Episode 2861 CWSA 06/07/25

And stocks are up.

All right.

All right.

Breezing into the weekend with stocks are up at the moment.

Could change on a dime.

All right.

All it would take is one post from Elon.

It would change the whole market.

All right.

Let's get our uh comments working and then Oh, that was delightful.

Oh, that's right.

It's Saturday.

I just realized it's Saturday.

So, so it's yesterday's stocks are up.

All right.

So maybe I'm a little tired this morning.

Forgot what day it is.

But welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of human civilization.

But if you'd like to take it up a notch, all you need for that is a cuper, a mug, or a glass, a tank or chelse, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better and allows you to know what day of the week it is.

It's called coffee.

Simultaneous sip and it happens.

Now go.

I can't believe you let me get that far into looking at the stocks before telling me it's Saturday.

You probably told me a hundred times that I didn't see it.

All right.

Well, today, given that it is in fact Saturday, uh Owen Gregorian will be hosting right after the show, uh a spaces.

So, you've got to be on X.

Uh I think you have to be on X to use spaces.

It's audio only.

And you can find it by looking at my uh X feed or I've retweeted it or Owen Gregorian.

Just look for him and you'll find it.

So that's right after the show.

So I I saw a quote um the Wall Street Journal had some video of the United Airlines CEO, somebody named Scott Kirby, an excellent first name.

Um, somebody asked him for the best career advice and his career advice was don't have a plan.

Uh, meaning don't have a goal.

And he said that in his career everything good was unexpected and he was ready for it.

But if you have goals, it puts blinders on you.

So when he says he was ready for it, I looked at his resume and it looks like he had made sure he knew a lot about airplanes.

So I think he'd been a mechanic and then he taken some other more advanced uh college courses.

So yeah, he was ready for it, but he wasn't ready for everything.

He was probably ready for anything within anything within that domain.

Uh, I'm seeing a meme that Putin has offered to negotiate a peace deal between Trump and Musk.

Well, we don't need that anyway.

So, the only thing I would add to uh United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby's advice is that you make sure your talent stack is nice and solid.

So, otherwise, you will not be ready.

All right.

Uh let's see.

Is there any science that they could have uh saved some money on just by asking Scott?

Oh, here's some.

According to CME science, there's a study that showed that vegetarians are more rebellious and power- hungry than you think.

Now, how many of you would have known that?

That vegetarians are more rebellious and power hungry than you think.

I would have known that.

And the reason is that you're starting with a group of people who are willing to buck, you know, one of society's strongest cultural norms, which is eating meat.

It is hard to be a vegetarian.

I'm a pescatarian at the moment, but when I was a a vegetarian, it meant that if you got invited to somebody's house, you had to tell them you can't eat whatever it is they were planning on serving.

So I if you just if you simply started with the people who were willing to buck, you know, one of the most inconvenient things you could ever buck because your friends wanted to go to this restaurant, but there's nothing you can eat there.

Um, you have to be a certain kind of person to be willing to take on the vegetarian lifestyle.

So if you would asked me, are vegetarians more rebellious?

I would have said, 'Yeah, obviously.

I mean, you're starting with a rebellious group.

You You'd be surprised, you know?

It's not It's not like it's limited to that one thing.

I'm not sure I would have known the power hungry part, but it applies to me.

I'm definitely power hungry, but I see power as a tool like money.

Um, if you have power and you have money, then you can do good things and you can do good things for other people.

So, yeah, very power hungry.

According to uh Newsmax, uh Mc.

Donald's has decided it's going to stick with DEI, but it's going to change the words.

So now it's only called inclusion.

Uh actually Bloomberg was reporting that.

And uh they say they're not going to change anything in the way they operate.

It's also keeping its internal affinity groups uh where employees with similar backgrounds I guess demographics can share ideas.

Um and I wonder how is that legal because they're they're saying it right out loud.

I mean they're they're not uh hiding it.

They're saying we're just changing the words, but we're going to operate exactly the same.

Well, I will add one thing that I know from personal experience, uh, well, semi-personal, one, uh, one level away from personal, is that if you were to apply for a job at Mc.

Donald's, you probably will get it.

So, I don't know how much work they have to put into being diverse because where I work uh or where I live, if you were, you know, 16 or 20 and you wanted a job at Mc.

Donald's, if you applied, it might take a few weeks, but there's such a high turnover in fast food that you'd probably get the job and it wouldn't matter, you know, what color you So this might be the one the one area where DEI is not such a big deal.

It's it's neither it's not helping anybody a lot because everybody can get a job.

And I think they're very merit-based.

So uh Mc.

Donald's is, you know, might be one of those rare exceptions where all they have to do is keep doing what they're doing.

It is one of the best places you could ever have your first first experience as a job.

Well, the Wall Street Journal has a big article about the redesign of self-driving cars.

Um, and the idea is that a self-driving vehicle in the very near future doesn't need a steering wheel or a dashboard.

So, what if you just started from scratch and tried to make a self-driving environment that wasn't, you know, limited to what a car can do.

And the first thing you'll notice is that all of the interesting ideas would not be practical because they wouldn't be safe.

So, it shows a picture of this amazing little vansized environment that you say to yourself, "Oh, man.

I wouldn't mind taking a trip if I could just hang around in that cool little well-lit room with good windows and seats.

Those seats look comfortable." And then you realize they're walking around and you say to yourself, "Oh, well, they're still going to have to wear seat belts.

it it's not like you're going to be walking around in your car while it's driving.

So, I suspect everything except having a big screen where you can all watch the same show.

But, by the way, none of you want to watch the same show.

So, unless you're in it alone, the big screen isn't going to help you a bit.

Um, but I do think that the idea of just walking into your vehicle with a suitcase and saying, "All right, vehicle.

Uh, I'd like to go visit the Grand Canyon, so make sure you stop for meals and book me some hotels." And the AI just does all that for you.

Um, that would be amazing.

So, that could be your future.

any happen any day now.

All right.

Meanwhile, the US economy has added 139,000 jobs in May, beating they they beat expectations uh according to Steve Moran.

And uh that sounds good.

I I guess I don't have any comment about that except it looks like good news.

But do any of you have the reflex that I've developed, which is it doesn't matter how good the economic news is, it only matters how big our deficit is.

So when I hear jobs are good, blah blah blah, jobs are good, all I really hear is you're driving toward the abyss.

You do not have a solution for debt.

It doesn't matter how many jobs there are, they'll all be out of work soon.

So, uh, yeah, I'm not really moved by good economic news, but I suppose it's better than bad.

Barely.

It's barely better than bad.

Um, so Adam Schiff decided to weigh in on this Elon Musk Trump issue and especially about the big beautiful bill, the spending bill that's not a spending bill according to Steve Miller.

And uh, Adam Schiff said on Acts, I can't believe I'm saying this, but Elon Musk is right.

The big beautiful bill is filled with all sorts of hidden and dangerous far-right pork.

Is it is the big beautiful bill full of faright pork or is it just farright things that the far right likes like protecting the border and you know building up the uh defense industry?

I don't know.

So he's the biggest liar in the world.

So he can just put it out there and his Democrat followers will say, "Huh, that thing must be full of hidden and dangerous far-right pork." But we don't have any examples.

And Elon Musk saw that post from Madame Schiff and he said, he responded to it saying, "A few things could convince me to reconsider my position more than Adam Schiff agreeing with me." And uh yeah.

Yeah.

That was my first impression, too.

It's like you don't want him on your side.

Um, so Elon Musk unfollowed Cat Turd.

Well, it's about time.

I unfollowed Cat Turd a long time ago.

Blocked him.

All right.

Um, so here here's the uh here's a news item that you didn't need to do any research on.

It looks like AI came up with it.

So, the Financial Times is reporting that allies of Trump and Musk are urging them to repair their relationship, seeking to limit the political and commercial damage.

Now, what else are they going to do?

Their allies?

It's literally their friends.

Do they have any allies who are recommending the opposite?

that maybe they fight a little harder.

What kind of a headline is that?

So that was on X and I'm thinking what was there any ally of either Musk or Trump who pulled them aside and said something like you know I I think this situation really calls for uh more accusations.

I think, you know, things are going well, but you should really ramp up the accusations, you know, the personal ones, the professional ones, the ones that could get somebody in jail.

I don't think so.

I've got a feeling that the allies are all, "Yeah, maybe you should take a day off and cool it a little bit on this." Well, Trump uh is playing it correctly, I think.

And uh so yesterday Trump wished Elon well and he noted that he's been that Trump has been uh so busy dealing with Russia, Iran and China that he hadn't had any time to think about their spat.

Now I don't know how true that is, but it's a perfect uh perfect president answer.

Oh, I'm working on all these important things.

can't possibly get involved in that.

Meanwhile, do you remember the Maryland dad, so-called Maryland dad who was accused of being a MS-13 guy, and he got deported wrongly?

Wrongly meaning that the uh court order did not support him being deported uh or the court did not.

Um, now do you remember what I've been saying since very near the beginning of that saga about the Kilmar Abrego Garcia guy?

I kept telling you that what's funny about it is that it started out being he's a Maryland dad.

Oh, sure he's not here legally, but you know that's millions of people are not here legally.

That's not the biggest problem.

I mean, if he's built a life and, you know, a lot of people would be in favor of someday giving him citizenship, you know, not Republicans, of course, but uh it started out with, well, he's, you know, a little bit bad.

