r something. Now I don't need to tell you the science does not back her opinion. I also don't know if she still holds the opinion because this was a while ago, right? So if you're in college you can say some dumb stuff in college. I don't mind that. And I've suggested the 20-year rule. The 20-year rule is you just ignore anything that happened 20 years ago. But that would kind of depend on her disavowing it today. Yeah. Has she ever retracted that? Is exactly the story. Had she retracted and said you know that was just a dumb thing. It was just a college thing. I was just being academic. I was trying to be provocative. I don't hold those views now. If she had said that I would at least attempt to be consistent with my view that the 20-year rule should apply to whatever dumbass racist thing, usually is racist, but whatever racist or homophobic thing you said 20 years ago you're probably a different person by now. And if you're a different person by now maybe you should be judged by who you are instead of something else. But what could be funnier than Joe Biden, who is one of his big claims to fame is that he does good hiring compared to Trump, and he hires somebody who literally says that Black people are superior mentally, physically and spiritually because of some science that isn't real science. You need to retract that really hard. I don't know how much of a retraction you'd need to hear to feel that it was real but I think you need a pretty serious retraction on that one. If she wholeheartedly disavowed her old views I would still hate it but I would want to be consistent with my views on Republicans and everybody else which is if it was 20 years ago and you don't hold that view now I'm going to let it go. But she hasn't repudiated it so at the moment it's just hilarious how incompetent this is. I mean how incompetent would you have to be to pick this person for that job? That's like the ultimate presidential incompetence. And let me tell you I love being just a critic. It was so much harder when I was trying to put a persuasion spin on Trump and say well yeah he said this but you have to understand how this is going to work out. That was hard work. Criticizing Biden for being a dummy is really fun and easy. So my workload went down about 50 percent.

Here's some more stupid news. This is so dumb that when I read it you're not even gonna believe this is true but I swear to God this is true. You know there's facial recognition apps now and law enforcement is using them to figure out who was in the Capitol and also other stuff. And apparently the LAPD has announced that they will allow a technology that uses a database of existing mugshots. So they're okay with using a database of existing mugshots and facial recognition against their small existing database because that's they only have mug shots. They don't have everybody else in the world who is not in a mugshot. But they're not going to use Clearview or tools like it. Clearview is sort of the leader in terms of accuracy there. But Clearview has trained its technology and they use, this is the right phrase, trained its technology on three billion photos. Now people think that Clearview stores the photos like they've scraped them and they've got a database of all the photos. That didn't happen. Clearview doesn't store any photos. They have looked at all the photos and turned them into a formula or an algorithm or a mathematical construct. So what they store is math. They don't have a photo of you in their database. They've got math that was a result of your facial features. So that's all they have is math. And then that math becomes a pointer to where on the internet the actual public information is, you on Facebook etc. So LAPD has decided that they will use facial recognition but only on a tool that hardly ever works. So they've decided that they won't use a reliable tool that could find pretty much everybody, I mean close to 100 percent. So that's evil. So they're not going to use the evil tool that is 100 effective or near it but they will use the evil tool because it's the same thing. It's still facial recognition, right? They will use the one that doesn't work. Now that sounds like I made that up doesn't it? But we're actually in a world where an entity will announce proudly, they proudly announced that they will use the tool that is, if I had to put a number on it, maybe five percent as good as Clearview but the same technology in the sense that they're both facial recognition. This is happening. This is actually happening like out loud right in front of us. We choose to use the one that's five percent effective is equally evil. You know if you think facial recognition is evil that's what it is. And they're not hiding it. It is facial recognition but they only want to use the one that doesn't work. And they said that in public. What, somebody says Clearview is intrusive? Well it's facial recognition that works. It's only more intrusive than other things because it works better. That's the only thing that makes it different. Anyway I thought that was funny.

