Inside Trump's 3,700 Trades — ft. Anthony Scaramucci

For a year and a 90, do you have the Instent Leker?

“And for a year and 50, do you have new disciplines?”

For a year and a 90, do you have a new class? Sure, then try the Asia Green Garden, or just a boulevard? For a year and a 40, do you have a year and a 90? Or maybe a year and a 90? For a year and a 50, do you have a 50?

That's good for everything to be the price. Now you have a lot of money. ID, Buddhist Fiat Island. What does it take to be prepared for disaster? You have to be confident.

You have to be calm. Will you be perfect? No, but the idea is that you'll have your bearings and this won't be something new to you. This week I'm explaining to me how to stay ready,

so you don't have to get ready.

“New episodes Sundays wherever you get your podcasts.”

This week I'm not explainable. The Black Plague didn't happen exactly how you'd think. Like, among other things, it wasn't just about rats. We can look at other kinds of mammals' camels. It turns out, are pretty good play transmitters.

Camels! Sheep potentially as well. Follow an explainable wherever you get your podcasts. [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome to Proftry Markets.

I'm Ed Elson. It is May 19th. Let's check it on yesterday's market vitals. The S&B 500 and the Nasdaq closed in the red, after a volatile session, the Dow turned positive.

After President Trump said he called off plans to strike Iran, Tuesday he also said, quote, "serious negotiations are now taking place. Brent crew declined from a session high of $112 after those comments, meanwhile the yield on tenure

treasuries hit a 52 week high." OK, what else is happening? President Trump disclosed more than 3700 trades on major American companies during the first quarter. That's more than 40 trades each day with the transactions

valued somewhere between 220 and $750 million.

Trump bought at least $1 million each in Nvidia, Oracle, Microsoft, Boeing, Costco, among others. Many of those trades were made around the same time. The U.S. made policy decisions affecting those very companies. The White House insists that there

are, quote, "no conflicts of interest involved, but ethics, experts, and Wall Street insiders say the sheer volume of trading is unusual and unprecedented for a sitting president." So, here to discuss these transactions and what this all means,

we're speaking with Anthony Scaramucci, the mooch, founder and managing partner of Skybridge Capital. Anthony, thank you so much for joining us on the show. We've had you on to discuss this before, which to me tells me something about what's happening here,

which this is becoming sort of an ongoing theme, but now we're hearing them or we're seeing that the Trump administration is basically just admitting, yes, we did trade these companies. And we can get into whether it's inside a trading or not, how to make a case that it isn't,

but let's just start with your initial reactions to this news. Well, listen, I mean, this is the reason why everyone hates Washington. They hate politics. It's a bipartisan thing, by the way, I'm not trying to whitewash Donald Trump.

This is going on with Democrats in the House. They get inside information, they're able to trade on it. Trump is at a point in his career where he actually doesn't care anymore.

He just got himself a $1.7 billion dollar.

I don't know what it's called, the law fair, restitution fund or something like that from the IRS. I don't even know if that's constitutional and hopefully there's somebody that has standing that can actually challenge that quote-unquote settlement, which just seems completely unethical and misguided.

But, you know, I guess there's three things I want to say. Number one, it's disgusting. It's probably legal, Ed, and that's the irony of the whole thing. It created these loopholes for themselves. But it's absolutely disgusting.

It makes people very cynical and very turned off by politics.

“Number two, I think this is probably the most important thing about it is he doesn't care,”

which means that worse things are on the way. You're going to see a tsunami of corruptive activity over the next two and a half years,

And then the last thing, and this is the thing I really don't like,

is there's nobody out there that you can point to and say, oh, that's an ethical player, because let me tell you what happens here. They put a situation together, and then they say, well, Hunter Biden's all a painting, Nancy Pelosi traded this stock. That Democrat did this, this person did that.

