Episode 804 Scott Adams: Elaborate Chief Justice Roberts Prank, Coronavirus Malfeasance, Other Fun

Date: 2020-01-31 | Duration: 53:51

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a The “Best Story” filter for predicting the future accurately Alan Dershowitz taken out of context all day yesterday Smirky-face John Avlon misinterpreting Alan Dershowitz Rand Paul’s clever question, CJ Roberts and the whistleblower Joe Lockhart’s CNN crazy talk and crazy eyes Coronavirus and flights STILL allowed from China An enormous risk management decision

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

[0:07]

pom pom pom pom pom pom hey everybody come on in it's time for our coffee with Scott Adams that's me and if you're you and I think you are you've come to the right place because with very little effort you will be starting your day in a sensational fashion one of the best days ever today is going to be fun in fact the whole weekend is going to be fun I guarantee it and to get the fun going all you need is a cup or a mug or glass a tanker chalice or stein in the canteen jugger flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like my coffee and join me there for the unparalleled pleasure the don't be mean the hit of the day the thing that makes everything better the simultaneous sip go mmm nailed it nailed it well I don't know if I've ever been more entertained by government malfeasance then I have this

[1:08]

government malfeasance then I have this week it's not all good but a lot of it is funny happy birthday Hooper I don't know where to start with the funniness so I'll just start in no particular order I've told you before how reality can be viewed through different filters and still all the facts can make sense in other words you could be imagining the world through your your filter your movie and all the parts work you can still go to the store everything still works so I'm going to give you a filter that fits all of the facts that is completely different than the one you're watching in the impeachment because the one you're watching is probably there's an impeachment trial has something to do with the Constitution we're trying to decide whether a president should be removed that's probably why you're thinking right but watch how well this completely different filter fits all of the observe two facts just imagine that

[2:11]

the observe two facts just imagine that instead of an impeachment trial what it really is is an elaborate prank on Chief Justice Roberts and the prank goes like this the Republicans and the the Democrats are all in on the prank and the job is to see who can get Chief Justice Roberts to read in public allowed the most ridiculous now and the competition is Parenti pretty stiff so it turns out their chief justice does have his limits he won't read everything they say and with at least one case his reading of it came with a scowl you read Elizabeth Warren's question about whether this whole process is degrading the credibility of the of the Supreme Court and he just reads the question he just looks at her [Laughter] now I'm generally a big fan of the

[3:14]

now I'm generally a big fan of the founders of the country and the the framers of the Constitution now when I say I'm a big fan I don't say I like everything they did for example owning slaves not a fan of that but otherwise you know making the Constitution they did a great job creating well they're also you know sexist misogynist you know but if you don't count the slave owning and the sexism the racism if you don't count that they did a really good job making a constitution well they also discriminated against poor people they weren't gonna let them vote unless they had property so there were racist elite sexist who largely raped at their own slaves but if you don't count that they were pretty good at making constitutions I think we'd all agree but they weren't perfect and as you're watching this impeachment process it makes you think

[4:15]

impeachment process it makes you think that this was the part that they were too tired to finish have you ever worked on a project where you know you've been working working it's been days you're up late you're working weekends and you're you're almost done and you've almost done a perfect job on whatever it is your project but there's just this one thing left over you got to take care of it's a loose end and you don't give it your best effort kind of typical right you get everything that most of the stuff right but there's some little trailing you know little little details that you don't give it your best effort and it seems to me that what we're watching in this so called impeachment process is not their best effort I don't know for sure but I think by the time they designed the impeachment clauses they had already been drinking perhaps because who designed a process where the Chief Justice of the United

[5:15]

where the Chief Justice of the United States sits in front of the public now on television but in front of the public before and it's forced to read whatever ridiculous the two sides of the of the political spectrum decide to hand him a little piece of paper who came up with that plan that is the worst plan I've ever heard now I think maybe the Senate actually came up with a specific version of it but the Constitution allowed the Senate to kind of do whatever they wanted and why don't we what do we what are we all arguing about if we're talking about impeachment we're talking about the process we're talking about can do can the Senate be badgered into requiring witnesses or is that just the houses job how about the framers of the Constitution do a little less raping of slaves and put a little more effort

