Transcript
A (0:00)
On in. We're prepping for the show of shows. Best thing that ever happened to you. There's room up front. Well, that is a nice shirt you're wearing there. How did you get more good looking since the last time? It's hard to imagine, really. Sure is. All right. Stock market's up a little bit, but boy, was it down. Wow. Come on stream in here. I want all of you to enjoy this. Goodness. At the same time, we don't often have a show like this. We've got a guest coming in at the halfway mark. It'll be at the bottom of the hour. And we've got a persuasion lesson. It's going to be a good one. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And you've never had a better time. But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tank of shell cysteine, canteen jug or flask, A vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine of the day. The thing makes everything better is called simultaneous sip. And it's probably going to happen right now. Go. Extraordinary. Delicious. Best ever. Well, here's the kind of story that you depend on me to bring to you. A very important story. Let's say first I'm going to put my clock up here so I don't run over the halfway time. Where would clock be? If you were an app name clock there you'd be. Gotcha. Seriously, the clock doesn't have a clock on it. All right, we'll take it. All right. Well, there's a story about a woman who was accused. She was accused of the first crime in space. So, you know, they say that men get all the credit for inventing things. It's not fair because women also invented crime in space. Or allegedly. Apparently there's some controversy about whether that was an actual crime. But it was a woman who is an astronaut who went up in space. And I think the her wife accused her of, I don't know, doing something with a check or doing something with a password and stealing some money from the bank. But here's the funny part and the only reason I'm bringing this up. It's not because women invented crime in space, although that would be impressive enough. It's. It's the last name of the person who's accused of the crime. Oh, no, no. It's even funnier. This is not the name of the person who was accused of the crime. It's the person who accused the other one of the crime. So the one who's accused, his name McLean, but the one who did the accusing, and I'm not making this up, her last name is Warden. W O R D E N. So the warden accused her wife of stealing in space. Did you need to know that story? You probably. Probably could have gone the whole day without knowing that. Nope, Wasn't terribly important. But her last name, really, it was. Warden didn't make that up. All right, if you were a cursor and you were on my computer, where would you be? There you are. Gotcha. But wait, there are more stories you've probably heard that the Senate has now approved that Epstein bill via unanimous consent. So guess what? It turns out that Congress can pass anything it wants as fast as it wants. Does that make you happy? What have we been doing up to this point? Are you serious? You're telling me that the Congress can do things really fast and very efficiently? Sometimes, but not all the time. So this is the thing that we got right in terms of speed, but the only reason it went fast is because it took us years to get to this point, like we. We found a way, or Congress did, to make even an efficient process, which, if it had been a standalone process, probably would impress you how fast it went. But no, no. Years later, it goes fast. So now we have the Senate and the House have approved it. It's going to go to Trump's desk. So how many of you think that that means you're going to see some more Epstein files? Do you think that's what that means? Or. There's always a reason to not see the Epstein files. One would be if there's a open court case, such as the one Trump was just trying to open against the Democrats for their connection to Epstein. Oh, that's a nice coincidence. Just the time that everybody agreed to see it. There's this lost, there's this legal action. Well, I guess we have to wait till the end of that. That's going to be another five years. So good luck if you're just waiting for all that information that you know is going to come any minute. Because if there's one thing I can tell you about the Epstein files, it's the only thing I know about them for sure. There's always a reason to not show you. Always. We'll find out what the reason is this time, but not expecting it. All right, so it's on its way to the president's desk. And if he signs, really doesn't mean much, does it? If he signs it, it doesn't mean. It's more likely that people will see the files. Probably doesn't mean anything because, again, it's going to be one of these process things. All right, so it wasn't a normal vote. It went through all kinds of weird things you don't need to know about. But what is the strongest type of denial? If you are going to deny an accusation, what's the weakest form and the strongest form? Well, a weak form would be, no, I didn't do that. No, no, we didn't do that. Slightly stronger than that would be, not only did I not do that. You're the one who did it. You're the one who did it. And then that, you know, diverse attention from you. So that's even better than just denying it. It's like, you did it, and then what's stronger than you did it? Well, not only did the Democrats, they would be you in this case. Not only did the Democrats do it, whatever it is, but you're gonna prove it. That's kind of what Trump said. Because if he's, if he wants the Department of Justice to look into these top Democrats, he's going after Bill Clinton and Larry Summers and Reid Hoffman. So those are the ones he's going after. Now, I'm going to give you a little persuasion lesson on how well Trump is handling this. I know that doesn't sound, that doesn't sound possible, does it, does it look like he's handled it well up to this point? No, no. If, if you're not paying attention to too much, it really doesn't look like he's handled it well. It looks like he was flailing around a little bit, didn't it? But he's now settled into a groove that is such a strong groove that I feel like all the rest of the stuff was just testing. He was just saying, how about this? Suppose I said this. What would happen if I said this? So his current approach is that it's a Democrat problem and he's going to put three faces on it. Instead of the hundreds of faces, he's going to