ts to get rid of President Trump according to his eloquent speeches that he's been giving to the Senate. He wants to get rid of President Trump not so much because of what he's done because what he's done has no measurable impact. So everything he's done so far or is alleged to do, everything that Schiff and team alleges President Trump has done, if you added it all together you couldn't fill a tablespoon. There's no measurable negative in anything the president has already done. And so the Democrats knowing that and there's no measurable way to make the case there's the future.

Somebody says you were kidding. No I'm not kidding. Do you see any measurable harm that has come from the president's actions? Nobody's even allegedly, nobody has made the case. Nobody has said we lost this money, we lost this deal, we got attacked. None. There's zero alleged cost. And so they have to make the case that this president is just gonna get worse. We're going to encourage him. We're going to be encouraging this president to future unspecified bad behavior. What could be less American? Is there anything less American than punishing them trying to remove somebody from a job for the future potential problems? I don't think the country is gonna buy that but maybe they will.

So this is how Schiff argues it. He said quote "Can you have the least bit of confidence, talk about Trump, that he'll stand up and protect our national interest over his own? You know you can't. Which makes him dangerous to this country." Really? You don't trust that the president who will be watched more than anybody has ever been watched including when he made the phone call he had all kinds of witnesses and he released the transcript. It's the most transparent presidency you've ever had in your life. He has already lost all of his privacy essentially. So am I or any of you worried about the president doing something so purely personal that it would damage the country? Because I don't think he has any incentive for that.

What incentive does the president have to do a bad job as president? I mean let me frame it that way to show you how ridiculous it is. So Schiff is arguing that in the future the president would be in a position in which he would choose, he would rationally choose according to Schiff, what is good for Trump personally and is bad for the country. Can you see any imaginary world in which President Trump could even imagine the situation where doing the worst job you could do as a president would benefit him personally? Because he would allegedly be doing this selfish thing. How do you even, what kind of world is that? The president is watched all the time. If he did something that was purely for him and had no benefit whatsoever not even one that you could argue that would be terrible for his legacy. Why would he do that? It doesn't make any sense.

All right. The funniest thing about it was when Schiff was getting choked up with emotion. And all of the Schiff lovers on CNN and other networks were saying that his presentation was emotional and passionate and they were saying that that was a positive because he was so passionate and emotional. And I looked at it and all I saw was a bad actor trying to act like he was emotionally distraught. Did any of that look genuine to you? Yeah he almost cried. To me that didn't even look slightly believable. Now I hope he's better at writing screenplays than he is at acting. But seriously did anybody, is there anybody in this country that was so stupid that they would watch those days of presentations and at the end see that little fake emotional thing and imagine that that was real? Could anybody imagine that was real? Oh my god I don't think so.

I would like to defend myself from the future problems I'm going to have. I have a crime in progress right now. Crime against humanity. Let's see if I can show it to you. It's better as a visual. So in order to understand this what you have to know is that after the Dilbert comics are drawn they are sent off to my syndication company who has I think it's a third party that they hire and the third party does the color so you can see the strip. Well you can't see it but let me see if I can lower the temperature on this so you can see it. Take it way down. So all the characters are filled in with color as you can sort of see here. So I actually don't see the colored version until it runs. So the first time I see it colorized is when it runs on the internet and in papers.

And I was tweeting this out today and I noticed that whoever adds the color had decided that the character who's talking to Dilbert should display some diversity because most of the characters are generic white people except for Ashok the intern. And they decided to add a little diversity. Now I think to myself good choice. You know especially when I have one of the non-regular characters. Let's have that character as somebody who's not a generic white guy. Show a little flavor in the strip. That's a good idea right? Except the person they decided to add the darker-skinned color to is the character that I had decided to depict as an idiot. That's right.

So my decision was that the second character would be the idiot and Dilbert would call him out for being an idiot. Or read the comic. So the character comes up behind Dilbert and says this data can only mean one thing. And then Dilbert says actually it could mean any one of about 17 things. And then the other character says and why can I only think of one? And Dilbert says please don't make me answer that.

Now of course you may find some correlation with current events in this but I promise yo