Episode 1197 Scott Adams - Odds of Rigging an Election and Getting Away With it? Whiteboard Time!

hey come on in it's time it's time for coffee with scott adams and today there will be a whiteboard yeah just when you thought today couldn't get it any better and then you found out that coffee with scott adams features a whiteboard and you said to yourself oh that's as good as they can get wait wait wait it's a double-sided white board yeah you didn't see that coming did you that's right and in order to enjoy the double-sided white board to its full extent what do you need not much a copper margaret glass a tanker challenger stein a canteen joker flask a vessel of any kind and you can fill it with your favorite liquid i impartial to coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day thing that makes everything better way better seventy-five percent better it's called the simultaneous zip it happens now go i feel science becoming more accurate i feel data starting to be credible and that's just one sip imagine if i finish that entire mug oh yeah oh yeah all right and we'll talk about the election and allegations of fraud in a moment but some fun stories first we have yet another potential vaccine that could make a big difference oxford dash a-z so astrazeneca i guess they've got a vaccine that has a strange story to it here's the strange story it was a big old scientific trial and it was supposed to be two doses to each person but they discovered after they had given a bunch of the first doses that the first doses had been um by mistake half as much as they were supposed to be so then they said well what do we do now because we started this trial and the first doses are all the wrong amount so they said well we can salvage it by at least giving the full dose on the second one and let's just see what happens and what happened was it turns out according according to their initial data i've got some questions about the accuracy of the data but their data says that when they got a half dose followed i think a month later by a full dose that they got to 90 efficiency of the of the vaccine but when they did it the way they were supposed to do it two full doses it was only 60 as effective now there are a few possible ways to explain this number one way everything about this trial is wrong now was there a point in this whole vaccine situation where you said to yourself i'm feeling pretty good about science because scientists are are killing it you know this whole warp speed thing man clap clap clap for our scientists around the world not just in the united states but other countries too and they're just killing it with this development of the vaccine so science is something you can depend on except wait what was that thing you said to me scott about science did an entire randomized drug trial of the most important thing in the world that could be tested at this moment coronavirus vaccine and in the most important trial or one of the few for these vaccines one of the most important trials in the world maybe in all of civilization and how many people had to look at that whatever the directions were how many people looked at that study before rolling it out to not know that they had somehow accidentally given everybody half a dose are you still really confident about your scientific process because the trouble is that science as a system is terrific compared to other ways of understanding your reality but unfortunately science is populated with people and while we can all agree that science as a concept is pretty darn awesome can we also agree that human beings as entities are pretty darn shitty in fact i could give you a pretty long list of human beings work total crap and unfortunately when you take a concept like science which is terrific really excellent and you combine it with organic creatures who tend to be pretty shitty on average you give something that's the average of something awesome science and something pretty shitty people so that's how you get half a dose so put that right in your arm huh yeah let let me shoot up with a vaccine that the best scientists in was a great britain couldn't figure out the difference between half a dose and a full dose yeah i got a lot of confidence in that one i think i'll take the american vaccine that's just me i think i'll take the american one not that it's necessarily better by the way i am i am pro-vaccination just to be clear i'm pro-vaccination but it's always a tentative opinion meaning i'd change it in a heartbeat if the data changes so i'm not going to make a personal decision about taking a vaccine the coronavirus vaccine any one of the different vaccines i'm not going to make a personal decision until when last minute if you're making a decision now instead of waiting for the last minute you're doing it wrong because there might be new information so you know i'm not going to wait for people to take it then wait a year to see if they have any health problems i probably won't do that but i'm certainly going to wait as long as i can before i make a decision just in case i think that i'll probably take it but here's the other interesting thing about this oxford astrazeneca story the the accident may have discovered something that's really really important in the same way that yellow sticky notes were discovered by accident and i think penicillin was discovered by accident and a lot of things get discovered by accident could it be and some of the scientists have speculated that there is something about giving a half dose and sort of maybe priming your body a little bit you know it's like a putting down a primer coat of paint or something and then a month later when you give the full dose what if that makes the vaccination way way better could it be that they accidentally discovered an effect that is monstrously important which is if you give people a small dose of a drug let your body acclimate and then give them a bigger dose is that something that could work in other situations or is it something unique to this one vaccination or is it just bad data could be any of those things but possibly it's a gigantic possibly a gigantic discovery that we're just seeing the first glimmer of maybe you never know i like to look on the bright side well the big story of course is that trump has authorized the gsa to fund and assist in the biden transition does that mean that president trump in his secret inner thoughts is really conceding well we don't know his secret in her thoughts we don't know them at all but i would say if he is consistent with his past he keeps his options open why wouldn't you everything we know about trump is that he always keeps his options open so he does have technically a path to the presidency another term so the fact that he's doing something in case it goes the way most people think is going to go at the same time he's keeping his option open in court etc nothing wrong with that completely consistent and does not tell us his state of mind in the same way that it made sense to do operation warp speed by producing a bunch of vaccines before we had tested them just so we'd have them ready in case they worked it's the same thing good risk management is what trump did with warp speed he said let's let's put a billion dollars into it or probably multiple billion to make the vaccine vaccines just in case they're safe we'll find out later but we could always just throw the vaccines away if we have to so same same reason they should do the transition just in case it's uh it's it goes the way it looks like it's going to go and still keep your options open so apparently there's a some data out that 79 of trump supporters believe the election was fraudulent 79 now do you remember back in 2016 one of the biggest uh one of the biggest criticisms that i personally received was scott are you telling me you think that president trump or candidate trump at the time are you telling me you think trump is persuasive where's the evidence of that i don't see any evidence he's persuasive well how about convincing 79 of his supporters that an election had been thrown you can't get much more persuasive than that now keep in mind that persuasion tends to only work on your own team it's not like the democrats are persuading the republicans or vice versa that's sort of not a thing used to be a little bit but it's not really a thing at the moment so watching uh trump persuade his own base is really a remarkable thing do you do you think anybody else could have persuaded 79 of their base to think the election was rigged maybe i don't know but it's still pretty impressive right yeah oh yes and then the in the comments somebody's reminding me that 30 of democrats think the election was fraudulent 30 that's about as persuasive as you can get or is it we're going to get to that in a moment we'll talk about whether it would be reasonable to assume as these many people have that the election was fraudulent in the face of don't the democrats tell us every single day there's no evidence where's all the evidence if you have zero evidence how could you possibly convince 79 of the people that fraud happened with zero evidence how does that happen well it could be because there is evidence and democrats just say there isn't you know i would say the the sworn statements from over 200 people that they personally observed irregularities is evidence so here's a question for you uh just hold this question in the back of your head because it will get funnier over time all right so we'll just put it in there now and let it just let it simmer it's going to get better and here's the thought democrats have said that trump has done tremendous damage in his first term and indeed one of the reasons for what them wanting to replace him is to prevent the further tremendous damage that he would do so how long is it going to take biden to fix all of that damage and what was the damage can somebody remind you what the damage is that biden is fixing is it the climate because there's a big difference in uh in the climate opinion right but correct me if i'm wrong hasn't the trump administration lowered our emissions below the paris accords if we had stayed in them so it doesn't look like there's much to fix in terms of the climate because we were actually doing great what about um the middle east will biden go in there and fix everything that trump broke in the middle east well no actually it looks like trump fixed the middle east or at least it's heading in the right direction israel's making friends with a number of neighboring countries like never before iran seems to be you know marginalized and things seem to be relatively less war-like than normal so i don't know what he's fixing there how about the economy trump had the economy just humming along until coronavirus of course now will biden fix the coronavirus there's not much he can do for the economy that's the economy's going to do what it did what it does but will will biden come in and on inauguration day he's going to come in and say people people wear your masks and then people will if this is my understanding of how this is going to work people who had been under a trump administration because he was a little less let's say assertive about wearing masks he agrees with it but he's not really pushing it um it feels as if when trump was let's say a little tepid little lukewarm about masks that that caused people to wear fewer masks that's the claim right so when biden becomes president will you be more likely to wear a mask so in the comments tell me because obviously the democrats were all wearing masks as my understanding i mean you could fact check that but my understanding is that since democrats don't listen to trump or they want to do whatever is the opposite he says you would expect the democrats were already wearing their masks right i mean sure maybe sometimes they get caught without one but let's say generally they're wearing their masks oh in the comments you think i'm wrong you think democrats are not wearing masks well that doesn't make any sense how could it be that democrats are not wearing masks completely because they're not listening to trump because they're democrats oh well anybody who believes that biden is going to tell the public to wear masks and then we just will i don't think you understand how people work i don't think he's going to fix the mask thing and how about if he does some kind of a national standard for the states are the states going to say oh well that's what we're waiting for we're waiting for that national standard i don't think so i think the states are going to say uh we're all different every state's different how about we know what we're supposed to do we're listening to the same experts now why don't we do it our way and you do it your way and maybe we'll see who did better i don't know how i don't know exactly what biden's going to fix do you can you give me a list of all the things that trump broke what did he break what did he break that's going to get fixed because this is a very basic belief of the democrats not only that trump might do bad things but that he already broke stuff now let's say you say scott scott's got the obvious one is the coronavirus the united states has higher death rate than a lot of places and therefore trump broke that now suppose i say okay let's take that as a given if i accepted that that's true isn't that in the past because how do you fix the past is joe biden going to use his time machine to go back and fix the past i don't think that's an option so what is it he's going to do that would be that different than what trump would have done if he had a second term i feel like the mask wearing is going to be pretty similar i feel like the the shutdowns are going to be pretty similar and i feel like the vaccines are going to come out and be delivered pretty similarly so even if you accepted oh we hate what trump already did in the past and even if you accept that it was you know mistake and caused x number of lives even if you believe that how does that translate into the future because now we actually understand the situation in a way we didn't before so now that we understand it better i would imagine that a republican and a democrat would end up acting the same way when you didn't know what worked and what didn't which is the early months then you would expect some people would get it wrong some people would get it right but now that we're far more informed still not quite informed but more informed i would expect a democrat and a republican to look pretty much the same you know they might have a difference in what school so did did trump break school no it looks like the democrats broke that and the teachers unions i think the teachers unions broke the schools that wasn't trump he tried to break the the teachers unions all right so look for that just think about where's all this damage that the democrats are fixing and what are they doing to fix it so uh remember i predicted that if uh joe biden won republicans would be hunted and i was roundly mocked through society for such a ridiculous thing well of course we've seen people get assaulted just for being trump supporters so indeed they are hunted on the street and certainly they will be ferreted out in in employment etc but here's something that rachel maddow said last night i guess so rachel maddow asked an naacp legal defense counsel cheryl lynn ifill she said trump officials are challenging the election she asked if they should be sent to jail for challenging the election which is not a crime and she knows it right so rachel maddow is literally in public right this is not a private conversation and there's no question about whether she said it or not you know it's it's on video it's public and she's asking the question in public if people who broke no laws because there's no even allegation