[6:17]

of slaves and put a little more effort into that impeachment part of the Constitution maybe give us a little more clarity maybe think it through a little bit more so that we're not arguing dumbass things like well it's a trial if we use the word trial that tells us everything we need because the word what about the word I use the word trial over here and so therefore if it's the same word then all the things that apply to the other word in a different context a criminal context well doesn't that apply because it's the word how could I be wrong what about my logic my logic connecting those two things because it's the same word TR IAL therefore logically everything about that word in a different context must apply when did the founders of the Constitution come up with the worst process you've ever seen let's be honest the Constitution in general pretty solid work a plus you

[7:20]

general pretty solid work a plus you know for designing the Constitution but the impeachment part do you - I can't give you a good grade founders and so maybe doing a little less slave-owning and a little more a little more work on that part would have been good all right what else is funny about this
have you listened to any of the things that the senators are making Roberts read they you can't listen to them without wanting to punch your television because the whole thing has just turned into a mockery nobody should be proud about participating in this ya know nobody's coming out of this process belly and clean now I told you before they're one of the ways that I predict the future and it's just one way and I'm not saying that this is a hundred percent good predictor but it's fun so I'm going to mention it and it's that

[8:21]

I'm going to mention it and it's that what I call the the best story filter you could call it a movie filter but I don't like to confuse things so it's that filter says that if you can if you can anticipate what would be the best story in the future that's usually the way things go I don't know why you know it could be just coincidence or cognitive you know dissonance or something on my part but it's so often it looks like you can predict based on what the best story would be now what would be the story going forward well you've got two competing stories one by the way all of my although my polyp problems came back but that's another story that's a third story one you don't care about so one story says that will get witnesses and the reason that that would be predicted by the best story is that it makes this

[9:23]

by the best story is that it makes this impeachment thing go on and there's more to argue about and there's more drama there's more surprise there's a mystery so having the witnesses would be a much better movie than not having witnesses so the the best story filter says we'd get witnesses even if the news is reporting that it looks like it's not going to go that way but there's a second movie and this was really fun Howard Kurtz mentioned this in the PC wrote on foxnews.com and I don't know if this is true but Howard Kurtz is saying it so it's probably true he's he's a credible voice so he's saying that if the Republicans stay on track president
this is so delicious I almost can't say it it's so good if the Republicans stay on track President Trump could be spiking the football about his acquittal with sean hannity during the Superbowl interview oh could that be better

[10:29]

interview oh could that be better because there's nothing that gets more attention than the Super Bowl there's nothing that people are are more paying attention to than that on that day yes if the way this turns out is that Trump ends up as celebrating is total acquittal during the Superbowl ah I'm sorry that is just so good that is so good that we have competing movies now and they're both pretty good on one hand I wouldn't mind a little bit more of these witnesses just just because I don't think it'll change the result could make things fun but if we don't get them what would be better than Sean Hannity interviewing President Trump during the Superbowl break I guess halftime or something after a quill there's nothing better than that all right Howard Kurtz also wrote this funny sentence in the same piece

[11:30]

sentence in the same piece he said the media's tone drastically shifted yesterday morning as it looked increasingly like the Senate Republicans would hold the line and block any witnesses from testifying the mood on MSNBC was practically funereal I didn't even know that was a word you is if you nariyal f un e ar e al now generally as a writer I have I have a rule as a writer that if you use a word a vocabulary word that you can reasonably know your entire audience won't understand don't use that word generally speaking don't use a word that your that your readers are unlikely to know but this is a perfect exception this is good writing it's a great writing actually it's very good writing because you you know what funeral means even if you can't pronounce it okay it's like a funeral but was practically funeral all

[12:34]

funeral but was practically funeral all right here's some fun you want to see some real fun find the Wikipedia page for president Trump somewhere on his his Wikipedia page they'll be mentioned of course about the impeachment process when the final result comes in the Wikipedia page will be updated to reflect the result because it happens pretty quickly right this is going to be fun
fun watch what happens because Pelosi is already starting to frame things this way she says quote he will not be acquitted quote you cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial so this is Pelosi saying this you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation and all of that does the president know right from wrong I don't think so so you can tell that Pelosi and the Democrats are already getting ready for their loss and then losing they're going