Oh, you know, is Trump going to pardon every one of his family members, and himself on the way out, well, more certainly is. Well, Hunter Biden was pardoned by his dad, Joseph Biden. So, you know, this is a swampy as swamp gets, but I just want to remind the prophecy markets listeners,

this is not actually a swamp. This is a gold plated hot tub, Washington, D.C. And they get into the hot tub together, and they pass the crystal, and they pass the cubanos, which happen to be illegal, and they light them up, and they laugh.

And then they say, this is so fantastic. How do I stay in the job for the longest amount of time possible?

“And if you want to have a fun exercise on Chad GBT or Claude,”

just ask Claude to go through the 435 members of the Congress, hundred senators, and say, what were their disclose networks before? They became senator or congressman or woman, and what are they now? And you'll see that this is a very lucrative place called Washington, D.C. for these people.

I want to go back to the thing you said earlier, that it's probably legal. That there are some moments where I can see that, like, just as an example. So, what we learned here is that between January and March, Trump bought a bunch of Palantir.

And then we also know as that in April, he put out this post on social media where he was praising Palantir, and I thought the funniest thing is that he specifically mentioned the ticker for Palantir, PLTR. He explicitly said that, which was obviously him pubbing the stock.

“But when you think about, is that inside of trading?”

I feel like, okay, maybe you can make an argument that he's not trading on material non-public information. He's just pumping a stock, essentially. Like, on a situation like that, I can see how maybe it's a gray zone. But there are some other examples here that, to me, are just plain illegal,

starting with, for example, in video.

January 6th, he buys up to $1 million worth of Nvidia stock.

And then January 14th, just a few days later, he approves Nvidia to start selling chips to China. That to me is like, okay, that's a very big deal. Similar thing happens, January 12th, he buys a bunch of Oracle stock, a week later, the deal for Oracle to buy a stake in tick dock is finalized.

And of course, the only reason is finalized is because he approves it. His administration approves it, similar thing with Boeing. He buys Boeing stock. And then he says that China is going to purchase all these Boeing jets. Like, there are several examples here, where it seems very, very plainly obvious,

that he had very important material non-public information. And this is just the way that the law talks about it. And then before that happens, he goes in and he buys the stock. And so in those cases, to me, I'm thinking, that's just illegal. That, right there, if you can prove that he knew something,

then he's got to go to jail or he's got to be punished in some way. Okay, who's going to punish amid? Which is an interesting point, but a different one. Well, but I mean, okay, so, you know, there's, but there's, let's pour everything out,

“because I think people need to understand this. There's a 2012 stock act,”

which prohibits some of this activity for members of Congress. It does not, for whatever reason, prohibit the president or the vice president. So the Palantir example that you use, believe it or not, is inside the ambit of the law. Okay, he's buying Palantir and then posting about it from an official governmental capacity as president of the United States.

The second one that you brought up is probably illegal.

There's a statute, if you went to law school like I did, there's a statute called 10B5, which the lineage would insider trading isn't if you read the statute. The president is actually included in that statute. And so he's right now guilty of insider trading. Okay, so the SEC commissioner, he stands at the appointment of the president

at the leisure of the president as does the attorney general, who's now acting, who was his personal attorney. So go ahead, who's going to prosecute the guy, go ahead. This is the part that I agree with you on, which is that it's illegal, but he's gotten rid of the police. He's gotten rid of the SEC, he's gotten rid of the DOJ. Well, okay, so then the real question is, and this is why people listen to your podcast,

would you do? Right. Okay, and this is where the Moody Gillibrand Senate Bill,

“the Roy Magazine or House version of that bill would include everybody. Okay, and then the”

question is, well, will they pass that? Well, Peter Switzer way back in 2010, exposed all of this nefarious behavior. There was a 60-minute special about it, and the Congress said, "Oh, this is despicable behavior. We're going to denounce it and we're going to prohibit it." And then they did that. And then very quietly, nine months after they did that, they get a voice vote. They get a voice vote so it wouldn't be on the airwaves. It wouldn't be on C-span, and they did a voice vote

call into this number, and we're going to vote to reinstate it, and they voted to reinstate it. And they got right back in the running to do this. So this is stuff that's going to continue.

