Episode 794 Scott Adams: Impeachment Strategy, Hillary Neuters Bernie, Climate Non-Hoaxes

Date: 2020-01-21 | Duration: 56:57

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Impeachment…how it SHOULD go Why did CNN’s Anderson Cooper have Alan Dershowitz on? Impeachment supported only by mind-reading? Virginia 2A gun rights rally Hillary trashes Bernie Sanders Interesting climate change developments by President Trump

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

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

## Transcript

[0:03]

[Music] bumbum bumbum bumbum Oh lots of stuff going on coming at you hard coming in fast coming in hot that's right it's time for coffee with Scott Adams and the simultaneous sip that's coming at you soon but we got all kinds of news oh yeah Hillary is back I'm making news impeachments on it's the rumble and Congress get it on we can talk about that but we don't talk about these things without the proper preparation imagine imagine trying to talk about these topics without the simultaneous Epis I'm I can't even imagine it can you but luckily you won't have to imagine it for long because all you need to enjoy this conversation is a cup or a mug or a glass at ankor Chelsea Stein in the canteen Jagger flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I

[1:05]

kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine zit of the day the thing that makes everything better the simultaneous app go yup just as good as I thought it would be every time it's amazing alright let's talk about impeachment here's the way I think it should go now there gonna be lots of clever legal maneuver maneuvering there will be surprises there will be shocks there will be outrage so we can't totally predict where things are going but here's how it should go you should start with Alan Dershowitz making his argument about the constitutionality or lack thereof of the claims themselves so apparently Alan Dershowitz will be arguing that the the allegations do not

[2:06]

arguing that the the allegations do not rise to the level of impeachable now given that alan dershowitz is in my personal opinion the impeachment kill shot to me it looks like he's going to drive a stake through the heart of this whole thing and that the republican senators are going to look at each other and say do you need to hear anymore probably not i think we're done here shall we have a vote so one way it could go is if Dershowitz has to say the other side response to it and Republicans say it's all we need because if it's not an impeachable offense and we accept dursa which is argument which i think the republicans will you don't need to dig into the details there's nothing there to impeach on but here's the fun part CNN had Dershowitz back on after I think a pretty long hiatus and I believe the reason if if I interpret this right from

[3:06]

reason if if I interpret this right from things that Dershowitz himself has said I believe that CNN sort of put an embargo on him for a long time he used to be on CNN all the time also Fox you know he would appear on the big the big networks but CNN sort of shut him out because he was a little too let's say his arguments were a little too favorable for the president and that was not allowable apparently but they had it back on and I thought to myself well that's interesting it looks like Alan Dershowitz is going to drive a stake through their their most favored topic impeachment why would they have Alan Dershowitz on CNN again after this long embargo if he's just going to get on the air and drive a stake through the heart of the thing they love the most doesn't make sense right but then I find out it's an ambush and here's the ambush so it was Anderson Cooper's show Anderson Cooper talking to Dershowitz and they played a 1998 video of

[4:11]

and they played a 1998 video of Dershowitz with a total opposite opinion oh no they've got it now I thought Dershowitz was like the The Vampire Slayer but ah darn it the these people have been around for a while they've got a long video record and it's now hard to go back and find out that they said exactly the opposite thing let's say in this case about the Clinton impeachment so let me give you a paraphrase but this is what Alan Dershowitz said in 1998 and I want you to compare this to his embarrassing flip-flop in 2020 all right in 1998 he said get on paraphrasing that it doesn't need to technically be a crime and order for the impeachment to be valid all right that's what he said in 1998 that it doesn't need to be technically a crime to be impeachable and he's totally flip-flopped and CNN

[5:13]

and he's totally flip-flopped and CNN has got him I mean they've got him too goods right now in 2020 he said that it doesn't need to be a technical crime to be impeachable do you see the difference let me give it to you again and how embarrassing for inertia what's that he's caught in this flip-flop in 1998 he said it doesn't need to be technically a crime to be impeachable but in 2020 complete reversal he says it doesn't need to be a crime to be impeachable now if you're not smart like Anderson Cooper you're probably saying to yourself Oh Scott are you miss speaking or am i losing my mind because those do sound like exactly the same things so what did Alan Dershowitz do when shown video proof on live TV of how he's flip-flopped well here's another example of why you don't want to be on the other side of arguing against Alan Dershowitz it's not going to go well

[6:14]

