Episode 802 Scott Adams - Hunter Biden "Wrongdoing", Israel Peace Plan, Impeachment, Coronavirus

bum-bum-bum-bum-bum hey everybody come on in it's time for a coffee with Scott Adams it and you're in luck because for whatever reason your schedule allowed you to listen to this live yeah you're gonna get it better and fresher than everybody who watches it on replay oh I love my replay Watchers but Wow you know it's time for that excellent part of the day the best part of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous sip and it goes like this all you need this is a cup or a mug or glass a tanker Challenger side a canteen juggler flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine Ian of the day the thing that makes everything better this simultaneous sip that's right go well the news is coming at us fast and furious there's so much news I can barely know what to do as you probably know by now the president has announced with with Netanyahu of Israel they've announced their proposed peace plan for the Palestinians and Israelis now this of course obviously is one of the biggest stories in the world so let's go over to the CNN page and see what they're saying in the headlines okay okay cnn.com there's one little story about Alan Dershowitz patting Mike Pompeo on the back at the wrong time and maybe sending the wrong message what is really in the United States just announced a peace proposal and the only reporting on it on CNN's home page is about Alan Dershowitz and his back pathing ways apparently he patted Mike Pompeo on the back at the wrong time to thinking that the back pat was associated with a different message than what he was thinking when he patted him on the back that's the story that's a story but ok so see you then obviously doesn't want to cover the story because it's bad for President Trump so we'll let's go over to Fox News and we'll find out the major headlines on Fox News nothing what what's going on here I'm sure I saw this as news yesterday are you oh you are you serious the two top online news organizations nothing it's not even a story are you kidding me now I'm trying to swear less in this coming year but it's really hard to look at stuff like this and not do a little bit of cursing I'm not going to you don't need to turn down the sound I'm going to over a comment but I don't quite know why this gigantic story didn't make the front page at least in one one story let's talk about it so the the peace plan shows a map in which the so-called Palestinian state if it were created yet let's say everybody agreed and they created a an Israeli state that's got revised borders and then somewhere there there's a Palestinian state this seems to be woven you know and surrounded by the Israeli territory according to the initial map which yeah was really the first offer if you will and the first thing you notice is that they've figured out how to keep things largely the way they are meaning they they kind of just drew the map around where people already are so there's a practical element to it which is it doesn't require people to move too much yeah one has to assume that there's gonna be somebody who has to move but it's not a major element of the plan so that's good so the first thing is you're not making people move so that's you know that's it reaches the the practical level on that amazingly the Israeli politicians seemed to be in agreement about this the people who who are violently not violently but vehemently opposed to each other around politics within Israel or actually on the same side for this plan which is kind of amazing it's kind of amazing to get even Israel on the same side with a peace plan but it happened even more interesting is that Saudi Arabia has already signed on now can we do a little historical background on this what did people say when Saudi Arabia and MPs were accused of chopping up Khashoggi with a bone saw well pretty much everybody who is smart said her Saudi Arabia you cannot be our ally anymore you've done this terrible thing we can no longer deal with you you must be punished but interestingly President Trump did not act that way he went very very gingerly on Saudi Arabia definitely treated them with kid gloves on something that he could have easily gone the other way and I said at the time it was probably the right play because later you would need Saudi Arabia to to bless any kind of a larger peace plan and there it is there it is so what I told you was the smart reason to go gentle with Saudi Arabia just came through Saudi Arabia just signed on no hesitation absolutely you have to wonder is this a direct or at least an indirect payback for president Trump remaining allies and and remaining a you know staunch supporter of the kingdom if not that event obviously not sporting the event killing khashoggi but not dropping the entire relationship because it you know we don't know if this peace plan will go anywhere but that's a very positive sign so he got something out of it so here's what's good about this plan and I would go so far as to say this plan is stealthily genius meaning that it's not obvious why this is such a good idea if you take the long view you say to yourself there's no way the Palestinians are gonna agree to this so it's a waste of time it's like every other time even if they made a deal they'd break the deal Arafat promised he'd do it then he changed his mind they can't ever have peace what they really want to do is to destroy Israel largely true I mean pretty much all of those all those observations would be based on unreality that it's a tough thing and you would expect that the odds would be deeply deeply deeply against their working accept there are some differences here let's talk about the differences what's different about this plan compared to any other plan that didn't work in the past and there are some differences and they're worth Corleone number one it's detailed apparently this is the first time that anybody came up with a detailed plan now you say to yourself well that's a waste of time because if you can't get them to even agree on the concept of peace what's that what the hell is the point of talking about the details the details are a complete waste of time because you're never going to get to the details you can't get past go right that would be the common sense way to look at it but turns out that this crew of people working on this are not standard thinkers and I mean that in the best possible way Jared Kushner and avi Berkowitz was called out by the President and even Netanyahu and the president they have special skills and you see that in this deal and again if you didn't know had to have a spot these skills it would be invisible to you you would say well it's just like the other time we make an offer they say no back to square one but here's what's interesting there's something about this that has master persuader written all over it and the thing is that because of the details if forces people to think past the sale have you ever heard me talk about that before so instead of concentrating on yes no to a peace plan he this forces people to look at the map and to look at there there's one place where they cleverly are proposing to build an underground well it's a tunnel so it's underground a tunnel to connect the contiguous parts of what would become the Palestinian state so that they don't have to worry about being you know separated there'd at least be a tunnel now what is that going to make people do well at first they may say no no which I think the Palestinians have already said you know it took them 10 seconds to reject it all on its surface but they're still going to look at it because curiosity alone is going to make you look at it so you're gonna look at it and you're gonna say to yourself yeah that tunnel isn't the worst idea but maybe it needs to be in a slightly different place or a little bit longer or or maybe it shouldn't be underground because there wouldn't be enough security you'd be harder to protect if somebody blows something up wouldn't it be better if it's above the ground etc and maybe maybe that's all true maybe there's a better way to do it maybe the tunnel would not be as as you want it to be but if you can get the parties to start debating the details then you've already brought their minds past the yes/no decision and into the details that's new all right making them engage on the details even if they say they're not they're going to engage on the details even if only in their mind all right so even if they say no no we're not gonna look at even any part of this they're still gonna think about it you could just still look at that map and they're gonna say yeah I don't like where they drew the lines here if they draw the lines differently I might react differently but I don't like the way it is now as long as you can make them think about that you're way ahead secondly the map itself because it has details as the as the roads and bridges and tunnels and and all the areas selected they've turned a concept into something visual now I don't know how often we've seen this before I think maybe in the past there have been maps but just because it was a good map it was visual that takes you that takes you to a new place because now there's something in the visual part of your brain which is the most dominant part that you can react to and again you stick it in that visual part of the brain and then you make people react to the details and it gets you past the sale the other thing they're doing is they put a four year deadline on it which coincidentally roughly matches president Trump's second term and I think that's smart because you know that on day one they're gonna say no no no but what about four years from now over four years do you think anything could happen all right now here's the best part well I'll give you another another couple of best parts there's more than one best part as other pundits have noted every time there's a peace plan offered to the Palestinians it gets worse meaning that you know back in whatever decades ago originally you know Israel was going to give back something like all of the land they want in the in the 1960 a war and then the next offer was well we'll give you back most of that land but we're using some of it and then the next offer was well you know maybe a fraction of that land because you know we've got security needs and we're using a lot of it we got settlements and stuff so direction matters a lot to decision making because they've created a situation where the offer after this might be no offer at all because you can see the pattern now big offer a little bit little smaller a little bit smaller this one is sort of the last offer you can get in which there's anything left and during this time and I was talking about the psychology of where things are versus where they're going our brains are far more affected by where things are heading than where they are and the this pattern that Israel is created is that Israel gets stronger every year the Palestinians seem to be worse off every year and their potential to get better off is also shrinking every year so when is the best time to make a deal if you have the Palestinians well the situation that the Israelis and I guess the US have created is that it's really obvious now really really obvious that the sooner you make the deal the better off you will be but not the better off of Israel will be Israel wants a deal but they don't need it they just don't need it because they found a way to stay pretty darn safe from you know incursions and terrorism etc relative to what it used to be so if you were in Israel now the odds of being killed by a terrorist thing in any given week pretty low so the we've reached sort of an ideal situation and then I don't know the the the specifics of this maybe somebody can help me on the on the fact-checking but because Iran is at least temporarily beaten down they they don't have much money and they're not getting too adventurous at the moment because they lost their top adventurous general it could be that Iran either by withdrawing the support financially or or even maybe more directly may be promoting directly or indirectly maybe more of a positive than at any time in the past so what the what the Israelis and the US are asking for sounds impossible from the Palestinian perspective because you know there are a lot of radicals there etc but here's the best part yeah I saved the real best part for the end here's the real best part Israel does not need the Palestinians agreement if he didn't catch that you missed the best part because what Israel is said is that you know this this new map they're proposing is what we think is really ballsy --all can simply just adjust the borders there's nobody will stop them from saying well you can do what you want with what's left over we're just going to adjust our borders and then we're going to call it good if you'd like to be recognized as the state you know as a as a proper nation there are some steps that you need to take you know denouncing terrorism and recognizing Israel and not paying terrorists for terrorist acts and a few other things I guess but we also don't care that's the important part does Israel really care if the Palestinians become a state not really not really I mean they they think it would be better to have a proper state situation maybe that would lead to more safety etc but Israel can just make this a fact they just have to readjust their borders and say four years of now well how'd it go how'd it go it's been working for us so do you want to be a state yet because if you say yes to a state you get fifty billion dollars for development fifty billion dollars that's a lot for that little chunk of territory what they don't have to they can just keep doing what they're doing and not give 50 billion dollars they could not have a state they have the option so what's different about this plan is the specificity the the visual element of it the fact that it continues this pattern of sooner you do it the better but we were in no hurry but the sooner you do it the better for you but it's not up to us so everything about this deal is kind of brilliant now brilliant doesn't mean it's going to work right if you're if you're a smart better you always you always bet against you know you're always gonna bet against the deal in the Middle East right well you've never seen one this good in terms of the psychology of it the practicality of it the fact that you can just sort of implement it before anybody even agrees with any part of it nobody has to agree with any part of it Israel can just start putting it into reality build a fence here a border there and wall there and it's done so there's there's really a deep brilliance to this that I don't know if the news understands but we'll have to see here's something interesting the CNN does all the time I called them out for this but and I'm sure Fox.