Unless you're telling me somebody comes in with an omnibus ethics act equivalent to the 1978

ethics and government act, which technically revises everything, but then you're going to have to put independent watchdogs and special prosecutors in permanent place, or you're going to have to take to the Department of Justice out of the executive branch. It's in the Constitution that it would be in the executive branch. So I think that's very tough to do. And so then you've got to say to yourself, "Well, what will the next president do here she?" Well, they take Trump's playbook and say, "Wow,

I mean, I got the job. I'm going to make four to 10 billion over the next four years. Let me just go to section four of Trump's playbook. I'll start buying apple and tweeting about it." Yeah. Or you pick the stock. You see what I'm saying? Yes. We didn't even got into the Bitcoin and crypto stuff that these guys have done, right? Which is even more agree, just that I'll obviously a crypto enthusiast, but they've heard the industry there because they're staying in the industry

with this unethical activity. Right. So, you know, the bottom line is this is going to happen.

“Okay, the bottom line is for your viewers and listeners, life is unfair, and these guys are sitting”

there, ladling money into their own accounts for their own self-interest. And it would be hypocritical of me, Ed, if I just went after the president on this. You have to go after the Democrats that are also doing this. This is a bipartisan thing. Now, you can say, and this is almost based me laugh about Trump, and if Galaway was on with us right now, he would laugh at this, because I know the son of a bitch,croft G, would be like, yeah, no, he's right. Trump is doing it

to the twenty-nice power compared to these guys. Okay. So, if the Pelosi's taken five million, Trump's taken five hundred million. Yes. So, all he's done is pump themself with unethical steroids. He took the unethical steroid needle. He pumped it into his biceps, and he's out there making billions of dollars for himself. But they're all doing it, Ed. Yes.

“And I think it would be remiss of us to pretend that it's not happening on both sides.”

Well, I think what he's done now is he's normalized it for one. And I'm, and you may be you'd argue that it's been normalized for a while, but he's made it maybe publicly normalized. I mean, he, this has been very much shameless and for all to see, and so far he's gotten away with it. But I think the other, the other side to this is like, there's the, there's the distinction between what is legal and what is illegal. And if he knew things before he made these trades,

and of course he did, because he's the president, and then a week later he announces these decisions, which massively affect the trajectory of these businesses. So, I mean, you got to do a lot of legwork to pretend like he didn't know what was going on. So, let's just assume he did. That's illegal. But to your point, who's going to prosecute this and just some statistics here to, to, to really illustrate the point here, Trump cut the head count at the DOJ by 4,000,

and white-collar crime prosecutions at the DOJ have hit a record low. SEC enforcement actions are down 30% this year. It's the lowest transition year in a decade. The old enforcement director who tried to investigate him was dismissed, because she tried to investigate him. That was, that was literally what was reported among the SEC. SEC had counts cut, had counts been cut by fifth. Enforcement actions

down 80% IRS had counts down 25% the global high wealth division has been almost cut in half audit rates of collapsing, et cetera, et cetera. And it seems to me that what he's done, that's taken things to another level, as he said, I'm going to continue to do things that are illegal. But I'm going to make it so that there's no one out there who can prosecute made. The, the agencies whose job it is to go off to this kind of crime, I'm going to make it impossible

for them to do that job. I'm going to fire anyone who tries to do it. And not to me as a different

to use Trump's own words that would try to prosecute me, and they came close to it, I would

“pardon myself. Right. And as quoted by the Wall Street Journal, if you're in 200 feet of the”

Oval Office, you're going to receive a pardon from me. You know, Cory Levin Dowski said, hey, do whatever I want. I'm going to get pardon. The family's certainly going to get pardoned, Hunter Biden got pardoned. Yeah. And so even if you are bold enough to prosecute me,

I'm going to pardon myself. Now, there is a remedy. There is one remedy, which will never,

ever, ever happen. But the remedy would be impeachment. Okay. And what would happen in the Renormal System is people say, okay, this is ball face in moral. And it's illegal. We have to set a message to the American people that we have some honest accountability in the government. So we're going to impeach the guy. Jack Schlossberg, who is JFK's grandson, has a cheeky book coming out called Profiles in cowardice. It's the reverse of his grandfather's book, Profiles and