Scientists have done an experiment with snails and they found that they can make the snail remember something that never happened. Do you know what else never happened? Scientists making snails remember something never happened. I don't think I have to actually read the story to know that whatever a snail remembers, I don't know if you can test that, but let's say they taught the snails to do something if they saw something they'd seen before. So maybe there's a way you can test false memories that way. But I thought that's not really the story that you can make a snail believe something that didn't happen. You know what the story is? The fake news does that literally every day. Are you surprised that scientists working really hard can fool a snail? I'm not really surprised because 75 percent of the people I interacted with on Twitter today also are operating under false memories. They were implanted by the fake news and it's why it's quite obvious. You just read their opinion you go, oh you got that one from the fake news. That's not real. It's exactly like the snail. How much of a grant did we do to find out that scientists can give snails fake news and they'll believe it? Because if you can do it to a living human being easily and effectively and consistently are you really surprised you can do it to a snail? I'm just saying there are some sciences more useful than others.

Here's a question I have in my attempt to get as close to cancellation as I can without actually getting canceled. I don't want to get canceled by the way and I will intentionally do things to make sure I don't go far enough that that's likely. But I'm not sure it's up to me because all it would take is one. What would it take to get me canceled if I don't do anything wrong? What would it take to get me canceled? Snail false memory. Right? All it takes is the fake news to tell the snails that they have a false memory of me doing something. Is that hard? Nope. It's real easy. I'll give you some examples in a bit where the fake news is actively telling people to remember something that didn't happen. It's happening right now. It's actually the headline. The main news right now is the snails. It's just that you're the snails and the news is telling you something that didn't happen and it has become a memory. I'm gonna tell you in a moment a memory that at least half the country has, maybe three quarters, an actual memory that didn't happen. We'll get to that in a minute. So if you think you're different than the snail hold on for that.

So here's a question that I asked provocatively. If the MAGA protesters, if they were all MAGA who knows, that assaulted the Capitol, if they were planning a violent assault meaning that they planned a violent overthrow you know with universal violence as opposed to there were members of the group who definitely were violent and literally killed people or at least one. So there definitely were violent people there who went there to be violent. But here's the question I have. The MAGA people were armed to the teeth some of them were, right? And if you looked at the number of guns owned by the people who attended probably most did not take their weapons but the amount of them that attended who owned weapons, and I'm not talking about clubs I'm talking about actual guns, are you a little bit surprised that there was an insurrection of the most gun owning people on the earth? I think that's true. Wouldn't Republicans be maybe among the most gun owning people on earth? And none of them shot anybody. Am I right? Have you heard any story of a MAGA person even aiming a weapon at another human? Now I don't know that it didn't happen but I haven't heard the story about it. There's no reporting on it. All of those weapons, all of those weapons, thousands of them that they had access to, some of them actually brought weapons, not one person brandished a weapon as in aiming it at somebody. Now what kind of an insurrection is that when the people with massive weaponry don't bring it and the ones that brought it didn't even attempt to use it? What do you call that? Well we'll get into that.