Dershowitz it's not going to go well Dershowitz his reply which I've been laughing about for a full day as he said I was right then and I'm more right today
yeah I was right then and I'm war right today and and he went on to say that he's done further research and and his is more refined argument which is not as no conflict whatsoever with his his prior argument in both cases he said it didn't need to technically be a crime but he's adding a little flavor to it now saying that that it would have to at least be crime like now put a bunch of politicians in a room let's call them Congress and have them argue what people who have been dead for hundreds of years actually meant what were their inner thoughts literally what were the inner thoughts of people who have been dead for hundreds of years when they said

[7:16]

for hundreds of years when they said crime like what did that mean what the hell knows what that means don't you think you get a hundred people to argue a hundred different opinions about what it means to be crime like so I think we'd all agree that if something doesn't look a lot like a crime I mean so much so that you ask yourself why is it not illegal you know it's just not going to be impeachable and how many crimes on the book are there for this thing called abuse of power from the president none why is it why is it I asked that Congress in all of its hundreds of years have never thought to make it a crime to abuse your power well maybe it's because it's a little subjective you can't really have a crime if you're not sure a crime has been committed in other words you can't have

[8:17]

committed in other words you can't have a law that says it's a crime to do X when nobody can even agree what X looks like what the hell is ax ok great we've got a it's illegal to do X but every what X is that's not a that's not a law you want on the books and indeed we don't we don't have that law of the books so I think Dershowitz is they're so it's this point that these do not rise the level of impeachable will be well received at least by the Republicans but maybe there's one level more you have to go because if you're gonna try to nail down that case that these are not crime like you might have to dig into it a little bit further and I would say that there's only one remaining question was there a legitimate national interest in finding out about Biden and Purisima because you don't want you don't want Ukraine and

[9:18]

don't want you don't want Ukraine and maybe Russia because you know Russia is listening to everything that Ukraine is doing one way or another you know what Russia and Ukraine have potential blackmail over the guy who might be the next president and so I would say of all of the potential Ukrainian corruption issues of which there are many there's one that's sitting at the top there's one that matters to the United States I mean the other ones might matter more to Ukraine but the ones that matter the most the United States is do you have something on our potential next president because if we don't know if you can control him or not we have a risk so of course president Trump has a legitimate national interest now here's where it gets fun what were president Trump's inner intentions was his inner intention to protect the United States from a potential future president who has some blackmail potential doesn't

[10:20]

has some blackmail potential doesn't matter no doesn't matter it only matters that an objective observer would say yeah those that was an important issue it was a top priority it was the national interest if it also helps the president politically is that a reason that he can't do it no everything the president does is intended by design by that by the by the system itself is designed to be good for the president if you didn't have that system why would anybody do anything that you wanted because people are selfish and and have their own interest in mind it has to be the only way you can have a good system it's the way capitalism works as well is that selfish behavior in general is somehow good for the system you want your politicians to selfishly try to get it reelected because the only way they can do that really well is by doing the work of the people so

[11:20]

is by doing the work of the people so selfishness has built in as not just something we tolerate it's the most important part of the system a president pursuing his own self-interest is exactly the system we want because how do you do that when everybody's watching only one way there's only one way to do it when everybody's watching and that's to do the work of the people so here's an interesting little thing yeah I've been telling you recently have my world has just become weird you know with with a number of well just contacts an influence that I seem to be having on very unrelated areas but so you know that if you've been watching so yesterday I guess rush limbaugh did an extended piece about my Twitter thread on the topic of impeachment now how weird is that I mean so Rush Limbaugh probably the biggest audience on the right but you said some very

[12:23]

on the right but you said some very complimentary things which I appreciate thank you rush but he he was emphasizing the same point that as long as and he was he was presenting my opinion he wasn't I don't think he gave an opinion on my opinion so this was my opinion he talked about not not necessarily his own opinion at least the way it was raped and I think that's the next the next question but here's here's your tell that is it's exactly how the president's team is going to go forward if you look at the legal document that came out I think it was a hundred and nine P something from the president's lawyers I think that came out yesterday one of the top arguments I mean I think the top argument is that these are not impeach above offenses but I think it was number two and I'm just running off a memory here but I think the second biggest one was that you can't impeach or it

