Episode 720 Scott Adams: Crowdstrike, Ukraine, Baby Trump’s Stabbing Death, Bloomberg’s Odds
Date: 2019-11-10 | Duration: 1:00:04
Topics
My new book LOSERTHINK available now: https://bit.ly/2NRammu Rampant “word thinking” on CNN’s website…why it’s Loserthink WOW…watched some MSNBC Chris Hayes on the plane home A hypnosis trick on display, the magical leap Crowdstrike’s Ukraine connection The think tank LINK and influence by foreign investors Why Crowdstrike’s opinion LACKS credibility Will President Trump go to Russia’s May Day military celebration? Treating leaders with respect…while being tough on them He can GENUINELY like a foreign leader and still be tough China would HATE America and Russia forming a strong relationship Are the Democrat money people signaling something LOUDLY? Prediction: If Tulsi or Buttigieg appear on my Periscope… …they will become the Democrat nominee
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
[0:04]
[Music] pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom hey everybody guess what yes right I'm in the right time zone yes my week of publicity for my new book loser think in New York is over I'm getting ready to head down to LA tomorrow we'll do a little more interviewing I'm gonna see Dave Rubin Adam Carolla I think some more so we got more publicity coming and I hope you have your copy it's zooming up the bestseller list in its categories but before we talk about all the news of the day let us do a little thing that makes life so much better you start with an ordinary day and then you add what we're gonna do next turns into a great day your dopamine is about to spike get
[1:06]
day your dopamine is about to spike get ready because it's common it's called the simultaneous sip and all you need is a cover of Margaret glasses snifter stein chalice tanker thermos flask canteen Grail goblet vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee enjoyed me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything better the simultaneous up go oh dear life all I'm gonna put that right back in my coffee warmer and make sure that it's just the right temperature so how many of you watched me on the Greg Gutfeld show which aired last night and I believe that the will air at least one more time this weekend did anybody get to catch that it was a lot of fun I don't like to brag but I think it was the best Greg Gutfeld show of all time not just because of me I
[2:09]
of all time not just because of me I thought everybody was on fire that day so um there's a little bit of a delay on your comments oh okay some of you saw it that's good let's talk about some other things there's a tragic death I have to report on yes it's true the baby Trump inflatable a balloon was stabbed to death before the big football game that the president attended and so can we take a moment of silence for a baby Trump the inflatable balloon that lived a brief but I think noteworthy life we remember baby Trump the inflatable baby Trump with with fondness it was part of our life but sadly crime crime is just getting worse and it's just more proof that the only thing that can stop a man with a knife is a good
[3:11]
can stop a man with a knife is a good citizen with a knife but there were no armed citizens to protect baby Trump it turns out that the people who were in charge of keeping baby Trump safe were not armed I'll bet they were shy but they wish they had a concealed carry now so baby Trump is no longer Oh perhaps he can be patched up and put back into action now I gotta I gotta admit that baby Trump is an attack on President Trump that I never minded even once you know it bothers me when people attack him for illegitimate things it bothers me when they obsess about his tweets and things that don't really matter so there are a lot of things that I find bothersome about Trump's critics but I do not ever find baby Trump any less
[4:13]
do not ever find baby Trump any less entertaining so I hope baby Trump can be resuscitated because I'm in it for the entertainment and that float was pretty entertaining and and getting stabbed to death instead are taking to everything about that baby Trump is fun all right so I've been noticing that there's a trend about the criticism of Trump the things that they think they have on him the impeachable stuff is all complicated and and it's hard to get the public to care and if the public doesn't even understand what you're talking about like the Ukraine phone call for what yes for walked CrowdStrike who if the public doesn't even know why well good luck impeaching the president so I've noticed that the anti-trump errs have gone full word thinking here are some of the words used about the
[5:13]
some of the words used about the president just I think just on CNN's website just today so just today just just one website somebody says it doesn't matter who because they all say similar things so somebody on CNN on the website we're saying that the tramps the transcripts depict Trump as quote fickle susceptible to flattery and prone to grudges elsewhere on the site he is called mercurial also consumed by festering grievances and perpetually thrown and the administration is perpetually thrown into chaos by rash decisions also says that the acts on his whims and that he acts like a child or a criminal he is impulsive and he is deranged what what do all of those things have in common well a few things
[6:14]
things have in common well a few things one is that they're a little bit difficult to demonstrate you know it's if you say somebody's fickle all you can point to is that they used to say this but now they say that but isn't that normal and in the I would say in the realm of being the president don't you often have situations where the the we'll say hey let's 2x and then somebody pushes back or he learns a little bit more his advisers weigh in and they says huh well I guess my first thing wasn't so good let's try this other thing isn't that kind of common do we want a president who doesn't change his mind so labeling it impulsive or a whim or a rash decision is an example of what form of loser think as described in my incredible best-selling book the best I've ever written mind-reading yeah it assumes that you know the president's inner thoughts and we don't we don't
[7:17]
