ergency.

So here's my take. There's no way it's going to happen. How many agree with me? My take is there's no way it's going to happen. Agree? Yeah. And here's what I think. I think that the news is treating it like it might happen so they can generate news. I think the news knows this isn't going to happen. Now, if it does happen and the next president is Trump, look how much power they just gave the next president, whoever it is. Because if you could just make up a tax and tie it to some obscure law or obscure emergency that obviously isn't appropriate right now, if you can do that, then the president can just ignore the Congress and do whatever he wants. So there's no way this is going to work. To me this looks like fake news top to bottom. It looks like the real play is to get the Republicans to say no or to get the Republican-appointed Supreme Court to say no. I think this is all about getting somebody to get on record and saying no. That's what it looks like. So it looks like a completely illegitimate play.

All right, so what do you think that redacted affidavit is going to look like? So I guess any moment now we'll see the redacted affidavit. Is there any doubt what that is going to produce? Don't we all know exactly what's going to happen? It's going to be something that the left says here it is, the smoking gun. And the right is going to say we don't know what's behind those redacted things. There's nothing here. Yeah, some of you are going to see the worst thing in the world and some of you will see nothing. If we know that that's going to happen, why even bother? I suppose it's better than having Adam Schiff tell us what he saw in the SCIF. So this is a way to beat the Schiff in the SCIF play. But basically it's just going to be a national Rorschach test. Literally, it's going to be a bunch of ink blots in which we'll all have our own interpretation. Redacted affidavit is your next band name. That's a good band name. Redacted affidavit. Yeah.

All right, did you see there were some apologies because somebody accidentally let Ben Shapiro attend a public event? So somebody named the Podcast Movement, I guess it was some kind of podcasters big convention. And Ben Shapiro showed up and took some selfies with people and stuff. And the Podcast Movement to Twitter said, hi folks, we owe you an apology. Before sessions kick off of the day yesterday afternoon, Ben Shapiro briefly visited the PM22 expo area near the Daily Wire booth. Though he was not registered or expected, we take full responsibility for the harm done by his presence. What harm was done by his presence? And you know, I think Ben Shapiro tweeted it around with some video of him at the event. And you see the video, it's all these people who love him who are coming up and asking if they can have their picture taken with him. That's it. That's it. He went to a place where people loved him and they took their picture with him and they left. The horrors. How can we allow this man to be free in public?

All right, I would like to give the joke of the day award to Lisa Booth who tweeted this. I want you to listen carefully. It's the best joke of the month. You ready? Lisa Booth tweets, what if Corn Pop was just trying to protect the children? Pretty good. That's pretty good. What if Corn Pop was just trying to protect the children?

So the story of Joe Biden taking a shower with his daughter is still the news. I don't know what to think about that, frankly.

Do you know what is the most common way I am described in the year 2022? Here's the most common way people describe me. You know, even if you don't like the many, many ways that Adams has been completely wrong about so many things and never apologizes and never admits it, this one time, probably by luck, he got one right. That's the common way people are explaining me. Amazingly, although he's wrong and crazy so many times, this one thing is weirdly makes sense. And so here's the question I ask you. Why are you so sure I was wrong about the other stuff? Stop it. You're embarrassing me.

Over on Locals they're talking about my IQ and it's just embarrassing me. You're embarrassing me. Some people say it's 186. Some people say it's 185. But I don't think you could believe either one of them. Just rumors. It's just rumors.

All right, but here's something I would ask you to do, and something I do. If I have a strong opinion and I see that, let's say it's about the law, and then Alan Dershowitz disagrees with me, I don't know how often that's happened, but if I saw that happen I would immediately say to myself, oh, I changed my opinion. I'll change my opinion to whatever Dershowitz says because he's almost always right on the legal stuff. Is there anybody who would do that for me? Is there anybody who would say, you know, my opinion was solidly X but then Adams said opposite of that, so now I'm going to rethink my opinion? Mostly no. Some yeses. Mostly nos. Not once, says Tom. Not once.

Well, let me ask you this. How many of you have ever heard me say something that was surprisingly insightful? Now, you can still allow that I'm wrong ninety-nine percent of the time. So that's still available to you. But how many of you have ever heard me say something you said, huh, that was strangely insightful? Anybody? Well, there are twenty-eight hundred people watching, so must be something you're watching for. So here's the question you should ask yourself. Are you really so sure I'm wrong about the other stuff, whatever the other stuff is? I would submit to you that my personal experience is that ninety-five percent of the people who think I'm wrong about any topic don't understand what I said about it. Would you accept that estimate? My personal estimate is that ninety-five percent of the people who think they disagree with me are actually dealing with some out-of-context statement. It's not what I think.

Now, if you know that ninety-five percent of the people who disagree with me are actually working on the wrong information, why would you think that doesn't apply to you? Shouldn't your most logical first thought be, oh, if he had some insightful thoughts about this other stuff that I agreed with, but this other one looks like a wacky opinion, shouldn't your first thought be I don't fully understand the opinion or is that out of context? It should be. Now, if I had never said anything that you thought was insightful and then you heard me say something that was wacky, the most reasonable explanation would be, well, he never said anything that's smart. Here's another one. But if you've ever heard me say anything insightful and then you hear something that's just totally bat-crazy, is it the most likely explanation that you heard it wrong or that you're interpreting it not quite the way I meant it? It might be my fault. Right? I'm not saying it's your fault. It could be something I didn't say clearly. But shouldn't that be your first impression? That probably you heard it wrong. And if not, why not? Because people don't suddenly get smart.

Let me put it this way. If somebody, there's a guy I used to work with, he might be the exception to the rule. And what we used to say about him is that he would say like three brilliant things and then one thing that was so dumb you couldn't believe it. And we always tried to understand how in the world could he say three brilliant things and then one dumb thing. But then years later I asked myself, how do I know that one thing was dumb? Maybe it was me. How could somebody say the fourth one's just dumb? Agree with, and then one smart thing. But it's not really that common that people will do some really smart things and then a really dumb thing. Almost always it means you don't understand what they meant. So I'll just put that out there now.

Somebody's saying Sam Harris has a counterexample. Sam Harris, I think, deserves a try to clarify his opinion. So I guess he's got a new podcast out in which he is c