The Scott Adams School - 04/30/26 The Home Team : Trump Ballroom, UFO's , Scott and more...

Summary

Real Coffee with Scott Adams — April 30, 2026

Episode Title: The Scott Adams School - The Home Team: Trump Ballroom, UFOs, Scott and more...
Host: Scott Adams
Date: April 30, 2026
Theme: Scott and co-hosts discuss current events through a persuasion and culture-war lens, focusing on the value of “what if” thinking, Trump’s White House ballroom, the evolving LA mayoral race, UFO/deep state disclosures, and major Supreme Court rulings.

---

Episode Overview

This episode blends news commentary, personal updates, and playful banter as Scott Adams and his panel break down major headlines. Topics include the LA mayoral race featuring Spencer Pratt, the Trump White House ballroom saga, chatter around UFO disclosures, former FBI Director James Comey's indictment, and a Supreme Court ruling on racial gerrymandering. Through it all, the panel applies a “persuasion filter,” dissecting not just what happened but how narratives are shaped.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Power of "What If" in Persuasion

[00:17]

• Scott opens with a persuasion tip: instead of asserting “Here’s what’s going to happen,” pose the question, “What if…?”

  “The question ‘what if?’ is far more powerful than saying, ‘here’s what's going to happen.’ Persuasion wise...people will immediately reflexively go into, ‘well, no, there's a reason it can't happen.’ Instead, what if? Because nobody resists.” — Scott Adams [00:17]

• The panel agrees it’s a less confrontational, more brain-opening way to frame tough discussions.

---

LA Mayoral Race: Spencer Pratt Steps In

[03:23]–[11:45]

• Spencer Pratt, known for his antagonistic “The Hills” persona, is running for LA mayor after exposing local government failures following the destruction of his own home in the Palisades.
• Adams and co-hosts compare Pratt’s trajectory to Trump’s — both outsiders with media savvy and bold personalities.
• Panel is divided on Pratt’s odds:
  • Marcella: “I don’t want to be the person that tells you the truth, but he’s not going to win…In LA, he does not have that type of traction.” [06:10]
  • Polls cited: Bass leads at 25%, Pratt at 11–14%, Rahman (Ramen) at 9–17%, 40% undecided.
• Discussion of LA’s decline, public dissatisfaction, and whether a non-establishment candidate stands a chance amid party-line inertia and resident exodus.
• Parallels drawn to Schwarzenegger’s and Reagan’s outsider victories at the state level, but skepticism for local offices remains.

---

Ballrooms, Memes, and Trump’s Persuasion Game

[14:34]–[23:28]

• Scott recounts the “ballroom news”: the Trump administration adding overtly political/embarrassing moments (e.g., the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, Hunter Biden’s “cocaine,” Trans Day of Visibility) to the White House official history website.

  “They want you to know what happened in that building...Bill Clinton scandal...the good news is that the demolition of the East Wing, they've already discovered so much of Hunter's cocaine that it pays for the construction.” — Scott Adams [14:34]

• Argues Trump is “turning this whole ballroom construction thing into a way to mock Democrats and also get a ballroom with his name on it.”
• Panel plays clip from Sen. John Fetterman (called “the smartest Democrat” tongue-in-cheek), supporting a new ballroom for practical security/event reasons.

  “Why can't we just agree, let's just build this thing and we move on...you can have more inclusive, more secure and more frequent...well-organized kinds of events.” — Fetterman [20:05]

• Sophia in chat objects, calling the ballroom “a scam.” Hosts promise to look into alternate perspectives for future episodes.

---

UFO Disclosure: The Endless Tease

[26:05]–[34:54]

• Scott and others play a clip of Trump promising to “release as much as we can” about UFOs, noting credible pilot testimonies.
• The panel debates government transparency on UFOs, the likelihood of “nothing-burger” revelations, and whether such disclosures would cause societal panic.

  “I can’t imagine that Trump isn't aware of that...they wouldn't just dump that on the American people. It would have to be a very deliberate rollout strategy.” — Owen [32:24]

• Skepticism surfaces over whether UFOs represent advanced foreign adversaries (China, Russia) rather than extraterrestrials.

---

Comey Indictment: Lawfare and the Meaning of Justice

[35:46]–[46:25]

• Newly surfaced indictment: Former FBI Director James Comey charged with making/threatening harmful statements about President Trump. Details include self-surrender, immediate release, and expectation of discovery/court process.

  “The sense, legally, it's not a strong case but sometimes the process is the punishment...there’s also the idea politically they can pressure James Comey now to give up more information.” — Marcella [37:10]

• Panel splits:
  • Owen: Lawfare reciprocity is “fair play” after what was done to Trump.*
  • Scott (paraphrased): Would likely object on free speech/constitutional grounds but recognizes eye-for-an-eye political logic.
  • Marcella details the legal “true threat” standard (Virginia v. Black, Counterman v. Colorado): prosecution of threats must meet a high evidentiary bar.

---

Supreme Court: Racial Gerrymandering Struck Down

[46:35]–[55:22]

• Supreme Court (6-3) rules Louisiana’s race-based voting districts unconstitutional, dramatically limiting future use of the Voting Rights Act for explicitly racial districting.

  “I think it could have a big ripple effect…there are a lot of states…with weird shaped districts all about just getting a minority to have enough to get a seat…It could end up with a lot of other redistrictings being unconstitutional.” — Owen [46:51]

• Panel explains:
  • “Strict scrutiny” applies; districts cannot be drawn “predominantly on race.”
  • Liberals dissent (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson); Schumer decries decision as “return to the Jim Crow era.”
  • The gang counters, saying using race as the primary criterion for district boundaries is itself racist.