News probably doesn't I just noticed it more on CNN what they'll do is they'll have an opinion piece an opinion writer who will write a bunch of opinions about usually Donald Trump and embedded in the opinion piece is a statement of fact that just isn't true and I think to myself what is the internal policy or rules for CNN when a pundit does an opinion piece but includes in a fact that's just not true so here's one so Zachary wolf writing for CNN so this is on cnn.com writes this exact sentence quote there is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or hunter Biden talking about verismo right there is no evidence of wrongdoing stated as a fact there's no evidence of wrongdoing is that of fact does that feel like a fact so I ran a little poll and I asked people on Twitter just before I got came on here life I said which of these words best describes the hunter Biden Purisima situation choice one was perfectly acceptable and about two percent said yeah it's perfectly acceptable then the next two choices were criminal and legal but wrong remember the thing we're testing is the word wrongdoing CNN has stated as a fact with it embedded within an opinion piece stated as a fact that what hunter and Joe Biden did collectively was no wrongdoing no evidence of wrongdoing but when I put it to a poll 47 I think actually it's a above 50% now half of the people said it was criminal now of course almost all of the people answering a poll on my Twitter feed are pro-trump people but that's you know 60 million people or whatever so so of that group not 60 million people answering the poll but a sample of that group half of them think is criminal to which I say there actually is no evidence of criminal behavior what are you watching the half of you who said that what hunter Biden was doing was criminal or what hunter and Joe Biden were doing collectively was criminal do you know that there's not there's not one lawyer involved with Trump's defense there's no TV lawyer who's ever said it's criminal where are you getting this I mean I'm on your I'm on your side you know directionally I get what you're saying that there's something deeply wrong with this verismo situation but where in the world did you see some news or an expert opinion that there was something criminal going on have you not noticed that no TV lawyer says it's criminal and I'm pretty sure the president's people would say it's a criminal act here's the code here's what you violated what is making you think it's criminal if the top experts who certainly would say it's criminal if it were they're not even saying it where are you getting this where is this coming from of computers but the third choice was legal but wrong so I put the word wrong in there because the question is does it is there any evidence of wrongdoing and something you know close to half the people said it was legal but wrong uh-huh then so that's that I'm giving you my opinion based on ten minutes ago but I've updated it I've updated it so a twitter user dr.