Here's what I'd call it. The fake news has sold you on the idea that there was a coup attempt and or an insurrection. So those words used not exactly the same as each other but you know I think the coup attempt is a little more let's say organized because it assumes that there's somebody you're putting in charge whereas an insurrection maybe it's less organized I don't know. Or maybe they're the same. Doesn't matter for my purposes. But here's what got lost in the story and this is how all of the snails will be reprogrammed. What Ted Cruz and the other Republicans were asking for was not quote overthrowing the election but how is it being reported? It's being reported that those senators were quote trying to overturn an election. Did Ted Cruz ever say I would like to overturn this election? Nope. How about Josh Hawley? Did he say I would like to overturn the election? Nope. Nope. There wasn't a single person who said let's overturn the election at least not in Congress. Not a single person did. Did Trump say let's overturn the election? Nope. Nope. Don't know anybody who knows that. All I know is Ted Cruz saying let's have, let's use 10 days for an audit. We have 10 days. It won't slow anything down. It won't change the outcome unless we found out something we don't know. And wouldn't it make the whole country feel more confident in the process? So Congress was trying to take an election that did not have credibility with enough of the public to be really called a high-class quality credible election. Now it might have been fair and free. How would I know? I don't have any direct evidence that I have access to. I only have news reports. So it might have been fair enough and free enough but it is still a fact that half the country ish doesn't believe it was as fair as it should have been. So when you've got senators like Ted Cruz who I believe is a genuine patriot and Josh Hawley genuine patriot and the others, Matt Gaetz etc., when they're asking for 10 days to improve the reliability and credibility of an election that's not just for Republicans that's for everybody. Is there one of you who would not be better off with a more transparent election? Well I mean you can make an argument if it changed the result of who got in office and you like Biden more than you like Trump then yeah maybe. But wouldn't you be better off with a system that works? Wouldn't you be better off knowing that the election worked? The fake news has brainwashed the public into thinking this was an actual coup. To which I ask you this provocative question. If this were a coup attempt as opposed to trying to force Congress to have a 10-day audit and have some transparency which the public required, if it were a real coup how exactly was that coup going to work? Did they think these clever coup plotters that once they had occupied two empty rooms that they were then the leaders of the country? Was that their thinking? Once we get in these empty rooms with all this furniture we run the country now. Is that what they thought? Because I don't think so. I don't think they thought that. Did they think that by stealing the magic lectern which did happen, Nancy's lectern was stolen, were they thinking if we can get a hold of the magic golden lectern we will have power over the whole world? I don't think they thought that. It looked more like they were getting souvenirs. So let me ask you this. If I said to you there are some senators who want more transparency in the election so that we can be sure we had a solid election and that's better than the situation we have with great uncertainty, does that sound like a coup? Is a coup where you take the existing system and try to improve it as it stands? That is the opposite of a coup. If you're trying to make the current system work better transparently which is all they ask for, just an audit, you're doing the opposite of a coup. A coup is changing that system and changing the outcome. Now could an outcome change? Yes but only if the system worked. The only way the outcome could change is if the system were repaired through transparency and we can see what happened with an audit and if we don't know that would be the case. And if that repairing of the transparency caused a re-vote or some re-evaluation that could happen but it's the opposite of a coup when you're trying to make sure the public feels confident with the existing system. Changing the existing system is the coup. So when these people came in there and they were obviously trying to intimidate Congress so some people said to me Scott, Scott, Scott what you don't understand is no it's not about stealing the golden lectern so you have power. It's not about them thinking that a coup could be accomplished by fully occupying two empty rooms. They didn't think that. They were trying to bully and intimidate and scare Congress into doing something and that's bad. That is bad. Except what exactly was it they were trying to bully and scare and threaten Congress into doing? Was it were they trying to bully and scare and threaten Congress into doing something illegal? No no they weren't trying to get them to do anything illegal. Were they trying to threaten Congress into doing something that their own rules of Congress wouldn't allow them to do? No no. Congress could have done what the protesters wanted. They could do an audit. In fact Ted Cruz had suggested it. So wouldn't you say that the Congress was being threatened and bullied into doing the job? Because I would say that if half of the country feels there's no credibility in the election and they have 10 days to do something that might make a difference and you want them to do that thing which can be done it's practical it wouldn't change anything in terms of the timing and it's their job. You actually had an insurrection to try to force Congress just to do its job. That actually happened. And that's being presented as a coup attempt and an insurrection. It's literally the opposite. It was an insurrection mostly, right? There were some bad elements in there who had their own, they must have had their own motives. So I'm not trying to minimize the fact that there were some bad people in that group and what those bad people did they have to be held fully accountable for. You know it's illegal. You could execute them for all I care especially the one who beat the cop. Anybody who beat that cop you can execute them. I'm fine with that. This would be illegal. But I'm just saying that the vast majority of these people that are being called the insurrection and the coup were literally trying to intimidate Congress into doing its job for the first time and that's being called a coup. Right? Encouraging Congress to just simply do its job. That's it. They didn't ask them to do something that's not their job. They didn't ask them to quit. None of that. They just asked them to do their job. That's it. Now you could argue that maybe they shouldn't have done their job that way etc. but you can't argue what the intent was. Because if the intent was a coup I think they would use some weapons. If the intent was an insurrection like an actual change of government based on their threats or their actual violence would they do it that way? What kind of a weak-ass coup takes over two empty rooms, steals a lectern and says I think we got this. I think we're in charge of the United States now. That's not a thing. That's what the fake news sold to the snails. The snails believed there was a coup and they will never believe anything else because the snails have been programmed by the fake news to think that instead of a bunch of people taking a body of the government, the Congress, which had what a 13 approval rating. Let me tell you if patriots surround a part of the government that has a 13 percent rating of approval and they're refusing to do the most basic part of their job which is hey could you maybe give us some assurance that the election was fair? Pretty basic to the job I would say. If they're not willing to do their job shouldn't, and they have 13 approval, whose fault is it that patriots surrounded their building? The bad ones went inside. We don't condone that whatsoever. Totally disavow the ones who went inside. But you should expect that they're going to surround the building. You should expect a free speech kind of demonstration. I mean if you didn't expect that.