of a broken law just questioning the outcome if they should be jailed you you piece of rachel maddow she's asking if trump's supporters should be jailed for not breaking a crime just doubting the outcome of an election think about that now when now when you were mocking me for saying that republicans would be hunted what the is this what the is this if this is not a pretty clean signal that democrats are willing to jail i mean that's her word she used the word jail i'm not interpreting the word jail should be sent to jail so they feel like they did something wrong it who the calls me at this time of day jesus christ um sorry didn't mean to take your lord's name in vain there slipped out um but this is shocking so rachel maddow should lose her job for that don't you think i mean it's not going to happen but don't you think she should lose her job for suggesting that republicans should be jailed just to make them feel differently she said that i'm not making that up she said they should be do you think they should go to jail so that they feel like they did something wrong in order to stop trumpism from becoming the norm she actually said that amazing um i hope that trump does some kind of a clever pardon before he leaves office you know something like stepping down on the last day of his term and having penn spartan him for everything he's ever done i hope that happens now normally i would say i sure hope that anybody who committed a crime gets caught i mean typically i would like people to get caught for doing crimes but what exactly is trump's crime can you think of one i i have not heard a crime even alleged have you apparently there are all these lawsuits in the southern district of new york and they're looking through his financials and stuff but do be a fact check on this has anybody alleged a crime and why haven't we heard it what's what is the specific crime because otherwise it looks like they're just looking for a crime are you okay with that are you okay that a politician can be examined just to see if there's a crime without any evidence that there was a crime are you okay with that i'm not okay with that and as a principal i would i would prefer that if you imagine that trump broke some law i would i would prefer that he'd get away with it rather than have a norm that you can just go looking for crimes if there's no evidence of a crime so which looks like what's happening now if it turns out there is all this evidence of a crime that i don't know about then i will revise my opinion but based on what we don't know it looks like they're after him for political reasons and i think that should be shut down so if trump and pence used a political trick you know to sort of pardon him for everything that happened up to that point in life i think that would be appropriate because there's a trick being used against him so if you use a trick to counter another trick i'm okay with that 100 i and i and i very much hope that it happens and again i don't care if there's a real crime or not because whether or not there's a real crime is a much lower priority then we shouldn't be doing this we shouldn't be doing this because you know if if i could go to your house and tear it apart and look through all your financials could i find any crimes i'd probably find something that's why we don't do that so i guess joe biden has picked jake sullivan to serve as national security advisor and joel pollock points out that sullivan would be taking the job that mike flynn had briefly and the sullivan had falsely accused flynn of russia collusion so the guy who would take flynn's job as somebody who falsely accused flynn of a crime of russia collusion not even just a normal crime like the the crime of all crimes all right you got bill de blasio closing public schools because the city is at three percent positivity for coronavirus but the schools themselves are only at point two eight so we should follow the science right here's i can say this a million times and most people won't be able to hear it there there's some ideas that we just can't hear i don't know it's a it's an unusual phenomenon i'll give you one some of you will be able to hear what i say next some of you just can't hear it like it'll be like noise like charlie brown's teacher and so this will be an experiment and it goes like this we all know we should trust science and we should trust the experts but they interpret things differently the experts and the scientists look at the same data and they interpret it differently so who how can you trust them trusting science is a good idea trusting scientists is the dumbest idea in the world because they're people and people can't be trusted people can be right and people can be wrong but you can't trust them you can't trust them you can trust them if you've got lots of visibility and you know their controls and somebody's double-checking but that's not really trusting is it that's more like making sure that all of the opportunity for cheating is and mischief has been removed but trust science but i don't have access to science do you reach into your pocket and grab me a grab me a handful of science do you have any because i don't have any i look at look at my shelves i get i got some books on my shelves but i don't have any science i don't have science i can't get my hands around it don't have access to it i'll tell you what i do have people telling me their opinions that's what i have i don't have any science i got people telling me their opinions about science i don't trust people are you kidding me i don't trust people at all in that way whereas somebody wise said i forget who somebody said recently the one thing you can trust is that people will act like people you can definitely trust that you can trust that all right um hypothetically here's a question i asked and i got some answers i think are pretty good hypothetically what would happen if the process goes forward and it goes all the way through the electoral college process biden gets confirmed goes to the house i don't know the exact process but i guess the house says that they confirm it or they validate it or whatever let's say it goes all the way through the system and biden is ready to be inaugurated or even he gets inaugurated my understanding is that the actual inaugura inauguration is unnecessary it's more of a ceremony but let's say he goes through the process that he's absolutely the president of the united states our constitution is acted the supreme court has spoken if they get involved it's just done and then hypothetically just asking the question and then after that proof comes out that the election was rigged and rigged sufficiently that it changed the outcome what would happen because haven't all the experts been telling us it's too late correct me if i'm wrong hasn't every expert said you know once it gets to this point well then it's just too late it's over is it is it i'm not so sure because let's say it were proven in court that the election were were was wrong let's say it went to the supreme court and they said all right here it is it's proof and let's say the supreme court looks at the proof and they go oh okay that's proof yeah that that actually is proof and let's say hypothetically they were convinced what do they do now somebody said impeachment maybe i don't i have no idea i have no idea and i'm not sure our system quite knows but if you tell me that producing that proof after tr after biden gets officially in office if you're telling me that doesn't matter i'm not so sure i think it might matter it might matter um maybe we'll find out so trump tweeted that uh that in wisconsin so he's quoting victoria tensing who's also an attorney and he's quoting her saying in wisconsin somebody has to be indefinitely confined in order to vote absentee so i guess this claim is you'd have to be i don't know shut in or something and in the past there were 20 000 people in wisconsin this past election there were 120 000 and republicans were locked down to the vote counting process so the president tweeted that and i looked at that and i thought uh that's a that's a pretty easy claim to check right i mean these are facts which are in the public record so i thought is that true so i just tweeted down and said is this true and it took about five seconds for somebody to send me a link to the wisconsin page that shows that this is not true it's not even it's not even slightly true it's not it's not even in the zip code if true it's not in the galaxy of true it's nowhere near true there's nothing about it that's true so uh so which of the experts we're listening to is uh victoria tensing she's an attorney high-end attorney and she obviously has all of the skills and expertise to look into a let's say a legal election situation and then interpret it for you because that's what an attorney does they'll look at the law and then tell you what they saw so she's an expert is she right it doesn't look like it so anybody who tells me to listen to the experts what planet are you on what planet are you on that listening to experts has worked out really well for you when they disagree i promised you i don't know a couple weeks ago that your understanding of reality was about to change because of this election situation i would argue that it has but i saw some critics pushing back saying it hadn't because it looks like biden's going to take the job but let me let me fill this idea out a little bit all right do you think the will of the people was important to the election outcome in other words do you think that we just experienced something like democracy do you think that people looked at the information made decisions voted we counted the votes we picked we picked a winner is that what happened because here's what i saw i saw first of all that social media has been brainwashing the public for years so i saw a social media brainwashing that's very very effective because they're good at it so where does brainwashing come in from social media with your free specific example that's just mind-boggling mind-boggling so last night on uh the the show the five on fox news uh richard fowler was the um sitting in for the the person representing the left sitting in for juan williams i believe and he claimed on television in public that he personally believed that the president of the united states had once recommended drinking bleach he thinks that happened now all the other members of the five literally yelled at him when he said that in unison that didn't happen because it didn't happen the president never used the word bleach never used the word drinking he talked about injecting disinfectants in the concept of light as a disinfectant you can put it on a ventilator stick it in the lungs and there was a trial that was being you know ready to look in to see if that could work so the president said he was just joking but any which i don't buy that one but in either case it is easy to confirm he definitely didn't say drink bleach and richard fowler and i'm sure he was not lying i you know he looked completely honest when he was saying this and i believe it because i don't think he's you know i don't think he would lie about it he believed he actually saw it he didn't believe he heard about it he believed he witnessed it think about this now richard fowler is not just a voter this is somebody whose job is talking about presidential politics every day he's a professional richard fowler would be i would guess my cat's doing a walk by here i would guess that richard fowler would be in the top one percent of well-informed people in this country would you agree with me somebody who does it for a job yeah and they're so good at it that they're on tv they're on radio shows podcasts whatever richard fowler is a high end super well-informed political person he thought he witnessed the president telling the country to drink bleach or suggesting and it it never happened but the fake news said it happened so many times that he has a false memory of it i mean to watch this happen is amazing to see it happen in real time so you got your fake news you got your uh the changes and the mail-in ballots probably that alone changed the election if we know that republicans like to vote in person we know the democrats and low-motivated people might send in a ballot we know there's more more possibility of mischief so probably the thing that affected the election was whatever social media brainwashed you for whatever the fake news created as your reality the mail in ballots which is a process change which probably changed the outcome just the fact that there was a coronavirus and they had to do mail-in ballots probably could change the outcome and then what about the fraud we'll talk about that in a minute so so how much of what i just mentioned that's my cat talking to you how much of what i just mentioned is the people's will none of it it's the opposite of the people's will nothing like democracy happened there was nothing like democracy that just happened in the united states but we probably will get over it we probably will get past it within a civil war which is a credit to the the country i think um now i don't recommend this and let me emphasize this the next thing i'm going to say i do not recommend do not recommend it but if it happened it'd be funny which is republicans rigging the senate race in georgia using the same tricks that they believe the democrats used that the democrats say are impossible it would just be hilarious because if the republicans used their same techniques and the democrats knew it what would they do because they couldn't really call them out for the technique because their entire argument is that these techniques can't work not that they didn't work that they can't it just isn't possible so again i'm not recommending it because it's breaking the law i never recommend breaking the law but it would be funny i'm just saying it would be funny i don't recommend it all right so i tweet this at the milwaukee recount is going slowly because trump's attorneys have been constantly interrupting and challenging tens of thousands of ballots what is it that you would challenge on these ballots if a an attorney challenges a ballot what would be the basis well i would think the basis would be a technical problem like an address wasn't complete or a signature didn't match aren't those supposed to be rejected now i know there's a process for curing them going back to the the voter but that process has passed i believe that there's a time limit that's probably passed in which you can cure a ballot so what happens if the attorneys find a whole bunch of ballots that maybe could have been cured some of them if you were in the right time frame but that time frame is passed what happens this is really untested territory i don't know what the legal result is do they throw them out and then they can never be cured because i've got a feeling if you if you put a lawyer in a room with a bunch of ballots that lawyer's gonna have a lot of arguments it's like well that that doesn't look like the letter e to me that looks like the letter c you got the address wrong throw that one out um all right so then another tweet and again i don't believe anything that's data in all right it doesn't matter what the topic is it's voting it's coronavirus doesn't matter if you believe any public regardless of the source if you believe any data you see in public in 2020 you haven't been paying attention it's pretty much all unreliable some of it is true but it's all unreliable okay and here's one of them 59 counties in georgia rejected 0 million ballots this year not zero rounded to the nearest decimal says the tweet but actually zero what are the odds that you know and of course typically it's only going to be in the 0 to 2.2 range national average is 1 and it was 1.4 in 2016 and 2018.