chris or this crisis or something dr c HR x is however you want to pronounce that that's his Twitter handle reminds me or or tells me sends me a link that JP Morgan Chase settled two years ago they paid two hundred and sixty four million dollars to settle a case in which there was criminal behavior in which they had a program in which they were hiring the sons and daughters of important Chinese officials so that they could get more banking deals in China and this was found criminal to the point that they had to pay a two hundred and sixty four million dollar fine that's a big big fine two hundred and sixty-four million dollar fine that's not playing around I mean they're a big company but that's that's a serious find and and the reason of course is that it it basically fits some US law about bribery so in effect JPMorgan Chase was found guilty of bribing Chinese officials for banking business now the bribery was in the form of hiring their their unqualified kids and just giving them a salary for doing probably close to nothing and now in this case there was no doubt about what they were doing because the investigation kicked up well first of all the name of the program was the sons and daughters program internally at JP Morgan Chase they actually called it the sons and daughters program and they had spreadsheets this showed you know which son and daughter got hired and then on the spreadsheet you could see what new business they got related to that top Chinese official whose son or daughter was hired so in the JPMorgan Chase case there was no doubt that they were using this as bribes right the so the factual basis totally beyond dispute and so JP Morgan settled two hundred and sixty four million dollars apparently they made something like a or they got something like a hundred million dollars in new business so this didn't work out for them at all now here's the question we have a law in this country that you can't bribe other countries to get business but do we have a law that says that we can't be bribed and and would that law says say that we can't be bribed for political access because in the case of Hunter it's not the only person making money was hunter himself it wasn't wasn't the US making money so is there a law that would make it illegal for a hunter to do what he did had given that we know if the situation were reversed and we were bribing let's say if we were hiring the sons and orders of burries bow to get some extra Purisima business for some US company that would definitely be illegal but if you reverse it is there any statute that covers that the this is reminding me a lot of you are saying yes but I'm thinking probably no based on the fact that the people who know the most about this are not presenting it as an argument don't you think that somebody like Jay Sekulow or Dershowitz or somebody don't you think somebody who knows how these things work would have said oh it's not just sloppy behavior you violated this very specific law about foreign corruption nobody's making that argument so I'm gonna guess that there is no four there is no domestic law that says the hunter can't do that it's just sloppy now here's the question when Alan Dershowitz was talking about what what makes something a criminal enough situation to be prosecutable or to be a teachable he made the case that it doesn't have to be technically a crime it just has to be at least crime like in other words there could be some technical reason why you can't prosecute it but if it's exactly like a crime that's on the books you still say well it's not technically a crime but it's so crime like we're gonna impeach this guy anyway this is that situation it might be that while hunter Biden and Joe Biden did doesn't violate a specific law technically but it is exactly what was happening with JP Morgan and that was a crime so I think you could say that although there's no impeachment on the table here that was as crime like as you could possibly get now not necessarily for Joe Biden there's no indication that Joe Biden did anything illegal or even crime like or even swampy because he wasn't the one who made the decision to go work for Brisbane that was untrue so that's I guess the question I ask is is it is it appropriate for CNN's opinions pieces to have an embedded fact in it that's so obviously wrong because by saying that there's no evidence of wrongdoing it challenges our own observation because we're looking at it we're saying what do you mean there's no evidence what you report about this situation is the evidence CNN's own reporting got a job wasn't qualified overpaid clearly it was for political purposes how was that not wrong during all right even if it's not illegal Joe Biden said that in a recent Town Hall looking situation he said this he was asked whoever he was asked about his VP pick and he said whomever I pick for VP must be capable of being president common thing they always say that right I'm only gonna pick a VP was capable of being a president so it must be capable of being president because I'm an old guy no I'm serious that's what he said because people laughed when he said because I'm an old guy he goes no I'm serious now I think he also talked about somebody younger and so in his context he said that there there are several people people of color he would consider as vice president running mate there are some women who would consider and of course because of his age the implication is there has to be somebody younger this is what I call foreshadowing let me ask you this if Joe Biden had a choice of getting a woman who was also white is that as good a choice for his purposes of running for president as a Democrat would that be as good as having somebody who is a person of color which is better to have a woman running mate or a person of color it doesn't matter because he could have both why in the world would he not choose someone who was both a woman and a person of color there would be stupid right am i right that would just be stupid you can't even you can't even make an argument for picking someone who is only one of those two things either a person of color let's say cory booker or a woman let's say elizabeth warren so I think it's just obvious that his first choice would be a younger person younger than him anyway and a person of color now aoc of course is too radical and she's too young so she's she's off the list but it kind of comes down to to Kabul Harris right so now I know you're gonna say to yourself what about stacey abrams well here's the next part and if you haven't seen this yet this might fill in some blanks when you're running for president you want the person who complements you the best and biden is saying and actually i give him credit for this there's a lot there's a lot about Joe Biden that makes him unqualified to be President in my opinion but there's a whole bunch about him that I just respect and one of them is sometimes he does tell it like it is right yeah he still lies about the Charlottesville hoax but sometimes he'll just say things away this and he says he's an old guy and so he needs to make sure he gets a proper vice president who can step in that is really honest I gotta say that was super honest and maybe more honest than he should have been it probably hurts him but I appreciate it because it was so honest so let me give you some examples when Bill Clinton ran for president he was a governor from a smallish state if you're a governor you do not know where all the where all the all the skeletons are and where all the keys are in Washington DC so if you've been a governor you have experience managing you an operation but you don't have experience of operating in Washington DC at the federal level so what Clinton did to fill in that gap is he picked a senator a respected senator who was also easily capable of being president so he picked Al Gore all right so keep that in mind the the top of the ticket pick somebody who's the best compliment now Stacey Abrams has never won a contested election she's won uncontested elections and then lost for a governor but she's only been involved in state politics and not really that successfully compare that to Carmel Harris who because Biden is talking about his own age being a risk factor I I appreciate the honesty he's also saying that he could be going on day one because it's true he could get elected on a Tuesday and already be you know incapable to do the duties of the office by Wednesday it's a real possibility you know I don't know what the odds are but you have to plan for it because it's the whole country so could Stacey Abrams take over as president with no federal experience whatsoever and would not have a vice president that at that point so it would be sort of flying alone on day one and the answer is nobody believes that nobody believes you could take somebody whose best experience is losing the governorship you know losing the election and so that's her best experience nobody thinks that person can step in to be the President of the United States so Stacey Abrams just doesn't she doesn't rise to the level of serious enough that she could help him she probably heard him more than she helped him but Carmel Harris senator experience senator from a major state if Joe Biden became incapacitated the day after the election could Kamala Harris credibly credibly in other words with the with the country look at her and say okay we're okay we're okay we got somebody who knows where the keys are you know at least she's been in Washington she have that business runs she even ran for president alright she's she's about as close as you can get to being ready to take over tomorrow the senator is a good good choice for that so I would say that the foreshadowing is now complete you're going to see Kamala Harris this is still my prediction from long ago will be picked as a vice presidential running mate because she has the most connections to the old Clinton machine and it would put Hillary Clinton back in control so Hillary Clinton's play to run the country without actually having to do the job is to get cobble Harris there and have her advisers advising komlin all right so that's where we're going so let's talk about the did you know that the that the law against fentanyl in this country the thing that makes it illegal is going to expire in a little over a week what did you know that our law against fentanyl wasn't even a permanent law and that because of impeachment they probably won't get around to it holy cow you want to pick you want to pick a topic that's gonna piss me off you couldn't pick a topic that pisses me off more than that if anybody's new here I lost my stepson to a fentanyl related overdose in 2018 so this is personal to me if this impeachment and these Democrats cause that law to to lapse and fentanyl becomes illegal even for a day you know even if it only lasts a day I'm just not gonna be a happy camper and you get to hear about that so Hong Kong is looking at closing its borders or maybe it already did Tibet closing its borders because of the the coronavirus China of course is closing more cities the number of people affected is doubling every day or two and I guess United Airlines is canceling flights for lack of demand and British Airways is considering or maybe already did banned flights so the obvious question you might ask is why are we not banning all flights coming into China coming in from China what you know can we really control this thing so reliably that we don't have to do that I'm not buying it I think that people who are bad at risk management are saying that well it's it's fewer people than will die in car accidents and we allow cars the worst argument you can ever make because there's no correlation between cars which are somewhat necessary for civilization at this point versus a virus which is not necessary for civilization so they couldn't be more different situations and anybody who compares the virus to anything else even other flus is just being stupid that is a stupid comparison because it is its own thing it's its own thing as soon as you compare it to another thing you're just going into stupid land because everything you need to know about it you can determine from just looking at it you don't need an analogy if you go to the analogy it's a sign that you don't have an argument so we really have to ask what's wrong with our government I would say our government is failing us on this topic they're failing us and I think I think Trump has to take responsibility for that you know he's the book the buck stops there right if Trump does not tell you why the airports are staying open and he also doesn't close them for flights coming in from China if he doesn't say anything about it he's failing you he's failing as a president on that topic anybody no matter how much you like his other stuff that would be just an absolute grade of F and that's what you said that's where he is right now he's had a grade of F handling this crisis and by the way only because of lack of communication right if he did communicate and he said we're looking at this really carefully and the costs of closing the airports you know all things considered could actually be greater than the risk of this thing but you know we'll we'll close it in a moment if that changes if he said something like that I'd say all right well at least the smartest people are looking at it they're watching it you know maybe they know more than I do I could be convinced but the lack of your president saying anything about closing the airports or even why it's still open complete failure that is a complete failure of government you can't fail harder than that really that's that's a hundred percent failure there's nothing you can say about that that makes that less failure you know I don't know how much you love your president there's nothing you can say about this that absolves him from not explaining this to the public in a way that we can say yes or no I hear the polls say that 75% of the public wants to hear from witnesses and the impeachment and what should you make of that the politicians some of them anyway are trying to say that that's telling the politicians that the public wants wants this I don't think that's what's happening I don't think that's what's happened I think that the public votes for the best spectacle there might have been a time in the past when the public would vote you know would answer a poll based on their self-interest I just don't know that that's today I think you know this is something I've suggested before they're one of the prediction methods I use is that if you don't know how things are going to go and let's say just to simplify let's say there are two ways the future could go one of them is boring and one of them would be great headlines and entertaining it feels to me and this is just anecdotal I have no science to back this whatsoever but it seems to me that we almost always go in the direction of greatest story in other words if it were a movie one of those stories would be a better script I feel like we always go in the direction of the better script what would be better just for entertainment no not what's good for the country and not what's good for you now what's good for the parties of the president but what would be the most fun to watch witnesses what would be more fun than watching hunter Biden Schiff Joe Biden you know Bolton what would be more entertaining than watching all of them testify not much not much tell me one TV show or one movie that you immediately say I would rather watch that TV show or that movie than to watch John Bolton testify to watch shift get grilled by the Republicans I mean seriously we're talking about some super entertaining stuff really entertaining I I have mixed feelings because strategically I think the Republicans should you know let the arguments play out and then before considering witnesses they should have a vote and they should have a vote narrowly narrowly on the Dershowitz argument that these things do not rise to the level of an impeachable and therefore even if everything even if more came out about the details it wouldn't make any difference it wouldn't matter if there's a quid pro quo wouldn't matter what the president said so the most rational way to go here would be for Mitch Mc.