So Trump will either be impeached or almost impeached based on the fact that although his words did not encourage violence and specifically said the opposite, he said be peaceful, specifically be peaceful, but I do think it's a fair criticism that he should have known what would happen even though his words were not telling them to do that. It wouldn't have been too hard to know that you're creating a dangerous situation. So I think he has to take responsibility for that the same way he can take credit for some of the great things he did. But if it's true that Trump could be impeached or almost impeached because he should have known, it's not what he did intentionally it's what he should have known would have been the result even though his specific actions didn't have that tell for a problem, he should have known that his actions would have caused that. I agree with that. But should Congress have known that denying an audit under this condition would create violence? Yeah you just got quiet didn't you? Should Congress have known that not backing the audit which there was no problems with it, didn't have a budget problem, didn't have a timing problem, there was no objection to it, it could have been done, should Congress have known that this would cause violence? Absolutely they should have known. And all I ask is for some consistency. I will not push back on attempts to impeach Trump over this because I do think he's got something to answer for. All leaders have to answer for the result of their actions, right? The fact that he wasn't intending this to happen matters but it doesn't excuse it, right? Because you can be impeached for a mistake. I would say it was a mistake. It was a big one. It was a big mistake. But it wasn't intentional. Do you think that Trump wanted violence? I think that's the last thing he wanted. I think that's the very last thing he wanted. It's obvious that he wanted pressure on Congress but pressure to do an audit not pressure to overturn the election not pressure to enter the building. But there's no way Trump wanted that. But buck stops at the top you know. If I'm going to be even a little bit consistent the person in charge gets the blame and the person in charge gets the credit if things go right even if they weren't directly involved. Those are the rules and I don't think we should change them. I'm not going to change it for Trump but I want to be consistent. Kamala Harris was promoting violence by the Black Lives Matter protesters. I think that should be treated the same. So I can support impeaching Trump over this even understanding in my opinion that he didn't intend any of it to happen. But the same way Kamala Harris actually actively supported, I'll say unrest I won't say violence she didn't use that word, but she was certainly in favor of unrest which guaranteed death and destruction guaranteed it and of course she would know that. So how does Kamala Harris not get impeached? It's the same standard. And secondly how do all of the members of Congress who voted against the 10-day audit, how did they not know that they were going to get attacked for that? How did they not know that was going to cause that problem? Right? Same standard.

