Episode 754 Scott Adams: Colluding With Russia, Impeachment Theater, Greta, China

Date: 2019-12-12 | Duration: 1:09:55

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a After IG Horowitz testimony…I have revised opinions, questions Are all FISA applications as tainted as the one for Carter Page? Why continue spying after Steele dossier was known to be crap? Mitch McConnell may not call impeachment witnesses Jim Cramer says this is a good time to decouple from China Gordon Chang and Steve Bannon agree Bloomberg and Steyer are both trying to BUY an election How does AOC feel about that? Greta is Time’s Person of the Year How they pick the person, isn’t what they say “Letter of Marque and Reprisal” constitutional provision Democrat reporter, Josh Campbell’s take on Horowitz findings

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]

um bum bum bum ba ba ba ba buh buh-buh-buh bum bum bum bum bum oh hey I didn't see you there good to see you all I was just doing a little colluding with Russia this is the Russian language version of wind bingley I just got this in the mail now for those of you who don't speak the Russian language let me translate what this says here and I'm not really great with languages so I think I'm this is approximately right what this says is
now I'll say that again is blah blah blah blah I think that's right correct translation and this is how they spell my name that's Scott algorithms I

[1:08]

my name that's Scott algorithms I believe now it was not my idea to include a black fist on the cover that was apparently a Russian idea I did not collude on that I could have colluded but I did not collude but speaking of collusion that makes me think of this simultaneous zip how about we all do a little colluding right now collude with me now on the simultaneous F all you need you know all you need is a cup or a mug or a glasses snifter stein cellist anchor thermos flask amp team grail goblet vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me down for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day the thing that made everything better the simultaneous epic oh oh yeah simultaneity it's the best well I woke

[2:10]

simultaneity it's the best well I woke up this morning and there's news there's news all over the place so let's talk about that news so after watching Horowitz testify yesterday I have the following revisions in my opinion
well revisions and additions to group number one if you didn't watch Horowitz's testimony and when he was at answering questions damn that guy is a good communicator you will rarely see somebody as clear and as crisp as Horowitz he is got a good communication game so he gives me confidence simply because he was so good at you know handling the testimonies and stuff the questioning he gives me confidence because he seemed like a real straight shooter very capable guy so that part's

[3:11]

shooter very capable guy so that part's good I like to call out the good news when we see it but here's what I took away from it I had argued that you could not you could not eliminate the possibility that the so-called 17 errors that were made that coincidentally were all in the same direction I said you can't eliminate the possibility that it's just normal errors even the fact that they're all in the same direction would not be that unusual but and I'll say a little bit more about that in a minute but but I say horrid Horowitz was asked essentially his opinion of whether it could be a coincidence that there were so many opinions in the same direction he didn't directly answer the question but he made it clear in the way he answers the question that he couldn't imagine any other explanation than

[4:12]

imagine any other explanation than intention in other words it seems that there's there's no way you could get to all of those errors in the same direction unless people intended to do it now when it's intended does that mean what does that mean does it mean that there was a conspiracy which they all got together and they said hey we're gonna get rid of this president it could that that possibility has not been eliminated from the option set maybe Durham will say more about that confirming or eliminating that possibility but I would suggest that there's a possibility that has not been stated so I'm going to stain it for you so remember the two possibilities are that nothing really happened and that everything that Horowitz found falls into the category of sloppy work things you wish didn't

[5:12]

of sloppy work things you wish didn't happen but no great conspiracy because there was a reason for the investigation and you know there were mistakes made but the basic reason for the investigation was sound so the Democrats would say well there's not much there and certainly there's nothing like a conspiracy that's been found I have to add the it's been found Bart then the other theory the opposite is that there is a deep state conspiracy the insurance policy the text the obvious bias against the president there's 17 mistakes all in the same direction there's no way that that can be anything but a conspiracy but is there anything in the middle is there anything between normal mistakes just people doing their job and a conspiracy to overthrow the governments and I would say that there is and let me explain in the middle the middle place the middle

[6:15]

the middle the middle place the middle place looks like this you had your fake news media telling the world that the elected President Trump was the next Hitler and according to the news only these were legitimate sources of news at least the opinion people on those news shows were literally telling the the public there's something as dangerous as Hitler actually Hitler and his name was used over and over again by the by his critics so the fake news convinced the entire country including people at the FBI that Hitler had just got elected or was about to get elected or could get elected now if you were in the FBI and you thought that was true how would you act in each of the individual decisions

[7:17]

act in each of the individual decisions that maybe could go either way well certainly if there's a gray area and you think well there's certainly not much evidence of any Russia collusion but how much would it take to convince you to look into it if you had been told by the fake news they Hitler had just come to office well what you would probably do is you would act on your legitimate belief that you were saving the country and so when you say to yourself what were all these actions intentional I think the weight of yeah the weight of odds and evidence is that it would at least most of it was intentional so if the acts were intentional does that tell you enough well it depends why they did it so even if they even if all the actions were intentional all the breaking of the rules all the falsifying of the the FISA applications if all of it was

