Episode 801 Scott Adams: David Mittelman on DNA Opportunities, Sour Don Lemon, Impeachment, China

Date: 2020-01-28 | Duration: 56:17

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Guest David Mittelman discusses DNAsolves.com A crime solving DNA database for law enforcement Bernie’s poison pill option to ensure he wins Alan Dershowitz: The articles of impeachment are NOT impeachable Closing our airports to flights from China? Don Lemon and guests denigrating Trump supporters Prime Minister Netanyahu and the potential for Middle East peace

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

[0:12]

um hey everybody sorry about that aborted start I didn't have the options on that I needed so now I do and today it's gonna be a very special day we're gonna be talking about impeachment and China and coronavirus and all that but before we do that I'm gonna bring on a special guest to talk about some updates in the world of DNA some stuff they you will be interested in because it will matter to you either an hour later but first if you'd like to participate in the simultaneous if it doesn't take much it takes a cup or a mug or a glass to take your cello sir Stein the canteen juggler flask gives us a little vetti guy and fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine the end of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous sip go mm-hmm now let me check to see if my guest has

[1:14]

now let me check to see if my guest has found us yes I'm gonna bring on my guests and introduce him David can you hear me my guest today is David middleman you've seen him before he's the founder and CEO of a tharam a biometrics company that uses DNA sequencing and genomics to advance human identification and especially in the crime-solving domain which is some of the interesting parts David how are you this morning I'm doing good how are you I'm great thanks for joining us to catch us up on some stuff one of the interesting things I want to ask you about is I believe our tharam has started a database where you can you can voluntarily put your have your DNA stored there for crime-solving purposes is that am I saying that right yeah yeah so what's the name of that and how do people participate if they want to so we started a it's called DNA solves calm and and so

[2:18]

it's called DNA solves calm and and so you've probably heard folks have heard from watching your show it's Wall Street meeting about the news about the golden seed killer and a number of other folks that have been caught on victims identified all because there's genealogical data that's been up on on public databases to help up a triangulate and identify who unknown folks are and so so what we've done with DNA solves is we've built a database has nothing to do with you know medical research or genealogy research right this is a database that is broadly available for folks that have been tested and want to contribute their DNA towards identifying addition for solving a crime how would they do that so they've been tested for some other purpose and it's in some other database how do they get into your database yeah so so folks have tested with you know recreational testing companies such as ancestry.com or 23andme they when you test to learn something exciting about yourself you can then

[3:20]

exciting about yourself you can then take that that profile information and downloaded from your from your site and and then you can you can upload it some people upload it to genealogical databases some will upload it through tools or predict medical traits we've built a database that allows you to upload it so that in the event that you're genetically distantly related to someone but it might be a perpetrator or a victim in a crime we can use your data point it's kind of like a stepping stone to identify who that person is so so if I've got let's say I'm afraid that there's somebody in my family could be a distant cousin but somebody in my family who might be a serial killer and I don't want to turn him in I could just register my DNA and let let the system do the rest could they yes and if you are if you know that you're your sibling gives a serial killer and you don't want them to get caught then then you would specifically not upload your data to the database now my date is in 23andme

[4:21]

23andme and I have not authorized anybody at least not that I'm aware of unless I did it accidentally I'm not I'm not aware of telling them to share it or download it how likely is it that my DNA would be available to law enforcement right now with with no change could they give at it there's been discussion about you know whether or not there's there's an ability to essentially like they used to do in the 90s with the ISP is kind of you know use the court system to to request data from these companies I think 23 mia is a very clear position they don't work with law enforcement I think they've done a stellar job of protecting data and in fact if you've been a 23andme customer for a long period of time you'll notice they used to have a third party API where you could like authorize people to look your data they killed it so I would say 23 is a very secure place to keep your information the only way your data leaves 23andme is if you go in there and specifically click a button that says I would like my raw data and

[5:21]

that says I would like my raw data and again some people will do that for a variety of reasons research genealogy whatever but but 23m you will not move your data on your behalf you can be asking to have to actively pull yourself so what what percentage of all Americans let's say adults what percentage of them have at this point at least one relative who's close enough that would help identify them who's in one of these databases that law enforcement can get at are we closer to 10% or closer to 90% meaning that you've got at least a cousin or something who's in the database so so Jed mass which was the public database before they moved to the opt-in model it was about a million profiles in there and I think I think with that size of a database there was there was pretty good odds that you know closer to 90% but people would have some connectivity someone that tested high it may not be a first or second cousin but

