. That's right. I'm taking all of the goodness you would have heard yesterday but I couldn't get to it. I'm packing it to get to today for twice as good. A coffee with Scott Adams. Let us start.

So there's some politician, a Republican guy named Justin Amash, who has apparently broken ranks with the Republicans. And he says, I have read the Mueller report and it has all kinds of impeachable conduct. It has impeachable conduct. That's pretty vague, isn't it? If your best argument sounds like this: "Scott, he did impeachable things," you're in pretty good shape.

Let me tell you what sounds very bad. "Scott murdered a guy. Scott murdered a guy named Bob." That sounds pretty bad. If somebody says, "Scott, you murdered somebody," I'm like, whoa, I'm in trouble. I'm going to jail. That's a pretty specific allegation.

Here's what I'm not worried about. "Scott may have, if you look at the totality of evidence, nothing individual that mattered too much. No crimes. Yeah, no crimes. And there was no conspiracy or anything like that. But if you look at the big picture, if you sort of get far away like in outer space, and there's a lot of it and you put a lot of things together that don't mean much, from outer space it could give you the impression, sort of a vague uneasy feeling, that there might be something that I would call a conduct, collectively speaking, which in a philosophical and maybe generic sense could be somewhere in the general vicinity of something we should at least have a conversation about impeachment." Under those conditions, how much do I worry? Not a lot. Not a lot.

Now Amash is probably being kind of clever because he's getting all kinds of attention. What was the thing that Justin Amash was most famous for before this? He was most famous for nobody ever heard of him. So Justin Amash's greatest claim to fame prior to selling out the Republicans was that nobody ever heard of him. So I guess he's done better than that now. We've heard of him. That's not nothing.

So there's something I'm sort of tracking. Changing topic a little bit about Joe Biden. I call it the Sleepy Joe. Listen, I'll give it a name. Let's say the Sleepy Joe visibility metric. Yeah, let's call that the Sleepy Joe visibility metric. It goes like this. Sleepy Joe Biden is the dominant frontrunner for the Democrats. It's the biggest story in the country politically, partly because everything else is going well.

Look for the big stories about the economy on the front page of CNN. Oh, there are none, because the economy is going well. Look for the big story about the war we're in. Oh, there isn't a big story because we're winding down wars everywhere. Look for the big story about how our Chinese trade talks are going to end the world. Oh, well that doesn't seem to be happening because again the economy is doing well.

So we've got this weird world where there isn't much to talk about except the 2020 election. It's still the biggest thing, right? So if the biggest competitor, the only person who could change the equation and maybe, you know, I have a chance of beating President Trump, that would be a big, big, big, big change in the world. It's a big story. Do you see a lot of interviews with Joe Biden? So far I've seen zero. I mean I think he's had them. I think he must have talked to the press in the last several weeks but it just kind of comes and goes.

It seems to me that the anti-Trump press either has no confidence in Biden or is hoping that the less they talk about him the less he gaffes. It seems to me that, you know, I don't know that this is any collusion but maybe collectively people have made the same idea. The more we see of Joe Biden, the more we like him. Fill in the end of this sentence. The more the public sees of Joe Biden. Now fill in the blanks. What do you think is the answer to that? The more we see him the more we'll love it? Does that work? Okay, let's try it again. The more we see of Joe Biden the more smarter things he'll say? I don't know, it doesn't quite fit. The more we see of Joe Biden the more we'll know he's young enough and vital enough to do the job? Maybe. Could be.

Or how about this one? Let's try this one on. The more we see of Joe Biden the more gaffes he'll make. Which one of those things sounds a little truer? Which one feels right? It certainly seems to me that this time, in the prior presidential election, we saw a wall-to-wall nonstop Trump, didn't we? Trump the candidate said the more I get on TV the better. And he did everything he could to be on TV and get all this free press and he got a lot of it. Joe Biden is doing exactly the opposite.