inner thoughts and we don't we don't even know our own inner thoughts we barely know our spouse or girlfriend or you know four siblings and we usually don't know anybody's inner thoughts but you don't know how long somebody's been thinking about something and you don't know what data they're processing you just know that they used to say this and now they've changed it to this but to imagine that the process of changing from this opinion to this opinion has no thoughts in between there's no thinking process there's no evidence of that all we know is that we don't know what he was thinking that's it that's the only thing we know we don't know that it went directly from this idea to thinking again but now now I have a new thought is that there is that what they think when they think about this fickle and pulse of stuff do they think that the the process just before the either the change or the original decision is the brain shuts down and it just goes into
[8:18]
brain shuts down and it just goes into maintenance boat it's like oh let's invade a country and suddenly you wake up with an impulsive thought what what exactly do they think brains do do brains not do the thinking part they just go directly to the decision well they do actually quite often but it's insane to think that they can read the president's mind now I made the mistake of turning on I was on the plane so I was trapped on an airplane and when you try done an airplane you will watch content that you would not watch in any other circumstance because you're bored out of your mind and it's a cross-country flight in your so I turned on MSNBC which I don't even usually sample because it's so odious I can I can watch CNN even when they say things that I think are a little biased but man if you
[9:19]
think are a little biased but man if you if you go full MSNBC you are into another world CNN is just somebody who doesn't like the President or you know generally speaking they have a bias against the president Fox News is somebody who generally has a bias that seems in favor of the president the the opinion people in particular but you got MSNBC and it doesn't even look like those two things it doesn't look like somebody just has a bias yeah it doesn't look like something's working over there so I'm watching Chris Hayes and it was fascinating to me because number one it's it's obvious he's very smart all right I don't think anybody would ever say that you know nobody would ever accuse him of not being smart I watched him come out and do basically a monologue in front of his audience that lasted a long time and was really well-constructed and coherent and really
[10:19]
well-constructed and coherent and really laid out the case told the story it was a really good performance I would say on a on a performance level and on an intelligence level Chris Hayes is very impressive I can see why he's host of a show and so I was watching it with a specific agenda I wanted to see if I could identify the point where they departed into a different movie and what that was was or is there one thing is there a few things what is it that caused them to have this different view of life and I think I found it and it was really interesting so Chris's monologue had to do with the fact that the president released the transcript and said it was perfect look at yeah read that read it yourself and Chris Hayes believed that the transcript very clearly is so so damning that he was trying to figure out why the president would tell everybody here to
[11:21]
president would tell everybody here to read the evidence that is so damning against the president and then act like it's not and so here were his two hypotheses he said either the president is so cleverly manipulative that he knows that just saying is perfect and a lot of people won't read it a lot of people will say well I trust him he says it's perfect I'm not gonna read it that's it or maybe maybe just because he framed it that way it would influence people to read it and have the same impression because they'd be primed to see it the way he framed it so you know Kristen said as well as I just said it that's sort of the implication the other the other hypothesis that chris has entertained is that the president is the dumbest person in Washington because you would have to be the dumbest person in Washington / Chris Hayes to ask of the
[12:25]
Washington / Chris Hayes to ask of the public to look at the most damning evidence against you who would do that and he says only the dumbest person in Washington and then he humorously in a way that his audience enjoyed suggested multiple times that therefore the President must be just basically the dumbest guy in the world because nobody would ask people to look at damning information about themselves there's another there's another possibility left out which is that Chris Hayes and people like him are seeing something that isn't there would you agree that that's there probably other hypotheses or explanations that also work but three that we have on the table are the president is cleverly so manipulative he knows that claiming there's nothing there will actually cause people to either not look at it or to think there's nothing there when they look at it in other words fooling them into
[13:26]
it in other words fooling them into thinking there's nothing there or he's so dumb he can't tell it's bad for him and then the one I'm adding which is they're seeing something that we don't see so Chris Hayes digs into the transcript to show us the bits that are the damning parts and so he starts out by saying showing the president's language that suggests that the president was suggesting that we've been good to Ukraine but maybe hasn't been reciprocal and can you do me a favor so he does Chris does a good job of pointing out that the president is sort of setting up the conversation as in you know I have some leverage I have something you want and there are things I want I would say that part perfectly clear I would agree completely that the president's entire approach to this was very much one about having leverage in the conversation now I've said before
[14:27]
