Episode 747 Scott Adams: DNA News With Othram CEO David Mittelman, Impeachment

Date: 2019-12-05 | Duration: 1:03:42

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Joe Biden’s think-past-the-sale response to grudge question DNAsolves.com a private database for law enforcement investigations DNA identification of suspects and victims The days of unsolved crimes are coming to an end Biden political commercial saying other countries laughing at us Kamala Harris as the VP choice for Joe Biden Pamela Karlan’s presentation at impeachment hearing How can there be top constitutional scholars on BOTH sides? Can Representatives be impeached…for abuse of power? Haven’t Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler, abused their power? Aren’t they destabilizing the Republic for political gain? Abuse of power to create laws that don’t exist Nobody is above the constitution Pete Buttigieg disqualifies himself from the Presidential race What’s up with Judge Napolitano? Speculation that FBI was NOT plotting against President Trump Reputation and respect for China, at lowest level in my lifetime How long can Chairman Xi remain in power?

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

[0:05]

mmm dumpling pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom hey everybody come on in here it's good to see you it's always good to see you today we have an amazing coffee with Scott Adams no I know it's hard to imagine because they're all so amazing that to imagine that today is extra amazing it's almost unfathomable don't I know it but in order to enjoy this day I think you know what you need I think you do I think you need a cup of our glasses snifter stein Telus tankard thermos flask empty and Grail goblet vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine here the day the thing that makes everything better you know it does go oh yeah that's the good stuff well let's see if all goes

[1:05]

good stuff well let's see if all goes well I'm going to be inviting a special guest who in the moment who in a moment will be revealing himself so that I can add into the guest list here a bump bump bone let me just check here I'll tell ya this system could be a little bit better alright let's talk about some things away from my special guest to make himself available here and then I will ask him to join so a few things going on here Joe Biden was asked what he thought about Kamala Harris for vice-president maybe or what is you know what does Joe Biden think of her now that she's quit Joe Biden had some excellent things to

[2:05]

Joe Biden had some excellent things to say about Colonel Harris said she was very talented could be vice president could be President could be attorney general could be anything she's so talented and somebody asked Joe Biden did he hold a grudge for things that Carmel Harris said during the debates and I'm gonna give credit where credit is due here I know you don't I know you hate it would I do this because it's not good teamplay but Joe Biden they had one of the best responses you'll ever see in your entire life I like really good so I'm gonna call this out as something you should borrow it's so good usually just use it yourself so when asked by a reporter when Biden was asked by reporter do you hold a grudge against Kamala Harris he looked at the reporter and he said I'm not good at holding grudges damn that's good that is so good here's what it does it

[3:07]

that is so good here's what it does it makes you think past the sale the sale is do you have a grudge or do you not have a grudge had he done the most obvious answer which is no I don't have a grudge what would you think you would think well he might be a lion might be lion he might have a little grudge there
okay looks like my guess is on I'll join him I'll be adding him in a moment so what Joe Biden did was by saying I'm not good at holding a grudge he made a comment about himself which is actually compatible with his reputation because he's known as one of the you know the nicest people even if you don't like his politics or his skill level even his even his opponents say he's a really nice guy that answer was the nicest nice guy thing I've ever seen in my life I

[4:09]

guy thing I've ever seen in my life I mean it was so simple I think it was spontaneous it didn't look like it was practiced but he said I'm not good at holding a grudge it makes you think all the way past yes or no is he holding a grudge you think all the way past that to what kind of a person Joe Biden is and the person he is his answer was compatible with his entire reputation he's just not the person who holds a grudge it was awesome I really really liked it all right so now as you know Joe Biden is not my choice for president but you got a call-out good technique when you see it I'll talk about him a little bit more in a bit let me see if I can bring on my guest if my technology is working in one moment I'll be talking to David are you there there might be a little there's a little bit of echo do you have two devices listening to me no I hear a little echo when I talk how about now now it's

[5:12]

when I talk how about now now it's better all right so David Mittleman you are CEO of auth room and Arum does what remind us yeah so so author arm is a basically a forensics laboratory and we try to make human identifications from crime scenes unidentified remains you know just any kind of material that's been left even our crimes here somewhere else and help identify victims in the case of a crime scene perhaps perpetrators that have might have contributed to the crime now there are a few every time I watch the news it seems like there's a new news story that involves DNA and one way or another so that's why I wanted to have you on to update us on a few things and one of the exciting things which figures into something I wrote about in my book loser think where I talked about the Golden Age and how the the days where crimes are unsolved might be ending for a variety of reasons the technology to solve crimes is becoming

