Episode 795 Scott Adams: Impeachment Theater Winners and Losers, Shadowbanning Update

Date: 2020-01-22 | Duration: 53:06

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Ambassador @RichardGrenell shadowbanned? Impeachment theater absurdity lying is allowed, HOAX videos are allowed? Alan Dershowitz on “crime-like” impeachment Laundry-list impeachment isn’t constitutionally valid, game over? Making food by feeding CO2 to microbes

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]

bump bump bump bump bump Oh what good luck you're all here and it's time for a coffee with Scott Adams it's really not the same without you glad you could come and are you ready are you ready we're gonna be talking about this impeachment stuff impeachment theater as we call it but first you got to get primed you got to get ready you got to be in your best frame of mind for this and all it takes is a cup of mud or a glass of tanker chelators time in a canteen jug reflects a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee enjoyed me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hood the day the thing that makes everything better the simultaneous sip you ready go yeah oh yeah special impeachment flavor how does it taste very mpg somebody in the comments

[1:06]

taste very mpg somebody in the comments comments section is saying white privilege with Scott isn't always about that I'm sorry if I'm displaying my white privilege by using a public platform and so I continue to be amazed that my trolls disappeared suddenly and I don't know why it could be because I was playing with the filters so Twitter has some filters to allow you to get rid of I think some of the filters are you can you can block people who don't have a picture in their photos I think you can block people were new accounts some other options but I don't know if that's it they suddenly just disappeared and I'm talking about the ones who would always come in with the same three or four comments and they only it happened in 2016 and then they disappeared for a while but they would flare up now and

[2:06]

while but they would flare up now and then but for reasons I don't know they all disappeared but that doesn't mean that we have reached the end of our questions about conservatives especially being throttled or shadow bands so let me give you an interesting update I noticed I noticed a few days ago that when I tried to follow Richard Grinnell ambassador Grinnell that I thought I had followed him but then it suggested that I follow him on the list of suggested people to follow and I thought what what's going on I'm already following him so I checked and I wasn't and I thought huh did I imagine that so I followed him uh-huh so I followed him and then it suggested that I follow him again the next day and I thought is it possible that twice I

[3:06]

thought is it possible that twice I thought I followed him and didn't so I tweeted down to question two to my followers I said if any of you tried to follow ambassador Grinnell and found that you're automatically unfollowed guess what the answer is yes a lot of people a lot of people if you look at the comments in my to that tweet and I tweeted it again today just to just to alert people to look at the comments if it's massively happening now ambassador Grinnell noticed that I was talking about this and he he thanked me for you know just for raising this issue he did get a few thousand extra followers just because I gave him gave them some attention but if you look at the number of people in the comments who

[4:07]

the number of people in the comments who are quite sure they followed him and are quite sure they got unfollowed many of them just discovering because I pointed about so a lot of people didn't know it they just said well I'm following him let me check it and then they checked and they had been automatically unfollowed now here's the question and I did put in a message to Jack Dorsey to ask him if there's some official Twitter response because I don't know what the official company position is but I'll tell you my hypothesis all right and it's just a hypothesis so don't put too much credibility on it I think we're all confused what I think there are roughly three main possibilities the one would be that Twitter senior management is intentionally ordering their employees to game the system for some political game I would call that deeply unlikely

[5:07]

game I would call that deeply unlikely for this particular topic the the following and the unfollowing it is so to imagine that they're doing it intentionally and that it's coming from the top would imagine that there were all idiots and that's clearly not the case because you'd have to be really an idiot to bet your entire company because that's what this would be I mean you'd really be betting the company betting the entire company and your reputation there's something so easily discovered by me and obviously many of you can discover it just as easily so if it's completely obvious and heavy-handed those two don't go together because you wouldn't do a clever political scheme to you know bias the elections if it were also perfectly obvious and discoverable by anybody looked so what are the odds that senior management again we're