the conversation now I've said before that if you're talking to a foreign leader that you're giving a lot of money to if you're not asking for something in return you're doing it wrong do you want a president who gives away our money and doesn't ask for anything in return if he can of course now did he ask for something that's reasonable and we would agree with that's a separate question but of course I agree with Chris Hayes and I see it too I'm looking at the same document he says he's using a little leverage on the president of Ukraine and here's the language and I look at the language I go oh yeah I see it I could see that he's setting up the conversation but of course my interpretation is you always do that so the real question is not whether he used leverage against them but whether the thing he's asking for is appropriate so that's a separate question but so far I'm on the same page I see it Chris I'm looking at the transcript he does seem to be saying hey you owe us do me a favor we got this thing you want this we want this I
[15:29]
thing you want this we want this I accept that that was the the frame here's the fun part here's the fun part so then he reads the part about how President Trump asked for some information and CrowdStrike and the Biden's and he reads he reads what the president says and then he turns to his audience and says and and says that the transcript says that the president is asking Ukraine to quote dig up dirt on his political opponent do you see it so Chris Hayes is all factual all logical all rational and he's even saying read it and then he reads it to you on screen and right after he reads one thing to you he says there he was asking asking him to dig up dirt that's not there there's nothing like that there it doesn't say dig up dirt dig up dirt the
[16:30]
doesn't say dig up dirt dig up dirt the only way I interpret it is to make up something that isn't real wouldn't you say that's the interpretation that when you say dig up dirt if sort of assumes that the dirt was not really something we should be worrying about or maybe it's not even real it's just dirt so where in the transcript does the president ask the president of Ukraine to make up doesn't exist and so it this this is the magic trick so so the magic trick is that Hayes is pacing his audience this is actually hypnosis trick I doubt he's thinking of it this way but this is the mechanism the mechanism is that he says something his audience agrees with her they're chosen to be you know there wouldn't be any audience if they weren't sort of Pro this opinion and he says things you agree with things you agree with things you agree with things you agree with and that's priming you and pacing you things you agree with things you agree with things you agree with
[17:31]
you agree with things you agree with digging up dirt things you agree with things you agree with things you agree
with you just throw it in the middle of things that people agree but it's just not there it's a made-up it's a made-up imaginary thought that he asked him for something that wasn't real and here's why that's important you have to make that little magical leap and I have to admit I watched it and I couldn't tell if he did it intentionally that's the funny part sometimes you can watch a pundit and you say to yourself all right I know it's been you know it's been you don't believe it I know you you know you're just trying to convince me to believe it I know you don't even believe it but this didn't look like this I actually couldn't tell if he was trying to sell us something and knew he was making something up or if he actually saw it on the page now if you were not
[18:32]
saw it on the page now if you were not well versed in the ways of irrational thinking and hypnosis and maudlin let's say persuasion in general you may say Scott Scott Scott don't be naive anybody can tell the difference between asking for an investigation and asking somebody to dig up dirt because an investigation would be in a legal context and it'll be things that are important to the state and you know you would expect only accurate information and you only care about things that matter that's what an investigation would be digging up dirt would be you don't even really have to investigate just just give us some stuff yeah you know just just give us some stuff doesn't even need to be real so here's the thing in my experience it is completely common for people to imagine things that don't exist it's one of the
[19:33]
things that don't exist it's one of the most common things that our experience in fact and a little bit I'm gonna tell us you tell you some things that you probably think are true that just aren't you so to demonstrate the point so I think there's some chance that Chris Hayes believed that the word transcript translate accurately to digging up dirt he might not know they don't but I mean I don't see it I don't see anything there that would suggest that the president would be happy with them making something up because it doesn't it doesn't feel like it went last yeah somebody was mentioning the Charlottesville example and that's pretty good comparison in this case so that was the magic trick so imagine you're in the audience you've agreed with everything you said emotionally because they really they're really on the same page emotionally their hopes and dreams are all that the president's gonna be erased any moment now you would
[20:34]
gonna be erased any moment now you would accept a I think Chris Hayes is an attorney lawyer is that true if somebody that smart and that compatible we're thinking said that he's reading it right in front of you and saying it says dig up dirt essentially when you believe it you would very easily take on his interpretation because he's very convincing but it's not there so I found that quite interesting [Music] dude dude now the irony of course is that Chris's first theory is that the president was using a psychological magic trick to make you imagine there was nothing there simply because he's so willing to let you read it what Chris Hayes did was the same trick right in front of you which is he primed you to believe there was something there and that he read something there wasn't there and then he said there it is and he explained exactly what was there that
[21:36]