“Courage. And so if you remember the Kennedy book from the 1950s, he took 14 people who broke from their”

parties to do something principal than the Congress. And then people laughed at him. He won the Pulitzer Prize and they said, well, Senator Kennedy, this book is so short. And he said, well, look, if I was writing Profiles in cowardice, it would be the size of a phone. Okay, there's only this misfit, right? I was a big Kennedy line back in the 50s. But now Schlossberg is writing a book, Profiles and cowardice. It won't be phone book size, though, it should be putting,

you know, John Thune would have to answer for this, Mitch McConnell would have to answer for this.

You know, but here's what happens. Bill Cassidy, everybody on this show knows who he is.

He's the senator from Louisiana. He lost the primary vote last weekend, Saturday night. And so he's now been out significantly from the Senate. He's not going to be able to seek reelection. Bill Cassidy voted to convict Donald Trump in the second impeachment trial. And so even though he's squared that off by voting with the president in each time in the 16 months since Donald Trump has returned to the White House, the Trump people and Trump himself

went after Bill Cassidy. And he lost his primary. So you've got a situation now where they should in peace. He should have been removed from office just because of the war crime. He's selling people on Easter Sunday that he's going to wipe out a civilization. That, you know, the threat is a war crime. Just want to show everybody knows that if you threaten to wipe out a civilization, if you look at this, the Hague and the statues, that's a war crime. You don't have to actually

wipe out the civilization. It's locker room, torque, I thought. Yeah. Yeah, well, okay, so he's committed a war crime. No one's going to prosecute him. No senators picking up the phone and saying,

“hey, asshole, you're making the country look bad. Could you please stop doing that?”

You're not going to do it. And by the way, he won an Indiana two weeks ago. He ousted five mainstream Republicans. Okay. He knocked out Crenshaw. He's given Corne in a hard time in Texas. Knocked out Crenshaw is not going to be able to seek reelection. He just took out Cassidy. This is going to be a big fight over Tom Massey this week as to whether or not he can knock him out as well. And so he has been incredibly good at mail-in and taking out his adversary. So guess what?

We just got done telling you how lucrative to this to stay in the Congress. Yeah. PayPal, Ed Elson, Anthony Scaramucci, bye-bye. I'm staying in the Congress. I'm not prosecuted in this guy. Let him do whatever the hell he wants. Yeah. And so, and so that's a stain on the American system. The country that you came from, they would this guy be long ago. You think Kierstormer could be trading his personal account? This is what it's so shocking to me because this does

seem, I'm glad you bring up impeachment. Maybe it's because we follow markets on this show, but this to me seems like the most clearly impeachable offense. And just to lay it out for people, what's happened? This is just the latest in this headline in these insider trading scandals. We had liberation day last year where minutes before he tacos, the S&P options trading

spikes 2,000% in an hour. We had two months ago where more than half a billion dollars in oil

futures changed hands 15 minutes before he said he was engaging and talks with Iran. Also, one and a half billion dollars worth of S&P futures were also traded. Yours had his children investing in these drone startups right before we went to war. You mentioned the crypto Trump coin gets released 58 wallets take home over a billion dollars carefully timing the sales of those coins. You had Melania coin 24 wallets bought that token minutes before it was even announced.

that made $400,000 betting on the timing of the Maduro ouster. You've got another one that made

half a million betting on the timing of killing Iatola Hamanay. It goes on and on and on and on.

And this is just one little update on what I don't understand is why aren't people more

“outraged about this? Is it because it's confusing? Is it because it's like financing and complex?”