is that a big difference i mean maybe maybe the difference between zero and one percent maybe there are lots of maybe there are lots of uh counties that had zero rejected ballots what do you think i think the odds of that are pretty close to zero meaning that they probably just turned off the controls isn't it far more likely that what happened is nobody was rejecting ballots in those counties i can't say it's impossible but i also don't know if the data is even correct so don't let me make you think past the sale because i think i did that accidentally the sale is whether the data is even real right don't get past that and then thinking that if it is real it shows that there's fraud you got to back up i don't know if this date is real and if it is real i don't even i don't know if it's unusual so you got to figure that out first don't think past the sale um let's talk about whether election cheating is possible okay here's the here's the big payoff for this live stream it how many of you think that it's possible to do enough cheating that you would um change the result of a national election and not be spotted how many think that's a thing that could be done change a national election so it's got to be enough fraud to do that but also not be spotted is it possible because i'm talking to at least one smart person who says scott scott scott don't you know that the system is designed with way too much transparency there's people watching at every step you've got witnesses you've got cameras in the ceiling you've got signatures you've got verification i mean they've removed the ability to cheat at least cheating in a big enough scale to change an election what do you think now when the democrats and i'm talking to one in particular it was very smart very uh let's say very uh worldly in terms of would not be some kind of a virgin about you know the fact that crime exists in the world somebody who's seen enough of the dirty side of life who should know where fraud can and cannot live believes that the election system is sufficiently free of it that you could conclude this was a fair election just because the way it's designed what do you think let's go through it number one do you believe that the kennedy nixon election was rigged now if it was rigged and i believe historians now agree on this right give me a fact check but i think the historians agree that the kennedy nixon election was rigged now did it have to be widespread apparently not i think it could have been done in maybe you know one city that was democrat controlled for example chicago or whatever the claim is ohio i forget but it didn't need to be widespread and it was not detected at the time now have things changed since the early 60s in terms of have we gone from an election that could be rigged to an election that can't be well i wonder if you went back in time and said to the people who had created the election process hey you guys created this process is there any way anybody could cheat enough to change a national election what would they have said in 1960 whatever somebody says scott's going full queue and on you you have fallen i'm going to block you for saying that you have fallen for the narrative you won't find anything that i say here that you disagree with i'll bet you i bet you there's not a single thing that i say that you will disagree with um so don't you think that during the kennedy nixon time the people who designed it thought that they had a system that couldn't be cheated they probably thought they had it but they didn't apparently so just put that in the back of your mind and we'll continue so have you seen um did you see the special on cnn um i hope i hope you all saw this special on cnn where they went through the entire voting process from you know from beginning to end and they showed you all the the controls and the way that they monitor it so that you could see with your own eyes from beginning to end there's a trail of custody that's watched the whole time you have multiple observers you've got cameras you all saw that special right that showed that election cheating is so difficult it basically couldn't happen did you all see the special oh oh no you didn't because it doesn't exist yeah there's no special like that but why not isn't that the most obvious news content you can imagine what would be a more obvious thing to put on television if you were cnn then a little segment that says look people think this election was stolen let us show you how that's impossible all right let us just walk you through it you stupid republican rubes let us just show you how the process works and then you idiots you won't be thinking he was fraud because we'll just show you you couldn't have a fraud in this situation we'll just lay it out for you looking for look at it yourself you can see there's no opportunity for fraud in this process yeah you didn't see that special did you and you're not gonna see that special do you know why yeah you know why you know exactly why nobody wants to put that on the air all right so um i talked so i asked that question why are no experts saying that it can't be done and an election law expert weighed in david becker uc berkeley grad so we know he's smart uc berkeley very smart so what do you think an election law expert said when i asked the question why haven't we seen somebody saying that these are secure elections and he says i'd really hope you'd listen to experts to experts on this because experts are really believable so he says i really hope you listen to experts on this more paper ballots more identity validation more audits more bipartisan observation and transparency than ever before widespread fraud is not possible and didn't happen see what he did there you see how he inserted the word widespread did did i say widespread nope if he had not put the word widespread in there would he be would he be so confident nope it was the uh kennedy nixon election that was allegedly rigged was it widespread no no it was very targeted so he had to change the argument to debunk it and you see this very consistently and then when i pointed out that he changed the argument he changed it to some other argument so basically nobody is going to touch this question of whether these elections are are cheatable who would be a good expert to tell you whether a city election was rigged would you want to hear from a an election law professional or would you want to hear from rudy giuliani now say what you will about rudy giuliani but don't you think he's kind of an expert on municipal fraud i would think you would know more about that than just about anybody in the world if you've been a mayor of a major city and you've been a prosecutor and you've prosecuted the mafia and you know you lived in this world of fraud and crime and it's you know part of your experience i think rudy giuliani is an expert and rudy giuliani says if philadelphia had a fair election this time it's the first time in 60 years why don't you listen to him because listen to the experts the the listen to the experts things is purely stupidity because you can't tell which expert to listen to if you could you know that's a different conversation but you can't you can't tell is it rudy or is it this election professional they have different opinions all right so let's talk about whether uh you had the motive and the opportunity for fraud in this election now move this white board over here so you can see it let's talk about the motivation first the fake news has told democrats that they were dealing with some kind of a orange hitler if you thought that you could stop orange hitler from a second term would you break the law to do it well some of you would some of you would not if only one person was involved in elections well maybe that person would never break the law but that's not the case millions of people are involved in elections you only need enough of them to be willing to break the law for the law to get broken you don't need everybody to break the law you just need enough and if you have millions of people who believe that orange hitler might be taking a second term are there enough people who would be willing to break the law yes clearly and unambiguously yes so there would be enough people willing but willingness is not enough to get it done right just be willing to do it did they think it was an existential threat and did they believe the hoaxes did they believe the fine people hoax did they believe the drinking bleach hoax if you believe this stuff because you believe the fake news does that create a situation in which the motivation for massive fraud involving potentially lots of people is the motivation there yes right is there anybody watching this who would disagree with the statement that the motivation to cheat was higher than it has ever been by far not even close because we've never had this situation where people had actually been brainwashed to think that hitler was maybe taking office for a second term that's unprecedented so i think everybody would agree no matter what kind of expert you are and hey wait a minute am i an expert am i an expert on let's say human motivation within a large organization i kind of am in my own way if you're the author of the dilbert comic you are kind of an expert on human motivation in large organizations but i don't have a degree in anything like that so i won't make that claim all right now let's talk about the question of is it possible because i think this is a really important question if you have the highest motivation in the world to cheat and i would argue it is literally the highest motivation in the world to cheat and that does exist is it possible that's the only other question because if both of those exist the highest motivation and it's practical to do it would you not say it's guaranteed to happen i think it would be right so if it happened could you detect it and how would you detect it for example could you could you observe it directly well the complaint is that the observers were not allowed to observe and ins in a number of cases there are no observers so could you could direct observation be enough to guarantee that there are no places that there could be fraud i think the answer is obviously that's not enough direct observation can be good for plugging specific holes for example the things are happening within the room where you're counting probably give some direct observation probably have some cameras but i don't think there's anybody who believes that these alone the cameras and the direct observation given how limited that is for the entire chain of custody is is there anybody who drives around behind the the vans carrying the ballots does anybody drive behind those vans to make sure that they you know they don't stop and unload anything there must be massive parts of the process that are not witnessed by two witnesses wouldn't you say how about the recount will the recount find fraud no because if the ballots are fraudulent you would just count them a second time so there's nobody who believes my dog's going crazy downstairs i might have to go deal with that in a minute nobody believes that a recount finds fraud a recount can only find a specific kind of fraud such as can you hear that my dog is going crazy downstairs and so i either have an intruder or something i don't know what's going on down there but so a recount won't detect fraud it would only detect a very specific kind how about an audit so an audit is more than a recount we don't do audits could an audit find problems in the system i think it could but we don't do them we do an audit in a very small way similar to the irs if the irs calls you and says we're going to audit you do they audit everything that your tax returns claim no no even an auditor from the irs only looks at a certain question they might say ah there's a red flag on your return we're going to look at that question but they're not going to open up your entire return i suppose they might if they saw some major fraud but that's not the intention they're looking at just the question likewise an audit of an election process at most is going to look at a specific question is there anybody who's going to be double checking the software line by line in the election system no no nobody's going to check the code that's not happening have you heard that happening if they don't check the software have they really done an audit not really so i would say that anybody who tells you there's something like an election audit happening that's more untrue than true it might be that they've audited some specific questions doesn't mean they're auditing everything how about lawsuits you file a lawsuit then you've got discovery and you can really dig into the details could a lawsuit find your regularities well it turns out there's a problem because you can't follow the you can't file the lawsuit unless you have evidence and you can't get evidence with a recount you can't get it with an audit and you can't necessarily get it with direct observation or cameras so how can you file a lawsuit if you don't have any evidence and you don't have any way to get it because the system is not designed to present it it's just not there so you can you know you can do things around the margins but you would expect to have an uh a situation like the trump legal team you'd expect 26 out of 27 lawsuits to be tossed out because the court says uh where's your evidence i can't get it i can't get the evidence so i can't even get the process started because they can't get the evidence but what about data irregularities do you think you could prove election fraud with data irregularities well maybe and i've been telling you for some time now that you would see evidence that would convince you that there was fraud the the evidence that i think would be the convincing stuff is the data irregularities but as we saw with the wisconsin tweet that i talked about do you trust anybody's data yet nope you don't almost every claim we've seen about the election pretty much every claim has turned out to be false and it doesn't even matter who's making it democrat republican it feels like just about every claim about the election has turned out to be false so eventually given time i think the data irregularities can be found so this is probably the only place you could find fraud now if you found it here that might give you cause for a lawsuit which might allow you to dig into things and you know maybe maybe find something but the data irregularities we probably will not find or at least will not be confident of until the whole biden process is done so here's where i think we're going to be at some point in the future and i got in trouble for saying i think it would be in two weeks so i'm going to take the deadline away from it because i got myself in trouble with a deadline because i'd just be guessing on deadline eventually the data irregularities will make the case as convincingly as i think the kennedy nixon election and then what do you do then what do you do now there's one other phenomenon i haven't seen anybody talk about that i'm going to add to the conversation and it's going to make you mad and you're going to realize it's true let's say there was some evidence we got 220 sworn statements right so that suggests that maybe the direct observation and the witnesses worked to some degree so let's say if those 220 they can put together a dozen good lawsuits and let's say that they're all pretty valid you've got a witness maybe after that you could get some documentation to demonstrate it's true maybe the cameras show it too then you take this to a judge and you say i got it now now we found this this source of a problem let's say we found that a nursing home had sent in a hundred ballots but none of the actual residents are aware that they voted so you say haha gotcha we found that you use this senior center to harvest votes you just took them out of the mailbox you filled them out yourself and you sent them in so i'm going to make a lawsuit about that i'm going to take it to court gotcha what does the judge say does the judge say show me your evidence nope because the judge doesn't care because the judge first asks you how many votes are we talking about and you say well i got a hundred votes there were a hundred people who will swear they didn't vote and yet their vote was registered and the judge says uh so what if i overturn 100 votes it doesn't change the election get out of here so if you don't find it all you can't do anything about it so you could find a lot of it but if you only find chunks of it here's a chunk here's a chunk here's a chunk the chunks are worthless because each chunk doesn't add up enough to change the outcome and so the judge says there's nothing to work on here yeah i could you could prove that these hundred votes don't count but it's just this little chunk doesn't change anything so i'm not even going to hear it so it's sort of a a perfect situation somebody says that's appealable yeah i suppose anything's appealable um somebody says who here wants to start a civil war you know the the thing that uh i appreciate about this country is that we're not going to have a civil war this is not going to happen and the reason is so simple you know why we won't have a civil war don't want one that's it that's the whole reason you have to have somebody want one right nobody wants one even the militias they're not looking to start one i mean they may independently want to overthrow the country or something but not over the election necessarily uh i just don't think anybody wants one and you would have to have a lot of people wanting one it just doesn't happen on its own all right um and i would like to say to my democrat friends who believe that orange hitler was the was a real thing and believe that the president is a real racist and suggests drinking bleach if you could stop that election and you didn't you are cowards you're cowards because if you didn't cheat in this election you've got a lot of explaining to do you should be able to tell me you threw the election and you're happy about it because you saved the country in your opinion saved us from orange hiller wouldn't you be proud of that well i would think you would be all right i think i may have said everything i want to do oh biden is boring us to death and the only other thing i want to say about um oh what a does anybody think that the senate race in georgia is going to be a clean election if if let's say hypothetically hypothetically if democrats had rigged the presidential election and now we're doing this senate uh special election in georgia wouldn't they rig that too and wouldn't they just do it exactly the same way so we're going to learn something interesting because if both republicans lose in georgia which is what people are not expecting it's going to reopen this question of fraud and if the democrats cheated in the the main election and got away with it why wouldn't they do it again the same way if it works why wouldn't you do it again really so james mattis says he hopes biden gets rid of america first as a concept to which i say now i see why two different presidents fired that guy that guy mattis was probably the most overrated general of all times you know as it turns out i had been a big fan but once you hear him speaking candidly he doesn't seem even bright there's something there's something going on there because if you're an american general and you don't think america first that does not preclude being generous to other countries saying america first doesn't mean you screw france america first doesn't mean you throw grey britain into the ocean it means that you operate in a enlightened way about self-interest all right that's all i got for now and i'll talk to you tomorrow all right periscope's off youtubers you have my full attention um somebody said great britain is already in the ocean okay technically you need to invite rubber barns you know he'd be a great interview robert barnes would be but i'm now that i'm doing uh live streaming on two platforms i don't have the technology to do a guest that both of you could hear on youtube and periscope at the same time um why do the youtubers get more time with you well uh no real reason um how did stacey abrams become so important by doing a good job stacey abraham is abrams abrams right stacy abrams she's doing something right i mean she almost became governor and she's credited with you know changing the election situation in georgia so she's doing something really well um somebody said i should go in the megan kelly show that's a podcast i would uh i'm taking some time off from doing podcasts and stuff but she would be fun do you think vaccine should be mandatory uh i don't think that's possible i don't think it's possible but i do think that um it will be effectively mandatory so i don't think the government needs to do it because you saw that qantas already said you have to have a vaccination to fly on their airlines i would expect all the airlines to go that way so i think that if you want to operate in the real world probably you're going to have to get a vaccination at some point but i don't know that the government has to do it i think commerce alone would do it how many hours a day do i work in comics um maybe an average of one or two a day but i work on weekends too is this the golden age it might be it might be you know the coronavirus as horrible as it was and is it changed so many things for the better i think you know it just forced us to shake the box and rethink everything so we may be yeah um uh you love how yeah you know the thing the thing that everybody does that's an exaggeration not everybody but a lot of people do is they pretend that if you're in a group that you agree with everything the group has done so while it's true that trump supporters have done x i didn't do x so why do i get blamed why is it my fault if if i like a president and somebody else likes a president and somebody else kicks a dog and we both like president trump why is that my problem i'm kind of not that person i'm a different person 2024 candidates well the obvious ones will be uh pompeo matt gates i think you'll see tom cotton maybe rubio yeah all the usual stuff um you're going to write another book i haven't decided yet i might um uh yes all right so i'm reading your questions and uh it's very boring to watch me read your questions so i think i'm done and i will talk to you tomorrow