Connell to say all right let everybody have their say but then before we decide our witnesses the logical step is to have a vote on whether there's any more information anybody needs because if you could have voted it away based on doesn't reach the constitutional level for impeachment don't need any witnesses because there's nothing anybody is suggesting the witness this would say they would change that fact it doesn't change the constitutional argument at all so we'll see if Mitch Mc.

Connell gets pressured into getting these witnesses in here well that would be another another success for the prediction that says the best movie wins the one that's the most entertaining so you can't rule that out so and here we have this is maybe a clean case because what the Republicans should do is have that vote in dismissive on constitutional grounds but if they don't then there's something predictive about that best story idea all right let's see what else we got going on here just make sure I haven't missed any big points you know don't believe I have I think I had all the big points somebody says did Trump leak the Bolton book details if I have to guess I would guess it's somebody in the publishers in the publishing printing area do you know how many people see a book before it gets published it's kind of a lot it's gotten a lot so I'll just give you my experience so I have I have a editor so my editor would see the book the editor is sort of a high-level editor that's more directional and you know did we get the book concept right you know that kind of editing high-level and then there's there are one or two other editors who might get involved in the details one of them would be about the the grammar and the spelling and the structure and that sort of thing so you've got you know three different editors of course the publisher all of the assistants who work for those editors they all have it and then what about spouses and boyfriends and girlfriends because I imagine I assume that a lot of these editors take work home don't you think that that manuscript the Bolton manuscript has has left the publisher at one point and you know somebody took a to work on it and edit it of course you know why would they and then then it goes to the printer how many people at the printers office have access to looking at the manuscript all of them all of them the you know the entire printing company could probably walk by a big bin of books and just take one or just open it up and take a photograph of a page so there are probably something like if I had to put a number on it maybe 25 people who were in the publishing chain chain of custody who could have seen it at least 25 could have been 100 but at least 25 had access to it and that's not counting the government so it could be anybody who leaked it so could it could it have been Trump maybe can't rule it out but a lot of people saw it somebody said they would think only four or five yeah there are only four or five people who had would have a direct a direct business reason to have it but unless the publisher had an unusual set of strict rules of secrecy all of their assistants had access to it it was probably just laying on the desk in the office and they probably took it home etc so there you go and they also probably talked about it don't you think that the the people who edited it might have had a drink at some point and said you know I'm at it in that book don't tell anybody but you should see page 12 128 and you know so it's easy to imagine they're just tons and tons of people who could've leaked that thing all right this was timed yeah I don't think you can rule out the possibility that was a timed leak it's a little too coincidental yeah somebody saying vindens twin brother had access to it true but you know here's the thing the if you're looking at risk management you wouldn't want to be somebody in the government who this because if it's somebody in the government who leaked that the odds of being discovered are pretty good and and you're done but if you're an editor's assistant just as an example and you leaked it no impact probably no impact them you know especially if they don't find out who you are probably no impact so the most likely people that leaked it would be the people who had the the least to lose I it's Bernie Brothers yeah so there's another project Veritas video of our Bernie bro with some organizer type person with long hair who can't stop scratching himself I think he has Felice unless you're saying that you know there would be trouble with if Bernie doesn't get elected so I can't imagine Bernie having a chance of winning this thing so if he does get nominated it's sort of over I think Biden would be the same situation but Bernie would be over faster uh somebody in the comment says oh my god what kind of world makes to f'ing vinda means well this kind of a world alright that's all I got for now I'll talk to you tomorrow

bum-bum-bum-bum-bum

[Applause]

hey everybody come on in it's time for a

coffee with Scott Adams it and you're in

luck because for whatever reason your

schedule allowed you to listen to this

live yeah you're gonna get it better and

fresher than everybody who watches it on

replay oh I love my replay Watchers but

Wow

you know it's time for that excellent

part of the day the best part of the day

the thing that makes everything better

it's called the simultaneous sip and it

goes like this all you need this is a

cup or a mug or glass a tanker

Challenger side a canteen juggler flask

a vessel of any kind fill it with your

favorite liquid I like coffee and join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure the