[13:24]

was that you can't impeach or it wouldn't be good for the country to impeach a president based on your assumption of wait for it wait for it you don't want to impeach a president for your assumption of their intentions
mind reading is on the table mind reading because the only way you know somebody's secret inner intentions unless they tell you and and you believe them which is hard enough is you read their mind this entire impeachment case is built on the assumption that the president's critics can read his mind and the only thing they see there is his intention to help himself is that in evidence has the president ever said my only intention is to help myself no that's not in evidence is there any of these fact witnesses who has ever

[14:26]

these fact witnesses who has ever claimed that they heard the president say that the only reason I'm doing this is for my reelection has nothing to do with the good of the country there's no evidence of that so quite reasonably the president's lawyers are going to argue apparently since they've already put this in that document that you don't want to live in a world where you can be punished by other people's opinion of what you're thinking and that's what the that's what the case rests on the case rests entirely on critics opinions of what somebody else is thinking secretly secretly thinking that's actually the case and the Republicans are calling them out for it now too correctly it's one of the top top points first of all it's not impeachable Dershowitz will handle that quite well I'm sure and secondly you don't want a

[15:29]

I'm sure and secondly you don't want a world where you're impeaching presidents for your opinion of what they're thinking it's not a system that's supportable so I'm gonna have to say that the president's case is looking super strong you know from the beginning we've been saying we can't see a situation where the president won't get at least the enough Republican votes to dismiss this thing but I would say at this point on top of the politics of it which I think we know is going to go one way the argument is solid there is a airtight in my opinion you know no legal scholar but as a citizen when I look at this I think well one of these two sides as a rock-solid argument and the other side has just nothing just nothing so I think the Republicans have plenty of cover and in that sense the president's team will have done what it needed to do which is provide cover for

[16:29]

needed to do which is provide cover for the Republicans who might be in a weaker position this is really good because the the Republicans would have failed if they did what I'll call I hate to throw him under the bus but I'm gonna call it the Jim Jordan approach to defending this thing the the Jim Jordan approach and maybe it was the only choice he had given given the cards that were played but I think it's a mistake to delve into the details of who said he said who did what when did it happen what was on the document who whispered to who what did they believe as soon as you get into those weeds the public doesn't know what's going on and since the entire point is to convince the public which gives cover for the other Republicans and also it's good for the Republic just to educate the public you got to keep it simple you got to keep it simple Dershowitz keeps his simple that's one of his superpowers how simple is this the Constitution says it's got to be

[17:31]

the Constitution says it's got to be high crimes or misdemeanors and they allow that it could be criminal like the things alleged are not in that category you can look at them yourself they're not in that category that's it how simple is that here's the one sentence this says what is compete ball here's what they allege they don't match can't beat that that's why he's Alan Dershowitz and you're not because he went right to the heart of it put the dagger in it and said all right you don't need the rest of this stuff I just put a dagger in the heart you don't need to kick him in the shins you know keep kicking you in the shins if you want to but I just put a dagger in the heart I think that's gonna take care of it all right so there's that let's talk about something else
Iran some Iranian lawmaker I don't know how high up on the Iranian lawmaker scale this guy is but he's placed a

[18:32]

scale this guy is but he's placed a three million dollar bounty on president Trump's head this guy's name is Ahmad Hamza and there's some question about whether he has any support from the top on this but apparently we haven't seen any at least public pushback on it and I don't think we could it's a sort of thing the Ayatollah probably wouldn't push back on but how do you take this an Iranian lawmaker and we know his name we know where he lives we probably know what he looks like probably know what car he uses probably know where he commutes where is the office where's your house do we have authority to take this guy out with a drone now that he's put a three million dollar bounty on the president's head I say yes I say yes I say that if he had just been talking trash I would say no but when you put a three million dollar bounty on my

[19:34]

three million dollar bounty on my president's head my president can kill you and I will I will support him now I don't know if that's the best play I I'm not saying that it would be wise in fact wisdom would probably say to ignore it but just from a personal citizen perspective this is just my opinion I'm not asking you to adopt this opinion and I don't suggest that the government do this because probably causing more trouble it's just not the right time but in terms of legitimacy in my opinion he could be taken out there but - but probably don't do it there's a Steve Cortes I call I'm gonna start calling him the zombie hoax killer because he kills hoaxes specifically the Charlottesville hoax now speaking of people who have been banned from CNN Steve Cortez a one of probably one of

[20:36]