And uh he may he may well be an MS13.

And then you say to yourself, "Yeah, but any specific crimes?" You know, I don't know if anything's specific.

And then you find out, well, he may have beat his wife with his fists twice, but then she said something, you know, to mitigate that a little bit.

And then you say to yourself, "Well, I wonder if it's going to get any worse." And then we find out that he was uh pulled over for human trafficking, meaning that he was transporting a car full of people, probably from the border, uh presumably illegals, and presumably getting paid for it.

So now you've got uh illegal trafficking, you've got, you know, beating your wife, you've got maybe you're a member of MS-13, and now he's been uh for reasons I don't quite understand, he's been brought back to the United States, which is what all of his supporters wanted.

But he's being brought back because there are like horrible charges that he's he was part of a larger operating ring where he may have transported, you know, who knows how many people.

So, it wasn't just that one car load of people.

It looks like he was pretty active in the human trafficking, but now there are additional accusations that are not charges yet.

that they're they're just claims.

So, a co-conspirator has allegedly accused him of involvement in the murder of a rival gang member's mother.

Now, there's nothing funny about murdering a rival gang mother gang member's mother, but it is worse.

It it it does show that trend of every time we hear from them, things are worse.

So, that's pretty bad.

Uh, but no charges have been filed on those claims, which makes them, I would say, less credible.

But the fact that the claim even exists, if the police picked you up, what are the odds that one of your co-conspirators would say that you were involved in the murder of a rival gang member's mother?

And the answer is low.

Low.

probably nobody would mention that at all.

But uh apparently this gentleman, this Maryland dad, uh has a co-conspirator who is willing to accuse him of that.

Uh so that's not ideal.

So I think the uh the Trump administration although they made mistakes you know for the process I would agree with Democrats who say you know independent of how bad this guy is there have to be some kind of process that makes sense for everybody and it looks like he got deported incorrectly.

Uh there was the claim by the Trump administration that once he got to El Salvador, hey, what can we do?

You know, it's out of our hands.

But apparently it didn't take much to get him back.

Um all it took was all these uh indictments.

So he might have the worst uh lawyer in the world.

I heard uh Alan Dersawitz saying that if he had been the lawyer, he would have said, "Let me loose." in some country where there's no risk.

But coming back to the United States, that almost guarantees he'll be in jail for the rest of his life.

And now, now if you ask yourself, what parts will people remember?

Now, the Democrats will try to remember that the Republicans did not use the right process and it resulted in somebody temporarily temporarily being uh deported incorrectly and unlawfully and being in the wrong prison.

So, that's what they'll remember.

Republicans will remember that they got a alleged gang member, possible possible uh uh assistant and a murderer uh wife beater, you know, off the streets and we'll put him in jail for many years.

So, who won?

I mean, obviously the Maryland dad lost, but who won?

the the Trumpers won so hard because while I fully understand the argument on the other side, it just shrinks to nothing, doesn't it?

Like, are you going to remember in 10 years that this guy had some, you know, some kind of process problem that temporarily put him in the wrong prison?

He's going to be in prison no matter how you slice it.

It looks like I mean we he's innocent until proven guilty, but I've got a feeling they've got some goods.

So, to me, it's kind of hilarious that uh the people trying to help him may have ended up putting him in prison forever and they're still going to say, "Yeah, but we were right about that process part." This is the part that the Democrats get wrong every time.

They don't quite understand that being technically right about something doesn't help them at all.

It doesn't help at all.

What what matters to politics and to the country is what uh Trump understands perfectly, which is how does it make you feel?

If you feel better because this individual is, you know, captive, then Republicans win.

Uh if if you feel better because some process got followed with this one guy and by the way, the mistake was only temporary because it's already been corrected.

Well, not much of a feeling associated with that.

So they always get the feeling part wrong.

Meanwhile, in the UK where freedom of speech is an illusion.

Um it is now I think it I think it means it's illegal.

They have something called the prevent program in the UK government.

um that if you speak positively about something called cultural nationalism uh I think you can be put in jail and uh that would be believing that mass migration threatens western culture and it's being called a subcategory of terrorism.

Now, can you believe that the UK is not allowed to say that if we increase our immigration, it will change the culture of our country?

And maybe not in a way that we intended or wanted.

Right to jail.

But how many of you would ever travel to the UK?

I think it's too dangerous.

Um, I've never I don't think I've ever said anything, you know, that would get me put in jail, but I also don't know.

Wouldn't that be weird?

Imagine you just take a vacation and you're you're over there in London and you're just I think I'll send out a little post and you send out a little post and you don't realize that you just broke their speech laws.

and next next thing you know you're in jail in the UK just because you posted something that you could have posted anytime you wanted in the United States.

Well, good luck with them.

Well, there's a uh rare I think it's rare nine to nothing Supreme Court decision uh that sided with an Ohio woman.

Um, I guess she claimed that she was denied a a job or a promotion actually and it went to an LGBTQ colleague instead.

And the court was trying to decide if somebody who's in a majority category, because it was a straight white woman, uh whether or not she could sue for discrimination using the same burden of proof as for those of a minority group.

Well, it turns out that from by a vote of nine to nothing, the Supreme Court decided that straight white women are people, too.

Yeah.

They're also people.

So they get to play by the same rules as people.

Yeah.

They're not special.

They're people.

And so they get to be treated the same.

Good.

Um, then Kathy Griffin uh was on a Don Lemon podcast and she said, quote, "I do not think Trump won in a free and fair election.

I believe there was tampering.

I don't know if it was the Elon connection.

My gut is telling me that something was up with that." So, uh, perfect.

So now Rosie O'Donnell and uh Kathy Griffin have both come out saying the exact same thing that a lot of uh Republicans were saying about the 2020 election and uh they get to say it without any consequence.

Well, I recommend that they storm the capital immediately and uh try to push the way in.

So, I love the fact that it seems like everything is going the Republicans's way, you know, except the big beautiful bill.

That may be a little hiccup.

Uh but every time I see a Democrat doubting a election result, I think to myself, well, if you believe that it's possible for Trump or his allies to have rigged an election without getting caught by any court, because no court has ruled anything of the type.

Then what would make you think that it was impossible for that to have happened the other way in 2020?

You what would be the argument that only Trump supporters could rig an election?

It's either rigable or it's not.

Now, I don't have any evidence that either of those elections were rigged.

But if you think that one of them can rig and the other cannot, and the reason that you know that one cannot because the uh court cases didn't support it, that's not much of an argument.

You you've kind of lost that argument.

So, thank you, Kathy Griffin.

Well, if you didn't notice uh or watch, Cash Patel, the head of the FBI, was on Joe Rogan just recently and uh broke some news.

I guess you call it that.

One of one of the pieces of news he broke is that um he'd been swatted.

So, the head of the FBI got swatted.

Now, I assume that means that they actually showed up at the door.

It seems to me, you know, far far more likely they would have just said, "Oh, that's the FBI's director's house, so it's obviously not real." But maybe they have rules that say they they can't pretend anything's not real unless they know.

not pretend, but they can't uh they can't act as though something's not real until they get there and they find out for sure.

So, that's why the swatting works.

But if you can't get rid of the swatting when you're the director of the FBI, um I don't think you and I are going to be able to stop it.

So, that's pretty awful.

Well, as you know, both Dan Bonino and Cash Patel have maintained that they've seen the Epstein files and it was definitely a suicide.

Um, now my question would be this.

If the only thing you've seen are the files, what would make you think the files are complete and real?

How would you know that?

Well, they would know better than I would, you know, whether a document's real.

And I'm sure the, you know, it's all been looked at.

But don't you think if someone had the ability to kill Epstein and make it look like suicide, hypothetically, would they not also have the access to make sure the file didn't show that they killed him?

It feels like a little bit incomplete.

Meaning, yeah, I hear you.

And I I believe Bonino and Patel are telling the truth.

Meaning in their opinion based on everything they've seen, it's a slam dunk, you know, definitely a suicide.

But would they know?

Do do you think that just their experience plus looking at the files would that be enough that that you know they have the right answer?

I don't know.

It's a little bit short for me.

But um anyway, so he made some more news.

Um, he said that uh that anybody expecting video evidence from Epistine's private island might be disappointed as no such footage exists to his knowledge.

Really?

What exactly does he mean by that?

there's no video footage of a celebrity or he's saying there's no video footage of anything.

Now suppose he said um Epstein definitely killed himself and also there are no videos and then nobody has any.

Now I don't I don't don't know if he's saying that.

It's a little unclear.

But if he did say that, wouldn't you disbelieve the entire package?

Because if he tells me there's no videos and there never have been and nobody's had any, I'm not going to believe anything he ever says again.

Now, my my current opinion is that they're straight shooters and they're they're looking out for the American public.

But I also believe that we live in a world where sometimes the security apparatus, you know, the uh the fate of the country can depend on not telling the the public everything.

So if they had to choose, and I'm not saying they are, but if they had to choose between keeping a secret that was so dark it would destroy the country versus telling you the truth because they're truth tellers.

Which would they do?

Which would a patriot do?

because I'll I'll give them the uh the benefit of a doubt I think they've earned that they're both patriots.

So, the thing I worry about is not that they're honest, because I think they are.

