Episode 818 Scott Adams: Coming in HOT. There Will be Cursing
Date: 2020-02-13 | Duration: 45:56
Topics
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Coronavirus look forward at what to expect Roger Stone sentencing “enhancements” and jury foreperson 3 strong pieces of evidence it was a crooked process President Trump’s comments and decorum, tradition Geraldo’s provocative question…4 high level attorneys? Did Brennan and Clapper break same laws as Roger Stone? John Kelly slams President Trump on Korea talks progress Adam Schiff challenger, Independent candidate Jennifer Barbosa
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
[0:15]
I'm pom pom pom hey everybody come on in it's time for coffee with Scott Adams there will be cursing yeah a little bit later there will be cursing I know I know I know I said I wouldn't do it anymore it's it's bad for my monetization and it's certainly inappropriate in many situations but some days you just have to do it but we'll get to that first the good news you can enjoy the simultaneous sip it's that great feeling that starts your day and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass so take your chelators Dhyana canteen jagrafess a little bitty guy and fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous sip go ah
[1:18]
good morning San Ramon neighbor good to see you so I want to start with some good news and a positive thing oh we're gonna get to the corona virus we're gonna get to Roger stone but let's do some good news first so yesterday I got a package in the mail and I want to tell you about how that went this is a marketing story it's a persuasion lesson okay so I get a I get something in the mail and I open it up and it's this this box there's something in it and something sort of heavy so that I think what could it be now the first part of the story is this is a really good box it's it's not quite Apple computer quality where you're opening you're at your iPhone and it's it's like an essential experience but it's not bad it's not bad it's sort of a smooth thing and just sort of slid
[2:20]
of a smooth thing and just sort of slid open pretty well and I open it up and there's some in there and after you have to sort of dig around in the packing I start taking out items and the first one I see is this wd-40 like what well why somebody suddenly need wd-40 and then the next thing I take out is this tape it's a black electrical tape what and then the next thing is these goggles right and then I get to you the real meat of it this book it's called the friction by Roger Dooley now you'll see that I just did his podcast and it's in in my Twitter feed you can find the link to it so my interview with him now I talked about friction all the time on the podcast and I think Roger Dooley was
[3:21]
the podcast and I think Roger Dooley was yeah maybe that may have been one of the reasons he wanted to talk to me and interview me and he sent me his book now here's the here's the the payoff here a lot of people send me books I try to discourage it because my house would actually just be full of books because if you can imagine how many authors would like me to been in their book and you know it's a common practice to send a book out to other people now I don't know hundreds of people over my career hundreds and hundreds have sent me books and the mail and usually it's just wrapped in a mailer and you open it up and it'll be a little note on the inside and I'll pay much attention to them and I don't read them generally and then I have something I don't want to throw away but eventually I do so generally everybody fails at that task of getting my attention but this one caused me to stop and focus and that
[4:21]
caused me to stop and focus and that gave me things I can't throw away I'm not going to throw this away right and it's the size I wouldn't buy I actually have wd-40 in the garage but I don't have this size so every time I see this I'm gonna say uh that's a Roger Dooley book friction and and then the the because of the book is called friction he's got something about friction in there and then the goggles there was a little note very nice little note that came with it for Roger explaining that the goggles are so you can see the friction etc now it's a book I think that involves persuasion and friction I haven't dug into it yet I hear good things about it got great reviews and here's my point look how different the level of marketing skill was in this example compared to basically everybody else everybody else so it's quite memorable let me promise you I am never gonna do
[5:24]
let me promise you I am never gonna do this again I'm never going to open a cleverly packaged book and then show it on periscope so if you're an author and you just said to yourself aha now I know what to do I can get some attention if I send a cleverly packaged book it only works once I'm never gonna do this again don't send me another cleverly packaged book it's not gonna work all right but this was a great job Roger Dooley if your book is as good as your marketing you should all read that book alright let's talk about the coronavirus first there are 570 confirmed cases of it outside of China but there should be let's say there's a 2% death rate so that would be around 11 people who should have died outside of China who were not actually just people who were in China just recently and I'm still
[6:26]