[6:10]

that senior management again we're talking about very smart people here not even ordinary smart people we're talking about people who have you know started billion-dollar companies and people were at the top of that management heap they know what they're doing I don't believe I mean it it just stretches my credibility to to beyond where I can take it that it would be intentional and obvious at the same time it just doesn't make sense the other possibility is just a bug and it's a bug that you know happens to everybody but maybe we just notice in cases where we're looking and it could be a case of where you think you've you think you've followed somebody and you think you've liked something but maybe your app is not doing a good handshake with you know the central processors but here again that would be so hard to believe because it's such a massive bug that it would

[7:13]

it's such a massive bug that it would certainly at least be public in other words if it were a bug of that size that is affecting you know God knows how many people happens on a regular basis and has been happening for years if that were the case it would just be public knowledge it probably would be included in the direction somewhere you know if you press this we can't guarantee it'll take or something like that but more to the point do you think in the year 2020 that Twitter doesn't know how to build an app where if the app sends some information to the central processor it doesn't have a process to make sure that the handshake happened seriously I mean maybe maybe it's a bug but it seems so unlikely so unlikely so I'll tell you my hypothesis again just speculation but I'm looking at the main possibilities and I'm just putting some

[8:14]

possibilities and I'm just putting some odds on them so I think the odds that it's intentional and coming from Twitter management almost zero the odds that it's a bug and we don't first of all know about it and it isn't getting fixed feels like zero again could be I mean you can't you can never really completely rule out stuff like this but very low here's my hypothesis there's somebody who has control of their system that is not in the management Jane could be just a rogue employee could be somebody who took a bribe because one of the easiest ways to get access to somebody's algorithm is find some programmers who have access and offer them millions of dollars to tweak something now if I had to guess of all of the possible explanations there is

[9:15]

of the possible explanations there is one of them that's actually kind of normal and typical and it's that last one unfortunately we live in the world where it would not be hard for a motivated bad actor to find an employee in one of these big social media companies and just bribe them how much would it cost to bribe one employee it's not that expensive if you're talking about billionaires and and maybe foreign countries and God knows what and maybe they didn't even need to be bribed maybe they were just partisans who found themselves in the right job and took advantage of it but I'm gonna go with bad actor somewhere under the hood as my top hypothesis so I've got a message in to Jack Dorsey asking if there's any official explanation I'll be happy to share but that's what we said now I've also been keeping you updated that my Twitter feed

[10:17]

keeping you updated that my Twitter feed I'm sorry not my Twitter feed my YouTube videos get routinely demonetised but apparently I have now complained about that enough that I have Google's attention and although I haven't followed up I did get an email yesterday from somebody whose job it is to follow up on exactly this so it turns out Google is a big company and you know there's a job for everything and apparently there's somebody whose job their actual job includes the responsibilities of figuring out why people like B are complaining about being demonetized so apparently it's enough of a problem that there's somebody whose job it is to find out what's wrong now a preliminary hypothesis there is that trolls are reporting it so it could be that Google is just responding to the fact that there are lots of complaints and until we manually ask for a review they don't

[11:17]

we manually ask for a review they don't notice that the complaints don't match up with the material until they look at it manually maybe because it wouldn't it wouldn't be crazy that Google system would automatically automatically block something if it got a lot of complaints until they sorted it down it seems like that would be a reasonable thing to do but it would allow just this huge gaping problem which which would be the trolls could illegitimately get you demonetised so if I had to guess that's my top hypothesis is that trolls are complaining and they just figured out how to game the system now there might be a workaround so I'll talk to talk to Google and let you know how that goes I
guess we need to talk about impeachment a let's talk about impeachment who do you think won the first round of impeachment theater because it's sort of like it's turned into sort of a reality

[12:19]

like it's turned into sort of a reality TV show honestly I'm watching this impeachment stuff and I don't even feel that it has something to do with the government because I think both sides have acknowledged that we know how it ends and if you know how it ends and how it ends is not going to affect the government the least in terms of removing a president all this left is the theater and it's obvious that the participants are playing to the audience unfortunately they're also boring the heck out of the audience it's it's hard to watch it too long but if you're like me did you have i watched enough of it yesterday that I felt as though I felt as though I was learning a lot it is so impressive to watch the best you know some of the best attorneys in the world argue two sides of a case because you may have the same experience I had

