Episode 1655 Scott Adams - The Great Clinton Cover-Up, Russia Plays Chess, Freedom Breaking Out

and gentlemen welcome to the best thing that's ever happened to you today well for some of us it's even better than usual because today is officially the day that my state california dropped mass mandates for adults if they're vaccinated so that's not a clean win and the kids are kids still have to go to school with masks for at least two more weeks but my long road to hell and back just about completed because i don't have to worry about mandates because i am vaccinated whether that was a great decision or a bad one i suppose we'll find out if i clot up and die but so far so good which would mean there's a great possibility that i made it through the pandemic on the optimal path don't know that it's too early and anybody who claims that they you know at this point anybody who claims that they made all the right decisions a little premature a little premature but if i got through this with only two vaccinations and no boosters which gave me as much freedom as i could get and i got through it to the point where masks go away so that means they didn't keep that weird thing forever i also did not get infected now in theory i will but we do have lots more information about long coved which may or may not be true however let's do the simultaneous sip that's the important thing um all you need is a copper margaret glass of tanker shells it's time to canteen jugger flask vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the doping of the day the thing that makes everything better including freedom which is breaking down everywhere oh we're a long ways to go still we still gotta claw back but for now let's drink to freedom and the the truckers in canada were making us proud and enjoy your simultaneous sip oh yeah oh yeah that was a good one surprisingly zesty did anybody else find that a little zestier than normal was that just me i don't know i felt like it was like 10 to 15 extra zest in that one could be in my imagination well in california as i said the mass mandate is dropping at least from the state we'll see how the businesses deal with it but kids still have to wear them for two more weeks at least and then they'll reassess why do the children need to continue wearing masks for two weeks is it because we followed the science is that why is it is it the science well no because the science ignores reality so if the science makes the speculation that the kids are being masked and very comfortable they're very cautious all of the time except when they're in school then the science might and i say might because i don't think there's enough evidence for it but it might under those conditions suggest that asking children makes sense under the specific condition that when they walk out of the school they're still masking but in the real world in which everybody is aware the kids are massively masked from the moment they walk out the door they're actually unmasked between classes they actually walk out of the class they're allowed at least in in our town they're allowed to take off their mask because they're outdoors between the buildings they're hugging and you know joking and interacting with each other at close quarters and then they walk into the building and put on their mask and then they go to lunch and take off their masks and then they go home and have a sleepover or a super bowl party and they mingle without their masks now i'm not wrong that under those conditions you don't really have to address the science it would be one thing if this were some kind of a controlled situation where kids were always in masks then you'd say well we care about these children so much we'll keep them in masks completely until the danger is passed which would also not be a good idea but at least it would be consistent it would at least be consistent with science but how in the world does science pretend not to know that the kids are cheating massively on the masks to the point where it couldn't possibly make a difference that they're sitting you know in their isolated chairs in class in a well ventilated place it's just crazy at this point and and i think unforgivable honestly it's unforgivable you know the the rates of infection are way down 70 percent less infections and hospitalizations down 36 to 40 percent even washington dc is dropping mandates so we're seeing the mandates dropping how many of you thought we would wear masks forever did anybody think that now so you did some people actually were worried that the masks were a forever thing yeah no i never worried about that now the the mass the vaccine mandates uh those are stickier right there was no chance the masks were going to be forever i don't think but the mandates they might be they might be forever so unless that uh unless we see some motion there they might be uh rasmussen has a poll that says that 59 of americans support the canadian truckers 59 of americans that's a pretty solid majority right there for by american standards it's a solid majority and what is uh president uh or not president prime minister trudeau doing about it how many of you saw trudeau's press conferences press conference about the emergency powers so i guess uh uh yeah the uh carpe dunk doctor was just saying that imagine thinking that freedom breaking out is a national emergency that that's actually what's happening um so did how many of you saw the the press conference with uh trudeau explaining what he was doing now if you didn't see it i would strongly recommend it something's happening in my house right now that is unexplained anyway oh okay let me see what kind of trouble i in here first uh gotta fix a problem all right problem solved sorry about that um or not we'll see so here's what i want to say about trudeau's emergency powers uh press conference now i want to be very careful when i say this okay i want to be very careful when i say this um as you know my regular audience i'm a big supporter of the lgbtq community so i'm going to say something that if you heard it in the wrong context would sound like i was making fun of the lgbtq community which i'm not right so that's not what's going to happen but in terms of looking at our our politicians how they present themselves is part of the story would you agree that that the way we receive the message from our politicians is part of the story in addition to what the message itself is when i watch trudeau's press conference i see somebody and again this is not a criticism this is an observation the observation is he looks like he's transitioning did anybody else see it he looks like he's transitioning now some of you are saying that i'm seeing in the comments he was acting gay and i want to make it very clear here to all of you that none of this should be construed as anti-anybody this is simply an observation which because he's a leader it matters how we receive him and how we process it right but there's something about his haircut which suggests he's growing it out because who would go on tv with that haircut unless unless it was part of a larger strategy did you see his haircut i mean it it was way beyond you know the normal haircut i mean it looked like he's growing it out and he was talking with a let's say a mannerism which i had not heard before this sounded different did he not sound different as in more feminine and again that's not a criticism it's an observation and i'm not i'm not there's no hyperbole here i'm saying that there was something about his presentation which strongly suggested to me and it could be because the news has so much news about i don't know trans issues then maybe i'm just primed to see it or something but he looked like he was transitioning and it was very distracting and again i want to be very clear that's not a criticism because if he is transitioning that's his business not mine but it changes how you receive the message doesn't it and whether you whether you looked at it and thought well he's he's simply not acting very testosteroney that has an effect on you how you process it but to me it looked like somebody who knew his political life was over how many how many also picked that up and again this is just so subjective we're just reading speculation reading his mind you know none of this is real it's just how we feel about it and in a political context how you feel about it is kind of all that matters so i think it's fair game how i felt about it is it looked like a leader who had completely lost it just completely lost it and knew it and knew that his game was over basically and i think he's doing the best he can to try to act tough but he spent so much time not being tough that i just don't know if he could pull it off he didn't pull it off at all so that was interesting i loved uh donald trump's tweet about this uh as uh prime minister prime minister trudeau was acting somewhat authoritarian with his emergency powers uh and you sounded a little like mussolini but um donald trump jr tweets it with a different spelling the the moose part is spelled like a a moose the canadian moose so he's moose seleni pretty good pretty good it doesn't translate into verbal but if you saw it in writing you'd be laughing right now so i think it's a pretty big deal that uh that in washington dc they're dropping mandates because washington dc was being targeted by truckers wasn't it can you do me a fact check on this so aren't we a little bit surprised that washington dc dropped the man mandates already and was washington dc not targeted for the truckers and did they do that to was it was the point to get the you know to make sure there was no trucker insurrection so i don't know if those are related or not or just the timing work like that but to me the timing looks a little bit interesting um here's another uh me telling you i told you so way ahead of the news so the news is talking now about how russia and china are becoming more strategic allies they're not quite you know best friends but they're moving in that direction who is the first person who told you that that's like the biggest thing we have to worry about probably my audience probably heard it from me first is that true or does because i can't remember seeing it in the press until maybe just this week or last two weeks oh kissinger i guess kissinger beat me to it um so i you know it's not like i invented the idea obviously but in terms of how much it is on the front of your head i think i was warning warning you about this at least a year before it became headline news which is right now and sure enough this is a big thing to worry about so got that right um here's a random thing that is out of order in my notes so i'll just tell you so i saw a tweet by dr uh crush boo pendia who is uh in her bio she says she's india's first social media doctorate right so i assume that means she lives and works in india and she's a doctorate and she tweets this it's a quote by our own ed latimer now when i say our own i mean you know america's twitter and our own being he's well loved among a lot of people anyway so ed apparently said this and he's being quoted in the street when your words are capable of cutting through the fog and your signal is free of noise then you're a dangerously effective individual which i have two comments about number one that perfectly captures the joe rogan problem doesn't it it perfectly captures it joe rogan is dangerous because he's cutting through the fog and he's clear now the attacks on him are for misinformation but we wouldn't even be talking about him except that he can do this thing which is cut through the fog and simplify and you know sort of get to the the truth of things and and sure enough ed latimer is is correct and i would say that's a feature of what we're watching is the most effective voices being taken out because each side wants to silence the most effective voice on the other side and they're doing a good job taking pieces off the chessboard but here's the part that caught me by the that is sort of the story within the story that there's the uh indi india's first social media doctorate is quoting ed latimer do you know why somebody who is prominent on social media in india is quoting ed latimer in america because it turns out that ed latimer is the best example of his own point he's somebody whose words can cut through the fog and his signal is free of noise so if you want to know how much purchase you can get in this world by just being a good communicator look at ed latimer so he gets a lot of boost from people like me because what we see in him is a communication and a message that's first of all great messages and second of all his communication capability is stellar i mean it's really spectacular so this is one person who just by being good at talking i guess communicating i should say is becoming well known in india on the other side of the world just think about that i mean he's becoming famous around the world for just being good at saying stuff that's that's like a real thing that's happening right now anyway i thought that was worth it worth mentioning uh meanwhile uh and the ex-president of honduras is being arrested for allegedly being involved in some kind of you know drug trafficking case and some other electoral fraud and stuff electoral fraud didn't even know that was possibility but uh did you know that the united states can just tell honduras to elect to arrest their ex-president and then honduras will go do it because that's happening right now and we're acting like that's just completely normal would do we just ring up a neighboring country and say um we'd like you to arrest this guy and then they just round him up i don't know i guess that's is that healthy it's kind of weird because the context is we're talking about should russia have this control over ukraine right should russia have control over its neighboring countries at the same time we can just ring up honduras and say you know once you round up your ex-president and put him in jail now i'm not saying he doesn't deserve it and i'm not saying that this isn't normal business i mean because you know countries do contact other countries to get people arrested but this went a little smoothly is this supposed to go this smoothly uh hey we've got some evidence that your ex-president should be arrested could you get oh you're already arresting him thank you thank you could you turn he's already on the flight he's already on the way back it's like they're a little bit a little bit too friendly or something anyway let's talk about uh i will talk about the hillary clinton stuff in a minute but um let's talk about ukraine so the news is reporting that russia is uh withdrawing some troops from the ukraine border is that true well it's true that they announced it it's not true that apparently anybody's noticing any difference in troop strength probably just rotating some troops or some normal stuff maybe it's a chess move um some people are suggesting it's all part of putin's four-dimensional chess where he's trying to keep you guessing am i gonna attack am i not and it exhausts you you become psychologically exhausted but you know you get ready for the attack and then it's off and then you get ready and that's off and then he attacks so it could be that could be or it could be literally nothing or it could be just you know troops rotating whatever but let's talk about where that's going what's your current guess on whether putin will attack invasion yes or no in the comments give me your current opinion oh i'm seeing mostly no's interesting on locals you know the news on social media is mostly yes right and how about on oh my goodness i'm seeing some yeses on on youtube but mostly no's there as well oh all right what's happening here i'm a little confused about what i'm seeing is is this a reflection of the uniqueness of my live stream audience or is this actually a general opinion does the general public think there's not going to be attack because i would think that the media is telling us there will be wow all right take a minute to just drink this end will you i'm pretty sure the mainstream media is telling us that an attack is inevitable am i wrong and yet the public at least as represented by my live stream audience and i don't i don't know how unique this is that's the question none of you are believing this are you it's like you just you're not buying it at all did i do that to you partly how much of this is because what i said versus is it just obvious in some way or you just don't believe the news anymore wow are you as blown away are you as blown away by the other comments as i am are you surprised that people aren't expecting this to be an attack all right here's my current analysis as of today putin's calculation depends on the odds of success right so he's got the odds of success of actually you know conquering and holding whatever it is he wants to conquer and hold but then there's also the unknown you know how big will the the blowback be and sanctions etc how bad will that be so putin is dealing with massive unknowns but one of the unknowns that you and you and i and the rest of the world have discounted is whether he can succeed because we just look at the size of the army and say oh russia one of the biggest militaries and then you look at the ukraine you say okay not one of the biggest militaries this should be quick work right it should be like the united states just rolling up iraq and the iraq war should be like that right i'm not so sure because the the biggest wild card is what weapons ukraine has and i don't think putin knows do you do you think that putin knows what kind of military assets or even