[6:14]

technology to solve crimes is becoming insanely good and if you don't see this coming you're missing a big trend so can you tell us about DNA solves comm yes so there's been there's been you know almost 30 million people that have been tested with consumer tests some of those folks know victims or families of victims some of those folks are in law enforcement or no law enforcement and they have read the same articles you've read and they've come to the conclusion that they want to make a difference in helping us solve you know some of these cases as you said have gotten unsolved for decades there's a there's a government database it's called nameís gov and it catalogs unidentified remains there's over thirteen thousand remains many of those have DNA and and they've remained unsolved and and DNA testing can can help bring a bring of value there so DNA solves calm is a private database that we built it complements when I say private I mean it's not it's not publicly accessible the way Jen matches

[7:17]

publicly accessible the way Jen matches some of the other tools are built and it's designed only for use in law enforcement which I think the risks how other databases can be used it can only be used in a law enforcement investigation it can only be used according to DOJ policy and it is generally used to identify a victim like I said or players in a violent crime so is the idea that anybody can donate their DNA to this database DNA solves and then once they're in there if anybody in there let's say family commits a crime it's a way to narrow it down because you can say well I don't know who this person is but I know their family members are because we have the family's DNA's is something like that sort of yeah from from from genetic point of view we're all um we're all related so you and I are related so it's not really relationships in the sense that we would societally described but we're all we're all you know 4/5 six cousins of each other by some way or another and so from that perspective you may be distantly related to the genetic

[8:17]

may be distantly related to the genetic sense to someone that was either murdered you died you know by no ill means but didin was never identified or as a perpetrator in a crime and it's so for those kind of scenarios that with a with a fourth cousin or a third cousin you can work large family trees and with people's information as a scaffold you can kind of bring might and figure out who these folks are so it works on both sides you're finding not only perpetrators of crimes but victims of crimes who had long been unidentified for ridiculous
or so there was a torso found in 1979 in Idaho in a cave went decades unidentified they found the arms in the 90s the arms and legs perhaps in the 90s and and and and just think we're not able to identify the person I mean whoever I don't even know the full story perhaps whoever disposed to that person purposely removed the limb so they couldn't be identified and our laboratory teamed up with some

[9:18]

laboratory teamed up with some genealogists and we took material that was very degraded this from 1979 we were able to pull a decent amount of DNA sequence and give this person a name the person has been unnamed and an anonymous since 1979 and so I think law enforcement will be announcing that pretty soon but um but there's a real humanitarian value to being able to take folks that have been lost to time and re-enter them to society and then to your point I think also in being able to to curb violent crime not just in being able to solve it but I think just the ability to to deploy that technology acts as the deterrent against future violent crime yeah let me ask you this what percentage of violent crimes do not what what percentage of all violent crimes don't leave any kind of DNA at least as the perpetrator there's always the victims DNA but what percentage of the the perpetrators leave their DNA Atlas I am crime or even maybe a

[10:18]

Atlas I am crime or even maybe a property crime is it is it a hundred percent at this point it's definitely not no no it's definitely not a hundred percent I wish I could give you an exact number I don't know there's there's a number of things that can go wrong right you may you may execute the perfect crime and leave no DNA evidence especially if you're planning a crime right you may you may have left evidence but the evidence gets lost or degraded or you know there's not enough DNA to do anything so this certainly is not going to help in a hundred percent of cases but there are substantial cases particularly in like crimes of passion we have implanted in advance where DNA is left at a scene and those those crime scenes remain unsolved and then of course if you either by malicious or unintentional means die on the side of the road or your body gets left somewhere there's obviously DNA there so certainly it really advances our ability to help identify victims and for a good number of crimes but certainly not all we'd have the ability to help kind of provide a little bit of information that can drive an investigation forward and

[11:18]

can drive an investigation forward and of course the other thing to note is that DNA testing doesn't single-handedly solve anything DNA testing is one data point that goes along with you know investigative work eyewitness testimony all sorts of things and and it helps drive things forward it's just there's a lot of cases that will stall out that could be right I did with DNA testing well this is a question for the audience what are the odds that if Epstein had been murdered in his cell is there any chance there wouldn't be DNA there I mean even if the perpetrator wore gloves is there still gonna be some DNA there I mean I don't know I don't know how how it happened but um but it would be a good chance that someone would leave DNA I mean it's crazy the different ways you might leave DNA unintentionally you know if you're holding an item you know there's even there's even stories of long yeah I mean I can't think through all the scenarios there's a lot of different ways you could do that I mean in the future I guess if you wanna if you want to take someone out and you

[12:20]

you want to take someone out and you don't want to leave any DNA you'll either have to send someone else or maybe you need a like a futuristic drone to go in and shoot somebody but if you're there I mean you're leaving you're leaving DNA so okay now let me ask you are you you are you following the story and I don't even know if this is true that China is developing technology that they would be able to take DNA and figure out what the person probably looked like so that they could do facial recognition just based on DNA is that even a thing okay so I did read the story I will tell you my assessment and then and then you know I I obviously haven't been to China so I can't tell you I can only tell you what I read but I will tell you based on our understanding based on like scientific understanding of cranial-facial of genetics drawing people's faces from DNA there's a lot more science fiction than it is real so so I would tell you I'm remarkably skeptical okay the DNA sequence in printer face what I will tell you is that there are