I mean, this to me, this is it. You know the answer. You know the answer. You're asking me the question, but you really down deep. You know the answer. You know that if you are going to take the KGB's approach to spying, you're going to do everything out in the open. And if you're going to take the Donald Trump approach to corruption, you're going to do everything out in the open. You're going to make it so ridiculous and you're going to make it so inundating

that people's heads will be spinning and then they get numb to it. And then once they're numb

to it, you keep doing it. You know the allegations that were made in the Epstein files and the disgusting behavior of these people in the Epstein files are an atrocity. Yet Donald Trump masterfully figured out either through a war or other means to bury the news and bury the lead on those files. And now Thomas Massey's up for a political fight of his life. He was for producing

“those files. But when you go down the list of things that voters care about, guess what?”

The Epstein files are at the bottom of the list. They want jobs. And they want affordable jobs. Where it makes me, they want jobs that will allow them to afford their lifestyle and they want

low gas prices. Okay. And so Trump's corruption is not even on their radar screen. And he knows

that. And he also knows that he's figured out the wormhole in the system where he can exploit the system. But do not underestimate him. He is a very formidable politician. He's got 34-35% approval ratings lower than Herbert Hoover. But he's got nine out of ten. And in some areas of the country, he's got ten out of ten other people that see themselves as Republicans. And so they he says, "Bark," they say, "Ruth," they say, "Jump." They say, "How high, sir?" Well, I want you to jump

and vote against Bill Cassidy. Done. I want you to vote against Thomas Massey. Done. Okay. But here's the irony of what he's doing. Okay? Because such a Norse is he's weakening the Republican party. Yeah. Because Cassidy's gone now. You lost all that seniority. If Massey leads, we've lost all of his seniority. And the replaced by weaker, less influential Republicans.

“Okay. But they're doing that to serve Trump's narcissism. See? So, so you have to put this whole”

thing in the call's ring and say, "My God, you want to talk about life being unfair," Donald Trump took a system of gentile practices. He took a system of gentlemen and general woman's agreements where nothing was specifically delineated and he steam rolled over it. Okay? Because you don't have a codified law that says, "The President cannot do blank, blank, blank, blank, blank." They present it and if he does bump up, he gets ejected like a villain in the J in the

ass, Morton and James Boncorr. No, that doesn't happen to the President. You see, you see what I'm saying? And so he said, "Oh, this is great. I'm going to run rough shot over this whole system. I'm going to annihilate everybody in this system." And his family members have told him, "We expect to be the richest family in the world when we leave." And so we've got a lot more to do in the next two and a half years. And oh, by the way, let me put up all these disclosures right now,

because Ed Elson and Anthony Scaramucci will talk about it. Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, like the Charlie Brown teacher. And what difference does it make? I'll be locked and loaded doing this and no matter who lights their air on fire and outrage, not going to matter. And that's where we are right now. So the next president, hopefully. Yes. Well, they okay. I've got a week in myself and I've got a week in the presidency

to make the system stronger again. Yes. You know, it's with Cicero 1 said 2400 years ago, we are slaves to the law in order to be free. 2200 years ago, but you get the point. Yes. You want to, you want to subordinate yourself to the process. The checks and balances of the system, because that means less cronyism, less corruption, less of a funnel at the top of the legality. Right. Can I make one last point? I don't have to hop. I want to make one last

point, please. And get about the willing billionaire Sica fans. Right. These guys are all motivated by money more than anything else. So there wouldn't be billionaires. And they're sitting around

lay off my business. Okay. Jeff Bezos was coming at him in first term, not doing that.

“I have a $40 million documentary on the wife. Yeah. We're going to pay for the wall. We're”

going to pay for this. You want to pay for the ballroom? No problem. We'll get on the plane with him to China. Yeah. You know, I got to give to the pack. No problem. Can spec you was sweet absent from that plane ride was Jamie Diamond? Hmm. Jamie Diamond said I'm not playing ball with the ball room not doing this. What a Trump do. He sued him. Sue in the bag. Right. And he didn't make the plane ride. Jane Frazier from city bag made the plane ride. Yeah. City group. My point is he's got

all of those people between a rock and a hard place. Because they're like shit, if I don't count out to him, he's going to hurt my shareholders. He's going to hurt my image. He's going to

he's going to hurt me with my own board. So I'm going to count out to the guy and Trump understands

that as well. He's used every mechanism in his game and he's exploited every mechanism and there's very few people at that level that are like, you know, I'm going to pass on that trip to China. Oh,

