is a sensible policy and so building the wall he's doesn't done it ask you to pay for it still hasn't done it well hold on you know you James you make a point you're you're you're sort of all over the landscape here are you suggesting are you suggesting that Mexico is not paying for border security for the United States right now with their 27,000 troops that they put on the border their own southern border at the request of the president would that not be even though it's not technically a wall wouldn't you say that the president has caused Mexico to spend a great deal of money on our border security as they're doing here but he promised a

[7:21]

they're doing here but he promised a wall well hold on hold on hold on okay what would you hold it against him if he promised a wall but let's say he built a fence and it worked or if he used another means let's say electronic or drones or something else let's say he did something that's not technically a wall but it was border security and it worked would you hold that against him and so if your point is that he really was going to fight for border security I have no problem with that but this is why I call him a con man he promises egg but delivers be hold on hold on hold on if if he promises a mm-hmm and he delivers something that is just as good or maybe it's just the best that can be achieved in the time and resources you have do you hold that against him no not if it's truly just as good or better but this is the classic bait-and-switch you get a shiny object waving people's attention and then you deliver something it may just

[8:22]

deliver something it may just clarification are you saying that building the wall would be the best solution for immigration it wouldn't I grew up in El Paso Texas where there was already Walt long then then I don't understand your point you're saying you promised a wall what you're saying the wall wasn't really the best solution but he did something else so what why would you be disappointed if you didn't get a wall because the problem is not that look I don't care yes wall or not the point is he makes promises that he can't deliver on and that does not make him a match persuader although but hold on if you have you not noticed that he's been fighting tooth and nail and every possible tool available to him but he's thwarted by the Congress wouldn't you say that the Congress is the only thing stopping the wall from happening in his first two years he had a Republican Congress he had her public consent he

[9:22]

Congress he had her public consent he should have be able to get that hold on hold on but he he needed he needed a supermajority to give funding which he did not have so people say he had a Republican majority it's true but that doesn't get you what you want because for these as I understand it for these funding type things a simple majority doesn't get you there so he did not have a Congress who could get him what he wanted at any time during his presidency but it doesn't matter because he said Mexico would pay for it why does he need American dollars once again backtracking what he promised but you you seem this seems sort of pedantic because if you promise something and then you deliver something that gets you close to that but it looks different would you say that that's a broken promise because I think his supporters would look at 27,000 Mexican troops on Mexico's southern border only because we asked them to be there and they'd say looks like something Goods happen so then let's get beyond pedantic to talk

[10:24]

then let's get beyond pedantic to talk about what affects real working people this president he said he would be a champion for working families right they raised the economy but can we can we close on the first point so the first point was that he did not deliver which I agree did not deliver precise what he asked for but would you agree so I'm agreeing with that it's not is not precisely right would you would you agree with the following statements number one he's tried very hard to to make that promise to happen would you say that he's put in a lot of effort so he's put an effort but at what I mean you know they just let me just finish the point so you put it you put it in the effort he did not get exactly what he asked for which was a wall funded by Mexico he has achieved some amount of wall he's got Mexico garden policy there's no physical barrier that he actually implemented what he's using hold on Kennedy are you on are you unaware that

[11:25]

Kennedy are you on are you unaware that he's built a great deal of wall so far we think great deal of wall I don't know we're referring to it what I can tell you sure yeah yes so the thing that's misleading about walls is that there are some places that are naturally more attractive places for people's across the border most of what's done as I understand it is upgrading places where we had some kind of a structure but it wasn't adequate because people were getting over it easily so even though the total amount of mileage that he's done is way less than he promised or people wanted on his side the things that he is doing the upgrades probably are the most effective parts of the border because those are the places people have already demonstrated they wanted to to cross so I think you'd agree that he is upgrading wall upgrade older wall at a place that matters the most we can argue over semantics right but I think the way that's not Samantha extort that's that's building an actual

[12:26]

extort that's that's building an actual physical structure in the places where the engineers are great is most needed because the way that's why they already had something there it just wasn't good enough and give me specifics where was this and what were the nature of the upgrades because I surly ever anything about this are you serious you your news sources are not telling you that the president has replaced a lot of bad wall with good wall Scott you're deflecting where was this well I well making the claim that he's upgraded walls I am challenging you to tell me specifically where is it where the upgrades well give me there give me a stake give me something that is a very lawyerly question yes sir may I answer your question please so do you think that that's a fair question that I would know the names of the cities just because I watched continuous coverage of the many places he was building all is it is it important that I've remembered the cities when you could just google