It's just that if you live in a world where keeping secrets is part of the operational expectation of what you do, I don't know if you can ever trust anybody whose job it is to make sure we don't find out things we're not supposed to find out.

Right?

If somebody is a journalist and they have accessed all the files and maybe you let a few journalists run free, if they all came back and said, "All right, we've looked at everything." Somehow they would know that, you know, that would be a problem, would they know?

Uh, and they come back and they say, "All right, we've looked at everything and uh it looks like it was a suicide and there's no there's no videotapes." Well, I might believe them because they're journalists and they don't have an interest in keeping a secret and they probably would want to get there first and have a scoop and all that.

But if it's your job to determine what the public hears and what they don't hear, that's their jobs.

Does that give them the uh let's say the right or privilege to lie to the American people as long as it's in the interest of the American people?

And it would be really easy to imagine a set of circumstances where lying would be the right I hate to say it but the right answer.

So unfortunately, they just have jobs where you have to say to yourself, uh, maybe, you know, maybe what they're saying is true, but you can never know for sure.

And even even with the journalists, you wouldn't know for sure, but you'd feel a lot more comfortable that they had no reason to keep it secret from you.

Yeah.

All right.

And then also uh Cash said that um the US is working with India to try to stop some China backed trafficking network.

So I guess uh India has some connection to it and if they work through India they have a little better chance of stopping it.

Um and he suggested Patel did that the Chinese Communist Party is strategically targeting the US with fentinel to weaken its population and he notes that there's an absence of fentinel uh deaths in other countries.

Now are you convinced?

You know, I don't want to believe that's true, but the opioid wars, if you, you know, if you've looked into the opioid wars, you know that the West has targeted uh them.

But it wasn't the United States that did that, wasn't it?

The uh UK.

So, why would the United States be targeted if it's revenge for the opioid wars?

Because we weren't involved with that, right?

Um, and the answer would be it just works.

You could take out an entire generation of men.

You could give them cell phones and video games and fentinyl and next thing you know, uh, an entire generation is taken out.

I don't know.

I'm going to say it seems probable.

It does seem probable.

And one of the one of the ways you can know it's probable is do you remember uh the uh ex CIA agent John Kira Kiraau Kirai last time I u mispronounced his name he contacted me to to correct me he'll probably do it again um but he pointed out that when he was in Afghanistan with the CIA.

He was asking, you know, why are these giant um poppy uh farms allowed to operate?

And the answer was cuz the heroin is all being sold to Iran and it's a way to weaken Iran.

And I thought to myself, oh my god, we're terrible people, but it looks like that's just the kind of world we live in and the and the uh the risk we'll have to take.

So given that there's at least one source that says we would do it to another country, Iran, is it much of a stretch to say that China would do it to us?

Nope.

That is not a stretch.

I don't know that it's true, but it's not a stretch.

Meanwhile, whiskey sales are down according to one of the executives of Jack Daniels.

And uh reasons given are uh the alternatives of uh marijuana, weight loss drugs and a lackluster demand from generation Z.

So the young people are drinking less.

But I think there's one other uh variable that's not mentioned, which is age.

I don't know that this is true, but wouldn't you expect that alcohol use decreases with age?

So, if the if the new generation is smaller because we've got this demographic problem, wouldn't uh alcohol use just drop off just because of age?

I think there would be some effect there.

I don't know how big it would be, but um we'll talk later about how it affects crime.

Anyway, uh remittances to Mexico have collapsed.

John Nol and Breitbart is writing about that.

So, if he didn't know what a remittance is to Mexico, as the the Mexican uh undocumented people come into the United States and make money, they send some of their money back to Mexico and that's called a remittance.

I don't know why.

It's just sending money.

But, uh Trump plans to tax those remittance, but at the moment they're way down.

It's not entirely clear to me why they're down.

Um, would it be because there are fewer people here?

I I thought they, you know, I don't think we sent back that many Mexicans, did we?

But anyway, remittances are down and, uh, Trump's planning to put a 3.5% tax on those remittances.

So it might make uh $22 billion uh over the next several years if he does that.

Um Newsmax is reporting that uh Trump's not happy with surprise uh the Federal Reserve and their their interest rate uh policies.

Um so Trump says that Powell, head of the Fed, is too late.

he should go for a full point reduction in interest.

He goes too late that the Fed is a disaster.

Uh Europe has had 10 rate cuts.

We have had none.

Despite him, our country is doing great.

Go for the full point.

Rocket fuel.

Trump posted that on on True Social.

All right.

Um, now I I don't have an opinion on what is the right amount of interest rates to be set, but it does feel to me that Trump is a little bit more right than Powell.

Does anybody have that same sort of just instinct?

I feel like Powell might be holding back for political reasons that maybe he doesn't process as political reasons.

You know, you might you might think he has other reasons, but I do worry that our interest rates are not being set by economics.

Does anybody else worry about that?

Now, you could blame Trump and say, well, if Trump had not been so hard on Jerome Powell, Powell would admit it maybe just on his own lowered interest rates more.

But there's no evidence of that because, you know, in both cases he he would be helping Trump and if he didn't think that helping Trump was a good idea, well, we'd be in the same place.

So, in surprising news, uh, Justin News is talking about this.

Alan Dersowitz is urging a pardon or commuted sentence for uh Galileain Maxwell Epstein's accomplice.

Now, I've been saying for years, so most of you have heard me say this, that uh when there's a big legal question, I like to wait for uh Dersowitz because not quite sure how to help you with that.

I like to wait for Dersawitz because he always has the cleanest and what I consider the most reliable answer.

And you know if you check back later you'll you'll see he's usually right.

But uh this one's a weird one.

So I don't think I can automatically agree with this.

And the argument is that uh Maxwell got a stiffer sentence than people who did similar crimes.

So I said to myself, really, is that true?

First of all, what kind of crime would be similar to this?

Um so and the second thing is u you what what is her sentence?

So, she got 20 years in prison and she's been there, how long has she been there?

Four years.

How long has Galain Maxwell been in prison?

Four years, five years, something like that.

It's already been a while, but she's got a 20-year sentence.

And Duroitz thinks that it would be uh it would make sense to commute her uh her uh sentence.

Now it's been three years.

So I'm doing this three years.

Okay.

Now, how many of you think that what she did um fits a three or four year sentence?

Because it it literally involved trafficking minors.

That's a tough argument.

So, so I went to Grock and I asked if her sentence was on a line with comparable comparable court cases and and sentences.

And Grock basically threw up its uh hands as hands.

It doesn't show them very often um because there's nobody who did a crime that's quite like that.

you know, it was over a length of time and involved lots of different variables and she may or may not have been coerced by Epstein.

And part of Durowitz's argument is that uh Maxwell was a victim too.

So that she was a victim of Epstein as well as an accomplice.

Now, if if that were true and you could prove it, uh it would look like she had no choice with what she did or she got brainwashed or something.

But I don't think we've seen any evidence that points in that direction, have we?

To me, she looked like she was a pretty happy participant.

Yeah, we only see pictures, but who knows?

So the question you must ask yourself is is Durowitz being influenced by any outside forces?

And and of course the most obvious thing that you would say is uh since you already suspect that Maxwell was part of the you know MSAD um operation and you also believe that Durowitz quite openly is very pro-Israel.

Is it too much to imagine that MSAD said, "Hey, it's time to see if he could get her out cuz the longer she stays in, you know, the more risk we have that she talks and the sooner she gets out, the better." Now I have zero evidence, zero evidence that any kind of influence is happening but I would look and see if any other lawyers have a similar opinion.

You know, if uh if today you see, oh, five more lawyers who were in this field of law had the same opinion that that sentence was too long, then I would say, oh, well, I guess I guess I'm no lawyer.

So, if normal lawyers who are just observing say it's too long, well, okay, maybe there's something there.

But if Alan Dersuitz is the only one who is willing to say anything like this and he's uh very public, you know, there's there's no hidden agenda whatsoever, but he's very pro-Israel, then you have to ask yourself, how much of this is about Galain Maxwell?

How much of this is about the law?

And how much of this is about whatever influence Alan Duritz might have or or interests?

I'll say uh I'll say influence andor interests because he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who could be pushed around.

So maybe it just makes sense to him on some level that we don't quite understand for whatever reason.

I I see in the comments somebody saying the CIA.

Yeah, you can make the same argument about uh the CIA being an influence on him.

If you believe the CIA was, you know, somehow involved in the Epstein thing, uh I don't I don't see the evidence for that, but it's not a crazy hypothesis.

Anyway, so uh President Trump was asked about Iran.

He says, "If they enrich, uh, then we're going to have to do it the other way." Meaning something military, and I don't really want to do it the other way, but we're going to have no choice.

There's going to be enrichment.

Now, that's just a setup for the next thing I want to talk about.

So, Trump has very clearly said, "We're going to bomb your country unless you give us what we want on giving up your enrichment." Um, related to that, I was watching uh a podcast with Matt Gates.

He was talking to the author of a book called Future Jihad, Terrorist Strategies Against the West.

And this was on Newsmax and uh this was Dr.

Ferris, I think, Phar Ferris.

Would that be the way you say it?

Anyway, so Dr.

Ferris recommended that Trump give a televised speech directly to the Iranian people.

Uh, and he compared it to Reagan with the Soviet Union.

Now, you know what I say whenever I see an analogy?