in China just recently and I'm still waiting for the reports of non non Asian deaths I think there was an 80 year old who died recently not sure that counts because any kind of a flu can take out an 80 year old so we still have that open question whether there's something about this virus that has a preference for the speculation is there something about the the receptors and the lungs of of Asian men in particular more southern women well we'll say so I would say that's just an open question I'm still waiting and the the absence of confirmation that it's affecting everybody equally is starting to get noticeable isn't it so we'll wait for that think a little bit into the future and see how we're going to handle the next pandemic so I hope we're doing a good job in this one by the think a little bit in the future and imagine the technology that we'll have
[7:26]
imagine the technology that we'll have China in particular of course will have the ability to remove and already have remove all sense of privacy so the Chinese basically they're losing their privacy in the United States I'm gonna guess that our penetration of cellphones here is probably higher smartphones then it China if you look at the entire country of China so our country in theory already has the technological ability maybe not the will and maybe not the legal authority but certainly the technological ability exists for our government to immediately know where everybody who has a phone is imagine so so that's the first thing so in the future we'll know where everybody is and in theory that would be enough to tell you who is associating with who and you could quickly clamp down on a pandemic because you say oh this little cluster send a text to their phones and tell
[8:27]
send a text to their phones and tell them to wait there that's just an example so most of them wait there some of them don't but you can still follow them you catch up to them so but also what if a technology like that Clearview app someday in the future could identify somebody who recently traveled to China because I assume that in some databases somewhere there must be records of of who traveled we're aware those records exist but you have to think that any plane coming in from the United States we probably have some kind of accounting of where they came from right I mean that seems obvious so suppose you had the Clear View app which identifies the faces of people and puts an identity on them right at the moment it's being used by law enforcement and maybe you can assume it it's always only used by law enforcement but I assume that kind of app if it's not that one some other one
[9:27]
app if it's not that one some other one will be generally available imagine having your your augmented reality glasses on snapchat is making one I think Google's got one I'm sure Apple Apple has one and you're walking down a public street and you've got something like the Clear View app technology that can recognize faces and put identities to them and then only if there's a pandemic and remember this part because this is the part if you don't if you don't catch this bar you'll have a totally different idea of it only in an emergency and only in a pandemic let's say this is hypothetical we're just brainstorming here let's say the government of the United States says oh in this one case we're gonna let that facial recognition app have access also to the database of who's just been in China so imagine walking down the street crowd is going by and one of the people in the crowd crowd is just glowing you
[10:27]
in the crowd crowd is just glowing you know it just has an aura around them and that's how your augmented reality has identified that it's recognized the face and matched it to a database and found out that person just came from China you'd keep your distance right you walk into a coffee shop you look around you're like whoops sitting at that table I'm out so I don't know if this would work I don't know if you know the the violations of privacy you might be so extreme that we never do it maybe the entities involved would never be able to coordinate you can see lots of reasons why there would be obstacles this but the technology's all there all the technology is there and all it's going to take is one pandemic that's like the the bad one I don't know if coronavirus will rise to the level of you know big enough to change how we do business I'm not sure if they will they
[11:28]
business I'm not sure if they will they might but I think there's a guarantee that someday our phones our apps will allow us to avoid contamination and tamp down on it I think that's a guarantee I would say if you fast-forward 10 years pandemics will be handled by app that that would be my prediction all right of course not not the up alone but the app would be a big part of it all right bill Barr is reviewing the Roger stone sentence because nine years seemed like a lot should have been closer to two or three say some people but apparently according to trey Gowdy there's some kind of enhancements that were added to that had something to do with what stone did and maybe I don't know the details but there's some kind of enhancement that allowed the judge to give him nine years that seemed excessive to pretty much everybody who didn't hate the president so Barr is looking into it and
[12:30]