strategies will be used if he attacks because i keep hearing that he's amassing tanks can somebody who knows more about all things military explains something to me can you have a tank a tank group move against the modern army is that even a thing because i would think that modern technology would take out tanks more easily than anything could take out anything could you not and i'm just i don't know anything about the technology for tank killing but is there not already a missile that you can fire in the air that comes down approximately where all the tanks are but before it hits the ground it splits into 25 tank killing projectiles that just find the biggest metal thing and kill it like that doesn't already exist could couldn't you fire one missile that takes out an entire tank whatever you call it squadron or so i'm saying no um but here's the question would you know if it existed do you think that do you think that the public is aware of the weaponry that would actually be employed by ukraine with the help of the united states advisors if you know what i mean because all you need is you know the advisors standing nearby and saying okay ukrainians push this button now so then it's ukrainians using the weapons not us we just told them how to do it you don't think we've got some good stuff that the russians are afraid of i don't know either i'm just speculating but here's my current my current thinking is that one of the reasons that putin would build up a force and keep it there for a while is to see what the reaction is because that might scare up some information about what the response would be and he might be learning something he doesn't like in other words putin might have you know made sure that ukraine responded so they could see what the response would be militarily and then they didn't like the response and said oh crap this invasion isn't going to go so well i mean look what happened when the soviet union tried to attack afghanistan as long as afghanistan had modern weaponry and with the willingness to die they they did well so i think putin has a big unknown on what weaponry would be used against him and can you imagine if he attacked and lost imagine that just imagine a scenario where putin either got in there and couldn't get out and couldn't win like just got you know a few miles in or whatever got part of the country and then got bogged down what would that what would that do for the i don't know the credibility of russia's military strength it would be a disaster because right now people are afraid of the russian military but what if what if they were shown to be ineffective in an actual war it would be different right so i guess the argument would be that they've they've got some experience in georgia i guess scott fell for another hoax says chen which is the hoax all right um and i also wonder how expensive it is for putin to keep his army there idling i wonder if part of our strategy is to just break the bank sort of ronald reagan-like because reagan did the star wars thing which caused soviet union to overspend on defense which led to their demise in part could it be we're doing the same strategy of uh just trying to starve putin but maybe energy prices are so high that he's doing fine i don't know imagine if trump had been president all right so this is our favorite speculation imagine if trump had been president well number one trump would have been keeping the united states the number one producer of energy or at least you know way more than we are now and if trump had done that what would be the price of energy around the world it'd be lower wouldn't it and if the price of energy were lower wouldn't that come out of putin's pocket and into ours i think it would so is the real was the real strategic error when biden started crippling our own domestic energy because when he crippled our own energy stuff what he did was he basically transferred assets to russia and other places so i think from a military perspective trump was 100 that the the thing we had to get right is to have the biggest domestic energy program we have pump oil like crazy keep all of the prices for oil low and and basically degrade our enemies while we built up the capability to replace oil ourselves yeah i feel like we're not talking enough about the the military benefit of a domestic energy program and i feel like i feel like trump knew that in every way am i wrong i i don't think trump was simply operating on the hey energy is good for the country i think he was operating also on a you know a strategic global kind of a basis yeah that was probably the biggest thing that biden got wrong um speaking of uh of the left apparently there are conservative democrats which exist that are fighting the more liberal democrats in san francisco and three members of the san francisco school board uh are up for re-election and they're being challenged so the progressives on the school board are being challenged by the democrats so it might not even be the republicans who make any kind of head roads against the the super progressive part of the country it might be the democrats themselves having to having to shut it down so the democrats can still have power and so there'll be a civil war there happening new information on long tovid david boxenhorn tweeted today so there's a new study out and when i talk about studies what level of credibility should you put on any study that i talk about and i say hey there's a new study what should be your first impression of the credibility of the study low 50 would be the top the top if you put the odds of a new study being both accurate and telling you what you need to know it's not more than 50 percent so that should be your skeptical uh informed citizen starting point who would disagree with that any any pushback on that that if you don't know anything else about it the day you hear it never give it more than 50 percent credibility no you're saying 50 is too high for what it really is but i'm saying 50 is a cap if you found yourself thinking is more likely true than not you should check your thinking you should stop at could be true that that's the highest you should go not probably true not more likely to be true that's a little too far but possibly true that's that's as far as you should take it all right so here's the news there's some suggestion that we know or that we we have a good idea what causes long covet if long covered is real i know you have to play that skepticism in your head about everything right is long coveted even real it's a good question but apparently the evidence is mounting than it is and there's a constellation of symptoms that finally may have revealed what's going on which is this thing called a vagus i hope i'm pronouncing that right is it vagus nerve so there's a nerve that starts in the back your head and goes all the way down to your ass some would say it goes all the way down to your taint but in medical terms you don't talk about your taint you talk about the vagus nerve and the thinking is that the um the virus damages that uh at least you know potentially for a few months and maybe longer who knows but the damage to that would uh would give you all of the range of symptoms that people are having because it affects everything from i guess breathing to swallowing to talking dizziness heartbeat persistent voice problems did you know that i never heard that there was a persistent voice problem to long covert that's the first time i've heard that i'm not even sure i believe it but if that's true then it would be uh interesting and maybe tell us how we could treat it might also give us some insight about why it affects some people more than others sort of thing so i think that's just a watch and see all right here's the big story of the day how many of you were watching as the let's say as the durham filing recently showed on friday the durham filing suggested that the hillary clinton campaign had funded some spying spying into the phone records of trump both before he was in office and after and that the purpose of it was to gin up a phony narrative that trump was communicating with russia in a secret way now and then we all talked about how the mainstream media didn't touch it right so there were two stories one is the story itself and then the story of of how the news was being suppressed but the suppression is over the new york times just ran a a large story about it by charlie savage he wrote this and he has debunked the entire thing debunked the entire thing so what you thought was the hillary clinton campaign uh paying lawyers and that the lawyers working with the tech people got this information they shouldn't have had for the purpose of a narrative according to the new york times that's all fake news now let me tell you something about the news ecosystem if you wanted to debunk something that was true how would you do it how would you debunk something that was true like if you wanted to get somebody to say something that is true is not true how would you do it well if you were let's say a unknown person you'd go to social media and then who's going to believe it right it's just you on social media so that doesn't work let's say you go to a second-tier publication so whatever you want to call a second tier and you get them to say yeah i i debunked this would that work well it would help you tweet things you'd have something to tweet but probably not that wouldn't make that much of a difference but if you were the democratic party and you had access to the most powerful everything including people in the press how would you make a true story disappear here's how you would do it you would contact somebody who worked at the new york times primarily right second choice would be the washington post but first choice by far is the new york times and you would have them write a debunking piece that once the new york times has said it's debunked all of the lesser entities can just say well you don't believe me but look at the new york times because that's the standard for news so the new york times is doing exactly what you would expect if the clinton campaign had corrupted them to write a cover story to debunk something that actually was true now i'm not making that allegation so i'm not i'm not saying that's what happened i'm saying that if a top democrat wanted to debunk something that was true it would look exactly like this anybody disagree this is this is exactly what it would look like if the fix were in but it's also exactly what it would look like if the story wasn't true when they were just debunking it but let's see what he says and we should be able to tell pretty quickly by how he handles the story whether he's really debunking it and the whole thing was bs or if it's a trying to cover up something and there's no debunk that's real what do you think before i go through it do you think the debunk will stand up or will it be transparent let's see your vote before i go on all right um so here are some of the claims um they're saying that fox news is inaccurately declaring uh this is what charlie savage says in new york times it says that fox news is inaccurately declared that mr durham had said he had evidence that hillary clinton's campaign had paid a technology company to infiltrate a white house server did fox news ever say that almost almost fox news said something like that but not that so what he did was he set up a straw man a thing that fox news did not say and then he debunked it now how many people will reading the new york times also watch fox news to know that what they're debunking is not what they said not many this is why it's so genius there's almost no crossover between people who watch fox news and new york times so if you're only trying to convince your side that something is true you just say fox news says that unicorns can fly and we proved it's not true would you know that fox news never claimed that unicorns can fly you would not you would just accept that they probably said that and it's debunked this is really clever stuff i mean clever even though it's like right in your face and obvious and but clever in the sense that it works all right let's go on what else do they say to debunk the story now first of all it's my understanding can you give me a fact check my understanding is that there is no claim that hillary clinton directly played paid the tech company my understanding is that clinton paid a law firm or somebody associated with it to get some information and then the lawyer got it from the tech company is that true so if what they're debunking is the campaign paying the tech company to spy that was never the claims it wasn't i don't think that what he's debunking is the actual claim he's taking out the middle part the lawyers which is the part that holds that makes the whole story hold together so he's acting like they said there was there were no lawyers in the middle even though they are mentioned but it's mentioned in a way that you know it's let's say it looks like it's intentionally misleading that's what it looks like we don't know what anybody's thinking so i can't read his mind but as a reader it comes across as intentionally trying to mislead me i don't know that that's true but that's how i'm receiving it um so charlie savage also says uh the washington examiner claimed that this all meant there had been spying on mr trump's white house office and when mainstream publications held back mr trump and his allies began shaming them so now they're claiming that the reason that people held back is that there was nothing there that's not true do you think that's that's true there was nothing there and that's the reason everybody held back you know at the very least they would be doing the story about how the story is wrong right at the very least they waited for new york times to go first do you know why because they knew if they went first it wouldn't be credible you needed somebody to write a long complicated story that nobody understood so that everybody from that point on could just point to the story what do you think the news will be talking about on cnn today cnn will be able to say the new york times debunked this and then the cnn viewers will say did they i don't know i didn't read that story but if all these people on cnn are saying it's debunked it must be debunked so the way they're going to sell this is effectively it will work it is working all right here's some more um that nothing is news so so part of the defense or the debunk is that nothing new oh not all of it but for one much of this was not new and then they go on to say that the new york times had reported some of this in october that what mr sussman i guess this is one of the lawyers had told the caa about data suggesting that russian-made smartphones were connected to networks at trump tower and the white house so new york times is saying we did report this so it's not new but of course the whole point of it is that it was reported fakely so they're claiming that they had already reported it without noting that what they reported was the fake narrative so they're claiming that it's old news by showing their own fake news the part that was the narrative not the real news the narrative part that the democrats planted unbelievable now how many people are going to do what i did which is pour through this compare it to the durham report and see how completely uh unethical all of this looks nobody almost nobody all right about talk a little though here's some other uh other things they say let's say the conservative media also skewed what the filing said for example mr durham's filing never used the word infiltrate well did the conservative media say that he said infiltrate i don't believe they claimed he said infiltrate that sounds like their own word uh what does the word infiltrate mean i mean without look could somebody look it up while while we're doing this put it in the comments just paste it what's the definition definition of infiltrate well i would think it would mean get in somewhere you don't belong and guess some stuff it means spying right i feel like that would be a fair characterization if the facts were the way they thought the facts were let's go on so they're arguing with infiltrate as if it mattered that durham didn't use that word but that didn't matter right so it's a it's a fake debunk they're debunking fox news's word because durham didn't use it but that's not the point it doesn't matter if durham used it what he described sounds a little like infiltrating doesn't it now whether it happened or not is a good question but whether you characterize it as infiltrating doesn't seem like the big question here all right um uh and most important they this is the new york times says uh contrary to the reporting from the conservatives the filing never said the white house data that came under scrutiny was from the trump era that is correct so this debunk correctly says that the filing never said the white house data came under scrutiny was from the trump era but that's not a debunk that's what the story is so notice that they're acting like this is a debunk but what they're saying is the same thing that the actual story says that it was not all from the trump era that being the entire point of the durham complaint that they should have told the i guess law enforcement should have been told that this data came both before trump's era and after and since that part was left out the implication was they were selling a narrative which was a lie the narrative was that something about the trump administration is what activated these sketchy looking contacts with russia but apparently they had been going on since 2014.