[6:21]

may not be a first or second cousin but at least a third cousin or closer and so and how how close does a relative have to be before it becomes let's say useful for law enforcement I know every situation is going to be different but you said a third cousin can you go even further you can you can and it obviously depends on it depends on you know lock in the side to your family and even some extent like the you know where in the world you're from obviously Americans are enriched or for these databases but um but yeah the answer your question is that you know if you have a first second or third cousin and a third cousin was pretty far out it's very easy to do then use that to figure out the identity of the unknown DNA sample if you go further out you can solve it but as you move past fourth and fifth cousin to become you know more difficult now I mean I may be a provocative claim without really knowing him know what I'm talking about

[7:22]

knowing him know what I'm talking about the other day and I said that this technology is very close to making all serial crimes that at least the violent ones to make all serial crimes solvable within by the end of the year in other words if somebody's doing a serial serial sex crime or serial killer they're always gonna leave DNA wouldn't you say would you say it's close to a hundred percent of the time I mean it's a matter of time yeah and the way technology has has moved you know offer him unlike a you know so often czar laboratories we actually work on not just the inefficient data but the collection of DNA and and we've been able to collect you know decent amounts of DNA from from touch DNA so it's not just that you're leaving DNA is that the limits of what you can leave and still generate useful information for has continuously dropped as well so I would say I say you're right like if you're a serial you know your rapist you're probably going to leave DNA at some

[8:22]

probably going to leave DNA at some point somewhere how many people do you think have already figured out that they're adopted or at least not related to their father without doing much work in other words are the databases such that if you've done a if you're done in one of these tests and you download your own data and upload it somewhere else is there any way that you can just find out if you're really related to your parents um there is and since that's a non-law enforcement application you can do that at 20-year ancestry they have giant databases you know 23 meas database is over 10 million people I think ancestry just announced that they surpassed 16 million people so with that size of a database it would be very straightforward to look for what they call NPEs which are non paternal events so situations where your father is my grandfather there's stories all the time people discover relatives they didn't know they had on the other side and kind of the less cheery side you will

[9:22]

of the less cheery side you will discover that relationships are they thought were real or not real so in its you know it's a personal decision if you go on that journey but but there's a story of food like all the time and that's actually that's actually how things were done prior to prior to this application to law enforcement I mean it is basically taking the adoption agencies and these kind of family mysteries and applying it towards folks that are not your family right that could be a have been involved in a crime now what about I know you you're not specifically working on medical stuff but you probably know about it I keep hearing about there are some people who might have a natural immunity to let's say cancer or certain types of cancer are you going to be able to identify people who have DNA that just won't get certain kinds of problems and and and therefore a weekend would we be able to commercialize that and say if these people can't get this disease we can figure out what it is and take some proteins or whatever the hell you do is

[10:23]

proteins or whatever the hell you do is that a thing it is a thing so so I will tell you you know in my opinion it's a really good idea to separate medicine and medical trades location and so so 23andme for example doesn't participate in human identification but they do medical research and what you're describing is kind of the the direction 23andme is headed right other are their DNA components that would help predict if someone responds positively to whether or not are there other new drugs that can be developed based on DNA murder that would make them more effective in some folks you know that otherwise are not are benefitting for promotes our drug but but after them were the inverse company so what you're saying I think it's very likely and true but at offering we it's not about a science issue its moral policy issue we we simply do not use any information for for medical work and if you look at the you know the DEA solves comm website

[11:23]

you know the DEA solves comm website you'll see we're very clear the only application this is consistent with the DOJ policy the only application is team identification because we don't want to create any anxiety or or or make people think they were mixing you know multiple topics together tricked them into participating people should come to that site for no reason other than install a crime not because we're trying to like cure cancer or find a new drug all right I can tell my audience is itching for me to talk about the the impeachment they're coming here primed so just tell us again how they can find this database to voluntarily upload their data if they want to help with law enforcement yeah so the website is DNA solves comm and anyone can participate and and yes obviously you know whoever this we appreciate it and and you'll probably be seeing in the news you know over the next year or two just dozens and dozens not just perpetrators found that commit crimes and I think a lot of victims but