hey

come on in it's time

it's time for coffee with scott adams

and

today there will be a whiteboard

yeah just when you thought today

couldn't get it any better

and then you found out that coffee with

scott adams features

a whiteboard and you said to yourself oh

that's as good as they can get wait wait

wait

it's a double-sided white board yeah

you didn't see that coming did you

that's right and in order to enjoy

the double-sided white board to its full

extent

what do you need not much

a copper margaret glass a tanker

challenger stein a canteen joker flask

a vessel of any kind

and you can fill it with your favorite

liquid i

impartial to coffee and join me now for

the unparalleled pleasure of the

dopamine hit of the day

thing that makes everything better way

better

seventy-five percent better it's called

the simultaneous zip it happens now go

i feel science becoming more accurate

i feel data starting to

be credible and that's just one sip

imagine if i finish that entire mug oh

yeah oh yeah all right and we'll talk

about the election

and allegations of fraud

in a moment but some fun stories first

we have yet another potential vaccine

that could make a big difference

oxford dash a-z

so astrazeneca i guess they've got a

vaccine that has a

strange story to it here's the strange

story

it was a big old scientific trial

and it was supposed to be two doses to

each person

but they discovered after they had given

a bunch of the first

doses that the first doses had been

um by mistake half as much as they were

supposed to be

so then they said well what do we do now

because we started this trial

and the first doses are all the wrong

amount

so they said well we can salvage it

by at least giving the full dose on the

second one

and let's just see what happens and what

happened was

it turns out according according to

their initial data

i've got some questions about the

accuracy of the data

but their data says that when they got a

half dose

followed i think a month later by a full

dose

that they got to 90

efficiency of the of the vaccine

but when they did it the way they were

supposed to do it

two full doses it was only 60

as effective now there are a few

possible ways to explain this

number one way everything about this

trial

is wrong now was there a point

in this whole vaccine situation where

you said to yourself

i'm feeling pretty good about science

because scientists are are killing it

you know this whole

warp speed thing man

clap clap clap for our scientists around

the world

not just in the united states but other

countries too

and they're just killing it with this

development of the vaccine

so science is something you can depend

on

except wait what was that thing you said

to me scott about

science did an entire

randomized drug trial of the most

important thing in the world

that could be tested at this moment

coronavirus vaccine

and in the most important trial

or one of the few for these vaccines one

of the most important trials

in the world maybe in all of

civilization

and how many people had to look at that

whatever the directions were how many

people looked at that study

before rolling it out to not know that

they had somehow accidentally given

everybody half a dose are you still

really confident about your scientific

process

because the trouble is that science as a

system

is terrific compared to other ways of

understanding your reality but

unfortunately

science is populated with people

and while we can all agree that science

as a concept

is pretty darn awesome can we also agree

that human beings as entities are pretty

darn shitty

in fact i could give you a pretty long

list

of human beings work total crap

and unfortunately when you take a

concept like science which is terrific

really excellent and you combine it with

organic creatures who tend to be pretty

shitty

on average you give something that's the

average of something awesome

science and something pretty shitty

people so that's how you get half a dose

so put that right in your arm huh

yeah let let me shoot up with a vaccine

that the best scientists in was a great

britain

couldn't figure out the difference

between half a dose and a full dose

yeah i got a lot of confidence in that

one i think i'll take the american

vaccine

that's just me i think i'll take the

american one

not that it's necessarily better by the

way i am

i am pro-vaccination just to be clear

i'm pro-vaccination but it's always a

tentative opinion meaning i'd change it

in a heartbeat

if the data changes so i'm not going to

make a personal decision

about taking a vaccine the coronavirus

vaccine

any one of the different vaccines i'm

not going to make a personal decision

until when

last minute if you're making a decision

now instead of waiting for the last

minute

you're doing it wrong because there

might be new information

so you know i'm not going to wait for

people to take it then wait a year to

see if they have any health problems

i probably won't do that but i'm

certainly going to wait

as long as i can before i make a

decision just in case

i think that i'll probably take it but

here's the other interesting thing about

this oxford

astrazeneca story

the the accident may have discovered

something

that's really really important in the

same way

that yellow sticky notes were discovered

by accident

and i think penicillin was discovered by

accident and

a lot of things get discovered by

accident could it be

and some of the scientists have

speculated that there is something about

giving a half dose and sort of maybe

priming your body a little bit you know

it's like a putting down a primer coat

of paint or something

and then a month later when you give the

full dose

what if that makes the vaccination way

way better

could it be that they accidentally

discovered

an effect that is monstrously important

which is if you give people a small dose

of a drug

let your body acclimate and then give

them a bigger dose

is that something that could work in

other situations

or is it something unique to this one

vaccination or is it just bad data

could be any of those things but

possibly it's a gigantic

possibly a gigantic discovery

that we're just seeing the first glimmer

of maybe you never know

i like to look on the bright side well

the big story of course is that

trump has authorized the gsa to fund

and assist in the biden transition does

that mean that president trump in his

secret

inner thoughts is really conceding

well we don't know his secret in her

thoughts

we don't know them at all

but i would say if he is consistent with

his past

he keeps his options open why wouldn't

you

everything we know about trump is that

he always keeps his options open

so he does have technically a path to

the presidency

another term so the fact that he's doing

something

in case it goes the way most people

think is going to go

at the same time he's keeping his option

open in court etc

nothing wrong with that completely

consistent and

does not tell us his state of mind in

the same way that it made sense

to do operation warp speed by

producing a bunch of vaccines before we

had tested them

just so we'd have them ready in case

they worked it's the same thing

good risk management is what trump did

with warp speed

he said let's let's put a billion

dollars into it

or probably multiple billion to make the

vaccine

vaccines just in case they're safe we'll

find out later but we could always just

throw the vaccines away

if we have to so same same reason they

should do the transition just in case

it's uh it's it goes the way it looks

like it's going to go

and still keep your options open so

apparently there's a some data out that

79

of trump supporters believe the election

was fraudulent

79 now

do you remember back in 2016 one of the

biggest

uh one of the biggest criticisms that i

personally received

was scott are you telling me you think

that president

trump or candidate trump at the time are

you telling me you think trump is

persuasive

where's the evidence of that i don't see

any evidence he's persuasive

well how about convincing 79 of

his supporters that an election had been

thrown

you can't get much more persuasive than

that

now keep in mind that persuasion tends

to only work on your own team

it's not like the democrats are

persuading the republicans or vice versa

that's sort of not a thing used to be a

little bit

but it's not really a thing at the

moment so

watching uh trump persuade

his own base is really a remarkable

thing

do you do you think anybody else could

have persuaded 79

of their base to think the election was

rigged

maybe i don't know but it's still pretty

impressive

right yeah oh yes and then the

in the comments somebody's reminding me

that 30

of democrats think the election was

fraudulent

30 that's about as persuasive as you can

get or

is it we're going to get to that in a

moment

we'll talk about whether it would be

reasonable to assume

as these many people have that the

election was fraudulent

in the face of don't the democrats tell

us

every single day there's no evidence

where's all the evidence if you have

zero evidence

how could you possibly convince 79 of

the people

that fraud happened with zero evidence

how does that happen well it could be

because there is evidence

and democrats just say there isn't you

know i would say the

the sworn statements from over 200

people that they personally observed

irregularities is

evidence so

here's a question for you uh just hold

this

question in the back of your head

because it will get funnier over time

all right so we'll just put it in there

now and let it

just let it simmer it's going to get

better

and here's the thought democrats have

said that

trump has done tremendous damage

in his first term and indeed one of the

reasons

for what them wanting to replace him is

to prevent the further

tremendous damage that he would do

so how long is it going to take biden to

fix all of that

damage and what was the damage

can somebody remind you what the damage

is that biden is fixing

is it the climate because there's a big

difference in

uh in the climate opinion right

but correct me if i'm wrong hasn't the

trump administration

lowered our emissions below the paris

accords if we had stayed in them so

it doesn't look like there's much to fix

in terms of the climate because we were

actually doing great

what about um the middle east will biden

go in there and fix

everything that trump broke in the

middle east

well no actually it looks like trump

fixed the middle east

or at least it's heading in the right

direction israel's making friends with

a number of neighboring countries like

never before

iran seems to be you know marginalized

and

things seem to be relatively less

war-like than normal

so i don't know what he's fixing there

how about the economy

trump had the economy just humming along

until coronavirus of course

now will biden fix the coronavirus

there's not much he can do for the

economy that's the economy's going to do

what it did what it does

but will will biden come in

and on inauguration day he's going to

come in and say

people people wear your masks

and then people will if this is my

understanding of how this is going to

work

people who had been under a trump

administration

because he was a little less let's say

assertive about wearing masks

he agrees with it but he's not really

pushing it

um it feels as if when trump was

let's say a little tepid little lukewarm

about masks

that that caused people to wear fewer

masks

that's the claim right so when biden

becomes president

will you be more likely to wear a mask

so in the comments tell me because

obviously the democrats were all wearing

masks

as my understanding i mean you could

fact check that but my understanding is

that

since democrats don't listen to trump

or they want to do whatever is the

opposite he says

you would expect the democrats were

already wearing their masks

right i mean sure maybe sometimes they

get caught without one

but let's say generally they're wearing

their masks oh in the comments you think

i'm wrong

you think democrats are not wearing

masks well that doesn't make any sense

how could it be that democrats are not

wearing masks

completely because

they're not listening to trump because

they're democrats

oh well

anybody who believes that biden is going

to tell the public to wear masks

and then we just will i don't think you

understand how people work

i don't think he's going to fix the mask

thing

and how about if he does some kind of a

national standard for the states

are the states going to say oh well

that's what we're waiting for

we're waiting for that national standard

i don't think so i think the states are

going to say uh

we're all different every state's

different

how about we know what we're supposed to

do we're listening to the same experts

now why don't we do it our way and you

do it your way and maybe we'll see

who did better i don't know how

i don't know exactly what biden's going

to fix

do you can you give me a list of all the

things that trump

broke what did he break

what did he break that's going to get

fixed because this is a very basic

belief

of the democrats not only that trump

might do

bad things but that he already broke

stuff

now let's say you say scott scott's got

the obvious one

is the coronavirus the united states has

higher death rate than a lot of places

and therefore

trump broke that now suppose i say

okay let's take that as a given

if i accepted that that's true isn't

that in the past

because how do you fix the past

is joe biden going to use his time

machine

to go back and fix the past i don't

think that's an option

so what is it he's going to do that

would be that different

than what trump would have done if he

had a second term

i feel like the mask wearing is going to

be pretty similar

i feel like the the shutdowns are going

to be pretty similar

and i feel like the vaccines are going

to come out and be delivered

pretty similarly so even if you accepted

oh we hate what trump already did in the

past

and even if you accept that it was you

know mistake and caused x number of

lives

even if you believe that how does that

translate into the future

because now we actually understand the

situation in a way we didn't before

so now that we understand it better i

would imagine that a republican and a

democrat would end up acting the same

way

when you didn't know what worked and

what didn't which is

the early months then you would expect

some people would get it wrong

some people would get it right but now

that we're

far more informed still not quite

informed

but more informed i would expect a

democrat and a republican to look

pretty much the same you know they might

have a difference in what

school so did did trump

break school no

it looks like the democrats broke that

and the teachers unions

i think the teachers unions broke the

schools that wasn't trump he tried to

break the the teachers unions all right

so look for that just think about

where's all this damage

that the democrats are fixing and what

are they doing to fix it

so uh

remember i predicted that if uh joe

biden won

republicans would be hunted and i was

roundly mocked

through society for such a ridiculous

thing well of course we've seen people

get assaulted just for being trump

supporters so indeed they are hunted on

the street

and certainly they will be ferreted out

in in employment etc but here's

something that rachel maddow

said last night i guess so rachel maddow

asked an naacp legal defense counsel

cheryl lynn ifill she said

trump officials are challenging the

election

she asked if they should be sent to jail

for challenging the election

which is not a crime and she knows it

right so

rachel maddow is literally in public

right this is not a private conversation

and there's no

question about whether she said it or

not you know it's

it's on video it's public and she's

asking the question

in public if people who broke no laws

because there's no even allegation of a

broken law just questioning the outcome

if they should be jailed you

you piece of

rachel maddow she's asking if trump's

supporters should be

jailed for not breaking a crime

just doubting the outcome of an election

think about that now when now when you

were mocking me for saying that

republicans would be hunted

what the is this what the

is this if this is not a pretty clean

signal

that democrats are willing to jail

i mean that's her word she used the word

jail i'm not interpreting

the word jail should be sent to jail

so they feel like they did something

wrong

it

[Music]