[8:18]

applications if all of it was intentional you still have to ask a second question why now if it was just about power and keeping their jobs well that's pretty bad that's as bad as against but what if the FBI was just as brainwashed as the rest of the country I thought that there was a genuine risk to the republic and civilization as a whole does that look the same I would argue no number of people have challenged me on that and said Scott Scott SOT it's the FBI the FBI doesn't act on rumors and news reports the FBI acts on evidence and if they needed to know if something was true or not true they would go and investigate it and they get evidence so the FBI unique among people would not be influenced by the fake news and Scott Scott Scott what

[9:19]

the fake news and Scott Scott Scott what are you thinking to which I say the FBI are human beings if you want to know how susceptible the FBI is to being brainwashed or to simply being human look at their seventeen errors they're very human look at their text messages their text messages are very human and the text messages clearly indicate Trump derangement syndrome so here's my filter on it I say the fake news created Trump derangement syndrome that affected everybody including the FBI the FBI did not personally investigate every claim from the fake news it wasn't their job to do so they absorbed it just like everybody else in the public they they sort of believed the things they were they were primed to believe and they sided with their team and thought that you you know you've got some problem to the entire world

[10:20]

some problem to the entire world so Durham might still change my opinion and all of our opinions with more information but I would say the most likely explanation is that it was people acting mostly independently in some cases you know they may have had conversations but mostly independently and all having the same thought we must stop orange Hillier so the real villain here in my opinion is the fake news the fake news brainwash people into thinking they had to stop Orrin chiller and the FBI or at least some of them probably thought it was their job to do it so that's my belief now I know before the dumb people pile in and say Scott Scott Scott you can't excuse the FBI for what they did did you hear me excusing them did he

[11:21]

did did you hear me excusing them did he hear that now in this world if you commit a crime it doesn't matter why you did it if you do something wrong kind of doesn't matter why it doesn't matter what your internal thoughts were you're still responsible if you have good thoughts but you commit a crime you still go to jail so I'm not defending anybody I'm not excusing anybody I'm telling you where the problem probably originated and the problem originated in my view of the world my filter of the world with the faint news and the faint news I believe brought people including members of the FBI including everybody else to a place where they would do things they would not normally consider appropriate look at the impeachment process are all of the Democrats involved in the impeachment process are they all crazy probably not look at all

[12:21]

they all crazy probably not look at all the Democrats who want to impeach the president no matter what he's done they're just gonna keep throwing a Peach Pit Adam they wanted to do it on day one do they seem like they have that they're that they're acting rationally now so if you could observe very clearly that the professionals in Congress are not acting in any way that they would normally act because they're just all about the impeachment no matter the evidence that's not normal why would the FBI be excluded from being just as brainwashed so that's my current take subject to being revised so the FBI certainly fail hard on this but let us talk about these 17 errors somebody said to me on Twitter he said if you roll a die so one one pair one part of a pair of dice 17 times

[13:24]

pair one part of a pair of dice 17 times and it always comes up with an even number wouldn't you be able to reasonably conclude that the die was biased or fixed is that a good point is it a good point that if you were turn you know if you had dice and he rolled them 17 times and it came up even every time wouldn't you conclude there was something wrong with the dice yes you would yeah reasonably you would there's a one in a hundred thousand chance it was chance now is that a good point no it's a terrible point it's a terrible point in fact if you read my book when if you read my book loser think the new one you will see that I have a whole section on that about why this sort of thing is a terrible point here's why it's not nice whatever the FBI was doing it's not nice you can't use a dice analogy that has one variable basically you know what is the physics of the of the dice you can't

[14:26]

the physics of the of the dice you can't compare that to human beings in this complicated system it's all different variables here's what I would imagine would be true with the 17 mistakes and here are the questions you should at least ask if we know that 99.9 I think ninety-nine point seven percent of all FISA applications are approved what would that tell you about the likely accuracy of all of the FISA applications in general doesn't that tell you that they're fake or some large percentage of them are doesn't that tell you that the whole process is broken not just the the time that the FBI was working on this one case I think you could generalize and say that the FISA process was completely broken and I would imagine if you were to look at every application you would find omissions you at the very

[15:30]

you would find omissions you at the very least you would find that exculpatory stuff had been left out of other applications so how unusual is it that somebody exaggerated their case to make sure that their FISA application goes through on the first try I don't know if I had to guess fairly common how about the error there were other errors that go into the category of not double-checking so in other words they there was an internal process they should have been done somebody should have double-checked something and it didn't happen multiple times if you were to look at all the things that the FBI does all the other cases how often would you find that they were skipping a normal procedure I'm guessing a lot I'm guessing it happens all the time wouldn't you I mean do you really think that the FBI is doing banging up perfect

[16:32]

that the FBI is doing banging up perfect work on everything else and and it just happened to be the one thing we looked at closely had a bunch of mistakes I doubt it so here's my thing if Horowitz is convinced because he's looked at the details of these 17 mistakes he indicated fairly clearly that it's not his job to read their minds so he can't tell you what anybody was thinking and I agree with that it's not his job nobody has that ability and he said that they didn't find any documents that say that you know indicates their state of mind and any clear way and nobody testified that it was anything but mistakes so Horowitz basically couldn't conclude more than the powers of his office he couldn't read minds and he couldn't say more than the evidence suggests but he also very clearly indicated that there's no way that this could be anything but intentional I would still say that of these 17 things that all went the same

