Episode 138 - Hot Take on Strzok’s Testimony so Far
Strzok explanation of his text: “No, we’ll stop him” What’s more likely, a complex explanation…or a simple one? Sending personal texts and email from your work devices ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that. See all of my Periscope videos here… https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL Find my WhenHub Interface app here… https://interface.whenhub.com
Hey everybody, are you all watching the Peter Strzok testimony? That is coming back after the first session. They had a break. I guess they're getting ready to start again if they haven't already. I wanted to talk about a few initial things that have happened. I'd like you to think back, those of y…
View segment →Oh, I've got more people who can't. So if you're seeing some bad people go by, they're unblockable for some reason. They have kind of a technology or technique to make them unblockable.
View segment →So here's the thing. His explanation of it is that when he said "we'll stop it," meaning the election of President Trump, that he was talking about voters, the public. Now here's the question: Is it credible, his explanation that he meant the voters will stop it versus that he and Lisa Page and insi…
View segment →Now what did Trey Gowdy say? And I saw somebody on Fox News saying the same thing. They said his story is not credible because he used his official FBI device for this conversation. As if that matters. How in the world does it matter what device he used to send this personal message? It doesn't matt…
View segment →All right, to be clear, I'm not defending Peter Strzok from anything he did or did not do, because I don't know. I don't have enough information. But his explanation, true or untrue, is completely credible. Now you shouldn't be surprised that somebody with his experience could have a defense that s…
View segment →Hey everybody, are you all watching the Peter Strzok testimony? That is coming back after the first session. They had a break. I guess they're getting ready to start again if they haven't already.
I wanted to talk about a few initial things that have happened. I'd like you to think back, those of you who have been following my Periscopes for a long time. What was the first thing that I said when the Strzok-Page text messages became public? The first thing I said is you're gonna have to wait to hear his side, because otherwise you don't know anything. It's too easy to hear one side and say, "Well, I know everything I need, and therefore this guy must be pretty guilty."
I don't have an opinion whether he's guilty or not guilty of doing anything biased or unbiased or illegal or legal. So I don't have an opinion on that. I just want to talk about some of the details that came out.
So apparently one of the big questions was about the text exchange between Strzok and Page in which Lisa Page said essentially, "He's not going to become president, is he?" Now this is during the campaign, all right? This is not after the election. This is the summer of the campaign. And Lisa Page said, "He's not going to ever become president, is he?" And Strzok replied, "No, we'll stop it."
His context was that it was after the alleged insult of a Gold Star family. You know, that's the question by itself, but let's say he took it as an insult and get rid of that. Oh, I've got more people who can't. So if you're seeing some bad people go by, they're unblockable for some reason. They have kind of a technology or technique to make them unblockable.
So here's the thing. His explanation of it is that when he said "we'll stop it," meaning the election of President Trump, that he was talking about voters, the public. Now here's the question: Is it credible, his explanation that he meant the voters will stop it versus that he and Lisa Page and insiders will stop it? Is it credible? Yes, it is. A hundred percent credible.
I know you don't want to hear it, but I'm not going to be the guy who just agrees with you because you want to hear that. All right? Now when I say credible, I don't mean necessarily true, because we weren't there. We can't really know what he was thinking. We're not mind readers. But is it a credible explanation that he was talking about the public and the voters versus personally doing something? One hundred percent credible, which is not to say it's true.
Here's why it's credible. If you have two competing theories, one of them is completely ordinary and one of them is fantastical, which one is more credible? Let's say there are two explanations that would explain the same set of facts, but one explanation is just normal. It's just normal things that normal people do, and the other one is like unbelievable. Which one of those is credible? Well, the normal one.
So his explanation is presumably — and I think this is a fair assumption — he watches CNN. He's sort of buying into the anti-Trump part of the media. If all you watched was the anti-Trump media, the CNNs, MSNBCs, and at times the Washington Post, if that was what you were consuming, is it reasonable and normal to say "we," meaning the majority of the public? Yes, it is. It's completely reasonable, because people who watch just one side of the media tend to think that's sort of the majority opinion.
Keep in mind that the assumption was that Hillary would clearly win the election because the majority of the public was going to vote her in. So in that context, "we" being the voters, a totally normal thing to say for someone who's a CNN consumer and you know that type of information.
