So let's talk about Kavanaugh. So back in 2015 I reminded you on a regular basis, I said provocatively the facts don't matter and that they've never mattered. But we're gonna find that out in a way that we've never understood before. I think my prediction has come true, which is that the facts are not influencing reality the way everybody thought they should.

Everybody doubted me. I told you from the beginning the facts don't matter. Now of course the facts do matter to the outcomes, right? So that's true. But in terms of how we think about our world, the decisions we make, who we believe, how we interpret things, facts don't matter.

Take for example Kavanaugh. Here's a situation where we will never know what happened. Is that correct? We will never know if something happened like what the accuser says or something did not. It is unknowable, cannot be confirmed. So do the facts matter? Well they can't matter because we can't know them. And yet we imagine we do.

I would say if you did a survey of a hundred people you'd find at least half of them say they're pretty sure what happened. But they can't be. You know some of those people would say I'm sure it happened, she wouldn't say it otherwise. And other people would say I'm sure it didn't happen, look how coincidentally this happens at this timing and she can't possibly remember that. So the facts don't matter.

So what do you do in a situation where you're in a reality where you have to make a decision about the Supreme Court nomination? You have to make some decision, but a very important fact can't be known. What do you do? Here's what you do. You honor the system, because you can't know the facts.

Why don't you say more about that? If you can't know the facts or people won't agree on the facts, you have to replace the facts which can't be known with a system which is credible. Because if we can't agree on the facts, maybe we can agree that the way we arrived at the decision was a good system.

What would be a good system in the case of Kavanaugh and the accusations against him? There's only one good system that makes sense. The system is if you can't prove it, you have to ignore it. That's the system. Because that's the system you would all want to apply to you, right? Would you not want that system to apply to you if you were in his position and there was an unproven accusation which can never be proven? What system would you say? Well that would be fair. Doesn't matter who it is. That system would be fair.

And so if you're asking yourself, you know, let's say you're in Congress and you're saying to yourself what should we do with this Kavanaugh thing because it might be true and it might not be true. Here's what you should do. You should ignore whether or not it's true. It's just not part of your decision. That's the hard part.

But if you're being rational and you're trying to maintain a civilization that works in these situations, you have to default to the system. You have to take a system stand. That is the system you would want applied to other people in other situations that are somewhat similar. And the system is no evidence, no penalty. Well, evidence is the wrong word. Anything that can't be proven, you have to treat it like it didn't happen.

And so the Kavanaugh vote, if some of the senators who are allegedly potential no votes, if they vote against him because of the accusation, I believe they've failed you even if they're right. Because that part we can't know. But they have failed you if they choose guessing about the facts or making a decision based on the facts. If they make a decision based on their opinion of the facts or the likelihood that the facts could be true or false, they have failed you. Because they should make the decision based on the process, the system. And the system unambiguously requires us to not penalize him for something that can't be known. If it can't be known, you can't be penalized for it, period. That's the system you want to live under. It's the only credible system. And even if it doesn't give you the right answer every time, you still have to use it, period. That's my take.

All right, if somebody's saying I'm with Nancy, preponderance of evidence requires 51%. Yeah, we're not in a preponderance of evidence situation because there's one piece of evidence and nobody will agree whether it's persuasive or not. Pattern of behavior? Yeah, you know I would say that all of that stuff around the decision, you know people are trying to argue well what about the women who said he didn't do anything, what about his friend who was there who said this, what about her memory wasn't complete, she didn't mention Kavanaugh until later, what about why did she wait until this point. There's all these what abouts. And I would say you should treat all of it the same. It shouldn't matter to the decision because it doesn't lead you to any kind of a certainty or even preponderance of likely certainty or anything like that. So you've got to use the system. And the system says unproven has to be ignored.

All right, explain sort of its credible accusation thing. Yeah, so the phrase that the anti-Trumpers, anti-Kavanaugh people are using is credible accusations. And that's a clever way to add credibility to an accusation simply by... I saw a funny comment. Somebody said I am Nancy. Sort of like I am Spartacus. I am Nancy. All right, you get the funniest comment of the day award.

I have not seen the new Project Veritas tape. Let me make a prediction about the Project Veritas tape that I haven't seen. It's gonna be ambiguous. It's a dud. Somebody said all right without seeing it or hearing anything about it I'm gonna say it's gonna be ambiguous. All right.

So Mike's gonna... Mitch said we're talking about credible accusations. Yeah, calling something a credible accusation. It's the word credible plus accusation. So it's a very clever way to persuade without the facts. So strategy-wise it's really good, but it's also evil. It's totally evil, but it's good persuasion if you don't mind evil with your persuasion.

All right, your comments are extra funny. I don't know how this Nancy situation... well you know although we saw here in the Periscope that Nancy did not probably cause any crimes on Periscope, but Nancy was incredibly accused. Nancy, you were credibly accused. See what that does? It just turns Nancy into guilty by having that credibly part in front of accused. I am Nancy.