[12:24]

and I think a lot of victims but otherwise would have remained anonymous being identified and being reentered into society so I think that's that's a great thing as well alright great and David thanks for coming back we're gonna have you on in the future as we have I know there's gonna be lots more DNA news so it's great having somebody who's there's immersed in it to to sort us out so thanks so much David thanks for watching me all right take care alright let's talk about the news some other stuff that's happening here's an interesting idea Bernie Sanders may have the opportunity to completely win the nomination by using a poison pill now a poison pill is a term from mergers and acquisitions of companies and what it means is if you don't know your company to get purchased you can pass some internal rules that are called a poison pill meaning that if somebody tries to buy your company they

[13:24]

somebody tries to buy your company they will wish they hadn't because the purchase will trigger something for example if you didn't want your company to be bought by a larger company but but you were a public company so there's nothing you could do to stop it because they could just buy your stock and on you you could say I'll pass a rule that says all the employees get a five hundred percent bonus if we get purchased which would make you unpurchased a bowl because the moment you were purchased all the money and the company would be given to the employees and the purchaser would be out of luck so that's called the poison pill there's something you do that makes you unbel Bernie Sanders could do a version of this just by analogy here he could do a version of this if his supporters decided to claim that if Bernie doesn't get the nomination they'll vote for Trump in other words if you can get enough Bernie Sanders people to say either signing up or they sign a sign a

[14:27]

either signing up or they sign a sign a petition or just say it on social media if they say look if Bernie gets screwed out of the nomination again two years in a row or two cycles in a row that they're just gonna protest vote for Trump now there are a lot of people who probably believe that so it wouldn't be much of a stretch now think about this it would make it impossible for any of the other Democrats to get elected in the general election so Biden's argument that he's the only one who could beat Trump just disappears because the moment anybody but Bernie gets elected the protest vote kicks in it's a poison pill and it makes it impossible for the actual nominee to get elected now you could say to yourself well every politician has that option right anybody could do that so why are you saying this about Bernie no not everybody could do that there is something special about Bernie's supporters

[15:28]

Bernie's supporters Bernie's supporters are just sort of I would say a a mirror version of Trump supporters in this one special way I mean they they favor different policies obviously but in one way they're the same Trump supporters he wanted somebody to burn down the system Bernie supporters want somebody to burn down the system so if they don't get somebody to burn down the system they're not going to be terribly concerned about who it is because it's just going to be more of what we already had so I think Bernie supporters could actually form a poison pill and make it impossible for anybody else to win the nomination and have a fair chance at winning in the in the general but I don't I don't know that that will happen but the play is there let's talk about the impeachment I've been watching of course the president's attorneys argue against impeachment I've got a few observations in no particular order Pam Bondi made a

[16:31]

in no particular order Pam Bondi made a really good argument that barista is sketchy and that the Biden's association with it just needs to be looked into that is key because if you accept that barista was worth looking into then that's the end of the story because that's what the president asked for obviously it would have a national interest and there you are there's nothing else to be said as long as barrese mode was worth looking into Pam Bondi made that argument now there's one part of her case which I don't know why all conservatives keep saying this because it's just inaccurate as far as I can tell and that is that there's something important about the fact that Biden asked for the prosecutor in Ukraine to be fired when that prosecutor either had an open case or you know some kind of a paperwork involved about looking into burry psmith now the

[17:35]

looking into burry psmith now the transporters and and the lawyers are saying well that just shows that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to do something but in fact it's a ridiculous argument because Biden was doing what what was national policy it was it was national policy that that guy was rotten that he wasn't really going after lots of other entities wanted him gone so I think including that part of the argument in why the briefs love Biden thing is all sketchy I think that just really weakened the argument because it's a part of the argument that is just demonstrably false so if you make an argument with a fact that is just so easily debunked that's just not a strong play so I thought Pam Bondi made a good argument that buries Mona's dirty and worth looking into but that one fact about the prosecutor that's just fate

[18:36]

about the prosecutor that's just fate news so you throw that in there weakens your case let's talk about Alan Dershowitz now I just caught up with his presentation I watched it on delay and as I imagined it was a total kill shot if you think that Alan Dershowitz made a good presentation it doesn't matter what anybody else says it doesn't because he made a very convincing argument very convincing that the articles of impeachment are not impeachable offenses and the argument goes to what is high crimes and misdemeanors and Dershowitz walked through the entire history of it what the various founders who were important to it what they said what people misinterpret about it because they've complete conflated things and he clears that up so I give you a real clean history of