president so Barr is looking into it and the president waited on it now what do you think about the president weighing in on a question in the justice system well all the smart people say the same thing trey Gowdy said this probably everybody will say this doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat there's a general sense that you don't want the president to be putting his finger on the scale the Justice Department should do its thing and the president should just stay quiet and let it play out I agree with that 99% of the time but 1% of the time or some small number there's going to be a violation of justice so blatant so obvious so disgusting so divisive to the country that it would be an abdication of responsibility for the
[13:31]
abdication of responsibility for the president not to step in it would be a miscarriage of justice so if your president steps in on the extreme case one that is clear to everybody watching it I think it is and I'll talk a little bit about why it's so clear but I think is clear to everyone who sees it there's something wrong with that the nine-year thing all right and it looks there are at least two things wrong with it one is the extremeness of the or the degree of the penalty more than you know some pedophiles and bank robbers get but beyond that we're now learning that at least one of the jurors and I think it was the jury foreperson was not only an attorney which you say to yourself what but somebody who ran for office as a Democrat is an anti-trump ER and was pushing online on social media the the
[14:31]
pushing online on social media the the Russia collusion exactly the person you don't want on a trial for Roger stone I mean I don't know how a lawyer gets on it on a jury to begin with I mean that alone is already a little you know a little flag but I you know I think in some cases lawyers do serve but if you're a known anti-trump ER and you've got a long history of it and it's documented and and you're an attorney and they make you the foreperson how is that not the most obvious miscarriage of justice you've ever heard of yeah that's somebody's reminding me in the comments that jury foreman was tweeting anti Trump Trump stuff during the trial during the trial now here's something I'm going to add to the mix I've served on jury trials and one in one case in my 20s I was selected as the jury
[15:31]
20s I was selected as the jury or person now that it's funny the reason I was selected the reason I was selected is I'm the only person who wore a suit to the - every day and the reason was I was going to work before and after that at a bank and I was just fitting and you know the jury trial in the middle and then I would just walk back to work because it was pretty close to work so I was wearing my work clothes which in back in those backward times was a suit so the other juror said well or 11 of us in casual clothes and there's this guy in the suit so who are we gonna pick for the jury foreperson how about soup guy so I became the jury foreperson because I accidentally wore a suit accidentally meaning coincidentally and as you all know because I mentioned it too often even by then I was a trained hypnotist what kind of fair trial do you get if
[16:32]
what kind of fair trial do you get if your jury foreperson is a trained hypnotist well I've said this before I don't know that the other eleven people were necessary because things were kind of gonna go the way I wanted them to go how do you think it turned out things went the way I wanted them to go it didn't start that way you know on the on the first vote it was very different from how it ended up and if you would get if you're guessing that it ended up very similar to what the hypnotist who was also the jury foreperson wanted it to end up as well you would be correct was that a fair trial well I think it was fair because the result was a hung jury and I don't think that they tried it again because it was something like 6 & 6 so you I don't think you'd normally try a case again it was a drunk driving case I don't think you try it again if it's a hung jury 6 & 6 but maybe there's some exception to that just so you know
[17:34]
some exception to that just so you know there were some extenuating circumstances etc so it wasn't as clear as it wasn't an obvious guilty thing as you might imagine
so here's the thing if you put a trained attorney who is also a Trump hater on a jury does an attorney have more influence than the other people on the jury yeah of course of course a trained attorney is going to have more influence on the other jurors i I would listen to an attorney if I were on a trial in a jury and somebody I knew to be an attorney or this is just as good somebody who simply presented themselves in a way an attorney would meaning that they they spoke knowledgeably about the law added some context they were persuasive they were clear all the things you would expect from a professional attorney I wouldn't even need to know they were an attorney but I would imagine that they would influence me just by being good at communicating
[18:36]
me just by being good at communicating and persuading so I would think that you could throw out the trial for no other reason and it would be perfectly legitimate than the fact that we've discovered that the the jury foreperson was exactly the last person you want exactly the last person you want now how'd it go him the other way let's say there was a jury foreperson who was an attorney but was pro-trump and then let's say that the the result was innocent you know 12 people in the end decided to acquit let's say you quit not innocent let's say they had decided to acquit but the foreperson was also kind of questionable in terms of bias but questionable the other way would that be okay with me yeah it would be it would be because our system is designed to have a very high threshold for putting people in jail it's a high