dopamine Ian of the day the thing that

makes everything better this

simultaneous sip that's right go well

the news is coming at us fast and

furious there's so much news I can

barely know what to do as you probably

know by now the president has announced

with with Netanyahu of Israel they've

announced their proposed peace plan for

the Palestinians and Israelis now this

of course obviously is one of the

biggest stories in the world so let's go

over to the CNN page and see what

they're saying in the headlines

okay okay cnn.com there's one little

story about Alan Dershowitz patting Mike

Pompeo on the back at the wrong time and

maybe sending the wrong message

what is really in the United States just

announced a peace proposal and the only

reporting on it on CNN's home page is

about Alan Dershowitz and his back

pathing ways apparently he patted Mike

Pompeo on the back at the wrong time to

thinking that the back pat was

associated with a different message than

what he was thinking when he patted him

on the back that's the story that's a

story but ok so see you then obviously

doesn't want to cover the story because

it's bad for President Trump

so we'll let's go over to Fox News and

we'll find out the major headlines on

Fox News nothing what what's going on

here I'm sure I saw this as news

yesterday are you oh you are you serious

the two top online news organizations

nothing it's not even a story are you

kidding me now I'm trying to swear less

in this coming year but it's really hard

to look at stuff like this and not do a

little bit of cursing I'm not going to

you don't need to turn down the sound

I'm going to over a comment but I don't

quite know why this gigantic story

didn't make the front page at least in

one one story let's talk about it so the

the peace plan shows a map in which the

so-called Palestinian state if it were

created yet let's say everybody agreed

and they created a an Israeli state

that's got revised borders and then

somewhere there there's a Palestinian

state this seems to be woven you know

and surrounded by the Israeli territory

according to the initial map which yeah

was really the first offer if you will

and the first thing you notice is that

they've figured out how to keep things

largely the way they are meaning they

they kind of just drew the map around

where people already are so there's a

practical element to it which is it

doesn't require people to move

too much yeah one has to assume that

there's gonna be somebody who has to

move but it's not a major element of the

plan so that's good so the first thing

is you're not making people move so

that's you know that's it reaches the

the practical level on that amazingly

the Israeli politicians seemed to be in

agreement about this the people who who

are violently not violently but

vehemently opposed to each other around

politics within Israel or actually on

the same side for this plan which is

kind of amazing it's kind of amazing to

get even Israel on the same side with a

peace plan but it happened even more

interesting is that Saudi Arabia has

already signed on now can we do a little

historical background on this what did

people say when Saudi Arabia and MPs

were accused of chopping up Khashoggi

with a bone saw well pretty much

everybody who is smart said her Saudi

Arabia you cannot be our ally anymore

you've done this terrible thing we can

no longer deal with you you must be

punished but interestingly President

Trump did not act that way he went very

very gingerly on Saudi Arabia definitely

treated them with kid gloves

on something that he could have easily

gone the other way and I said at the

time it was probably the right play

because later you would need Saudi

Arabia to to bless any kind of a larger

peace plan and there it is there it is

so what I told you was the smart reason

to go gentle with Saudi Arabia just came

through Saudi Arabia just signed on no

hesitation absolutely

you have to wonder is this a direct or

at least an indirect payback for

president Trump remaining allies and and

remaining a you know staunch supporter

of the kingdom if not that event

obviously not sporting the event

killing khashoggi but not dropping the

entire relationship because it you know

we don't know if this peace plan will go

anywhere but that's a very positive sign

so he got something out of it so here's

what's good about this plan and I would

go so far as to say this plan is

stealthily genius meaning that it's not

obvious why this is such a good idea if

you take the long view you say to

yourself there's no way the Palestinians

are gonna agree to this so it's a waste

of time it's like every other time even

if they made a deal they'd break the

deal Arafat promised he'd do it then he

changed his mind they can't ever have

peace what they really want to do is to

destroy Israel largely true I mean

pretty much all of those all those

observations would be based on unreality

that it's a tough thing and you would

expect that the odds would be deeply

deeply deeply against their working

accept there are some differences here

let's talk about the differences what's

different about this plan compared to

any other plan that didn't work in the

past and there are some differences and

they're worth Corleone number one it's

detailed apparently this is the first

time that anybody came up with a

detailed plan now you say to yourself

well that's a waste of time because if

you can't get them to even agree on the

concept of peace what's that what the

hell is the point of talking about the

details the details are a complete waste

of time because you're never going to

get to the details you can't get past go

right that would be the common sense way

to look at it but

turns out that this crew of people

working on this are not standard

thinkers and I mean that in the best

possible way Jared Kushner and avi

Berkowitz was called out by the

President and even Netanyahu and the

president they have special skills and

you see that in this deal and again if

you didn't know had to have a spot these

skills it would be invisible to you you

would say well it's just like the other

time we make an offer they say no back

to square one but here's what's

interesting there's something about this

that has master persuader written all

over it and the thing is that because of

the details

if forces people to think past the sale

have you ever heard me talk about that

before so instead of concentrating on

yes no to a peace plan he this forces

people to look at the map and to look at

there there's one place where they

cleverly are proposing to build an

underground well it's a tunnel so it's

underground a tunnel to connect the

contiguous parts of what would become

the Palestinian state so that they don't

have to worry about being you know

separated there'd at least be a tunnel

now what is that going to make people do

well at first they may say no no which I

think the Palestinians have already said

you know it took them 10 seconds to

reject it all on its surface but they're

still going to look at it because

curiosity alone is going to make you

look at it so you're gonna look at it

and you're gonna say to yourself yeah

that tunnel isn't the worst idea but

maybe it needs to be in a slightly

different place or a little bit longer

or or maybe it shouldn't be underground

because there wouldn't be enough

security

you'd be harder to protect if somebody

blows something up wouldn't it be better

if it's above the ground etc and maybe

maybe that's all true maybe there's a

better way to do it

maybe the tunnel would not be as

as you want it to be but if you can get

the parties to start debating the

details then you've already brought

their minds past the yes/no decision and

into the details that's new all right

making them engage on the details even

if they say they're not they're going to

engage on the details even if only in

their mind all right

so even if they say no no we're not

gonna look at even any part of this

they're still gonna think about it you

could just still look at that map and

they're gonna say yeah I don't like

where they drew the lines here if they

draw the lines differently I might react

differently but I don't like the way it

is now as long as you can make them

think about that you're way ahead

secondly the map itself because it has

details as the as the roads and bridges

and tunnels and and all the areas

selected they've turned a concept into

something visual now I don't know how

often we've seen this before

I think maybe in the past there have

been maps but just because it was a good

map it was visual that takes you that

takes you to a new place because now

there's something in the visual part of

your brain which is the most dominant

part that you can react to and again you

stick it in that visual part of the

brain and then you make people react to

the details and it gets you past the

sale the other thing they're doing is

they put a four year deadline on it

which coincidentally roughly matches

president Trump's second term and I

think that's smart because you know that

on day one they're gonna say no no no

but what about four years from now over

four years do you think anything could

happen all right now here's the best

part well I'll give you another another

couple of best parts there's more than

one best part

as other pundits have noted every time

there's a peace plan offered to the

Palestinians it gets worse

meaning that you know back in whatever

decades ago originally you know Israel

was going to give back something like

all of the land they want in the in the

1960 a war and then the next offer was

well we'll give you back most of that

land but we're using some of it and then

the next offer was well you know maybe a

