ory who you would normally say to yourself, why would they do that? I'm talking about the victims as well as people who are accused of being perpetrators, but we only know that they were in his company.

So I have a mixed feeling. On one hand, you have to punish the people who were adults who did things that are crimes. You can't just say, well, I got talked into it because he was so convincing. So on the criminal level of criminality, you just have to punish as if nobody influenced her and it was all her idea. However, outside of the realm of the purely legal and how you have to run a country, you can't just let people get away with stuff. I do believe that it's very likely that she was psychologically influenced in a way that almost effectively removed any chance she would resist. But I don't know. I'm just looking at the total picture and saying that he's clearly a person who gets people to do things you can't imagine anybody could get anybody to do. So but again, just to be clear, you can't have a system that allows that to be an excuse because then everybody would use it. Well, it wasn't me. I got talked into it.

President Trump is in Scotland, the only country that's named after me, and I always appreciate that. And he was asked about pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell and he said, and I quote, "This is no time to be talking about pardons." And then he changed the topic to, "You should be talking about Clinton and former president of Harvard." Talking about his friends, the hedge fund guys over there. Don't talk about Trump.

So if you were trying to decipher what's in Trump's mind, he didn't say, "I haven't thought about it," or "I haven't looked into it." Although he did say that, I think yesterday. He said there is no time to be talking about pardons. Hm. That does suggest that there could be a time when you would talk about pardons, but this is not the time. To me, it sounds like there's a little bit of movement toward at least testing to see if pardoning her would cause more problems than it solves. So my guess is that he hasn't ruled it out.

Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer used all this situation to tell us that sending Todd Blanche over there to talk to Ghislaine Maxwell. Schumer says, "Let me be clear, Trump's sending his personal lawyer." Now, I think maybe Todd Blanche was his personal lawyer at one point, but now he's with the Department of Justice. But he says Trump sending his personal lawyer Todd Blanche to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell stinks of high corruption and conflict of interest.

Now how many of you would have even thought that that was a problem that the Department of Justice is talking to Ghislaine Maxwell? Like would you even see that as political? It didn't even strike me as political or conflicts of interest or corruption. Do you think that, I mean, how would that plot work? What exactly would Trump be up to that he could benefit by having the Department of Justice and a lawyer that he has some connection to talk to her? How is that bad? Is the idea that if she said, "Well, and Trump was on the island," that they just wouldn't tell us? Is that what he thinks? Or is it just an excuse to say something that ties Trump to Epstein? I don't know.

But meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal has a poll that says that economic optimism is way up. I feel that that's just the optimism about the economy. I feel that optimism is entirely because the tariffs are not causing any destruction yet. I mean anything could happen but so far it looks like the tariff situation worked or will work or continue to work. So I could understand why optimism surged because people don't have their own opinions. They turn on the news and then the news tells them what their opinion is. Yeah. Then the capital expenditures are up and employment is not bad and inflation's at least the rate is not bad. Things are too expensive but at least the rate of inflation is not bad.

Anyway, so it's good for Trump and Trump has suggested I think he might ha