[19:37]
putting people in jail it's a high threshold so if if the jury foreperson can convince all the other people in my extreme example they all agree in the end I think that probably means the case wasn't that strong you know I don't think anybody could turn 11 jurors if it was a slam-dunk you know if the evidence was here's the guy on video you know here are the three witnesses who were part of you know if it's that kind of a case here's his DNA if it's that kind of a case it doesn't matter how persuasive the foreperson is but if there's a little bit of judgment involved a little bit of gray area or let's say that the attorneys on both sides sort of fought to a tie you know looked it looked like they both made a good argument in those cases a super influential person on the jury is going to determine the outcome you heard it from me all right Trump was asked what impeachment taught him and he
[20:38]
asked what impeachment taught him and he gave the best answer I've ever said he said that Democrats are crooked thanks for coming um I just I just shortened what he said into my own words but essentially he said what do you what did you learn from a teacher well I learned that you know Democrats are vicious and crooked and no more questions thanks for coming it was kind of the best answer I've ever seen for that kind of a question all right but we're not done with Roger stone that was just in my notes in the wrong place so can somebody you fact-checked be on this I first noticed their reporting about this Roger stone juror from Mike savage and then not too long after that I saw lots of tweeting and other news sources and now it's headline news everywhere did sort of its break this and are they not giving him credit again because that's happened right have there not been other situations where Mike Tsarevich broke his story became a national story and
[21:41]
his story became a national story and then they they don't give him credit for it because it's Mike sort of itch yeah I'm seeing some confirmation here I think that's the case and every time I would read a story I'd started out and saying okay somewhere in the first maybe the second paragraph it's going to say something like you know Mike Tsarevitch broke this story and that I finished the story it's like hmm where's Mike so that's an open question so I tweeted this morning what's the difference I'm asking a lawyer so this is an actual question it's not a I'm not trying to win a point I'm actually asking the question and it was in my tweet and I asked is there any lawyer who can explain to me whether the is it accurate to say Brennan and clapper broke the same or equivalent laws as Roger stone now I keep hearing pundits say something like that on social media
[22:42]
say something like that on social media and on TV news but is that accurate I think I would have to know a lot more about their individual cases and a lot more about the law and a lot more about the precedent to even know the answer to that question but or somebody's clarifying that the juror outed your cellphone's CNN but Mike is the one who looked into her social media record and found out there was a problem so I that sounds right but let's just say I don't know all the details there but I I suspect that Mike Serna is not getting the credit that is completely do but well we'll wait and see so I don't know the answer to that did Brennan and clapper actually do something that's the same as what Roger stone did or does it just remind us of it but one is legal and one is not because I don't know the answer to that and I'd really like to because that will determine how pissed
[23:44]
because that will determine how pissed off I am that will determine how angry I am now as somebody said cases are not related meaning I shouldn't look at some unrelated case of you know clapper and Brennan and say well therefore I draw judgment about this Roger stone thing I'm not doing that I'm only trying to decide how mad I should be because I can certainly compare them to find out a mad I should be I don't think that you know either them should be entered as evidence in the other trial or anything like that but I'm a citizen I can watch both of them and I can say one is different from the other if they are so I think it's fair to know that question and I believe the public is owed that answer the public is owed that answer we really need to know that because if you listen to the let's say the right leaning media it's being described as probably the most grotesque
[24:48]
described as probably the most grotesque miscarriage of justice I can ever I don't know since oj or the yeah your mileage may vary but what's worse than this is it true is it true that brennan clapper made the same you know broke the same or some kind of equivalent law and yet they're getting away with it and nobody's even indicted is that is that what's happening or or do I just not understand the law and there's something about their situation which is not nearly as serious in terms of how the law treats that as a Roger stone case I don't know it's a question so here's what's different about this case of course everybody is asking if Trump will pardon Roger stone and and general Flynn similar situations in terms pardons and I'm watching social media start to erupt and I'm going to ask you this is the