[17:34]

these 17 things that all went the same direction probably could be explained by the fact that all the fisa applications are exaggerated you know that that processes are routinely skipped if somebody in charge thinks is not that important this time so I doubted 17th but still I'll go with Horowitz that you can't imagine that it was anything but intentional but intentional still leaves you lots of room for interpretation because why did they do it intentionally is the other question all right so are you as sick as I am of the of the conversations on cable TV about whether the FBI was spying or using surveillance are you just sick of that as and I have another section in my book looser think in which I talk about something called word thinking word thinking is when you try

[18:38]

thinking word thinking is when you try to win an argument by applying your definition to a word that's not thinking that's nothing you should you should just leave me alone if you're arguing about the definition of a word do you care if somebody uses the word spying or they use the word surveillance as long as we're all talking about exactly the same actions shouldn't make any difference at all but let me let me give you an example let's say somebody puts a bullet in the head of an innocent person and they do it intentionally but let's say that they don't call it murder it's not self-defense but they just call it shooting the person in the head for no reason but you call it murder does it matter does it matter the guys still going to jail it's still bad the person is still dead does it matter what word you put on it does it matter if we call it spying or surveillance doesn't

[19:40]

call it spying or surveillance doesn't matter it doesn't so you know the FBI would claim as would Horowitz that there was a predicate for the investigation but there was not a predicate for continuing the investigation as we have learned in other words once it was learned that the steel dossier was a BS they should have stopped but they didn't so the the original let's say original surveillance may have had a predicate very thin very questionable Durham will probably question it but is sort of existent according to Horowitz once they knew that they had nothing they continued at that point it's just fighting isn't it so in my opinion is started as surveillance and it turns into spy but doesn't matter it doesn't matter what word I put on it

[20:41]

it doesn't matter what word I put on it it was bad how about you call it Blitz flop ah how about that's the word you use let's not call it spying let's not call it legal authorized surveillance let's call it look the law would any word on that you want it it's still just as bad if the if once the reasons for doing it disappeared which is what Horowitz reports happened once they didn't have a reason to do it it wasn't good so whatever you want to call it it wasn't good and it wasn't just to find apparently all right and I've got people who were yelling at me Twitter or saying so actually using the word so I'm amazed that people still tweet the word so at me after I'm famous for mocking

[21:42]

me after I'm famous for mocking everything that comes after the word so is always just ridiculous so the fact that all seventeen errors were damaging isn't proof of bias it's just a coincidence Scott it's just a coincidence no no it's not a coincidence I never said it was a coincidence the that's never come out of my mouth I have said it could be possibly explained by lots of errors and the people wanted to get a job done so all of the errors were in the same direction because of bias but it's bias you'll never hear me say that human beings don't have bias you're never gonna hear me say that the idea that the FBI has no bias I'll never say that I wrote books on people all having bias all the time I'm not going to say there's no bias that would be cray cray cray all right Mitch McConnell is indicating that they

[22:44]

McConnell is indicating that they haven't decided how the Senate will handle the impeachment case assuming he gets voted and handed over to the Senate and he's considering not calling witnesses so that apparently the Senate has wide flexibility in how they Hedlund how they handle the witnesses even if they have witnesses so who talks who gets to do anything so it's all up in the air and the majority and the Senate can just decide what it a peach vent trial looks like and with with no guardrails they can do whatever they want now how much do you love the idea of having the vote in the Senate without any witnesses and without a trial I love it here's what I would do if I were an economy I would I would dismiss the two counts with one sentence apiece no witnesses and go right to a vote and that and I would in the two sentences I've said this before but so the first count is obstruction of

[23:46]

so the first count is obstruction of justice of Congress so obstruction of Congress you could say something such as Alan Dershowitz says there's nothing in the Constitution about obstruction of justice well I'll actually let me give you a cleaner way to say it asking the courts to rule on something is not obstruction of justice that's it one sentence asking the court to rule on something Congress and the executive disagree is never obstruction of Congress because it's just using the process so one sentence asking the court to rule is not obstruction of Congress and don't say anything else and then the next one you can word it a little differently but basically you'd say something like that let's say something like this everyone now agrees that burries Moe was worth looking into so even the Democrats lawyer witness the person who is on the Democrat side what was his name

[24:47]

Democrat side what was his name Goldman I think sad when asked that yeah the Biden BER yzma connection was worth looking into so you could say that there's consensus that Bereza and Biden was worth looking into him and so therefore it was you know worth the president's checking out and then secondly to say there's no evidence that Ukraine was aware of any quid pro quo requirement because the evidence now is that there's literally no witness anywhere in the Ukrainian government who's willing to say they were even aware that the funding was being withheld so something like two sentences or maybe you know two sentences apiece and then just take it to a vote now here's the power of that if you allow a big complicated trial what will people conclude well the news will report that their side one and then