he explained exactly what was there that wasn't there because he just read what was there and it wasn't what he said nothing about digging up dirt so he used the same trick and again I don't know if it was intentional it was if it if it had been intentional it was kind of brilliant but it would be perfectly normal that he actually thought he saw it there he could have thought he saw it all right so here's that let's talk a little bit more about CrowdStrike so the president asked president the president of Ukraine was asked by Trump to look into not only Biden but something about CrowdStrike and a Ukraine connection and they have to admit I just always assumed everybody else knew what that meant I didn't know what it meant I had no idea what Ukraine and CrowdStrike and Hillary server or any of that have anything to do with that yet and so I just saw that look somebody must know what that means it
[22:38]
somebody must know what that means it must be something out there where that makes sense but as you as you read the anti-trump opinions they say that the any any suggestion that CrowdStrike has anything to do with Ukraine is just imaginary because there's there's no evidence that would suggest that the Ukraine was behind the hacking instead of Russia I think that's the bottom line is that the president says yet thought there was some suggestion Ukraine was behind the hacking instead of Russia but there's no evidence of that so then I said to myself it's a conspiracy theory but I wonder where that came from you know who exactly is saying that Ukraine and CrowdStrike have something in common so I started digging into it first thing I noticed is that these search engines at least on Google are very clear that there's nothing there you know the the top hits you get are that's a conspiracy
[23:39]
top hits you get are that's a conspiracy theory conspiracy think it's theory debunked debunked CrowdStrike has nothing to do with Ukraine but if you keep digging a little bit you can find some obscure blog posts where people are laying out their theories and so I I went down the rabbit hole a little bit to see at least what the conspiracy people were saying because I just wanted to know is the president acting on something that's just batshit crazy that nobody's saying or is there somebody who's saying there's some kind of a connection there and let me give you a few things I found out
there's this thing called the Atlantic Council now I'll probably get kicked off of youtube even for talking about this stuff somebody says once again you're two years behind you are correct I was two years behind because I kept waiting for this to matter and it wasn't sure it was mattering but here here are some
[24:40]
was mattering but here here are some connections so there's a what do you call it a think tank called the Atlantic Council as a United States think tank now the thing tacks tend to get corrupted by foreign countries because they require funding and foreign countries will say hey I'll I'll fund you for millions of dollars to do some position paper or study but of course they hope that position paper will be in their favor and millions of dollars are on the line so probably will be so the first thing you need to know is that all of these think tanks have at least the potential to be completely shams because they're taking money from people and giving them opinions that are compatible with who funded them now I'm not saying that's the case with the Atlantic Council in particular I'm just saying that think tanks all have that quality they can't really think that you're getting any kind of an independent opinion so here's the interesting thing
[25:41]
opinion so here's the interesting thing who do you think is on the advisory board for the Atlantic Council well one person was the founder of a co-founder of crowds Frank another person was James clapper and another person was the Ukrainian billionaire who has donated lots of money to the Clinton Foundation so there's this one organization that is what what does the Atlantic Council what is their main sort of theme and when I say that this will be based on even you know even independent people talking about them so this is not just critics but
but objective independent people would say the Atlantic Council's sort of overarching mission is anti-russia it's an anti-russian organization they're Pro NATO and anti-russian so
[26:46]
they're Pro NATO and anti-russian so you've got the co-founder of CrowdStrike whose analysis showed that Russia was at fault at the same time he's an advisory member of a think-tank that's anti-russian so he joined an anti-russian organization and then coincidentally when they had a chance to look at a hack well it looks like it was Russia's fault at the same time the James clapper is also an advisor now there's no evidence that they hang out I don't know you could be an advisor and never go to a meeting I suppose but these are just the connections they simply exist we don't know that clapper was necessarily having meetings with this guy or anything like that so and then this this Ukrainian billionaire who is also aligned with this of course Ukraine is anti Russia for all the right reasons so there's big money involved I think I think there's a rumor that this
[27:47]
think there's a rumor that this Ukrainian guy funds the Atlantic Council but what I found is that looked like it'd been debunked because they list who funds them that seems to be public information and that Ukrainian building in error is not funding them in any direct way but if I've taught you anything about Ukrainian billionaires you don't have to fund things directly if you've learned anything from hunter Biden's example you don't have to directly bribe any money you can find somebody in the family who needs a good job you could find a let's say a Clinton Foundation they could use twenty five million dollars or whatever we don't know how much he gave you can find something that they want that could benefit from a lot of money so
now the question is since CrowdStrike was the one that analyzed Clinton's
[28:48]
was the one that analyzed Clinton's server on behalf of the FBI so CrowdStrike does digital forensics to find out who hacks things among other things and one of the complaints about that is that they they only gave the FBI and image of the server instead of the physical server or servers and a lot of people on the right complain hey it's clearly that's clearly bad now the experts will say the image from the server is what you want the physical server is just going to say the same thing it's the image is an exact copy of what was on the server so anybody's saying hey we don't have the physical server probably doesn't understand how servers work and how how images work this would be the official I'm not this is not my opinion this is what the debunkers say now I have a question and