fraction of that land because you know

we've got security needs and we're using

a lot of it we got settlements and stuff

so direction matters a lot to decision

making because they've created a

situation where the offer after this

might be no offer at all because you can

see the pattern now big offer a little

bit little smaller a little bit smaller

this one is sort of the last offer you

can get in which there's anything left

and during this time and I was talking

about the psychology of where things are

versus where they're going

our brains are far more affected by

where things are heading than where they

are and the this pattern that Israel is

created is that Israel gets stronger

every year the Palestinians seem to be

worse off every year and their potential

to get better off is also shrinking

every year so when is the best time to

make a deal if you have the Palestinians

well the situation that the Israelis and

I guess the US have created is that it's

really obvious now really really obvious

that the sooner you make the deal the

better off you will be but not the

better off of Israel will be Israel

wants a deal but they don't need it they

just don't need it because they found a

way to stay pretty darn safe from you

know incursions and terrorism etc

relative to what it used to be so if you

were in Israel now the odds of being

killed by a terrorist

thing in any given week pretty low so

the we've reached sort of an ideal

situation and then I don't know the the

the specifics of this maybe somebody can

help me on the on the fact-checking

but because Iran is at least temporarily

beaten down they they don't have much

money and they're not getting too

adventurous at the moment because they

lost their top adventurous general it

could be that Iran either by withdrawing

the support financially or or even maybe

more directly may be promoting directly

or indirectly maybe more of a positive

than at any time in the past so what the

what the Israelis and the US are asking

for sounds impossible from the

Palestinian perspective because you know

there are a lot of radicals there etc

but here's the best part yeah I saved

the real best part for the end here's

the real best part Israel does not need

the Palestinians agreement if he didn't

catch that you missed the best part

because what Israel is said is that you

know this this new map they're proposing

is what we think is really ballsy --all

can simply just adjust the borders

there's nobody will stop them from

saying well you can do what you want

with what's left over we're just going

to adjust our borders and then we're

going to call it good if you'd like to

be recognized as the state you know as a

as a proper nation there are some steps

that you need to take you know

denouncing terrorism and recognizing

Israel and not paying terrorists for

terrorist acts and a few other things I

guess but we also don't care that's the

important part

does Israel really care if the

Palestinians become a state not really

not really I mean they they think it

would be better to have a proper state

situation maybe that would lead to more

safety etc

but Israel can just make this a fact

they just have to readjust their borders

and say four years of now well how'd it

go how'd it go it's been working for us

so do you want to be a state yet because

if you say yes to a state you get fifty

billion dollars for development fifty

billion dollars that's a lot for that

little chunk of territory what they

don't have to they can just keep doing

what they're doing and not give 50

billion dollars they could not have a

state they have the option so what's

different about this plan is the

specificity the the visual element of it

the fact that it continues this pattern

of sooner you do it the better but we

were in no hurry but the sooner you do

it the better for you but it's not up to

us so everything about this deal is kind

of brilliant

now brilliant doesn't mean it's going to

work right if you're if you're a smart

better you always you always bet against

you know you're always gonna bet against

the deal in the Middle East right well

you've never seen one this good in terms

of the psychology of it the practicality

of it the fact that you can just sort of

implement it before anybody even agrees

with any part of it

nobody has to agree with any part of it

Israel can just start putting it into

reality build a fence here a border

there and wall there and it's done so

there's there's really a deep brilliance

to this that I don't know if the news

understands but we'll have to see here's

something interesting the CNN does all

the time I called them out for this but

and I'm sure FoxNews probably doesn't I

just noticed it more on CNN what they'll

do is they'll have an opinion piece an

opinion writer who will write a bunch of

opinions about usually Donald Trump and

embedded in the opinion piece is a

statement of fact that just isn't true

and I think to myself what is the

internal policy or rules for CNN when a

pundit does an opinion piece but

includes in a fact that's just not true

so here's one

so Zachary wolf writing for CNN so this

is on cnn.com writes this exact sentence

quote there is no evidence of wrongdoing

by either Joe or hunter Biden talking

about verismo right

there is no evidence of wrongdoing

stated as a fact there's no evidence of

wrongdoing is that of fact does that

feel like a fact so I ran a little poll

and I asked people on Twitter just

before I got came on here life I said

which of these words best describes the

hunter Biden Purisima situation choice

one was perfectly acceptable and about

two percent said yeah it's perfectly

acceptable then the next two choices

were criminal and legal but wrong

remember the thing we're testing is the

word wrongdoing CNN has stated as a fact

with it embedded within an opinion piece

stated as a fact that what hunter and

Joe Biden did collectively was no

wrongdoing no evidence of wrongdoing but

when I put it to a poll 47 I think

actually it's a above 50% now half of

the people said it was criminal now of

course almost all of the people

answering a poll on my Twitter feed are

pro-trump people but that's you know 60

million people or whatever so so of that

group not 60 million people answering

the poll but a sample of that group half

of them think is criminal to which I say

there actually is no evidence of

criminal behavior what are you watching

the half of you who said that what

hunter Biden was doing was criminal or

what hunter and Joe Biden were doing

collectively was criminal do you know

that there's not

there's not one lawyer involved with

Trump's defense

there's no TV lawyer who's ever said

it's criminal where are you getting this

I mean I'm on your I'm on your side

you know directionally I get what you're

saying that there's something deeply

wrong with this verismo situation but

where in the world did you see some news

or an expert opinion that there was

something criminal going on have you not

noticed that no TV lawyer says it's

criminal and I'm pretty sure the

president's people would say it's a

criminal act here's the code here's what

you violated what is making you think

it's criminal if the top experts who

certainly would say it's criminal if it

were they're not even saying it where

are you getting this where is this

coming from of computers but the third

choice was legal but wrong so I put the

word wrong in there because the question

is does it is there any evidence of

wrongdoing and something you know close

to half the people said it was legal but

wrong uh-huh then so that's that I'm

giving you my opinion based on ten

minutes ago but I've updated it I've

updated it so a twitter user dr. chris

or this crisis or something dr c HR x is

however you want to pronounce that

that's his Twitter handle reminds me or

or tells me sends me a link that JP

Morgan Chase settled two years ago they

paid two hundred and sixty four million

dollars to settle a case in which there

was criminal behavior in which they had

a program in which they were hiring the

sons and daughters of important Chinese

officials so that they could get more

banking deals in China and this was

found criminal to the point that they

had to pay a two hundred and sixty four

million dollar fine

that's a big big fine

two hundred and sixty-four million

dollar fine

that's not playing around I mean they're

a big company but that's that's a

serious find and and the reason of

course is that it it basically fits some

US law about bribery

so in effect JPMorgan Chase was found

guilty of bribing Chinese officials for

banking business now the bribery was in

the form of hiring their their

unqualified kids and just giving them a

salary for doing probably close to

nothing and now in this case there was

no doubt about what they were doing

because the investigation kicked up well

first of all the name of the program was

the sons and daughters program

internally at JP Morgan Chase they

actually called it the sons and

daughters program and they had

spreadsheets this showed you know which

son and daughter got hired and then on

the spreadsheet you could see what new

business they got related to that top

Chinese official whose son or daughter

was hired so in the JPMorgan Chase case

there was no doubt that they were using

this as bribes right the so the factual

basis totally beyond dispute and so JP

Morgan settled two hundred and sixty

four million dollars apparently they

made something like a or they got

something like a hundred million dollars

in new business so this didn't work out

for them at all now here's the question

we have a law in this country that you

can't bribe other countries to get

business but do we have a law that says