[25:48]

will report that their side one and then the other news will report that the other side ones no matter how the vote goes people are going to look into the complexity the cherry-pick the things they want and say yes look how our side looks great you can't do that you can't hide in the complexity if it's all removed so here's the tricky play if Mitch McConnell decides to remove all the complexity and say we're not even going to have witnesses I'm gonna I'm gonna have you vote based on just two sentences one sentence apiece debunking each of the claims if these sentences look true to you let's vote and then just vote and here's the beauty of it what would the news have to cover if there's no trial the only thing they have to cover is the two sentences and they would have to publish those two sentences endlessly and those two sentences completely destroy the

[26:49]

sentences completely destroy the impeachment case if soon as you allow any complexity into the conversation both sides can claim victory and say okay you see it's there in the complexity my case has been made you strip all that complex of the out put it into two sentences and even the news they hate you they have to keep repeating those two sentences because there's nothing else it's the only news on the biggest topic in the country they would have to just continually repeat them and would be very persuasive all right now I heard I saw something in the news that I don't understand and I need a little help on it there's a question of whether the Senate will want to vote on acquittal in terms of the impeachment versus dismissing dismissing the case and I guess that's different but I don't know you know what are the

[27:51]

but I don't know you know what are the details of when it's different or how they would act differently or how things would be worded or what it all means I it sounds like on the surface that an acquittal would say not just that we're not going to impeach but that he's innocent or something like that is that the difference so if there is that distinction that might be important all right there's a video of Joe Biden up on the campaign
that he he doesn't trust people who think with their brain first but rather the way he does it as he starts with his gut and then it goes to his heart and then it comes out of his mouth bypassing the whole brain situation now if you're Joe Biden I don't know that that's a bad idea to just you know bypass is brained

[28:54]

idea to just you know bypass is brained entirely and just let his intestines and his guts and of course his heart you know your major organs in your torso if I'm Joe Biden I'm gonna let my torso do the thinking for me he apparently thinks that's a good idea good enough to say it in public Andrew Yang might have a different opinion he might say hey why don't we start up here and that in the head area the same place that we do the math and stuff let's let's let's maybe get things going up in the brain section of the body and then you know once you got something up there it's okay that tested against the torso and I think the torso needs to get involved you can't let the torso take the day off but maybe start up in the cranium brain area and then test it on your guts I'm just guessing that Andrew yang might prefer it in that direction just saying

[30:02]

President Trump has announced just recently just today he says and I quote getting very close to a big deal with China they want it and so do we well who's we I don't want it so I tweeted back does that mean that the top fentanyl dealer in China is dead because if he's not dead I do not favor any kind of a trade deal with China now wherever as I mentioned Jim Cramer who is highly influential you know certainly on CNBC and in the financial world Jim Cramer is now saying explicitly and clearly and more than once that this would be a good time to walk away from China and just decouple I of course say I say the same thing as does Gordon Chang and Kyle Bass and apparently Steve bandit says that

[31:04]

and apparently Steve bandit says that too so Steve Bannon obviously identified with the right and Jim Cramer who explains that he's you know more sympathetic to the left both agree that this is the time to walk away from China same day that Trump says we're very close to a deal I don't know that we're close to a deal I don't think that you could take that as being reliable shall we say we might be close to some kind of a deal that that addresses only tariffs but at the same time it would be crazy for American companies to do new business in China so I think that we could have a trade deal and de couple at the same time meaning that you know if there's some advantage to the United States to say you know we'll drop this tariff if you took this tariff you know if it's a tariff to tariff situation I

[32:06]

if it's a tariff to tariff situation I can see that maybe we can make that deal while working on the other stuff but we certainly shouldn't be sending any new business to China period so that's the decoupling part you just maybe you don't maybe if you keep what's there and maybe buy and sell some stuff but certainly decouple in terms of the long term so and I've said this very clearly before that if we do sign a trade deal with China that doesn't that is intended to be comprehensive if it's intended to be the deal and they have not already imprisoned or killed their top fentanyl dealer whose name we now 60 minutes tracked him down to talk to him he's easy to find you know FBI has him on their list trying to know who it is and he's just walking around free sending fentanyl to this country killing tens of thousands of people as long as he's free I can't support any

[33:09]

he's free I can't support any comprehensive trade deal is it my imagination or is Mike Bloomberg trying to buy an election you know he's putting money into Democratic candidates he's putting money into defeating the president how happy are Democrats that their billionaire is trying to buy the election for him as is Tom Styer doesn't that seem a little bit off brand do you think AOC is looking at Bloomberg and saying yeah Mike buy us some election dinner
yeah so I don't know how Democrats were okay with Bloomberg all right I know you want me to talk about Greta so Greta thun thun Berg has been selected as TIME's Person of the Year now a lot of you are saying what watches