[13:26]

the cities when you could just google them and they would pop right up Scott I respect you immensely you could google them right now and tell me where they are but you won't which leads me to believe that maybe he has it well I just didn't want to bore the audience but I'll do that part oh we're gonna have a real exciting show today Scott's trust me up I feel like no one's gonna be bored where whoa Mexico built probably in the comments you'll see some people say I hope so CBP says it has built 75 miles of Donald Trump's border wall with 150 more miles on the way so that's Newsweek would you accept Newsweek so 35 miles we're sorry well this is a Newsweek reporter who are anti Trump but the specifics of where they are doesn't seem to have any relevance to our conversation because you and I wouldn't write that president Trump makes these promises of specifics

[14:27]

Trump makes these promises of specifics and it does nothing for the American people like once again we're seeing how the con man works how the body works well hold on you haven't demonstrated con man I'd love to give me a chance all right so here's here's the wall
San Diego sector so you asked for specifics so here's San Diego here's the new wall that replaces some kind of old border barrier now I could do more of these cities but I'm kind of shocked that your news sources are not telling you that wall is being built because there are now 158 miles that are being worked on and 75 already completed San Diego tennis so San Diego and apparently somebody's saying El Paso I don't know about that one no so I grew up in El Paso that wall was there long before Trump I guess this is what I'm trying to say he's taking credit for things he didn't do and this is what's so dangerous about him because we can

[15:29]

so dangerous about him because we can pay fastest for the facts we fall into a false insecurity and we've got to challenge him on facts matter because when we ignore the facts he put our entire no you don't what look let's take this very example the president has told us many times they uses hyperbole to boost his accomplishments and maybe minimize his his opponents and I think it I think every every adult who's watching understands that so when you when you listen to the president you know he's he's puffing up his accomplishments and minimizing the other side we all we all know that right right okay so we're all adults and we know that so the president is no doubt I would agree with you selling his wall accomplishments as maybe more than you would if you were look at it objectively whatever it but everybody understands that all of his supporters understand that we understand that is that really dishonest when he tells it when he tells

[16:30]

dishonest when he tells it when he tells us he's going to use hyperbole and then he uses it and a hundred percent of the people a hundred percent of the people watching say ah there's his hyperbole again we do believe he's building some wall probably not nearly as much as he promised but he's moving us in the right direction and we think that if somebody else had been president they would have built fewer miles of wall so I have no problem with that hyperbole right it's just bluffing is branding right what we are real concerned about are those promises he makes with specific facts that aren't hyperbole okay give me an example of a dangerous example of that so I will accept the critics who say there are 11,000 ish times that the president has departed from facts well that's it but that's roughly correct right and here's where you and I can't agree that most people don't make decisions based off facts unguent I'm those who are guided by emotion and

[17:31]

those who are guided by emotion and elaborate voting decisions are really emotional decisions who will be comfortable with and we should either rationalize them so so help us with an example of where the president is harming or potentially harming the country because of his hyperbole versus sticking strictly to the accuracy of the facts let's start the beginning June 2015 he dissent the sands down is his escalator and he says when Mexico sends its people they're not sending the best they're sending people who are bringing drugs bringing crime rapists and some I assume are good people that was the beginning of fomenting racism in this country specifically in regards to augmenting what was already existing with Hispanics in the community though so what you saw it we know what we know what he said right now now connect that to and will but go ahead because connect connect it to something bad and then I'll talk sure because it's implying

[18:33]

I'll talk sure because it's implying that Mexicans by their very nature or rapist which plays in the Stokes plays it's a stereotype of people with darker skin being dangerous that's why it's dangerous let me ask you this sure if the media had not reported it the way they did would would everybody have the same opinion an interpretation of what he said we don't need to interpret we have his video he said it over his words no one knowing nobody said now do you believe that when he said that that there are rapists and murderers coming across the border do you believe that he was trying to imply that that Mexicans are more rapey than other people so I don't know we're just trying to apply give this president very no wait a minute that's your whole point your entire point is that you do know what he was trying to imply but isn't that your whole point another point is the effective as words do harm half the time he just says

[19:34]

do harm half the time he just says things is to say them but its words are incredibly dangerous when he used them to divide people such a suggest that Mexicans were right hold on hold on you you made it you made an unsupported assumption it was a mind-reading you said you said that he did this to divide people mm-hmm now you believe that his intention which you can determine from a distance by reading his mind which I have a chapter in my book yes do you you believe that you can read his mind and there his actual intention when he stood up there was he was thinking I think I've got I found a way to divide the country and you believe that his strategy was to divide the country because that would be a good way to become president was that what you thought majority he knew exactly what the effect of his words would be it would galvanize his base and get some support that's exactly what happened so so wait a minute so your assumption is based entirely I mean not entirely but a