  “To judge us by the content of our character, not the color of our skin. Now it’s like: judge us by color and make special provisions. We’re not a racist nation!” — Host [51:46]

• Concern that this decision may intensify Democratic calls to expand (“pack”) the Supreme Court, with panel warning it would “ruin the system.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Persuasion:

  “The question ‘what if?’ is far more powerful than saying, ‘here’s what's going to happen.’” — Scott Adams [00:17]

• On Trump’s Ballroom:

  “They want you to know what happened in that building...Bill Clinton scandal...the good news is that the demolition of the East Wing, they've already discovered so much of Hunter's cocaine that it pays for the construction.” — Scott Adams [14:34]

• On Lawfare and Comey:

  “Sometimes the process is the punishment...there’s also the idea politically they can pressure James Comey now to give up more information.” — Marcella [37:10]
  “Lawfare reciprocity is ‘fair play’ after what was done to Trump.” — Owen [42:50]

• On Gerrymandering & SCOTUS:

  “Creating districts primarily based on race triggers strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment...Race cannot predominate. That’s the main change of Section 2.” — Marcella [50:48]

---

Lighthearted/Addenda

• Panel gives a pet update: Gary and Roman, popular show cats, celebrated their first birthday in matching hats (with Gary reported to be “a little pain in the ass lately”). [12:07]
• Tesla’s mass-produced semi trucks make headlines. Panel notes: Bill Gates underestimated the possibility. [57:26]
• Host closes with thanks and customary “simultaneous sip.” [59:00]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Persuasion & “What if?” Framework: [00:17]
• LA Mayoral Race & Spencer Pratt Discussion: [03:23]–[11:45]
• White House Ballroom & Trump Memes: [14:34]–[23:28]
• Ballroom Security with Fetterman Clip: [20:05]
• UFO Disclosure/Press Conferences: [26:05]–[34:54]
• James Comey Indictment & Lawfare: [35:46]–[46:25]
• Supreme Court on Gerrymandering: [46:35]–[55:22]
• Tesla Semi & Katie Porter Email: [56:40]–[58:00]

---

Overall Tone & Energy

The conversation is irreverent and energetic, mixing policy analysis with running jokes and asides. The hosts try to represent dissenting opinions but never lose their strong POV, especially on culture war issues. Scott and the team frequently reference persuasion psychology, media optics, and “being useful” rather than just angry.

---

For Further Discussion

• Will outsider candidates like Spencer Pratt follow the Trump pathway, or is LA politics fundamentally different?
• Is the new ballroom a pragmatic security fix or (as chat participant Sophia suggests) a political scam/data center?
• Will “lawfare” between parties escalate, or is there an off-ramp?
• How will redistricting “ripple effects” reshape national politics—can the major parties adapt without further fueling division?

---

Final Quote / Signoff

“Let’s always say thank you to Shelly and Scott for allowing this to keep going. We will be back tomorrow morning...Be useful.” — Host [58:52–59:19]

---

End of Summary

Transcript

[A]

Live.

[B]

I know. Locals is on. I was chatting with those pewdiepies.

[C]

Good morning.

[D]

Good morning,

[C]

Monkey Kevin.

[B]

I have a little song for y'.

[A]

All.

[B]

Ready? Hi, YouTube. Good morning. Here we go.

[A]

The question what if? Is far more powerful than saying, here's what's going to happen. Persuasion wise, if you say to somebody, here's what's going to happen? People will immediately reflexively go into, well, no, there's a reason it can't happen. So as soon as you affirmatively say, this will happen, whoever you're talking to reflexively says, oh, six reasons why it can't happen. Instead, what if? Because nobody resists. What if. What if. What it.

[B]

I love that. Let's go, Akira. Yay. I think Akira is going to be. Oh, am I muted now? I think Akira is going to be coming on with us again. So that's going to be fun. All right, I snuck in a sip, you guys. I'm sorry. But let's do an official sip all together. And let's go.

[A]

All you need. You don't need much. You need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen, jugger flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dope bean hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip. Erica, I see you there. Dr. Funk Juice. Grab your mugs. Marla, come on. Go. Sublime.

[B]

I did it again. I repeated it, and it startled me just the same as yesterday. I was like, what? Okay, so my bad, my good. All right, Erica, he saw me there. I see you too, Scott. All right, good morning, Everybody. It is April 30, 2026, in the year of our Lord. Okay, so I was running late today. We all were a little bit running late today because I was like, God, there's, like, no news, but there's so much news. And then what news do I want? And, you know, so it's just been a little chaotic, but I think we have a good breakdown for you guys. I wish I had sound effects like, you know, Greg Gutfeld when he has, like a. Like a ballroom news. Although I think that's just him saying it. But we have ballroom news. We have UFO news, We have comey news. So let's go.

[C]

Probably some Supreme Court in there somewhere.

[B]

Probably, yes. Marcella Owens. Some Supreme Court that's out of my wheelhouse. So I leave it to the two exper. But the one little tidbit of news I wanted to just show. Because this is. This ad is getting a lot of attention, and I am so impressed with Spencer Pratt. He's running for mayor of la. And so if you're my age, if you're younger, you may have watched. What was it called? The Hills. Was that what he was in? It was called the Hills, and it was like an MTV show, and he was like, Brady Spencer Pratt. And he was a real pain in the neck. And, like, he was kind of like the villain they put on the show that you were like, oh, I don't like him. But the guy, or I want to say back then, the kid had so much chutzpah. Like, he just had. Has, like, balls, and he's not afraid to say something and go after something and do something. And so seeing him all these years later, you know, he's a husband, he's a dad, he's all grown up, and his house burnt to the ground in the Palisades along with his neighbors and the fires. And he just started by expos. Exposing the BS that's been happening and the. You know, why was the reservoir empty? And, like, why did you say this when this was the reality? And he was just a concerned citizen who just started digging and realized, wait, I have a platform, I have a mouth. I'm unafraid. And eventually it was like this natural progression where it was like, okay, now I'm running for mayor because I see what they're doing, and it's a scam, and I want the LA back that I grew up in the Palisades back. And, you know, people died, and this was senseless. So here's his latest ad, and the guy's got tons of traction, and I think he could pull this off. And this is going to be amazing. But here's his latest ad and tell. Let's. Let's discuss what you guys think about it on the other side.

[A]

This is where Mayor Vass lives. You notice something? Or here, where Nithya Ramen's $3 million mansion sits. They don't have to live in the mess they've created. Where you live. This is where I live. They let my home burn down. I know what the consequences of failed leadership are. That's why I'm running for mayor, for my sons and the rest of us Angelenos that want to stop these corrupt politicians from destroying our city. We are going to get the golden age of Los Angeles back.