[34:13]

now a lot of you are saying what watches should have been somebody else how can they put her on there but let me explain something about how time picks the person of the year what they say they do is they pick the person who has the most influence so it doesn't mean that they're good or bad it could be hillier but it has to be somebody who has the biggest influence of the world now is that really how they pick it no no that's that's what Time magazine tells you what they say publicly is we're picking the person who's just had the most impact that's not why they do it they do it to sell magazines who is the best pick for selling Time magazine and making you talk about Thai magazine Greta Greta makes you makes you argue Greta makes it a headline if it had been somebody boring that was not you know controversial in one way or another you

[35:14]

controversial in one way or another you wouldn't care they would get no free publicity so when you see Greta on the cover of Time the frame you should put on it is that time is Time magazine is taking advantage of gratis I say divisive ways because that's what gets you the most impress so do now think that time is complimenting Greta they are simply using her for their marketing purposes which is what the time Person of the Year is so it's not like they chose this this one case to use somebody for their marketing purposes that's just what they that's the durable process you know whoever they pick is for their internal marketing purposes so President Trump tweeted about this I think the president always thinks he should be on the cover of Time magazine and I would argue that he probably should be you know if you really were picking the most influential person it would just be you know Trump

[36:16]

person it would just be you know Trump every time but of course time needs to you know mix it up so the president tweeted about Greta being on Time magazine he said quote so ridiculous Greta must work on her anger management problem then go to a good old-fashioned movie with a friend chilla Greta chill all right I read that first thing in the morning when I first woke up and I laughed and cried for about five minutes now the thing is funny and you know all the trolls of course come out but the thing that's funny is not that he's making fun of Greta it's not that it's the fact the way he says it and the fact that he says it at all from the from the office of the president if any one of us said the same tweet it wouldn't it wouldn't be that interesting right it would just be somebody on the internet complaining about something it's the fact that it comes from the President of the United States that makes it hilarious and I can say with

[37:18]

makes it hilarious and I can say with confidence that he knows that in other words he knows what he's doing he knows exactly what reaction this is gonna get so as tweeting goes one of the best now not to be outdone Greta's profile on twitter was immediately updated now many of you are tweeting at me this morning saying it's not Greta who updated that we don't know what she's thinking but she has some adults working on her social media so it was some adults who decided to change her profile to say the following a teenager working on her anger management problem currently chilling and watching a good old-fashioned movie with a friend very well done Greta or your handlers so I'm gonna say a plus troll tweet for a president Trump about Greta and I will say an A+ reaction by either Greta or her handlers

[38:20]

reaction by either Greta or her handlers whoever does her social media but I imagine Greta approved it I can't imagine they would put that up there without Greta giving it the thumbs up so I'll give further credit Tim Poole makes the following good observation talking about Greta he says that scowling he tweeted this scowling at people saying how dare you and talking down to them results in people doubling down in their opposition to you that is scientifically correct Tim Poole when you insult people and try to change their minds don't expect to change their minds because the insult is really the end of the conversation as Tim goes on to point out you have to develop a rapport or first then you can offer a solution I call it pacing and leading but it's the same thing then Tim says Greta is divisive angry spoiled mean and condescending well I don't know if she's all that but she comes across as on that so I can't see inside her

[39:22]

as on that so I can't see inside her heart or her mind got says Joe Biden but you but we can certainly conclude that people are receiving it that way here's my take and of course all the trolls are coming after me because I'm making fun of a minor how dare I how dare I make fun of a minor how dare hi the dumbest comment I got because analogies are stupid somebody said Scott Scott Scott would you be mocking if Barron Trump you know would you mock Darren Trump you mocking Greta so Scott if you would mock Greta would you not mock Baron Trump what's the difference Scott what's the difference well there is a difference Dale Barron Trump is not trying to

[40:26]

Dale Barron Trump is not trying to influence a multitrillion-dollar
world-altering budgets if he does if you ever see Barrett Trump sail across the ocean and try to and talk at the UN and try to influence a multi trillion dollar budget you could expect that I will come down pretty pretty hard on Barron Trump but do we expect Barron Trump to do anything that stupid no we don't we expect mera Trump to live a private life and like Melania says leave him alone he's just trying to live his life he's just a kid leave Barron alone but any kid who's 16 and trying to change the world and involved in politics and in the biggest issue and playing on this level I say

[41:26]

issue and playing on this level I say she's playing in the big leagues and in my opinion those who were saying Scott Scott Scott you have to go easy on her because she's a minor I don't think you're showing her enough for respect she made it to the big league by being able to play in the big league right she made it to the big league because she can play in the big league somebody says she's 16 but I'm seeing people in the comments saying she's 13 I don't believe that's true and well we'll need a fact check on that but I also like to add into the thinking a theory that I heard from someone who shall remain nameless that there's a good possibility she's older than her published age there's a good possibility I'm not gonna say that's true but you cannot rule out the possibilities and she's a little bit older than her stated age which wouldn't be surprising because she's operating at a higher level so I

[42:29]

she's operating at a higher level so I say give Greta some respect because I am she attempted to try to try to play in the big league at whatever age he is 16 ish she tried to play the big league and she made the big league so if she gets treated as though she's in the big league let's show her some respect she got there fair and square you know of course she had lots of help from adults and stuff but it's not like anybody else got there I mean she still had to be Greta to take advantage of the help from the adults that didn't happen by itself so let's show her some respect and I think she can take a joke her profile change suggests that she at least approved it I'm sure so she can take a joke she's playing in the big league we can we can gently gently I do think we should be gentle because you know age is not irrelevant she is at