[25:51]
and I'm going to ask you this is the president really going to make that decision or is social media in the process of making the decision and the president will follow that decision which one of those things is happening right now the way the way it will be reported is that the president made the decision to either pardon or commute or not so that that's the way we'll understand it but I don't know if that's what's happening I suspect that part of the reason the president is waiting is that there's more information that could be very important to that decision this information about the juror is important I don't know if there are any appeals that that matter and it could be that because it's an election year I I hate to say this but there's a good chance that the president is saying to himself you know I don't want him to go to jail here I'm just speculating I can't read the president's mind obviously but if I put myself in that position this is what I'd be thinking if I pardon him right away even
[26:55]
thinking if I pardon him right away even though I want to it's an election year and then this will be used as a club against me you can see the Democrats are already framing this as as the president becoming a dictator and interfering with justice and what we do if you'll do this and and so I wonder I hope he's not waiting for the election to be over so they can do it after the election let's say you thinks he's going to win and then he can pardon anybody wants and he doesn't have to worry about re-election maybe that's part of the decision I don't know but the suggestion has been made that there's a perfect time to do this and I concur Super Tuesday Super Tuesday if he's gonna do it would be my pick uh-huh and I'm gonna ask this directly mr. president would you use
[27:56]
directly mr. president would you use Super Tuesday to counter program the Democrats were gonna get a lot of attention that day and do your pardons just totally put a shiv into the into the Democrat leaning news media because I think they've earned it in this situation in particular and Super Tuesday is coming up what in the first part of March I don't have the exact date on that but it's coming up now I don't know the timing of when stone would have to report to prison if or even if all the legal rebel paths have been exhausted I don't know how that works I don't know enough about the legal process or his case but could the president wait that long without him spending a day in jail I don't know would the president let him spend a few days in jail and then do it I don't know but the president was asked directly whether he was considering
[28:58]
directly whether he was considering pardoning Roger stone and I don't have his exact words but the president's answer was something like somebody saying March 3rd in the comments for Super Tuesday but confirmed that for me and the president gave this answer and this I'm paraphrasing it wasn't his exact words he said something like I'm not ready to talk about that yet if somebody is not considering a pardon how do they answer the question are you considering a pardon well the only way you answer the question are you considering a pardon if you're not is no right so anything that isn't no I'm not considering this I'm not going to be involved anything that's not a no is literally he's considering it so the president has essentially confirmed by his choice of words that he's at least open to the conversation and common sense tells you he would be now let me ask you this what
[30:02]
he would be now let me ask you this what would feel more delicious then pardoning both stone and general Flynn just for revenge because you know I don't think revenge I think revenge is underrated there are certainly situations where a little bit of revenge I'm not talking about killing somebody but in a political sense revenge it would feel like revenge wouldn't it because you know that the Democrats really really want some kind of a scalp they want it bad yeah throw Assange in the in the next two let's pardon Assange doing and really make it interesting now Manafort i have a different opinion on i'm sure they went after him for political reasons but what they found was real crime Manafort stole from from me and he stole from you if you're a taxpayer because what Manafort did was avoid taxes on very large amounts of money if
[31:04]
on very large amounts of money if somebody criminally and obviously and intentionally avoids taxes well that that part of that data Cruz to me and you if you're a taxpayer so man afford stole from me and you I don't have the same feeling about a pardon for him yeah I'm not sure I would care either way but Manafort did a different level of badness Geraldo Rivera asked this provocative question
so apparently there were four high-level federal prosecutors who resigned over over the fact that President Trump tweeted about and AG bar was mostly about bar he demanded a review or the recommendation of a nine-year sentence now and it's important to note that Roger stone is 67 years old so a nine-year sentence you know is at least
[32:04]