[B]

Heck, yeah. And he's serious, you guys. He's serious. I think he was on with Joe Rogan. I Think he was on with Joe Rogan. I was listening to him and he's like, I just want the California back that I grew up in. I don't recognize it now, and it's so mismanaged. And, Marcella, you live in la. What do you. What do you think about what Spencer's doing?

[D]

You know, I wish him luck. He's definitely. I mean, I don't want to be the person that tells you the truth, but he's not going to win. He might have traction. You know, I almost said internationally, like, nationally, but in the city of L. A, he does not have that type of traction. The people that I know, some of them don't take him seriously because he came from the hills. Reality star, you know, it is what it is.

[B]

They didn't take seriously either. Marcella. And he came from reality tv.

[D]

Correct. But that's a very different situation between Trump and Spencer Pratt. And I wish him good luck. I mean, I want him to win because that would mean change in la. I'm just being realistic. And I know that he wouldn't. He wouldn't have traction in Los Angeles to win the major race.

[B]

Will win.

[D]

I'm sorry.

[B]

Will bat. Well, is Karen Bass back on the ballot?

[D]

No, I. I don't believe so. No. It. I, I don't even know who's running because it's always a Democrat that wins. So to me, a Republican. Republicans in, In. In los. In Los Angeles, like, we just hope we have. We're able to survive.

[B]

All right, Marcella's gonna do a deeper dive for us for tomorrow on what's happening in la. And, Marcela, will you get, like, from, you know, from where you are, your local news, like, what the stats are? I hate to say the polling, because we know about polls, but let us know, because I really feel like. I feel like from what I've seen from people in Los Angeles, that they're really happy with what he's doing. And Karen Bass is a fraud. All right. Oh, and what do you say?

[C]

Well, I was actually trying to get a bit of an update. It looks like there is a poll that says Bass is leading at 25%, Pratt is at 11%, someone named Raman is at 9%, and there's a couple at 3%. There's still 40% undecided. It looks like another poll shows this Ramen person as second and Prat is third, but that was actually a higher percentage. Like, Bass is apparently still at 25%, but Rahman in this other poll is 17%. And Pratt, it's at 14%. So, I mean, it is a big lead that Bas has at this point, but percentage wise, like, relatively. But still, it's only 25%. So, you know, and that might just be Scott's 25%, right?

[B]

Yes, that's what I was thinking. So Those are the 25% of idiots. No. Yeah. So it's going to be interesting because I do see Pratt now going on like Adam Carolla and Joe Rogan. He's doing the podcast circuit, which I think is really smart, and he is already media savvy. He's been in front of the cameras growing up his whole life. Pretty. And I mean, I, I want to draw parallels to, you know, Trump, who was, you know, a New York billionaire, real estate mogul, media talent. The only fitting political job for him would have been president. And then you've got Pratt, who's, you know, LA reality star, big mouth, you know, likes to generate news and buzz. I feel like the perfect thing would be LA mayor. So I'm, I'm hoping that, that those are like, equivalent in my mind and that I hope that when it comes to vote, that people look around and they look at what LA has turned into and it's, it's, it's a shell of what it was. It's, it's. Actually, I don't want to fully criticize it, but it is disgusting. No one's, like, trying to break down the door to move there. So, you know, go, Spencer. I really hope for the best.

[C]

I'd love to see it. I mean, just like Governor. I'd love to see a Republican win there too. But I just, I am realistic in the sense that it's most likely a Democrat's gonna get those positions just because that's how it always goes. And I think it would take a lot to overcome just the inertia of everybody who is there being Democrat. It might have even gotten worse now because of the exodus of all the people who are fed up with it, or you're just losing the voters that would have voted against it because they're going to Austin or Florida or, you know, wherever else. And so what's left is that core communist, Marxist, you know, stupid people. And so I'm not totally optimistic that it's going to happen, but I, you know, the question in my mind is just like, how bad does it need to get for people to say we got to change and we got to go beyond party and ideology? Because it's like reality is not matching what they have said they would do. Or what people think they were going to do for so long that it just seems like there has to come some point where they'd say, we got to try something different. I mean, they did it with Reagan, so it's possible at least. But, you know, there maybe have been some unique things about that time. I mean, technically, I think they already also did it with Schwarzenegger, but again, those were big movie stars, like, lots of,

[D]

you know, and that's for governor. So mayor of Los Angeles is different.

[B]

Yeah. So let's. Let's keep our eye on this. And I just really hope. I mean, I. I want to see California be California again and be, you know, the beautiful, gorgeous, great state it was. I mean, all of Hollywood is pouring out of the state and coming to New Jersey, and you don't even how much that upsets me. But we are like the next California, unfortunately. So, anyway, we'll move on from that. We'll keep an eye on it. Marcel is going to get us insider information. I just know it. So I'm. I'm praying for California that they get Steve Hilton and Spencer Pratt. It would be a miracle. I agree, but it would be the best thing. Okay, guess what I have for you guys. I have a Roman and Gary update. So Savannah sent me pictures. You guys, look at this. Roman and Gary just turned one year old. There's Gary, and Savannah had a birthday party for them and got them little outfits, decorations. There's Gare, and here's the birthday boy, Roman. He says, birthday boy. Look at his face. And then we have the two of them here together. They're. They're like. It's like the end of the party. They're pooping out. They got their little party hat on. Look how cute. And I have one other photo with just one of their new. I don't know if this. If this pup is a dog. Is a dog. It's a dog. I don't know if he's a boy or girl, but this is one of their new siblings. This is one of the two dogs that they live with. But look at them, all in the same bed together. So she said they're amazing. They're thriving. And a little insider secret. Gary's being a little bit of a. A little pain in the ass lately is what I hear. He's decided he wants to start to claw at things like furniture and everything. So he's being a little bit of a bud ball while Roman's being a perfect gentleman. So that is our Gary and Roman update. So they're Doing well. I know a lot of you guys ask. So cute. Okay, so. All right, let's do. It's time for this ballroom news. Okay, not really, but I wanted to just show a couple of clips, you guys. This is me trying to get my clips out of the way so I can jump in the chat with you guys. Okay, so first I want to hear from Scott on the ballroom news. Back in the day, this is. This is when. When it was starting out. I don't think I've played this. But anyway, you'll see. Here we go.