[13:36]

their loss and then losing they're going to claim that the president was impeached and that he's still impeached and their argument will be that the Senate didn't do its job so the house impeachment stands it's you know unresolved but it's not acquitted so that's that's gonna be their version now the president's version of course will be that he was acquitted and here's the fun part was it Lindsey Graham who said this somebody smart said this I forget who it was they said that if he's acquitted in the Senate he can claim and it would be it would be a valid claim even if you disagree with it he could validly claim that he was not impeached because it didn't go through the to the final removal now you're gonna have two movies that are completely different he was impeached totally he was not impeached those can't both be true but Wikipedia is going to

[14:36]

both be true but Wikipedia is going to have to choose and there's going to be a fight like you've never seen like in all of the probably in all the years of Wikipedia probably there would never be more fighting of the the volunteer editors over how to word this situation now I think they if they were you know if everybody was playing fair and I don't think that's going to happen but if everybody involved in Wikipedia were just trying to get it in the most accurate way they would just describe it they would say here's what happened Senate voted this way Democrats say it doesn't count Trump says accounts it just described it but I don't know if it's going to go that way I think they're gonna fight tooth and nail because Wikipedia whatever you think of its accuracy overall becomes sort of a depository of what I would call common knowledge or our agreed truth an agreed truth is where society says well yeah okay

[15:38]

is where society says well yeah okay yeah that version looks I'll go with that some people might disagree but it's sort of the consensus truth ends up on Wikipedia it's it's almost brute force of opinion more than what's right and wrong in some cases so watch that Wikipedia will be the battleground I'd like to see the news organizations reporting on it in real time because I think you'll be able to watch the edits are going in and out in so quickly probably in real time I don't know how quickly that can happen but that that page is going to be just changing while you watch it all right what else we got going on here so do you remember my prediction yesterday morning possibly one of my most accurate predictions and I said that the entire day yesterday would be spent with the the anti-trump media willfully misinterpreting what

[16:38]

media willfully misinterpreting what Alan Dershowitz had said that the impeachment proceedings the day before was I right did did we not watch the entire media landscape acting as one misinterpreting Dershowitz in just the most obvious way maybe it's not it wasn't even a clever misinterpretation it was just such a heavy-handed ridiculous misinterpretation they all did it they all did it the same way and Dershowitz to his credit he went he went full Dershowitz on him and you know yet he actually got back on CNN now if he didn't see Dershowitz on CNN last night find yourself a clip okay find yourself a clip because it's good TV here's what's good about it obviously Dershowitz he's mentioned it before the CNN sort of stopped inviting him when he started saying things that could be construed as positive for Trump but they

[17:40]

construed as positive for Trump but they had a back last night because you couldn't you couldn't not have him on last night right I mean I don't know who initiated the interview whether we see you then order shoe it's may have pinged him and said you know you've been saying stuff about me put me on and I'll clear it up so I don't know who initiated but he was such big news yesterday they couldn't not have him on if he's willing to go on so he goes on and seeing them and says as clearly as you can write to their collective faces you are completely misinterpreting what I said here's what you're saying out of context here's the full context so you can see how completely misinterpreted I have been and now you should retract it and I'm paraphrasing of course but he basically said you're completely misinterpreting it what do you think Wolf Blitzer did when the person who knows the most about what's inside alan dershowitz head which happens to be alan dershowitz

[18:40]

dershowitz he's the one who knows the most about what he said and what he thinks he goes on their show and tells them their news reporting is completely wrong and really the biggest story of the day and he shows them why in other ambiguous certain terms things they can check they could just go back to the tape and say oh yeah that's right when you look at the full context it's obvious what did Wolf Blitzer do did you say oh my goodness you've just pointed out that the network I work for has been spreading fake news all day and they really should have known because I mean everybody could just see it if he didn't take it out of context it's obvious that it's wrong did he say that did he say did Wolf Blitzer say I would like to apologize to you for completely smearing you on our network all day long so you have my personal apology alan dershowitz did that happen no no it didn't it didn't did Wolf Blitzer push back and say no alan

[19:42]