[13:22]

what I will tell you is that there are some parts of your physical appearance right eye color hair color there are parts of physical appearance that can be very easily mapped to DNA and number two there are there you know an anthropologist known this for years but if you know the ancestry of an individual to some extent you can approximate what their face might look like and so some of the people that have tried to claim that they can predict the faces from DNA they're using that kind of approach but to actually draw someone's face from DNA I think is not possible could you could could you could you tell let me ask you a specific question could I say what I know from somebody's DNA if they had a broad or a small nose there are some markers that will that will be able to just you know there's some markers and research that has been done into looking to like distance between the eyes width of nose yeah there are plastic landmarks for which some of those have genetic components so I think the most accurate way to say it is there are some genetic features that can be described

[14:22]

genetic features that can be described with genetic markers so some inherited facial features can be described with genetic markers but you definitely can't do what I think they're advertising and what I've heard others advertise over the years but never produce any substantiate and evidence that you can draw a face from DNA certainly with you know the haircut and everything all in place so you know suppose suppose you ran you had some monstrously large computer and you just ran a whole bunch of different DNA through it and then you ran the the photos of the people who matched that DNA through it and you had millions of them don't you think that the millions of faces matched with the millions of sets of DNA would probably start to be predictive over time yeah even even if you didn't know exactly which genes were predicting what wouldn't wouldn't you be able to compute it out without even knowing exactly why so the biggest it makes sense and I think that um you certainly can't know what will happen in the future but but I'll tell you that there are two big

[15:23]

but I'll tell you that there are two big challenges here the first challenge is that how people get the DNA so to speak like what markers are looking at are looking at every marker in the DNA are they looking a subset that's going to describe whether you're able to make correlations to facial features the second problem is really important is that correlating DNA to things is very hard when you don't have exact descriptions and the face is by nature not exact the face changes over time as you get older right the face changes depends on the wrong orientation the face is a 3d object projected onto a 2d plane so I'm just saying it's I'm not saying that it's impossible I'm saying it's incredibly hard no one's demonstrated that can be done and and fundamentally I think it's not a 2019 phenomenon but I do I do want to point out something that I think will will make the discussion moot because according to that article in New York Times China is advertising that they have collected DNA information for 80 million people right and so I told you a minute ago that we're all kind of a

[16:23]

minute ago that we're all kind of a Seidel network of genetic relatives right all right there's I don't know how many people are in China is like one and a half billion let's say let's say one out of a billion okay so so with 80 million you know you're beginning to approach you know you're beginning to approach a substantial component right proportion of the population you know once you start getting even a few percent of people genetically typed in a population you don't need faces you just identify them I mean you can just literally identify them through relationships so I think I think that um the article you know I don't know where they got the information I don't think faces can be drawn but I think the bigger issue is that China will invest in taking 80 million folks growing that number and then being able to identify anyone regardless you don't need the face is it possible David is it technically possible that China could ever develop a chemical biological weapon there would affect people with certain DNA that are

[17:24]

affect people with certain DNA that are let's say non Chinese and without affecting somebody who's Chinese just hypothetically is that even possible I mean you can have targeted drugs to things in your DNA whether you can target ethnic groups as we would think of ethnic groups I think I think I think it'd be easier to draw faces from right now okay alright David I'm gonna move on to politics is there anything you want to any final thoughts yeah I I want to I want to mention that like you know along with you know face recognition GPS tracking all the technologies that have come to bring good in the world there's all a negative component to it as well and right now with 30 million us mostly us folks tested with consumer tests there's an asymmetric risk to the United States versus other countries in having this data out there and like with every other kind of piece of data in technology it's out there and it'll be developed whether we you know write legislation against it thought about it or ignore it and so I

[18:26]

thought about it or ignore it and so I would encourage everyone to think what is the best way to bring value help victims and their families identify perpetrators but do it in a way that wouldn't lead us down the road that China's taken in a some kind of you know 1984 like Big Brother surveillance initiative but you simply ignore it has consequences too there are consequences to acting and also not acting alright last question yes or no someday there will be a dating service that matches people by DNA yes or no the only way I would do that is if you told who not to date right so if you're too related don't date okay all right good answer thank you David middleman at author um oth our am we appreciate your updates and we'll talk to you again David thank you thanks Scott all right bye-bye all right that's always fun to get that it's so futuristic to hear what's what's going on there with DNA let's talk about some other things Biden or his campaign

[19:26]

some other things Biden or his campaign or maybe some PAC or somebody is running an anti-trump ad focusing on the event at the NATO conference in which Justin Trudeau and some others were seeing potentially laughing behind his back and the commercial the commercial takes the theme that the other countries are laughing at our president behind his back now I gotta tell you it's a really good commercial so again two things that the Biden campaign did exceptionally well completely surprisingly I must say so this is the first time I've seen that Biden or at least people associated with him whoever made the commercial are willing to go to go all the way into the mud because does this commercial is sort of off-brand for Biden who's the bring