[29:49]
debunkers say now I have a question and probably somebody even knows more than I do can answer this if somebody gave you an image from a server a physical server and they took the digital image of it and it's exact and they give it to somebody let's say the FBI how does the FBI know it's the exact image have you ever wondered that is there any way to know because if you take the image it's just zeros and ones right and if I give you a pile of zeros and ones how do you know I didn't change any of the zeros and ones is there any way to know that it feels unknowable because and it feels like you could make it look any way you wanted now I'm not I'm not accusing CrowdStrike of changing the mirror image copy I'm simply in fact that would be an amazingly large legal risk for anybody to take it's it stretches the imagination that they would change it if there were any chance of getting caught but was there any chance of getting
[30:49]
but was there any chance of getting caught
it's a fair question right was there any chance of getting caught if they did change it I don't know maybe a hacker or somebody more technical can tell me or maybe somebody in law enforcement who has a better idea of whenever so so has a checksum somebody was saying so somebody's saying that if there were any changes you would know because a checksum means you the quick explanation is there's an algorithm you run against the data and it gets a specific result so if any of the data is changed and you run that algorithm on it later you'll get a different output and you'll say oh I don't know what got changed but it's not the same anymore because the algorithm gives me a different response I think that's a good explanation of the checksum I might have oversimplified that or but that's the basic idea so but here again when is the
[31:51]
basic idea so but here again when is the checksum originally done and who did it and does that give you an opportunity to say oh yeah the checksum was great then you change it or can you make a change and still get the same checksum is there any way to to fool the system I don't know so a lot of questions but what we do know is this we do know that an organization that is has closed as close connections with anti-russia think-tank decided that Russia was the hacker now I'm not saying they weren't I'm just saying in what world do you trust the anti-russian organization to give you an independent opinion that it was Russia behind it in any world does that make sense so common sense tells you that CrowdStrike is the last company you would ever want to be involved in looking into a hack
[32:53]
to be involved in looking into a hack where one of the suspects is Russian how often will CrowdStrike look into an ambiguous situation and say it wasn't Russia probably not that often now here's a little interesting tidbit I was not aware of maybe you can fact check this on me I hope this is right so when the big report was put together using crud strikes information the CIA and the FBI said they had high confidence that it accurately identified Russia as the cause of the hack so there are three organizations CIA FBI and NSA CIA and CIA clapper FBI Comey had high confidence that Russia was behind it the NSA with Admiral Mike Rogers did not have high confidence and he looked at the same stuff I assume because they would all have clearance
[33:54]
because they would all have clearance right so they could all look at the same information and NSA has only moderate conference confidence what would you call what's another name for moderate confidence in something if you had moderate confidence that something was true what would be another way to say that you don't know moderate confidence means well I lean in this direction but I'm just sort of leaning there I don't know and then I guess Roger said in his testimony he said he standard in a Senate hearing this is Admiral Mike Rogers director of the NSA that his confidence did not reach to even this threshold now that's something else is writing why he said he is I wouldn't call it a discrepancy I'd call it an honest difference of opinion between three different organizations and in the
[34:54]
three different organizations and in the end I made that call it didn't have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources in other words one professional in this field and of three said the evidence was not conclusive he was looking at the same evidence
- who said it was conclusive were part of the coup I mean I the two who said it was conclusive were literally part of the ko so what sorry boos here so what does that what does that do to your confidence now what are the other pieces of information is that it's widely reported that the the data listen was that the data from the whistleblower or somebody so some data
[35:54]
whistleblower or somebody so some data that was transferred ability to WikiLeaks was transferred so fast I had to be an inside job a like a thumbdrive but apparently that's debunked have you heard that theory the theory that it had to be an inside job not outside hackers because the data transmission speed was so fast that you could only do that locally but apparently that's been well debunked and the the way that that was debunked my cat has been missing me for a week so she's all over me here so the way that that was debunked is that apparently people who know how this stuff is done is that it would be common to hack one computer on the inside at a slow speed and then transfer from another server onto the hacked server and then Sukkoth had in that server so the thinking is that the that there may be some place in the process that was a local transfer which would be at high speed but it was
[36:56]