[19:36]

so I give you a real clean history of how we got here and I would say it was a hundred percent persuasive you know obviously people will just stick to their science because they want to but if you were even a little bit open-minded and you heard his presentation you would say to yourself oh yeah they really did mean something like a crime or something that's so so like a crime even if it's technically not a crime it's still a crime and the example you used was what if the president did something terrible such as taking a bribe or whatever but it wasn't on American soil and it was in some country where it wasn't illegal or it couldn't be prosecuted is that impeachable well yes because that crime is exactly a crime in our country and even though there's a technical reason why he couldn't be prosecuted it's no doubt about it it's a crime that is that would be crime like so that would be impeach Abal but as Dershowitz points out there is no law against abuse of power nor and this is

[20:39]

against abuse of power nor and this is the important part nor could there be not only is there not a law against abuse of power but the framers were very clear and Dershowitz walks you through their thinking about how you can't have a vague standard because if you have a vague standard like what is abuse of power you can't even really tell when it's happened as long as you can have that kind of vague standard then it makes the presidency a a puppet of the of the House and the Senate I guess so Congress would actually own the presidency if they could get rid of a president just by claiming something they did was an abuse of power because apparently every president abuses their power according to someone so you can never have a constitutional rule about removing a president that is so subject to interpretation you can't even tell if the standard has been met that's all you need to know in fact there's nothing more predictive about all this legal

[21:41]

more predictive about all this legal stuff than if you see that there's something where legal experts can't even agree if any kind of a crime has happened anytime you're in that situation you're gonna go free it doesn't matter if you're president and somebody's trying to impeach you it doesn't matter if you get picked up in the street for some alleged crime if if lawyers look at the activity and they're not arguing about the facts they're looking at the same facts and some of them say yeah this is a crime but others just as experienced and Avaya say I don't know I don't see it you're almost certainly gonna go free alright so whenever you see that much ambiguity about whether that even is a crime that's good for the defendant so I thought Dershowitz put the hammer down now in our world in which people are aren't really gonna change their minds pretty much everybody knows how they want to vote but you've got a handful of senators who are in these swing districts and they they need

[22:41]

these swing districts and they they need some backing in other words the Republicans probably would prefer to vote with the other Republicans because it's less trouble but they also want to win reelection so they need a reason to vote for the Republicans that's clean one that could explain to their base and say look here's my reason let's call it a fake it because sometimes people have already decided but they need have a reason to give to other people this sounds good and and the reasons that don't sound good are all the things that the other lawyers were talking about was a quid pro quo was it not did anybody know about it was the money withheld all of that stuff all of that stuff will get you not reelected if you're arguing in the weeds there are too many weeds you can't you can't argue them all the other side has weeds too you just can't win if you're at that lower level Dershowitz just provided the Senators that are in

[23:44]

just provided the Senators that are in that danger zone you know they if they vote one way they might lose their job but if they vote the other way they might lose their job that very few senators just got a simple clean fake because so should they decide to vote with the other Republicans here's what they say Alan Dershowitz presentation on whether or not these were constitutional charges were so strong that we could ignore the specifics because it doesn't pass the first test of being something worthy that they're rises to the level of an impeachable offense matter what the facts are so we we don't need to have an opinion about whether it was a good idea for the president to do this we can still say it wasn't we don't have to have an opinion about whether it was quid pro quo or not we don't have to know if an opinion about any of that because you can stop with Dershowitz opinion that it's not impeachable tell

[24:44]

opinion that it's not impeachable tell your base you know I've got two responsibilities one is of course to the people but another is to the Constitution and I'm not going to degrade the Constitution by turning something that's kind of specific into something that's kind of vague by precedent because then we'll never have another president who completes a term if if the Congress is the other party so I think Dershowitz did what he needed to do which is he gave the people on the fence a clean argument just look at Dershowitz why he said is what I said and now you can vote for the president rush limbaugh again was talking about my tweet about bolton the so-called Bolton bombshell somebody under ironically called it a a bolt of lightning they should have called it a Bolton of lightning but they missed the opportunity and what you see when in the

[25:46]

opportunity and what you see when in the reason I'm mentioning that Rush Limbaugh was talking about my tweet it's the second time this week and the same topic of impeachment a different way at this time and what I tweeted was that the Bolton manuscript proves that the president is should not be impeached because Bolton's story is that the president was worried about about Ukraine and corruption so once you've established that the president genuinely cared about corruption and Ukraine and other countries not paying their share and other things that's all you need to demonstrate as long as there's a national interest it doesn't matter if it's also good for the President as Dershowitz also explained but here's my point and every time I see an example of this I'm gonna call it out until you see the pattern we are no longer a constitutional republic the way we always had been through history because of the internet there are voices in this