pick three rich guys that probably, you know, even the left doesn't love because they're rich guys, and he's just going to paint them over and over again. Now, what does Trump say about talking about this? Trump says, well, It's a Democrat problem and we Republicans should stop talking about it because it just takes attention away from all of our accomplishments. And then because he doesn't want the left to talk about it. What do they do? Well, everybody on the left asks some questions about it every single time he's out, every time. What does Trump do every time now? Every time. Now going forward, he's going to say it's a Democrat problem. It's Larry Summers, it's Bill Clinton is read off. And now I don't have an opinion about what those three people did or did not do. We're only talking about Trump's persuasion game. If he continues to do nothing but that, what are you going to think about? Whenever it comes up, you think about three, three rich Democrats. That's what you'll think about. Now that's sort of a home run if he can do that. Now, the only way this could fail is if the Democrat press, you know, the left leaning press all got together and said, you know, we're going to kill ourselves of this because every time we bring it up now, he just mentions these three Democrats and says it's a Democrat problem. Now, if you're a regular consumer of news, not like us, probably none of us are ordinary people, you know, we pay a little more attention about politics, which is why you'd be watching this podcast in the first place. But think about the average person. How much do they know about Epstein? Well, he was at Pedo, he was on an island. They know the basics, but they don't know any of the details because it's something that only the news nerds seem to be involved in. So now Trump has done something that is brilliant, which he's filled in that gap for the low information voters. If you wanted to have something to say that was sort of capture the whole situation, it would be this, well, looks like a Democrat problem. I don't know why you're even talking to Republicans. Huh? Huh? Yeah, but it's kind of a Democrat problem. So when the Democrats work this out, once you get back to us, well, but, but, but, but there was that, you know, time and Trump and blah, blah, blah. And then Trump has the floor, you know, they've accused him and then he says, yeah, it's a Democrat problem, Larry Summers, Bill Clinton. And every time he repeats it, it gets stronger. So they're going to give him. Because they can't help themselves. You know, the news is the news. They're going to act the way they always act. They're going to Give Trump unlimited opportunities to do the thing that he says. Please don't do this to me. Please don't throw me in the Breyer patch. If you throw me in the Breyer patch, what am I going to do except talk about endlessly how it's these three Democrats who are the obscene people you need to know about, and then maybe the Department of Justice needs to look into them. No, don't make me talk about that three times a day. No, he's sort of in a perfect situation now. As I said when I started, he was kind of flailing in the early stages of, you know, we're gonna have to figure out this Epstein thing. But when he finally went from, no, we don't want to see the files, a complete flip to, yep, let's see them all, that's when you knew he had a grasp of the situation, because you can't really reverse show them all. Now, this would presume that we see anything. I'm not sure that that's going to happen. There are a few things that are going to happen. One, we might see some files that tell us something new. Probably not. But at the very least, it's going to give Trump endless possibilities for blaming the Democrats and saying Epstein is just a Democrat problem until everybody believes it. You know, I've told you that persuasion is mostly repetition, and he's going to have the biggest repetition opportunity anybody ever had, and he's just going to lean into it until you're so tired of hearing him say that Epstein is a Democrat problem that you stop asking him questions about Epstein, and that's fine, too. So Trump has now created a situation where he kind of wins in every direction. Right? Because now he's for full transparency, so he's invulnerable on that. And he's just repeating over and over the Democrat, you know, it's a Democrat thing. It's a Democrat hoax. It's just going to get stronger and stronger as he does it. So good luck with that, Democrats. Let's see, what else. There's also the visual part. You know how I often say that if you're looking at the strongest elements of persuasion, repetition is probably the top, because if you repeat enough, anybody will believe anything. But also visual. Now, the Epstein is not a visual story per se, but if you imagine these three specific people, Hoffman, Summers, and Bill Clinton, most of you can picture them. Maybe you don't know Larry Summers, but you know who Bill Clinton is. So you've got a. A little picture to put in your head to place on the island. That helps Trump too. So if you start imagining the three of them now, the thing I wondered is I feel like Trump's meme archers are a little slow because, you know, the next thing that happens is that the, the Republican memers are going to start producing pictures, probably AI it would show the three of them together maybe on the island. So it's going to turn visual very fast, you know, through memes, etc. So he's going to have repetition, he's going to have visual, he's got now control of the narrative because it's just an interesting thing to talk about. Is it a Democrat problem or not? And he's, I think he is successfully branding this as a Democrat problem. Do you feel that if you take Trump out of the equation, he's always a special case? Do you feel this is a Republican problem at all? It really doesn't feel like one, does it? It feels entirely like it's just, just that. Anyway, So the Democrats, they decided to drop a video that looks like some kind of a psyop to me. So there are six of them. One of them's a senator, Mark Kelly and then Jimmy Panetta, Mikey, Cheryl, woman, Adam Smith, Ruben Gallego, Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slotkin. So they do this video which sort of came out of nowhere. Like it's hard to know what inspired it unless it was just obviously the CIA. So it looks like sort of a color revolution thing that you get these, you get people who are in the