[20:35]

based entirely I mean not entirely but a fundamental assumption is that you can determine his inner thoughts and though and people like me cannot that we're doing it incorrectly as it would that be accurate because I cuz my because my interpretation is that he was trying to bring the United States together with a common enemy if you will which is immigration of the type that he thinks is harmless he's always been clear that he's not saying all people are bad all immigrants are bad he's not saying that he's always been clear that if you don't control it you get too many of the ones who might be criminally inclined if you don't if you don't vet for that now his supporters interpreted that I would say a hundred percent of them probably close to it interpreted that as saying let's bring the United States together against an outside threat which is crime and drugs and stuff coming across the border now I think it would be fair to say hey stop demonizing immigrants 100% right so

[21:37]

stop demonizing immigrants 100% right so so that's a separate question but the question of what he was thinking I think is far more ported by everything he said consistent with the United States I want to bring together but we want to be more wary of our external threats from other countries so without saying Mexicans he could have said let's unite to have a safer country that doesn't have drugs or rapists but he knew what he was doing because he talked about Mexico three times a year your your mind reading again your mind reading that would you would you agree it was let's just check some facts sure would you agree that his supporters and I'm gonna put myself in that category for this conversation would you agree that we do not interpret it that way because I've literally never heard not one time and imagine all the Republicans I've talked to Trump supporters in the last three years you can imagine it's a big number right I've never heard I've

[22:38]

big number right I've never heard I've never heard one Republican or just a supporter of the president ever suggests that they believed that he was saying that Mexicans are somehow bad or inferior I think I've literally never heard it in several years of doing nothing but talking about this topic with the people that you think have that belief why is it do you think I've never heard that I can't say why you've never heard that but I can't say that if someone who grew up in El Paso I know so many people Mexican descent who were horrified and personally offended because it was an attack against them in their culture and as someone who grew up in that community I was offended for them as well he could have made those same points without naming Mexico or Mexicans he did it for an intentional point and it was very effective and it worked you know wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute now wouldn't let's see the let's try to agree on the things we agree on because that just makes it

[23:39]

we agree on because that just makes it easier the things we would agree on is that the way he worded it was unproductive in other words it didn't work for him right it didn't work for his supporters it didn't work for me it doesn't make me happier didn't work for you it didn't work for Mexicans and I believe that if the President had a choice of doing it over he might say well I could have worded that better would you all would you would you agree that that it didn't work for any of his supporters didn't work for you didn't work for Mexico literally didn't work for anybody what do you agree I would disagree with one point I think in a crowded Republican field he was able to differential as the toughest immigration with that comment and so maybe I didn't agree for you or I but if you're looking for someone who said you know what I'm tired of these hypocrites who keeps they're gonna be strong in the board but not going to this made him stand out it's brandy I mean he comes right out of your book well do you think do but do you think do you think he couldn't have also found a way to stand out being the toughest

[24:39]

way to stand out being the toughest without saying in a in an in elegant way that is easy to misinterpret don't don't you think he could have hit that mark he didn't we didn't hit they were 15 people who ran for president to challenge Trump they all use elegant ways none of them won Trump won and and my point being is he knew that as someone who has never had political office someone who was an outsider that if he was going to win and this is the genius of his marketing strategy he learned to brand himself as something there so but but all of your opinions require on require you to read his mind and to see something that none of his supporters are seeing do you see do you what do you agree that that's true I don't agree that I have to read his mind and I don't agree that none of the boys are seen I think lots of people saw what wait no I I'm telling you and you can look in the comments so there's a lot of Trump supporters in the comments so back me up or disagree with me fact or me in the comments would use

[25:41]

me fact or me in the comments would use would you agree that you don't know any Trump supporters who thought he was talking about all Mexicans being bad is there anybody who thought if you're if you're a trump supporter in the comments tell me did you interpret it that way or do you know anybody who interpreted it that way because I've literally never met anybody who interpreted it that way but your entire point is based on the fact that we did is it not my entire point is that he use a comma like that to stoke a fence and it worked that's my point it's always and so whether or not people agree or disagree that's neither here nor there but it was an effective branding strategy mean you've got agree that it branded him well right no one no no no no I would not agree that that branded him well or that it helped him because to your point there was there absolutely it seems to me was a way to make his point just as strongly and as

[26:43]

make his point just as strongly and as we've observed he can make news no matter what he does I mean there's no situation in which he gets ignored right so that so there are lots of ways he can get attention I would say that that was a failed speech they had the ironic effect of getting him so much attention that he sucked the attention away from her everybody else but the the notion that he planned to do something that was offensive to immigrants and to the you know to the whole population basically the idea that he intentionally meant it to sound that wrong for political gain is unsupported and and but it it really requires you to assume something about his mind that doesn't seem sensible to me so either he is a mastermind he knew exactly what he is doing or or made a comment that wasn't well articulated but no matter right right but it's not a master persuader he's either lucky or