[A]

Just to make it even funnier, apparently there's on the website for the White House, there's a major events timeline page that shows major events that happened with the physical White House. And I can't even believe this is real. If you don't know about this story, I promise you it's real. Everything I say is real. I think maybe I'm being fooled, but I think this is real. So there's a major events timeline on the website for the White House. And it used to have just ordinary things like White Houses built. White House is renovated. A pool is added to the White House. Obama adds a basketball court. So. So it's just real things that happen to the White House. But the Trump administration has added in. They just recently added in some new key events. And one of them is Bill Clinton standing with Monica Lewinsky. It just says the Bill Clinton scandal. And they just include that. They include that in a story about the building. It's a story about the building. And they were. They want to. They want you to know what happened in that building. Bill Clinton scandal. And then they have the Muslim blood, the Muslim Brotherhood visit, but they use a photo of Obama from I think maybe his teen years or something where he's wearing a traditional Muslim garb and a turban. And again, it has nothing to do with the White House except that they visited it, but it's embarrassing to the Democrats. So they put it up. And then it has a picture of Hunter Biden and just his face, and it says cocaine discovered in the White House. So the story is about cocaine being discovered in the White House with a picture of Hunter Biden. You know, the. The good news is that the, the demolition of the. The East Wing, they've already discovered so much of Hunter's cocaine that it pays for the. Pays for the construction. All right, that was my joke from robots. Read news. And then one of the. The other one is trans. Day of visibility at the White House, which was a real thing. It was a trans day of visibility. Now, I. I have no problem with the trans day of visibility, but what. What's funny is the photo that they included. So the photo is a split screen of. Of Biden looking, you know, cluelessly, like Biden does, but next to him, it was a trans. A trans person who must have been born male and transitioned and was holding onto his or her jugs. Was topless and topless in the White House law, and holding on to. Holding onto her front part. So that was the photo that they included in the trans day of visibility. There were a few more. But. But the fact that. The fact that somebody spent a lot of time turning that website into. Into a parody, I couldn't. I couldn't love that more. I could not love that more because Trump is turning this whole. This whole ballroom construction thing into just basically a way to mock the Democrats and also get a ballroom with his name on it. I love everything about the ballroom story, and it's all the Democrats have. They literally have nothing else. Do you wonder what their meetings are like? And they get together and they talk about what's their best play? All right, Nancy, we're gonna have to come up. Chuck, we have to come up with a new, new play. What's our best play? Well, we could talk about the border. No, no, no, no, not the border. Well, we could talk about how we solved Gaza before Trump. No, no, no, Forget Gaza. Don't talk about it. That was a success. Well, we could. And then finally they get around to. What about that ballroom construction thing? Oh, Nancy, I think you got something there. That ballroom construction has legs. People really gonna care about that.

[B]

Oh, my God, I love it. I love the dad joke inserted from Robots Read news. It's so good to hear him laugh, isn't it, you guys? Ugh. Oh, and don't you love that when he would go off on a tangent like that?

[C]

I do. I mean, it was just great to hear him laugh, and it just made, you know, the news really fun. So it was a good time.

[B]

It was. All right. So also, in ballroom news, I want to go right into this, so I just want to play a. A clip from the smartest Democrat that we have out there right now. So let's enjoy this, and then we'll wrap up Ballroom news.

[E]

Well, it's important for a couple of different reasons. Now, when I was just trying to navigate to the table, I mean, it's so packed. I mean, you could barely just move around, so it was already kind of dangerous for any reasons. And I Had the top with the Speaker Johnson. I ran into Rubio. I ran in essentially the entire line of succession was there. And I'm thinking, wow, they were all really just clustered in about 200 yards. And that, that seemed like there could be a risk, but I never thought there'd be an actual assassination attempt coming. And then, and then finally then when it happened, I'm like, it's very, very clear this facility was never designed to have the kind of events like this, to have the kind of individuals in that line of succession. So, and I know, I think the real reason why people are fighting to build that ballroom, it's the tds. Just because the President happens to agree, as I do, that we need a new ballroom facility for events just like this. Why can't we just agree, let's just build this thing and we move on. And now we create the kinds of place that you can have more inclusive, more secure and more frequent kinds of well organized kinds of events just like this and more.

[B]

I mean, Marcela, common sense. Yeah.

[D]

I mean it makes sense, but I don't want, I also don't want to live in a country again for the second time where I have to have a president and everybody in their cabinet have to be in the special ballroom place in order to actually not be killed. But I do agree with Featherman. It should be, you know, it should go forward just because, you know, late. They had the. What, what do they have? The. They had the King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla and it was kind of embarrassing that they have to have everybody crunched down into the small place. So Trump is right about building this ballroom and I think Fetterman is probably the only sane Democratic. He had to have. What did he have?

[B]

Brain stroke.

[D]

A stroke.

[B]

Yeah. And he, he is, I saw smart in the comments. He is doing much better. I mean, he's, he's. I'm glad, you know, because remember, he had that. Nevermind. Doesn't matter. We don't need to revisit. But yeah, so he is doing great. So, Owen, do we just love Federman now?

[C]

Well, I would always add back in that he usually votes with the Democrats on everything, so he talks more like a Republican a lot of the time, or at least someone who's sympathetic to a lot of the things that Trump is doing. But when it comes to voting, it doesn't seem like that's really the same thing. So I always look at him as a little bit duplicitous there where it's like if you really believed all these things and if this was really a consistent thing, then I would expect your voting record to match, and it doesn't. So I wouldn't say I love Fetterman. I do like that he's sort of talking against the narrative, but, you know, it. It only goes so far when the votes don't follow through.