[20:28]

of off-brand for Biden who's the bring the country together you know let let's all hold hands and sing but I tell ya this is this is a pretty pretty brutal brutal commercial it's very personal and it's against Trump and it's well done from a effectiveness perspective you know it's not fair it's the type of ad that you know the Trump folks do about Biden you know putting misleading clips together so it it makes you think that the misleading clips described the whole and Biden campaign just just serves it right back to Trump pretty good job execution wise only talking about execution it was well executed all right so as you know I made the risky prediction that Camel Harris would be the Democratic nominee but she dropped out of the race my worst worst prediction of all time but I doubled down yesterday and said what about if

[21:30]

down yesterday and said what about if she becomes Biden's vice presidential pick and Biden doesn't make it all the way to Election Day for one reason or another and apparently that prediction is a little more popular than my original prediction so I got some press today Google turned up a few articles about that so apparently the the thought the common law could be a vice presidential pick for Biden is not that crazy not so crazy so at least the part about being a vice presidential pick is not so crazy let's talk about the impeachment stuff all right I'm gonna say this again but jonathan turley who is the one expert who I guess you could say is on the side of the Republicans but he's not a pro Trump guy per se he's just a Republican did not vote for Trump and his arguments

[22:31]

did not vote for Trump and his arguments I found by far the most compelling but am i biased am i biased is it is it just my bias that terally seem to have a rock-solid you know at the end of story we don't even need to talk anybody else to anybody else that's all you need to know easy clear nothing to argue with it seemed pretty solid but is that just my bias because when I listen to who was the other expert Carlin so they had three experts on the other side one of them was a woman named Carlin and I I don't know how to talk about this story without saying the obvious but unfortunately if you say the obvious you you look like a sexist or something misogynist misogynist yeah and so I'm

[23:35]

misogynist misogynist yeah and so I'm gonna word it very carefully I have no opinions about Carlin dr. Carter professor Carlin I have no opinions about it because I don't know her personally so I will just speak about how her presentation was received so I can't know what's in her head I can't know I can't know anything about her so I'm not pretending I do all we know is her presentation so I'm judging only from how it looked and it looked like a crazy cat lady who was just bitching about the world she did not look and again I'm making a distinction between what I know to be true because I can't know anything about her personally with what it looked like so I'm just saying the presentation came across and was received by me as actually mentally unstable and I don't mean that you know

[24:36]

unstable and I don't mean that you know it's hard to talking about this topic where that was a sounding like a partisan where that was sounding like you're just saying it for a fact I'm not saying this just for effect that's my actual reaction to it was oh this looks a lot more like a mental health problem literally again I'm not I'm not trying to make a joke and I'm not saying that any of that is true because you can't diagnose somebody's mental state by watching one you know one presentation but she came across as the least likable person I've seen in a decade which is saying a lot I mean I would not want her in my home would you if you invited somebody to your house they said hey I'm gonna bring a friend and you find out later that the friend is this professor Carlin and she comes over to your house would you ever have

[25:38]

over to your house would you ever have her in your house again again I don't know her personally she might be perfectly nice you know in her actual real life that we don't have access to but based on the presentation she was the most unpleasant crazy looking person you could ever say so I don't think that worked the way the Democrats hoped it would work and then of course well I'm not even gonna say that there's a topic I want to talk about that I'm just not going to cuz its to to explosives all right so if you're not watching the alan dershowitz --is twitter feed about this impeachment you're missing a really good show so i tweeted that yesterday Dershowitz was sort of live tweeting I guess you'd call it while the impeachment stuff was going on and he was fact-checking the experts in a real-time now people get on me when I say I don't

[26:41]

now people get on me when I say I don't trust the experts in in one field or another they look at this situation look at all the look at all the constitutional experts jabbering about impeachment am i right or am I wrong that there are highly qualified experts on opposite sides what the hell does that mean what does it mean when you have the best constitutional scholars in the world and they can't even agree what's impeachable and whether or not this is one that's a pretty big deal in it
it it should give you some pause about what it means to be an expert but again I might be biased but what I look at Turley's explanation and where I look at Dershowitz his explanation who by the way agrees with Turley who by the way agrees with me so prior to seeing Turley his explanation I I think I'm the only person who had been saying the only thing that matters is if Trump had a a

[27:44]

thing that matters is if Trump had a a national interest in finding out more about burry ceman and Biden if that's true or if you can't prove it's untrue it's the end of the story all the other stuff doesn't matter all the other things don't matter all that matters is that one question did the president have a reasonable reasonable reason to look into it for the national interest in addition to his his political interest because we don't care if it's also good for him politically as long as it's good for the country the system allows that and encourages that and so thoroughly is the only one who focused on that besides me so I guess I'm I guess I'm a constitutional scholar now you're welcome now since I am apparently as qualified as the greatest constitutional scholars in the world based on the fact that I agree with them see what I did there I'm