As soon as you see the analogy, it feels like there's a there's a lack of argument because it's not really like Reagan and the Soviet Union.

The big difference is that Trump is threatening to bomb Iran any minute now.

I don't believe that uh that when Reagan gave his speech, you know, tear down that wall, I don't believe we were threatening to bomb the Soviet Union any minute now.

So, you can't really compare those two situations.

But I thought about it.

My first thought was, ah, that's not going to make any difference.

You know, the Iranian people aren't going to buy that, especially if you have a sword over their head.

Because what would he say?

I mean, he probably would throw in the threat.

And if he throws in the threat, it's going to make things worse.

Because if the Iranian public hears, uh, you need to do this or else you get bombed, that's not going to make friends.

You know, if the idea is to get the, uh, get the public on your side, that's not going to do it.

So, I don't know how he could do this in the context of threatening to bomb them at any minute.

Um, but I do think there might be something to it if he can not mention the bombing because Trump does have a way of communicating that's unlike anybody else.

And if he did say the right things at the right time, he might find a way to connect.

So I think as long as you don't mention, "We're going to bomb you if you don't give us what we want." Just don't mention that at all.

Then you can use the documentary effect.

The documentary effect is where there's one side of an argument presented over a long period of time and there's nobody on the other side.

That can be very persuasive.

So if he gave a speech directly to the Iranian people and uh he made it persuasive and there wouldn't be any counterargument.

It would just be his his speech.

Uh the odds of him having an upside surprisingly good result are pretty good.

The downside risk probably nearly nothing as long as you don't put a threat in there.

if if he put a thread in there, there's no way that's going to turn out well.

So, I guess I would be cautiously in favor of this if it were implemented correctly.

Uh, my next story gets to the concept of what I call how lost are the Democrats?

Uh, I love hearing their their best and brightest people.

you know, the ones who should be helping them correct the ship.

Uh, I love hearing them give advice that really sounds bad.

Uh, so CNN's Van Jones said on air that Trump should investigate and prosecute the Doge staff.

Quote, "I don't think what they're doing is legal." Now, he didn't give he didn't give examples of what he thinks are illegal.

Um, but that might be some of the worst advice I've ever heard because obviously Trump's not going to do that.

And all it is is attacking the people who are trying to get something done on behalf of the American people such as get rid of the fat and bloat and and corruption.

So once again, we have the pattern developing where Republicans are trying to get something done.

That would be Doge and Democrats are trying to use some kind of legal process to prevent them from getting anything done.

How do you miss the pattern at this point?

Like even if you're a Democrat, do you not realize that Republicans are trying to get things done?

Sometimes you won't like them, but they're trying to do things that are good for the country.

And Democrats are almost entirely involved with stopping any progress in any way.

It's it's kind of hard to miss the pattern after a while, isn't it?

And you know, Van Jones, one of the smartest people who's also a Democrat, um, looks like he's falling into the same trap of just saying that this thing that's probably popular by 8020 in the United States that they should all be arrested or at least at least investigated.

Well, here's my persuasion lesson on Trump.

And uh I've told you before that he's his writing style and his writing ability is never going to get the credit it deserves, but my goodness is he a good writer.

And he did a truth social little write up about his ballroom.

You know, the ballroom is being built at the White House.

And I just want to read to you uh Trump's words when he talks about it.

Now, keep in mind that because we have, you know, fiscal constraints and we've got a deficit problem that if you're the president and you're bragging about your ballroom, uh it doesn't sound good to the public who thinks, "Do you really need a ballroom?

Could we not really cut that budget?" and you know, you can stand in the muddy lawn when we need to do something outdoors.

So, he he's got this delicate thing that he's trying to manage where it looks like it might be a vanity project and also we're in the context of, you know, a fiscal constraint, but he's building a ballroom.

So, he's got to navigate all of that.

And uh let me just read what what he wrote.

All right.

He says, quote, "Just inspected the site of the new ballroom that would be built compliments of a man known as Donald J.

Trump at the White House.

For 150 years, presidents and many others have wanted to beautify wanted a beautiful ballroom, but it never got built because nobody previously had any knowledge or experience in doing such things.

But I do like maybe nobody else and it will go up quickly and be a wonderful addition very much in keeping with the magnificent White House itself.

Uh the these are the quote fun projects I do while thinking about the world economy, the United States, China, Russia, and lots of other countries, places, and events.

It will all be good, maybe even great, depending on who is president of the United States.

Now, he he uh he basically disarms you with this sentence.

uh compliments of a man known as Donald J.

Trump because that's what that's what's called voicy um within the writer's world.

If somebody is voicy, it means you can feel their personality in their writing.

And you might even say to yourself, nobody else would say that.

Nobody else in the world would use those words.

And I don't think anybody would like, you know, no other president would ever write like this.

So this is the most voicy uh optimistic fun way he could ever introduce this thing.

And then he brags about his ability to build things, which most people would agree that he has, right?

I mean, you'd have to be a pretty hardcore Democrat to say that Trump doesn't know anything about construction.

I mean, really, of course, he knows construction.

So, yes, he's probably the uh the ideal president for, you know, adding a major addition to the White House.

And then when he gets to the end, he talks about this being his fun project that's not interfering with all of his other stuff with Russia and China.

That's what you are thinking.

So, one of the things I teach with writing is if you can say something that is exactly what your reader is thinking and and then you take it off the table because they're thinking that they've got a question and then you just sort of automatically answer it.

That's a home run in writing.

So by the time you got to the end, you were you probably would have been thinking, you know, why are you wasting your time on this when there's so many important things to do?

And then he gives you the answer.

Now, I don't know if the answer is, you know, adequate or true or covers everything it needs to cover, but the fact that he knows when you're going to be wondering and then he supplies the answer to your wonder, that's really good technique.

So, it's voicy as hell and well constructed in a way that I don't think I just don't think historians are going to fully appreciate that he's the best writer we've ever had in government probably.

All right.

Uh I've told you before the California government uh seems to me a criminal racket and almost every day there's another story in the news that kind of bolsters that opinion.

So according to interesting engineering sujits is writing that uh there's a new study that reveals the deep corruption in California's clean energy push.

So apparently the process of getting everybody on solar uh has created uh let's see what kind of corruption uh a sobering array of corruption.

A sobering array of corruption.

So uh I guess there are so here are some of the alleged uh corrupt practices.

So shocking abuses of power in the approval and licensing phases.

Now how many of you are surprised that a very expensive project has a shocking abuse of power in the approval and licensing phase meaning the contracts are going to friends of the people who have the power to allocate the contracts.

Uh let's see it's also as well as the displacement of indigenous groups.

Okay, I don't know about that.

And also nefarious patterns of tax evasion or the falsification of information about the projects.

Now, I don't know how much of this is true, but every single time California gets a bunch of money to do something that sounds good on paper, somebody just steals the money.

It It's like you might as well just dump it on the ground and let everybody come and grab some.

So, so remember the high-speed rail that we didn't build anything.

Sound familiar?

And then there's all the uh stuff that's not happening and the rebuild of the fire zones.

And I mean, it's just one thing after another, just complete criminal enterprise.

How could it be worse?

Is it possible for California to be any worse?

Well, they're taking a run at it.

Uh, so the California Senate passed a bill uh that will allow violent convicts with life sentences to get out of jail.

Now, they have to have served 25 years and been convicted before 26.

So, you know, it's not everybody, but what would happen if you release somebody who is uh spent their entire adult life in prison, and the reason that they were there is because they done something so heinous that you get life in prison.

There aren't too many things you get life in prison for.

Uh what do they do?

They get jobs at Mc.

Donald's.

there.

There's not really anything they can do, right?

Because it's not like they're going to get a job at your local construction place, will they?

So, I I don't know too much about the rehabbing people, but if you spent your entire adult life behind bars, I don't know if you're ready.

So, once again, dangerous for Californians.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is the completion of my planned comments.

And as I warned you, um Owen Gregorian will be hosting a spaces event on X.

Uh that will happen in a few minutes after we're done here.

And uh I invite everybody to give a listen.

I usually listen while I'm making myself some breakfast.

So, I'm I'm usually anonymously listening.

Um, and uh I hope you enjoy it and that's all I got for today.

So, everybody have a good time today.

I'm going to say just a few words to locals people before we go.

So locals people will be private in

And stocks are up. All right. All right.

Breezing into the weekend with stocks

are up at the

moment. Could change on a

dime. All right. All it would take is

one post from

Elon. It would change the whole

market. All right. Let's get our uh

comments working and

then

Oh, that was

[Music]

delightful. Oh, that's right. It's

Saturday. I just realized it's Saturday.

So, so it's yesterday's stocks are up.

All

right.

So maybe I'm a little tired this

morning. Forgot what day it is.

But welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams,

the highlight of human civilization. But

if you'd like to take it up a notch, all

you need for that is a cuper, a mug, or

a glass, a tank or chelse, a canteen jug

or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it

with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day,

the thing that makes everything better

and allows you to know what day of the

week it is. It's called coffee.

Simultaneous sip and it happens. Now

go. I can't believe you let me get that

far into looking at the stocks before

telling me it's Saturday.

You probably told me a hundred times

that I didn't see

it. All right. Well, today, given that

it is in fact Saturday, uh Owen

Gregorian will be hosting right after

the show, uh a spaces. So, you've got to

be on X. Uh I think you have to be on X

to use spaces. It's audio only. And you

can find it by looking at my uh X feed

or I've retweeted it or Owen Gregorian.