[13:20]

may have the same experience I had you'll hear one of the attorneys make their case and I'll be sitting at home and I'll think wow it was pretty good that was very persuasive if I heard that argument I'd be inclined to agree with that lawyer and then the other lawyer from the other side gets up and just demolishes the argument and makes another argument that's so strong you say huh guess I gotta change my opinion now I'll go with that lawyer and then the next lawyer gets up to infinity so it's fascinating to watch my view of reality change in real time it's like COD they've got a good point oh no they don't it looks like they've really really nailed now no they didn't and are you having the same experience now you may be those of you who are a little more partisan or probably saying oh one side is winning every time and the other side is losing every time but I'll tell you what's the most absurd part about this whole process the absurdity is that it's

[14:21]

whole process the absurdity is that it's something called a trial and yet there's apparently there's nothing in the process that stops people from standing in front of the public and lying like crazy I mean seriously lying now I'm not going to say it's only happening on one side all right because of the news sources I'm watching I'm seeing more of it more of the accusations about shift like I don't even need to check MSNBC and CNN I don't need to check because I already know they're saying that Trump's lawyers are lying and they're gonna show their evidence and they're gonna show what they said etcetera now I can't necessarily sort it all out but I can say with some confidence that people are intentionally lying from the public and there's no repercussions no repercussions they can just stand up there and say anything they want as long as they don't as long as they're not mean to each other

[15:22]

mean to each other Chief Justice Roberts is going to let him go I guess he I guess he warned them to be a little more professional I've missed that live but that's the only thing you warned about you know to be a little more respectful to the to the other side but in terms of lying it's it's just a it's a free it's a free market they could just lie any way they want and so I asked you if there are no rules of evidence you know no no normal ways that you get to the bottom of whether the fact is really a fact or not what the hell good is this I mean it's one thing that we all think we know where it ends and that makes it a ridiculous you know theatre exercise but how did that process possibly work in in what universe could the process as it exists possibly work because both sides are deeply they're deeply incentivized

[16:23]

are deeply they're deeply incentivized the lie why would you tell the truth in that setting it would it would be a losing strategy you might as well lie because the system rewards it it's the damnedest thing the worst system ever received let's talk about some of the fun small stories within the big story first of all I can't tell I don't think the public can tell who's winning or losing in any of this people are just going to grab whatever fact they understand and say well I understand this one variable so I based my decision on it probably that's all of us but here's the most fun thing the key man of yesterday and I could not enjoy this more what I'm going to tell you next is just delicious I've never been so entertained by the news I mean news has just become entertainment now I mean this whole impeachment thing it's hard to see it as

[17:25]

impeachment thing it's hard to see it as anything but a reality TV entertainment but by far the coolest best most entertaining thing that came out of it came from Alan Dershowitz his mouth when he was interviewed by Sean Hannity and he said oh god I love this I love this so much I can barely even Saint Dershowitz says that everybody's wrong about the president already being impeached and that it's a stain that will last forever because as Dershowitz explains if the Senate acquits him he's not a beast that's the first time I've ever heard that is that the same with you have you heard anybody who actually knows what they're talking about I'm talking about a you know constitutional scholar type person like Dershowitz has anybody but him said on an interview no you're all wrong there is no impeachment if the Senate votes votes it out now I assume that by

[18:28]

votes votes it out now I assume that by today we'll see experts on the other side saying no no Alan Dershowitz is crazy it's definitely impeachment oh yes it's impeachment even if the Senate votes against it it's impeachment but here's the delicious part it's not that they disagree it's not that somebody's saying something I would love to hear because I think it would just be amazing if that were true I'd like the Dershowitz you know opinion on this to be true here's what's the fun part both positions are supportable by experts our two world you know two movies on one screen is preserved no matter what happens so the votes going to happen and the people the people who say he is impeached forever he's got to stay in on him forever they're gonna be able to say that because they have their argument and the people who support the president who don't want to say that are gonna say well you know you could say that but