[43:31]

you know age is not irrelevant she is at a tender age but we can we can have some fun we can disagree we can we can poke at her at the way people poke on Twitter I wouldn't go you know super hard at it but I think you can have some fun with it the same way the President did and apparently she can they handle that here's an idea that I'm seeing a little bit in social media have you ever heard of a letter of marque and reprisal I hope I was spelling it right mark in this case is spelled ma r qu e a letter of marque is there is there a different pronunciation for that like mark a or something I don't know it's one of those things I've seen written a bunch of times but I've never seen anybody saying that aloud but anyway there's a provision in the Constitution that addresses this option a letter of marque and reprisal in which

[44:32]

a letter of marque and reprisal in which the United States can pay pay somebody to basically fight a war for us or go kill somebody so we can we can basically get revenge or we can attack by hiring mercenaries and the Constitution actually specifically allows it this did you know that the Constitution specifically allows us to hire mercenaries we just there's some for you know yeah there's some process and I guess it was used in the you know closer to the Revolutionary days it was used to essentially hire pirates to attack the ships of countries we wanted to attack so here's my question do you see a day when private drone operators will be

[45:37]

when private drone operators will be authorized by the government of the United States to fly their drones into cartel territory and start killing cartel members with the drones now when I say private Jones I'm talking about you know that the Hobby size drones that you can put a gun up it's not going to be it's not going to take very long before there are militarized you know bullet shooting drones you've seen them already on the internet right if you go to youtube you can google somebody attached a gun to a drone but nobody I don't think anybody has yet build a drone that that is built from scratch to fire a gun maybe somebody's done that I haven't seen it yet but can you imagine just visualize this some letters of marque and reprisal they would authorize a certain number not everybody in the world but a certain number of drone operators in this

[46:37]

number of drone operators in this country to send their drones into cartel territory simply hover around for a little bit find somebody who looks like they're up to no good come down and just shoot them and then disappear now let me ask you this suppose you were a cartel compound you know full of armed guards and whatnot and a swarm of privately operated mercenary drones appear above and they're all armed how hard would it be for basically a squad of drones each one operated by an operator to you know look through the viewscreen lineup people on the ground and shoot them somebody says already exists and I would imagine that's true so here's what it's easy for me to imagine remember the big problem with going to war with the cartels is you can't get the government

[47:39]

cartels is you can't get the government of Mexico to ever agree you also don't really want to send our military down there you don't want boats on the ground Oh somebody's telling me it's pronounced Marc a letter of marque all right I guess we need to get a ruling on that so we haven't have a different up in you none on the pronunciation but I can easily imagine that the government of the United States perhaps not making it public perhaps it's now public maybe they just quietly authorize some private drone people to to put a little you know a drone drone firepower above the cartels seems to me that's coming because the beauty is that even if the drone gets shot down the cartel won't know who was operating it they will know that the US government perhaps was operating it but they won't

[48:40]

perhaps was operating it but they won't really know all right what else we got today so I was fascinated to see what the Democrats supporters were saying about the Horowitz report now if you didn't actually watch horowitz's testimony I don't think you could know from the news coverage just how devastating that is to the FBI I mean that's really really bad apparently what Horowitz found is just massive bad behavior at the FBI all in one direction so it's really bad so I wondered so what did the Democrats say about this and so I looked at what Josh Campbell said in an editorial or an article in the USA Today these are the so here's the sentence that he says like it's true okay he says the IG found that found the

[49:43]

okay he says the IG found that found the Russia case was properly opened and uncovered no quote evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decision to launch the investigation so therefore everything that Trump has been saying for a few years is all bunk because of what Josh Campbell just said does that feel like a complete and accurate statement of what happened I'll read it again so this is a Democrats view of what the IG found that it was quote properly opened let's just do it you know one part in time is it true that the IG found that the case was properly opened well it depends what proper means doesn't it I think what the IG actually is that there's no standard for when you can open a case because the the written standard says that all you need is an articulable basis in other words you can

[50:46]

articulable basis in other words you can simply put it in a sentence that makes sense so the IG did say we can't say it was improper nor can we say it's proper we can only say that the standard is so low that it's like a mood questioned so when josh campbell says that the IG found that the case was properly opened is that exactly true because I don't know that the IG ever used the word proper I think it would be more fair to say there's no real standard so therefore we're not going to say that it was improper that's really different have a saying there's no standard it does the IG did say that it wasn't illegal or anything to open it the way it was here's what else josh campbell leaves out he leaves out that at some point fairly early on when the steel