that we can't be bribed and and would

that law says say that we can't be

bribed for political access because in

the case of Hunter it's not the only

person making money was hunter himself

it wasn't wasn't the US making money so

is there a law that would make it

illegal for a hunter to do what he did

had given that we know if the situation

were reversed and we were bribing let's

say if we were hiring the sons and

orders of burries bow to get some extra

Purisima business for some US company

that would definitely be illegal but if

you reverse it is there any statute that

covers that the this is reminding me a

lot of you are saying yes but I'm

thinking probably no based on the fact

that the people who know the most about

this are not presenting it as an

argument don't you think that somebody

like Jay Sekulow or Dershowitz or

somebody don't you think somebody who

knows how these things work would have

said oh it's not just sloppy behavior

you violated this very specific law

about foreign corruption nobody's making

that argument so I'm gonna guess that

there is no four there is no domestic

law that says the hunter can't do that

it's just sloppy now here's the question

when Alan Dershowitz was talking about

what what makes something a criminal

enough situation to be prosecutable or

to be a teachable he made the case that

it doesn't have to be technically a

crime it just has to be at least crime

like in other words there could be some

technical reason why you can't prosecute

it but if it's exactly like a crime

that's on the books you still say well

it's not technically a crime but it's so

crime like we're gonna impeach this guy

anyway this is that situation it might

be that while hunter Biden and Joe Biden

did doesn't violate a specific law

technically but it is exactly what was

happening with JP Morgan and that was a

crime so I think you could say that

although there's no impeachment on the

table here that was as crime like as you

could possibly get now not necessarily

for Joe Biden there's no indication that

Joe Biden did anything illegal or even

crime like or even swampy because he

wasn't the one who made the decision

to go work for Brisbane that was untrue

so that's I guess the question I ask is

is it is it appropriate for CNN's

opinions pieces to have an embedded fact

in it

that's so obviously wrong because by

saying that there's no evidence of

wrongdoing it challenges our own

observation because we're looking at it

we're saying what do you mean there's no

evidence what you report about this

situation is the evidence CNN's own

reporting got a job wasn't qualified

overpaid clearly it was for political

purposes how was that not wrong during

all right even if it's not illegal Joe

Biden said that in a recent Town Hall

looking situation he said this he was

asked whoever he was asked about his VP

pick and he said whomever I pick for VP

must be capable of being president

common thing they always say that right

I'm only gonna pick a VP was capable of

being a president so it must be capable

of being president because I'm an old

guy no I'm serious that's what he said

because people laughed when he said

because I'm an old guy he goes no I'm

serious now I think he also talked about

somebody younger and so in his context

he said that there there are several

people people of color he would consider

as vice president running mate there are

some women who would consider and of

course because of his age

the implication is there has to be

somebody younger this is what I call

foreshadowing let me ask you this if Joe

Biden had a choice of getting a woman

who was also white is that as good a

choice for his purposes of running for

president as a Democrat would that be as

good as having somebody who is a person

of color which is better to have a woman

running mate

or a person of color it doesn't matter

because he could have both why in the

world would he not choose someone who

was both a woman and a person of color

there would be stupid right am i right

that would just be stupid you can't even

you can't even make an argument for

picking someone who is only one of those

two things either a person of color

let's say cory booker or a woman let's

say elizabeth warren so I think it's

just obvious that his first choice would

be a younger person younger than him

anyway and a person of color

now aoc of course is too radical and

she's too young so she's she's off the

list but it kind of comes down to to

Kabul Harris right so now I know you're

gonna say to yourself what about stacey

abrams well here's the next part and if

you haven't seen this yet this might

fill in some blanks when you're running

for president you want the person who

complements you the best and biden is

saying and actually i give him credit

for this there's a lot there's a lot

about Joe Biden that makes him

unqualified to be President in my

opinion but there's a whole bunch about

him that I just respect and one of them

is sometimes he does tell it like it is

right yeah he still lies about the

Charlottesville hoax but sometimes he'll

just say things away this and he says

he's an old guy and so he needs to make

sure he gets a proper vice president who

can step in that is really honest I

gotta say that was super honest and

maybe more honest than he should have

been it probably hurts him but I

appreciate it because it was so honest

so let me give you some examples when

Bill Clinton ran for president he was a

governor from a smallish state if you're

a governor you do not know where all the

where all the all the skeletons are and

where all the keys are in Washington DC

so if you've been a governor you have

experience managing you

an operation but you don't have

experience of operating in Washington DC

at the federal level so what Clinton did

to fill in that gap is he picked a

senator a respected senator who was also

easily capable of being president so he

picked Al Gore all right so keep that in

mind the the top of the ticket pick

somebody who's the best compliment now

Stacey Abrams has never won a contested

election she's won uncontested elections

and then lost for a governor but she's

only been involved in state politics and

not really that successfully compare

that to Carmel Harris who because Biden

is talking about his own age being a

risk factor I I appreciate the honesty

he's also saying that he could be going

on day one because it's true

he could get elected on a Tuesday and

already be you know incapable to do the

duties of the office by Wednesday it's a

real possibility you know I don't know

what the odds are but you have to plan

for it because it's the whole country so

could Stacey Abrams take over as

president with no federal experience

whatsoever and would not have a vice

president that at that point so it would

be sort of flying alone on day one and

the answer is nobody believes that

nobody believes you could take somebody

whose best experience is losing the

governorship you know losing the

election and so that's her best

experience nobody thinks that person can

step in to be the President of the

United States so Stacey Abrams just

doesn't she doesn't rise to the level of

serious enough that she could help him

she probably heard him more than she

helped him but Carmel Harris senator

experience senator from a major state if

Joe Biden became incapacitated the day

after the election could Kamala Harris

credibly credibly in other words with

the with the country look at her and say

okay we're okay we're okay we got

somebody who knows where the keys are

you know at least she's been in

Washington she

have that business runs she even ran for

president alright she's she's about as

close as you can get to being ready to

take over tomorrow the senator is a good

good choice for that so I would say that

the foreshadowing is now complete you're

going to see Kamala Harris this is still

my prediction from long ago will be

picked as a vice presidential running

mate because she has the most

connections to the old Clinton machine

and it would put Hillary Clinton back in

control so Hillary Clinton's play to run

the country without actually having to

do the job is to get cobble Harris there

and have her advisers advising komlin

all right so that's where we're going so

let's talk about the did you know that

the that the law against fentanyl in

this country the thing that makes it

illegal is going to expire in a little

over a week what did you know that our

law against fentanyl wasn't even a

permanent law and that because of

impeachment they probably won't get

around to it

holy cow you want to pick you want to

pick a topic that's gonna piss me off

you couldn't pick a topic that pisses me

off more than that if anybody's new here

I lost my stepson to a fentanyl related

overdose in 2018 so this is personal to

me

if this impeachment and these Democrats

cause that law to to lapse and fentanyl

becomes illegal even for a day you know

even if it only lasts a day I'm just not

gonna be a happy camper and you get to

hear about that

so Hong Kong is looking at closing its

borders or maybe it already did

Tibet closing its borders because of the

the coronavirus China of course is

closing more cities the number of people

affected is doubling every day or two

and I guess United Airlines is canceling

flights for lack of demand and British

Airways is considering or maybe already

did banned flights so the obvious

question you might ask is why are we not

banning all flights coming into China

coming in from China what you know can

we really control this thing

so reliably that we don't have to do

that I'm not buying it I think that

people who are bad at risk management

are saying that well it's it's fewer