Just look for him and you'll find it. So

that's right after the show. So I I saw

a quote um the Wall Street Journal had

some video of the United Airlines CEO,

somebody named Scott Kirby, an excellent

first name. Um, somebody asked him for

the best career

advice and his career advice was don't

have a plan. Uh, meaning don't have a

goal. And he said that in his career

everything good was

unexpected and he was ready for it. But

if you have goals, it puts blinders on

you.

So when he says he was ready for it, I

looked at his resume and it looks like

he had made sure he knew a lot about

airplanes. So I think he'd been a

mechanic and then he taken some other

more advanced uh college courses. So

yeah, he was ready for it, but he wasn't

ready for everything. He was probably

ready for anything within anything

within that domain.

[Music]

Uh, I'm seeing a meme that Putin has

offered to negotiate a peace deal

between Trump and

Musk. Well, we don't need that anyway.

So, the only thing I would add to

uh United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby's

advice is that you make sure your talent

stack is nice and

solid. So, otherwise, you will not be

ready. All right. Uh let's see. Is there

any science that they could have uh

saved some money on just by asking

Scott? Oh, here's some. According to CME

science, there's a study that showed

that vegetarians are more rebellious and

power- hungry than you think. Now, how

many of you would have known that? That

vegetarians are more rebellious and

power hungry than you

think. I would have known that. And the

reason is that you're starting with a

group of people who are willing to

buck, you know, one of society's

strongest cultural norms, which is

eating meat. It is hard to be a

vegetarian. I'm a pescatarian at the

moment, but when I was a a

vegetarian, it meant that if you got

invited to somebody's

house, you had to tell them you can't

eat whatever it is they were planning on

serving.

So I if you just if you simply started

with the people who were willing to

buck, you know, one of the most

inconvenient things you could ever buck

because your friends wanted to go to

this restaurant, but there's nothing you

can eat there. Um, you have to be a

certain kind of person to be willing to

take on the vegetarian lifestyle. So if

you would asked me, are vegetarians more

rebellious? I would have said, 'Yeah,

obviously. I mean, you're starting with

a rebellious group. You You'd be

surprised, you know? It's not It's not

like it's limited to that one

thing. I'm not sure I would have known

the power hungry part, but it applies to

me.

I'm definitely power

hungry, but I see power as a tool like

money. Um, if you have power and you

have money, then you can do good things

and you can do good things for other

people. So, yeah, very power

hungry. According to uh Newsmax,

uh McDonald's has decided it's going to

stick with DEI, but it's going to change

the words. So now it's only called

inclusion. Uh actually Bloomberg was

reporting that. And uh they say they're

not going to change anything in the way

they operate.

It's also keeping its internal affinity

groups

uh where employees with similar

backgrounds I guess demographics can

share

ideas. Um and I wonder how is that

legal because they're they're saying it

right out

loud. I mean they're they're not uh

hiding it. They're saying we're just

changing the words, but we're going to

operate exactly the

same. Well, I will add one thing that I

know from personal experience,

uh, well,

semi-personal, one, uh, one level away

from personal, is that if you were to

apply for a job at

McDonald's, you probably will get it.

So, I don't know how much work they have

to put into being

diverse because where I

work uh or where I live, if you were,

you know, 16 or 20 and you wanted a job

at McDonald's, if you applied, it might

take a few weeks, but there's such a

high turnover in fast food that you'd

probably get the job and it wouldn't

matter, you know, what color you

So this might be the one the one area

where DEI is not such a big deal. It's

it's neither it's not helping anybody a

lot because everybody can get a job. And

I think they're very

merit-based. So uh McDonald's is, you

know, might be one of those rare

exceptions where all they have to do is

keep doing what they're doing. It is one

of the best places you could ever have

your first first

experience as a job. Well, the Wall

Street Journal has a big article about

the redesign of self-driving

cars. Um, and the idea is that a

self-driving vehicle in the very near

future doesn't need a steering wheel or

a dashboard. So, what if you just

started from scratch and tried to make a

self-driving

environment that wasn't, you know,

limited to what a car can do. And the

first thing you'll notice is that all of

the interesting ideas would not be

practical because they wouldn't be safe.

So, it shows a picture of this amazing

little vansized environment that you say

to yourself, "Oh, man. I wouldn't mind

taking a trip if I could just hang

around in that cool little well-lit room

with good windows and seats. Those seats

look comfortable." And then you realize

they're walking

around and you say to yourself, "Oh,

well, they're still going to have to

wear seat belts. it it's not like you're

going to be walking around in your car

while it's driving. So, I suspect

everything except having a big screen

where you can all watch the same show.

But, by the way, none of you want to

watch the same

show. So, unless you're in it alone, the

big screen isn't going to help you a

bit.

Um, but I do think that the idea of just

walking into your vehicle with a

suitcase and saying, "All right,

vehicle. Uh, I'd like to go visit the

Grand Canyon, so make sure you stop for

meals and book me some hotels." And the

AI just does all that for

you.

Um, that would be amazing. So, that

could be your future.

any happen any day

now. All right. Meanwhile, the US

economy has

added 139,000 jobs in May, beating they

they beat expectations

uh according to Steve

Moran. And uh that sounds good. I I

guess I don't have any comment about

that except it looks like good news. But

do any of you have the reflex that I've

developed, which is it doesn't matter

how good the economic news is, it only

matters how big our deficit is. So when

I hear jobs are good, blah blah blah,

jobs are good, all I really hear is

you're driving toward the

abyss. You do not have a solution for

debt. It doesn't matter how many jobs

there are, they'll all be out of work

soon.

So, uh, yeah, I'm not really moved by

good economic news, but I suppose it's

better than bad. Barely. It's barely

better than bad.

Um, so Adam Schiff decided to weigh in

on this Elon Musk Trump issue and

especially about the big beautiful bill,

the spending bill that's not a spending

bill according to Steve Miller. And uh,

Adam Schiff said on Acts, I can't

believe I'm saying this, but Elon Musk

is right. The big beautiful bill is

filled with all sorts of hidden and

dangerous far-right

pork. Is

it is the big beautiful bill full of

faright pork or is it just farright

things that the far right likes like

protecting the border and you know

building up the uh defense industry? I

don't know. So he's the biggest liar in

the world. So he can just put it out

there and his Democrat followers will

say, "Huh, that thing must be full of

hidden and dangerous far-right

pork." But we don't have any examples.

And Elon Musk saw that post from Madame

Schiff and he

said, he responded to it saying, "A few

things could convince me to reconsider

my position more than Adam Schiff

agreeing with me." And uh yeah. Yeah.

That was my first impression, too. It's

like you don't want him on your side.

[Music]

Um, so Elon Musk unfollowed Cat

Turd. Well, it's about time. I

unfollowed Cat Turd a long time

ago. Blocked

him. All right.

Um, so here here's the uh here's a news

item that you didn't need to do any

research on. It looks like AI came up

with it.

So, the Financial Times is reporting

that allies of Trump and Musk are urging

them to repair their

relationship, seeking to limit the

political and commercial

damage. Now, what else are they going to

do? Their

allies? It's literally their friends. Do

they have any allies who are

recommending the opposite? that maybe

they fight a little

harder. What kind of a headline is that?

So that was on X and I'm thinking what

was there any ally of either Musk or

Trump who pulled them aside and said

something like you know I I think this

situation really calls for uh more

accusations. I think, you know, things

are going well, but you should really

ramp up the accusations, you know, the

personal ones, the professional ones,

the ones that could get somebody in

jail. I don't think so. I've got a

feeling that the allies are all, "Yeah,

maybe you should take a day off and cool

it a little bit on this." Well, Trump uh

is playing it correctly, I think. And uh

so yesterday Trump wished Elon well and

he noted that he's been that Trump has

been uh so busy dealing with Russia,

Iran and China that he hadn't had any

time to think about their

spat. Now I don't know how true that is,

but it's a perfect

uh perfect president answer. Oh, I'm

working on all these important things.

can't possibly get involved in that.

Meanwhile, do you remember the Maryland

dad, so-called Maryland dad who was

accused of being a MS-13 guy, and he got

deported wrongly? Wrongly meaning that

the uh court order did not support him

being deported

uh or the court did not. Um, now do you

remember what I've been saying since

very near the beginning of that saga

about the Kilmar Abrego Garcia guy? I

kept telling you that what's funny about

it is that it started out being he's a

Maryland dad. Oh, sure he's not here

legally, but you know that's millions of

people are not here legally. That's not

the biggest problem. I mean, if he's

built a life and, you know, a lot of

people would be in favor of someday

giving him citizenship, you know, not

Republicans, of course, but uh it

started out with, well, he's, you know,

a little bit

bad. And uh he may he may well be an

MS13. And then you say to yourself,

"Yeah, but any specific crimes?" You

know, I don't know if anything's

specific. And then you find out, well,

he may have beat his wife with his fists

twice, but then she said something, you

know, to mitigate that a little bit. And

then you say to yourself, "Well, I

wonder if it's going to get any worse."