[51:47]

point fairly early on when the steel dossier was debunked they should have stopped if you don't mention that part and the fact that the the known bogus steel dossier was used to continue the investigation after it should have been stopped according to Horowitz if you leave that out you're you're really just lying to the people reading your article I think if you leave out that there were 17 errors at all went in one direction you're not really telling your readers what happened are you because that's kind of important and I think you would have to mention that Horowitz clearly indicates without saying so that it's hard to explain 17 errors unless it's intentional so did Josh Campbell make his point that there's no evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decision to launch the investigation well that's actually true but it's also

[52:50]

well that's actually true but it's also true that a lack of evidence is not proof that it didn't happen that's kind of important because I think Durham is gonna give us a little more visibility and here's the most interesting question and I don't I'm not sure I understand this yet but George papadopolis but tweeted yesterday that he apparently he's learning recently that the investigation against Papadopoulos actually started long before the the events that everybody's talking about and he doesn't know how that's right there's still a mystery about how Papadopoulos originally came to be investigated so maybe that's what Durham knows if we find out that let's say I'm just gonna pick a name randomly the CIA was behind the initiation of all this it

[53:53]

was behind the initiation of all this it could be that the FBI was following the rules but they were set up by some external force Democrats for the CIA were CIA Democrats or somebody I'm not saying it's the CIA I'm just saying we haven't ruled out that option all right so that's what's going on today
has anybody seen Renan lately is it my imagination or our clapper and bread and a little bit under exposed lately like they maybe they're staying off the air maybe okay I'm just reading your oh yeah

[54:53]

maybe okay I'm just reading your oh yeah Papadopoulos was with Ben Carson's campaign before he was with Trump look at John Brennan's face well let me say this when I listen to all of the people in the FBI I would say it's obvious that they have biased because they're human beings and it's obvious which direction their bias was because their their actions and their text messages clearly show that so the FBI people were clearly operating with bias and you know a reasonable person would say that's why they made the mistakes that they made they weren't really mistakes they were operating a bias now here's the question if somebody is brainwashed by the fake news to think that cheating on their own internal procedures is actually worth it to stop Orange Hitler from taking over the country would you call that a

[55:54]

the country would you call that a conspiracy or would you call it incompetence I'm going to say that again because it's an interesting question all right if my theory is true that there wasn't such an organized conspiracy theory so much as people on the same page doing independently things that they thought would be good for their team after being brainwashed by the media to think that they were saving the country from Orange Heather if you thought you were saving the country from Orange Hillier and you were just completely wrong with that case of a conspiracy or a case of incompetence right so what does it mean to be fooled by the fake media into believing that orange Hitler was taking over the country well when you saw the the language and the text messages with Straka page isn't it obvious that they

[56:55]

Straka page isn't it obvious that they had Trump derangement syndrome it looked exactly like it it looked exactly like the people that Trump derangement syndrome on Twitter they look like they thought that this president wouldn't just be somebody with a different a different view of policy that they thought it was like the end of the world or something so I think you could call it incompetence conspiracy is a little harder to get to with the evidence we have but perhaps Durham will will clear that up
somebody says give us a total break they were not fooled so those who say that the FBI employees were not fooled by the fake news have to imagine that the FBI employees have a special capability that makes them immune from the TDs that if infected basically a hundred percent of the people on their side that's a big

[57:57]

the people on their side that's a big stretch if you think that the FBI were immune to TDS there is no basis for that belief all evidence suggests it would affect people equally no matter their training you can be fooled into participating in a conspiracy yeah and then I guess we'll of course have fascinating word thinking discussions about the word conspiracy imagine if you will that the employees all had talked about their mutual dislike for the president let's say the employees of the FBI let's say that they had talked with each other on a number of occasions about how much they didn't want Trump to get elected is that a conspiracy well not by itself suppose that they all talked about it in various you know casual and in beading settings but they had also agreed that they're still trying to do the work of the of the public is that a conspiracy

[59:00]

the of the public is that a conspiracy no suppose they believed that warns Hitler was coming to power and they were organ that were operating in some kind of a strict organized way with the other people who had the same opinion it's just that when each of them were faced with a decision that could have gone one way or the other they said well if orange Hitler is gonna kill us all I'm gonna err on the side of bending a rule I'm gonna err on the side of saying well we have very slim predication but it's something so the line between incompetence fueled by trump derangement syndrome and actual conspiracy is kind of gray yeah and i think you'll find people who could look at the same knowledge and still say you know i have two different opinions alright was scott

[1:00:06]

two different opinions alright was scott fooled by fake news depends which fake news you're talking about there's none of us who haven't been fooled by fake news that's not a thing but we're fooled by different fake News's yes so one of the statements in I think it was an email is quote we'll stop him somebody one of them asked could Trump actually get elected and somebody said we'll stop him
him what does that mean what does it mean we'll stop him whose weight is we Democrats in general is we the FBI doing their job legitimately because they thought there was actually something to be found there and so they thought yeah we'll stop him because we'll do our legal investigation and we're gonna find something wrong and that'll stop it so we don't know what we'll stop it means it could have been bluster could have been BS could have been just something