[B]

All right, so I have to address Sophia. Okay. So, Sophia, I want you to know I see that you feel like there should be a different opinion on here and that we're an echo chamber, but I don't know exactly. Exactly what it is that's frustrating you so much. And I'm calling out Sophia because she's an og. We go way back, and I want her to know that we see her. So for me, I. I don't know what everyone's opinion is about these things. For me, I've always wondered why we didn't have a grand ballroom, but. But let alone security issues, because we're America, and we're, like, cramming people into this little room for dinner. It's kind of embarrassing. Like, shouldn't we have something bigger? Um. Oh, so you feel like the ballroom is a scam. Okay, so I just want you to know that there are people that feel like the ballroom is a scam. And, Sophia, I will look into that if you would like to DM me privately with the links that you want me to look at. I know that you're very frustrated with President Trump, as are a lot of people. Um, so I want to see what you're talking about so we can actually talk about it, and that way you. You can relax in the chat with us, have a good time, and know that we will look into your point of view. Okay. Thank you, my love. Okay. So, that being said, I still felt like we always needed a ballroom. It's crazy to me that we were putting people in tents outside, and then how secure is a tent? I mean, would you want to be in a tent if there was a bear attack? Let alone, you know, things that are greater? Not me.

[C]

So, Sophia, are you. When you say that the ballroom is a scam, are you talking about that conspiracy theory sort of thing that's been floating around where they're saying it's a secret data center that's going to enslave us all?

[B]

I mean, let's look into it overnight so she can have time to message me what you know, because I do listen. We want to represent everybody's opinions. So, Sophia, just send me a dm, and then tomorrow we can talk about it with everybody. On here instead of trying to sort it out while we're live. But I definitely want to know what it is because I see you and I know you're frustrated. Okay? So I hope. I hope that's okay that you guys. We just took a moment to say that. So anyway, as it stands now, this is the information we have. We'll let you know more tomorrow. Any last words on the ballroom before we talk about it tomorrow, Owen or Marcella?

[C]

No, I think that's enough.

[B]

Okay. All right, so I'm almost done, and then I get to hang out with you guys. Okay, so now in UFO news, okay, it's really not UFO news. I just want to show two very quick clips. Okay, so this is so standing behind President Trump in the Oval Office are the astronauts that just orbited the moon. And for those out there that, you know, don't believe in that, I'll say allegedly. Okay? I want to make sure everyone's represented. Okay, so listen to this clip and take a look. Are you first on the topic of space?

[D]

Do you have an update on the UFO files and what might be when we're going to be seeing them?

[A]

Well, I think we're going to be releasing as much as we can in the near future for some reason, and I guess it's just a reason. It's been in the minds of people for a long time that is such they want to find out about the UFOs and anything having to do with UFO or related material. And we're going to be releasing a lot of things from that we have. And I think some of it's going to be very interesting to people. I've interviewed people my first term primarily, but I interviewed some pilots, very solid people, and they said they saw things that you wouldn't believe. So you're going to be reading about it? Yes.

[B]

Okay, so I want to play that a shorter version of that clip again, but from a wider angle, and just notice the astronauts behind Trump. Let's watch. And I have it on a loop. Okay, I'm going to play it twice.

[A]

I've interviewed people my first term primarily, but I interviewed some pilots, very solid people, and they said they saw things that you wouldn't believe. So you're going to be reading about it? Yes.

[B]

Life.

[A]

I've interviewed people my first term primarily, but I interviewed some pilots, very solid people, and they said they saw things that you wouldn't believe. So you're going to be reading about it? Yes. Life.

[B]

What do you think, Marcella, of that little motion?

[D]

I just, I I don't see it the same way as people are saying, I think it's him. I mean, I would be mind reading what they're saying to each other because he looked at the other astronaut. I just think that they probably were surprised that President Trump was talking about that, I guess because he was asked this question and so they, they're probably nervous. They're like, what are we doing?

[B]

So well, first I think he was looking at what's his name that runs the NASA. I keep forgetting his name.

[C]

Jared Isaacson.

[B]

Jared Isaacson. So that's who he was looking at first. But I don't know. Did you, did you think it was a little something, Owen?

[C]

I mean, I, you know, it's hard to know what the astronauts would know. I guess it depend all depends on what you think is out there and how prevalent it is. I tend to think that the average astronaut probably wouldn't necessarily have been exposed to it unless there is some super secret, totally widespread conspiracy where they got to prep them because, you know, they're going to see a bunch of stuff so they got to keep them quiet or what, you know, and I don't know that I buy that. But you know, to me the, it's probably a very different thing to be an astronaut versus someone who is like exposed to all the UFO research or whatever is out there. Because if I make the assumption that there is real stuff out there, like you know, non human origin or whatever it is, it does seem like the, the idea behind that would be it's kept very secret, very compartmentalized, hardly anybody is told about it and they may even seed it with a bunch of misinformation to make it seem ridiculous if you're going to talk about it with a bunch of fake stuff. And so I, I tend to think anybody who's not in the loop on whatever is real out there would probably just look at it like, oh, this is all fake. And you know, I don't want to focus on this. I did feel bad for the astronauts because I read another story that said like nobody asked them any questions about their trip to the moon. Like they did this incredible thing and like nobody asked him any questions.

[B]

That's the press. That's the press for you, Marcella. What? So I get frustrated because, well, I've seen Tim Burchette on seven, not seven, several occasions, same thing, talking about what he sees in the skiffs about these, you know, I don't know if he says UFOs or aliens or whatever. And then you see Anna Paulina Luna. And I'm just like, well, say something then. Like, if you saw what we saw and did, you know. And I'm like, I know. Like, technically they can't, but I'm like, all right, put your money where your mouth is. It's so frustrating. So do you think that they're going to really show us something?

[D]

I mean, you know, I don't think they will because they. They keep talking about it, and they don't do it. So it's like, get to it. Right. And the other. The. You know, if it's extraterrestrial life or something like that, I think it's. I think it might just be another superpower like China or Russia or something like that, that have some kind of tech that we don't have. I. I don't know. I mean, that, to me, would be more concerning that. Russia, China, anywhere. North Korea and even South Korea, whatever Korea you want, or Europe, Germany, you know, anybody having some kind of, like, crazy almost to the level of, you know, extraterrestrial technology. So I. I don't know why they keep. It's like, they love teasing. They love teasing.

[B]

I know. And, well, we're here. I feel like Burchette's just so credible. Like, I don't. I like him so much. Maybe it's just because I like him, but he's like, no, I mean, if. If you saw what I saw, you know, you would be freaked out.