[27:44]

master persuader he's either lucky or a bully which one he's either lucky or a bully right no I think I my take on him has always been that he is amazingly good at persuasion but he does say things which clearly if you were to go back and say okay was that perfect or not you'd say okay I would I would change that so I do not make the claim that he never makes a mistake and I often I don't know how if I've done it often but I have pointed out that that comment we're talking about would clearly be in the category of not effective it worked it worked against them big time
in hindsight because who linkless say things that grow nerd massive media coverage wasn't real the fact that he was a master persuader or did he use his celebrity his bombast and vulgarity to dominate the news and use repetition so that people are hearing his brand over and over and over again don't get me

[28:45]

and over and over again don't get me wrong right the net effect is look like him or hate him good news or bad news he dominated the news people saw his name everywhere well not a master persuader that's just someone who's dominating this is repetition well that's that's uh that's an example of word thinking because you're just trying to define it as not important but we both observe they went with no prior political experience right to President of the United States can you did he do that without being persuasive well I guess the question to ask is what is it that makes that persuasive and when I think of persuasive it's either having influence through argument or emotion to convince people to do something and it's not like as you said before he's gone through and thought through specifically how am I gonna win this election he stumbled in down an escalator said some words and he thought he was gonna lose he had no idea that he was gonna win but he won because he understood how to

[29:47]

he won because he understood how to connect and use the same vulgar language he used the power of celebrity to dominate the news media and then commit some people to try something different I mean let's be clear he didn't convince more people to move for him right but you know what doesn't matter because the popular vote is not how you win the presidency all it matters the electoral college what did he do that Romney didn't do he got a hundred thousand people in Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania they gave him a shock they want to try something new but he largely won the same things that any Republicans would have won and so I'm just not convinced that he's a match persuade to speak up well he did you did see him tear through a field of 16 Republican primary contestants who pretty much all of the experts on both the left and right said it's the strongest field of Republican ever feel that and he he'd he just eviscerated them all we watched you watch the same thing I did and I agree and I think how he did that was by being

[30:49]

and I think how he did that was by being a bully was by being vulgar why all that hold on yeah you you just keep substituting the words bully for persuasive and everything victory from your book your supporters should read so but the point is whether whether you label him a bully or not is less relevant than the fact that he is persuasive so you would agree you may be disagreeing with his methods but objectively speaking he went from guy with no chance and just a joke to President of the United States I mean we all watched it and there's nothing except persuasion that could have made that happen would you agree and that's like saying when I was a kid and I would worry about running into bullies who would take my lunch money because they would beat me up that's also persuasive right because they can use force to beat me up those tactics if you wouldn't call it persuasive sure but calling him a

[31:51]

it persuasive sure but calling him a master persuader yes so what if we were looking at say right here's his policy about getting tough with trade negotiations with China would you call that a case of bullying China so you brought that up because this is part of his bombast and takes it and works for him I don't think any other presidential candidate can do what he can do because that's his brand whether or not it's working what we've seen is consumer prices are going up we've not seen the net effects yet the trade war but you know what I am willing to say let's give him a chance let's see if he can make this work for American people but you have to get so far it has not so well I I don't want to get into China too far I don't think we should have a trade deal and I think that he has educated the public to turn against China in a way that and probably no other president could have the the the national mood about China right now is that we should probably decouple whether gently or not

[32:52]

probably decouple whether gently or not because they're sending fentanyl over here and killing us would you agree that the feeling about China in the United States has changed radically under President Trump from being hey listen you know why should why do we want to start a trade war to would you not agree that it's closer now - why are we in business with these horrible people anyway who are killing 50,000 Americans a year turning on Hong Kong locking the weavers up in concentration camps stealing our IP giving us bad trade deals why are we even dealing with them at all would you agree that the national mood has changed radically against China under President Trump you and I can agree that China's to be held accountable for stealing our IP for producing fentanyl that comes harms our communities and for for being irregular with its currency right but I will say this countries that trade together don't go to war with one another the reality is that china is a large country that's gonna be an economic player one way or the other

[33:53]

economic player one way or the other we're gonna have to engage them we probably be more successful using a trade deal in the rule of law to bind them to mutually acceptable policies as opposed I mean isolationist pretending they don't exist well yeah we could go down that road but let's rather than do that yeah you benefited the audience yeah my original question is or let me state it a different way when you characterize the President as a bully yeah I I think that the bullying as a component of persuasion would you say the bullying whether you think it's a good tool or a bad tool would be it would be within the larger persuasion category we're on the same page there right I would agree and I would just say that so the lowest form of persuasion it's nothing like take for example the former President Barack Obama here's a man who was how many black presents have we had his middle name is Hussein he's been on the Senate for less than a term yeah he somehow used hope and

[34:53]

yeah he somehow used hope and inspiration to convince people to vote for his vision that to me is more from master persuader compared to Donald Trump so let me uh let me acknowledge that I've also said that Obama was a tremendously skilled persuader and politician and I'm also unlike nearly everybody watching this at this moment most of them are Trump supporters I also give Obama a fairly good score as a president on a lot of levels so we would not disagree on that
right because I didn't get really involved in politics and until then so I didn't really write about politics in any serious way before that so here's the thing I would agree there bullying is part of persuasion and you would agree that it's the the lowest level would you agree with me that there might be some situations in which a little arm-twisting you could call it bullying