[19:29]

well you know you could say that but let's look at the constitutional expert Alan Dershowitz says no impeachment assuming that the Senate votes that way now here's the fun part who gets to Wikipedia first because that's the whole game here whoever gets the Wikipedia and makes their edit stick wins because you can't trust the news to tell you if he was impeached or not a page I already know how that's gonna go Fox News he wasn't impeached CNN he was totally impeached you know how that's gonna go so nobody's gonna look at the news to find out if he's impeached they're gonna try to find a history book but there isn't really a history book written yet it's too early they're gonna go to Wikipedia and Wikipedia is gonna be a battleground of competing editors who say here's my source I got a source now maybe Wikipedia will battle to a

[20:30]

now maybe Wikipedia will battle to a standstill and they'll just put both points of view and say well there's a controversy so we've got two points of view we're not going to judge it we're just saying there are two views that they might end up there but I love the fact that Dershowitz is very clearly giving cover to anybody who later later wants to make the claim that the president wasn't impeached do you know who else is going to make that argument that the president wasn't impeached assuming that the Senate votes that way president Trump do you think President Trump is ever going to say in public I was not impeached I think he will I think he might so that'll be a fun battle for whose reality wins something else that Dershowitz says now I told you yesterday that Alan Dershowitz had said in 1998 about the Clinton trial that

[21:30]

in 1998 about the Clinton trial that impeachment doesn't necessarily have to be a crime you know it could be you know doesn't have to technically be a crime on the books and then he's clarified and then he said he he he retracts his old statement if it was if it was in any way in conflict with his current views here attacks his old views and says you know I've done more research here's my current view and the current view is that it still needs to be it doesn't need to be a crime so he's consistent from 1998 to today he always said doesn't need to be a technical crime but based on his scholarly research updated it needs to be crime like now what the hell does that mean what is crime like that's not a crime well hopefully Dershowitz gave two examples and I thought there were excellent examples now they're not exhaustive there's just two good

[22:32]

exhaustive there's just two good examples to give you the idea one is let's say the some some President had done something and it was discovered but let's say and I'm I'm gonna amp up as an example a little bit let's say was one day after the statute of limitations had just run out it was a horrible crime but we don't find out about it until the president's in office and it's one day passed the statute of limitations or maybe he already had to be in office I think he would have had to do it in the office and then the statute of limitations still expires or something like that but anyway so one example would be society definitely means this to be a crime it's just there for a technical reason there wasn't let's say somebody got accused of a crime and they were acquitted by the courts but only because there was some problem with collecting that I don't collect the evidence or something that's my own

[23:32]

evidence or something that's my own example another one was suppose he did a horrible crime but he did it while he was overseas he was at a different jurisdiction you can imagine a president going to some other country and I don't have to give you examples because you can thank you for your own something horrible happens let's say in his personal dealings you can fill in with any details you want but it's not a crime because he happens to be in the country where that's just not criminal but maybe we want to treat it like that in this country because to us it's exactly like one of our crimes so it's crime like right now I love those examples because they give you they begin to give you a little bit of a sense of what it means to be like a crime but not actually being a crime so there could be those examples and then you could imagine that the framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that they picked up all the exceptions they just threw that crime like thing understanding in there but here's where

[24:34]

understanding in there but here's where it gets interesting the the impeachment articles do not do not allege a crime so what would be crime like in terms of abuse of power what would be the most crime like what what is a crime that's not abuse of power but is like really close to it and the answer is nothing nothing there's nothing that's almost like abuse of power by the president that's also a criminal act there's nothing there now corruption and bribery those are pretty specific but coercing a foreign power to do something that you may or may not be for the national interest there's just nothing on the books that's sort of in that ballpark apparently so it looks like and and Dershowitz says what I've been saying

[25:36]