“you know, I don't want to be in the great hall hanging out with Xi and the Chinese. So we're all”

looking at each other and they're doing that, you know, manifestation of cognitive dissidents and they're saying, hey, I got to go. It's best best for my countries, best for my business. It's best for me. That's for my shareholders, too. Just one last final question before you go here and I have to hop. But I mean, it seems as though, say the Democrats win. I sort of feel you could have a lot more hair. If you let that go, wow. I mean, I could send you some later. I want to be

able to want that. I'm just like, you know, like, I got some great product for you with, you know, well, I'm going to need to get your product. You send me the, the, the mooch kit. I just want to point out people are looking to say, hey, the kid has more hair than he's letting go. I'll go ahead, Elson, what were you going to say? If the Democrats win in the next cycle, if we have a democratic president, it seems that a lot of people are thinking that maybe what we'll see, is that someone will

go off to Trump and prosecute him once he's out of power, essentially. He'll go off, they'll

“go off to the inside of trading the golfers family. Do you think that's going to happen?”

Well, of course, it's not going to happen. They may want it to happen, but he's going to pardon himself and he's going to pardon all of them. But, but once he's out, once he's out, I'm saying, I'm, I'm saying, let's go. When he's no, no longer president, I might point again here by pardon myself for any crime that I could be accused of from 1946, the day of my birth told January 20th, 2020, I am exonerated from every single crime. IRS audits, any crime that I've ever perpetrated,

I have pardoned myself and I've pardoned everyone of my family members. So now, what are you going after? All right. So if he makes a crime on the 21st of January, 2021, you can go after that. But what are you going after? You see, this is the thing that has people upset because you want there to be some form of accountability. Now, at that point, you could say, oh, okay, well, the state attorney generals are going to go after him because he can't pardon himself at the state level.

Yeah, good luck to that. Good luck to that. Anthony Skaramucci is founder of Managing Partner of Skybridge Capital, and he will also be joining us on tour in New York for a live property market show June 2nd. I can't wait. I'm so excited about it. I don't know. I don't know. I finally look cool to my adult kids, they've passed on to me. So, it's the grand promotion of this whole thing. There we go. There we go. We're going to have them in the crowd. I'm trying to get a

hair product across the ship to drop G markets, man. I would love to bring it to the show. Bring it to the show. I'm going to bring it to the show. I'm going to bring it to the show.

I'm going to bring it to the show. I'm going to bring you some hair product. That guy always

opens. He's done. He's done. He's not going to happen. You can only bring bronzer. That's it for him. But we can help you. I'd love to have your bronzer. Okay. I'd be just going to moochy. Really appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Good to be on, brother. After the break, Elon loses in court. And by the way, we are heading out on tour next week. So, for more info and to get tickets to a show near you,

head to profgmarketstool.com. Hey, I'm Matt Beshell, comedian, writer, and floating head. You may or may not have seen on your for you page. And I'm starting a brand new podcast. Wait, wait. Don't swipe away. It's called that sounds like a lot. As in, that feeling when you check your phone in the morning, you read three headlines and you immediately think, oh, that sounds like a lot. I can't deal with all this,

but guess what? I can deal with it. And I'm going to get into it every Friday. I'll break down whatever chaos has happened in the world. Then I'll sit down with a comedian. You can be

You go, why does the Sadie Hawkins dance happen?" Maybe a filmmaker. Since leaving that show, I'm challenged to sparing my life. I just got a hangout and tried to do it alone with a charm

blank. Could be a politician, basically anyone who responds to my cold DMs. We're recording

the whole thing in a beautiful studio. So, yes, you can watch it on YouTube or you can listen wherever you get your podcast. This is not the place to get the news, but it is the place to feel a little better about it. That sounds like a lot, part of the Vox Media podcast network. Hi, I'm Maria Sharipova, host of the Pretty Tough podcast. Each episode, I sit down with high-achieving women to discuss the pursuit of excellence without apology. This week, Journalist