[35:54]

arm-twisting you could call it bullying yeah let me call let me call it arm-twisting but we'll agree we're talking about the same thing would you agree that there are some situations where you just have to push and that regular persuasion is not the right tool would you agree with that statement I would but there's degrees right how much were you pushing and at what cost and what point do you justify of course of course but in cases with their children or saying that women who have abortions to be have some form of punishment or saying that a judge is biased because he's Mexican at what point hold on hold on that don't give you the laundry list let me give me chances to to respond to any of these wild claims because one of them was just ridiculous but I'll get to that in a minute actually let me get to that first bit because I think you've now agreed with me yeah there's some form of bullying if the situation is right would be the right tool so we could agree that bullying is not good or bad is simply is something that could be used wrong right

[36:56]

something that could be used wrong right I think I think it more in terms of degrees and I okay but yeah well I would not put it in terms of degree let's say let's say we needed to bully Afghanistan to do more to stop terrorism and there were and there was clear that we had tried everything else and nothing but bullying would work in that case is there is there anything wrong with bullying as hard as you possibly can to reduce the risk of terrorism as much as you can use economic sanctions if you can use a bit of war that's fine but in my mind that's not bullying I guess to your point you're trying to say they're one of the same I see something very different when Trump says mothers who have abortions should have some punishment and that judges who by the virtue of their last name sum up by because they're Mexican those are very good from that's not completely alright let's talk about this Mexican judge situation and I love the fact that you're a lawyer because I haven't talked to an actual lawyer about

[37:57]

haven't talked to an actual lawyer about this let me ask you this in the in the context of legal cases cut is a common and routine and in fact expected and good for the system that anybody who perceives a source of bias calls it out so that the so that the the system is transparent in terms of people being concerned about bias would you say in general we're not we're not going to talk about the judge specifically yet but in general it's good and always productive to call a bias would you agree you should not be hold on hold on now given that it's good to call a bias would you when it's true let's say I think we both agree that if there's real bias or even real reason to suspect bias they're calling it out helps the system it doesn't hurt the system but reason to do it yes right but if but if but if

[38:57]

do it yes right but if but if but if you're just making stuff up and a strop if you're just pretending there's bias then that is you know you're allowed to do that because it's legal system but I think we both agree that if you should make and stuff up that's not good like just pretending somebody has a bias when they don't we both agree that's a bad idea right exactly all right so let me finish the point do you believe that someone who has let's say a lot of relatives who are immigrants from Mexico and it's very close relatives listen to your parents do you believe that that person would have seen President Trump in an objective way after what you what the news reported about what he said when he came down the escalator which we just talked about do you believe that it would be a an unbiased do you believe that the judge could be expected by a reasonable observer yeah to be unbiased if his family was probably biased by

[40:01]

if his family was probably biased by association and what I say by that is there's no reason to believe that anybody in his family was biased either just because they were immigrants well let your let me back up to that because that bothers me more than anything else if you said to your neighbor right hey hey neighbor or actually I've got a friend I just just talked to him the other day his name is Sal yeah and if I said Sal tell me about your family just just describe you know your family he's an American Sal would say well the first thing you need to know about me is that I'm Italian now I would know the Sal means he's an American yep whose relatives are from Italy if I go to my friend Edie and say Edie tell me about your family just you know what do I need to know about you there's a good chance that Edie would say well the first thing you need to know about me is that I'm Mexican yeah I would know without any further

[41:01]

yeah I would know without any further explanation they he doesn't mean he was born in Mexico because he wasn't he's American right he has deep Mexican roots etc when when the president said that the judge was Mexican I interpreted it the way Edie and Sal would talk about themselves in the normal language that people talk casually which is the way the president talks he did not indicate by that statement that he thought the prep that that Judge was born in Mexico I was there was nothing indicated indicative of that rather people who wanted to interpret him incorrectly said why god he doesn't even know where the judge is born when in fact every person who talks casually and among their friends talks exactly this way if he asked me tell me about yourself Scott I'd say well you know one thing you should know is you know I'm a little bit English and German and but I'm not I'm American so would you agree that that can be interpreted two different ways and one of them is

[42:02]

different ways and one of them is completely innocent I would say you and I just had a conversation about mind-reading and I can't tell what was in his head it's the same way exactly Trump said right exactly we can agree that we don't know what he was thinking when he said Mexican but you also agree that there's a perfectly innocent interpretation which would be normal and then there's a weird a crazy one in which he's calling him out for his race in public while running for president the craziest thing I've ever heard would you agree that those are the two interpretations totally normal language or crazy interpretation where he's insulting his ethnicity in public while running for president false Equalization equivalence because of course anything is possible in the hospital now what's more probable what's more likely believe Trump at his worst look at the words himself that the man would be biased because he was Mexican that's what he said Oh hold on that's exactly what he said here's my interpretation of that yep he has he has a heritage from Mexico