Dershowitz says what I've been saying which is they should just vote on the constitutionality of it and be done with it
it did you because digging into the details does nothing but give Schiff lots of opportunity to show the public details in his may be biased lying way and that's not good so I don't know why there's somebody on the president's team who's not taking Dershowitz advice on you know just vote vote on the constitutionality of it and go home but they must have the reasons they're they're very good lawyers one of the things that shift did and then I think one of the other democratic impeachment managers showed was they they actually showed a hoax video oh my god and by hoax video I mean it's deceptively edited to change the meaning and it's the video where the president says in his own words I think this is close to his own words that I can do anything I want and and they take it out

[26:39]

anything I want and and they take it out of context so it looks like he's saying that as a president I'm above the law I can do anything I walked if you see it in context he was talking about I can do it anything I want on I forget what it was but a specific question in which he could do anything you wanted so what he said is not what he actually said is not in dispute I don't believe by anybody there's no lawyer anywhere who disputes what he actually said but if you cut out the context which they did and they showed a hoax video in the Senate just think about this an intentional hoax video twice on the same day they I was I'm being told in the comments reminded other that when he said he can do anything he wants ad to do with whether he could hire or fire people in the executive in the executive branch the answer is of course he is the is the

[27:40]

answer is of course he is the is the boss he couldn't do anything he wants in terms of hiring and firing yet within reason so why don't you wonder what Chief Justice Roberts was thinking because apparently he doesn't have power to you know jump in and and and manage the proceedings other than just the the ceremonial you know parts that he's doing what do you think he was thinking now maybe he didn't know that it was a deceptive and hoax video maybe but probably he probably knew and he had to sit there the head of the Supreme Court just just imagine his mindset you know just for a moment you know I'm not gonna say that I know what he was thinking but imagine what he was thinking he's the person who is most let's say he has the greatest responsibility in the entire country for making sure that the citizens play fair with each other right

[28:43]

citizens play fair with each other right Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and that's his primarily point primary thing in life is that people play fair now within the legal system of course but he had to sit there and watch in the Senate the most respected often often and said the most respected body governmental body of just about anywhere right and he had to watch chef's play a hoax video and then another one play a hoax video right in front of him and he had to just sit there and watch it oh my god that would have made me crazy I think I would have stopped it right there I think I would have held up on my hand and said you know I understand my role and it's not to get involved but you just showed a video that's a hoax video in front of the whole world in the Senate it doesn't get any worse than that I mean I suppose there's a lot of verbal lying in the Senate so people are used to it well man showing the hoax video that's as bad as it gets

[29:45]

that's as bad as it gets all right one of the things that Schiff and company are suggesting and this is my own words I'm putting on this is that the president mounting a legal defense is tantamount to it to admitting guilt what now of course I'm putting my own words on what what they're saying but their version of it was and one of the impeachment managers said this I can't remember her name she said that she she had worked in law enforcement before being in government and that she knew that anybody who had evidence that did not hurt them or show their innocence would be happy to show it to you and therefore because the president is not allowing these documents and the people associated with the presidency not allowing them to talk under the assumption of executive privilege

[30:46]

assumption of executive privilege presidential privilege that that alone is strong evidence of his guilt to which I said what country are we in now are we still in the United States because in the United States you can fight like a wounded badger for your defense and the smartest thing you can do is to block every if you can if you can do it legally you have to do it legally but if you can you want to block every source of information from the prosecution because there might be something in there remember there's lots and lots of documents lots and lots of people whose memories are maybe different about what happened people making assumptions if you open all that up you're guaranteed that the other team is going to find some snippet a text message and email that could be taken more than one way

[31:47]

that could be taken more than one way now what do you do you just you just gave the other side some ammunition and it wasn't even real it's just something that looked real because Ana context you'd say oh if I saw that out of the context that would look kind of damning I don't want the jury to see that right you don't wants the weight you don't want the judge to see that because it's just something they're taking out of context so the only way you can prevent stuff taken into context is that you fight as hard as you can legally within the legal system to prevent the prosecution or whoever's acting as a prosecutor in this case you want to you want to limit all their information it's exactly the same reason why a president with let's say president Trump's you know complicated tax returns situation people said well if he had nothing died why wouldn't he just let us look at him that is just so inexperienced nobody who