who the calls me at this time of

day jesus christ

um sorry didn't mean to

take your lord's name in vain there

slipped out

um but this is shocking

so rachel maddow should lose her job for

that don't you think

i mean it's not going to happen but

don't you think she should lose her job

for suggesting that republicans should

be jailed

just to make them feel differently she

said that

i'm not making that up she said

they should be do you think they should

go to jail so that they

feel like they did something wrong

in order to stop trumpism from becoming

the norm

she actually said that

amazing um i hope that

trump does some kind of a clever pardon

before he leaves office

you know something like stepping down on

the last day of his

term and having penn spartan him for

everything he's ever

done i hope that happens now normally i

would say

i sure hope that anybody who committed a

crime

gets caught i mean typically i would

like people to get caught for doing

crimes

but what exactly is trump's crime

can you think of one i i have not heard

a crime even alleged have you

apparently there are all these lawsuits

in the southern district of new york and

they're looking through his financials

and stuff

but do be a fact check on this

has anybody alleged a crime

and why haven't we heard it what's what

is the specific crime

because otherwise it looks like they're

just looking for a crime

are you okay with that are you okay that

a

politician can be examined just to see

if there's a crime

without any evidence that there was a

crime are you okay with that

i'm not okay with that and as a

principal

i would i would prefer that if you

imagine that trump

broke some law i would i would prefer

that he'd get away with it

rather than have a norm that you can

just go looking for crimes

if there's no evidence of a crime so

which looks like what's happening now if

it turns out there is

all this evidence of a crime that i

don't know about then i will revise

my opinion but based on what we don't

know

it looks like they're after him for

political reasons and i think that

should be shut down

so if trump and pence used a political

trick you know to sort of pardon him for

everything that happened

up to that point in life i think that

would be appropriate

because there's a trick being used

against him so if you use a trick

to counter another trick

i'm okay with that 100 i

and i and i very much hope that it

happens and again i don't care if

there's a real crime or not

because whether or not there's a real

crime is a much lower priority

then we shouldn't be doing this we

shouldn't be doing this

because you know if if i could go to

your house and tear it apart and look

through all your financials

could i find any crimes

i'd probably find something that's why

we don't do that

so i guess joe biden has picked

jake sullivan to serve as national

security advisor and

joel pollock points out that sullivan

would be taking the job that mike flynn

had briefly

and the sullivan had falsely accused

flynn of russia collusion

so the guy who would take flynn's job as

somebody who falsely

accused flynn of a crime of russia

collusion

not even just a normal crime like the

the crime of all crimes

all right you got bill de blasio closing

public schools because

the city is at three percent positivity

for coronavirus but the schools

themselves are only at

point two eight so

we should follow the science right

here's i can say this a million times

and most people won't be able to hear it

there there's some ideas

that we just can't hear i don't know

it's a it's an unusual

phenomenon i'll give you one some of you

will be able to hear what i say next

some of you just can't hear it

like it'll be like noise like charlie

brown's teacher

and so this will be an experiment and it

goes like this

we all know we should trust science and

we should trust the experts

but they interpret things differently

the experts and the scientists

look at the same data and they interpret

it differently

so who how can you trust them trusting

science is a good idea

trusting scientists is the dumbest

idea in the world

because they're people and people can't

be trusted

people can be right and people can be

wrong

but you can't trust them

you can't trust them you can trust them

if you've got lots of visibility

and you know their controls and

somebody's double-checking

but that's not really trusting is it

that's more like making sure that all of

the opportunity for cheating is

and mischief has been removed but

trust science but i don't have access to

science do you

reach into your pocket and grab me a

grab me a handful of science

do you have any because i don't have any

i

look at look at my shelves i get i got

some books on my shelves but i don't

have any science

i don't have science i can't get my

hands around it

don't have access to it i'll tell you

what i do have

people telling me their opinions that's

what i have

i don't have any science i got

people

telling me their opinions about science

i don't trust people

are you kidding me i don't trust people

at all in that way

whereas somebody wise said i forget who

somebody said recently the one thing you

can trust

is that people will act like people you

can definitely trust that

you can trust that all right

um hypothetically

here's a question i asked and i got some

answers i think are pretty good

hypothetically what would happen if the

process goes forward

and it goes all the way through the

electoral college process

biden gets confirmed goes to the house

i don't know the exact process but i

guess the house

says that they confirm it or they

validate it or whatever

let's say it goes all the way through

the system and biden is

ready to be inaugurated or even he gets

inaugurated

my understanding is that the actual

inaugura inauguration is unnecessary

it's more of a ceremony but let's say he

goes through the process that he's

absolutely

the president of the united states our

constitution is acted the supreme court

has

spoken if they get involved it's just

done

and then hypothetically just asking the

question

and then after that

proof comes out that the election was

rigged

and rigged sufficiently that it changed

the outcome

what would happen

because haven't all the experts been

telling us

it's too late

correct me if i'm wrong hasn't every

expert

said you know once it gets to this point

well then it's just too late it's over

is it is it

i'm not so sure because let's say it

were proven in court

that the election were were was wrong

let's say it went to the supreme court

and they said all right here it is it's

proof and let's say the supreme court

looks at the proof and they go oh okay

that's proof yeah that that actually is

proof

and let's say hypothetically they were

convinced

what do they do now somebody said

impeachment

maybe i don't i have no idea

i have no idea and i'm not sure our

system quite knows

but if you tell me that producing that

proof

after tr after biden gets officially in

office

if you're telling me that doesn't matter

i'm not so

sure i think it might matter

it might matter um maybe we'll find out

so trump tweeted that uh that in

wisconsin so he's quoting

victoria tensing who's also an attorney

and he's quoting her saying in wisconsin

somebody has to be

indefinitely confined in order to vote

absentee

so i guess this claim is you'd have to

be

i don't know shut in or something

and in the past there were 20 000 people

in wisconsin

this past election there were 120 000

and republicans were locked down to the

vote counting process

so the president tweeted that and i

looked at that and i thought

uh that's a that's a pretty

easy claim to check right

i mean these are facts which are in the

public record

so i thought is that true

so i just tweeted down and said is this

true and it took about

five seconds for somebody to send me a

link to the wisconsin page

that shows that this is not true

it's not even it's not even slightly

true it's not

it's not even in the zip code if true

it's not

in the galaxy of true it's nowhere near

true

there's nothing about it that's true so

uh so which of the experts we're

listening to

is uh victoria tensing she's an attorney

high-end attorney and she obviously has

all of the skills and expertise to look

into

a let's say a legal

election situation and then interpret it

for you

because that's what an attorney does

they'll look at the law

and then tell you what they saw so she's

an expert

is she right it doesn't look like it

so anybody who tells me to listen to the

experts

what planet are you on what planet are

you

on that listening to experts has worked

out really well for you

when they disagree i promised you

i don't know a couple weeks ago that

your understanding of reality was about

to change

because of this election situation i

would argue that it has

but i saw some critics pushing back

saying it hadn't because it looks like

biden's going to take the job

but let me let me fill this idea out a

little bit

all right do you think the will of the

people

was important to the election outcome in

other words do you think that we just

experienced

something like democracy do you think

that

people looked at the information made

decisions

voted we counted the votes

we picked we picked a winner is that

what happened

because here's what i saw i saw first of

all

that social media has been brainwashing

the public for years

so i saw a social media brainwashing

that's very very effective because

they're good at it

so where does brainwashing come in

from social media with your free

specific example

that's just mind-boggling mind-boggling

so last night on uh the the show the

five

on fox news uh richard fowler was

the um sitting in for the

the person representing the left sitting

in for juan williams i believe

and he claimed on television

in public that he personally believed

that the president of the united states

had once recommended

drinking bleach

he thinks that happened now

all the other members of the five

literally yelled at him when he said

that

in unison that didn't happen because it

didn't happen

the president never used the word bleach

never used the word drinking

he talked about injecting disinfectants

in the concept of

light as a disinfectant you can put it

on a

ventilator stick it in the lungs and

there was a trial that was being

you know ready to look in to see if that

could work

so the president said he was just joking

but any

which i don't buy that one but in either

case

it is easy to confirm he definitely

didn't say drink bleach

and richard fowler and i'm sure he was

not lying

i you know he looked completely honest

when he was saying this

and i believe it because i don't think

he's you know i don't think he would lie

about it

he believed he actually saw it

he didn't believe he heard about it

he believed he witnessed it think about

this

now richard fowler is not just a voter

this is somebody whose job is talking

about

presidential politics every day

he's a professional richard fowler would

be

i would guess my cat's doing a walk by

here

i would guess that richard fowler would

be in the top

one percent of well-informed

people in this country would you agree

with me somebody who does it for a job

yeah and they're so good at it that

they're on tv they're on radio shows

podcasts whatever richard fowler is a

high

end super well-informed political person

he thought he witnessed the president

telling the country to drink bleach or

suggesting

and it it never happened but the fake

news said it happened so many times

that he has a false memory of it i mean

to watch this happen

is amazing to see it happen in real time

so you got your fake news you got your

uh the changes and the mail-in ballots

probably that alone changed the election

if we know that republicans like to vote

in person we know the democrats

and low-motivated people might send in a

ballot

we know there's more more possibility of

mischief

so probably the thing that affected the

election was

whatever social media brainwashed you

for whatever the fake news created as

your reality

the mail in ballots which is a process

change which probably changed the

outcome

just the fact that there was a

coronavirus and they had to

do mail-in ballots probably could change

the outcome

and then what about the fraud we'll talk

about that in a minute

so so

how much of what i just mentioned

[Music]