[28:47]

agree with them see what I did there I'm going to extend my expert institutional law opinion are you ready here it comes apparently there's some disagreement about whether the Constitution accuses whether the Constitution says that abuse of office or abuse of power which are similar did the president abuse his office or abuse the power of his office they're all the same and Alan Dershowitz says show me in the Constitution where it says abuse of power or abuse of office is impeachable can you point to that and the answer is not there it's not there and indeed if this standard were applied lots of past presidents would have been impeached but here's the fun part did you know those senators can be impeached well I did what Google search and some random stranger referenced part

[29:50]

and some random stranger referenced part of the law that says that they can be so I'm going to say that that's true by the way so fact check me on that fact check me on the question can senators be impeached I believe the answer is yes right as same as the president now if senators can be impeached and if the standard were using is abuse of power meaning abusing the power of their office how in the world do you not put Pelosi Schiff and Adler Nadler up for impeachment because there are one of two possibilities one is that the president is innocent of all impeachable offenses now if the president is found let's say innocent listen well Edison is wrong word let's say that the Senate votes on party lines to reject the the impeachment would we not be able to

[30:51]

impeachment would we not be able to conclude that Pelosi Schiff and Adler had abused their power by bringing such a weak case all the way to a Senate vote I think you could make that case they're taking such a weak case that they know was weak is an abuse of power because they would be doing it just for a wait for it political reasons now if it were three years before the next election you'd say well that's not just for political reasons there must be something here but when you're this close to an election it is impossible to imagine that it has any purpose other than political their argument is we have to remove him immediately because he might make another phone call like that Ukrainian thing are you kidding me are you kidding me that's your risk you want to bring down an elected president who's doing a great job in general great

[31:53]

who's doing a great job in general great job over that that's purely an abuse of power so remember situation number one is that the Senate rejects the impeachment along party lines that should be enough to prove that Pelosi Nadler and chef abused their power for taking such a weak case right before an election through the process but what about the other possibility what if the Senate looks at the argument and says oh I think we're going to accept this standard let us accept this standard that abuse of power is an impeachable offense what then if you accept the standard you can still impeach Nadler Schiff and and Pelosi because they would have met that standard so I'm quite serious about this

[32:55]

standard so I'm quite serious about this I think Pelosi Schiff and mad ler should be brought up on impeachment charges and I don't know why we wouldn't can you think of any reason we wouldn't I think maybe I'm in it in a chess sense maybe there's some reason not to but I don't mean this politically I'm not saying this politically I there's an actual danger to the country that Schiff Pelosi and Nadler have created they're actually destabilizing the Republic for as far as I can tell purely political reasons it looks like an abuse of power and the worst one we've ever seen perhaps would you agree that this is the worst abuse of power we've ever seen I can't think of one that would rival this now maybe somebody who's a historian can give some examples of worse abuse of power but short of actually creating you know short of actually breaking the law which

[33:55]

short of actually breaking the law which is a different standard I don't know we've seen a worse abuse of power and they're actually trying to overthrow a legally elected president on a bunch of crap that's the worst abuse of power I've ever seen so I think those three have to be brought up on impeachment charges and I'm not kidding even a little bit I'm not kidding even a little bit it's that's important I think they're trying to destroy the country they're doing it right in front of us and it's pretty obvious that it's an abuse of power I don't know how you could you could you could possibly see this any other way all right let's talk about so Pelosi and the Democrats keep using the phrase no one is above the law I think that should be exactly the standard that impeaches them because they're using they're abusing their power to essentially create laws that don't exist the Pelosi is trying to be above the

[34:57]

the Pelosi is trying to be above the Constitution surfaces so if closely says no one is above the law here's the right response yes Nancy Pelosi no one is above the law but also no one is above the Constitution and the Constitution says you should be impeached not even for breaking the law because the law is here and the Constitution is here well what Pelosi doing is she is she's twisting the Constitution in a way it was not intended and the framers were pretty clear about what they thought about should what they thought it should be impeachable than why shouldn't and there's nothing that Trump's done that be sent standard so seems to me that no one is above the law is the low level bumper sticker but the higher level is no one's above the Constitution Nancy you can't make up stuff and put it in the Constitution take it to the bank

[35:59]

the Constitution take it to the bank somebody in the next 24 hours on a major news network is going to say no one is above the Constitution BAM as soon as you heard that didn't you say to yourself oh damn that's pretty good because there's not much you can say when somebody says nobody's above the law because he whatever your responses tends to be down in the weeds instead say nobody's above the Constitution and you're just adding stuff to the Constitution and you know there you go apparently the president was overheard confirming that when he called Justin Trudeau two-faced it was a joking reference to the blackface history that Trudeau has so how much do you love it the president Trump intentionally called him two-faced to make us all talk about Trudeau's blackface I love it good move