All right let me read this comment. The coup insurrection false narrative is beyond annoying. Yeah the Dems used it against, yeah right that comment disappeared for reasons that I'm not clear as I was reading it but thank you for the comment. So how do you feel living among the snails who have been convinced that an attempt to solidify and protect the republic as it stands has been turned by the fake news into a coup attempt and an insurrection where plainly it wasn't? Plainly you don't need to be an expert on insurrections. You just have to look at it and say they took over a room. You can't control a country by taking over a room, an empty room. Now some of you are saying but they meant to take members of Congress hostage. Let's say that's true. There was a guy there with twisty eyes right that showed some intent. But let's say worst case scenario that some of the people who were in the building intended to harm or take control of let's say members of Congress. Do you know what's wrong with this? How could you control the United States by taking hostage any number of people who have a 13 approval rating and are not doing the will of the people? I do not condone any kind of hostage taking that I hope that's obvious. I don't condone any violence and I absolutely disavow anybody who entered the building. They should have stayed out of the building period. But if you're going to say this was a coup attempt you have to complete the story. I'm just asking anybody who thinks it was a coup to complete the story. And the story is if they took hostages in Congress would they control the country? No no not even a little bit. Who named a member of Congress that we wouldn't sacrifice as opposed to overthrowing the government of the United States? I'm a big fan of Mike Pence even though he's very unpopular with a lot of people this week. I've been saying since the beginning that if you judge him for his job as a vice president, spectacular. I really think he's one of the strongest vice presidents we've ever had even though I disagree with him on LGBTQ stuff and other stuff. So I don't think he should be president but as a vice president damn good. Now as much as I like Mike Pence imagine if you will if the alleged coup attempt people had taken him hostage and were planning to kill him if they didn't get their way then did the coup attempt people, have they taken over the country? Would that work? Hey we got your vice president we're going to do bad things to him unless you let us run the country or put Trump in charge and let Trump have a second term. Would that work? No. No we might love Mike Pence but we're not going to trade his life for the country. That's not how it works. We would say well if that's the way it's got to be you know we're going to miss Mike Pence. There isn't a single person in the world who would trade the country for Mike Pence. And Mike Pence is awesome. Great guy you know overall. I know some of you think he's a traitor for not wanting to vote the way he did etc. I think he's a good person who's just trying to figure out the best of bad options. I just see him as a good person. You don't have to agree with him. I don't either. I don't agree with all of his decisions but I feel like he's a good person still. Still if one person in our government is taken hostage we're not going to overthrow the government turn it to the president whoever the president is. You could pick Trump or Biden or anybody else. Bad people take the president hostage sometime in the future do they own the country? No no not even a little bit not even slightly. You could take every member of Congress hostage and it wouldn't have any effect on controlling the country because the rest of the country would say oh well I guess we need some new politicians and we would just go on like it didn't even happen. You know we would of course kill all the coup people first but it wouldn't stop us. There's no way that any of those actions conceivably in the most wild imagination could have turned into anything like a coup. There was just no connecting tissue that could have made that even slightly possible. Not one percent. Nothing. And yet the snails have been convinced it happened.

All right. Glenn Beck's getting in trouble for referring to the private company social media censorship of some voices as a digital holocaust. And then the people who like the Auschwitz museum people etc. say stop using our holocaust analogies because you're trivializing the holocaust. I have two things to say about that. Number one never don't compare things to the holocaust. The whole point of the holocaust is that it can't be compared to other things unless it's an actual another holocaust. Like if somebody actually kills six million people of some identified group well yeah that's a holocaust. But I don't call censorship and stuff like that a holocaust. Right? It does cheapen the holocaust. So I agree that it's a word that there are some words you want to preserve right? You just want to preserve some words and not water down their meaning because they're important. But here's the fun part and the second part. Having suffered from four years of Hitler analogies about Trump I really did kind of enjoy the Glenn Beck is making a legitimate, it's legitimate I mean it's as legitimate as the charges against Trump for being Hitler meaning neither of them are legitimate because nothing really compares to Hitler nothing compares to the holocaust where it's just hyperbole. But it's completely fair that after four years of listening to it you want to send a little back. I kind of enjoyed that. And I have to tell you when it was obvious that Trump wasn't going to get a second term I suffered a little bit of not depression nothing like that but maybe a little bit of pre-sadness that I wouldn't be entertained in the future wouldn't be fun things to talk about but that doesn't seem to be the case. So making fun of Biden will be way more entertaining than defending Trump because it'll be so easy.