so the new york times is acting like they're debunking exactly what conservative media also agrees is true so they're saying something that agrees completely with conservative media but because you don't know what conservative media is if you're a new york times reader they can say they're debunking it while completely agreeing with it now keep in mind all of this is in the context of a big complicated piece if you read this without knowing the other side you know the side that i'm trying to present here if you didn't know any of that you would not suspect anything was missing this is so diabolical all right um and then there they quote lawyers for you know some of the people who are accused of stuff and the lawyers say what trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong say the blah blah blah lawyers for mr dagan now of course the story does need to quote both sides you know they're both sides but they're just saying they're wrong and then they go on and say that this is the reason wrong according to the lawyers they say the cyber security researchers were investigating malware in the white house we don't know that could be true could be not not spying on the trump campaign and to our knowledge all the data they used was non-private dns data from before trump took office that's just not true can you do a fact check on that i believe what the lawyers are saying is unambiguously not true and the new york times knows it's not true and they're only reporting in the same story and and the conservative news knows it's not true am i right somebody says it is true i'm saying that the dns data included before trump and after trump and the lawyers are saying it was only before trump do you think the lawyers are correct if the lawyer if the lawyers are correct then all the reporting is wrong which is possible well this is pretty sketchy i don't know what's true about that um and also it seems to me that the tech people did have legal access to the data but did the tech people have uh did they have authority to give it to the clinton campaign is it the big question how did that information get into the hands of the clinton campaign that's the question right or am i missing the big question so it's not that the tech people were spying is that the tech people gave information to somebody who was spying like that's different well it's different in one sense it's different in the sense that the accusation would be about the middle people more than the tech people but why did the tech people even give that information to anybody i know did they have access so so there's so many questions in this you can see how easy it's going to be to confuse this to the point where you're not sure what's true um somebody's claiming they're apolitical that's bs um and then the then the new york times just throws this in like it's a fact so without uh without a uh a link or anything they say or charlie savage says after russians hacked networks for the white house and the democrats in 2015 and 2016 it went on wait a minute is that true do you believe that russia hacked networks for the white house and the democrats in 2015.