government, people who are credible to do a video that says, and here's what they said, that they're asking the, they're asking the military to not obey any illegal orders from Trump. But they don't mention what these so called illegal orders would be. Why are they even doing this? Was there, was there some illegal order I'm not aware of? Lindsey Graham is asking the same question and he's smarter. I mean he was a JAG guy forever and he's saying well over 30 years, right? He was a, he was a military lawyer for 30 years or so. And he says, I don't see why you're talking about what's, where's this crime that, that Trump allegedly asked anybody to do? I also wonder, has Trump ever disobeyed the Supreme Court in any meaningful way? I don't think so. So, so this is a really good psyop because if you, again, if you're a low information voter, you would think there's no reason in the world they would make this video. Unless what, what would be the only one reason Democrats would make this video that makes sense, that there's something happening that's illegal and they're trying to stop it. And that would be what? What illegal thing are you trying to stop? We don't know. Do not know. All right, and the other question is, who gets to decide what's legal and what isn't? Now, obviously, the courts ultimately get to decide, but there's always a lot of stuff that happens before that where the government says, oh, gone too far or you haven't. All right, so it seems to me there's kind of a psy up by the Democrats to create this frame where Republicans are. Wait for it. Insurrectionists. And the way that they're insurrectionists, according to this completely made up narrative, is that Trump will give them illegal orders. The military, and then the military, despite all evidence to the contrary, would just start executing illegal orders. Do you think there's any real chance that's going to happen? I mean, I suppose anything's possible, but it doesn't seem like that's imminent or anything. Anyway, so, as Lindsey Graham points out, the hatred for Trump is really going too far. And Stephen Miller is pointing out that the video itself seems to qualify as an insurrection, meaning that it looks like, and I would agree with Stephen Miller's take on this, it looks like these six people are part of a larger group that's trying to create a narrative to literally overthrow the current government. What else would it be? What's the other explanation for why they would go through all this trouble and expense to create this product? What's the other reason again? If there were some specific crimes that they thought were being violated by the military on orders of Trump, shouldn't we be talking about those? Wouldn't that be already getting wrapped up into a court case? Don't we have a system that handles that fairly efficiently, actually? Because we've had, what, hundreds of court cases that got solved? So seems to me that this is nothing but a psyop. And I would say that the origin of this is almost certainly intelligence entity. Now, I'm guessing it's ours, so I'm not making any accusation. There's some foreign country behind it, but this is not. This is not Democrat stuff, is it? Yeah, I want to hear what Mike Benz says about this. But if Mike Benz tells you, oh, this is totally grassroots. Yeah, I think they. They just, maybe they were having dinner, somebody had this idea, and then he put it together. Right. If Mike Benz tells me that's probably what happened, maybe I'd Change my opinion, but I don't think he's going to say that. You know, he hasn't weighed in yet that I've seen, but I'll probably see it by this afternoon. So go check out whatever Mike Ben says about the Democratic lawmaker video. Yeah, every bit of that looks like something suspicious is happening in the wings. And, and then the language that they use in the video quite, quote, we want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community. There it is. They're trying to get the intelligence community and the military to join them in an insurrection against the current government. What else is this? You can't even tell me that there's some other reason for this. And Steve Miller says Democrat lawmakers now openly calling for insurrection. That's what it looks like. I mean, it legitimately looks like that to me. Not, you know, not making some political point or, you know, you, you can always twist things to, into your narrative. It doesn't feel like that at all. It feels like it's exactly what it looks like, which is shocking. It's shocking. And then, then there's this weird story. Talk about this. And then it might be about time for my guest. So this is funny, but Trump was asked on Air Force One a question. And it's hard to tell from the audio, but it sounded like he called one of the female reporters Piggy, as in P I G G Y. Now, some people said, no, no, no, her name is Peggy. Peggy. But the early reporting is that there's nobody named Peggy on the, on the plane. I don't know if there's anybody named Piggy on the plane, but if you're trying to figure out did he really say that, and if he did, what was he thinking and why did he say it? I have no idea. I don't have the slightest idea. I, I don't think that he just decided to call her a pig. But I'm going to have to see a picture of the reporter. You know what I mean? Is there any chance at all. I don't know which reporter it was. I haven't seen the name. Is there any chance at all that if I were to look at a picture of that reporter, an image of a particular animal would jump in my head? Is it possible that he wasn't doing it intentionally, but he looked at her and she just reminded him of some animal more than others? Which would be terrible. It be terrible, wouldn't be fun. And if it seems like I'm laughing, well, that's on you, because I wouldn't laugh at such a terrible thing. Everything about this story is weird and funny. I'm not sure I care. Do you? Because we know he's not the kind of guy who just sort of randomly attacks somebody that doesn't seem like what he do. So there's. There's either some backstory or it sounded like something else or. Or there's some other word that sounds like that. I don't know. It could be anything. We'll find out later, but we'll keep an eye on that. All right, it looks like my guest has entered the green room. And let me. Let me make sure I'm going to accept him. Boom. You will be accepted. And then can I make you appear? Nope. Oh, there you are. Hey, Chris.