[26:50]

of the internet there are voices in this case it was mine where I simply had a an idea that was worthy that's being shared so because my idea was good a lot of people saw it and then they apparently they were tweeting at or or sending him to Rush Limbaugh and saying you should read this on the air and then he did so rich Rush Limbaugh has you know far bigger audience than I do mine's pretty big this is far bigger and then basically everybody seeing that at that point and I think that we've reached something like an idea meritocracy meaning that if you have a good idea it's gonna get to the right place because we we've developed somewhat accidentally and you know I think Jack Dorsey gets the win on this one for building Twitter Twitter allows a good idea to find supporters and then and then grow from that small good idea into something that actually forces the politicians to move in that direction because the public's already there so

[27:52]

because the public's already there so keep watching for that we have him we have an idea meritocracy instead of a constitutional republic and we just sort of drifted into it I was looking at the CNN pundits who are trying to find something wrong with the president's legal case and so here was a funny one from Gen besakih writing for CNN and she said their president Trump's defense team failed at their most important job and I thought uh-oh his defense failed at their most important job you mean the president's gonna be impeached I mean they failed to keep him from being a peached no no that's not what she meant she says they failed at their most important job which was making a clear and compelling argument that there was no need here for a Bolton well did he hear anything I said about dershowitz I would say that they

[28:54]

dershowitz I would say that they absolutely hammered their the thing they needed to do the thing they needed to do was to give the Senators on the fence a clean easy way to vote for the president instead of against them and they did that is a gooda matter that bolton testifies nope not if you accept the Dershowitz argument and it's so strongly you should if you accept the Dershowitz argument and he said he said directly more than once he said it at the beginning and he said at the end no matter whether the Bolton the new Bolton information is correct or not correct it has no bearing on the decision because none of its impeachable the the true version or the fake version they're both not impeach ball doesn't matter so Jim besakih saying that they missed their most important job and that's just not true they made her entire question irrelevant

[29:57]

they made her entire question irrelevant that's as good as you can get all right here's a question for you just sort of a general way to predict what's going to happen and I've seen a few people ask this question on social media how many people would switch from Trump let's say they voted or supported Trump in the past and vote for a Democrat versus how many Democrats are likely to for the first time switch and support Trump it reminds me a little bit of those old Apple computer and IBM commercials and somewhere along the line when when IBM was still making personal computers and they were the main competition for Apple somewhere along the line someone at Apple cleverly realized that when people move from the IBM PC over Tapley almost never moved back but very few people will move from Apple to IBM so it's basically it was always a one-way

[30:58]

basically it was always a one-way direction and sure enough that predicted where we are today where I live in Silicon Valley you don't even see a Windows computer I mean it's the rarest thing if you see a laptop at least within the Silicon Valley San Francisco Bay Area if you see somebody with a laptop and they happen to be in the technical world it's an apple pretty much every time so Apple won because they did have that quality where when people change their minds they only changed it in one direction I think that's starting to develop with Trump versus at least the generic Democrats anecdotally I'm hearing and this is just anecdotal and I totally I'm hearing people who were going to vote for Trump for the first time but I'm not hearing people saying Trump disappointed me
me I'm gonna go vote Democrat now I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that it started to shape up like it's a

[32:00]

that it started to shape up like it's a one-way it's a one-way path so watch for that alright let's talk about closing the borders so apparently Tibet is gonna close their border with China and Hong Kong is talking about closing the closing traffic coming in and out of Hong Kong and I think even says yesterday the number of people infected as may be doubled and there's and the the estimates are climbing every day and so here's the question which I'll just ask every day I guess I'll just ask this every day why does our government not tell us why they've decided to not close all of our traffic coming in from China now I know they have expanded the the checkpoints so there are more airports being checked from more destinations from China that's great I'm glad that they're checking people coming in but we do know the checks don't work meaning

[33:02]

do know the checks don't work meaning that unless somebody's already feverish and I think that's the main symptom may be coughs I'm not sure but if they don't have symptoms yet you can't tell and apparently there might be you know tens of thousands of people with no symptoms so we know our government has implemented a set of processes that can't work completely they could slow it down they can get the obvious cases but we know I can't stop everybody so how much do you let him well I saw some really bad arguments well first of all let me say this look for the dog that isn't barking can you tell me who is the face in our government who's in charge of deciding if the airports or open or closed right do you remember seeing anybody who was identified as being in charge of that decision do the airport stay open or closed do we let you know what do we do with China traffic who is