i know it was reported but do you believe it's true i believe we can't tell i believe it was reported as true but we don't know because if you're telling me that hackers can't cover their tracks i don't know what world i live in do we live in a world where hackers can't cover their tracks i thought they could why does hacking even exist it seems like it'd be hard to be a hacker if you couldn't cover your tracks all right so i thought that was interesting they slip it in there like that's unquestionably true i certainly question it and then they they say a spokesman for mr durham declined to comment toward the end but why would mr durham decline to comment shouldn't that also include the statement that of course he doesn't comment because you never comment during the investigation so acting like he wouldn't comment makes him look guilty of saying something wrong well he didn't comment but that's not the case it's just something where you don't comment uh now what do you think about this the cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware do you think that in the course of investigating malware that's what caused them to find out all these weird russia server connections maybe possibly but i'd have to see why why looking into one got you the information on the other it could i mean that's not impossible but it doesn't sound true even if it is anyway it looks to me like the new york times is running cover for this story by pumping out a bunch of uh inaccurate statements of what um the conservatives are saying and also trying to sort of obscure that connection between the uh the campaign and the and the data all right anything else happening nope that's it that's what's happening uh read up more of this and get back to us tomorrow the the problem is that no matter how much i read up on it uh if i got to the point where i understood it then the explaining to you would be too complicated so this is sort of a situation that can't be explained because it's just too complicated so when you have a situation that can't be explained the best way to hide it is to have the new york times pretend they're debunking it and then just call it good and walk away and it looks like that's what's going to happen and it looks like it's working um you are unable to explain something well unable in these in the specific sense that if something is detailed and complicated and all of the complication matters what are you going to do there are there is a category of things that i is one of my favorite mental hobbies is thinking about things that can't be communicated sometimes because they're too complicated but sometimes because there's nobody you could trust yeah the only people who know the information for sure are the ones you can't trust at all and that so there's there are situations where things simply can't be communicated and this might be one you'd have to litigate it in court yeah so if we were if we were going to simplify the case of whether it's debunked or not i think it comes down to did the clinton campaign ask lawyers that they paid to get some information to create a narrative that they knew was false and the new york times did not debunk that they they pretended the story was a little bit different and debunked the different parts canada has just removed all civil liberties not worth a comment well here's my comment on uh i did talk about trudeau i think that canada is in good shape so i'm liking what i'm seeing in canada um i believe that the great claw back is is underway clawing back our rights around the world not just the us and that the uh the truckers are going to get what they want i think in the long run but it might require removing their government first so i do think that the truckers took out the trudeau government do you agree i think trudeau is done i mean it's hard for me to read the room in canada but from my perspective i think he's completely done am i wrong about that because i can't imagine that even his low approval rating as it exists i i can't imagine it survives this you know this doesn't look like anything that biden's doing compare compare the way um biden is running things even if you don't like it to how trudeau ran things right you you could think biden did a ton of things wrong and it doesn't come close to what trudeau is doing to his country right now it doesn't come close not not on an emotional level not on an ethical level not on a moral level not in anything you know biden to me biden just looks like somebody who's trying to do the best he can whatever is happening in canada doesn't look like that to me it looks like it looks like a personality problem it does it looks like trudeau painted himself in a corner and can't get out it doesn't look like a a candidate problem it looks like one person has a problem and and he's making that his personal political problem is becoming the country's problem now this said there are a number of my critics who said scott don't you understand the importance of keeping the keeping things open to which i say that's the point that's the point the point is that the the country has at least a segment of the country has reached the point where they will shoot themselves in their own head before they will give up their freedom do you know how the only way that can be communicated shoot yourself in your own head that's the only way anybody's ever going to believe it and the truckers are doing that the the truckers are calling the bluff like i've never seen a bluff called in my life they are calling the frickin bluff and so when trudeau is acting like he only has one choice no he has another choice freedom freedom's always the choice now that would probably kill more people but he's got a choice and i think the public's here's what i think trudeau did completely wrong and i would argue that biden got this wrong as well but not as wrong trudeau did not respect the opinion on the other side big mistake big mistake i i think he could have done everything he's doing now and said you know i totally hear you i totally hear you if you'll get out of the trucks i'll put you on tv we'll talk about it on tv you know i think your message is important and i i appreciate anybody who's fighting for freedom he he should have been on their side while disagreeing with him you know what i mean had he been more capable he would have been solidly on the side of the truckers while trying to stop them and he could have done that trump could have done it am i wrong you don't think trump could have threatened that needle he could have trump could have cited let's say it had been an american problem trump could have sided with the blue-collar workers and he could have stopped them nobody else could have done that i don't think i don't think there's anybody else who could have done that now of course speculation because he didn't have to do it but i don't think anybody could have thread the needle like that and this was this was trudeau's opportunity to be at least as clever as trump in managing the room trump can manage the room he doesn't manage the press because that's that's a different issue but um he can manage the room yeah all right that is my show for today i hope you liked it it's the best thing you'll ever see today and i'll talk to you tomorrow

and gentlemen welcome

to the best thing that's ever happened

to you

today well for some of us

it's even better than usual

because today

is officially

the day that my state california

dropped

mass mandates

for adults

if they're vaccinated

so that's not a clean win and the kids

are

kids still have to go to school with

masks for at least two more weeks

but

my long road to hell

and back

just about completed

because i don't have to worry about

mandates because i am vaccinated whether

that was a great decision or a bad one i

suppose we'll find out if i

clot up and die but so far so good

which would mean

there's a great possibility

that i made it through the pandemic on

the optimal path

don't know that it's too early and

anybody who claims that they

you know at this point anybody who

claims that they made all the right

decisions a little premature

a little premature

but

if i got through this

with only two vaccinations and no

boosters

which gave me as much freedom as i could

get

and i got through it

to the point where masks go away so that

means they didn't keep that

weird thing forever

i also did not get infected

now in theory i will

but we do have lots more information

about long coved which may or may not be

true

however

let's do the simultaneous sip that's the

important thing

um all you need is a copper margaret

glass of tanker shells it's time to

canteen jugger flask vessel of any kind

fill it with your favorite liquid

i like coffee and join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure of the doping of