Steve Cortez a one of probably one of the most eloquent effective I don't like to use the word eloquent let's say most effective supporters of the president especially when it comes to knocking down these hoaxes about every week he has to come an of you know he has to go back in the ring kill another zombie hoax it was usually the Charlottesville hoax and he was actually he was actually also embargoed from CNN after he did his what was it the video on the Charlottesville hoax calling him notice the hopes that it was at Prague Review and I guess the president retweeted that it got six million views and it just completely flies in the face of all the reporting cNN has been doing on this topic and so he was sort of uninvited from CNN until his contract runs out but he has to get back in the ring because after this Virginia second-amendment

[21:37]

after this Virginia second-amendment rally thing the press was trying to set this up like it was going to be Charlottesville - as if Charlottesville one happened the way they said it happened now of course there was a tragedy there that that part is real but the way that the CNN reported it is that the president called the racist fightin people he literally said the opposite of that they just reported opposite of the video and the transcript amazingly they still do it it's opposite of the transcript kind of opposite of the video of the event and they still report it that way Steve Cortez points that out on the air and that's that's it for him you don't get to be on the air if you report it the way it actually happened
all right so an interesting and one more word about that Virginia gun rally that was a lot of gun owners in one place with no trouble that's the story I don't

[22:38]

with no trouble that's the story I don't know how many people were there but the crowds looked pretty big probably every one of the pro-second amendment people or at least you know hi 90 percents we're gonna nurse they may or may not have had guns with them I don't know how that worked but that is a lot of gun owners in one place to have no violence and I understand that anti-fraud decided to take a pass I'm seeing some numbers in the comments 22,000 somebody said different different numbers 22,000 armed Americans no trouble cause or effect is it a cause is it was there no trouble because there were 22,000 armed Patriots and the same zip code well probably probably I don't think it was a coincidence you put that many Patriots with guns in one place

[23:39]

one place I guess people don't cause trouble so that would in some ways the Virginia Second Amendment rally is the greatest non-story of the year all right it's a non-story because there was no trouble that's the story and that's a big story 22,000 you know gun owners not happy 22000 pissed off gun owners that makes it a better story because it's true right they weren't just there for fun they were pissed off no trouble it's phenomenal it's inspirational really there were criticisms that the crowd looked if you were watching the news on the left or at least social media you would see them noting that the crowd looked insanely white there was like the whitest crowd you've ever seen but then you go over to the the news sources that

[24:41]

you go over to the the news sources that are on the right and it was a it was just continuous clips and interviews with African American mostly men I think who also attended the rally were also Second Amendment proponents so you saw come to completely world different worlds on the left they just showed pictures of white people on the right ironically a whole bunch of pictures of African American mostly men promoting their second Amendment rights so you saw really two worlds completely differently there and I keep saying this but watch how true this becomes I think this will be the story after the election I'm assuming the Trump wins and I think you're going to find this split we've talked forever about how the the black vote goes goes for the Democrats let's say Biden gets the nomination just for

[25:42]

say Biden gets the nomination just for fun he would absorb most or you know the lion's share of the black vote because he's always had great black support which I give him credit for I'm not sure that the black vote is going to be a unified block anymore now of course has never been a unified Block in in the real sense but I feel as though the men are gonna move toward Trump while the women are moving away and I think that we're gonna have to start talking about the black vote as the male black vote and the female black vote and I think it's going to look different by Election Day and and that we're gonna have to talk about it as they're no longer one block but they may have separated by gender so look for that I love this next story I love this Hillary Clinton apparently has a documentary out

[26:42]

Clinton apparently has a documentary out in which she trashes Bernie Sanders and she says that no one likes him he only had one friend in Congress and then in interviews in interview she's saying that Bernie is basically a sexist and that the charge against him is not so much about what Bernie himself may have or may have not said but Hillary's trying to have it both ways she's tried to pave Sanders as a sexist because a lot of his Bernie bros supporters are clearly sexist in their online behavior now is that claim going to stick does it does it feel like it sticks a little bit it kind of does it's not that dumb that what's not dumb at all in fact it's actually quite smart let me let me take any negative off that at all

[27:42]

at all it's really clever and let me connect some dots there's something happening here that I don't know I feel like I can see it coming from a mile away and I know that not one of you agrees so let me let me stipulate that the hypothesis I'm about to describe I know none of you believe this but just watch just for fun let's see here's the hypothesis Hillary is taking out Bernie and she's going hard at it and I think the Hillary has the power to make a dent so it looks like Hillary's gonna try to paint Bernie as a sexist not because of something Bernie did and she was very clever when she talked about the the disputed meeting between Warren and say and you know did he really say that a woman can't win or did he say it would be harder you know what did he exactly say so Hillary takes this great and I