John Dvorak wrote a really provocative article talking about how the poor countries seemed, I was talking about this yesterday, how the countries with low incomes seem to be doing better on the coronavirus than the countries with good health care systems. And I was speculating there we don't know why that is. Maybe it's sunshine or bad reporting or you know any one of ten things or ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. Everybody's got their own private theory. But John Dvorak's theory is the most provocative of them all and I'm not telling you I agree with this I'm just going to tell you his opinion because it's so fun. And his opinion is it's mass hysteria. That the countries that have a let's say a well-developed news social media industry they've generated a mass hysteria so that our impression of what's happening is way out of line with what's happening. And that the poor countries don't have the same robust social media fake news kind of influence and so they don't know that they're in a pandemic. And the hypothesis and again this is not my opinion I'm going to tell you my opinion in a moment but the hypothesis is that mass hysteria is so strong that if you get enough of it going it looks like you have a pandemic when maybe you don't. Now part of his argument is we don't see bodies piled up in these third world countries and that's a mystery right? If these other countries are doing everything wrong at least according to the developed countries they are because they're not they don't have the high quality health care. If they're doing everything wrong where are the bodies? Wouldn't we notice? I mean even though we don't have great information about what's happening in Congo or some African country we don't have great information but wouldn't we notice by now? It'd be a lot of dead people. Maybe there are we just haven't noticed. That would be weird. Somebody says they bury them. Yeah but you still notice. I mean they'd be talking about it. So I don't think I quite buy into John's theory only because we do have bodies piled up if you count the number of people who seem to have died. If you look at the impact on ICUs where there's a hotspot it looks like real disease to me. It looks real to me. So there may be some way that John Dvorak's opinion about the mass hysteria or at least a hypothesis let's say it's a hypothesis as opposed to an opinion. I don't want to oversell his opinion. He needs to do that himself. But let's say the hypothesis it's really interesting and the part of the hypothesis I like and the thing that makes it provocative is that it's entirely possible for a mass hysteria to cause people to think they're having health problems they're not. But I don't think that's happening in this case because I think there are too many doctors looking at too many real things and too many real patients. But you never know. It's just a fun thought.

Let's see. I'd like to give a random compliment today. I told you I'd be giving out random compliments especially to people who you don't expect me to be complimenting. Today's compliment is to Geraldo Rivera. Yeah I know I know what you're gonna say. Hold on just hold on. It's not as bad as you think. You can handle this. I know you can. So Geraldo of course has been quite brutal on President Trump who have been friends for a long time. So Geraldo's been a booster overall but he's disagreed on immigration and some other things. So here's what he said in a tweet. He said regardless of how the Senate ultimately votes, I think he's talking about impeachment, he says it's entirely appropriate that Trump be impeached by the House. He knew what the mob intended from the jump and basically that's his point. He knew what they were going to do so it's on him. And he goes after Trump pretty hard. Now here's my compliment to Geraldo. Yes he took a selfie with his shirt off over the age of 70. Yes Capone's vault did not go the way maybe he hoped. Yes he does do a lot of self-promotion. That's his job. So do I. If you do this for a living you do a lot of self-promotion. That's sort of what you do. That is part of the job. But here's what I love about Geraldo and the following compliment. Geraldo doesn't give a what you think about his opinion and I could not love that more. Geraldo has said more opinions that more people disagree with and said it with complete bravery I guess would be the right thing. He is one brave mofo. He will say absolutely anything he thinks is true no matter what you think of it and he'll say it in public and there are not many people like that. Now I don't agree with Geraldo on a number of things. You know I've been watching him for a long time. Sometimes I like his opinions sometimes I disagree but in every case don't you feel he's telling you his honest opinion? That's the special part. It looks like, I mean you can't read minds but my opinion of his opinion is that every time he gives it I'm seeing an actual opinion. When you watch almost anybody else who's in this business and I think I could put myself in that category unfortunately you can smell the bias right? Like it just reeks. Some people just reek of bias even when they're saying things that are true they still reek of bias. Geraldo does not. He does not reek of bias. He can take a position on the left when it looks like it makes sense to him even if I disagree and he can take a position on the right if he thinks it makes sense. That is special right? You need more of Geraldo even if you disagree with him. You don't need less of that. You need a lot more of it in my opinion.

Stephen Beschloss a historian I believe he tweeted that after the grim week I was talking about some members of Congress tried to come to work with concealed carry I guess and they felt that they needed it for their safety and they set off the security alarms and they refused to be patted down. Now I didn't hear the rest of the story whether they were let in or not but they were apparently they were strapped and they had weapons. Now Beschloss says that maybe I shouldn't be surprised by the disgraceful level of arrogance of Congress people who refuse to go through a metal detector. Arrogance and selfishness qualities that helped us get into this mess. To which I say Steven did you notice t