Look at the other explanation, that he was secretly plotting an overthrow of the government. It's possible, right? I'm not telling you what's true and I'm not telling you what's not true. I can't know. But one of those stories is fantastical: a plot to overthrow the government. And the other one is "I watch television. I watch CNN. Yeah, we'll stop it. We the voters will stop it." Completely normal.
So you're gonna want to disagree with me because you think the facts are different, but I'm not talking about the facts, because we can't know what he was thinking. There's no way we'll ever know that fact, I think. But we can know whether his story is credible, and his story is completely credible.
Now what did Trey Gowdy say? And I saw somebody on Fox News saying the same thing. They said his story is not credible because he used his official FBI device for this conversation. As if that matters. How in the world does it matter what device he used to send this personal message? It doesn't matter.
But you can see the side that wants him to be clearly guilty seizing on the device. "Oh wait, that was a personal conversation. How can you have a personal conversation on an FBI official..." Well, let me ask you, how many of you have ever used your work email to send a personal message? All of you. All of you probably. You know, something like a hundred percent of you have used your work email to send a personal message against company policy probably.
You know, some might have a different policy. When I worked for the phone company we were not allowed to use our official email for personal reasons. Did I use it anyway for personal reasons? Of course I did. Everybody did. Do you know why we all use our official email for personal business? Because it was easy and we didn't think we'd get in trouble. And I didn't get in trouble, so I was right. It was just easier. I didn't have a personal email, or I might have been in the office and I was already logged into my business one, so I used it.
Now if you work for the FBI, one assumes there's a higher standard. But if you're telling me that every person in the FBI wasn't also sending private messages on their texts, you are not a credible participant. Sending personal messages on your work device is the most normal, ordinary thing in the world. It's probably pretty close to universal. You know who else was doing that? Everybody.
All right, so those are my first two hot takes. The "we'll stop it" said before the election could easily and normally be talking about the voters, about the country. "We the country." And using his work device just doesn't mean anything. It just means it was convenient. People do convenient things. There's no information. You've learned nothing if somebody does what's convenient.
All right, I'm going to take a shower in a minute. Does it mean anything? No, it's what I always do about this time of day. It means nothing.
All right, to be clear, I'm not defending Peter Strzok from anything he did or did not do, because I don't know. I don't have enough information. But his explanation, true or untrue, is completely credible.
Now you shouldn't be surprised that somebody with his experience could have a defense that sounds credible even if he's guilty, right? He has the skill. He has the experience to present a completely credible defense even if it's not true. So that's my point for now, and I've got to go do some other things. Bye for now.
bump bump bump bump bump bump up um hey everybody are you all watching the Peter struck testimony that is coming back after the first session they had a break I guess they're getting ready to start again if they haven't already and I wanted to talk about a few initial things that have happened I'd like you to think back those of you who have been following my periscopes for a long time - what was the first thing that I said when the struck Lisa page text messages became public the first thing I said is you're gonna have to wait to hear his side because otherwise you don't know anything and it's too easy to hear one side and say well I know everything I need and you know therefore this guy must be pretty guilty I don't have an opinion whether he's guilty or not guilty of doing anything biased or unbiased or illegal or legal so I don't have an opinion on that I just want to talk about some of the details that came out so apparently one of the big questions was about the text exchange between struck and page in which Lisa page said essentially he's not going to become president is he now this is during the campaign all right this is not after the election this is the summer of the campaign and Lisa page said he's not going to ever become president is he and struck replied no we'll stop it and his his context was that it was after the the the alleged insult of a gold star family which you know that's the question by itself but let's say he took it as an insult and get rid of that oh I've got more more people who can't so if you're seeing some bad people go by their unblockable for some reason they have kind of a technology or technique to make them unblockable so here's the thing his explanation of it is that when he said we'll stop it meaning the election of President Trump that he was talking about voters the public now here's the question is it credible is his explanation that he meant the voters will stop it versus that he and Lisa page and insiders will stop it is it credible yes it is a hundred percent credible I know you don't want to hear it but I'm not going to be the guy who just agrees with you because you want to hear that all right now when I say credible I don't mean necessarily true because you know we weren't there we can't really know what he was thinking we're not mind reader's but it is is it a credible explanation that he was talking about the public and the