[32:47]

that is just so inexperienced nobody who has experience in the real world would say something so dumb the reason you don't let the public in your critics see your tax returns I mean one reason could be you're trying to hide stuff but an equally strong reason and just as compelling which which has to be the first reason you consider is it nothing good can come of it it can only be bad if your tone innocent it's only bad because it gives them stuff to you know criticize that may or may not even be valid but it's plenty of material you don't want to you don't want to arm your enemies so I would say that's the most offensive thing that the Democrats are saying is that that the Trump team using the legal process legal process to to put some obstacles in the way of the prosecution this somehow that's that's evidence of guilt Wow it's amazing that we elect people who

[33:49]

it's amazing that we elect people who can sink things like that in public have you noticed all of the loser think going on in the arguments and this is both sides both sides have done two of the biggest loser think errors as I read about in my best-selling book called loser think which you can see behind me here one of them is they imagine that they can read the minds of strangers yeah the mind-reading is massive once you start looking for it you see it everywhere and what they'll do is they'll say and the reason he did this is to hire this or the reason the president doesn't want to have this is because he knows we'll get the goods no you can't read his mind and you certainly don't get to read his mind and put the worst possible interpretation on it when there are other interpretations so both sides are doing it they're both saying that they know the motives of the other now they may be right but it's

[34:52]

other now they may be right but it's just the worst thing in the world to to assume that now remember one of the one of the arguments from the president's staff is that they're doing mind reading about his intentions and you don't want to have a system that lets people get punished because other people are mind-reading here's the most interesting sort of legal argument factoid I've seen and it's it's a little bit technical but I think I can simplify this to the point where you understand it now Joel one of the few people who probably read all these documents you know in terms of the arguments coming from the White House pull down one of the arguments and highlighted it in a tweet and this is just so interesting listen to this argument from the lawyers from the president so this will be my version of it so I hope I don't mess this up

[35:53]

it so I hope I don't mess this up in order for in order to get a conviction on the Pietschmann t' you have to have two-thirds of the Senate vote meaning they'd have to agree and vote the same way on this specific basis for a conviction in other words they have to vote that this is specifically the reason they're impeaching get that that makes sense right you you want to two thirds of the Senate to be very specific this stuff is why we're impeaching you but because the way the impeachment has been structured it's a laundry list it's a laundry list of bad things the president is done and they're trying to get the Senate to vote on a laundry list for impeachment and now listen to this argument it's soaked is so clever if the if the Senate votes on a laundry list no matter how no matter how convincing that list is you cannot

[36:55]

how convincing that list is you cannot at the end of it know if any one of those things on list cause two-thirds of the people to vote the way they did in other words by its structure it's not proceed abble you couldn't proceed with a laundry list of reasons because you would never know why the senators voted the way they did you wouldn't know if you got two-thirds for any of them it might be and I'll just do this hypothetically it could be that one-third of the senators voted because of one of those points but we're now persuaded by less a to others another third vote for another one but we're not persuaded by the other two and so on you could actually have a hundred percent of the Senate vote to convict in other words vote to impeach and carry it through and yet not satisfy the Constitution because the Constitution requires that they know

[37:58]

the Constitution requires that they know that they're voting for the same thing otherwise you don't know if he got two thirds for any one of those things and I thought what's the counter-argument to that I suppose lawyers are clever so maybe they have one but isn't that the end you know couldn't you just say let's just talk about this one thing is there even anything we have the way it's structured that we could vote on is it vulnerable apparently it's not even the voter well you know you you could not constitutionally get from here to there very interesting one of the things I'm liking the most about this is that the Senate has decided to literally torture themselves while we watch now you couldn't you could not write a better reality show and in some ways it was