[1:01:08]

been BS could have been just something you say in a tweet could have been just you know acting confident could have been just making somebody else feel better could have been you know could have been five different things we pay the FBI director to not be fooled yes but we don't expect it because everybody gets fooled your argument is not compelling which part of it was to help the globalists so so one theory is that well there's two different theories one theory is that the FBI employees were trying to keep their jobs because they feared that if Trump took office that they wouldn't all get their promotions that they thought they would get under Clinton's maybe you know I one has to assume that that's at least part of the bias yeah that's certainly in the mix there then somebody said in the comments that

[1:02:08]

then somebody said in the comments that the FBI is really trying to work for the globalists I think that's the worst take I think the FBI each individual was doing whatever they thought was good for that individual and and maybe from the world but I don't think anybody was thinking globalist or non globalist that that's as French FBI lawyer Clyde Smith facing felony obstruction for doctoring the FISA evidence yeah now let me give you the non conspiracy version of how Klein Smith could have removed the statement the Carter page had had been a source and he changed it to the opposite not a source could you imagine any innocent reason for doing that well I can now I'm not going to say that the reason Clyde Smith did that was an honorable or good or that he had good

[1:03:08]

honorable or good or that he had good intention so I'm not saying that I'm simply saying that if you can't imagine the other possibility you're suffering from a lack of imagination as I talked about in my book loser think the lack of imagination in this case is that if you're locked into the theory that the only reason he would have done that is that he's just trying to get the president you are ignoring the other reason that people do something like that here's the reason suppose he thought the Carter Paige thing was necessary and important let's say he actually believed it was important but he knew that if he put in that little clause it could raise questions that are hard to answer but maybe could be answered they're just hard to answer and they might even weakened the application if he thought the application was sufficient with or without that information but he thought you know it's

[1:04:08]

information but he thought you know it's it's good for the world it's good that we have this investigation if I put this exculpatory thing in there it probably wouldn't change the final result because whether or not Carter Paige had been a source might not be everything you need to know right so he might have just said you know I'm gonna weasel word this and I'm gonna say well you know by definition of what a source is it wasn't exactly a source so I'm gonna say if anybody catches me on this I'm gonna say we use different words for so he's not a source he's just somebody we talked to I'm just making this up now but the point is the lawyer probably is going to have a defense that looks something like I wasn't really lying because technically I was right in a very technical sense I'm gonna argue that I was correct even though it seems to ever

[1:05:09]

was correct even though it seems to ever reverse the meaning of it so I think it's gonna look more gray than you think it is when when the details are looked into so is there ice where's the thing I'm not going to tell you that I disagree with Horowitz who said all these errors going the same direction have to be intentioned in this case I'm giving you two possibilities of how it happened and both of them are intentional in one case it's intentional to get the president because it's part of a conspiracy to take down the president and the other possibility it's also intentional but it's just to make things easier for the person who filled out the paperwork because he doesn't want to do another round of answering questions doesn't want to have to defend why Carter is still worth looking into even with that fact it might have just been convenience and he might have just said I think I could weasel this through because if anybody asks I'll just say well it's technically true he's not working with

[1:06:10]

technically true he's not working with us or or not in any real way where it wasn't was it important or something like that that's what I'm thinking uh he changed it to a lie that might be technically accurate when he gets a chance to defend himself remember when you talking with lawyers and you hear one lawyer give a give a case how much should you rely on one lawyers opinion who's on one side it's always gonna look you know one lawyer talking without the counterpoint from there the lawyer is always gonna be convincing because they're lawyers so you've heard one side you've heard the side that says Klein Smith did something bad and that appears to be absolutely true but what you haven't heard is claims Smith who is a lawyer give you his version of why he did it and when do you get that version there's a pretty good chance it's not

[1:07:11]

there's a pretty good chance it's not going to be as clean as you thought I'll bet it will be something like well technically I was true I can see why you think this is misleading but it was technically true I think it'll be something like that
open your mind all right I'm gonna stop so to the person who said to open your mind I'm gonna start blocking people who seem to be intentionally not understanding my point I'm telling you that seventeen errors in the same direction and everything that Horowitz said clearly indicates intention but that we don't have confirmation that it was a you know specifically a conspiracy I'm certainly open-minded to it being a conspiracy what am I saying that would suggest a not open-minded I'm literally accepting all of the explanations talking about them all and adding extra explanations

[1:08:12]

them all and adding extra explanations if that's not open-minded what is open-minded look like those of you who made your decision a year ago and are saying hello there it is it's in the final report just like I thought I think you have to ask yourself you have to ask yourself if you've you know if you've got confidence in your opinion no little too early somebody's saying Paige was a source for the CIA about twenty years ago yeah it would be easy to imagine that Klein Smith is not going to be prosecuted for this because there's something in his answer that makes it close enough to being technically correct that he won't go to jail for them it may have been a conspiracy that came from the fake news as opposed to originating the FBI yeah that's correct so it would still be a conspiracy but it

[1:09:15]

so it would still be a conspiracy but it would be a conspiracy of the mainstream news to paint a Trump as Hitler which would have the effect of of essentially activating everybody in the public to do everything they could every every time they could to fix it all right did you give it time I'm just looking at your comments right now all right I think I've sent everything I'm gonna say and I'm going to talk to you all later by him