[34:03]

what do we do with China traffic who is that because you know on some level of course it's always the president but isn't there a cabinet-level person somebody is there not a person we should see on the news every single day explaining to us why that why what we're doing is better than closing the airports where's that person the fact that you haven't seen that person tells me the government is failing you all right if the government could give you a person this is this is a person responsible here's why we have not yet to close the airports we might but this is why we have not yet even if you don't agree with the reason if you don't have that person with a face with a job that was job it is you know maybe with the president's approval of course but short of that you haven't see to have you people are saying the CDC but who who's the face who's the person why are they

[35:06]

the face who's the person why are they not in every interview every 10 minutes on TV all the time there's something missing right that missing part should make you distrust your government's motives because if everything was on the up and up you would know who that person is and they would be interviewed every day every day
there's something about this process that isn't working and let me let me just put this thought out there if this is somehow a political decision and it might be right it might be a political decision I hope it's not a political decision I hope it's a health and welfare and security decision but what if it's a political decision I would like to put this thought out here no president ever got ever lost his job or her job by being too cautious about a pandemic let me say that again nobody ever lost their job by being too

[36:08]

ever lost their job by being too cautious about a pandemic but if President Trump is not cautious enough you can definitely lose your job for that indeed if we don't close our airports and this thing gets into her country and starts killing people by the hundreds or thousands how could you possibly support Trump for re-election I couldn't could you so he has a he has a political risk of losing the election but there's nothing he could do in terms of being overly cautious that could cost him even one vote there's not one person who would vote against him if he went too tight and was too cautious but I'm telling you I'm getting close to voting against him just for not talking about it enough so I'm close to the edge where this issue should it you know grow and more people in the United States get it and the deaths are coming in if we see that how do you support the president I

[37:11]

that how do you support the president I mean really how could you that would be such an egregious failure all right egregious I've seen some people who were bad at economics argue that we shouldn't yet close travel from traffic because the economic cost I want to just dig into that a little bit would there be a let's say a formidable or
cost that's just so high that we can't stand it if we closed travel for let's say 30 days because 30 days a long time in the life of one of these pandemics maybe if you could stop travel for 30 days just to pick a number we can get a get a get a good foothold now what's the economics of that now remember we're not talking about stopping trade trade wouldn't stop we're only talking about human beings how much trade would be

[38:11]

human beings how much trade would be lost because for one month human beings could only talk to them talk to each other on the phone or video chats or or e-bill whatever how many deals would be lost simply because people had to wait a month to fly close to none right how much would the travel industry losers if the people who wanted to fly you know between China and United States this month suppose they had to wait till next month well first of all most of those people who waited a month still have to go so most of the people who didn't go with this month let's say hypothetically the travel was shut down between China and us the people who didn't go would still have to go if they were visiting family they still got to visit their family they just do it later so it might not even have that much of an impact on travel except that one month would be low but you'd probably have the best month you ever had the month after it wouldn't be enough to compensate but

[39:12]

wouldn't be enough to compensate but probably 80% of it would just come back the next month so and then other people were making this terrible economic comparison this is this is why I wrote lose you think my book that you should read people were saying that so few people have died from this coronavirus compared to say a regular flu which actually can kill thousands of people every year or let's say car crashes so somebody said well if you're going to be that cautious shouldn't you stop people from driving cars to which I say analogies do not win arguments you may have heard me to say that it is a ridiculous comparison of a mature risk that there's basically you know woven into the fabric of our entire economy versus a risk that's just starting and we don't know how big I could get you can't compare those things because on day one of the

[40:14]

those things because on day one of the AIDS epidemic more people died from stepping on rakes right on day one the first day that anybody ever found an AIDS virus this is more hypothetical than than literal the first day that somebody got AIDS and died a human being there were more deaths from people stepping on rakes they here right so would you say well AIDS is no problem cuz look one person died versus all these people who drown in swimming pools and car accidents and dragged themselves to death so why worry about AIDS because AIDS is gonna grow quickly that's why you can't compare day one you'd have to look at what it could be could become and make make your decision based on you know risk management so a lot of people were really bad at comparing things and looking at the economics way in and it's a good thing I'm here to fix that for you apparently Boris Johnson over in