which would be at high speed but it was still being a hacker the hacker would just be moving it from one internal server to another and then extracting it which apparently is a common process so the the thought that it was an inside job and seth rich was behind it it seems to be debunked at least in terms of there was no other way it could have been that high transfer speed apparently that's just normal there's nothing unusual about that high transfer speed in a hacking situation so let's put this all together so the president asked Ukraine to look into CrowdStrike situation he the president may have good information may have bad information don't know yeah somebody says William Binney says no but William Binney is not a hacker if you talk to the hackers the hackers will say others an obvious reason it's because they just transferred internally on the server all right so I think you should probably this is my opinion you know none of this
[37:58]
this is my opinion you know none of this stuff could be a hundred percent I would say if you still believe that the internal transfer speed is somehow a clue you should probably release on that that doesn't seem like that's a credible piece of information so the president's asking about the Ukraine he I think he believed or does believe that the Ukrainians might be funding I don't know the Atlantic Council but I don't think that's true based on their public information but when you've got a billionaire involved they have lots of ways to compensate people indirectly so you can't rule anything else so there's nothing in all of this that tells me that there's necessarily any kind of Ukrainian bad things going on but what I can say is that the CrowdStrike analysis in my opinion lacks credibility if it couldn't convince the head of the NSA and this Atlantic Council clearly
[39:02]
NSA and this Atlantic Council clearly has all the all the all the wrong players in the same place or at least they're associated with anti-russian stuff there's no credibility to that so I'm not going to say that I've just that I found something wrong nor will I say nor will I say that Russia wasn't the idea I'm not going to say that I'm just saying that the people who determined Russia was behind it should be given no credibility zero the the amount of credibility should give them should be zero because of the players involved you would do that in any other case right do if somebody's accused of murder do you ask the murderer hey murder did you do it no I didn't do it oh good you're free free to go we don't do that right because the person who has the most interest in lying is where you got the information from alright enough on that I had another
[40:02]
alright enough on that I had another point I wanted to make so just to make things interesting there's a report that Trump is considering attending Russia's Victory Day Parade which would be a military parade on May 9th I guess at the coming year now first of all I don't know if that's true but let's say it is let's say the president is considering he has not accepted but is considering attending an event which basically would be exalting Putin and Russia is that a good idea let me remind you that President Trump does not approach foreign relations the way anybody else does and by that I mean he does it the smart way he does it a smart way that only could work for him because there's a special quality of this president that others would not necessarily have so it allows him to do things differently because there's something about him and
[41:03]
because there's something about him and here's the something about him don't you believe that President Trump could be completely friendly with you sincerely actually like you and still screw you if it made sense to do so don't you believe that would you believe that Jimmy Carter could be nice to you in person treat you with respect say you got a great country there you're doing a great job and then turn around and screw the person he was saying nice things about probably not you wouldn't really believe it if I came from Jimmy Carter how about Obama do you think Obama could praise somebody and then screw them could he praise them and screw them at the same time I don't think so I think Obama would say you're you know you're our enemy we're screwing you you would want to be consistent I'm screwing you and now I'm talking with you and I'm talking to you like I'm screwing you because I'm screwing you that's what I'm doing or screwing you so what president drum can
[42:05]
screwing you so what president drum can do and he says it explicitly it's now like I'm guessing I'm not reading his mind he said it numerous times as directly as you can say it I'm going to treat the the leaders with respect while being as tough as I I need to be he's doing it with China he did it with North Korea he's doing it with yeah what are your comments making me laugh and now he's doing it with Russia and he's telling us what he's doing he did it what he's doing it with Saudi Arabia so he has a process in which he will make personal relationships with the people we want to influence while looking them right in the eye and saying you know I'm squeezing your economy to death you know let's go to lunch who else could do that and by the way it's the very best way to be if you're trying to to convince somebody to go your way you don't present yourself as a dick
[43:07]
you don't present yourself as a dick because you're talking to people who have egos and they run countries and stuff and if you come across as a as a demanding dick they're gonna react that way because the way he reacts affects how they react he's he is smart enough to know that his mannerisms his approach to everything he does will have a personal and important effect on the other leaders so he uses his personal charisma at the same time he's protections on you and sending sending weapons to the Ukraine anything else he has to do so I would say that where he is that where Trump is being criticized is in my opinion one of his biggest strengths you know people ask me how can I be supportive of this president with all of his typos and tweets and his bad words and stuff and I always say it's because I thought I had
[44:08]
