« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 760 Scott Adams: Shampeachment Theater, Peak TDS, Future Crimes

2019-12-18 | 🔗

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a

Content:

  • Senate Impeachment Trial: Opening statements and then a vote
    • Do we need more witnesses?
  • Adam Schiff says impeachment is because…
    • President Trump MIGHT commit a crime in the future?
  • Hugh Hewitt notes we are at Peak TDS today
  • Mitch McConnell says Senate’s job is to JUDGE the case
    • …as presented by the House’s TRIAL
    • Senate’s job is NOT to RETRY the House’s case

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: 

I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time.

The post Episode 760 Scott Adams: Shampeachment Theater, Peak TDS, Future Crimes appeared first on Scott Adam's Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Company and palm following up on my phone, Bumpo, hey, everybody come on in here, it's time for another episode of coffee with Scott atoms featuring simultaneous ship, which is coming up come up fast. Come in at you, come in here too fast and hard, and all you need all you need. The simultaneous well doesn't take much. Not really. All you need is a copper, monger, glasses and after staying cellist anchored, there was last getting real gobbler vessel of any kind fully with you. Ve ever look. I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the sun Romania the day, the thing that makes everything better the simultaneous said: yes, is that good go.
for those of you made it to full simultaneity, pretty good, pretty good those of you joining later. I think you'll find that the asynchronous this is pretty darn good as well. Hurry to. Sir. Let me do a little love check here and how many people are paying attention.
when the discussion started about the about the house likely improving appeal impeachment and then turning it over to the Senate, for something like a trial, President Troms said yeah bring it on. Let's have witnesses unless have a full trial, lotta people whose support President Trump said well, if the President's asking for a full trial, we support it too. So a lot of the president's supporters both on in the press and in the real world and social media they sort of joined with President Trump and everything here we give us give us some witnesses will put Joe Biden. There will put Hunter Biden, we'll put Adam chef on very bring it on
bring it on who was who was the only person there? You saw say that you should not do that who the only person you know who told you her from the beginning. President Trump should not have a trial. because you don't want to introduce new evidence when you ve already won the case. We already know that the Senate will vote. The impeachment away, so I introduced new risk when you don't need to know Do you remember when I was saying that and absolutely nobody else in the world who sang it? Can we get there confirmation hearing the comments of those. We renew know that on that just making stuff up yes from day one I said No, no, no! No! No! Just voted away, don't have a trial,
How many of you said your crazies got your crazy. President saying we should have a trial here, if you, if you don't get the following thing: you're missing a big part of the play and when I say the play, I've been the shell president. Trump knows how to put down a show. He knows how to do a defence, both legal and politically, but at the same time he is putting on the defence he's always put not to show its always. Intentional is always a good show here. Here's how this works in this is some advice you can take with you if you are ever accused of something
And you're ah, but it looks like there's not enough evidence to really convince you, you should demand a trial, even if you're sure that a trial would show there's no evidence in here. There's not enough evidence to convince you of anything. You should demand a trial. You should demand witnesses. You should demand them. all the information get out under the following conditions. You ve got a lawyer whose telling you don't do that. Do you say yes, the perfect situation. The perfect defense is that the person who is accused is screaming at the top of his lungs. From the start. To the finish, I want more witnesses. I want more evidence. I want to prove my innocence. Bring you the facts, bring it all. The facts spend as much money as you want spend as much time as you want bring anybody into.
justify that's how innocent I am as long as you're all lawyer, saying now what I can do that Where would definitely not gonna do that, because there is no case here, and I will just be dumb too to do something when you ve already won the case so Lindsey Gram soon after the soon after it was the first in the political around that eyesight anyway, say. Listen, I'm any witnesses. Let's just about this thing away now looks like Mitch. Mcconnell is on their page, and it looks like that's where we're heading looks like you're gonna hear the opening statements and, under you say, ok, fine. We got it for you. The way they heard a great guy filled say something on the five yesterday.