Blitzer push back and say no alan dershowitz I know you think you know your own opinion but let me clarify for you why CNN knows your opinion more clearly than you do so let me explain what your opinion is and then why we got the reporting right and don't give us this BS about you know what your opinion is because we know what your opinion is we're the news you're just a guy that we sometimes let on but not very often so did did wolf Blitzer's say something like that no no he ignored it what he ignored it Alan Dershowitz the most important person in the whole country yesterday you know I mean in terms of the news cycle the most important person in the country probably no not even probably absolutely the most critical opinion about impeachment on the biggest question in the country highest

[20:43]

question in the country highest operating most experienced you know best voice on this topic the constitutionality of impeachment and the president and they have him on and he tells them that they've been reporting fake news all day shows exactly how and why and they freaking ignored it it was like he hadn't been talking it was it was crazy to watch that and have them just act like it didn't happen and then I thought to myself okay maybe you know maybe wolf didn't know how to react on camera so he was just he was just playing it you know down the line and let people make their own decision which would be fine but I thought to myself now that Dershowitz has gone on their network clarified what it meant they will never again report the wrong news wrong today John Avlon who is one of the big anti Trump or smirking faces on CNN if you've ever seen him he's the one

[21:43]

if you've ever seen him he's the one with a smirky face so whenever somebody else on the panel is reading something that makes the president look bad he's got his little smirky face if you're only listening to this you can't see the incredible impression I'm giving of John Avlon smirky face I'll do it again okay that was pretty good I think thank you for bearing with that so he writes with this argument Dershowitz completely conflates a president self-interest with the national interest did he do that did did Dershowitz conflate the president's self-interest with the national interest no no that didn't happen that did not happen if a president thinks quote so this is Avalon misinterpreting Dershowitz if a president thinks quote on the greatest president there ever was if I'm not elected the national interest will suffer greatly Dershowitz believes that cannot be

[22:45]

Dershowitz believes that cannot be impeach Abul so he's putting words into Dershowitz his mouth that are not Dershowitz words and not his point and completely wrong so did Dershowitz succeed in getting CNN to stop reporting the most obvious fake news they couldn't be more obvious you just have to look with what he says and then look how they reported what he said they're not even close and and they just write another opinion piece like Dershowitz had not just debunked their entire coverage it's it's just mind-boggling to watch this
now even Howard Kurtz was a little bit tough Dershowitz for the way cursed but it had more to do with some ambiguity of the way he explained himself that offered the other side of club so that's you know I think he went a little tough on Dershowitz but he's got a point that Dershowitz did explain things in a way that made it easy to take it out of

[23:46]

way that made it easy to take it out of context now I don't know if that's a fair criticism as someone who is experienced in media interviews you definitely want to avoid saying things that could be taken in a context and it took me years and years of practice to be able to do that because you have to be thinking of what you're gonna say while the cameras are rolling and you're you know you've got pressure you're in public or whatever so you're thinking about what you're going to say which takes a lot of energy at the same time you've got to run a separate process in your and that's this checking what you're saying and taking you sentence out individually and saying okay what would they do with this sentence okay what would they do with this sentence out of context so it's really hard it takes a lot of skill to talk in public and and craft a coherent thought that can't be taken in a context I'm only just able to do it at this at this level of experience now obviously Dershowitz has even more

[24:48]

now obviously Dershowitz has even more media experience than I do and he would be able to do that so he would easily be able to do it an interview in which he cannot be taken out of context but if he's doing a lengthy scholarly constitutional argument I'm not sure that's possible because in order for him to do the lengthy you know the big picture where you got the whole canvas you can see the examples you can see the larger context in order to do that I don't know that there's any way you could avoid leaving little nuggets that can be taken out of context so I don't know it was achievable but the context that well it doesn't matter it was taken out of context you could see it yourself to see why all right the funniest weird thing I talked about this yesterday but there's a new wrinkle to it so we we'd heard the story that Rand Paul had submitted a question that Chief Justice Roberts would have to read

[25:49]

Chief Justice Roberts would have to read in front of the Senate and in it he allegedly according to the news coverage not according to me but according to the news coverage if the question would have revealed the name of the whistleblower now here's the clever part that I didn't know yesterday Rand Paul's questioned had the name of two individuals in it but did not in the in the body of the question it did not refer to them as whistleblowers it was simply a question about their involvement and whether they had some involvement that was relevant now Chief Justice Roberts looks at it and says the presiding officer declines to read this question without an explanation now of course most people knew was because it would give away the name of the whistleblower but here's what was so clever the question did not accuse anybody of being a whistleblower you simply use the name

