ting speech because of the Israel-Hamas situation.

And I think to myself, is it my imagination or is everything about Facebook feeling old and dated? Like Facebook doesn't even feel relevant to anything. I know it must be. I mean it's gigantic. But in my life it doesn't have any relevance at all. The only time I look is once every several months. I want to maybe check on and see what people are up to. That's it. Like I never interact. I never comment. It just has no appeal at all. I imagine if you've got kids or something, young kids, maybe, or you like to show off your vacations, maybe it's better for that. But Facebook in 2023, almost 2024, feels like a dinosaur. Whereas the X platform is still so edgy that we're still talking about what it is. Yeah, we can't even decide what it is. It's changing so quickly and there's so much going on. The X always seems new. So everything about X feels fresh and new. It's about what's happening today and it's big things that I care about. And Facebook is tiny little things that you shouldn't even see, like what somebody ate on vacation. And just really, I have no idea how Facebook could be a viable product going forward. Now I do get Instagram and I get WhatsApp, so they have assets that are valuable, but I just don't get the core business at all.

Anyway, people are canceling Disney Plus and Hulu, which is owned by Disney, after the dust-up between Elon Musk and his advertisers, including Disney. And I wonder, do you think that Bob Iger knows that Disney doesn't have any modern and good products? It's rare to see a company that is that completely cooked. Because they own ABC News, right? Do I have that right? Disney owns ABC News. But television news is just the most ridiculous dinosaur in the world. So I wouldn't want to own ABC News or ABC. I wouldn't want to own network news. But I also wouldn't want to own a theme park in which you have to stand for long periods of time for a brief thrill when most of the kids have a smartphone in their hand and they're looking at their phone and they've got 700 bits of entertainment while they were waiting for your three minutes of going up and down. Whoa, whoa. I can't even imagine how theme parks could be in existence 10 more years from now. How does it even make sense? I feel as though maybe virtual reality or something, there'll be something that is just more interesting.

But if I were making woke movies nobody wanted to see with dying franchises that I mostly killed by my bad decisions about wokeness, usually there is nothing happening at Disney that looks good. There's nothing happening that looks good. I think Bob Iger's got a problem the likes of which only China can understand. Only China. We'll talk about that later.

Well, I'm loving this story about Trump's valuations and the trial about whether he overvalued his assets, as you know. And Jonathan Turley's writing about this and tweeting about it. Imagine that you're the judge and you've already ruled. Keep in mind that the current process is to figure out what the penalty will be, but the ruling is already made. Trump is already guilty according to this judge of fraud for inflating his assets. So now the question will be how big is the penalty, including taking away their ability to operate their business, at least in New York I guess. I mean serious, like the biggest penalty you could ever imagine.

Now the essence of it is that he did something bad so that the banks were on the other side of that badness. But then the bank itself testified, and they said—and keep in mind this is in the penalty phase, not the trial phase, right? But in the penalty phase the testimony debunked the trial. I don't know if I've ever seen that before. Can any of you? Have you ever heard of that? Here's what I mean. So the trial was that Trump did a bad thing by overvaluing assets and that's fraud. The bank said—and this is just me paraphrasing, right, they didn't say this exactly—the bank said he was a great customer. We would love to work with him again. Again, I'm paraphrasing. They didn't say it exactly. But the essence of it is yes, a great customer. He was a whale of a customer, the ones we seek out. We made millions of dollars, would love to do that kind of business with him again. And here's the punchline: We never accept the borrower's word for their assets. That is ordinary business to do our own investigation, which we of course did, and made our own decision about the value of the loan. Apparently we made good decisions because they were always paid back on time and we made a profit. Would love to do it again.

That's in the penalty phase. Here's a question for you. Why wasn't that in the trial? Probably because it didn't matter. Probably because the judge said it doesn't matter what the opinion of the bank is. If you lied, you lied. That would be fraud. But I assume it's something like that. Because isn't the most critical part of understanding what he did is what the other party to the transaction was thinking about it and how they turned out? Is not maybe not the most important thing, but it's pretty close. Well, maybe it is the most important thing. The fact that there's no victim. Not only is there no victim, but the victim would love to have it happen again. Like please, can you victimize me again, Mr. Trump? And by the way, if everything works out for you, we'd love to do business with you again.

Imagine being that judge. Just imagine how fazed that judge is right now. That has to be the most embarrassing judicial situation I've ever heard of. Have you ever heard of a judge being embarrassed like that? That is super embarrassing. Wow.

And I would like to go further now. I've already bragged that because I was a banker and specifically I was a loan officer, I was a guy who approved loans to certain kinds of businesses. And I told you e