Let me I've laughed in his made me angry for almost a day, because it was an obvious until he said it ready. So you can have the same problem. The same reaction. I add the sushi here Add assume, as you hear it, you're gonna say: oil. Ok, that was obvious. Why did I not see the obvious and urges, as Gregg explained, if the Democrats or so sure that they have already shown that's a president should be impeached because they had all the witnesses they wanted. All the evidence. I wanted they're sure they have everything they need. So why do they need more witnesses in the Senate? Why are the delicacy of asking for it? They ve already made. Case. Not only are they made their happy with, it is exactly what they wanted to show that they
I believe that all the evidence that they thought was worth showing here in the house: it's all there so remind me again why they need more witnesses because they think they're done. and if they think they're done, and they showed all that they need to show and Republicans are not interested in seeing more either because they think is done as well. Remind me which side wants the witnesses, because both sides to say they don't need any, boss. I say they don't need any other argue about whether they should have the whole thing is just leader is just she impeachment here now. Are you mad? Is the moment you hear a frame that way you save yourself. oh yeah, that's kind of all you need to know. If they wanted more witnesses, they will have
nothing new happened in the last week. They didn't find some new information in the past week, so it appears that we have reached the the entertainment phase. impeachment and I made the following tweet this morning that I'm going to stand by and less Gollop prediction goes like this, that President Trump will change. What impeachment means far more than parliament will change what we think of the presidency. because he is a unique character. Let me give you an example: did the presidency change President tribe or did President Trump change, what the presidency was?
Tromp changed the presidency. We now understand a whole different range of actions and options and strategies and The entire approach has changed. What the presidency means he eat he tweets instead of using, but what he called the press briefings, etc. These changed everything so, instead of the presidency, changing the candidate, which is the normal way. Goes he changed the office. Did you see him do the same thing the entire republican Party, when as in tromp was running to be of the nominees for the reply. Looking party? What did everybody, including Republican, say they said you not even a Republican, your barely republican you're, so none republican, it doesn't even makes sense.
say, you're running to be the leader of the party that you have nothing in common with. What do you say now? Ninety five percent approval within the Republican Party and everybody Smart says the same thing is his party, now he changed the Republican Party into a trumpet party. Now it may change back when he's gone by you, you see this over and over again in in every situation. He, the president, was not simply the subject of the news reporting on her right. That's the way, every other president was every other president was here. I am and then here's the news and the news is gonna report on me and that's the whole relationship. He changed everything. He turned it into fake news and he started
reporting on the news think about that he changed the news business so radically, then it was no longer the news reporting on Trump. It was justice, much trope reporting on the news, and essentially the legitimate, the entire industry. Now, in my opinion, it needed to be deal a generalised, because I was actually the more accurate waiter to see what was really happening, but he did that Could another president have delegitimize the entire press? I don't think so so every time that the President enters a stitch, a situation, whether it's becoming a Republican where there's becoming the president or now, whether he's becoming one of the few impeached presidents, Impeachment is not going to change him. He is right now, even as we speak,
enjoying what the word means he's changing and patient Here's here's one of the ways that this office together. What the present understands and said is millions is it? He knows how to put other shell, for the countries of the world is always the shell now, the showers, productive, meaning that he's putting your where words most productively airport, maybe you think about border security is making you think about trade with China. So the show is the moon your attention where that your attention is most productively suited. So
so he's doing this all the time so part of the shell is who he is so he's a character of the main character, the most important character in the shell? But what is his character? His character is the bad boy. Am I right when you say if you were, if you're writing the movie about this in your just a dispassionate Hollywood, film writer,
you're gonna write the story of this year. You always have sort of a stereo type idea in your mind, if your characterise the stereotype does, I use the heel, the bad boy he's the bully. He is there. He is the other rebel thee. He's he's the rule, breaker right, that's how he s ass his character. Now what fits the rule breaker better than being impeached and continuing to do his job? Nothing, there's almost nothing that can make president trumps story better.
better than getting impeached and staggered off snubbing removed from office would obviously be bad unambiguously but stay in office. While impeached is exactly on character and what I say character, I don't mean his actual human being character. So much I mean the character it plays in the in the shop. So I think. The Democrats who are delivering to him. Basically, a metal. These gotta wear out his chest during the rest of the show, meaning the rest of his term in the metal on his chest, is completely compatible with the character he formed intentionally. To give you show is very much like you don't throw me in their briar.
Oh no, don't and teach me that's. The worst thing that ever happened to me well is the worst thing that can happen to someone else. It lit it. Just isn't the worst thing that could happen to this specific president. In this So they case for him. He's gonna, where, like a badge he's gonna use it like a club to beat the Democrats senseless for the next year.