[37:07]

P Buddha judge took himself out of contention for president today now he didn't quit the race in the usual way but rather he did something said something disqualifying all right so if you've been watching this periscope a while you know that I've been saying that Buddha judge is a strong candidate and I had to say I liked a lot about him so I won't reiterate all the things I liked about him but he's you know summery he's smart he's closer to the middle I'd love to have an LGBTQ president eventually just because I think it's healthy for the country doesn't have to be him doesn't have to be now but as a general concept let's get ourselves an LGBTQ president you know sooner or later let's you know let's let's at least be open to it let's hope it happens doesn't have to be this year doesn't have to be next year just you know let's just let's get that done in the same way that it

[38:09]

get that done in the same way that it was good for the country to have a black president just so we could check that box get past it be able to say for the rest of eternity yeah you could be president if you're black it's a really big deal we shouldn't pick people based on their ethnicity but president is different president sends messages by just being who they are so in that case you do want to check all the boxes eventually you want a woman to be President you want you want to get you want to get one of everything eventually that's said be booed a judge said the following and I think it was yesterday or recently anyone who supported this president meaning Trump is that best-looking the other way on racism , at best and he's done all right you can't run for a president calling half of the country ish either racist or

[39:11]

of the country ish either racist or racist supporters you can't be President that way our current president I believe has never made that mistake am i right yeah correct me if I'm wrong but as acerbic and insulting and aggressive and bullying as our president can be can you think of any time he's branded half the country let's say the half that didn't vote for him is there any time he branded them can a fact check me on this is there any time the president Trump the most insulting bullying person who has ever lived even one time has he ever branded the people who didn't vote for him as because Buddha judge just did that he bit Buddha judge just said or I'll read the census again tell me if you think I'm over interpreting it Buddha judge said anyone who supported this

[40:12]

judge said anyone who supported this president is that best looking the other way on racism at best he's calling you there's no other way to look at that all right now he's not saying that the people who supported the president are necessarily themselves racist because he's he's he's allowing that you could be you know there's something wrong with you maybe not you're a racist but if you're supporting a racist you're an
people judge now can't be president it can't happen his campaign ended today now I actually feel pretty bad about that I have to admit because I liked him I liked him he had a lot he had a lot to offer maybe maybe in the future he will but you

[41:14]

maybe in the future he will but you can't say that let me tell you what you can say and still be President they let you grab them by the right you can be caught on tape saying that when you're famous and rich and your celebrity women will let you let you being the important sentence let you grab them by your parts apparently you can say that and still be President because people just put it in context they go yeah you know this we know what we're getting there's no surprise there he did say they let you so it's not you know technically it's not assault because they let you you know I know everybody will debate that but you can say that and still be president what you can't say is that the people who supported this president in half of the country

[42:16]

this president in half of the country are and that's basically what he said he didn't use that word but it's pretty clear so somebody says but you like to Cavallo - well I didn't like her to be my president I I expected she would do better and I have confessed continually that what I didn't see coming as a cobbler would run the worst campaign in the history of all presidential campaigns now be honest did any of you see that coming is there even one person here who can tell me honestly that you knew in advance that her campaign would be not just unsuccessful that part a lot of people knew but did you know that she would run the worst campaign of all campaigns and of all time nobody knew that all right that was tough to predict so I I don't take I won't make an excuse for being wrong if I'm wrong because I still think

[43:19]

wrong if I'm wrong because I still think she has a path to become the nominee if she gets the vice presidential pick as a candidate and then Joe Biden you know slides away you want you want to hear another reason that I think Carla could be at the top of the ticket by election day I predicted you it wouldn't win the nomination but watch this who supports calmly Harris well she has the second most endorsements by important Democrats of anybody she also had a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters who supported her who else does that describe the person who has the most the only person who had more endorsements from established Democrats was Joe Biden and so if you were to combine Joe Biden with the support of the most support from Democrats with the person who had the second-most endorsements from Democrats

[44:20]

second-most endorsements from Democrats you have Rican mind sort of Hillary Clinton in in virtual form the only thing wrong with the picture of Biden + Harris as a team the only thing wrong with it is Biden now suppose you were a Hillary Clinton type supporter but you're looking for a different candidate wouldn't your dream situation be that Biden who may not be able to let's say be as capable as when he was young gets the nomination has Harris on the ticket and before the election they switch or Biden drops out and and Harris's what's left I think they might like that they may like that all right what is up with Judge Napolitano are you watching the Judge Napolitano commentary

[45:21]

watching the Judge Napolitano commentary on Fox is it just me is there something wrong there I got away for your comments to catch up because there's a little bit of a delay but it's one thing to have you know pundits on your news program that you know which way they're gonna go but what is wrong with Judge Napolitano is there something wrong there because he must hate the president and and when I see his comments it only looks like that he he comes across as the least credible lawyer type person on TV who isn't it was the other guy who's was the guy at Harvard who was always mocking the president well there's there's a few other lawyers who are completely not incredible but Judge Napolitano has sort

