Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #3038 Segments
NewsReaction Economics & Finance

Back to episode — Episode 3038 CWSA 12/06/25

Context —

le. I was told that directly. And the reason I was working for the phone company is that I had been working for a bank and they too told me directly in San Francisco, we cannot promote you because you're white and you're male. Now it's 2025 and people have been exposed to how that whole world was working. Now you know it's true, right? Wouldn't you agree that that is no longer even a wild idea th…

← Previous segment →

zens? I mean that's pretty good evidence that he's not an authoritarian. He just has to wait for the Supreme Court to tell him whether he can do it or not. And if they say he can't do it, he's definitely not going to do it. Do any of you think that if the Supreme Court says boom, you cannot do this, well you can't block them from being citizens, the Constitution is clear. If it says that, and I sort of suspect they will, are you going to think he's an authoritarian? That'd be a pretty weak authoritarian.

All right, in other news, Marjorie Taylor Greene was on 60 Minutes and she's talking about a heated conversation she had with Trump over the Epstein files. And what Marjorie says is, "We did talk about the Epstein files." And he meaning Trump was extremely angry at me that I had signed the discharge petition to release the files. And Marjorie says, "I fully believe that those women deserve everything they're asking. They're asking for all of it to come out. They deserve it." And he was furious with me. He said it was going to hurt people. How do you feel about that?

First of all, do you think that she's accurately relaying what happened? I'm going to say yes because I find Marjorie Taylor Greene to be very credible in terms of truthfulness. I don't think she would lie about something like that or anything else. I mean she doesn't seem like somebody who's dishonest. But that would suggest that everything you suspected was true. That the reason we haven't seen the files is that there are important people who are able to say, you know, if this comes out, you're in trouble or don't ruin my life or something. But it's definitely about important people. And how does that make you feel? Yeah, I think almost all of you are in favor of the files being released even if it completely destroys families and lives that otherwise would not be destroyed, right? Wouldn't most of you say, "Well, let the chips fall. You know, they did what they did. If they want to defend themselves, they can." You know, if they want to say, "Well, we were just buddies and I didn't do anything wrong," they can. But the moment their names come out, presumably there will be women, young women, women who were young women then but not so much now, who will say, "Yeah, now that his name is out, that guy abused me." Well, you

Context —

don't recover from that. That would be the end of your business life. It would probably be the end of your marriage if you're married. It would destroy people. But do the victims have that right to destroy these lives even if a few extra people got destroyed who may have just been sucked into the airplane ride or the island but didn't do anything beyond that? Or do you believe that there's no suc…

Next segment → →