[26:49]

a whistleblower you simply use the name of somebody that the press has you know in social media mostly has continuously reported as being probably the whistleblower so the news reports this the new the same news that refuses to give the name of the whistleblower for ethical maybe legal reasons I don't know but moral ethical you know what's good for the country reasons they don't name them because they want whistleblowers to remain private but in in reporting the story the way they did by saying we're not going to talk about the names in this thing because we don't want to reveal the whistleblower they revealed the whistleblower there wasn't it there was this there's no way around it if they said you can't say this name that I'm not going to say in public you can't say this name because it would reveal the whistleblower and then everybody says what name and then they look at the name and they'd say I can't say this name in public because that would reveal the whistleblower didn't you just tell

[27:51]

the whistleblower didn't you just tell me the whistleblower in public I mean sure I had to connect two dots but you gave me both of the dots I didn't even have to look for the second dot dot one what did Rand Paul's question say there it is here it is here's a doc hold on this dot let's see if we can find another one dot number two the Chief Justice didn't want to read it because the name on there was a whistleblower what okay I guess that's I guess that's morally okay that's it morally and ethically okay to report that because they didn't say who the whistleblower is they just gave you two dots place them gently in your hand and said see these two dots yeah yeah I'm not saying who the whistleblower is but look at those two dots I'm in the clear I didn't say it but the two got said it that's enough on that in this

[28:56]

that's enough on that in this impeachment process we keep hearing this claim that until our intelligence sources have been saying that Russia is behind the rumor that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election now I don't know since I don't know enough of the details here and I know that Politico reported at least four times that there was some alleged Ukraine interference in the election in 2016 was political reporting based on what our intelligence sources said or did our intelligence sources not know what Politico said or how do you square those things how do you square the fact that Politico was reporting Ukraine was meddling and gave specific examples that nobody's questioning at the same time our intelligence sources say no no it's a Russian rumor who do you trust more the fake news in general

[29:58]

you trust more the fake news in general I'm not calling Politico fake news on this story I'm just saying in general you know a member of the press Politico who do you trust them or are in are the United States intelligence sources which one would you trust neither right yeah you wouldn't trust either one of them but was the president justified in saying there there's something to look into well according to Politico he wants now Politico could be right and they could be wrong but there's something there that makes you say well I'd like to know more about that whether they're right or wrong it's enough to look into it one of the good questions that came from I think Ted Cruz was was one of the questioners asked why is it so different that the Hillary Clinton campaign can use foreign interference with a steel steel dossier what makes that different than somebody getting some foreign

[31:00]

than somebody getting some foreign interference Ukraine in the process of investigating something that was worth investigating so that's pretty good question because we think in terms of analogies you know even though we shouldn't so people's mind say yeah what is different about that now the first thing you say to yourself is Great Britain is a an allied country and Russia is not in the same way does that matter it doesn't matter at all if the United States interfered with an election in France do you think France would say what the United States interfered with their election oh wait you said the United States that's okay their allies who would say that nobody in France if you interfere with another country's election it doesn't matter if your allies that's not really relevant and it doesn't matter if you paid for it not really relevant in

[32:00]

you paid for it not really relevant in my opinion all right so I would say I would not trust our intelligence sources to say that that Russia is the only reason that people are looking at Ukraine for interference they might they might have boosted that signal but I can't imagine the only one if all of you seen Joe Lockhart appear on CNN yet and talk crazy talk I think he was he was going full Hitler undershorts I guess and there's there's some things you can't stop noticing what is wrong with Joe Lockhart's eyes you know what I'm talking about he has crazy eyes like you look at him and before he even talks you say well whatever comes out of that mouth if that mouth is connected to those eyes that's going to be some serious crazy talk coming out of that hole and and I ask myself all right who