[41:17]

you apparently Boris Johnson over in Great Britain has decided they're going to use China's Huawei company for their for their networks now that's a problem because China the government use we believe least the United States believes they use this company to spy on anything that crosses the network so this would in theory gives China the government utility to snoop on all of the Great Britain traffic and so you might ask yourself what the hell is Boris Johnson thinking to the point where people are suggesting online that we not do a trade deal with Great Britain because we don't want to we don't want to be dealing with them because all of our information will be stolen anything that you do with Great Britain from now on presumably would be known by China or could be so Piers Morgan tweeted on this he said big call by Boris on huawei not least because it

[42:19]

by Boris on huawei not least because it will infuriate president Trump he's now saying that's a good thing but he's just saying well that's what makes it big and this should end any fears our Prime Minister will be a lap dog to the White House well maybe but doesn't this make him a lap dog to China isn't it better to be a lap dog to the United States if your Great Britain than to be a lap dog to China looks like those are the only two choices and he picked the wrong one
here's a question that keeps coming up and again here's another economic lesson for you in small I'd been saying that wouldn't it be great if there was some way to bat on climate change because then and all the people who were so certain or their views that it's a problem or not a problem could could bat they just get into the betting market and everybody would think they would have an advantage and I suggested that we already have that opportunity because there are insurance companies there are

[43:19]

there are insurance companies there are big insurance companies that insure lots of stuff and therefore you could just bet on the insurance companies if you think climate change is not going to be a problem well they probably can charge greater premiums for it every year because every year they'll adjust the rates so next year they might say hey well throw a 2% on there for climate change risk so in theory if you believe climate change is not a risk these insurance companies would look like pretty good bets because they would charge for this risk but not have to pay it out according to you now people said no that doesn't work because these are big multi business Multi multi national insurance companies and one type of risk isn't necessarily going to move the stock enough that you could isolate it so it's not it's not a clean play to which I say if that's not a clean play then we don't have a problem with

[44:21]

then we don't have a problem with with we wouldn't have any problem with climate change if it doesn't reflect into the profits of the insurance companies in a big way let me say this cleaner if it were true that we would not notice any particular insurance company having a really bad ear because of climate change now or anytime in the future if there's no insurance company that's going to go out of business from this it is also true that climate changes it's not that big a problem right it can't be a problem if all insurance companies are gonna say well yeah we are losses on climate change were pretty big but we made it up on car insurance and life insurance and stuff there's no world in which climate change can go bad the way the people who say it could go bad will go and insurance companies can still make money it's not a thing at the very least they would have to stop covering things they used to cover so in every scenario even if

[45:23]

to cover so in every scenario even if they found a way to limit their losses the the number number of things in which they could insure would drop like crazy so there is no world in which the insurance companies are not hugely affected by climate change if climate change is the risk that the scientific community is telling us I saw an idea from a Bloggie Srinivasan talking about some kind of a blockchain situation where you could have a certain set of thermometers you'd have to agree on which the ER monitors were part of this but the thermometers would just automatically register their temperatures ideally without human intervention if you could control such things and it would report it and then people could gamble using their cryptocurrency just for this purpose they could gamble whether the temperatures could be higher or lower next year and then over time you know maybe any given year there's there's some noise but over time if you place

[46:23]

some noise but over time if you place your bet every year for 10 years you could find out if if your temperature predictions are better or worse than the experts so you actually could build a betting a betting situation
did you all see its it's just huge news today the Don Lemon interview he was talking to her Rick Wilson big anti-trump ER and another gentleman I didn't recognize Ally somebody I can't remember his last name but the three of them got yakking it up about how Trump supporters are stupid southern Hillbillies basically they didn't use those words but they they were pretty clear what their meaning was and I think everyone who is a trump supporter looked at that and a lot of people were not and said you know if you want a landslide for Trump do more of that because the Democrats seem to consistently make the

[47:23]

Democrats seem to consistently make the same play which is instead of going after the leader or the policies they go after the people I mean they're going after people citizens just for having different opinions and most people regard that as just way too far and I think the adjustment to that is to is that Trump is likely to win in a landslide if you see more of that you know one one incident maybe a lot of nothing but Netanyahu is flying out to me to Putin right now I guess to talk about the peace plan now I keep telling you that we've never been closer to Middle East peace even though most of you think it's impossible right most of you are going to say as impossible Scott thousands of years of history tens of thousands of years history it's never going to be peaceful over there but to that I say this we've never had this strong a team meaning that the leaders