the day the thing that makes everything

better including freedom which is

breaking down everywhere

oh we're a long ways to go still we

still gotta claw back

but for now let's drink to freedom and

the the truckers in canada were making

us proud and

enjoy your simultaneous

sip oh yeah oh yeah that was a good one

surprisingly

zesty

did anybody else find that a little

zestier than normal

was that just me

i don't know i felt like it was like 10

to 15 extra zest in that one

could be in my imagination

well in california as i said the mass

mandate is dropping at least from the

state we'll see how the businesses deal

with it but

kids still have to wear them for two

more weeks at least and then they'll

reassess

why do the children need to continue

wearing masks for two weeks

is it because

we followed the science is that why

is it is it the science

well no

because the science ignores reality

so if the science

makes the speculation that the kids are

being masked and very comfortable

they're very cautious all of the time

except when they're in school

then the science might and i say might

because i don't think there's enough

evidence for it but it might under those

conditions

suggest that asking children makes sense

under the specific condition

that when they walk out of the school

they're still masking

but in the real world in which everybody

is aware

the kids are massively masked from the

moment they walk out the door

they're actually unmasked between

classes

they actually walk out of the class

they're allowed at least in in our town

they're allowed to take off their mask

because they're outdoors

between the buildings

they're hugging and you know joking and

interacting with each other at close

quarters

and then they walk into the building and

put on their mask

and then they go to lunch and take off

their masks

and then they go home and have a

sleepover or a super bowl party

and they mingle without their masks

now

i'm not wrong

that under those conditions

you don't really have to

address the science

it would be one thing if this were some

kind of a controlled situation where

kids were always in masks

then you'd say well we care about these

children so much we'll keep them in

masks completely until the danger is

passed which

would also not be a good idea but at

least it would be consistent

it would at least be consistent with

science but how in the world

does science pretend not to know

that the kids are cheating massively on

the masks to the point where it couldn't

possibly make a difference that they're

sitting you know in their isolated

chairs in class in a well ventilated

place

it's just crazy at this point and

and i think unforgivable

honestly

it's unforgivable

you know the the rates of infection are

way down 70 percent less infections and

hospitalizations down 36 to 40 percent

even washington dc is dropping mandates

so we're seeing the mandates

dropping

how many of you thought we would wear

masks forever

did anybody think that

now so

you did

some people actually were worried that

the masks were a forever thing

yeah no i never worried about that

now the the mass the vaccine mandates

uh those are stickier right

there was no chance the masks were going

to be forever i don't think

but the mandates they might be

they might be forever

so unless that uh

unless we see some motion there

they might be

uh rasmussen has a poll that says that

59 of americans support the canadian

truckers

59 of americans

that's a pretty solid majority right

there for by american standards it's a

solid majority

and what is uh president uh or not

president prime minister trudeau doing

about it

how many of you saw

trudeau's press conferences press

conference about the emergency powers

so i guess uh

uh yeah

the uh carpe

dunk doctor was just saying that imagine

thinking that freedom breaking out is a

national emergency

that

that's actually what's happening

um

so

did how many of you saw the the press

conference with uh trudeau

explaining what he was doing

now if you didn't see it i would

strongly recommend it

something's happening in my house right

now

that is unexplained

anyway

oh okay

let me see what kind of trouble i in

here first

uh

gotta fix a problem

all right problem solved sorry about

that um

or not we'll see so

here's what i want to say about

trudeau's emergency powers uh press

conference

now i want to be very careful when i say

this

okay

i want to be very careful when i say

this

um

as you know

my regular audience i'm a big supporter

of the lgbtq community

so i'm going to say something that if

you heard it in the wrong context would

sound like i was making fun of the lgbtq

community which i'm not

right so that's not what's going to

happen

but

in terms of looking at our

our politicians

how they present themselves is part of

the story would you agree

that that the way we receive the message

from our politicians is part of the

story

in addition to what the message itself

is

when i watch trudeau's press conference

i see somebody and again

this is not a criticism

this is an observation

the observation is he looks like he's

transitioning

did anybody else see it

he looks like he's transitioning

now some of you are saying that i'm

seeing in the comments he was acting gay

and i want to make it very clear here to

all of you

that none of this should be construed as

anti-anybody

this is simply an observation

which because he's a leader

it matters how we receive him and how we

process it right but

there's something about his haircut

which suggests he's growing it out

because who would go on tv with that

haircut unless unless it was part of a

larger strategy

did you see his haircut

i mean it it was way beyond

you know the normal haircut i mean it

looked like he's growing it out

and he was talking with a

let's say a mannerism which i had not

heard before

this sounded different

did he not sound different

as in more feminine

and again that's not a criticism

it's an observation and i'm not i'm not

there's no hyperbole here i'm saying

that there was something about his

presentation

which strongly suggested to me and it

could be because the news

has so much news about

i don't know

trans issues then maybe i'm just primed

to see it or something but he looked

like he was transitioning

and it was very distracting

and again i want to be very clear

that's not a criticism because if he is

transitioning

that's his business not mine

but

it changes how you receive the message

doesn't it

and whether you whether you looked at it

and thought well he's

he's simply not acting very

testosteroney

that has an effect on you

how you process it

but to me it looked like somebody who

knew his political life was over

how many how many also picked that up

and again this is just so subjective

we're just reading speculation

reading his mind you know none of this

is real it's just how we feel about it

and in a political context how you feel

about it is kind of all that matters so

i think it's fair game how i felt about

it is it looked like a leader who had

completely lost it

just completely lost it and knew it

and knew that

his game was over basically and i think

he's doing the best he can to try to act

tough

but he spent so much time not being

tough

that

i just don't know if he could pull it

off he didn't pull it off at all

so

that was interesting i loved uh donald

trump's tweet about this

uh as

uh prime minister prime minister trudeau

was acting somewhat authoritarian

with his emergency powers

uh

and you sounded a little like mussolini

but um

donald trump jr tweets it with a

different spelling the the moose part is

spelled like a a moose the canadian

moose

so he's moose seleni

pretty good pretty good it doesn't

translate into verbal but if you saw it

in writing you'd be laughing right now

so

i think it's a pretty big deal that uh

that in washington dc they're dropping

mandates because washington dc was

being targeted by truckers wasn't it

can you do me a fact check on this

so aren't we a little bit surprised that

washington dc

dropped the man mandates already

and was washington dc not targeted for

the truckers

and did they do that to

was it was the point to get the you know

to make sure there was no trucker

insurrection

so i don't know if those are related or

not or just the timing work like that

but to me the timing looks a little bit

interesting

um here's another uh me telling you i

told you so way ahead of the news

so the news is talking now about how

russia

and china are becoming more strategic

allies they're not quite you know best

friends but they're moving in that

direction

who is the first person who told you

that that's like the biggest thing we

have to worry about

probably my audience probably heard it

from me first is that true

or does

because i can't remember seeing it in

the press

until maybe just this week

or last two weeks

oh kissinger

i guess kissinger beat me to it

um

so i you know it's not like i invented

the idea obviously but in terms of how

much it is on the front of your head

i think i was warning warning you about

this at least a year before it became

headline news which is right now

and sure enough

this is a big thing to worry about

so got that right

um

here's a random thing that is out of

order in my notes so i'll just tell you

so i saw a tweet by dr uh crush boo

pendia

who is uh in her bio she says she's

india's first social media doctorate

right so

i assume that means she lives and works

in india and she's a doctorate

and

she tweets this it's a quote by our own

ed latimer now when i say our own

i mean you know

america's twitter

and our own being

he's well loved among a lot of people

anyway

so ed apparently said this and he's

being quoted in the street when your

words are capable of cutting through the

fog and your signal is free of noise

then you're a dangerously effective

individual

which i have two comments about number

one that perfectly captures the joe

rogan problem doesn't it

it perfectly captures it joe rogan is

dangerous because he's cutting through

the fog

and he's clear

now the attacks on him are for

misinformation

but

we wouldn't even be talking about him

except that he can do this thing which

is cut through the fog and simplify and

you know sort of get to the the truth of

things

and and sure enough ed latimer is is

correct and i would say that's a feature

of what we're watching

is the most effective voices being taken

out

because each side wants to silence the

most effective voice on the other side

and they're doing a good job

taking pieces off the chessboard but

here's the part that caught me by the

that is sort of the story within the

story

that there's the uh

indi india's first social media

doctorate

is quoting ed latimer

do you know why

somebody who is prominent

on social media in india is quoting ed

latimer in america

because it turns out that ed latimer is

the best example of his own point

he's somebody whose words can cut

through the fog and his signal is free

of noise

so

if you want to know

how much

purchase you can get in this world

by just being a good communicator

look at ed latimer

so he gets a lot of boost from people

like me

because what we see in him is a

communication

and a message that's first of all great

messages

and second of all

his communication capability is

stellar i mean it's really spectacular

so

this is one person who just by being

good at talking