[33:01]

hole and and I ask myself all right who else in the public political sphere has crazy eyes you know Adam Schiff of course Cory Booker some would say a oversee some would say and I think to myself are there are there any Republicans who have crazy eyes I couldn't think of one right can you think of a Republican who when you look at them their eyes say that I'm crazy is this a coincidence yeah I'm totally open to the I'm open to the possibility that this is just anecdotal nonsense coincidence confirmation bias something like that yeah Oh somebody I see some other mention seer Michael Moore and Elizabeth Warren you lying Omar no I don't think any of them have crazy eyes I would not say that at all but the people who do have crazy eyes all seem to be on the same team so he

[34:02]

all seem to be on the same team so he says Lindsey Graham he doesn't have crazy eyes Mitt Romney no I would I guess it's pretty subjective but I can't look at Joe Lockhart without thinking that his eyes are screaming crazy just just the way that look I don't know it's a it's an interesting walk all right let's talk about the corona violence virus so I tweeted this question which is if the US government does not close flights or banned flights from China temporarily until we get a hold on this coronavirus situation if we don't do that would that be Trump's biggest error in risk management one of the things I've liked about this president is that he does seem to understand risk management like an entrepreneur and he he seems to consistently not every time but nobody's nobody gets it every time but he consistently seems to go with the

[35:05]

but he consistently seems to go with the best risk management decisions yeah that's a longer story but it's just something I've noticed about him that I've appreciated but I'm watching this situation and I'm totally stumped because he's got the risk management completely wrong and let me put it in these terms if if we don't do anything and he gets lucky you know doesn't close the airport and it gets lucky and there's little or no problem in this country just people get sick but they recover if that's the worst that happens well then he got lucky but would you would you make a policy based on having to get lucky cuz I think that would be mostly luck because nobody is smart enough to know what's going to happen you'd have to be lucky that it didn't turn into a big thing so but what if it goes the other way suppose suppose a number of people get infected in this country and some of them die how many people in this country would have to die from the corona virus

[36:05]

would have to die from the corona virus before you would say that it's a gigantic error by the president I mean just the biggest error probably is of his presidency how many I'm thinking 10 but I also think somebody's job needs to be to explain the cost benefit to us you know when when we have a war or something you often see the estimates at least by the sometimes by the military sometimes by the you know the pundits or whatever and we say okay we're gonna we can have a war or a military action we think the risk to our troops is X you know we might lose this many there's always an implied will try to get this benefit but it's going to cost us this much in lives and and be aware that every big decision the government makes ends up you know killing somebody or saving somebody you know if the government says bicycles are legal people die on bicycles if somebody if

[37:07]

people die on bicycles if somebody if the government says yeah you could have a swimming pool in your backyard somebody's going to drown in a swimming pool so when the government makes decisions or even decides not to make a decision which is the same thing almost anything big has an implication that people die so the coronavirus would be no difference but what is different about it and here and here's my big point I'm seeing the people arguing against closing against banning flights are saying that Scott Scott Scott do you not understand got you poor simple bastard don't you understand that the regular virus you know the normal flu is infecting way more people like tens of thousands of people in this country alone or billions it's a lot whatever it is and that a bunch of people die from that it's usually people with degraded systems etc so Scott don't you see that this coronavirus is not such a big deal

[38:08]

coronavirus is not such a big deal because our just plain old regular virus is just killing lots of people and it's way more than this tiny little coronavirus so let's not panic about it that my friends is a form of loser think loser think the way I define it is people who do not have experience in different domains think they know how to think but they don't know what they don't know in other words if you've never studied economics you might think your common sense is good enough but you wouldn't know that there's something important that you didn't know how to how to consider this is a perfect example this is an apples to orange embarrassin it's something no scientist would do is something no economist would do nobody who had an MBA would be likely to make a comparison to the corona virus to the normal flu here's one reason why the regular flu we can't stop I mean you

[39:10]

the regular flu we can't stop I mean you can't stop it by banning a flight the regular flu as far as I know we do not identify with a certain border in a certain country and therefore there would be no way to stop it by closing off that country and say all right you know you elbow nians Roy's giving us flu so we're going to close the airport say it wouldn't work right now I'm looking I could be fact-checked on this so it could be that maybe we do know what countries they come from but for whatever reason we don't close those borders so here's my point you could make a big difference in the corona voice virus by stopping flights from one country and checking passports from people who may have you know tried to do a circuitous route you could at least tell that they came from chyna that's completely different than the flu that we don't have a better way to stop than whatever we're already doing they're just it's apples and oranges you can't compare it to car crashes alcohol cigarettes there's just