that's my cat talking to you how much of

what i just mentioned is

the people's will none of it it's the

opposite of the people's will

nothing like democracy happened there

was

nothing like democracy that just

happened in the united states but

we probably will get over it

we probably will get past it within a

civil war

which is a credit to the the country i

think

um now i don't recommend this

and let me emphasize this the next thing

i'm going to say

i do not recommend do not recommend it

but if it happened it'd be funny which

is

republicans rigging the senate race in

georgia

using the same tricks that they believe

the democrats used

that the democrats say are impossible

it would just be hilarious because if

the

republicans used their same techniques

and the democrats knew it

what would they do because they couldn't

really call them out for the technique

because their entire argument is that

these techniques can't work

not that they didn't work that they

can't

it just isn't possible so again i'm not

recommending it

because it's breaking the law i never

recommend breaking the law

but it would be funny i'm just saying it

would be funny

i don't recommend it all right

so i tweet this at the milwaukee

recount is going slowly because trump's

attorneys have been constantly

interrupting and challenging

tens of thousands of ballots

what is it that you would challenge on

these ballots

if a an attorney challenges a ballot

what would be the basis well i would

think the basis would be

a technical problem like an address

wasn't complete

or a signature didn't match

aren't those supposed to be rejected

now i know there's a process for curing

them going back to the

the voter but that process has passed

i believe that there's a time limit

that's probably passed

in which you can cure a ballot so what

happens if the attorneys

find a whole bunch of ballots that maybe

could have been cured

some of them if you were in the right

time frame

but that time frame is passed what

happens

this is really untested territory i

don't know what the legal result is

do they throw them out and then they can

never be cured

because i've got a feeling if you if you

put a lawyer in a room with a bunch of

ballots

that lawyer's gonna have a lot of

arguments it's like well that

that doesn't look like the letter e to

me that looks like

the letter c you got the address wrong

throw that one out

um all right

so then another tweet and again i don't

believe

anything that's data

in all right it doesn't matter what the

topic is it's voting it's coronavirus

doesn't matter

if you believe any public

regardless of the source if you believe

any data you see in public in 2020

you haven't been paying attention it's

pretty much

all unreliable some of it is true

but it's all unreliable okay

and here's one of them 59 counties in

georgia rejected

0 million ballots this year

not zero rounded to the nearest decimal

says the tweet

but actually zero what are the odds

that you know and of course typically

it's only going to be in the

0 to 2.2 range national average is 1

and it was 1.4 in 2016 and 2018.

