hink lawyers are pretty good at arguing, right? You'd say that maybe artists are not good at it but lawyers are real good at it. And I hear a lawyer, Ross Garber, who is literally an impeachment lawyer and he teaches at Tulane Law School. So a very qualified guy in the law. And he tweeted this to me. He said I have done election investigations mostly on behalf of Republicans. So he's saying that he's sort of unbiased here. And then he said I have seen lots of misconduct and irregularities. So here's a person who's experienced and he knows that elections can have lots of misconduct and irregularities because he's seen it himself. So far so good. And he said I expressed concern heading into this election. Even better. He's not only seen a lot of fraud in elections but he warned us about this election. So far so good.

And then he said but I have not seen evidence of potentially result-changing problems. And then he referred to my analogy about the no melted ice cream. Does that seem like a good argument? Is that a world-class lawyer argument there? Because I'm pretty sure there are a lot of things in this world that I haven't seen that actually happened. For example suppose you were to witness a murder by gunfire and you saw the person take out the gun, aim it at the victim, pull the trigger, bang, and then the victim gets a hole in their body and they go ah and they die. And that's what you witnessed. Can you say that you witnessed the person with the gun shooting the victim who the bullet entered and died? Can you say you saw that? No. Because you can't see the bullet, right? You saw the gun go off and you know what guns do. You saw the person with a bullet hole and you logically connected them. But did you see it? No. Because if you can't see the bullet you don't know the bullet actually came out of the gun. You don't know if somebody behind him shot him. Now of course if you do the ballistics you'll find out. But in terms of witnessing there are a lot of things we don't see such as actually watching the bullet that you know happened because you heard the gun go off, you saw it where it's aimed, you saw the result. You don't have to see it all. You don't have to see every bit of it.

So likewise here's a guy who has seen enough election fraud personally that he knows it can happen. So he knows it can happen because he's seen a lot of it. And he knows that the incentive to do it this election was sky high. That's all you need to know. It can be done which he confirms because he's seen a lot of it and the motivation was sky high. You don't need to see the bullet to know that it happened. I think his argument was poor.

And I got a few other things that I don't think are interesting enough to talk about so I won't. And that my friends is the end of Coffee with Scott Adams for today. I think it's maybe the best one I've done so far today, don't you think?

All right I'm just going to look at your comments for a moment because I've been looking at my