Trump made a calculation that the more Trump you saw the more likely he would get it. Think about that. Trump correctly, correctly deduced, and it's obvious he'd do this, I'm not reading minds, I think he actually said this, there are quotes of his early on, but Trump was about removing all the oxygen from the other candidates. He was about just eliminating any attention on anything but Trump. And that worked because apparently the more Trump you see the more likely you want him for your president. Not everybody of course. Half the country doesn't. But for the people who voted for him, the more they saw apparently the more they liked on average.

But Biden seems to be the opposite. Now keep watching this because it's too early. It could be that Biden isn't doing anything interesting and later he will. Excuse me. So maybe we'll see more of that.

Now the president has done his North Korea trick. He's tweeted at Iran after moving military assets into the region based on some vaguely specified risk that Iran was doing something dangerous. Maybe to do with loading missiles on boats, maybe more than that, we don't know. But Trump tweeted, and I was looking for the exact wording but it's not handy. Somebody can help me with the words here. He basically said that if Iran ever attacked the United States interests, not the homeland necessarily, but if they did something dangerous, that Iran would essentially cease to exist. Now those are my words not the president's but he essentially said that. And I thought that is such the right thing to do.

And once again this is another one of those situations where future presidents are going to have to answer to the way Trump did business in his administration. Every future president is going to be compared to how this president handled stuff. And the way he handled stuff tends to have a pattern. Have you noticed it? Step one, the Trump step is, "Oh my God he can't do that. That's too provocative. That's too dangerous. The world will explode. We should never do whatever it is that Trump says we should do." Step two is we do it anyway. So for whatever reason he gets his way and we say, "My God, my God, I can't believe he's doing this. This was everything we feared. I can't believe it. The world is gonna end." Step three you say, "Okay it did work out okay. I admit, I admit this didn't work out but there's a lot of things we don't like about this president unrelated to this." And how many times have you seen this?

Let's take North Korea. "Oh my God, my God, you can't say fire and fury. You can't be treating a leader with nuclear weapons the way you're tweeting. This will, no, okay you're doing it anyway. I see you're doing it anyway but my God don't do this. We all warned you and you're doing it." "Okay it did work out. Yes we admit this worked out exactly the way you hoped it would but man, what about Charlize Theron? What about some other thing?" You see it with trade talks with China. "Trade talks are bad. Trade, you know, trade wars are bad. It's bad, it's bad, it's bad. Okay you're doing it anyway. I see you're doing it anyway but man this is not gonna turn out okay." "The economy is doing better than anybody hoped." "Sure. Alright so this was, it turns out, looks like both the left and the right agree it was exactly the right time to get tough on trade with China. Okay but even though we were totally wrong about this and even though we were totally wrong about the way he had approached North Korea he's got other problems. I'm sure there are other things he's doing wrong. There must be other unrelated things that he's just doing completely wrong. Let's talk about those for a while."

So same thing with Iran except I think there's a little less pushback this time. Here's what I liked about his Iran warning. The first thing I like about it is that the warning is on Twitter and it's public. I love the fact that it's public because he's talking to the public of the United States and he's letting Iran see the reaction directly with no filter from the public. And so they can look at his tweet that says if you mess with us we will end you, meaning the regime in Iran, not kill all the people. That should be the proper interpretation, that we would change their regime, not that Iran would cease to exist as a country.

And so the Ayatollah can look at the comments to the tweet, and I haven't looked at them but I imagine that the comments are largely supportive of the concept that if Iran goes too far we've got a pretty dangerous president and he's unpredictable and I'm pretty sure he would use the opening to redo the Middle East. So the last thing that Iran wants to give a President Trump is an excuse to redo the map of the Middle East. What do they imagine that a President Trump would like to do? We wouldn't mind redoing the map of the Middle East if the point of it was to make it a safer place for Israel, for our other allies in the region.

So I think they're gonna look at his comments and say I do not see the