is that a big difference i mean maybe

maybe the difference between zero and

one percent

maybe there are lots of maybe there are

lots of uh counties that had zero

rejected ballots what do you think

i think the odds of that are pretty

close to zero

meaning that they probably just turned

off the controls

isn't it far more likely that what

happened is nobody was rejecting ballots

in those counties i can't say it's

impossible but i also don't know if the

data is even correct

so don't let me make you think past the

sale because i think i did that

accidentally the sale is whether the

data is even

real right don't get past that

and then thinking that if it is real it

shows that there's fraud

you got to back up i don't know if this

date is real

and if it is real i don't even i don't

know if it's unusual

so you got to figure that out first

don't think past the sale

um let's talk about whether election

cheating is possible okay here's the

here's the big payoff for this live

stream

it how many of you think that it's

possible

to do enough cheating that you would

um change the result of a national

election

and not be spotted how many think that's

a thing that could be done

change a national election so it's got

to be enough fraud to do that

but also not be spotted is it

possible because i'm talking to at least

one smart person who says scott scott

scott

don't you know that the system is

designed

with way too much transparency there's

people watching at every step

you've got witnesses you've got cameras

in the ceiling

you've got signatures you've got

verification

i mean they've removed the ability

to cheat at least cheating in a big

enough scale to change an election

what do you think

now when the democrats and i'm talking

to

one in particular it was very smart very

uh let's say very uh worldly

in terms of would not be some kind of a

virgin

about you know the fact that crime

exists in the world

somebody who's seen enough of the dirty

side of life

who should know where fraud can and

cannot live

believes that the election system is

sufficiently free of it that you could

conclude this was a fair election

just because the way it's designed what

do you think

let's go through it number one

do you believe that the kennedy nixon

election was rigged

now if it was rigged and i believe

historians now agree on this right

give me a fact check but i think the

historians agree

that the kennedy nixon election was

rigged

now did it have to be widespread

apparently not i think it could have

been done in maybe you know

one city that was democrat controlled

for example

chicago or whatever the claim is ohio i

forget

but it didn't need to be widespread

and it was not detected at the time

now have things changed since

the early 60s in terms of have we gone

from an election that could be rigged

to an election that can't be well i

wonder if you went back in time and said

to the people who had created the

election process

hey you guys created this process is

there any way anybody could cheat enough

to change a national election what would

they have said in 1960 whatever

somebody says scott's going full queue

and on

you you have fallen i'm going to block

you for saying that

you have fallen for the narrative

you won't find anything that i say here

that you disagree with

i'll bet you i bet you there's not a

single thing

that i say that you will disagree with

um

so don't you think that during the

kennedy nixon time the people who

designed it

thought that they had a system that

couldn't be cheated

they probably thought they had it

but they didn't apparently so just put

that in the back of your mind and we'll

continue

so have you seen um

did you see the special on cnn

um i hope i hope you all saw this

special on cnn where they went through

the entire

voting process from you know from

beginning to end and they showed you all

the the controls and the way that they

monitor it so that you could see with

your own eyes

from beginning to end there's a trail of

custody

that's watched the whole time you have

multiple observers you've got cameras

you all saw that special right that

showed

that election cheating is so difficult

it basically couldn't happen

did you all see the special oh oh no you

didn't

because it doesn't exist yeah there's no

special like that

but why not isn't that the most obvious

news content you can imagine what would

be a more

obvious thing to put on television if

you were cnn

then a little segment that says look

people think this election was stolen

let us show you

how that's impossible all right let us

just walk you through it

you stupid republican rubes let us just

show you

how the process works and then you

idiots

you won't be thinking he was fraud

because we'll just show you

you couldn't have a fraud in this

situation we'll just lay it out for you

looking for look at it yourself you can

see

there's no opportunity for fraud in this

process

yeah you didn't see that special

did you and you're not gonna see that

special

do you know why yeah you know why

you know exactly why nobody wants to put

that on the air

all right so um

i talked so i asked that question why

are no experts saying that it can't be

done

and an election law expert

weighed in david becker

uc berkeley grad so we know he's smart

uc berkeley very smart so what do you

think an election law expert

said when i asked the question why

haven't we seen

somebody saying that these are secure

elections

and he says i'd really hope you'd listen

to experts

to experts on this because experts are

really

believable so he says i really hope you

listen to experts on this

more paper ballots more identity

validation more audits more bipartisan

observation and transparency

than ever before widespread fraud

is not possible and didn't happen

see what he did there you see how he

inserted the word widespread

did did i say widespread nope

if he had not put the word widespread in

there would he be

would he be so confident nope

it was the uh kennedy nixon

election that was allegedly rigged was

it

widespread no no it was very targeted

so he had to change the argument to

debunk it

and you see this very consistently and

then when i pointed out that he changed

the argument he changed it to some other

argument

so basically nobody is going to touch

this question of whether these elections

are are

cheatable who would be a good expert

to tell you whether a city election

was rigged would you want to hear from

a an election law professional

or would you want to hear from rudy

giuliani

now say what you will about rudy

giuliani

but don't you think he's kind of an

expert on

municipal fraud i would think you would

know more about that than just about

anybody in the world

if you've been a mayor of a major city

and you've been a prosecutor

and you've prosecuted the mafia and you

know you lived in this world of

fraud and crime and it's you know part

of your experience

i think rudy giuliani is an expert and

rudy giuliani says

if philadelphia had a fair election this

time it's the first time in 60 years

why don't you listen to him because

listen to the experts

the the listen to the experts things is

purely

stupidity because you can't tell which

expert to listen to

if you could you know that's a different

conversation

but you can't you can't tell is it rudy

or is it this election professional they

have different opinions

all right so let's talk about whether uh

you had the motive and the opportunity

for fraud in this election

now move this white board over here so

you can see it let's talk about the

motivation first

the fake news has told democrats that

they were dealing with some kind of a

orange hitler if you thought

that you could stop orange hitler

from a second term would you break the

law to do it

well some of you would some of you would

not

if only one person was involved in

elections

well maybe that person would never break

the law

but that's not the case millions of

people are involved

in elections you only need enough of

them

to be willing to break the law for the

law to get broken

you don't need everybody to break the

law you just need

enough and if you have millions of

people

who believe that orange hitler might be

taking a second term

are there enough people who would be

willing

to break the law yes

clearly and unambiguously yes

so there would be enough people willing

but willingness is not

enough to get it done right just be

willing to do it

did they think it was an existential

threat and did they believe

the hoaxes did they believe the fine

people hoax did they believe the

drinking bleach hoax

if you believe this stuff because you

believe the fake news

does that create a situation in which

the motivation

for massive fraud involving potentially

lots of people

is the motivation there yes right

is there anybody watching this who would

disagree with the statement

that the motivation to cheat was higher

than it has ever been

by far not even close because we've

never had this situation

where people had actually been

brainwashed to think that hitler was

maybe taking office for a second term

that's unprecedented so i think

everybody would agree

no matter what kind of expert you are

and hey wait a minute am i an expert

am i an expert on let's say human

motivation

within a large organization i kind of

am in my own way

if you're the author of the dilbert

comic you are kind of an expert on human

motivation

in large organizations but i don't have

a

degree in anything like that so i won't

make that claim

all right now let's talk about the

question of

is it possible because i think this is a

really important question

if you have the highest motivation in

the world

to cheat and i would argue it is

literally the highest motivation

in the world to cheat and that does

exist

is it possible that's the only other

question because if both of those exist

the highest motivation and it's

practical to do it would you not say

it's guaranteed to happen

i think it would be right so if it

happened

could you detect it and how would you

detect it

for example could you could you observe

it directly

well the complaint is that the observers

were not allowed to observe

and ins in a number of cases there are

no observers

so could you could direct observation

be enough to guarantee that there are no

places that there could be fraud

i think the answer is obviously that's

not enough

direct observation can be good for

plugging

specific holes for example the things

are happening

within the room where you're counting

probably give some direct

observation probably have some cameras

but i don't think there's anybody who

believes

that these alone the cameras and the

direct observation

given how limited that is for the entire

chain of custody

is is there anybody who

drives around behind the the vans

carrying the ballots

does anybody drive behind those vans to

make sure that they you know they don't

stop and unload anything

there must be massive parts of the

process

that are not witnessed by two witnesses

wouldn't you say

how about the recount will the recount

find fraud

no because if the ballots are fraudulent

you would just count them a second time

so there's nobody who believes

my dog's going crazy downstairs i might

have to go deal with that in a minute

nobody believes that a recount finds

fraud

a recount can only find a specific kind

of fraud

such as can you hear that