[40:12]

crashes alcohol cigarettes there's just different things now if you could stop those other things by closing the flights for 30 days from one country I would be in favor of it but it wouldn't work what's different about the corona virus is that we have a very specific thing you can do that wouldn't kill you it would be a little annoying a little inconvenient and it would last maybe 30 days that's it so anybody who's comparing those two things and saying it's relevant that there's some other unrelated flu that's worse doesn't know how to compare things and I almost can guarantee you that the people are saying that don't have a background in economics science probably engineering maybe the law they're likely to be artists writers philosophers that sort of thing all right the State Department announced a high-level warning on

[41:13]

announced a high-level warning on Thursday not to travel to China because of the corona virus so explain this to me yes the State Department is saying that we should not go there why would they not ban flights from there to here which in my opinion there's got to be the bigger problem I don't think the problem is that we're sending people over there you know as long as they stay there it's coming back it's the coming back problem all right and I asked you whose job it is in the government to explain to us the people the cost-benefit analysis because that's missing and that is complete governmental incompetence and malfeasance in my opinion the lack of that explanation guarantees that the explanation is corrupt let me just say that as clearly as I can the the only reasonable

[42:14]

clearly as I can the the only reasonable assumption you could make about why our government does not have whatever representative might be Health and Human Services but whoever's whoever sort of the lead person in this the only way you can explain that they have not come out and said we've considered closing the airports for flights from China but here's the cost-benefit we think if we keep we keep them open we might have you know a zero to ten deaths in this country and on the other side if we close them we think that that might have an economic impact of whatever and that economic impact also translates into people living and dying because we know that as the economy goes up and down the people were sort of on the margin can you know move from being a lot of trouble to not being in a lot of trouble with a small move so if you have a big impact on the economy from one of your government decisions it could end up killing people but if you don't stand in front of the United States public and

[43:15]

front of the United States public and say here's here's the what we're weighing we don't know if this would kill people we think it would be a low number but we don't know if this would kill people either we think this could be a low number so the reason that we're going with this is that we think the risk management makes more sense we can get to the best result through this path and here's why now if my government explains that to me and even if I disagreed I would say okay well at least it's not corrupt it could be wrong because risk management is about playing the odds you can correctly play the odds and still be wrong alright and that's not a crime that's just bad luck but if your government does not stand in front of you and say in public here's why we're doing this the alternative was this here's the cost-benefit as best we can guesstimate it short of that you have to assume corrupt something corrupt either

[44:17]

assume corrupt something corrupt either there's somebody with money who is influencing somebody there's somebody who has no political financial some kind of interest that is conflicting with the oranges so your interest in mine are being put at a lower priority than somebody's profit now I don't know that but that is the reasonable assumption because we've gone so long without the obvious thing happening which is somebody explaining what the what the reasoning is in fact I just saw a Trump being interviewed by I guess was Fox News and he was asked about it and he just gave general statements about we're working with China and other countries and we're working hard and stuff like that and I thought that's not good enough that's you know that is not a performance I want from my president now if the president said we're looking hard at closing the airports and we're working out the cost-benefit analysis

[45:19]

working out the cost-benefit analysis will tell you tomorrow I would say okay okay that's on the right track you know look that's that's what I would do that's the reasonable thing to do but he didn't he just he just waved his hand at you know we're working hard and that's not nearly enough that's not nearly enough so I think President Trump has to explain that and and and if people start dying in this country while the airports are still open to China I you know I'm not sure I'm going to be okay with that well I'm not going to be okay with that
I tweeted today a a weird little story in which scientists have created the first living robots WOD that's right they've figured out how to take unrelated cells and sort of just stick them together and I guess cells like to stick together so you can take unrelated cells and just put them together and they stay and then they start acting