And then we find out that he was uh

pulled over for human

trafficking, meaning that he was

transporting a car full of people,

probably from the border, uh presumably

illegals, and presumably getting paid

for it. So now you've got uh illegal

trafficking, you've got, you know,

beating your wife, you've got maybe

you're a member of

MS-13, and now he's been uh for reasons

I don't quite understand, he's been

brought back to the United States, which

is what all of his supporters wanted.

But he's being brought back because

there are like horrible charges that

he's he was part of a

larger operating ring where he may have

transported, you know, who knows how

many people. So, it wasn't just that one

car load of people. It looks like he was

pretty active in the human trafficking,

but now there are additional accusations

that are not charges yet. that they're

they're just claims. So, a

co-conspirator has allegedly accused him

of involvement in the murder of a rival

gang member's

mother. Now, there's nothing funny about

murdering a rival gang mother gang

member's mother, but it is

worse. It it it does show that trend of

every time we hear from them, things are

worse. So, that's pretty bad. Uh, but no

charges have been filed on those claims,

which makes them, I would say, less

credible. But the fact that the claim

even

exists, if the police picked you up,

what are the odds that one of your

co-conspirators would say that you were

involved in the murder of a rival gang

member's mother? And the answer is low.

Low. probably nobody would mention that

at all. But uh apparently this

gentleman, this Maryland dad, uh has a

co-conspirator who is willing to accuse

him of that. Uh so that's not ideal.

So I think the uh the Trump

administration although they made

mistakes you know for the process I

would agree with Democrats who say you

know independent of how bad this guy is

there have to be some kind of process

that makes sense for everybody and it

looks like he got deported

incorrectly. Uh there was the claim by

the Trump administration that once he

got to El Salvador, hey, what can we do?

You know, it's out of our hands. But

apparently it didn't take much to get

him back.

Um all it took was all these uh

indictments. So he might have the worst

uh lawyer in the world. I heard uh Alan

Dersawitz saying that if he had been the

lawyer, he would have said, "Let me

loose." in some country where there's no

risk. But coming back to the United

States, that almost guarantees he'll be

in jail for the rest of his life. And

now, now if you ask yourself, what parts

will people

remember? Now, the Democrats will try to

remember that the Republicans did not

use the right

process and it resulted in somebody

temporarily

temporarily being uh deported

incorrectly and unlawfully and being in

the wrong

prison. So, that's what they'll

remember.

Republicans will remember that they got

a alleged gang member, possible possible

uh uh assistant and a murderer uh wife

beater, you know, off the streets and

we'll put him in jail for many years.

So, who won? I mean, obviously the

Maryland dad lost, but who

won? the the

Trumpers won so

hard because while I fully understand

the argument on the other side, it just

shrinks to nothing, doesn't it? Like,

are you going to remember in 10 years

that this guy had some, you know, some

kind of process problem that temporarily

put him in the wrong prison? He's going

to be in prison no matter how you slice

it. It looks like I mean we he's

innocent until proven guilty, but I've

got a feeling they've got some

goods. So, to me, it's kind of hilarious

that uh the people trying to help him

may have ended up putting him in prison

forever and they're still going to say,

"Yeah, but we were right about that

process

part." This is the part that the

Democrats get wrong every time. They

don't quite

understand that being technically right

about something doesn't help them at

all. It doesn't help at all. What what

matters to politics and to the country

is what uh Trump understands perfectly,

which is how does it make you feel?

If you feel better because this

individual is, you know,

captive, then Republicans

win. Uh if if you feel better because

some process got followed with this one

guy and by the way, the mistake was only

temporary because it's already been

corrected. Well, not much of a feeling

associated with that. So they always get

the feeling part wrong. Meanwhile, in

the

UK where freedom of speech is an

illusion. Um it is now I think it I

think it means it's illegal. They have

something called the prevent program in

the UK government.

um that if you speak positively about

something called cultural nationalism

uh I think you can be put in jail and uh

that would be believing that mass

migration threatens western

culture and it's being called a

subcategory of

terrorism. Now, can you believe that the

UK is not allowed to say that if we

increase our

immigration, it will change the culture

of our

country? And maybe not in a way that we

intended or

wanted. Right to

jail. But how many of you would ever

travel to the

UK? I think it's too dangerous.

Um, I've never I don't think I've ever

said anything, you know, that would get

me put in jail, but I also don't

know. Wouldn't that be weird? Imagine

you just take a vacation and you're

you're over there in London and you're

just I think I'll send out a little post

and you send out a little post and you

don't realize that you just broke their

speech laws. and next next thing you

know you're in jail in the UK just

because you posted something that you

could have posted anytime you wanted in

the United

States. Well, good luck with

them. Well, there's a uh rare I think

it's rare nine to nothing Supreme Court

decision

uh that sided with an Ohio woman. Um, I

guess she claimed that she was denied a

a job or a promotion actually and it

went to an

LGBTQ colleague instead. And the court

was trying to decide if somebody who's

in a majority category, because it was a

straight white woman,

uh whether or not she could sue for

discrimination using the same burden of

proof as for those of a minority

group. Well, it turns out that from by a

vote of nine to nothing, the Supreme

Court decided that straight white women

are people, too. Yeah. They're also

people. So they get to play by the same

rules as people. Yeah. They're not

special. They're

people. And so they get to be treated

the same. Good.

Um, then Kathy Griffin uh was on a Don

Lemon

podcast and she said, quote, "I do not

think Trump won in a free and fair

election. I believe there was tampering.

I don't know if it was the Elon

connection. My gut is telling me that

something was up with

that." So, uh, perfect.

So now Rosie O'Donnell and uh Kathy

Griffin have both come out saying the

exact same thing that a lot of uh

Republicans were saying about the 2020

election and uh they get to say it

without any

consequence. Well, I recommend that they

storm the capital immediately and uh try

to push the way in. So, I love the fact

that it seems like everything is going

the Republicans's way, you know, except

the big beautiful bill. That may be a

little hiccup.

Uh but every time I see a Democrat

doubting a election result, I think to

myself, well, if you believe that it's

possible for

Trump or his allies to have rigged an

election without getting caught by any

court, because no court has ruled

anything of the type. Then what would

make you think that it was impossible

for that to have happened the other way

in 2020? You what would be the argument

that only Trump supporters could rig an

election? It's either rigable or it's

not. Now, I don't have any evidence that

either of those elections were

rigged. But if you think that one of

them can rig and the other cannot, and

the reason that you know that one cannot

because the uh court cases didn't

support it, that's not much of an

argument. You you've kind of lost that

argument. So, thank you, Kathy Griffin.

Well, if you didn't notice uh or watch,

Cash Patel, the head of the FBI, was on

Joe Rogan just recently and uh broke

some news. I guess you call it that. One

of one of the pieces of news he broke is

that um he'd been

swatted. So, the head of the

FBI got swatted.

Now, I assume that means that they

actually showed up at the

door. It seems to me, you know, far far

more likely they would have just said,

"Oh, that's the FBI's director's house,

so it's obviously not real." But maybe

they have rules that say they they can't

pretend anything's not real unless they

know. not pretend, but they can't uh

they can't act as though something's not

real until they get there and they find

out for sure. So, that's why the

swatting works. But if you can't get rid

of the swatting when you're the director

of the FBI,

um I don't think you and I are going to

be able to stop it. So, that's pretty

awful. Well, as you know, both Dan

Bonino and Cash Patel have maintained

that they've seen the Epstein files and

it was definitely a

suicide.

[Music]

Um, now my question would be this. If

the only thing you've seen are the

files, what would make you think the

files are

complete and real? How would you know

that? Well, they would know better than

I would, you know, whether a document's

real. And I'm sure the, you know, it's

all been looked at. But don't you think

if someone had the ability to kill

Epstein and make it look like suicide,

hypothetically, would they not also have

the access to make sure the file didn't

show that they killed him?

It feels

like a little bit

incomplete. Meaning, yeah, I hear you.

And I I believe Bonino and Patel are

telling the truth. Meaning in their

opinion based on everything they've

seen, it's a slam dunk, you know,

definitely a

suicide. But would they know?

Do do you think that just their

experience plus looking at the files

would that be enough that that you know

they have the right answer? I don't

know. It's a little bit short for me.

But

um anyway, so he made some more news.

Um, he said that

uh that anybody expecting video evidence

from Epistine's private island might be

disappointed as no such footage exists

to his

knowledge.

Really? What exactly does he mean by

that? there's no video footage

of a

celebrity or he's saying there's no

video footage of

anything. Now suppose he said

um Epstein definitely killed himself and

also there are no videos and then nobody

has any. Now I don't I don't don't know

if he's saying that. It's a little

unclear. But if he did say that,

wouldn't you disbelieve the entire

package? Because if he tells me there's

no videos and there never have been and

nobody's had any, I'm not going to

believe anything he ever says

again. Now, my my current opinion is

that they're straight shooters and

they're they're looking out for the

American public. But I also believe that

we live in a world where sometimes the

security

apparatus, you know, the uh the fate of

the

country can depend on not telling the

the public everything.