i guess communicating i should say

is

becoming well known in india on the

other side of the world

just think about that

i mean he's becoming famous around the

world

for just being good at saying stuff

that's that's like a real thing that's

happening right now

anyway i thought that was worth it worth

mentioning

uh meanwhile uh and the ex-president of

honduras is being arrested

for allegedly being involved in some

kind of you know drug trafficking case

and

some other electoral fraud and stuff

electoral fraud

didn't even know that was possibility

but uh

did you know that the united states can

just tell honduras to elect to arrest

their ex-president and then honduras

will go do it

because that's happening right now

and we're acting like that's just

completely normal

would do we just ring up a neighboring

country and say um we'd like you to

arrest this guy

and then they just round him up

i don't know i guess that's is that

healthy

it's kind of weird because the context

is we're talking about should russia

have this control over ukraine

right

should russia have control over its

neighboring countries at the same time

we can just ring up honduras and say you

know once you round up your ex-president

and put him in jail

now i'm not saying he doesn't deserve it

and i'm not saying that this isn't

normal business i mean because you know

countries do contact other countries to

get people arrested but this went a

little smoothly

is this supposed to go this smoothly

uh hey we've got some evidence that your

ex-president should be arrested could

you get oh you're already arresting him

thank you thank you could you turn he's

already on the flight he's already on

the way back

it's like they're a little bit a little

bit too friendly

or something

anyway let's talk about uh

i will talk about the hillary clinton

stuff in a minute but

um let's talk about ukraine

so the news is reporting that russia is

uh withdrawing some troops

from the ukraine border

is that true

well it's true that they announced it

it's not true that apparently anybody's

noticing any difference in troop

strength

probably just rotating some troops or

some normal stuff maybe it's a chess

move

um some people are suggesting it's all

part of putin's four-dimensional chess

where he's trying to keep you guessing

am i gonna attack am i not and it

exhausts you you become psychologically

exhausted but you know you get ready for

the attack

and then it's off and then you get ready

and that's off and then he attacks

so it could be that could be or it could

be literally nothing or it could be just

you know troops rotating whatever

but let's talk about

where that's going

what's your current guess on whether

putin will attack

invasion yes or no in the comments give

me your current opinion

oh i'm seeing mostly no's interesting on

locals

you know the news on social media is

mostly yes right

and how about on

oh my goodness

i'm seeing some yeses on on youtube but

mostly no's there as well

oh all right what's happening here

i'm a little confused about what i'm

seeing

is is this a reflection of the

uniqueness of my live stream audience

or is this actually a general opinion

does the general public think there's

not going to be attack

because i would think that the media is

telling us there will be

wow all right take a minute to just

drink this end will you

i'm pretty sure the mainstream media is

telling us that an attack is inevitable

am i wrong

and yet the public at least as

represented by my live stream audience

and i don't i don't know how unique this

is that's the question

none of you are believing this are you

it's like you just you're not buying it

at all

did i do that to you

partly

how much of this is because what i said

versus is it just obvious in some way or

you just don't believe the news anymore

wow

are you as blown away are you as blown

away by the other comments as i am

are you surprised that people aren't

expecting this to be an attack

all right here's my current analysis as

of today

putin's calculation depends on

the odds of success

right so he's got the odds of success of

actually you know conquering and holding

whatever it is he wants to conquer and

hold but then there's also the unknown

you know how big will the the blowback

be and

sanctions etc how bad will that be so

putin is dealing with massive unknowns

but one of the unknowns that you and you

and i and the rest of the world

have discounted

is whether he can succeed

because we just look at the size of the

army and say oh

russia one of the biggest militaries

and then you look at the ukraine you say

okay not one of the biggest militaries

this should be

quick work right it should be like the

united states just rolling up iraq and

the iraq war should be like that right

i'm not so sure

because the the biggest wild card is

what weapons ukraine has

and i don't think putin knows

do you do you think that putin knows

what kind of

military assets or even strategies will

be used if he attacks

because i keep hearing that he's

amassing tanks

can somebody who knows more about

all things military explains something

to me

can you have a tank

a tank group move against the modern

army

is that even a thing

because i would think that modern

technology would take out tanks

more easily than anything could take out

anything

could you not

and i'm just i don't know anything about

the technology for tank killing

but is there not already

a missile that you can fire in the air

that comes down approximately where all

the tanks are

but before it hits the ground it splits

into

25 tank killing projectiles that just

find the biggest metal thing and kill it

like that doesn't already exist

could couldn't you fire one missile that

takes out an entire

tank

whatever you call it squadron or

so i'm saying no

um

but here's the question would you know

if it existed

do you think that do you think that the

public is aware of the weaponry

that would actually be employed by

ukraine

with the help of the united states

advisors if you know what i mean

because all you need is you know the

advisors standing nearby and saying okay

ukrainians push this button now

so then it's ukrainians using the

weapons not us

we just told them how to do it

you don't think we've got some good

stuff that the russians are afraid of

i don't know either i'm just speculating

but here's my current my current

thinking is that one of the reasons that

putin

would build up a force and keep it there

for a while

is to see what the reaction is

because that might scare up some

information about what the response

would be

and he might be learning something he

doesn't like

in other words putin might have you know

made sure that ukraine responded

so they could see what the response

would be militarily

and then they didn't like the response

and said oh crap this invasion isn't

going to go so well

i mean look what happened when the

soviet union tried to attack afghanistan

as long as afghanistan had modern

weaponry

and with the willingness to die they

they did well

so i think putin has a big unknown on

what weaponry would be used against him

and can you imagine if he attacked and

lost

imagine that

just imagine a scenario where putin

either

got in there and couldn't get out and

couldn't win

like just got you know a few miles in or

whatever got part of the country and

then got bogged down

what would that what would that do for

the

i don't know

the credibility of russia's military

strength it would be a disaster

because right now people are afraid of

the russian military

but what if what if they were shown to

be ineffective in an actual war

it would be different

right

so i guess the argument would be that

they've they've got some experience in

georgia i guess

scott fell for another hoax

says chen

which is the hoax

all right um

and i also wonder how expensive it is

for putin to keep his army there idling

i wonder if part of our strategy is to

just

break the bank sort of ronald

reagan-like

because reagan did the star wars thing

which caused soviet union to overspend

on defense which

led to their demise in part

could it be we're doing the same

strategy

of uh just trying to starve

putin but maybe energy prices are so

high that he's doing fine i don't know

imagine if

trump had been president

all right so this is our favorite

speculation imagine if trump had been

president well number one trump would

have been

keeping the united states the number one

producer of energy or at least

you know way more than we are now

and if trump had done that what would be

the price of energy around the world

it'd be lower wouldn't it

and if the price of energy were lower

wouldn't that

come out of putin's pocket and into ours

i think it would

so

is the real was the real strategic error

when biden started crippling our own

domestic energy

because when he crippled our own energy

stuff

what he did was he basically transferred

assets to russia

and other places

so i think from a military perspective

trump was 100

that the the thing we had to get right

is to have the biggest domestic energy

program we have

pump oil like crazy

keep all of the prices for oil low

and

and basically degrade our enemies while

we built up the capability to replace

oil ourselves

yeah

i feel like we're not talking enough

about the the military benefit of a

domestic energy program and i feel like

i feel like trump

knew that in every way

am i wrong

i i don't think trump was simply

operating on the hey energy is good for

the country i think he was operating

also on a

you know a strategic

global kind of a basis

yeah

that was probably the biggest thing that

biden got wrong

um speaking of uh

of the left apparently there are

conservative democrats which exist

that are fighting the more liberal

democrats in san francisco and three

members of the san francisco school

board

uh are up for

re-election and they're being challenged

so the progressives on the school board

are being challenged by the democrats

so it might not even be the republicans

who make any kind of head roads against

the the super progressive part of the

country it might be the democrats

themselves having to

having to shut it down so the democrats

can still have power

and so there'll be a civil war there

happening

new information on long tovid

david boxenhorn tweeted today

so there's a new study out and when i

talk about studies

what level of credibility should you put

on any study that i talk about and i say

hey there's a new study

what should be your first

impression of the credibility of the

study low

50 would be the top

the top

if you put the odds of a new study being

both accurate and telling you what you

need to know

it's not more than 50 percent

so that should be your

skeptical uh informed citizen starting

point

who would disagree with that any any

pushback on that that if you don't know

anything else about it the day you hear

it

never give it more than 50 percent

credibility

no

you're saying 50 is too high for what it

really is

but i'm saying 50 is a cap

if you found yourself thinking is more

likely true than not

you should check your thinking

you should stop at could be true

that that's the highest you should go

not probably true

not more likely to be true that's a

little too far

but possibly true

that's that's as far as you should take

it

all right so here's the news

there's some suggestion that we know or

that we we have a good idea what causes

long covet