my dog is going crazy downstairs and

so i either have an intruder or

something

i don't know what's going on down there

but so a recount won't

detect fraud it would only detect a very

specific kind

how about an audit so an audit is more

than a recount

we don't do audits could an audit

find problems in the system i think it

could

but we don't do them we do an audit

in a very small way similar to the irs

if the irs calls you and says we're

going to audit you

do they audit everything that your tax

returns claim

no no even an auditor from the irs

only looks at a certain question they

might say ah

there's a red flag on your return we're

going to look at that question

but they're not going to open up your

entire return i suppose they might if

they saw some

major fraud but that's not the intention

they're looking at just the question

likewise an audit of an election process

at most is going to look at a specific

question

is there anybody who's going to be

double checking the

software line by line in the election

system

no no nobody's going to check the code

that's not happening have you heard that

happening if they don't check

the software have they really done an

audit

not really so i would say that anybody

who tells you there's

something like an election audit

happening

that's more untrue than true it might be

that they've audited

some specific questions doesn't mean

they're auditing everything

how about lawsuits you file a lawsuit

then you've got discovery and you can

really dig into the details

could a lawsuit find your regularities

well it turns out there's a problem

because you can't follow the you can't

file the lawsuit

unless you have evidence and you can't

get evidence

with a recount you can't get it with an

audit

and you can't necessarily get it with

direct observation or cameras

so how can you file a lawsuit if you

don't have any evidence

and you don't have any way to get it

because the system

is not designed to present it it's just

not there

so you can you know you can do things

around the margins

but you would expect to have an uh a

situation

like the trump legal team you'd expect

26

out of 27 lawsuits to be tossed out

because the court says

uh where's your evidence

i can't get it i can't get the evidence

so i can't even get the process started

because they can't get the evidence

but what about data irregularities

do you think you could prove election

fraud

with data irregularities well

maybe and i've been telling you for some

time now

that you would see evidence that would

convince you that there was

fraud the the evidence that i think

would be the convincing stuff

is the data irregularities but

as we saw with the wisconsin tweet that

i talked about

do you trust anybody's data yet

nope you don't almost every claim we've

seen about the election

pretty much every claim has turned out

to be false

and it doesn't even matter who's making

it democrat republican

it feels like just about every claim

about the election has turned out to be

false

so eventually

given time i think the data

irregularities can be found so this is

probably the only place you

could find fraud now if you found it

here that might give you

cause for a lawsuit which might allow

you to dig into things and

you know maybe maybe find something but

the data irregularities we probably will

not find

or at least will not be confident of

until the whole biden process

is done so here's where i think we're

going to be

at some point in the future and i got in

trouble for saying i think it would be

in two weeks

so i'm going to take the deadline away

from it because i got myself in trouble

with a deadline

because i'd just be guessing on deadline

eventually

the data irregularities will make the

case as

convincingly as i think the

kennedy nixon election

and then what do you do then what do you

do

now there's one other phenomenon i

haven't seen anybody talk about

that i'm going to add to the

conversation and it's going to make you

mad and you're going to realize it's

true

let's say there was some evidence

we got 220 sworn statements right

so that suggests that maybe the direct

observation

and the witnesses worked to some degree

so let's say if those 220 they can put

together a dozen good lawsuits

and let's say that they're all pretty

valid you've got a witness

maybe after that you could get some

documentation to demonstrate it's true

maybe the cameras show it too then you

take this to a judge and you say i got

it now

now we found this this

source of a problem let's say we found

that

a nursing home had sent in a hundred

ballots

but none of the actual residents are

aware that they voted

so you say haha gotcha we found that you

use this

senior center to harvest votes you just

took them out of the mailbox you filled

them out yourself and you sent them in

so i'm going to make a lawsuit about

that i'm going to take it to court

gotcha what does the judge say

does the judge say show me your evidence

nope because the judge doesn't care

because the judge first asks you how

many votes are we talking about

and you say well i got a hundred votes

there were a hundred

people who will swear they didn't vote

and yet their vote was registered

and the judge says uh

so what if i overturn 100 votes it

doesn't change the election

get out of here so

if you don't find it all

you can't do anything about it so you

could find

a lot of it but if you only find chunks

of it

here's a chunk here's a chunk

here's a chunk the chunks are worthless

because each chunk doesn't add up enough

to change the outcome

and so the judge says there's nothing to

work on here

yeah i could you could prove that these

hundred votes don't count

but it's just this little chunk doesn't

change anything so i'm not even going to

hear it

so it's sort of a a perfect

situation somebody says that's

appealable yeah i suppose anything's

appealable

um somebody says who here wants to start

a civil war

you know the the thing that uh i

appreciate about this country is that

we're not going to have a civil war this

is not going to happen

and the reason is so simple you know why

we won't have a civil war

don't want one that's it that's the

whole reason

you have to have somebody want one right

nobody wants one even the militias

they're not looking to start one i mean

they may independently want to overthrow

the country or something

but not over the election necessarily uh

i just don't think anybody wants one and

you would have to have

a lot of people wanting one it just

doesn't happen on its own

all right um and i would like to say to

my democrat friends who believe

that orange hitler was the

was a real thing and believe that the

president

is a real racist and suggests

drinking bleach if you could stop that

election and you didn't

you are cowards you're cowards

because if you didn't cheat in this

election you've got a lot of explaining

to do

you should be able to tell me you threw

the election and you're happy about it

because you saved the country in your

opinion saved us from orange hiller

wouldn't you be proud of that well i

would think you would be

all right i think i may have said

everything i want to do oh

[Music]

biden is boring us to death and the only

other thing i want to say about

um oh what a does anybody think that the

senate race in georgia is going to be

a clean election if

if let's say hypothetically

hypothetically if democrats had

rigged the presidential election and now

we're doing this

senate uh special election in georgia

wouldn't they rig that too and wouldn't

they just do it exactly the same way

so we're going to learn something

interesting

because if both republicans lose in

georgia

which is what people are not expecting

it's going to reopen this question of

fraud

and if the democrats cheated

in the the main election and got away

with it

why wouldn't they do it again the same

way

if it works why wouldn't you do it again

really

so james mattis says he hopes biden gets

rid of america first as a concept

to which i say now i see why two

different presidents fired that guy that

guy

mattis was probably the most overrated

general of all times

you know as it turns out i had been a

big fan

but once you hear him speaking candidly

he doesn't seem even bright

there's something there's something

going on there

because if you're an american general

and you don't think america first that

does not preclude

being generous to other countries saying

america first

doesn't mean you screw france

america first doesn't mean you throw

grey britain into the ocean

it means that you operate in a

enlightened

way about self-interest

all right that's all i got for now and

i'll talk to you

tomorrow

all right periscope's off youtubers

you have my full attention

um somebody said great britain is

already in the ocean

okay technically

you need to invite rubber barns

you know he'd be a great interview

robert barnes would be but i'm

now that i'm doing uh live streaming on

two platforms i don't have the

technology to do a guest

that both of you could hear on youtube

and periscope at the same time

um why do the youtubers get more time

with you well

uh no real reason

um how did stacey abrams

become so important by doing a good job

stacey abraham is abrams abrams

right stacy abrams she's doing something

right

i mean she almost became governor and

she's

credited with you know changing the

election situation in georgia

so she's doing something really well

um somebody said i should go in the

megan kelly

show that's a podcast i would uh i'm

taking some time off from

doing podcasts and stuff but she would

be fun

do you think vaccine should be mandatory

uh i don't think that's possible

i don't think it's possible but i do

think that um

it will be effectively mandatory so i

don't think the government needs to do

it

because you saw that qantas already said

you have to have a vaccination to fly on

their airlines

i would expect all the airlines to go

that way

so i think that if you want to operate

in the real world

probably you're going to have to get a

vaccination at some point

but i don't know that the government has

to do it i think commerce alone would do

it

how many hours a day do i work in comics

um maybe an average of

one or two a day but i work on weekends

too

is this the golden age it might be it

might be

you know the coronavirus as horrible as

it was

and is it changed so many things

for the better i think you know it just

forced us to shake the box

and rethink everything so we may be

yeah um

uh

you love how yeah you know the thing the

thing that everybody does

that's an exaggeration not everybody but

a lot of people do

is they pretend that if you're in a

group that you agree with

everything the group has done so while

it's true

that trump supporters have done x

i didn't do x so why do i get blamed

why is it my fault if if i like a

president

and somebody else likes a president and

somebody else kicks a dog

and we both like president trump why is

that my problem

i'm kind of not that person i'm a

different person

2024 candidates well the obvious ones

will be

uh pompeo matt gates i think you'll see

tom cotton maybe rubio

yeah all the usual stuff

um you're going to write another book i

haven't decided yet

i might

um

uh yes all right so i'm reading your

questions and uh it's very boring to

watch me read your

questions so i think i'm done and i will

talk to you

tomorrow