[48:23]

strong a team meaning that the leaders of the various countries are all strong leaders they're all deal makers and they all and most of them get along with the exception of the Ayatollah who just got isolated because he lost his general his economy is falling apart and the entire Middle East is sort of anti Iran at this point except for the places that Iran actually controls so we've never had a more conducive situation you know the people who would stop it are more flexible probably because their economies are in shambles and we've got the right people which is probably at least half of the battle now I know what you're thinking still Scott even with all of these so-called advantages you're talking about I still don't think he can happen because these people will just fight forever it's just impossible well let me confess something I'm not just predicting that's that's not what I'm

[49:24]

predicting that's that's not what I'm doing if you've watched me long enough especially if you've watched if you've read win big lis you know that sometimes I'm just predicting but sometimes I'm trying to change something here's specifically what I'm trying to change in order for anything to get done by humans in order for humans to say okay let's do this and then go do it there's one really important thing that has to happen first and that is you have to believe it's possible if you believe something's impossible you will put no effort into it well it's impossible and so in the Middle East the the first most important thing which must be accomplished is there for the public to say you know no matter how unlikely it is for the first time it does look possible and so that's what I'm doing I'm doing it overtly I'm not trying to hide it I'm trying to

[50:24]

I'm not trying to hide it I'm trying to tell people everybody I can talk to that is possible and only because something's different what's different is the group of leaders are unusually strong very strong leaders and deal makers it's very important and Iran is weakened to the point of being flexible probably they lost their general probably makes a big difference so I think we should act as though it is possible because if we act as though it's possible you've created at least the first necessary condition for it to be possible so it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy I'm going to tell you it's possible because I really believe that and based on observation and the variables and the players etc so I would ask you to at least accept even if you think it's deeply unlikely I'm just trying to move you to but it's possible but it's possible all right

[51:28]

possible but it's possible all right here's a funny story sort of sort of funny story there was a football coach at Grand Valley State University who got fired because he responded to a student interview so he was interviewed by a student and the student asked named three people you'd like to have lunch with and the the coach said Adolph Hitler was one of the three people he'd liked that lunch with because you know he was very clear to say he doesn't support any of the bad stuff the hill there did but he was noting in his opinion the hill there was a strong leader got people to do stuff and he would like to have lunch with him to learn that technique well he got fired for that but there's a punchline here what was his exact job title and I'm not making this up this is the simulation wiki at you the guy who said that he wanted to have lunch with Hitler just to

[52:30]

wanted to have lunch with Hitler just to learn his technique not because he was a friend of Hitler and got fired for it his job description was offensive coordinator that was his actual job offensive coordinator and he got fired for being offensive that's all he got fired for being offensive and he was an offensive coordinator well if he want somebody to not be offensive maybe you should hire an offensive coordinator that's what I'm saying all right so I guess we'll be more more of the president's defense I think so far the president's defense defense team is a plus really really good one of the things that's interesting too and the president always gets he gets some heat for this the president is famous for saying that he likes people who look like they came from central casting

[53:30]

like they came from central casting people will look good on television people who play the part and so the president gets heat for that but I gotta tell you it does matter the president is so right about that because if you look at the the team that's against them you know Nadler Schiff these are not television ready personalities if I can be kind there are people who have maybe a face for radio could I say and they're against and I'm watching the the president's the president's counsels and they're all kinda good-looking and and even yeah have you seen Jay Sekulow hair I was looking at his hair yes he was on there and there was up and I was like leaning into the televisions look at his hair because I just thought that is the

[54:31]

because I just thought that is the finest head of hair I've ever seen on a human being like you could do anything with that hair you could pick any kind of hairstyle I mean that's some seriously good-looking hair and then his other lawyers or you know tall and good-looking and they've got powerful voices and stuff and I would even say you know if you were gonna pick the the odd person out in that group and by the way the you know even Pam Bondi looks great on camera you know they're they're just people who look great on camera Alan Dershowitz eighty years old and in the past he's had some you know weird curly hair situation in which somebody needed to tell him to shave off but at 80 years old he is now he's looks like he's cut his hair close to his head and looks great he looks eight I mean he just stood up there and did this long presentation that didn't look like it missed I don't think he's I

[55:33]

look like it missed I don't think he's I don't even think he's a tenth of a step slow if you saw it there was no point in Joshua's presentation when you said to yourself no point when you said to yourself wow he's 80 didn't happen he did a presentation like he was 62 and at the height of his you know analytical powers and strength so first of all his haircut looks great let me say that that looks great he should have done that years ago I mean it just totally improved his his overall credibility and look and he's in good shape he's 80 very impressive all right that's all I got to say about that and I'll talk to you tomorrow