Now, I'm not going to say that somebody saying forty just now: we we have fun over subscribing his his luck as strategy, and I do that too. I usually I like to think that you know what I'm doing it for fun can sometimes all contribute something. This were to happen. Then luck I'll say well, I was, is forty NEO chest stuff? Some of us just luck. Young people get lucky, but I do believe that is the strategic sense is is extraordinary, but this is just a case of him being in the right places right they just delivered a whim that they didn't know there were doing. No. I don't think that was a plan by the present certainly and was making it even better and what I say better, I mean again the show
both the entertainment of the show maximum here's a tweet by Adam Sheriff, and I swear you if you were to read this without knowing the whole context of everything this happened, you would be so confused. Let me just read the tweet, so Adam shift This is why we had to move forward with articles of impeachment. Ok, she's gonna. Tell me why we have to move forward with the articles and pigeon here comes. The threat persists. Ok, ok, the threat tell me more which threat the plot goes on: ok, ok, out of the plot and a threat or persisting what is it? What is the plot? What is the threat? And your point is yours? Could Europe comes and trams effort to achieve in the next election? What what the next election, trumps effort to in the next election will never stop. The president and his lawyer continue to make the case for
his own removal. Well less lacking a little bit of detail, our the president and his lawyer, maybe the case for his own removal by looking for evidence that would come Firm that everything the president did was a good idea. Ok, but here's the the chilling line was one. I just read the trumps effort to cheat and the next election will never stop Literally talking about future crimes that have happened, mental crimes, imaginary crimes, hallucinated speculative hypothetical crimes- are you kidding me. Some of the subway John and the cover says why was like listening to someone describe their dream. It really is this if, if you were to say our right, listen, let's turn this into a movie and there's gonna be plot in the movie a place in the movie, Where are they?
the evil, Nemesis Adam chef playing the role of the evil nemesis there's gonna, be a partner movie where he just becomes a ridiculous character and the things he said are laughable even to his own team, while this will be at they ve, actually given up on finding past or current crimes. I'm not making up his actually decided to for any effort. You ve heard the other Democrats say something similar is not just shift saying this. They ve. Actually, I guess I've coordinated they have coordinated to have the similar message that the real problem is not what he's already done or doing that. The real problem is that he might commit crimes in the future because he's the kind of guy.
Are you kidding me that is so far from what our system recognizes as a problem that it doesn't even looked like a serious when I read this, I swear the difference between this and parity It's completely merge right. If I, if I were to do a like a joke about how ridiculous the constitution and gotten- and I did a joke- was saying the Dilbert Comic about how people we're gonna be punished for things they had not yet What would you think of that? You would think know that the Scott you can't write a comic about somebody getting punished for crimes they have not yet done, because that doesn't sound close enough to reality that people will go, get it. Cuz, comics and humor works best when people say oh yeah, that's that's what happens.
I better that situation. That's when jokes work well, who in who has ever been in this situation. A leader. one of the leaders in the house. You saying in public shamelessly in public that he wants to remove repressed and four why you might do in the future. This is actually happening right now. like were living in the world. I think, unless all an illusion- it feels like we're living in a world where this is actually happening is actually say, removes the president, Gaza. You might do in the future
and by the way we just spent years looking for his crimes in the past, and we couldn't find anything and people, obviously, since they know everything a pitiable at this point, I believe a bull Hugh you it some this awful up with a tweet today. I think he mailed it- and he said quote today today- maybe Peak tv S, meaning trumped arrangements syndrome starting off that way, more than half of the country is laughing at the afflicted, but they are oblivious there. Their twitter fees reassure them. That is the crucial sign of eminent, can innovation. So that is exactly how I see my version of
reality there remember, I think, reality as a deep subjective quality, even if there are some objective reality that are available to us, but in mice objective reality. It looks like after the country is suffering as huge. You says peak tedious, because when you start the shamelessly saying that, The problem is not what the person is dumb, but what you imagine they could do in the future. That's no longer attached to the real world. That is no longer attached to rationality. The constitution is not attached to anything. It is completely free, floating
you have this free floating reality with no connection to any any part of the world that I can observe, and so, just as Hugh saying I woke up and started reason. News, and let me ask you if you did as well. I read the news as Carmody tonight. and I ve been doing this for a while- but today is- I felt exactly like you- you had felt I am. I dont know how much is coincidence and how much is the school sneeze. What Think for a few more sneezes coming so bear with.