nine-year sentence you know is at least potentially a life sentence and here Geraldo continues with what I thought was a really good point he says which begs the question why were four high-level federal prosecutors even assigned to this lame crimeless case why were therefore have four high level attorneys on this case now I wouldn't have known to ask that question but I think Geraldo knows what he's talking about in terms of the legal system he's a lawyer and you have to ask yourself is that another gigantic flag that this was not legitimate that they were going to do everything they could to get this this one person the maximum sentence it looks it looks crooked based on how they staffed it it looks crooked based on who they allowed on the jury and it looks crooked based on the degree of the at least the initial initial nine-year sentence and thinking that's that is
[33:06]
sentence and thinking that's that is three really strong pieces of evidence that this was a crooked process under those conditions do you want your president to stay let's say traditional traditional should he remain traditional and just say you know it's traditional that a president not get involved with the justice system yeah I might even if I had a problem with it its traditional it might it might lack decorum should a president you know depart from good decorum to weigh in on a justice case well here's what I think em your decorum your tradition your this is the way presidents do it everything and you if you disagree this is a complete travesty of justice it's obvious to all of us let's
[34:09]
justice it's obvious to all of us let's not pretend it's not obvious it's obvious I want my president to weigh in I want my president to interfere with travesty of justice your tradition the way your president is supposed to act everything you're going to say about this every one of you if you disagree most of you agree so I'm not talking to you no way should this president stay out of this now I certainly wanted to stay out of you know the legal system in general of course but this is not like every other case this is obviously publicly corrupt obviously and publicly corrupt if my president won't weigh in I don't care who the president is if my president won't weigh in on a case that's obviously and publicly corrupt well the president to him if
[35:12]
well the president to him if he won't do that little thing that that that the country certainly deserves certainly ought to get it now here's my prediction you you elected the right guy I don't see any possibility honestly I don't see any possibility that Trump will not pardon stone I assume benefit I'm so not Benford I assume Flynn will get a pardon - maybe there's some different issues there that need to be played out before that happens but oh yeah and the media - thanks for thanks for suggesting that all you in the media who are trying to make Roger stone go to jail so you can jerk off to it you all of you you know this is just for pleasure this is a pleasure prosecution this is a feel-good prosecution it's corrupt and anybody who thinks that this is this is
[36:12]
anybody who thinks that this is this is the way this country should run man so if there's still anybody out there who says that having this juror who is an attorney and a documented Trump hater who was who was tweeting against Trump during the trial if anybody thinks well you can't say some people are more persuasive than and so you know this person will sway the jury I give you this analogy you've got a pickup basketball game in the park it's you and some of your friends none of you are professional basketball players you're just having a pickup game in the park Michael Jordan walks up in his prime not not retired Michael Jordan but in his prime Michael Jordan he says can I play and you say no all right and Michael Jordan joins your team who wins which team wins the team of people who play
[37:13]
team wins the team of people who play basketball in the weekend sometime or the team that plays on the weekend sometimes he and has Michael Jordan team it's Michael Jordan's team he wins every time in the playground that is the degree of difference between having your jury foreperson a trained attorney or a trained hypnotist if you have that situation you just added Michael Jordan to the jury and you made the other 11 people irrelevant you could trade them in you could switch him out it doesn't matter if they have functioning brains it doesn't matter what their biases doesn't matter because add michael jordan to your pickup basketball game and you know how it's going to go so it's a travesty of justice it's horrible let's talk about other john kelly is talking out about trumps in his opinion not succeeding with north korea and John Kelly who is being a bit of an
[38:13]
and John Kelly who is being a bit of an here says that he would that he predicted that North Korea wasn't going to be serious and they were just gonna stall for time and so therefore and he thinks he could have you know maybe maybe had an impact on that I guess no I guess he didn't have an impact so he wouldn't say that here's what's missing from that analysis President Trump removed the reason for North Korea and the United States do you even care who has what weapons he removed the reason are we a war with North Korea no does North Korea think we're gonna attack any minute and therefore they need to get ready probably not I think Trump convinced them that we have no interest in attacking him why was kim jungeun your rattling your saber and aiming his nukes at us and testing nukes well because he thought we might attack him Trump basically solved the problem without solving the problem he took away the reason if you're not bright enough