voters versus personally doing something 100% credible which is not to say it's true here's why it's credible if you have two competing theories one of them is completely ordinary and one of them is fantastical which one is more credible let's say there are two explanations that would explain the same set of facts but one explanation is just normal it's just normal things that normal people do and the other one is like unbelievable which one of those is credible well the normal one so his explanation is presumably I and I think this is a fair assumption he watches CNN he's sort of buying into the the anti-trump part of the media if all you watched was the anti-trump media the CNN Z MSNBC's and the at times the washington post if that was what you were consuming is it reasonable and normal to say we meaning the majority of the public yes it is it's completely reasonable because people who watch just one side of the media tend to think that's sort of the majority opinion keep in mind that the assumption was that Hillary would clearly win the election because the majority of the public was going to vote her in so in that context we being the voters a totally normal thing to say for someone who's a CNN consumer and you know that type of information look at the other explanation that he was secretly plotting and overthrow of the government it's possible right I'm not telling you what's true and I'm not telling you what's not true that I I can't know but one of those stories is fantastical a a plot to overthrow the government and the other one is i watch television i watch CNN yeah we'll stop it we the voters will stop it completely normal so you're gonna want to disagree with me because you think the facts are different but I'm not talking about the facts because we can't know what he was thinking there's no way we'll ever know that fact I think but we can know whether his story is credible and his story is completely credible now what did trey gowdy and I saw somebody on facts of Fox News saying the same thing they said his story is not credible because he used his official FBI device for this conversation as if that matters how in the world does it matter what device he used to send this personal message it doesn't matter but you can see the side that wants him to be clearly guilty seizing on the device he use all wait that was a personal conversation how can you have a personal conversation on a FBI official well let me ask you how many of you have ever used your work email to send a personal message all of you all of you probably you know something like a hundred percent of you have used your work email to send a personal message against company policy probably you know some might have a different policy when I worked for the phone company we were not allowed to use our official email for personal reasons did I use it anyway for personal reasons of course I did everybody did do you know why we all use our official email for personal business because it was easy and we didn't think we'd get in trouble and I didn't get in trouble so I was right it was just easier I didn't have a personal email or or I might have been in the office and I was already logged into my my business one so I used it now if you work for the FBI one assumes there's a higher standard but if you're telling me that every person in the FBI wasn't also sending private messages on their texts you are not a credible participant sending personal messages on your work device is the most normal ordinary thing in the world it's probably pretty close to universal you know who else was doing that everybody all right so those are my first two hot takes the wheel stop it said before the election could easily and normally be talking about the voters about the country we the country and using the his work device just doesn't mean anything it just means it was convenient people do convenient things there's no no information you've learned nothing if somebody does what's convenient all right I'm going to take a shower in a minute does it mean anything no it's what I always do about this time of day it means nothing all right to be clear I'm not defending Peter struck from anything he did or did not do because I I don't know you know I don't have enough information but his explanation true or untrue is completely credible now you shouldn't be surprised that somebody with his experience could have a defense that sounds credible even if he's guilty right he has the skill he has the experience to present a completely credible defense even if it's not true so that's my point for now and I've got to go do some other things bye for now
bump bump bump bump bump bump up um hey
everybody are you all watching the Peter
struck testimony that is coming back
after the first session they had a break
I guess they're getting ready to start
again if they haven't already and I
wanted to talk about a few initial
things that have happened I'd like you
to think back those of you who have been
following my periscopes for a long time
- what was the first thing that I said
when the struck Lisa page text messages
became public the first thing I said is
you're gonna have to wait to hear his
side because otherwise you don't know
anything and it's too easy to hear one
side and say well I know everything I
need and you know therefore this guy
must be pretty guilty I don't have an
opinion whether he's guilty or not
guilty of doing anything biased or
unbiased or illegal or legal so I don't
have an opinion on that I just want to
talk about some of the details that came
out so apparently one of the big
questions was about the text exchange
between struck and page in which Lisa
page said essentially he's not going to
become president is he now this is
during the campaign all right this is
not after the election this is the
summer of the campaign and Lisa page