So I feel exactly the way you who it Hugh cured explained it. Although I didn't you, I had not crystallized in my mind this way, but today feels like pure accompany it feels like pure comity. Thank you, her body. Why, as a good way to get a lot of blessings sneeze on care so. Do the Democrats understand you think, there's anybody who's, a Democrat whose waking up to what's actually happening today because of your democrat. You should be waking up to the realization optimism. This is actually happening, but you should be waking up to the realisation that your team just devolved into pure silliness, but probably that's, not gonna, happen
so it looks like we're. Gonna get something like a Senate trial with no witnesses the way Bitch Mcconnell explained it. I can't believe it took me this long to hear this explanation. I believe that the council's interpretation of the constitution is the Senate is just to judge the impeachment they're not supposed to be retried the case, because the case was tried in the house, so Mcconnell saying it's not even our job to retrieve the case does not even our constitutional duty. Worse was the judge it
So we can, we can just vote, we don't need. I have witnessed, and I thought to myself. Why am I just hearing that interpretation in? I love the fact that we're getting educated under the new answers of of the constitution possess now something I knew before. I didn't quite understand the do also that. I think the job is changing the definition of impeachment into a modern definition. I just tweeted before I got here. The new definition of impeachment blogger is a process by which the party out of power shows the world how they got that way happens most commonly right before landslide reelection. You seem look, Also turn haven't you say you ve seen the balls just go the other way, down the mental? Well, maybe what unimpeachable? Maybe we doubt and suddenly they just one link and suddenly
Then the impeachment has just underwater, especially in their swing states. Apparently the president's approval on the economy has reached a new high today. How would you like to be the the poor Democrats you're trying to push impeachment at exactly the same time the stats are coming out, that then you have the highest approval of the president's handling of the economy since he came in office and has been pretty good. The whole time
I'm in the handling of the economy is the one thing that even the Democrats, grudgingly you're, not by a majority but at least grudgingly some Democrats would even say: ok, he gets varieties now rolling the economy. I just don't like the seller stuff is not much else. We all accept this impeachment seems to have wiped. Everything else was the was happening to start work, somebody's subleasing, start work and start working. When we check will start work is up a little bit today in general, it's been up way up now. The other problem that the.
Bitcoin is up today to and water twitters up. So one of the problems that the Democrats have goes life ass, a sort of aim again. Just luck. Work could be worse than trying to impede a successful president toward the end of the year, which is also the end of the decade Khazars. something that happens at the end of the year. That doesn't happen the rest of the year due notice, what happens at the end of every year that doesn't happen too much or at all. During most of the rest of the year will happens, is that the press stop stewing. New news has lots. People are invocation last few weeks later And they start doing summaries of how the year went. There's something you only due at the end of the year,
And how do the summaries of how our year went? Looking for President Trump. Really really good. So the press, because that's what they do every every year they talked about how the year looks so they're going to have to look at. How did the economy do this year and how much ISIS is left over? How many judges got appointed, have any idea. What is the rate of flow of immigration on out? How many trade deals have we done so imagine. Imagine this conflict you're the enemy press a near trying to get rid of this present and at the same, time. You are forced by tradition and just expectation and resources to some extent you forced to speak.
Continuously about how everything is going well under this present. At the same time, you're talking about impeaching him, it's gonna be it's gonna be lit, abstain, who's, the losers. it? I saw replay of somebody was with Euro using allowed the compilation clips in which you see the Democrats saying the same thing over and over and being wrong about it for years and why am I forget his name, who is Lee the male hosted? The today show male our so in the compilation clips of people talking about the President figures,
but a patient who showed that allow our and I thought to myself as mad Lauer, not been retired for ten years, because my sense of time is so distorted down, but in the end, the Trump era there. I thought there was no way that met Lauer was still working during any part of the Trump candidacy or or presidency. I thought really matter Y. All sense of time was completely distorting I I don't know what else we gotta go around because there's nothing else talk about except impeachment were beaten to death. Something else happened. Oh so it looks like the budget. The next budget is to include many millions.