[43:06]

yep he has he has a heritage from Mexico surrounded by people who probably have a very strong opinion about President Trump would you agree that the people around him his family in all likelihood we don't know this but again that's not important for the purposes of bias questions in the court if so if somebody let me give you this example and I think you'll agree with us if somebody let's say had an association with some organization and they were a judge it would be fair to call out that Association without necessarily knowing that that would bias them would would you agree no because you don't know anything it I mean you don't know he's know you're on a different topic I said just in general if somebody has an association they're a member of an organization and there's reason to believe that could cause conflict of interest or bias isn't it fair for an attorney to point that out even if there's no way you can tell if that person is biased simply by being a member of the organization if there's a reasonable basis with

[44:06]

there's a reasonable basis with objective demonstration then yes I would say oh yes okay no no I love your choice ORS good lawyer word if you said there's a reasonable basis for it right so you don't have to be right and in fact in the advocacy lawyer world being being able to make a case is fair even if maybe you're now right yeah okay so the president has a legal strategy one of the best ones I've ever seen called out the bias of the judge and yet there were two possibilities one the judge might be recused - the judge would have to go beyond above and beyond to show that he was not biased which of those two things happened yes I'll give you the answer when it came down to judge curial deciding whether the whether the the judgment or the the case would be held before the election or after and by all normal standards it should have been

[45:07]

normal standards it should have been before and it had it been before it would have been very bad for president Trump judge Kerri l went above and beyond in Mike in my opinion of what he needed to do to create the the impression of lack of bias by deciding to hold it after the election which probably was a big deal in terms of how people saw the election so from a legal strategy I would say that he put the judge in a position where the judge had to defend his lack of his his unbiased position which is really strong persuasion and really good legal technique and when it came to a gray area where that judge could have gone against Trump by having it before the election or it or for Trump he went for Trump and in so doing that judge proved to the world that in fact he could operate without bias President Trump put him in a corner and it worked now you could say that his choice of

[46:08]

now you could say that his choice of words was not the best and I totally agree with that because if he had simply said a judge with Mexican heritage is likely to be surrounded by people who have a strong appealing feeling about the president because the fake news says has branded him as such an enemy to the you know the Mexican people and anybody with Mexican heritage that one could not expect him to get a fair trial from somebody steeped in the culture where other people feel bad about the president even if that judge doesn't there was zero evidence judge carry out was deep in the culture people thought otherwise judges are trained they're expected to be independent there has to be some evidence right and there was no he never made a remark no all that hold on Association hold on hold on hold on Judge carry ELLs parents came from Mexico isn't that right sure so you don't think you're you know think somebody's parents could have an effect on their bias so there has to be

[47:08]

on their bias so there has to be evidence of that there was no evidence there doesn't no there doesn't I I hate I hate that lawyer you I hate a lawyer you but in in the context of a legal trial where where somebody suspects bias because of let's say an association the appearance or the possibility of bias is all you need right and in this case there was not even the appearance of bias just because someone no no no no no no I hate that lawyer you again but it has nothing to do with what the individual did or did not do has only to do with the description of the situation and you could pull in you know put in any person in that situation and say would a person be likely to be biased if they were in this situation so I had nothing to do with what judge curiel did or did not do and I would agree every indication is that he's just a good judge who played

[48:11]

that he's just a good judge who played by the rules so every every indication is that he was now biased but it was certainly good legal strategy to put him in a corner would you agree with that in and also say if you swapped out legal strategy with cotton man the same sentence is true and that's all wait a minute wait a minute did you just try to win the argument by once you agree that it was a good legal strategy you just changed the words into it's a conman and in declared victory and you're right put judge Korea on his heels where he delayed his decision on Trump University which by the way is another example which worked and it it got the outcome Trump there lose your connection I think we lost the connection all right I think well that wasn't me in case anybody's wondering I did not I did not disconnect

[49:12]

wondering I did not I did not disconnect you
you but let's I don't know if he'll be back but we've we may have exhausted that conversation a little bit so thank you so much James Norte if you'd like to follow him on Twitter he's at at norte TX it's spelled end as a neighbor Oh Artie ey TX and thanks so much for coming on it's a great treat actually to have somebody smart and well-informed come on and and just mix it up so very much appreciated and thank you so let's talk about a couple other things president Trump had one of the greatest tweets ever today now I'm sure that's why probably on my part but here it is he's gone on the offense against Pelosi and he's trying to create a contrast so contrast is good persuasion right in this case the contrast is what is Nancy