[D]

Did he make a joke saying, like, they know there's no intelligent life on Earth or something, so they're gonna leave?

[B]

Yeah, I just.

[C]

I just think it's not going to be this bombshell. Oh, my God. Now we have proof. Well, the reason I say that is because of how they're doing this. Like, they're just saying, okay, we're gonna. Gonna release a bunch of stuff. Like, that's not what they would do. Like, they wouldn't just say, here you go, here you go. Here's a bunch of videos. Here's a bunch of documents. It's all real. They wouldn't just dump that on the American people. Like, that would have to be a very deliberate rollout strategy. You'd probably start with Trump with some, you know, massive announcement in the White House talking about this and saying what they are doing to protect us against these new threats or whatever that, you know, and why we don't need to all panic and worry and why the stock market shouldn't go to zero. And, I mean, because that's what would happen. I mean, we create mass panic. And it would create all sorts of problems. I mean, I think they did that research, you know, some number of years ago, where they said to a bunch of scientists and other people, like, what would happen if we released this information? Like, not. They didn't give them specific, like, real information, but they just said, if we released proof of aliens, like, what would the impact be on the world, on the economy, on, you know, everything else, Religion, Everything else. And pretty much universally, they said it would be very bad, just very bad to do. And so, you know, I can't imagine that Trump isn't aware of that. I can't imagine that he would just be like, oh, I didn't realize this would be an issue. Like, he's not that stupid. So I tend to think that it's like, sure, there might be some new videos, There might be some stuff that looks freaky, and I'm sure there'll be something that we haven't seen before. At least I would hope so. So it's not another Epstein. Oh, here's your binder of the stuff you already knew.

[B]

But I mean, what if. It's. All right. So can we make the conspiracy theory that they know how to make these SC Scientists disappear? And that's where they all went. Like, they just were zapped off the planet. I mean, and K. Blues asked, you know, why do we want to believe this? I. I want to. I don't know if I necess. I don't know what I want to believe, but I do want to believe that this isn't it. You know, like that. I mean, and I also. Now, you know how they. When growing up, they would say, oh, we only use 11 of our brain? Well, now I see that as like 6ft. Social distancing. It was just like, something to say. But. But what if we only use 11% of our brain? Like, what could we do if we could use more of our brain? And I don't know, maybe some of those secrets are in there. I don't know. I don't know. But apparently we're going to find out. And I'm telling you right now, if we don't get something juicy, we're gonna beg Burchette and Paulina Luna to come on here and tell us what they know and. And beg them to just give it up. Because I. I'm. I want to know. I'm gonna beg Burchette. We'll do a petition. Okay, so that was it for UFO News, and now we're getting into the more serious part of the show. And Marcella I'm going to play a clip. Oh, a shout out again. Just, just. This is just for me, you guys. Okay. If you don't mind me having a personal moment, shout out to Pam Bondi being gone. That's all I wanted to say. Okay, now I just want to play a clip of what's going on with Comey. And on the other side, Marcella, our attorney extraordinaire, is going to update us on exactly what's happening.

[C]

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Earlier today, a grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned a true bill indicting Mr. James Comey with committing two felonies. Count one, he knowingly and willfully made a threat to kill and to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States in violation of 18 USC 871A. Count two, he knowingly and willfully transmitted an interstate and foreign commerce a communication that contained a threat to kill President Trump in violation of 18 USC 875C. Mr. Comey will be given every form of due process all citizens are entitled to receive to include a trial by a jury of his peers in the Eastern District of North Carolina. It doesn't matter who you are. We take all threat cases seriously and prosecute anyone who violates federal law, regardless of title or status. Thank you.

[B]

No, thank you. Okay, Marcelic, what can you tell us?

[D]

So, legally, former FBI director James Comey, as you saw there, he was indicted by a federal grand jury. He self surrendered yesterday to Eastern District of Virginia court. What does that mean? That means he walked out of court just a right after he surrendered himself. The federal court then said Judge William Fitzpatrick ordered him released with no special conditions or restrictions. After a brief hearing, he was allowed to leave court. He is going to be remanded. Basically he has a court date in the North Carolina federal district court. It's not going to be in the trial, will not be in Virginia. Basically the charges, like he said, threatening the president by 8,647 shells that, that James Comey posted on his Instagram, which. What. What. When was in. In May 2025. And. And him transmitting a threat in interstate commerce is the second charge. Now Trump's, you know, reacted to this. He said, anybody, if anybody knows anything about crime, they know 86. You know what 86 is? It's a mob turned to kill him. People like Comey have created a tremendous danger. I think for politicians and others, Comey is a dirty copy. Jonathan Turley is an attorney very well known to a lot of us. He's a conservative leaning attorney. And he, you know, basically he said that this is doesn't amount to anything and it would be unconstitutional to and basically find him guilty of this because of the free speech protections we all have. And you know, miss now went insane. And I know the, there's this sense of legally it's not a strong case but sometimes the process is the punishment. Some of you seen that where in where James Comey has to go through this process, there's going to be discovery and, and there's also the idea politically that they can pressure James Comey now to give up more information. The other side of it is and I played this, I shared this with you guys a few days ago. Scott had always talked about mutual mutual destruction, assured destruction between the, between the left and the right. And the the issue becomes like if you do, if you law for us, we'll law for you. Otherwise they will never stop law firing us. So it's basically like we're standing up to the bully and being the bully ourselves. And I can see that and I agree with that and I think Scott saw it in that light. I do agree also with John internally that it is like it basically doesn't pass mustard like there's free speech protection because it's not under the Supreme Court cases. It doesn't, it doesn't count as a true threat threat standard. So basically there is Virginia versus Black and Counterman v. Colorado that they would prosecute threats required a serious expression of intent to commit an unlawful awful violence where the speaker consciously disregards the substantial risk and will want that to be done like the act. But we don't know everything, you know. And I know that people were pointing out that he even wrote James Comey even wrote a book about this. I'm not familiar with it maybe.