So if they had to choose, and I'm not

saying they are, but if they had to

choose between keeping a secret that was

so dark it would destroy the

country versus telling you the truth

because they're truth tellers. Which

would they

do? Which would a patriot do? because

I'll I'll give them the uh the benefit

of a doubt I think they've earned that

they're both

patriots. So, the thing I worry about is

not that they're honest, because I think

they are. It's just that if you live in

a world where keeping secrets is part of

the operational expectation of what you

do, I don't know if you can ever trust

anybody whose job it is to make sure we

don't find out things we're not supposed

to find out. Right? If somebody is a

journalist and they have accessed all

the files and maybe you let a few

journalists run free, if they all came

back and said, "All right, we've looked

at everything." Somehow they would know

that, you know, that would be a problem,

would they know? Uh, and they come back

and they say, "All right, we've looked

at everything and uh it looks like it

was a suicide and there's no there's no

videotapes."

Well, I might believe them because

they're journalists and they don't have

an interest in keeping a secret and they

probably would want to get there first

and have a scoop and all that. But if

it's your job to determine what the

public hears and what they don't hear,

that's their jobs.

Does that give them the uh let's say the

right or privilege to lie to the

American people as long

as it's in the interest of the American

people? And it would be really easy to

imagine a set of

circumstances where lying would be the

right I hate to say it but the right

answer.

So unfortunately, they just have jobs

where you have to say to yourself, uh,

maybe, you know, maybe what they're

saying is true, but you can never know

for sure. And even even with the

journalists, you wouldn't know for sure,

but you'd feel a lot more comfortable

that they had no reason to keep it

secret from

you. Yeah. All right. And then also uh

Cash said that

um the US is working with India to try

to stop some China backed trafficking

network. So I guess uh India has some

connection to it and if they work

through India they have a little better

chance of stopping it. Um and he

suggested Patel did that the Chinese

Communist Party is strategically

targeting the US with fentinel to weaken

its

population and he notes that there's an

absence of fentinel uh deaths in other

countries. Now are you convinced?

You know, I don't want to believe that's

true, but the opioid wars, if you, you

know, if you've looked into the opioid

wars, you know that the West has

targeted uh them. But it wasn't the

United States that did that, wasn't it?

The uh UK. So, why would the United

States be targeted if it's revenge for

the opioid wars? Because we weren't

involved with that,

right? Um, and the answer would be it

just works. You could take out an entire

generation of men. You could give them

cell phones and video games and fentinyl

and next thing you know,

uh, an entire generation is taken out. I

don't know. I'm going to

say it seems

probable. It does seem probable. And one

of the one of the ways you can know it's

probable is do you remember uh the uh ex

CIA

agent John Kira Kiraau

Kirai last time I u mispronounced his

name he contacted me to to correct

me he'll probably do it again um but he

pointed out that when he was in

Afghanistan

with the CIA. He was asking, you know,

why are these giant um

poppy uh farms allowed to

operate? And the answer was cuz the

heroin is all being sold to Iran and

it's a way to weaken Iran. And I thought

to myself, oh my god, we're terrible

people, but it looks like that's just

the kind of world we live in and the and

the uh the risk we'll have to take. So

given that there's at least one source

that says we would do it to another

country,

Iran, is it much of a stretch to say

that China would do it to us? Nope. That

is not a stretch. I don't know that it's

true, but it's not a

stretch. Meanwhile, whiskey sales are

down according to one of the executives

of Jack Daniels.

And uh reasons given are uh the

alternatives of uh marijuana, weight

loss drugs and a lackluster demand from

generation Z. So the young people are

drinking less. But I think there's one

other

uh variable that's not mentioned, which

is age.

I don't know that this is true, but

wouldn't you expect that alcohol use

decreases with age? So, if the if the

new generation is smaller because we've

got this demographic problem, wouldn't

uh alcohol use just drop

off just because of

age? I think there would be some effect

there. I don't know how big it would be,

but um we'll talk later about how it

affects

crime. Anyway, uh remittances to Mexico

have collapsed. John Nol and Breitbart

is writing about that. So, if he didn't

know what a remittance is to Mexico, as

the the Mexican uh undocumented people

come into the United States and make

money, they send some of their money

back to Mexico and that's called a

remittance. I don't know why. It's just

sending money. But, uh Trump plans to

tax those remittance, but at the moment

they're way down. It's not entirely

clear to me why they're

down.

Um, would it be because there are fewer

people

here? I I thought they, you know, I

don't think we sent back that many

Mexicans, did we? But anyway,

remittances are down and, uh, Trump's

planning to put a 3.5% tax on those

remittances.

So it might make uh $22 billion

uh over the next several years if he

does

that. Um Newsmax is reporting that uh

Trump's not happy with surprise uh the

Federal Reserve and their their interest

rate uh policies. Um so Trump says that

Powell, head of the Fed, is too late. he

should go for a full point reduction in

interest. He goes too late that the Fed

is a disaster. Uh Europe has had 10 rate

cuts. We have had none. Despite him, our

country is doing great. Go for the full

point. Rocket

fuel. Trump posted that on on True

Social. All right. Um, now I I don't

have an opinion on what is the right

amount of interest rates to be

set, but it does feel to me that Trump

is a little bit more right than Powell.

Does anybody have that

same sort of just

instinct? I feel like Powell might be

holding

back for political reasons that maybe he

doesn't process as political reasons.

You know, you might you might think he

has other reasons, but I do

worry that our interest rates are not

being set by

economics. Does anybody else worry about

that? Now, you could blame Trump and

say, well, if Trump had not been so hard

on Jerome Powell, Powell would admit it

maybe just on his own lowered interest

rates more. But there's no evidence of

that because, you know, in both cases he

he would be helping Trump and if he

didn't think that helping Trump was a

good idea, well, we'd be in the same

place. So, in surprising news,

uh, Justin News is talking about this.

Alan Dersowitz is urging a pardon or

commuted sentence for uh Galileain

Maxwell

Epstein's

accomplice.

Now, I've been saying for years, so most

of you have heard me say this, that uh

when there's a big legal question, I

like to wait for uh

Dersowitz because not quite sure how to

help you with that.

I like to wait for Dersawitz because he

always has the cleanest and what I

consider the most reliable answer. And

you know if you check back later you'll

you'll see he's usually right. But uh

this one's a weird one. So I don't think

I can automatically agree with this. And

the argument is that uh Maxwell got a

stiffer sentence than people who did

similar

crimes. So I said to myself, really, is

that

true? First of all, what kind of crime

would be similar to

this?

Um so and the second thing is

u you what what is her sentence? So, she

got 20 years in prison and she's been

there, how long has she been there? Four

years. How long has Galain Maxwell been

in

[Music]

prison? Four years, five years,

something like that. It's already been a

while, but she's got a 20-year sentence.

And Duroitz thinks that it would be uh

it would make sense to commute her

uh her uh sentence. Now it's been three

years. So I'm doing this three years.

Okay.

Now, how many of you think that what she

did

um fits a three or four year

sentence? Because it it literally

involved trafficking

minors. That's a tough argument.

So, so I went to

Grock and I asked if her sentence was on

a line with

comparable comparable court cases and

and sentences. And Grock basically threw

up its uh

hands as hands. It doesn't show them

very often um because there's nobody who

did a crime that's quite like that. you

know, it was over a length of time and

involved lots of different variables and

she may or may not have been coerced by

Epstein. And part of Durowitz's argument

is that uh Maxwell was a victim too. So

that she was a victim of Epstein as well

as an accomplice.

Now, if if that were

true and you could prove it, uh it would

look like she had no choice with what

she did or she got brainwashed or

something. But I don't think we've seen

any

evidence that points in that direction,

have we? To me, she looked like she was

a pretty happy participant. Yeah, we

only see pictures, but who knows?

So the question you must ask yourself is

is Durowitz being influenced by any

outside

forces? And and of course the most

obvious thing that you would say is uh

since you already suspect that Maxwell

was part of the you know MSAD

um

operation and you also believe that

Durowitz quite openly is very

pro-Israel. Is it too much to

imagine that MSAD said, "Hey, it's time

to see if he could get her out cuz the

longer she stays in, you know, the more

risk we have that she talks and the

sooner she gets out, the better." Now I

have zero evidence, zero evidence that

any kind of influence is happening but I

would look and see if any other

lawyers have a similar opinion. You

know, if uh if today you see, oh, five

more lawyers who were in this field of

law had the same opinion that that

sentence was too long, then I would say,

oh, well, I guess I guess I'm no

lawyer. So, if normal lawyers who are

just observing say it's too long, well,

okay, maybe there's something there.

But if Alan Dersuitz is the only one who

is willing to say anything like this and

he's uh very public, you know, there's

there's no hidden agenda whatsoever, but

he's very

pro-Israel, then you have to ask

yourself, how much of this is about

Galain Maxwell? How much of this is

about the law? And how much of this is

about whatever influence Alan Duritz

might have or or interests? I'll say uh

I'll say

influence andor interests because he

doesn't seem like the kind of guy who

could be pushed around. So maybe it just

makes sense to him on some level that we

don't quite understand for whatever

reason. I I see in the comments somebody

saying the CIA. Yeah, you can make the

same argument about

uh the CIA being an influence on him. If

you believe the CIA was, you know,

somehow involved in the Epstein thing,

uh I don't I don't see the evidence for

that, but it's not a

crazy

hypothesis.

Anyway, so uh President Trump was asked

about Iran. He says, "If they enrich,

uh, then we're going to have to do it

the other way." Meaning something

military, and I don't really want to do

it the other way, but we're going to

have no choice. There's going to be

enrichment. Now, that's just a setup for

the next thing I want to talk about. So,

Trump has very clearly said, "We're

going to bomb your country unless you

give us what we want on giving up your

enrichment."