[50:12]

this case the contrast is what is Nancy Pelosi spending her days doing impeachment versus what should she be working on this is really strong all right so here's his tweet he goes it's a two-parter he says I can't believe that Nancy Pelosi is District in San Francisco is in such horrible shape that the city itself is in violation of many sanitarian and fire mental orders causing it to owe the federal government billions of dollars and all she works on is impeachment we should we should all work together to clean up these hazardous waste and homeless sites before the whole city rots away before the whole city rots away that is so good very bad in dangerous conditions also severely impacting the Pacific Oaks Pacific Ocean and water supply Pelosi must work on this mess and turn her district around well this is just gold this is just absolute gold because he is that this

[51:15]

absolute gold because he is that this this whole phrase before the whole city rocks away do you notice how that's making you think past the sale he does this all the time and you don't always catch it so I like to point it out the sale is whether or not the city is robbing but so instead of saying hey your city is rotting where people would just say no it isn't you know we just have some problems he words it this way we should work on cleaning it up before the whole city rots away so adding the before makes you uncle' except that you're on the door on the path to rotting away and that you got to do something it's really clever wording persuasion wise and also it's visual because if you think the problem the city has problems conceptual problems it's hard to wrap your hand around it but when you say the whole city rots away rot it's really good that's a

[52:17]

away rot it's really good that's a really good word for this just persuasion wise all right here are some provocative concepts what is the is this on Twitter just to mess with people and I'll ask you here what is the opposite of this sentence can you do me a favor can you do me a favor or can you do us a favor well it would be the opposite of can you do me a favor well let's break it down what's a favor a favor is something that you do without an expectation of payback President Trump said on his Ukraine phone call to the president of Ukraine can you do us a favor he asked for a favor definition of a favor is something that you do without expectation of compensation that's what the word means

[53:20]

what is quid pro quo it's the opposite quid pro quo is where you do something with the express expectation you're gonna get something else in return favor is exactly the opposite it's where you do something with no expectation of getting something in return so here's the funny part let's say the president gets impeached here's how the trial is gonna go so we're accusing you of asking for a quid pro quo let's look at your language can you do us a favor what is a definition of favor something you do without a quid pro quo what is it he asked for a favor what is the opposite of a favor a quid pro quo so your case against the president is that when he said do me a favor what he really meant is exactly

[54:21]

favor what he really meant is exactly the opposite what is your evidence there what he meant was the opposite well we read his mind and in his muck no hold on mind-reading is not part of the legal process so remind me again how favor which is the thing you do without any compensation is interpreted by you as a quid pro quo which is literally the opposite something you do for something in return tell me how you got there well obviously the president was thinking hold on stop you don't impeach people for what strangers imagine that they're thinking and that's what we have here now would it be good for the president and his reelection if something bad came up in the Ukraine about Biden of course it would is the president allowed to do things which could help his reelection well let's talk about one what would happen what would happen if China

[55:25]

happen what would happen if China decides to sign a favorable trade deal and gives us everything we want between now and election what would happen that would pretty much guarantee that President Trump got reelected wouldn't you say if China agreed to a deal that even even the critic said yeah that's better than what we had what do you agree that that would pretty much get him elected now let's say China doesn't that would not necessarily cause him not to get elected because I think we won't have a deal and I think you'll get reelected easily but wouldn't it make a difference would it affect our elections if China gave a deal or didn't give a deal or what kind of deal of course it would is the president allowed to accept a deal from China on an election year I don't know why he should be allowed to do that it's gonna it's going to influence the election so here's the thing the reason that that doesn't

[56:26]

thing the reason that that doesn't bother you doesn't bother the public is because we all understand that dealing with China and the trade deals is just the normal part of being a present it's just what you do so the fact that doing a good job at your job helps you get reelected shouldn't be a negative we all agree with that was it the president's job to find out if any of foreign entity had Leslie blackmail on who might be the next president of the United States kind of exactly his job it's literally exactly the president's job to make sure there's no foreign interference in our elections and certainly if hunter Biden was raking in the money or had raked in the money it doesn't matter if he's doing it now it only matters if Ukraine knew he did something bad before because that would that would create some blackmail potential so a president doing his job looking into foreign interference or

[57:28]

looking into foreign interference or potential foreign interference even if it helps his election can never be broke it can never be wrong so when people people talk about whether the president should be impeached or not a page I have to say I have mixed feelings about it you know I support the president I would not want him to be kicked out of office but I'd kind of like to see the impeachment process just just to watch it play out because I think it would be the easiest wind anybody ever had I would love to be the the lawyer who had to defend the president against these charges I mean if something else comes up that's a different situation but on these charges this is the easiest case ever I was doing my job it was my highest priority and I asked for a favor which is the opposite of a quid pro quo well but mr. president what about the fact that they