[38:58]

reality show and in some ways it was always heading this way you know people have joked for years that the government is just becoming a reality TV show and then when President Trump gets elected it looks more like a reality TV show and then the way he manages there's a lot like a reality TV show you know right down to the fact that apparently he wanted lawyers on his team who would look good on camera allegedly I don't know if that actually happened but it would be consistent with his his very smart way to look at the world which is you you certainly want you want you want to be good on every level you want to be visually good good arguments etc so we got to the point where the Senate is literally locking its members up taking away the only thing that could save their they're poor bored minds which are their electronic devices or phones and stuff and making the sit there for 12 hours a day and then come back oh my god it would be can you imagine being in that

[40:00]

would be can you imagine being in that room how in the world can you listen to all that stuff and especially the all the motions about the 50 or so things that they're voting on but I gotta say I like the fact that I could you know dip in and dip out so if I get bored I can go do something else but when I leave I know they're all still locked up on their rope and they're gonna be there for god knows how long so it's just great that the Senate is actually torturing their own members I mean axial torture I mean not in the not in the wartime sense but I would feel tortured if I had to sit there for 12 hours a day within the phone I mean I would be pretty unhappy I imagine it's the same with them alright let's see what else we got going on here so we've got the question about about the whether

[41:03]

got the question about about the whether or not the presidential what's it called the I forget the word the the executive privilege so so there's some history about I guess there are some situations in which the the president's closest aides did have to give up their information and did have to testify or their documents could be discovered or whatever it was but there is some history in which that veil has been penetrated in the past and one of the arguments apparently the better argument about it is that what's different about impeachment is that the stakes are so high so that in general you know you wouldn't want the president's close advisors to have to give up any of their communications because it would make it harder for the any future president to get good advice nobody wouldn't want to do it and nobody would even want to send an email to somebody to you know get some information if they thought all their

[42:04]

information if they thought all their electronic communications were going to be grabbed so the argument is that only in this very special case worse than impeachment you know that the fate of the Republic rides on it etc that in there was very important cases of impeachment that's the exception where they can penetrate that that privilege and get to that get to the assistants and the advisers but here's the thing wasn't all of that before impeachment became a big joke sorry that's slip down is impeachment this year the same as what impeachment used to be I don't think so well I don't think so today's impeachment is not yesterday's impeachment so the argument that impeachment is such a high stakes game because the fate of the country depends on it that that you should make an exception and penetrate that executive

[43:05]

exception and penetrate that executive privilege that doesn't really apply to today's form of impeachment today's form of impeachment is literally theater it's just the show do you think that the Republic is as is at risk with this impeachment process not even a little bit not even a little bit there's there are no snakes whatsoever in this we already know how it ends the impeachment is a bunch of crap it's just theater under the situation where impeachment has thank you you know Nancy Pelosi she has trivialized one of the most important parts of the Constitution down to the point where it's the lowest stakes impeachment should be the highest stakes right the whole country depends on it not anymore they've made a joke out of the whole thing I mean literally a joke we're literally laughing about it every

[44:05]

we're literally laughing about it every day that I watch it I'm watching it this is not you know no hyperbole here I wash it as entertainment I don't even watch it like there's anything at stake because I know there isn't I mean not in the sense that the government will change so I would say the best argument for why the stakes are not that high that this should be invoking the the veil should be pierced is that there are no stakes they've ruined impeachment forever and guess what if Alan Dershowitz is right or even if he isn't President Trump is going to credibly claim that no impeachment happened that's how unimportant it was all right I like to tell you news that looks optimistic here's one although it could destroy the entire planet but at the moment it looks optimists okay there's the country there's a company I forget which countries and that's making food

[45:08]

which countries and that's making food and the thin air what now that's not exactly what they're doing so they're starting with microbes and liquid and some kind of a fermentation tank and then they can they can breathe these microbes into some kind of a protein that doesn't have a flavor so you can add it to anything but here's the twist normally you would feed your feed your microbes some kind of sugar but they found a way to grow these things by feeding it co2 so they could actually pull co2 out of the air pump it into their little mixture of fermented microbes and turn it into protein now apparently they're already doing it so we don't have to wonder if if the science works because they're already doing it now the question of whether it could scale up is a big question but when I was laughing at how I'm not sure if this is good news or bad news because