For researching gun, control, researching and control, now that's almost where we need to be. I think we do need to research, gotta control defined out better. Do you get a much better idea? What works and what doesn't, but should we also detesting something's? Can we not find here a state or a county? Who was just do a five year test? They say I will make this change or that change at the end of five years will reverse it. If it didn't work,
Delicious testing was test. A few things save works. I asked in Twitter. Would it be legal under the current laws to put a rifle a drone? If you own the drone and you own the rifle, could you put your own rifle they? U legally own. Any Rhone drown that you legally own mega flying gun. If it didn't leave your property, let's say, maybe it would be highly illegal. The flight over your neighbors property policy, you flag if the other, a flying, gun and you're a farmer, could you have a flying down on your own property and he was now. Apparently there are laws anticipated that end if you're flying you can't have any Canada a weapon basically, but what that does is it makes me asked this question: is that not a form of gun control
right is gun, control to tell you that your gun can't fly. If I have the right to have a gun, why do I not all also have the right to a flying gun now before somebody says this makes this bad point. I know it's illegal to hook up in unattended, booby trapped in your home. So if you, if you booby, trap your front door with a gun, so there's somebody opens at the gutter automatically shoots them. Well, that's illegal! because you ve taken the human being out of the decision process, an apparently that's a bad thing, but with a drone that they have attached a gun to, you can still be the decision maker. The drone is not making its own decisions. You're. The one who's gonna have to push the button to shoot,
Under those conditions, why can we not have a flying gun, because the constitution does not anticipate your future designs of guns and if my gun can fly a you're going cared, I haven't advantage right, so I am imagining that my flying gun might road with a rifle attached to it is flying was say somewhere over me and then I can see the whole I feel that I can see everybody and of somebody's come about me baby. I can the oceans warning shots or suchlike, but you can imagine that a flying would be a better gum, and now you may say yourself: ok, you got that sort of where I draw the line, because even if you're in favour of guns, maybe
also in favour of flying guns. Flying guns might be more of a problem, but I think it's fair to say that gun control works in that limited case. see, if you agree, would you agree that having the law says, you can't put your own gun on your own drone? Do you think that there is a good chance that lower mostly obeyed, because it would be hard it would be hard for you to to rig it up impossible. Do yourself, I could do it. Yeah I've been actors can do it, but don't you think that it would be far more widespread if, if a company could just make it and sell it could well be that many people want to attach a gun to a drought. Now, let's say you, you think that you need to protect the republic against a dictator rising in trying to take over the country under there
scenario: wouldn't you like to have a flying gun? Yes, she would because a flying down would be more more powerful than the non flying done. I. Can you S John Kerry, north korean stick what that means. Norway tasks, I'm drones. Yes, If you put a narrow all task, other drone is legal. Are you sure, you're drone as a stab device to just like fly right as somebody with your normal tusk. Rule of holes. You immediately get yourself in a whole when talking guns, stop digging problem solved, blocked it, sir. That's my new rule for a block.
You can always tell me what I got wrong. There will always be there, but you tell me I'm over my head or I'm taking a whole or I shouldn't talk about a topic is the only block because that's what the internet is. His people don't know what you're talking about talking terms letter. They also trumps letter to day ass. He was he well, I loved the letter B just because he was classic Trump and it was insulting and you didn't mention her teeth falling out, but it could have thanked the letter as much impact is sort of a little bit of a news news interest, but it didn't it wasn't, persuasive, doesn't change. Anything really is nothing now. Let me ask you this: will we ever
get to the point where, where law enforcement cannot determine, who is operating a drone or are we are already there? Are we already have points? I let me ask you this. Imagine if you will, An anonymous encrypted system where you could have multiple drone operators, at least in this limited sense- let's say the drone. Her goes up in it hunts down, let's say a cartel later and lots of people early, and they can all see the drums scream and everybody uses the drones scream, cast a vote, shoot or don't shoot. If you vote shoe You're just one of many people voting, and you have no reason to believe that you're one vote is the one that makes a difference
and is also untraceable. Nobody will know if you vote under Eden, vote Those conditions could you have an assassination drone where the rifle in which you can identify any specific person, who is behind it, because maybe there's somebody who built it, but I don't think that's necessarily against love. Well, it is, if you put a gun at it, but I'm trying to imagine a situation in which you can have an assassination drown in which you would never be able to find it if there were which human in particular was behind it. Probably already, there probably can already do. That, however, reveals loop Adele's talk about was only making short. Let you get back to your day, Firstly, proceedings and I can't wait for the impeachment later.