[28:44]

say so Hillary takes this great and I say great that mean evil but very effective taking on it she says you know if that had been if that happened in isolation you wouldn't make much of it I'm paraphrasing her and I'm thinking yeah that's true if it was the only thing that ever happened that was an accusation about Bernie and sexism you'd probably discount it and maybe even say well it probably didn't happen because it's inconsistent with everything Bernie is said and done for his entire career totally inconsistent so you'd probably just brush it away but Hillary very cleverly says no it's sort of part of a pattern and it's not necessarily a pattern of what Bernie is doing it's more of a pattern of what he's not doing and what he's not doing is tamping down on his own supporters there Bernie bros who are doing sexist stuff online now is it true that bernie is not tamping down on his own supporters some of whom

[29:45]

on his own supporters some of whom they're not many but some of whom are trolls and sexist is it true that he's not clamping down them yeah yeah it's kind of true because it's not something that that you see candidates do now if a candidate has you know just horrible horrible people supporting them you know terrorists or something they're good to say something about that but it's not really a thing the candidates turn against their own supporters for bad behavior Trump doesn't do it Bernie doesn't do it Hillary doesn't do it it's just not a thing no smart candidate is going to turn against their own own supporters before just bad social media behavior even if they don't like it it's just not a thing so with this it's a great attack because Bernie can't change his being a little bit silent on it and and she can paint it as a pattern so it looks like Hillary's trying to take Bernie out that seems very clear I

[30:47]

take Bernie out that seems very clear I think Elizabeth Warren will be taken out by Wall Street in other words there are enough rich Democrats there Warren doesn't really maybe have the energy so I can see Bernie beat being taken out by Hillary I can see Elizabeth Warren just not getting past the the fact that rich Democrats don't want to give away all the money and I think Budaj edge will take himself out in other words Budaj edge will just be Budaj edge but he's got kind of a cap on his support I think you know I just I just don't know that his vibe is marvelous is his looking too young his experience as a mayor I just I just don't see that breaking through so if we take the assumption that those three are out of the race that gives us biden and of course he's already leading the polls so that's not that's not a thing but here's here's some reading between the lines you ready when the

[31:50]

between the lines you ready when the Hillary talked about it and she mentioned Bernie Bros being sexist she name-check to two people in this order here's the important part in this order if you were going to criticize Bernie Sanders this week for being sexist which is not by the way there's no evidence of that zero evidence that bernie is sexist zero evidence probably one of the most consistently you know Pro everybody candidate you've ever seen you got to respect that right but still she makes the claim now if you were going to talk about Bernie being sexist in this fake accusation wouldn't you mention Elizabeth Warren as your first example of that you would wouldn't you because that's the news it's about Bernie and Warren so if you were going to mention who you say yeah Elizabeth Warren that's my best example what does she mention instead calmly Harris she

[32:52]

she mention instead calmly Harris she says yeah you've got these two examples the way she treated calmly Harris and and the way the Bernie bros are treating Elizabeth Warren in both cases it's the birdie bro is not not necessarily Bernie now do you know the Kabul Harris is the most closely associated in terms of her advisers and her political campaign that's in hiatus do you know she was the one who had the most Hillary Clinton supporters on her team did you know that because here's where we're going we're heading toward Biden in charge you know Biden in the top spot and Kamala Harris is running mate because it looks like that's what cliff it feels to me that's where where Hillary is heading now if you get that you're gonna have a situation that I call Bush's brain do

[33:57]

situation that I call Bush's brain do you remember when George Bush jr. was president and everybody said he's not the real president because he's he's just not bright enough now I don't think that's true but they said he's not the real president it's really Dick Cheney because Dick Cheney's more experienced and he's connected with the deep state and everything so that was the big claim about him is that the real president was not even him the real president was Dick Cheney what happens if you get a wobbly Joe Biden as president or even candidate for president and a young go-getter with Hillary's entire team behind her calmly Harris well it's going to start a little bit like she's Biden's brain and it won't be coming from her necessarily it will be coming from Clinton Hillary Clinton has a path to the presidency without running for office in other