[C]

So the, the book part is potentially relevant here that apparently this 8647 post was like a week before his book release and his book release was about political assassinations. I think it was probably fiction or something. I'm certainly not going to read it. But you know, it seemed like it was right on that topic. So I think it does tie into it and I think there is some thought that at least one of the consequences of this would be that they would also be able to cease his book profits from that because they were saying he was sort of using this threat against the president as a way to publicize his book. And so it's like ill gotten gains by committing a crime to, you know, get profits from it.

[B]

So Owen, don't you think a lot of this, what's happening right now is like what Walter was saying to us yesterday. If you miss Walter Kern, he was on with us yesterday, amazing. We love him. But Trump has nothing to lose now, right? So he's got two years left and it's like, let's just go balls to the wall. We have nothing to lose. And, and I think a lot of Republicans, a lot of people, even if you're a sane Democrat left, like, you did not like seeing the lawfare used against President Trump. It's just wrong. I mean, and, and all the people like that were in, you know, that work for him. So I, I think that we just need to see this anyway, whether anything will come of this. I mean, we're always like, doubtful. But I feel like Walter was right. Like, let's just go, let's see what happens. Do you think there's any of that happening?

[C]

I think so. I mean, I do kind of agree with the processes, the punishment. I've posted that myself and about this case and it's like, you know, to me it's sort of fair play to say you guys did every possible lawfare thing you can imagine, including even changing the law just so that you could prosecute Trump after the statute of limitations for something. And you even said it's just going to expire after that. Like it was just a custom written law just to go prosecute Trump. Trump. And so when you see these extreme things that the other side has done to try and lawfare the President, I'm not going to say, oh, we can't do anything like that. I mean, it's just, it's like you got to use your side when you have the power. And I think that's what a lot of people criticize the Republicans for, is just not really using the power when they have it. And I'm not saying we should just go after every Democrat or any of that. And I'm sure Scott probably would have been against this one just because I can imagine he would say it's free speech and it's not the right thing and all that. But at the same time, I do think he recognized that, you know, you do need, like, I think he did talk about basically making some exceptions for certain people that were the ones that went after Trump. Like, if those people then, you know, it's fair game. Like, if they're going to do it to him, then he can do it back to them. Specifically.

[B]

I could see Scott being like, I am all right with this. Like, after what they put him and his family through.

[D]

Scott Opine about the previous Comey indictment, I believe, or at least that's where the mutually assured destruction, some of that came from. Is that the idea that you can law for people that cost so much pain? Because James Comey did not only cause pain to Trump, but to the January Sixers, you know, the people that were sitting in jail for. For years. Unless, you know, creating a law.

[B]

Yeah, I don't think Hillary would mind seeing Comey getting in trouble either. Just saying,

[D]

oh, no. Is he suicidal?

[B]

Oh, I doubt it. He really loves himself and thinks he's above it all. So. Okay, so we have to keep an eye on that. So he did turn himself in and then, you know, he gets let go. But will there be a mug shot, Marcela? Will we see one?

[D]

There should be, eventually. When. I mean, he didn't really. Nothing really happened to him. He showed up and they, they were like, oh, we'll release you. You know, and so I don't think he was, you know, he didn't go through the regular system.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

Because he wasn't jailed, so.

[C]

And, you know, he may come back on other charges at another time, too. I mean, if all the stuff Dan Bongino said was true about all the Russiagate documents and things that he found, to me, that in itself might be smoking gun evidence that Comey was essentially trying to do a coup. I mean, I would say that rises to the level of treason with all the Russiagate stuff. And if, you know, what he claimed on his podcast recently was that there was something like a hundred page document with footnotes and references and all sorts of things, like, with their whole plan.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And so, you know, that, that was, I think what he, back when he was in office or working for the FBI was saying. It shook him to his core. Like, he, that was what he was referring to. And he's like, I can't believe they actually wrote this stuff all down. Like. And so I'm kind of hoping that there's a case building for that. And I would imagine Comey would be front and center there too.

[B]

I'd love to see it. All right, so I think it's time for gerrymandering. Who, who wants to start?

[D]

It's time for Jerry.

[B]

It's time for gerrymandering news so much

[D]

on the gerrymandering case. I mean, it's up to you. Oh, and do you want to, do you want to give the, the, the news and then I can go into the legal parts of it?

[C]

Okay, well, The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that Louisiana is racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional and it limits the Voting Rights act that it was based on. I think using it for race based district. I think it looks like Alito wrote that section two doesn't require that district and that the race use itself violates equal protection. So I think it updates this previous 1986 frame framework which was Thornburg versus Gingels. And basically they're just saying that you can't use race as a criteria for redistricting. And you know, the, the, this could have a big ripple effect impact because there are a lot of states that did that. They have these all, you know, weird shaped districts that are all about just getting a minority to have enough to get a seat where they wouldn't otherwise. And it's very clear or obvious that it was all based on race. And so I think it could end up with a lot of other redistrictings becoming unconstitutional essentially or being unconstitutional and that they'll have to redo them. And at least wherever the legislatures are controlled by Republicans, it kind of gives them an opening to say, okay, we can go redistrict because it's going to be approved because you know, we have to get rid of this racial based gerrymandering and it could threaten a lot of the recent ones that were done in California and other places. So I think it could have a pretty big impact. I think it's maybe a question as to whether or not they can do all that for midterms just because of where we are time wise. And I think there was even some speculation that I forget which one on the right or on the left side of the Supreme Court dissented. I think there was only one person that wrote the dissenter, whatever. But I think the question was are they dragging their feet on writing the dissent just to delay the decision so that it would potentially make it too late for it to be put in place for midterms, which would be kind of really dark.

[B]

I heard that too, that it was like it was too late to change it now. It would affect like the 2028 elections, but not the midterms. So that's good. Right. So it kind of secures the Republicans from never taking over Congress again, which is the gist. So what does our attorney say?

[D]

So basically they didn't get rid of the Voting Rights act, but they, you know, as Owen indicated, they took away a lot of what it was used for, which was to have racial gerrymandering. So Gerry Commander didn't Have a good time. Basically was 6 to 3. Guess who voted against it. Oh, you know, it's probably very genius Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and your favorite katanji.

[B]

Yeah, you go Katanji.

[D]

M.J. brown.

[B]

Jackson.