[46:22]

incredible but Judge Napolitano has sort of I know he's he's created this little niche where he just looks like I don't know I don't I don't want to assume any motive on his part but there's something going on there that's not right that's that's all I'll say
apparently the Horowitz report and we don't know for sure but they're the rumors and I think maybe bar attorney general bar said something about this it's expected to say that the FBI had it hat did have a legal predicate for its investigation of the Trump campaign even though some lower-level FBI people's you know maybe maybe handle things wrong now let me ask you who are the two people in the world who had the following prediction the following prediction

[47:25]

prediction the following prediction which is that way back at the beginning of the Russia collusion in scam how many people had the following opinion that President Trump did not collude with Russia and and it's the and that's the important part because a lot of you believed he did not collude with Russia so that's a big population but how many believe that and at the same time believe that the FBI was not part of a deep state plot to take down the president I only know of two people I only know of two people who had the opinion that the President did nothing wrong and although there were some wrong activities you know individually at the FBI that there was not an identifiable plot an organized plot to take down the president who had that opinion two people in the world me me and jonathan

[48:29]

people in the world me me and jonathan turley as far as I know only two people suggested that that was a a good possibility Turley wrote about it months ago and I wrote about him he's actually in my book
I wrote about Turley's opinion and it was in the context of imagination trying to imagine possibilities and one of the possibilities that I imagined and thoroughly also imagined and I'll say that we imagined it more than we predicted it is that maybe everybody was just doing what they thought was right maybe Trump was just doing his job and it had nothing to do with Russia and maybe the FBI was just doing their job and some of them did it wrong so it's starting to shape up like Turley's description of what was possible and mine might be the right ones so I don't

[49:32]

mine might be the right ones so I don't know well who else had those opinions but I suppose if it turns out to be true a lot of people are going to say they had those opinions what else is going on is there anything else you want me to talk about that Laura says don't bruise your back padding it Laura that's what I do here I make predictions and then when they're wrong I take it like a man and when they're right I Pat myself on the back so that you can understand which ones were right but you also see which ones are wrong so I'm going to be fully transparent there now some of you are saying that Brennan set it up I say this in the in the comments so some of you suspect that there was still something there now Horowitz didn't get to look outside of the FBI right I think for Horowitz his domain was just the FBI so when he says the FBI wasn't part of a

[50:34]

when he says the FBI wasn't part of a plot that might be true it does not mean that the CIA was also not part of a plot so I think that the dirham investigation which can go broader than just the FBI and Department of Justice I think that investigation will get more interesting because then it gets into the CIA etc
all right um looking at your comments the FBI was just incompetent somebody says apparently apparently that's what it's gonna come out - oh so Hillary went on Howard Stern and Howard Stern asked Hillary if she'd ever been a lesbian or have a relationship with a woman and Hillary said no no I have not if that's why you wanted me to comment on I don't care who I don't care who was left with her I mean would you like

[51:35]

left with her I mean would you like Hillary less if she'd had a sexual relationship with a woman sometime in her life do you care does anybody care would you would you like her less because of that if you like people if you'd like women less because they may have once had a sexual relationship with another woman I got bad news for you you're not gonna like many women maybe it's a California thing but in California an adult woman has a very high likelihood of had of having had at least one relationship with another woman very high so what does it mean nothing it has no value talk about barren yeah okay I'll talk about barren so Melania will say punched back or punched via tweet she got on the professor Carlin my missing her name

[52:36]

professor Carlin my missing her name right because the professor when she was testifying tried to make a joke where she was taking she was making a pun about the president being a dictator or a king and could he have a baron but you know he can only have a child named Baron and he can't appoint a baron so so she brought a minor child into the conversation as I just did so I guess I'm just as guilty and Melania she she high ground her until she apologized Melania said you don't bring minor children into these things and she's right you certainly don't bring minor children into it now I just did the same thing so Melania I apologize I'd like to apologize to Melania for doing exactly what she said you shouldn't do which is let's stop talking about politics and

[53:39]

let's stop talking about politics and bring a you know a thirteen-year-old into it all right let's yeah let's maybe just act like none of that's happening all right so let's leave that behind Melania you were perfectly correct and I apologize for even bringing it up
somebody says it it's not about Hillary whether she's a lesbian it's about her hiding it no it isn't no it isn't if there's one thing you should let people lie about it's their private sexual life you know uh you know it's not always a good idea to hide your private sexual life I mean I the gay experience shows it was better to come out of the closet and you know live live above ground so to speak but I'm not gonna say that any individual needs to tell me about their private life and in fact I give I give all of you I give all of you blanket permission from my perspective just be personally to lie to