[34:57]

without running for office in other words Hillary Clinton has great control over the people who are great supporters those supporters apparently are on the Comley Harris team and if Carmel harris becomes the vice president what are people gonna say about who's really in charge I rest my case do you see it yet because it's as clear as day it's as clear as day and this is one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton is not going to jump into the race late the reason she's not going to jump into the race is because she already has a path to power that doesn't involve the work and there you go now I'll say this again sometimes my predictions are just for fun
fun and sometimes there are actual predictions this one's sort of a this one's sort of a hybrid I think there's

[35:58]

one's sort of a hybrid I think there's more chance of this happening than not happening but I wouldn't put it in in my usual confident predictions where I feel like there's a hundred percent chance so it's not a hundred percent chance but certainly that's where things are lining up all right something really interesting on climate change is happening this is the biggest story in the world and it's not reported these are the fun ones the biggest story in the world and the first time you're gonna hear it is for me you ready this is kind of fun you may not even hear this on the regular news maybe not even once and it's because the way I'm gonna frame this and put it together President Trump one of his biggest weaknesses is his his statement from long ago that climate change was a hoax a Chinese hoax and of course he is paid for that statement forever and something's happening watch this I give you some

[37:00]

happening watch this I give you some data points and then connect them are you ready data point number one I think it was a week or so ago Trump was in being interviewed by somebody I don't remember and whoever it was said you said that climate change was a hoax and then he responded to that how did he respond when an interviewer said you said climate change was a hoax he said and I'm paraphrasing this is not his exact quote and he said no hoax those words no hoax there's no hoax and that he quickly said what he wanted to say about clean air and clean water he usually frames it that way it's it's not he's not focusing on the co2 content he says clean air clean water we get to the same place so data point number one he has expressly disowned his own choice of words from long ago that was really hyperbole that it's a hoax but as he

[38:02]

hyperbole that it's a hoax but as he completely released because the hoax covered two points one of those points was that China is cleverly agreeing to the Paris Accords because it's good for China they get lots of freedom to do what they want but it would be very restrictive on the the United States economy and that would be good for China so China is sort of cleverly going along with this because they know it's just bad for our economy has nothing to do with with the environment at all that's the hoax part is is China's intention now I'm not saying if it's true or false all I'm gonna say is that there are two parts to the hoax the second part is the question of whether the the science is right or right enough that there's there's a big problem there I believe the president quite cleverly is in the middle of an historic pivot that he will never call a pivot but just watch the data points coming together are you ready I believe he's going to loosen up on this part of the hoax

[39:06]

loosen up on this part of the hoax in other words it'll probably keep going with the it was good for China's economy and the joke was on us if we stayed with the Paris Accords the climate of course the joke would be on us and that's sort of I think he's going to keep that framing but he's starting to release on the the question of the scientific validity of it and he should because the scientific consensus is pretty darn strong that there's something to worry about data point number two over at Davos the president has signed on to the trillion tree plan to plant a trillion trees by 2050 around the world to help absorb co2 huh why would the President of the United States signed on to a deal to help plant two trillion trees unless he had bought into the concept and he's telling us right now that there's too much co2 in terms of

[40:08]

that there's too much co2 in terms of the risk to the climate why would he say yes to the trillion trees unless he's pivoting evolving to the view that well trees are good clean air is good we like trees it's not probably not that expensive and the in the big scheme of things it's not going to hurt our economy but it feels it feels as though he's no I'm not mind reading I'm not mind reading I'm just giving you the data points you can do all of this without without the mind reading so will it will speculate all right so let's call this speculating which is always fair mind reading is not mind reading is when you're sure you see something in there I'm not saying that I'm looking at the data and saying well it looks like this all right here's another data point
Kevin McCarthy is part of a group who are putting together a group to talk

[41:09]

are putting together a group to talk about
let's say McCarthy held a caucus event on climate change Thursday what Kevin McCarthy a high-ranking Republican is having a caucus event on climate change do you have a caucus event on climate change if what you're really trying to say is there's no risk here and there's no problem now you don't so suddenly the president is not calling it a hoax the president is signing on with no with no fight he's fully embracing a trillion trees which you don't need to do unless there's a real problem and then Kevin McCarthy high ranking Republican of course the president knows what he's doing yeah because they're at that same level I mean the highest level of the Republican Party why would he hold a caucus event on climate change unless he thought that was real why would he do that he wouldn't again we're speculating about my dream and here are the points that his little