Adina USC, and now, along with her husband, Bob Eiger, owner of the Angel City FC Women's Soccer team. Willow Bay. I said, Bob, are you interested in doing this? And he said, absolutely. But I was

“definitely the driving force I think in the conviction about Angel City. Check out Pretty Tough,”

new episodes on Wednesdays. You can watch it on YouTube or listen in your favorite podcast app. Okay, so today, we're driving to Southern New Jersey. And heading to a data center. Couple weeks ago, I read a story in inj.com. And it was all about how there's a data center going up in Comberland County, the poorest county in New Jersey. That's receiving some community pushback. And this is immediately got my attention because data centers are going

up all across the country. I feel like we should be hearing politicians talk more about this, but we haven't really heard a consensus. Our data center is really a necessary evil. Let's

find out. This is technology we've never seen before. Right, experiment. We're going to experiment

down here. And we're really getting things. Right. And where is the game? Exactly. Exactly. One thing that

“happens in this country is there's no planning for the future. Is it benefiting people or is it benefiting”

the elite and the money that's going into their pockets? This is not about abstract politics. It's about people's everyday lives. That's this week on America, actually. We're back with property markets. A federal jury has unanimously rejected Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI ending the drama fill legal feud. Musk had alleged that OpenAI "stolly charity" when it converted to a for-profit, but after less than two hours of deliberations,

the jurors ruled that the statute of limitations had expired. This means that OpenAI and Microsoft, which was also named as a defendant, are not liable for Musk's claims. Here to discuss this verdict, we're speaking with Mike Isaac, the New York Times technology correspondent, who was in the courtroom at the trial. He is gone back to his microphone to tell us what happened

“at the trial. Mike, thank you so much for joining us. What did happen? What did we learn?”

What have we learned, indeed? I feel like it's one of those scenarios where we're kind of back to where we started. We made the status quo, which is that Musk filed this lawsuit in 2024. It took a few years to get to court. A number of lawyers, when we were covering this trial, basically asked, "Why did it get to court? Why did it actually make it to trial?" Because of this statute of limitations issue. Ultimately, that was what

undid Musk, what the jury found unanimously, by the way, was that Musk waited too long to file his claims and, basically, struck all the rest of the claims in his lawsuit because of that, because he wasn't able to meet that person. Yeah, unanimously, and within two hours, which I found

quite striking, I mean, really amazing. It sounds like I mean, just the statute of limitations

that, basically, what they're saying is you knew that this was a non-profit that was transitioning into a full profit for a long time. You didn't sue then, but you decided to sue now. So we don't really believe that it was a problem. Am I getting that right? Yeah, 100%. And that was really a bulk of the evidence in discovery that the open AI side brought up was, you know, God love ancient emails that people like say as much as possible that we're brought up in the

trial. And it was, it was a lot of stuff that Musk or some of his sort of counterparts, including Shabon Zillis, who was working for him now as the mother to four of his children, was on the open AI board. And she knew about this transition. So, like, as far back as like 2017, 2018, these emails go. And a reasonable person, according to the jury, would determine that Musk probably had knowledge

So in a sense, he's basically just suing because he wants to home a competitor. And that's what the

“jury decided in a matter of hours. I guess the question then becomes, what happens next?”

I assume Elon will appeal because I just assume people always appeal these days.

One of the next stages. Yeah, I know that's a good assumption. And we were in the courtroom in the hallway, outside of the courtroom in the hallway, sort of trying to catch up with the attorneys and Mark Toberoff, who was lead counsel for Musk, turns around and literally says to us, one word appeal. Right. And so they're obviously going to appeal. I think the other thing that was left undetermined, but as like is unlikely to go to trial, there were also claims in Musk's suit

about potential anti-trust issues around Microsoft. And what he said was Microsoft behaving anti-competitively by investing in this company. And because of their size, basically like trying to quash AI competition, the judge said it was unlikely that she would allow that to go, especially because she dismissed the case on the spot after the jury found opening. I'm not liable,

but they're still going to discuss that and TBD on whether she actually dismisses that, basically.