[54:42]

perspective just be personally to lie to me about your private sexual life so if it ever comes up and I ever say hey have you ever had sex with an animal and let's say you have I give you permission to say no I have not I have never gotten with an animal so that's what I prefer I'm not I'm not comparing animals with anybody else right so don't don't try to conflate that I'm just saying that whatever you're into I don't care and if you lie to me about it you're okay with me
you did it recalling a story I don't know what that was about you weren't being malicious yeah no but I would agree that even I should not have brought up the topic because it's inappropriate all right what else we got

[55:50]

inappropriate all right what else we got going on here yeah it's sort of a who cares yeah all right is she being authentic well has anybody ever accused the Hilary Clinton of being authentic I don't know that that's a plus or a minus you know people do like authentic people but I wouldn't require it so this is just my personal opinion it's true that voters are gonna prefer authentic people that part's good but just speaking for myself I don't require it so if if if authentic you is kind of a jerk and you're willing to pretend to not be a jerk in the service of being a politician I'm okay with that I don't need you to be authentic I just need you

[56:51]

need you to be authentic I just need you to do the work and if you do the work well be as phony as you want I don't care China is about to collapse well it makes you wonder how long President Xi can hold on to power because while it's true that it is a dictatorship it is also true that the dictator probably needs the support of at least the upper echelon now he may have so much control over them in various ways that there's nothing they can do that's possible I would you know it's hard for us to know over here but there's at least the possibility that the leadership of China has the power and ability and maybe even the will some time to remove President Xi should he do an unusually bad job for any reason

[57:51]

any reason now as the economy continues to suffer and as President Xi becomes the face of the Weger the Weger Holocaust as she becomes the face of the flung Falun Gong folks who were being murdered systematically for body parts that they then sell to people who buy them sometimes from other countries and they come to China for the operation China kills a saloon gong takes out their parts and sells into you that's actually happening at least reportedly and the reporting seems to be pretty solid as far as I can tell and of course they're cracking down in Hong Kong you know there's going to be lots of jailing and torture and people killed whenever they get full control of that and I'm even leaving out stealing our IP I'm leaving out sending us fentanyl etc so President

[58:53]

out sending us fentanyl etc so President Xi has taken China's reputation to his lowest point would you know would you not agree the president she has brought China's reputation and what's the right word respect to the lowest level in my lifetime I think and does the leadership of China looking at how he's essentially destroyed their credibility he has destroyed their credibility he can't get a trade deal done with the United States because he's apparently not competent so how long does the leadership of China let the guy who is a dictator stay in charge while he is systematically destroying everything good about China I don't know maybe forever because if he's if he's got full control nothing

[59:54]

he's if he's got full control nothing matters but I I think that it's a sort of thing that could change quickly yeah I'm talking about she chairman she yeah if you look at China polluting the world and literally according to the Democrats China is actually destroying the planet with pollution India has some explaining to do as well but China being the be the bigger one China is actually destroying the planet according to most of the people who are Democrats so if you put all of those things together and the fact that they're not even willing to sign a trade deal are you kidding me they're not even willing to save it as a sign a trade deal because they were they're not willing to offer anything that even approaches a fair deal well he was appointed not voted in that is

[1:00:54]

was appointed not voted in that is correct but you still need the support of the top of the Communist Party to stay in power
somebody says revolution in China is that possible it seems remote because I think that the party would remove XI before anything like that happened you know about the same time that the that the population wanted to actually go to the streets and revolt would be about the same time that the the party leadership would say yeah well maybe we got the wrong guy here let's make a change Nancy is holding a press conference saying that impeachment is about Russia somebody says so they're going to go back to Russia for their impeachment stuff Pelosi is denying his politics she's got to be impeached she has to be impeached now Bloomberg this is hilarious that Mike Bloomberg it said that China is not a dictatorship he didn't say they were a

[1:01:55]

a dictatorship he didn't say they were a democracy somebody in there somebody in the comments was saying that he said they were democracy he didn't say that he said they're not a dictatorship that's kind of technically sorta right but it's not a democracy it's the the Communist Party gets to decide who the leader is it's not exactly a dictatorship exactly it's just acting exactly like one so we're going back to collusion know what obstructing justice let me tell you if you can create a situation in which you're pursuing a witch-hunt against the president based on nothing and then in the end you decide to impeach him because he resisted the witch-hunt the only person who knew there was nothing there for sure who was the president and he resisted false charges do you put that

[1:02:57]

resisted false charges do you put that guy in jail do you impeach the guy who resisted the witch-hunt even if resisting witch-hunt meant maybe he obstructed justice in your opinion even if he obstructed it given that he do it was a witch-hunt we didn't you and I didn't know for sure until until the Moller report but now we all know the president knew from day one because he knew what he did and he knew what he didn't do so Harry he knew if if you could get impeach for that Wow all right I think I'm babbling now I'm gonna go listen to Pelosi and Pelosi Schiff and Adler just have to be impeached that for abuse of power talk to you later