[39:15]
the reason if you're not bright enough to see that he took away the reason I'm not sure you should be talking in public so John Kelly that was not your finest moment
all right so I think that's oh one other interesting tidbit so Adam Schiff his district is you know hugely solidly Democratic here in California Southern California not my district but he has a he has a challenger I've mentioned before Jennifer Barbosa and she's running as an independent now her argument is that you need to be an independent to have a chance against chef because he has the vast majority of Democrats well there are far more Democrats in the area than anything else in fact there are only 16% GOP in shifts area but there are 30% independents now
[40:16]
area but there are 30% independents now I don't know how independent independents are all right and I'm not sure that real of independents exist well let's say they do and the reason I say that is that most independents reliably vote one way or the other yeah it's sort of an exception if they ever cross lines or a clause if they ever vote a different way let's say it's a it's a surprise so if you had the 30 percent independents in the 16 percent of GOP you get 46 percent if she could cleave off enough Democrats who were mad at shift for one reason or another for not doing his job and just playing around trying to basically he's you know he's a he's playing Moby Dick and he's just trying to harpoon the great white whale but it's not happening so I'm just calling her out because I think the country would be better off without Adam Schiff in government I don't really care if it's another democrat gets elected I mean I'm not I'm
[41:19]
democrat gets elected I mean I'm not I'm not like anti-democrat or anything but Adam Schiff he's a character and he's done more harm to the country than I think anybody anybody would that be true could could you reasonably say the Adam Schiff has done more damage to the United States than anybody else alive at the moment can anybody think of anybody who did more damage to the United States than Adam chef who's still alive anybody I'd like to see some suggestions I assume there are people have done worse but I can't think of one I'm he's really driven the world the country apart with one hoax after another that I don't know what could be more destructive than that this does anybody have a suggestion I'm it's a serious question no matter if you're democrat or republican you'd have to agree that he pursued a Russia collusion hoax and and the
[42:22]
Russia collusion hoax and and the Ukraine case that never really was going to go anywhere and he wasted all of our time and made her a government ineffective and deepened the divide added added fake news to the mix is there anybody who did more damage to the United States than chef I mean honestly that's that's just an honest question I can't think of anybody Pelosi I think was sort of carried away by the stream I don't know the Pelosi her options were limited by the situation it feels like it was mostly chef now you could you could throw Nadler in there but I think Nadler by himself would have been less effective and therefore done less damage I think for for all of his flaws of which I see many Schiff was a very LSA energetic and disciplined and passionate and
[43:23]
disciplined and passionate and well-spoken advocate for his evil position all right he had lots of skill that went into pursuing something that shouldn't have been pursued and Olin did that so his judgment is terrible or his bias is terrible it could be one of the other and so give a thought to Jennifer Barbosa if you're thinking of donating you could probably find her easily just just Google Jennifer Barbosa be a RB OSA for Congress she'll pop right up and I'm sure she has a page for donating but if you know if anybody wants to reduce the chance of more Schiff that would be one way to do it okay all right I'm looking at your comments
what about AOC the whistleblower blah-blah-blah-blah alright I think I've
[44:24]
blah-blah-blah-blah alright I think I've said what I need to say I hope my swearing was just right and I hope we see a return to justice and and let me say as a supporter of this president by the way for context I think I've supported every president didn't matter what what team they were on when somebody becomes the president I'm almost automatically a supporter because I think that's the way it should work didn't regardless of which team they are on your your mileage will differ but that's fine so I'm a supporter of the President and if he pardons I'm going to be far more enthusiastic about supporting him for re-election I'm you know it do it anyway I'm sure I'll support the president for re-election but it would make a difference to me I would feel differently I would have a different energy about it and if there's blowback from the pardon and we're commuting the sentence whatever it is if
[45:24]
commuting the sentence whatever it is if there's blowback I will I will be a tireless tireless Patriot to try to reduce the impact of that so that's where I'm at I hope some of you are on the same team and well thank you somebody's saying nice things about me I always appreciate it what about coffee we already had our sip all right that's all for today I'll talk to you all tomorrow