So it seems like opening is kind of got a clear path at this point. They're on their way to the IPO. This wasn't going to be a real obstacle, but one question going into this trial and during the trial, there was a sense in which this wasn't so much a legal battle as much as a

“reputational battle. And I believe Elon said that, this is essentially my way of trying to take”

you down and make everyone hate you. As someone who was there, who would you say one that battle of reputation who came out looking worse? I think it's a great point and I think it's also really a lot of what Musk's case rested on because opening it in my opinion, opening it, I had a strong case, just purely on the statute of limitations stuff. And that was like the main thing they needed to hammer home for the jury because like that would be the whole ball game once

you find that he had expired the statute of limitations had expired. So Musk had basically gone

all in on ripping Altman Sam Altman apart, you know, essentially digging up as much old evidence or pointing jurors to this, the New York article I wrote in Pharaoh wrote a few weeks ago, like it just really tarrying and feathering Sam in the court of public opinion. And when Sam was on the state, which sorry, it was on the stand being questioned by Musk's attorney Stephen Molo, it was brutal. His first question up was, are you trustworthy? And it's not a good question to be

“else. I know. It's Sam's like, I think so and then immediately they went after I'm going for the”

juggera woe, you think so, you're not fully true. So it was really a, I thought it was a referendum on their personalities and I think they both came out looking pretty bad and to be perfectly honest, I think this whoever won, there was some dirt thrown mud thrown at both of each other and it's going to be hard for that to get to get off of them, especially with all the new evidence that's now in the public. All right, Mike Isaac, technology correspondent for the New York Times.

Mike, thank you so much for joining us. I mean, we'll see how this story unfolds. I'm not sure what else there is to unfold, but I assume we'll get the appeal. I assume you don't think it's going to work. I doubt it. I would say, yeah, exactly like judges typically, because this judge upholds upheld the jury's findings, judges down the line don't typically like to overturn this stuff. But hey, who knows in this world, we'll see. Mike Isaac, tech correspondent for New York Times.

Thank you so much. Thanks, I appreciate it. It's graduation season, which means commencement speeches. And this year, most of those speeches have revolved around one topic and one topic, only what was it? You guessed it, AI. AI was all over commencement ceremonies this year. It was the main theme of Carnegie Mellon's commencement where Jensen Huang spoke, also Northeastern and Notre Dame and UVA, where I actually went to

watch my sister graduate, congrats to her. But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is how students have reacted to these speeches about AI. I will cut to the chase. They have not reacted well. This is what happened when the commencement speaker at the University of Central Florida started talking about AI. The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution.

mentioned AI. AI is rewriting production as we sit here. Deal with it. Like I said, it's a tool.

“And this is what happened at the University of Arizona when former Google CEO Eric Schmidt”

started talking about AI. It will touch every profession, every classroom, every hospital,

every laboratory, every person, and every relationship you have. I know what many of you are feeling

about that. I can hear you. There is a fear. In some, young people hate AI. And this can also

“be proven statistically. 54% of 18 to 29 year old Americans say they feel pessimistic about AI. 55%”

say it's unlikely AI will create economic gains that benefit everyone and 60% say they are worried

about AI taking jobs. And by the way, who can blame them? Because not only have tens of thousands of workers been laid off this year in the name of AI, but it's also become a point of pride for companies to lay off tens of thousands of workers this year in the name of AI. In other words, unless you are a significant investor in this technology, which young people aren't, well, then it's very hard

“to root for it. As we've said before, AI is about to become the single most important political”

issue of our time. And if those commencement speeches are any indication of what's to come, or then one thing is for certain, the political future of AI is not looking too bright. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss edited by Joel Passen and Engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Greg Williams, our research team is Dan Chilon, Isabella Kinsel, Chris Nodonich, and Mia Sovario. And our social

producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Proof to you, Markets, from Proof to Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.