because I thought I had and I think I've been proved correct that he would bring a set of tools to the job that we've never seen before and that every now and then you need a new set of tools because there are some sets of problems that you just haven't solved with the old tools now maybe you don't need a president Trump like personnel D forever you know sometimes you bring in the you bring in the hit man sometimes you bring in the the turnaround expert because the turnaround expert for your company has a different skill set than the steady-state person sometimes the entrepreneur starts the company but then you need to bring in a you know somebody who's been a CEO to get some stability so I always thought that Trump had this kind of quality which he could simply do stuff that makes sense that other people can do other people would never be able to look Booton in the I genuinely like him and this is the weird part I think Trump
[45:08]
this is the weird part I think Trump actually genuinely likes some of these people because in person he's quite charismatic and I imagine they are too so he doesn't have any problem with genuinely liking them and screwing the missus hard as he needs to because he doesn't work for them he can like him but they're still on the other team you can like the players on the other team and still try as hard as you can to beat him that seems to be what he's doing so would should Trump go to the May 9th event I don't know you know he likes to do stuff like this it would control the do cycle everybody would complain but would it be effective well let me frame it for you what's the biggest risk for the United States going forward China what would China hate more than anything the United States and Russia becoming allies that's what China would hate more than anything because right now in China and Russia have a pretty good relationship I would say that if you're
[46:09]
relationship I would say that if you're trying to keep China in check you kind of want to start developing a Russia relationship because nothing would be more powerful than Russia plus the United States having at least sometimes a unified opinion should China cross any kind of a line it feels to me like strategically right as long as he's also putting the screws on and now there's a conversation that I think needs to be had with Putin and probably with Xi but I don't know if I would work with she might work with Putin so you're here would be the Putin conversation this is what I would do if I were a president Trump you know where I had that job I would say to Putin all right we got you know decades of poking each other in the eye you poke us in the eye we poke you in the eye you know we've been doing it for decades can you give me one example of when that was good for either of us no no I mean maybe
[47:12]
good for either of us no no I mean maybe in some small way some thing we never heard of there might have been some advantage gained but then the other gets an advantage and it's just this mess now imagine that compared to working productively together how much better off would Russia be if they just said you know it doesn't make any sense that we're at your you're at we're at your throat we don't threaten you and we don't want to have a war with the United States it's literally the last thing we want if you were to make a list of all the things that Russia doesn't want the thing they don't want the most there's a nuclear war or war with the United States which could turn nuclear probably would so I think that one of the strongest things as president could do for the long-term future if you imagine that China's influence will continue growing which is a safe bet would be to figure out how to work with Russia in a way that we both understand that being
[48:14]
way that we both understand that being each other's enemy just doesn't have a payoff there's just no payoff in the old days I think it made sense to try to you know diminish the United States power because there might be things that you want that are in conflict with what the United States wants but what are they you know what problem do we have with Russian making money if Russia is not making money to buy missiles to point at us which is the place you want to get to is you're not pointing missiles at each other if we're not pointing missiles at each other do we care if they have a warm water port do we care if they pipeline do we care if they sell stuff I think we'd be fine with Russia being more prosperous so anyway I think Putin and Trump are the only two leaders of the respective countries who could ever make this kind of a deal which is how about we just stop being enemies unless you have a
[49:16]
stop being enemies unless you have a reason you know hey Putin do you have a reason why we're still acting like enemies can can you even remember why we do this because I can't think of a reason we should be allies because China is the bigger risk for both of us so there's that all right let's talk about Bloomberg so I'm still on the side or the prediction that Bloomberg will not enter the race even if all the signs are there I think you will not do it for several reasons number one he couldn't possibly win against Trump I doubt he could get the nomination but he can't possibly win against row number two he's 77 and that's part of why he can't win and he you know he may not have an appeal beyond the Northeast we don't know but I I just think he may be
[50:17]
know but I I just think he may be sending a signal to other Democrats that they just need somebody better imagine being the Democrats and you've gone this far and you're so unconfident about your own group of candidates the whole group of them you have so little confidence in them that you're willing to look at this 77 year old who will be 78 I guess during the election and yeah and you think that that's your vessel yeah somebody says Bloomberg is honest and Biden isn't you know that's probably true what I there was a time when I actually said in public that I thought Bloomberg would be a good president that time was when he was younger this is not that time so you know blue Bergen is 60s it was a pretty good package you know I thought he was serious I think he really just cares about the country not in it for the money doesn't have any you know
[51:20]
for the money doesn't have any you know ideological crazy stuff going on but but I don't want an 80 plus year-old president it doesn't matter who it is and I don't think other people do all right what else is going on let me make a prediction for you okay here's a prediction it's sort of a an if prediction if it's true it's big here's the if prediction that assuming though the the top three candidates Biden Ward and Sanders are just don't have a chance of winning there could be a time between now and the primaries being decided that one of the lower ranked people will float up now Buddha judge is the closest he's got a good solid strong fourth place going on there and I think third place in some polls but you know you