Um, related to that, I was watching uh a

podcast with Matt Gates. He was talking

to the author of a book called Future

Jihad, Terrorist Strategies Against the

West. And this was on Newsmax and uh

this was Dr. Ferris, I think,

Phar Ferris. Would that be the way you

say it? Anyway, so Dr. Ferris

recommended that Trump give a televised

speech directly to the Iranian

people. Uh, and he compared it to Reagan

with the Soviet

Union. Now, you know what I say whenever

I see an analogy?

As soon as you see the

analogy, it feels like there's a there's

a lack of

argument because it's not really like

Reagan and the Soviet Union. The big

difference is that Trump is threatening

to bomb

Iran any minute now.

I don't believe that uh that when Reagan

gave his speech, you know, tear down

that wall, I don't believe we were

threatening to bomb the Soviet Union any

minute now. So, you can't really compare

those two

situations. But I thought about it. My

first thought was, ah, that's not going

to make any difference. You know, the

Iranian people aren't going to buy that,

especially if you have a sword over

their head.

Because what would he say? I mean, he

probably would throw in the threat. And

if he throws in the threat, it's going

to make things worse. Because if the

Iranian public hears, uh, you need to do

this or else you get

bombed, that's not going to make

friends. You know, if the idea is to get

the, uh, get the public on your side,

that's not going to do it. So, I don't

know how he could do this in the

context of threatening to bomb them at

any

minute. Um, but I do think there might

be something to it if he can not mention

the

bombing because Trump does have a way of

communicating that's unlike anybody

else. And if he did say the right things

at the right time, he might find a way

to

connect. So I think as long as you don't

mention, "We're going to bomb you if you

don't give us what we want." Just don't

mention that at all. Then you can use

the documentary

effect. The documentary effect is where

there's one side of an argument

presented over a long period of time and

there's nobody on the other side. That

can be very persuasive.

So if he gave a speech directly to the

Iranian people and uh he made it

persuasive and there wouldn't be any

counterargument. It would just be his

his speech. Uh the odds of him having an

upside surprisingly good result are

pretty good. The downside

risk probably nearly nothing as long as

you don't put a threat in there.

if if he put a thread in

there, there's no way that's going to

turn out well. So, I guess I would be

cautiously in favor of this if it were

implemented

correctly. Uh, my next

story gets to the concept of what I call

how lost are the

Democrats? Uh, I love hearing their

their best and brightest people. you

know, the ones who should be helping

them correct the ship. Uh, I love

hearing them give advice that really

sounds

bad. Uh, so CNN's Van Jones said on air

that Trump should investigate and

prosecute the Doge staff. Quote, "I

don't think what they're doing is

legal." Now, he didn't give he didn't

give examples of what he thinks are

illegal.

Um, but that might be some of the worst

advice I've ever

heard because

obviously Trump's not going to do that.

And all it is is attacking the people

who are trying to get something done on

behalf of the American people such as

get rid of the fat and bloat and and

corruption.

So once again, we have the pattern

developing where Republicans are trying

to get something done. That would be

Doge and Democrats are trying to use

some kind of legal process to prevent

them from getting anything

done. How do you miss the pattern at

this point? Like even if you're a

Democrat, do you not realize that

Republicans are trying to get things

done? Sometimes you won't like them, but

they're trying to do things that are

good for the country. And Democrats are

almost entirely involved with stopping

any progress in any

way. It's it's kind of hard to miss the

pattern after a while, isn't it? And you

know, Van Jones, one of the smartest

people who's also a Democrat,

um, looks like he's falling into the

same trap of just saying that this thing

that's probably popular by 8020 in the

United States that they should all be

arrested or at least at least

investigated. Well, here's my persuasion

lesson on Trump. And uh I've told you

before that he's his writing style and

his writing ability is never going to

get the credit it deserves, but my

goodness is he a good

writer. And he did a truth social little

write up about his ballroom. You know,

the ballroom is being built at the White

House. And I just want to read to you uh

Trump's words when he talks about it.

Now, keep in mind that because we have,

you know, fiscal constraints and we've

got a deficit problem that if you're the

president and you're bragging about your

ballroom,

uh it doesn't sound good to the public

who thinks, "Do you really need a

ballroom? Could we not really cut that

budget?" and you know, you can stand in

the muddy lawn when we need to do

something

outdoors. So, he he's got this delicate

thing that he's trying to manage where

it looks like it might be a vanity

project and also we're in the context

of, you know, a fiscal constraint, but

he's building a ballroom. So, he's got

to navigate all of that.

And

uh let me just read what what he wrote.

All right. He says, quote, "Just

inspected the site of the new ballroom

that would be built compliments of a man

known as Donald J.

Trump at the White House. For 150 years,

presidents and many others have wanted

to beautify wanted a beautiful ballroom,

but it never got built because nobody

previously had any knowledge or

experience in doing such things. But I

do like maybe nobody

else and it will go up quickly and be a

wonderful addition very much in keeping

with the magnificent White House itself.

Uh the these are the quote fun projects

I do while thinking about the world

economy, the United States, China,

Russia, and lots of other countries,

places, and events. It will all be

good, maybe even great, depending on who

is president of the United

States. Now, he he uh he basically

disarms you with this sentence. uh

compliments of a man known as Donald J.

Trump because that's what that's what's

called voicy

um within the writer's world. If

somebody is voicy, it means you can feel

their personality in their writing. And

you might even say to yourself, nobody

else would say that. Nobody else in the

world would use those words. And I don't

think anybody would like, you know, no

other president would ever write like

this. So this is the most voicy

uh

optimistic fun way he could ever

introduce this thing. And then he brags

about his ability to build things, which

most people would agree that he has,

right? I mean, you'd have to be a pretty

hardcore Democrat to say that Trump

doesn't know anything about

construction. I mean, really, of course,

he knows construction. So, yes, he's

probably the uh the ideal president for,

you know, adding a major addition to the

White House. And then when he gets to

the end, he talks about this being his

fun project that's not interfering with

all of his other stuff with Russia and

China. That's what you are

thinking. So, one of the things I teach

with writing is if you can say something

that is exactly what your reader is

thinking and and then you take it off

the table because they're thinking that

they've got a question and then you just

sort of automatically answer it. That's

a home run in writing. So by the time

you got to the end, you were you

probably would have been thinking, you

know, why are you wasting your time on

this when there's so many important

things to do? And then he gives you the

answer. Now, I don't know if the answer

is, you know, adequate or true or covers

everything it needs to cover, but the

fact that he knows when you're going to

be wondering and then he supplies the

answer to your

wonder, that's really good technique.

So, it's voicy as hell and well

constructed in a way that I don't think

I just don't think historians are going

to fully

appreciate that he's the best writer

we've ever had in government

probably. All right. Uh I've told you

before the California government uh

seems to me a criminal

racket and almost every day there's

another story in the news that kind of

bolsters that opinion. So according to

interesting

engineering sujits is writing that uh

there's a new study that reveals the

deep corruption in California's clean

energy push. So apparently the process

of getting everybody on solar

uh has created uh let's see what kind of

corruption uh a sobering array of

corruption. A sobering array of

corruption. So

uh I guess there

are so here are some of the alleged uh

corrupt

practices. So shocking abuses of power

in the approval and licensing phases.

Now how many of you are surprised that a

very expensive project has a shocking

abuse of power in the approval and

licensing

phase

meaning the contracts are going to

friends of the people who have the power

to allocate the

contracts.

Uh let's see it's also as well as the

displacement of indigenous groups. Okay,

I don't know about that. And also

nefarious patterns of tax evasion or the

falsification of information about the

projects. Now, I don't know how much of

this is true, but every single

time California gets a bunch of money to

do something that sounds good on

paper, somebody just steals the

money. It It's like you might as well

just dump it on the ground and let

everybody come and grab some.

So, so remember the high-speed rail that

we didn't build

anything. Sound familiar? And then

there's all the uh stuff that's not

happening and the rebuild of the fire

zones. And I mean, it's just one thing

after another, just complete criminal

enterprise. How could it be

worse? Is it possible for California to

be any worse? Well, they're taking a run

at it. Uh, so the California Senate

passed a bill

uh that will allow violent convicts with

life sentences to get out of jail. Now,

they have to have served 25

years and been convicted before

26. So, you know, it's not everybody,

but what would happen if you release

somebody who is uh spent their entire

adult life in prison, and the reason

that they were there is because they

done something so

heinous that you get life in prison.

There aren't too many things you get

life in prison for. Uh what do they do?

They get jobs at

McDonald's. there. There's not really

anything they can do, right? Because

it's not like they're going to get a job

at your local construction place, will

they? So, I I don't know too much about

the rehabbing people, but if you spent

your entire adult life behind

bars, I don't know if you're

ready. So, once again, dangerous for

Californians.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is

the completion of my planned comments.

And as I warned you, um Owen Gregorian

will be hosting a spaces event on X. Uh

that will happen in a few minutes after

we're done here. And uh I invite

everybody to give a listen. I usually

listen while I'm making myself some

breakfast. So, I'm I'm usually

anonymously

listening. Um, and

uh I hope you enjoy it and that's all I

got for today. So, everybody have a good

time today. I'm going to say just a few

words to locals people before we go. So

locals people will be private in