Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #2965 Segments
NewsReaction Media & Fake News

Back to episode — Episode 2965 CWSA 09/21/25

Context —

the one who identifies that the president's time has reached an end and he can't handle his job? Probably nothing more important than that, right? Except filling in if he were to pass away. So I get why there was tremendous pressure on her to just ride it out. Yeah, we all understand. There's no mystery there. But if your only job is to be able to overcome exactly that problem, hey, people might…

← Previous segment →

help somebody do something that is normal legal business and you're a consultant who advises on that exact normal legal business, well, maybe taking money to do the thing you say is exactly what you're doing, maybe it's not illegal.

Now, so that would mean that he wasn't using his influence to give somebody a job who was incapable. So I don't know exactly the details, but here's my question. If it's true that the FBI came up with the $50,000 and paid it to him, but that there was no real work involved, it was only they were setting him up, he thought there was work involved but there wasn't. Does he get to keep the 50,000?

So I'm trying to figure out if the Biden administration figured out a way to give Tom Homan a $50,000 bonus before he started the job. And so far that's what it looks like. It looks like the FBI just found a way to pay him $50,000 and he had no legal risk whatsoever. I just hope that's true. I don't know if that's true. I do believe that if they gave it to him, I feel like he could keep it, right? Like if he doesn't get charged with anything, it's not like they can take the money back, can they? How does that work? If it's part of a sting operation, do you get to keep it if they don't sting you? I hope so.

Anyway, CNN's Abby Phillip was saying that she was trying to get her panel on CNN to agree, the liberal panel, mostly liberal, to admit that the Democrats censored and canceled too much. And she thought the only way forward for Democrats is to say directly to the public, we canceled and censored too much and that that was on us. That's a mistake and now we're going to move on. What do you think? Do you think Abby is right that if the Democrats simply admit that they had censored and canceled too many people and they're very sorry about it and they realize how bad it was that that's what would allow them to get past it and then have a successful Democrat party?

I don't think so. I don't think so. Do you think I would accept an apology? I got canceled. Do you think I would accept an apology? No. No, I'm not going to accept an apology. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Not an option. Apology is not requested, not appreciated, not expected. And just stay away from me with your apologies because it won't help me a bit. But it does show that they're desperately flailing around trying to find something that would make them not look so bad.

All right. Apparently the New York Post did a little analysis and found that Jimmy Kimmel hosted only one right-leaning guest in the past three years and it came with some kind of a condition. I don't know who that was. But only one and apparently he had 13 left-leaning guests this year. That's not really very many, is it? You know, since the beginning of the year, 13. So it's not even that there was a ton of political people in general. I mean most of it's entertainment.

But here's what else we found. Kimmel's j

Context —

okes and gags, this is from the New York Post, his jokes and gags targeted conservatives 88% of the time in 2023. So in 2023, 88% of the jabs were at conservatives. And it went to 97% this year. So 97% of all of his jabs were in one direction. Now keep in mind that the FCC allows the airwaves to be used by ABC, CBS, NBC only to the extent that they're a public good. You know, they're a benefit to…

Next segment → →