[46:08]

if this is good news or bad news because it would be really easy to imagine that you could build these inexpensive things that make you know protein out of the air and that you would use it to you know feed let's say you know African tribes or something that didn't have other sources but what happens if it becomes the main way we get protein how much how much co2 do you want to take out of the air because you sort of have to have a limit on because the plants you know the the vegetation of the earth requires a certain level of co2 so it's one thing you know I've talked before about companies that are making these scrubbers they're pulling it out of the air but the scrubbers you could just turn off if you're pulling co2 out of the air just to get it out of the air and you decide that you've got enough and you if you took more of it it wouldn't be bad for the earth not good well you could just unplug them but if

[47:10]

well you could just unplug them but if you get people addicted to a machine that uses co2 to produce food and that becomes a major food source less especially if it's feeding poor people are they going to turn it off there's there's so much co2 in the air that will never reach the limit of it who knows but as I said it said yesterday it does look like President Trump has let's say taken a more nuanced approach to climate change he approved the United States entering this trillion trees situation which you wouldn't do unless you thought there was some risk of climate change being a real problem but his take on it is that we'll figure it out and I I completely agree with that that it's probably a problem it's at least it's a big enough risk we should treat it seriously but we can figure it out

[48:11]

and maybe maybe some of these new technologies are exactly what's going to happen I told you that House Minority Leader is that Kevin McCarthy was working with a few other people in Congress to come up with a version of let's say a I won't call it a climate plan but an energy plan in which they would go to more clean energy including nuclear etc and I heard from a member of McCarthy's office who offered to brief me on so I'm gonna follow up on that I'll get you more details on that his announced support for nuclear yeah the president said generation I think you said generation four nuclear in his list of things we should look at but he's not called it out as something to emphasize

[49:14]

let me tell you the worst arguments for the skeptics on climate science these are the ones you should abandon and of embarrassment number one that they forgot to look at the Sun it's all about the Sun and the sunspots and the sun cycles the experts on warming did not forget to look at all the elements of the Sun now like anything anybody could be wrong but they looked at the Sun the other one is that more co2 is just better no it's not more co2 was good for plants but if it's also raising the temperature to the point where you can't live or it's causing major problems it is not a smart response it's just not a good argument to say that we need more co2 lots more than we need we have now that it just it just shows you haven't looked at it in enough detail so please abandon the bad arguments there are plenty of good arguments I'm not saying there are no good arguments I'm just saying don't use the bad ones it just makes you look like you haven't looked

[50:15]

makes you look like you haven't looked into it enough and the the best argument is that we'll be able to figure out how to how to deal with it in plenty of time all right why do I reject the Sun okay somebody just asked me why do I think the Sun should not be considered at the real reason of the warming my head's going to explode please please it goes like this I'll just say it one more time if you believe that all of the experts in the world the scientists were looking you know why the earth is getting warmer if you believe they have not looked into all aspects of the Sun you're not a serious participant in the conversation of course they have could they have done it could they have made a mistake all of them yeah anything's possible but they looked at it stop saying they didn't look at it and that you know a

[51:16]

didn't look at it and that you know a guy who's a who has something he posted on Twitter that says that they forgot something about the Sun that's not real all right yeah all the grand solar minimum stuff don't be immature scientists and imagine that you know more than the actual scientists because you you looked up at the Sun and you thought they didn't think about it just no please don't somebody says all the experts are lying really they're all lying if you said some of the experts are lying or if you said the experts might be wrong I'd say well maybe could that could be but when you say all the experts are lying you're not a credible participant in the conversation that's just ridiculous all right

[52:23]

I was claiming Scott asked the question how is it that the climate maintains itself so tightly the answer is it doesn't you can look at you know the history of the earth and you can see that the climate has changed substantially over that time it's just that our human our little human time scale is so short that it we don't notice can you name one credible scientist that has refuted the Sun how about all of them maybe all of them 100% of them
all right so I'm not gonna argue a climate science on here today but I will talk to you tomorrow