if long covered is real

i know you have to play that skepticism

in your head about everything right

is long coveted even real

it's a good question

but apparently the evidence is mounting

than it is and there's a constellation

of symptoms that finally

may have revealed what's going on which

is this thing called a vagus

i hope i'm pronouncing that right is it

vagus nerve

so there's a nerve that starts in the

back your head and goes all the way down

to your ass

some would say it goes all the way down

to your taint

but

in medical terms

you don't talk about your taint

you talk about the vagus nerve

and the thinking is that the um the

virus damages that

uh at least you know potentially for a

few months

and maybe longer who knows

but the damage to that would uh

would give you all of the range of

symptoms that people are having

because it affects everything from i

guess

breathing to

swallowing to talking dizziness

heartbeat

persistent voice problems did you know

that i never heard that there was a

persistent voice problem to long covert

that's the first time i've heard that

i'm not even sure i believe it

but if that's true then it would be uh

interesting and maybe

tell us how we could treat it

might also give us some insight about

why it affects some people more than

others sort of thing so i think that's

just a watch and see all right here's

the big story of the day

how many of you were watching as the

let's say as the durham filing recently

showed on friday

the durham filing suggested that the

hillary clinton campaign

had funded

some spying

spying

into the phone records of trump both

before he was in office and after

and that the purpose of it was to

gin up a phony narrative

that trump was communicating with russia

in a secret way

now

and then we all talked about how the

mainstream

media didn't touch it right

so there were two stories one is the

story itself

and then the story of

of how the news was being suppressed

but

the suppression is over

the new york times just ran a a large

story about it by charlie savage he

wrote this

and he has debunked the entire thing

debunked the entire thing so what you

thought was the hillary clinton campaign

uh paying lawyers

and that the lawyers working with the

tech people got this information they

shouldn't have had for the purpose of a

narrative

according to the new york times that's

all fake news

now let me tell you something about the

news ecosystem

if you wanted to debunk something that

was true

how would you do it

how would you debunk something that was

true

like if you wanted to get somebody to

say something that is true is not true

how would you do it

well if you were

let's say a

unknown person you'd go to social media

and then who's going to believe it right

it's just you on social media

so that doesn't work let's say you go to

a second-tier

publication

so whatever you want to call a second

tier and you get them to say yeah

i i debunked this would that work

well it would help you tweet things

you'd have something to tweet but

probably not that wouldn't make that

much of a difference

but if you were the democratic party

and you had access to the most powerful

everything including people in the press

how would you make a true story

disappear

here's how you would do it you would

contact somebody who worked at the new

york times

primarily

right second choice would be the

washington post but first choice by far

is the new york times and you would have

them write a debunking piece

that once the new york times has said

it's debunked all of the lesser entities

can just say well

you don't believe me but look at the new

york times

because that's the standard for news

so the new york times

is doing exactly what you would expect

if the clinton campaign had corrupted

them

to write a cover story

to debunk something that actually was

true

now i'm not making that allegation

so i'm not i'm not saying that's what

happened

i'm saying that if

a top democrat wanted to debunk

something that was true

it would look exactly like this

anybody disagree

this is this is exactly what it would

look like

if the fix were in

but it's also exactly what it would look

like

if the story wasn't true when they were

just debunking it

but let's see what he says

and we should be able to tell pretty

quickly

by how he handles the story

whether he's really debunking it and the

whole thing was bs or

if it's a

trying to cover up something and there's

no debunk that's real

what do you think

before i go through it do you think the

debunk will stand up or will it be

transparent

let's see your vote before i go on all

right

um so here are some of the claims

um they're saying that fox news is

inaccurately declaring

uh this is what charlie savage says in

new york times it says that fox news is

inaccurately declared that mr durham had

said he had evidence that hillary

clinton's campaign

had paid a technology company to

infiltrate a white house server

did fox news ever say that

almost

almost

fox news said something like that

but not that

so what he did was he set up a straw man

a thing that fox news did not say

and then he debunked it

now how many people will reading the new

york times also watch fox news

to know that what they're debunking is

not what they said

not many

this is why it's so genius there's

almost no crossover

between people who watch fox news and

new york times

so if you're only trying to convince

your side

that something is true

you just say fox news says that unicorns

can fly and we proved it's not true

would you know that fox news never

claimed that unicorns can fly

you would not you would just accept that

they probably said that and it's

debunked

this is really clever stuff

i mean

clever even though it's like right in

your face and obvious and

but clever in the sense that it works

all right let's go on what else do they

say to debunk the story

now first of all it's my understanding

can you give me a fact check

my understanding is that

there is no claim that hillary clinton

directly played paid the tech company

my understanding is that clinton paid a

law firm or somebody associated with it

to get some information and then the

lawyer

got it from the tech company

is that true

so if what they're debunking

is the campaign paying the tech company

to spy

that was never the claims

it wasn't

i don't think that what he's debunking

is the actual claim

he's taking out the middle part the

lawyers

which is the part that holds that makes

the whole story hold together

so he's acting like they said there was

there were no lawyers in the middle

even though they are mentioned but it's

mentioned in a way that

you know it's let's say it looks like

it's intentionally misleading

that's what it looks like we don't know

what anybody's thinking

so i can't read his mind but as a reader

it comes across as intentionally

trying to mislead me i don't know that

that's true but that's how i'm receiving

it

um so charlie savage also says

uh

the washington examiner claimed that

this all meant there had been spying on

mr trump's white house office

and when mainstream publications held

back mr trump and his allies began

shaming them so now they're claiming

that the reason that people held back is

that there was nothing there

that's not true

do you think that's that's true there

was nothing there and that's the reason

everybody held back

you know at the very least they would be

doing the story about how the story is

wrong

right at the very least

they waited for new york times to go

first do you know why

because they knew if they went first it

wouldn't be credible

you needed somebody to write a long

complicated story that nobody understood

so that everybody from that point on

could just point to the story

what do you think the news will be

talking about on cnn today

cnn will be able to say the new york

times debunked this

and then the cnn viewers will say did

they i don't know

i didn't read that story

but if all these people on cnn are

saying it's debunked it must be debunked

so the way they're going to sell this

is effectively

it will work it is working

all right here's some more

um that nothing is news so so part of

the defense or the debunk is that

nothing new

oh not all of it but for one much of

this was not new

and then they go on to say that the new

york times had reported some of this in

october

that what mr sussman

i guess this is one of the lawyers

had told the caa about data suggesting

that russian-made smartphones

were connected to networks at trump

tower and the white house

so new york times is saying we did

report this so it's not new

but of course the whole point of it is

that it was reported fakely

so they're claiming that they had

already reported it

without noting

that what they reported was the fake

narrative

so they're claiming that it's old news

by showing their own

fake news

the part that was the narrative not the

real news

the narrative part that the democrats

planted

unbelievable

now how many people are going to do what

i did which is pour through this compare

it to the durham report

and see how completely

uh unethical all of this looks

nobody

almost nobody

all right

about talk a little though

here's some other uh

other things they say let's say

the conservative media also skewed what

the filing said

for example mr durham's filing never

used the word infiltrate

well

did the conservative media say that he

said infiltrate

i don't believe they claimed he said

infiltrate that sounds like their own

word

uh what does the word infiltrate mean

i mean without look could somebody look

it up while while we're doing this put

it in the comments just paste it what's

the definition definition of infiltrate

well i would think

it would mean get in somewhere you don't

belong and guess some stuff

it means spying right

i feel like that would be a fair

characterization

if the facts were the way they thought

the facts were

let's go on so they're arguing with

infiltrate as if it mattered that durham

didn't use that word but that didn't

matter

right so it's a it's a fake debunk

they're debunking fox news's word

because durham didn't use it but that's

not the point it doesn't matter if

durham used it what he described

sounds a little like infiltrating

doesn't it

now whether it happened or not is a good

question

but

whether you characterize it as

infiltrating doesn't seem like the big

question here

all right um

uh

and most important they this is the new

york times says

uh contrary to the reporting from the

conservatives the filing never said the

white house data that came under

scrutiny was from the trump era

that is correct

so this debunk correctly says

that the filing never said the white

house data came under scrutiny was from

the trump era

but

that's not a debunk

that's what the story is

so notice that they're acting like this

is a debunk

but what they're saying is the same

thing that the actual story says

that it was not all from the trump era

that being the entire point of the

durham complaint

that they should have told the

i guess law enforcement should have been

told

that this data came both before trump's

era and after

and since that part was left out

the implication was they were selling a

narrative which was a lie

the narrative was that something about

the trump administration

is what activated these sketchy looking

contacts with russia but apparently they

had been going on since 2014.