[42:13]

and here are the points that his little group I must say he's so he so he's a House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and he's working with representatives Garret graves and Bruce Westerman and three of them are proposing policies that focus on the three efforts the first is the capturing of carbon dioxide and part of that is the trillion trees but another part I assume I didn't see this expressly but one assumes that all the startups that have machines that can directly suck the carbon out of the air is going to be part of that so why would the House Minority Leader proposed policies for capturing carbon dioxide if he didn't think it was a problem he what he wouldn't all right so Republicans have it seems to me at the leadership level have clearly embraced that the scientific part and

[43:14]

embraced that the scientific part and again watch me closely just the scientific part looks valent in terms of the risk the second part is promoting clean energy but the boom oh they're looking to expand tax credits for carbon capture you know typical Republican stuff and the second part of the plan is the promotion of clean energy which includes investments in doubling of investments if if the proposals go forward it would be a doubling of investment in clean air research and lowering taxes for companies that export clean air tech that's interesting if they export the clean Tech in other words it's the other companies other countries that probably need it more than us if they export they get a tax break that makes sense that at least the incentives are in the right place but here's the other part nuclear power and natural gas are also featured in the plan but what I hate is that it's it's like the last sentence on

[44:16]

that it's it's like the last sentence on this thing nuclear power and natural gas now natural gas is less polluting than coal for example and we've got plenty of it so it's a good interim fuel so if you're using natural gas you're still adding co2 but not nearly as much as coal for example and maybe you do that for a while until you can get your nuclear stuff going at the same time over in Davos I saw I saw a mention of this but I have not seen the actual quotes so I need a I need a fact check on this I think mark Schneider is trying to get a fact check on this as well did President Trump mentioned nuclear and generation forward nuclear at Davos because that that's a claim I saw on the internet that is unn unn confirmed at this point now put the put the points together president says it's not a hoax still the China economy part is still a little hokey but not that the science

[45:16]

little hokey but not that the science Trump says ok to planting a trillion trees no reason to do it unless there's too much co2 no reason Trump apparently doesn't have a problem with and I assume that are coordinating this the house Minority Leader McCarthy GOP having their own Republican version of climate change combat you have to it to fight it duh am I wrong that this is the biggest story happening right now the biggest story is that the GOP just embraced climate change and is acting aggressively to combat it but doing it in a Republican way not it's not a crazy way the crazy way is you get rid of all your airplanes and your cars and we all ride horses and stuff like that how long have you been waiting for this my god the the GOP has had this big gaping hole in their

[46:18]

had this big gaping hole in their portfolio which is just crazy talk about climate when the whole time they could do stuff that was completely Republican that would that would at least make their case stronger and now that are pursuing it so I would say that the GOP is taking a path on climate change which in my opinion is way stronger than then the green New Deal which feels impractical the stuff the Republicans are suggesting seems completely practical 100% practical but here's here's the kill shot are you ready for this I want you to parse the president's words about it so he was talking about hosting us and he wants a I guess there's a lot of focus there on in quote a cohesive and sustainable world so it's a big theme over at Davos at the conference and so Trump announced that we'd be joining the 1 trillion trees initiative the blah blah blah and then he went on to say and

[47:20]

blah blah and then he went on to say and listen to the exact words it's very important Trump said that to to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse so he's not talking about what's true or false in terms of the science look how carefully he's chosen his words to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow and I assume that would mean you know nuclear green technology all the possibilities tomorrow good economy all those to embrace that good future we must reject the perennial prophets of
doom and their predictions of the apocalypse and he goes on there are errors of yesterday's fortune tellers so he's demeaning all the people all the Doomsday errs and we have them and I and we have them meaning the United States and I have them beating the United States and they want to see us do badly well no they don't but so so that part you should ignore

[48:22]

but so so that part you should ignore that's that's just a political statement nobody nobody wants to see us do badly except maybe China but we don't let that happened and here and here's the kill shot this is from President Trump in Davos quote this is not a time for pessimism this is a time for optimism fear and doubt is not a good thought process Wow because this is a time for a tremendous hope and joy and optimism and action how many times have I told you that President Trump learned at the knee of the greatest honor the greatest positive thinking prophet ever norman vincent peale who was actually trump's pastor or minister or whatever in church when he was a kid the power of positive thinking and this is what the president is saying pretty directly so if you put it all together it does seem that the president is now