said he's not going to ever become
president is he and struck replied no
we'll stop it and his his context was
that it was after the the the alleged
insult of a gold star family which you
know that's the question by itself but
let's say he took it as an insult and
get rid of that oh I've got more more
people who can't so if you're seeing
some bad people go by their unblockable
for some reason they have
kind of a technology or technique to
make them unblockable so here's the
thing his explanation of it is that when
he said we'll stop it meaning the
election of President Trump that he was
talking about voters the public now
here's the question is it credible is
his explanation that he meant the voters
will stop it versus that he and Lisa
page and insiders will stop it
is it credible yes it is a hundred
percent credible I know you don't want
to hear it but I'm not going to be the
guy who just agrees with you because you
want to hear that all right now when I
say credible I don't mean necessarily
true because you know we weren't there
we can't really know what he was
thinking we're not mind reader's but it
is is it a credible explanation that he
was talking about the public and the
voters versus personally doing something
100% credible which is not to say it's
true here's why it's credible if you
have two competing theories one of them
is completely ordinary and one of them
is fantastical which one is more
credible let's say there are two
explanations that would explain the same
set of facts but one explanation is just
normal it's just normal things that
normal people do and the other one is
like unbelievable which one of those is
credible well the normal one so his
explanation is presumably I and I think
this is a fair assumption
he watches CNN he's sort of buying into
the the anti-trump part of the media if
all you watched was the anti-trump media
the CNN Z MSNBC's and the
at times the washington post if that was
what you were consuming is it reasonable
and normal to say we meaning the
majority of the public yes it is it's
completely reasonable because people who
watch just one side of the media tend to
think that's sort of the majority
opinion keep in mind that the assumption
was that Hillary would clearly win the
election because the majority of the
public was going to vote her in so in
that context we being the voters a
totally normal thing to say for someone
who's a CNN consumer and you know that
type of information look at the other
explanation that he was secretly
plotting and overthrow of the government
it's possible right I'm not telling you
what's true and I'm not telling you
what's not true that I I can't know but
one of those stories is fantastical a a
plot to overthrow the government and the
other one is i watch television i watch
CNN yeah we'll stop it we the voters
will stop it completely normal so you're
gonna want to disagree with me because
you think the facts are different but
I'm not talking about the facts because
we can't know what he was thinking
there's no way we'll ever know that fact
I think but we can know whether his
story is credible and his story is
completely credible now what did trey
gowdy and I saw somebody on facts of Fox
News saying the same thing they said his
story is not credible because he used
his official FBI device for this
conversation as if that matters how in
the world does it matter what device he
used to send this personal message it
doesn't matter but you can see the side
that wants him to be clearly guilty
seizing on the device he use all wait
that was a personal conversation how can
you have a personal conversation on a
FBI official
well let me ask you how many of you have
ever used your work email to send a
personal message all of you all of you
probably you know something like a
hundred percent of you have used your
work email to send a personal message
against company policy probably you know
some might have a different policy when
I worked for the phone company
we were not allowed to use our official
email for personal reasons
did I use it anyway for personal reasons
of course I did
everybody did do you know why we all use
our official email for personal business
because it was easy and we didn't think
we'd get in trouble and I didn't get in
trouble so I was right it was just
easier I didn't have a personal email or
or I might have been in the office and I
was already logged into my my business
one so I used it now if you work for the
FBI one assumes there's a higher
standard but if you're telling me that
every person in the FBI wasn't also
sending private messages on their texts
you are not a credible participant
sending personal messages on your work
device is the most normal ordinary thing
in the world it's probably pretty close
to universal you know who else was doing
that everybody all right so those are my
first two hot takes the wheel stop it
said before the election could easily
and normally be talking about the voters
about the country we the country and
using the his work device just doesn't
mean anything it just means it was
convenient
people do convenient things there's no
no information you've learned nothing if
somebody does what's convenient all
right I'm going to take a shower in a
minute
does it mean anything no it's what I
always do about this time of day it
means nothing all right
to be clear
I'm not defending Peter struck from
anything he did or did not do because I
I don't know you know I don't have
enough information but his explanation
true or untrue is completely credible
now you shouldn't be surprised that
somebody with his experience could have
a defense that sounds credible
even if he's guilty right he has the
skill he has the experience to present a
completely credible defense even if it's
not true
so that's my point for now and I've got
to go do some other things
bye for now