[58:29]

president what about the fact that they knew that the funding was being held up did they know why I'm not sure they knew why but that'll all be that'll all be coming out however I don't think it matters why the president is allowed to negotiate bully quid pro quo as much as he wants as long as it's also his job as it was in this case all right something else what do you think is more predictive of who's going to be President the polling a year out or the fundraising I would argue that the fundraising is far more predictive and Biden is starting to have some money problems whereas several of his competitors are not so I would say that Biden is pretty much done because the

[59:29]

Biden is pretty much done because the fundraising is really that's that's the end of it retired Army General barry mccaffrey said in a tweet that the White House Trump's statement telling the entire federal government to terminate subscriptions to the New York Times and Washington Post is a watershed moment in national history McCaffrey said no room for humorous media coverage this is deadly serious this is Mussolini so a retired general who happens to be now an NBC contributor which is important to the story believes that the White House canceling subscriptions to two publications that tend to write bad things about them it's like Mussolini does that feel like Mussolini to you because I'm pretty sure everyone who works in the White House can go online

[1:00:30]

works in the White House can go online and read the New York Times if they want to
to feels like the easiest thing in the world would be for any individual who wanted to read the New York Times in the Washington Post to pick up their phone and then read it they have to pay for it because there's paywalls but I think they could afford it a few bucks a month so when you see stuff like this he's a retired general and this is so clearly just bought and paid for crazy tweeting that it actually lowers my respect for the military I hate to say it I mean I have tremendous respect for the military but when you see a four-star general retired joining NBC and then tweeting that canceling some newspaper subscriptions is similar to Mussolini how do I respect the military as much as I did yesterday I mean it's

[1:01:34]

as much as I did yesterday I mean it's not a big difference I still respect the military completely but he's not helping he's not helping the cause here Rudy Rudy Giuliani apparently butt-dialed a couple times this is the funniest story he but he butt-dialed at least twice and there's his conversations private conversations that were not meant to be on a phone call were recorded on voicemail to some journalists and and of course he mentioned something about money and something about a foreign country and so that was enough for the president's critics to say hey talked about a foreign country he talked about a lot of money this can't be good but we don't know what the context was we have no idea what the context was so to imagine that because you don't know the context you you therefore might be guilty of a horrible crime well that's

[1:02:35]

guilty of a horrible crime well that's kind of a stretch kind of a stretch all right what else is going on here so the Flynn case is getting really interesting and I'm I feel as though I don't quite understand that the timeline and the who did walk because it's a really complicated story but I would just tell you this did you ever wonder about why somebody who was smart enough to be a general got taken down so easily have you ever wondered about that you know he's a general so clearly he's you know highly educated on strategy military strategy you know you would expect he could play a pretty good chess game so weren't you surprised he was taken down so easily just like just wiped off the board so here's what's interesting so his lawyer is getting busy making

[1:03:37]

so his lawyer is getting busy making some claims about what has happened to general Flynn and the way that was run and I won't go through the claims but I have suddenly redefined my understanding of Flynn it appears that he might have more strategy and more guts than we think yeah I think if the Sun was threatened so that has something to do with the way he handled things but it looks like he just sort of did a strategic retreat and now that the strategic retreat as you know served its purpose it looks like he's going full thermonuclear on the government now and I think we're gonna find out that general Flynn's game is pretty strong because if you're a general you don't send your you know your weak unit against the enemy's strong unit and on day one Flynn had a

[1:04:40]

strong unit and on day one Flynn had a weak you know let's say a weak force against the entire government who'd lined up against them and threatened his son that was a superior force what was someone who was trained as a general supposed to do strategic withdrawal build up your defense build up your weapons wait hold hold hold hold kill we have entered the kill phase general Flynn through his lawyers look like they're just gonna burn the ground I mean it's too early so we're still in you know we're still in you know the fog of war don't know exactly what these new accusations from Flynn's side are gonna come up you know stuff about documents being edited we don't know how but you know maliciously etc I

[1:05:41]

know how but you know maliciously etc I mean there's a really really serious complaints he's gonna scorch the earth it looks like I mean too early to say I could be wrong but it looks like he's coming hard I don't think general Flynn is gonna take prisoners I think he's gonna scorch the earth this is so much fun anyway too early to know we'll find out but here's my advice to any of you if you're gonna mess with the general you better finish the job if you're gonna mess with the general who's been chained trained by the US military a very experienced man if you're gonna try to take him down and you're gonna try to take down his family in this case threatening his son and of course everything that happens to him affects his wife etc if you're gonna take him down better finish it

[1:06:44]

better finish it looks like they didn't finish the job so general Flynn it's your turn and this is going to be so fun to watch alright we'll see that's all I got for today I will talk to you tomorrow thanks again for James Norte for joining me for a great conversation and I'll talk to you all later