[D]

Jackson.

[B]

Look, I can say it. Biden couldn't.

[D]

Yeah, the world is ending. Chuck Schumer came out saying that striking down the racial gerrymandering is a despicable decision that returns us to the Jim Crow era.

[B]

It's exhausting.

[D]

So basically what they found, you know, is what should be making race not be, not be the thing that would. Like, we don't make a district just based on race.

[B]

Like, that would be racist.

[D]

That would be racist. If I go, oh, okay, I need to put the blue people and the green people and these people. Like, you just wouldn't do that. Race cannot predominate. That's the main change of Section 2 of the Voter Rights Act. Creating districts primarily based on race trigger strict scrutiny under the fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. What is strict scrutiny? In order to pass strict scrutiny, it's like the highest level and basically not much passes strict scrutiny. And basically you need to require that districts are made with non, predominantly non racial, in non racial ways. Like you cannot, you know, discriminate basically,

[B]

to judge us by the content of our character, not the color of our skin. Now it's like, no. Judge us by the color of our skin and make special provisions because, you know, we want, we want, we want. It's like, no, that is like, we're not racist. We're not a racist nation. You know, we're not doing it.

[D]

You know, it was enacted in 1965. We're a very different nation than in 1965. And the, the reason for the enactment of, of the Voter Rights act was because of the Southern states where gerrymandering in order to avoid. In order to lessen the majority black vote. But I mean, we're in a different. Different, I would hope. But by 2026, we've come a long way and you don't want to do that. But what was interesting is Barack Obama was not happy.

[B]

No.

[D]

Which was very surprising because we care why. I guess he wants us to be biased racially. Who else had a. Oh, your favorite senator from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar. Gosh, I can't pronounce these names. She just posted Justin Kagan dissent. And Justin Kagan's dissent makes absolutely rather no sense. At least the portion that she posted. It just said, I dissent because Congress elected otherwise. I dissent because the Court betrays his duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. So if Congress writes a statute that is discriminatory, then we must keep it, I guess, from Justice Keegan. I guess that's what she's saying.

[B]

All right. Oh, and what, what do you say?

[C]

Well, I think, you know, I think it's a great step in the right direction in terms of just not having race based decisions being made by our government. And I think it's a continuation of the trend of where we're recognizing that a lot of racism has been perpetrated against white people, essentially, and that, you know, it's part of that broader theme. But I think at the same time, the other thing I would add is I think it's also fueling a lot of the Democrats because there's a whole lot of talk now about packing the court. And so I think that this recent round of decisions that all kind of went the Republicans way is motivating a lot of Democrats to saying, oh, we have to pack the courts. We got to have 13 justices now. We just got to do, you know, anybody who's not doing that is not someone we want to even elect. And like, so it really seems like it's pushing them to try and essentially ruin the country because I think that's what it would, what would happen. I mean, it would, it would essentially start a chain reaction because if they do it, then a Republican's going to do it next time and a Democrat's going to do it next time and pretty soon the Supreme Court's going to start looking like Congress.

[B]

Yeah, I'm wondering if it's just going

[C]

to ruin the whole system. I think it's as big as it should ever be. And I don't think any further packing of the court would make anything better. It would just be a way to essentially again ruin the decision, ruin the process, because it would politicize the Supreme Court to a ridiculous extent and it would just become another version of the House of Representatives or something.

[B]

Why don't they just put into law now that you can't add any additional Supreme Court justices, like, well, why is this even something you think you can do? It's just stupid. It's again, like how you said before Owen, that they changed the laws so they could go after Trump after the statute of limitations, like, stop moving the goalpost. Like, let, let's all play on the same field. You know, it's such a tantrum to watch the Democrats, really, it's always a tantrum. Like, we're not Getting our way. You know, we want this, we want that. Let's change the rules. I think we're over that as a nation. You guys tried it, it didn't work out. We ended up with Katanji Brown Jackson because of your rule changing and DEI and blah blah, blah. So I think it's just time to return to be big boys and girls and let's do everything by merit. Let's judge you by the character of who you are and we're not going to do things based on race here. I just, I just think as a country, the majority of us would refuse to go along with something that ludicrous, I hope. Okay, we have three minutes left. Is there any fun little tidbit anyone wants to add in before we close out for the day? Oh, Owen or Marcella?

[D]

Well, Katie Porter, your favorite governor to be in California candidate, she sent out an email blast a few days after this shooting assassination attempt on Trump where she just. The whole entire email was F Trump, F Trump. Kill Trump. Do things to Trump. So I don't know if she's gonna face anything for the, for the emails that she sent out. That's interesting. And the other tidbit is the Tesla. This is just in a whole another section. Semi trucks begin mass production. Something that Bill Gates never believed would actually happen. Sawyer Merit in on X wrote about how Bill Gates had always opposed the idea of there ever being electric semi trucks and that that would never actually work in the practical world. Well, now we're going to have them. Range would be smaller range, but it's going to be 500 the longer range trucks. And it, it comes at a good time based on how gas prices are increasing and oil issues in the Gulf and everything else.

[B]

I don't, the, the, the email from Katie Porter was real. I don't know that it said kill him. I doubt it said kill him. But it was the day after the assassination attempt and her response to that was F him. Like F him all the way to the bank. I don't care, you know, like donate to me. Like, we don't care about him. So it was kind of like, don't care what happened to him. It was really disgusting and despicable. Okay. And on that happy slappy Note, it's, it's 1059 in my world, world. And we will be back tomorrow with bj. So BJ joins us tomorrow to finish out another week. You guys, where is the time going and what was I going to tell you? Oh, tomorrow I think we need to cover the Leering Center. Somebody mentioned that in the chat. And we will be. So, Owen and Marcella, we. We all thank you for coming in today. And I thank Owen and Marcella for just being the best. Best of the best. You guys, we will be back tomorrow morning. Let's always say thank you to Shelly and Scott for allowing this to keep going. And we're going to be useful. I can feel it. I can just see the usefulness in the chat. You guys are amazing. And always a closing sip. To Scott. Say your goodbyes, guys. Say your goodbyes. All right. To Scott.

[C]

To Scott. Be useful.

[B]

Da, da, da.