[49:22]

it does seem that the president is now embracing the scientific consensus the co2 is a threat but he's doing it in his trump way which in my opinion is perfect I wouldn't say that about a lot of things well maybe I do say that about a lot of things but his framing of this the the new frame where he's sort of evolving too is really perfect because he's focusing on the optimism versus pessimism in other words he's basically saying what I've been telling you this is a version of the Adams law of slow-moving disasters if you have a quick disaster and it catches us off guard us being the United States us being humanity if something catches us off guard well we could be in trouble but when the United States and the world in general sees a big problem coming from 50 50 years away when we see a

[50:23]

from 50 50 years away when we see a common and we're on the same page and now we are president United States is very clearly on the same page with the scientific consensus at this point when you've got that optimism is the right mindset because it's the optimism that plants you a trillion trees it's the optimism that builds new carbon sucking devices it's the optimism that gets you to generation for nuclear power it's the optimism that gets you to everything you need pessimism is the wrong mindset to solve the problem so the president just entered fully entered in my opinion he has fully entered the climate topic in a productive way and the the same thing he does every time he enters the topic he hollows it out and he wears it as a suit he didn't just enter the contest he hollowed it out he redefined it as a war against pessimist and optimists and he's

[51:25]

against pessimist and optimists and he's right this is a battle between optimists and pessimists and the pessimists have a mindset which for all of our human experience we've learned is not productive so he's doing the stuff you can do he's ignoring the stuff that doesn't make any difference let's say the Paris climate Accord didn't make any difference so he doesn't do it planting a trillion trees does that make a difference probably yes going hard at nuclear energy to get you know clean power that eats nuclear waste as its own fuel and doesn't melt down is that some place we should go how do you get there does a pessimism get you to generation for nuclear power no it doesn't get you nothing pessimism gets you nothing this president and you know I say this until you're tired of hearing it but what I like about this president is not that he

[52:27]

like about this president is not that he does everything the way I want him to not that he doesn't break things not that there isn't some cost to his presidency the risk he's expensive he is an expensive president and I don't just mean Secret Service cost when he goes golfing he's expensive he costs us a lot of you know anguish people are going to their side Gayatri and stuff like that but the trade-off is that he has a set of tools that nobody has ever seen before I mean you've never seen this before the President of the United States just pasted the hell out of the Republican and conservative parts of this country he pasted them in other words he agreed with those who said this climate change stuff looks a little BSE to us that doesn't it's not passing the sniff test he was right there right in the middle of it and this week he took a new path who's gonna follow him will the

[53:30]

who's gonna follow him will the Republican Party the Conservatives let's say the Republicans who have 95 percent or something like that support for this president do they go with him do they go with him I say yes I say yes I say this president just did the greatest thing this country has ever seen according to a Oh see you ready for this this is not my opinion I'm imagining in opinions is just my imagination I'm imagining aoc and she's looking at this how long is a or C been trying to convince the rest of the country the other half the skeptics to do something about climate change well it's her main thing she's been trying really really hard how is how is she succeeded she hasn't why does a or C not change any minds in the Republican Party simple she doesn't taste them she's only pacing her own team she's being like them until

[54:32]

her own team she's being like them until they trust her and then they'll move with her because they trust her President Trump has the trust of conservatives and the GOP he's been pacing you for years and he just made a move it's the biggest move maybe you've ever seen this is the biggest persuasion play happening right now while you're watching it's the biggest persuasion play I've ever seen meaning that it involves the most people at the highest level and I think it's gonna kind of work now obviously he's not gonna get everybody to move over all the skeptics will dig in
in some of them might may start disliking the president for it but this is the biggest story and there's nothing even close nothing even close but I like the fact that he's keeping some of the some of the hoax elements to it in terms of our projections of doom so let's not

[55:32]

our projections of doom so let's not project doom because we can't do that you know we are we're the United States and we are humanity and we can solve this and the president of the United States just that it's real now we can solve this and then his team with McCarthy told you some details of how that can happen and they're actually completely practical everything everything the Republicans are looking at looks entirely practical now maybe a wussy would say it's not enough and that's a productive conversation we should have that all right what else we got here I think that I think we hit the I think we hit the the big points what a day to be alive I'll tell you I this country has never been better you know I feel bad for the people who for just psychological reasons are sort of

[56:33]

psychological reasons are sort of trapped in and own their own internal hell about what's going on here but man we have never had better leadership than we have right now that's unambiguously there's there's nothing ever has been close to this I don't think all right let's say I'll go get ready and watch the impeachments show that show is going to be great and I will talk to you all later