[52:22]
place in some polls but you know you also have Tulsi Gabbard and yes yeah etc here's my people are yelling at me because I never mentioned South rich Seth wretch Seth rich all right now conspiracy theorists are you okay I said I said it Seth rich now my personal opinion is I doubt there's anything there you know just because you don't know why he was shot and you don't know why they didn't take his wallet it isn't hard to figure out why if somebody shot him because they were crazy or is a mistaken identity or they were planning to take his wallet and then you know a car car came by so they ran away I mean you could think of a million reasons why he'd get shot in the street so I would say that the evidence that he's leaker primarily is Julian Assange indicating he was now it is true I would say it is true that Julian Assange unambiguously indicated
[53:26]
Julian Assange unambiguously indicated or wanted us to believe that he was the leaker but my current thinking is that doesn't mean it's true it could mean that Julian Assange was trying to take the attention away from whoever was the leaker so I do not believe Julian Assange but but it is unambiguously true he did want us to believe it was seth rich i just don't believe it so that's my current thinking on that so you can stop saying you can stop saying anything about the sense rich now because i'm not going to talk about it again and probably block you if you just obsess on it because it's too boring and i don't want to talk about it so what are we talking about oh so here's my if prediction if either tulsi gabbard or pete buddha judge appear on my periscope they will be the
[54:27]
appear on my periscope they will be the nominee yeah challenge accepted I believe I could make either one of them the nominee by appearing on this periscope do you think so it wouldn't be because they appeared on the periscope it's because I could I could advise them on the periscope until they became the candidate and everybody wanted yeah I I've hesitated to do this you know I've I've wanted to have one of them on here just because it would be fun it would be entertaining it would be educational it'd be great but I'm worried because I think I could turn one of them into the nominee I didn't say Andrew yang because I couldn't turn him into an omni he doesn't doesn't quite have the the breadth that the party is looking for but either Buddha judge or Tulsi Gabbard are perfectly electable people Tulsi
[55:34]
are perfectly electable people Tulsi voted for impeachment she is dead to me you know i you're not gonna get a Democrat who agrees with you so you're not the one voting for the Democrat anyway so that would be the interesting experiment so I put this out here Tulsi you or beat Buddha judge appear on my periscope and your odds of winning the nomination will go way up if you're seeing this or hearing this third hand from somebody you have no idea why that makes sense let me ask you how much of a ridiculous boast am i making and how much sounds to you like that could actually happen I'd be interested in your opinion does that sound too too much is that an over promise now I haven't heard from Tull C's campaigned beyond when I
[56:38]
Tull C's campaigned beyond when I answered some questions so I was still waiting for a get back on that no I don't have a crush on anybody but thanks for except for Christina all right
Harris you know I could probably turn Harrison to the the nominee but I just don't imagine her being able I can't imagine her coming on my periscope after I've been saying she's running the worst campaign in the history of all campaigns so I don't see that happening but if she did I'll throw her in the mix I could make caramel heiress the nominee I'll bet I could do that
all right too much too much hype too much all right that's the way I like to be I like the fact that you don't think that that's a reasonable thing for me to see I kind of like that too much well
[57:44]
see I kind of like that too much well that's why it would be a fun challenge could you fix Carla in an hour I can fix her in a half of it I can fix her in half an hour I really could now whether she could take that advice as a different different assumption oh thank you you saw beyond Greg Gutfeld I haven't watched it in replay yet because I was flying yesterday somebody says that my persuasion can move two to three percent but not twenty percent my persuasion could move two percent for people who didn't want to change their minds you know over time you could work on people who don't want to change the minds maybe you get two percent but there are people who don't mind changing their mind and right now I think the Democrats are all in that frame of mind because everybody who has a specific candidate they like know is that whoever the candidate is they're gonna back so everybody in the
[58:44]
they're gonna back so everybody in the Democrats now are primed to be willing to change their mind but only under the condition that the other candidate is more electable than whoever whoever they're backing so under that condition you're not people are not resisting the persuasion they're actually open to changing candidates because they know they're going to most of them well most of them will change candidates because their candidate won't make it through the primary so if you're perfect if you're persuading a group that is ready to be persuaded and willing completely willing that's you can get a much higher percentage than two percent Trump would get mad at you woody I mean I can I can help any one of them get the nomination but none of them to have a chance of the general none of them have any chance in the general election they're gonna get stopped yeah and by the way I wouldn't
[59:45]
stopped yeah and by the way I wouldn't even offer this if I thought it would make a difference in the final outcome well I wouldn't worry about it because I don't think any of them are gonna are gonna agree to be on here but I'm just saying it's a missed opportunity anyway I will talk to you all later have a great day