people than will die in car accidents

and we allow cars the worst argument you

can ever make because there's no

correlation between cars which are

somewhat necessary for civilization at

this point versus a virus which is not

necessary for civilization so they

couldn't be more different situations

and anybody who compares the virus to

anything else even other flus is just

being stupid that is a stupid comparison

because it is its own thing

it's its own thing as soon as you

compare it to another thing you're just

going into stupid land because

everything you need to know about it you

can determine from just looking at it

you don't need an analogy if you go to

the analogy it's a sign that you don't

have an argument so we really have to

ask what's wrong with our government I

would say our government is failing us

on this topic they're failing us and I

think I think Trump has to take

responsibility for that you know he's

the book the buck stops there right if

Trump does not tell you why the airports

are staying open and he also doesn't

close them for flights coming in from

China if he doesn't say anything about

it he's failing you he's failing as a

president on that topic anybody no

matter how much you like his other stuff

that would be just an absolute grade of

F and that's what you said that's where

he is right now

he's had a grade of F

handling this crisis and by the way only

because of lack of communication right

if he did communicate and he said we're

looking at this really carefully and the

costs of closing the airports you know

all things considered could actually be

greater than the risk of this thing but

you know we'll we'll close it in a

moment if that changes if he said

something like that I'd say all right

well at least the smartest people are

looking at it they're watching it you

know maybe they know more than I do I

could be convinced but the lack of your

president saying anything about closing

the airports or even why it's still open

complete failure

that is a complete failure of government

you can't fail harder than that really

that's that's a hundred percent failure

there's nothing you can say about that

that makes that less failure you know I

don't know how much you love your

president there's nothing you can say

about this that absolves him from not

explaining this to the public in a way

that we can say yes or no

I hear the polls say that 75% of the

public wants to hear from witnesses and

the impeachment and what should you make

of that the politicians some of them

anyway are trying to say that that's

telling the politicians that the public

wants wants this

I don't think that's what's happening I

don't think that's what's happened I

think that the public votes for the best

spectacle there might have been a time

in the past when the public would vote

you know would answer a poll based on

their self-interest I just don't know

that that's today I think you know this

is something I've suggested before

they're one of the prediction methods I

use is that if you don't know how things

are going to go and let's say just to

simplify let's say there are two ways

the future could go one of them is

boring and one of them would be great

headlines and entertaining it feels to

me and this is just anecdotal I have no

science to back this whatsoever

but it seems to me that we almost always

go in the direction of greatest story in

other words if it were a movie one of

those stories would be a better script I

feel like we always go in the direction

of the better script what would be

better just for entertainment

no not what's good for the country and

not what's good for you now what's good

for the parties of the president but

what would be the most fun to watch

witnesses what would be more fun than

watching hunter Biden Schiff Joe Biden

you know Bolton what would be more

entertaining than watching all of them

testify not much not much tell me one TV

show or one movie that you immediately

say I would rather watch that TV show or

that movie than to watch John Bolton

testify to watch shift get grilled by

the Republicans I mean seriously we're

talking about some super entertaining

stuff really entertaining I I have mixed

feelings because strategically I think

the Republicans should you know let the

arguments play out and then before

considering witnesses they should have a

vote and they should have a vote

narrowly narrowly on the Dershowitz

argument that these things do not rise

to the level of an impeachable and

therefore even if everything even if

more came out about the details it

wouldn't make any difference it wouldn't

matter if there's a quid pro quo

wouldn't matter what the president said

so the most rational way to go here

would be for Mitch McConnell to say all

right let everybody have their say but

then before we decide our witnesses the

logical step is to have a vote on

whether there's any more information

anybody needs because if you could have

voted it away based on doesn't reach the

constitutional level for impeachment

don't need any witnesses because there's

nothing anybody is suggesting the

witness

this would say they would change that

fact it doesn't change the

constitutional argument at all so we'll

see if Mitch McConnell gets pressured

into getting these witnesses in here

well that would be another another

success for the prediction that says the

best movie wins the one that's the most

entertaining so you can't rule that out

so and here we have this is maybe a

clean case because what the Republicans

should do is have that vote in

dismissive on constitutional grounds but

if they don't then there's something

predictive about that best story idea

all right let's see what else we got

going on here just make sure I haven't

missed any big points you know don't

believe I have I think I had all the big

points

somebody says did Trump leak the Bolton

book details if I have to guess I would

guess it's somebody in the publishers in

the publishing printing area do you know

how many people see a book before it

gets published it's kind of a lot it's

gotten a lot so I'll just give you my

experience so I have I have a editor so

my editor would see the book the editor

is sort of a high-level editor that's

more directional and you know did we get

the book concept right you know that

kind of editing high-level and then

there's there are one or two other

editors who might get involved in the

details one of them would be about the

the grammar and the spelling and the

structure and that sort of thing so

you've got you know three different

editors of course the publisher all of

the assistants who work for those

editors they all have it and then what

about spouses and boyfriends and

girlfriends because I imagine I assume

that a lot of these editors take work

home don't you think that that

manuscript the Bolton manuscript has has

left the publisher at one point and you

know somebody took a

to work on it and edit it of course you

know why would they and then then it

goes to the printer how many people at

the printers office have access to

looking at the manuscript all of them

all of them the you know the entire

printing company could probably walk by

a big bin of books and just take one or

just open it up and take a photograph of

a page so there are probably something

like if I had to put a number on it

maybe 25 people who were in the

publishing chain chain of custody who

could have seen it at least 25 could

have been 100 but at least 25 had access

to it and that's not counting the

government so it could be anybody who

leaked it so could it could it have been

Trump maybe can't rule it out but a lot

of people saw it somebody said they

would think only four or five yeah there

are only four or five people who had

would have a direct a direct business

reason to have it but unless the

publisher had an unusual set of strict

rules of secrecy all of their assistants

had access to it it was probably just

laying on the desk in the office and

they probably took it home etc so there

you go and they also probably talked

about it don't you think that the the

people who edited it might have had a

drink at some point and said you know

I'm at it in that book don't tell

anybody but you should see page 12 128

and you know so it's easy to imagine

they're just tons and tons of people who

could've leaked that thing all right

this was timed yeah I don't think you

can rule out the possibility that was a

timed leak it's a little too

coincidental yeah somebody saying

vindens twin brother had access to it

true but you know here's the thing

the if you're looking at risk management

you wouldn't want to be somebody in the

government who

this because if it's somebody in the

government who leaked that the odds of

being discovered are pretty good and and

you're done

but if you're an editor's assistant just

as an example and you leaked it no

impact probably no impact them you know

especially if they don't find out who

you are probably no impact so the most

likely people that leaked it would be

the people who had the the least to lose

I it's Bernie Brothers yeah

so there's another project Veritas video

of our Bernie bro with some organizer

type person with long hair who can't

stop scratching himself I think he has

Felice unless you're saying that you

know there would be trouble with if

Bernie doesn't get elected so I can't

imagine Bernie having a chance of

winning this thing so if he does get

nominated it's sort of over

I think Biden would be the same

situation but Bernie would be over

faster uh somebody in the comment says

oh my god what kind of world makes to

f'ing vinda means well this kind of a

world

alright that's all I got for now I'll

talk to you tomorrow