[46:21]

they stay and then they start acting independently because there are different kinds of cells and one cell will be you know trying to move and another one won't be trying to move or whatever but if they they use supercomputers to figure out the nature of all these different kinds of sells and then they they rapidly simulate all the combinations of how you could put cells together and they can actually put cells together that can move you know an under microscope so they can connect them together in such a way that the the computer accurately determined they would move forward or move in a circle so they're actually programming robots out of living cells they have different characteristics and they could put them together now I don't know where that ends up because at some point it might it might achieve consciousness or something like it something like free wealth yeah that's an illusion but there could be a Kentucky you know a robot version of that so that's coming down the line at

[47:24]

that so that's coming down the line at you in the weird story some element of anti-shah and I don't know what it takes to be an anti-fog besides just saying you are are planning some kind of police subway fare protests in New York City and it has something to do with they don't like paying two dollars and seventy five cents for the subway so it's going to be some kind of a mass I don't know civil disobedience about paying the thing the fares and I'm thinking to myself has anti-shah have they drifted from hey I like what they're saying because they're saying bad things about they're saying bad things about bad people so I like them yeah they're they're against the racist so so that's okay even if they do some bad stuff at least they're against the racist but assume 75 being an organization which by the way if you

[48:25]

organization which by the way if you ever want to create an organization that's guaranteed to fail one way to do it is to let anybody join if you create an organization that lets anybody join sooner or later your organization is could be filled with psychos all right and and they're going to be running the show so an tyfa being their preference for not having a central control you know they don't like the government in general they don't like any kind of government so of course their organization is sort of independent people doing independent things without a central control and what do you get instead of fighting the good fight for social equality or or whatever they might like now that you have an anti-fog planning to to protest paying money for services that's right anti fire is going to protest the concept of paying money for stuff I don't know if they've thought this

[49:26]

don't know if they've thought this through I'm going to go out on a limb here I don't know this to be true just as suspicions nobody in the anti-shah protest against the idea of paying for stuff has a degree in economics I'm just just guessing probably none of them have an MBA probably nobody in an tyfa has a history degree because i don't think they know what the alternative is to a world in which people don't pay for services that other people had to pay to create to provide I don't think they've thought this through is all I'm saying they're not even communist they ever even thought it through that all right that's about that's about the big and the small of it anything else happened in today you're all going to be watching for the vote if the if the news coverage

[50:27]

for the vote if the if the news coverage is right we will see the end of witnesses we will see a vote to acquit and and and then we'll break into two complete different movies in which some people say he was impeached and some say he wasn't Scott please address how Roberts knew the whistleblowers name well same way you do you know Roberts reads the news same as everybody else I guess so everybody in the public has been a opposed to the whistleblowers name and I wouldn't say that it was justice Chief Justice Roberts who gave away the whistleblower he just knew that it was dangerous territory so I think he did the right thing I I would I would support what you did I'm not sure I support him continuing to put up with what he's putting up with here's what I'd love to see I would love to see Chief Justice Roberts maybe at the end

[51:29]

Chief Justice Roberts maybe at the end of it or something say you know I just got to give you my my feedback on this process this was totally corrupt totally botched because you made me sit in public and read for two days and you degraded the credibility of the Supreme Court you should be ashamed of yourselves you know better you should not have fed me one question filled with fake news after another and four and cause me to read it you know in theory the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should be see if you agree with me should be the most credible person in the country period am i right who would you want to be more credible more fair more non-political than the Chief Justice is it like you know that that's the one person you want to feel confident that that person at least could go either way follows the facts is not driven by politics and to force that guy to force

[52:33]

politics and to force that guy to force him to read lies in front of the country and and read them straight with an opinion is is grotesque I mean to me it just felt grotesque I think he needed the the Silkwood shower after that and I know that Chief Justice Roberts is not fond of making himself the story he likes to stay out of the hot end of the spotlight and he you know he maybe made a slight exception by not reading the whistleblower alleged whistleblower a question but I feel like he needs to step up and say something do you I mean it'd be okay if he didn't because at least that would be consistent with staying of the spotlight and there's a lot to be said to that but I think he should he should say that he's disgusted with it I think he should present a complete if he feels this way and I'm I'm assuming he probably does this is an assumption

[53:33]

he probably does this is an assumption can't read his mind but don't you think he's pretty pretty unhappy with the people who gave him those questions and made him read those that allowed I think that's just a broken system you should say something about that all right that's all I got for now and I will talk to you all later