so

the new york times is acting like

they're debunking

exactly what conservative media also

agrees is true

so they're saying something that agrees

completely with conservative media

but because you don't know what

conservative media is if you're a new

york times reader they can say they're

debunking it

while completely agreeing with it

now keep in mind all of this is in the

context of a big complicated piece

if you read this without knowing the

other side you know the side that i'm

trying to present here if you didn't

know any of that

you would not

suspect anything was missing

this is so diabolical

all right um

and then there they quote lawyers for

you know some of the people who are

accused of stuff and the lawyers say

what trump and some news outlets are

saying is wrong say the blah blah blah

lawyers for mr dagan

now

of course the story does need to quote

both sides you know they're both sides

but

they're just saying they're wrong

and then they go on and say that this is

the reason wrong according to the

lawyers

they say the cyber security researchers

were investigating malware in the white

house

we don't know that could be true could

be not not spying on the trump campaign

and to our knowledge all the data they

used was non-private dns data from

before trump took office that's just not

true

can you do a fact check on that

i believe what the lawyers are saying is

unambiguously not true and the new york

times knows it's not true and they're

only reporting in the same story

and

and the conservative news knows it's not

true

am i right

somebody says it is true i'm saying that

the dns data

included before trump and after trump

and the lawyers are saying it was only

before trump

do you think the lawyers are correct

if the lawyer if the lawyers are correct

then all the reporting is wrong

which is possible

well this is pretty sketchy i don't know

what's true about that

um and also it seems to me that the tech

people did have legal access to the data

but did the tech people have uh did they

have authority to give it to the clinton

campaign

is it the big question

how did that information get into the

hands of the clinton campaign

that's the question right

or am i missing the big question

so it's not that the tech people were

spying

is that the tech people gave information

to somebody who was spying

like that's different

well it's different in one sense it's

different in the sense that the

accusation would be about the middle

people more than

the tech people but why did the tech

people even give that information to

anybody i know did they have access so

so there's so many questions in this you

can see how easy it's going to be to

confuse this to the point where you're

not sure what's true

um

somebody's claiming they're apolitical

that's bs

um and then the then the new york times

just throws this in like it's a fact

so without uh without a uh

a link or anything

they say or charlie savage says after

russians hacked networks for the white

house and the democrats in 2015 and 2016

it went on

wait a minute

is that true

do you believe that russia hacked

networks for the white house and the

democrats in 2015. i know it was

reported

but do you believe it's true

i believe we can't tell

i believe it was reported as true but we

don't know

because if you're telling me that

hackers can't cover their tracks

i don't know what world i live in

do we live in a world where hackers

can't cover their tracks

i thought they could why does hacking

even exist

it seems like it'd be hard to be a

hacker

if you couldn't cover your tracks

all right

so i thought that was interesting they

slip it in there like that's

unquestionably true i certainly question

it

and then they they say a spokesman for

mr durham declined to comment toward the

end but why would mr durham decline to

comment

shouldn't that also include the

statement that of course he doesn't

comment because

you never comment

during the investigation

so acting like he wouldn't comment makes

him look guilty of saying something

wrong

well he didn't comment

but that's not the case

it's just something where you don't

comment

uh

now what do you think about this the

cybersecurity researchers were

investigating malware

do you think that in the course of

investigating malware

that's what caused them to find out all

these

weird russia server connections

maybe

possibly

but i'd have to see why

why looking into one got you the

information on the other it could i mean

that's not impossible

but it doesn't sound true even if it is

anyway it looks to me like the

new york times is running cover

for this story by pumping out a bunch of

uh inaccurate statements of what

um the conservatives are saying

and also

trying to sort of obscure that

connection between the uh

the campaign and the

and the data

all right

anything else happening

nope

that's it

that's what's happening

uh read up more of this and get back to

us tomorrow the the problem is that no

matter how much i read up on it

uh if i got to the point where i

understood it

then the explaining to you would be too

complicated

so this is sort of a situation that

can't be explained because it's just too

complicated

so when you have a situation that can't

be explained the best way to hide it is

to have the new york times

pretend they're debunking it

and then just call it good and walk away

and it looks like that's what's going to

happen and it looks like it's working

um

you are unable to explain something well

unable in these in the specific sense

that if something is

detailed and complicated and all of the

complication matters

what are you going to do

there are there is a category of things

that i

is one of my

favorite mental hobbies

is thinking about things that can't be

communicated

sometimes because they're too

complicated but sometimes because

there's nobody you could trust

yeah the only people who know the

information for sure are the ones you

can't trust at all and that so there's

there are situations where things simply

can't be communicated and this might be

one

you'd have to litigate it in court

yeah

so if we were if we were going to

simplify the case

of whether it's debunked or not i think

it comes down to

did the clinton campaign

ask lawyers that they paid

to get some information

to create a narrative that they knew was

false

and the new york times did not debunk

that

they they pretended the story was a

little bit different and debunked the

different parts

canada has just removed all civil

liberties not worth a comment well

here's my comment on

uh i did talk about trudeau

i think that canada is in good shape

so i'm liking what i'm seeing in canada

um i believe

that the great claw back is is underway

clawing back our rights around the world

not just the us

and that the uh

the truckers are going to get what they

want i think in the long run

but it might require removing

their government first

so i do think that the truckers took out

the trudeau government

do you agree

i think trudeau is done

i mean it's hard for me to read the room

in canada

but from my perspective i think he's

completely done

am i wrong about that

because i can't imagine that even his

low approval rating

as it exists i i can't imagine it

survives this

you know this doesn't look like anything

that biden's doing

compare compare the way um

biden is running things even if you

don't like it to how trudeau ran things

right

you you could think biden did a ton of

things wrong

and it doesn't come close

to what trudeau is doing to his country

right now it doesn't come close not not

on an emotional level

not on an ethical level not on a moral

level not in anything

you know biden to me biden just looks

like somebody who's trying to do the

best he can

whatever is happening in canada doesn't

look like that

to me it looks like

it looks like a personality problem

it does it looks like trudeau painted

himself in a corner and can't get out it

doesn't look like a

a candidate problem it looks like one

person has a problem and and he's making

that

his personal political problem is

becoming the country's problem

now this said there are a number of my

critics who said scott don't you

understand

the importance of keeping the

keeping things open

to which i say

that's the point

that's the point

the point is that the the country has at

least a segment of the country has

reached the point where they will shoot

themselves in their own head

before they will give up their freedom

do you know how the only way that can be

communicated

shoot yourself in your own head

that's the only way anybody's ever going

to believe it

and the truckers are doing that

the the truckers are calling the bluff

like i've never seen a bluff called in

my life

they are calling the frickin bluff

and so when trudeau is acting like he

only has one choice

no he has another choice freedom

freedom's always the choice

now that would probably kill more people

but he's got a choice and i think the

public's

here's what i think trudeau did

completely wrong

and i would argue that biden got this

wrong as well but not as wrong

trudeau did not respect the opinion on

the other side

big mistake

big mistake i i think he could have done

everything he's doing now

and said you know i totally hear you

i totally hear you if you'll get out of

the trucks

i'll put you on tv we'll talk about it

on tv

you know i think your message is

important and i i appreciate anybody

who's fighting for freedom

he he should have been on their side

while disagreeing with him you know what

i mean

had he been more capable

he would have been solidly on the side

of the truckers while trying to stop

them

and he could have done that

trump could have done it

am i wrong you don't think trump could

have threatened that needle he could

have

trump could have cited

let's say it had been an american

problem trump could have sided with the

blue-collar workers

and he could have stopped them

nobody else could have done that

i don't think i don't think there's

anybody else who could have done that

now of course speculation because he

didn't have to do it but i don't think

anybody could have thread the needle

like that

and this was

this was trudeau's opportunity

to be at least as clever as trump in

managing the room

trump can manage the room

he doesn't manage the press because

that's that's a different issue

but

um

he can manage the room

yeah

all right

that is my show for today i hope you

liked it it's the best thing you'll ever

see today and i'll talk to you tomorrow