Saturday's edition of MS NOW’s The Weekend offered up a full-throated class-warfare kvetch over Elon Musk becoming the world’s first trillionaire. Co-host Eugene Daniels grew visibly agitated as economist Justin Wolfers claimed Musk “bought” the 2024 election for Donald Trump with $250 million in campaign spending. Daniels declared the discussion made him “very angry” — not at Wolfers, but at the country for allowing it. Wolfers argued Musk’s spending was enough to flip the election’s narrow margins in key states and left him with enough wealth to “buy” thousands more. Yet neither Daniels nor Wolfers mentioned that Kamala Harris’s campaign and aligned groups outspent Trump’s by roughly half a billion dollars, with Harris’s side topping nearly $2 billion compared to Trump’s roughly $1.45–1.5 billion. Daniels piled on, accusing Musk of getting rich by taking business “that used to be done by the federal government.” In reality, NASA itself has estimated that partnering with SpaceX on the Commercial Crew program saved taxpayers $20–30 billion compared to the old cost-plus approach. Co-host Jonathan Capehart joined the kvetch fest, whining about the “yawning gap between the wealthy and the rest of us”—as if he’s holding down two fast-food jobs to make ends meet. In fact, Capehart has enjoyed a string of cushy gigs, with an estimated MS NOW salary in the million-dollar range and a personal net worth of $2–5 million. The segment’s overarching theme was classic class-warfare hand-wringing over wealth gaps. Wolfers reserved special contempt for Musk, praising other billionaires for their philanthropy but branding Musk a “clown.” If Elon's a clown, I'm running off to join the circus. MS NOW Kvetches About Musk's Trillion pic.twitter.com/TehtEAo6z3 — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) June 13, 2026 Conspicuously absent from the outrage: Musk’s wealth creation for thousands of ordinary Americans. SpaceX’s recent IPO has turned more than 4,400 current and former employees into millionaires — including welders, cafeteria workers, and support staff. Estimates suggest that virtually all of the roughly 22,000 employees who worked there for a few years pocketed at least $100,000 in gains. MS NOW loves to stoke resentment against successful innovators while ignoring the broad prosperity they generate. The real story isn’t oligarchs “buying” elections or stealing from NASA — it’s American enterprise delivering results that government bureaucracies never could. Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend 6/13/16 8:39 am EDT JACKIE ALEMANY: It's official, Elon Musk is the world's first trillionaire. Friday, Musk's, Musk's is, oh, that's a hard one. His exploration and satellite company, SpaceX, made their NASDAQ debut, and just after shares began trading, its stock topped a hundred and sixty dollars per share, pushing the company's value above two trillion dollars.  Musk's newfound trillionaire status offers a stark contrast to the economic pain that many Americans are feeling because of inflation. Government statistics released this week showed the annual inflation rate hit four point two percent in May, that's the highest in three years. And the latest Economist YouGov poll shows that almost sixty percent of Americans say the economy is getting worse.  Joining us now is Justin Wolfers, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, and host of the Platypus Economics podcast. Justin, I, I, I actually am not even sure really what the right question is here. Is that, is he a trillionaire because of inflation, or are there other reasons for sort of the, artificial ballooning of it? I mean, what even is a trillion dollars? I don't know. What do you think we need, what should be our takeaway, in your opinion, from this milestone? JUSTIN WOLFERS: I love that, because, look, I've done enough media training to have told me no matter what the question, give the answer you want. You just said, "Write your own question."  But I'm gonna take that, I'm gonna take your invitation seriously, 'cause I think there's something really fundamental and really, really important here. So, I'm not gonna start with Musk being worth a trillion, I'm gonna go back to 2024, when he invested $250 million in the American election.  That was almost certainly enough to win Donald Trump the election. Trump's winning margin across the three swing states was only 230,000 votes, so you needed to switch a hundred and fifteen thousand voters.  If Musk's money, even if it was so inefficient, it cost a thousand dollars per vote switch, Musk's money won the election for Donald Trump. That's scary fact number one. We've already got an oligarch who put a billionaire in charge of our country.  Let me blow you away with fact number two. This is where you need to understand the difference between a trillion dollars, that's what the bloke's got, and $250 million, which is what he spent. It's not one percent of his wealth, it's not point one percent of his wealth, it's point zero two five percent of his wealth. Musk bought one American election, and has enough money left over to buy another 3,999 elections.  So they're thinking, we could do the politics of resentment. You know, I don't like a bloke having that much money, it makes me feel bad. But we don't need to. What we really need to do is talk about protecting democracy in an age of this sort of concentration of wealth. EUGENE DANIELS: Well, Justin, I- this is-- You just made me, very angry talking about that actually. Not at you, but at our country and the fact that this is even possible.  I wanna pull up, some stats, from inequality.org and the Federal Reserve from last year. The top one percent in the United States has thirty-one percent of the wealth share. The bottom ninety percent have thirty-two point six percent of the wealth share.  And on Musk specifically, SpaceX, and the reason that he became a trillionaire, it seems, is because he was taking business, taking on business that used to be in the public-- that, that used to be public, that used to be done by the federal government. CAPEHART: Justin, you spent a lot of time talking about the fact that Elon Musk, is buying elections, becoming a trillionaire, the gap, the yawning gap between the wealthy and the rest of us. . . . WOLFERS: One of the things I've actually always admired about the United States is the super rich here feel that it's their role to give back. There's tremendous philanthropic giving, much more here than in many, many other countries. And so we actually have an enormous number of incredibly admirable billionaires who've really taken their responsibility seriously. And then you got clowns And at the moment, Musk is a clown.

While we have no delusions of Hollywood ever coming to its senses, it was still a breath of fresh air to see an actor as talented and respected as Idris Elba speak out against wokeism in entertainment. The actor recently told British GQ magazine that the iconic character James Bond should remain a white man rather than having his race or gender changed. Amazon MGM Studios is actively searching for a new Bond now that actor Daniel Craig has stepped down from the role after portraying the debonair 007 spy for the past 15 years. In the British GQ interview, Elba was asked about rumors he might take over the role:  “It was never legit. It was always just a rumour,” says Elba. It started at the Italian premiere of Quantum of Solace, held a day after the 2008 US presidential election; Daniel Craig said that Barack Obama’s victory suggested we had reached the time for a Black Bond. Elba says fans simply took it and ran with it. “I’ve always felt that it’s not a realistic thing,” he says. “James Bond was written how he was written for a reason. But I was complimented by it…And also, I think, in realistic terms, some markets just don’t go for that. Bond is big all over the world. And [audiences] won’t [all] go for a Black male, an African male, playing Bond. That’s not what they like in their culture. Period.” He also believes that changing Bond isn’t really necessary. “Bond is so unrealistic, so a hint of reality is good, but let’s not try and make it woke. I think you’ve got to be pure to what it is: escapism. Don’t try and answer the world’s taste. Just be Bond.” As Breitbart reported, the Luther actor has spoken out before about race in entertainment, telling Esquire magazine he no longer considers himself a “black actor”: “As humans, we are obsessed with race. And that obsession can really hinder people’s aspirations, hinder people’s growth. Racism should be a topic for discussion, sure. Racism is very real,” Elba said. “But from my perspective, it’s only as powerful as you allow it to be. We’ve got to grow. We’ve got to. Our skin is no more than that: It’s just skin.” Craig, who portrayed the 007 agent in the last five films, had an interesting reaction when asked if there should ever be a gay James Bond: Reporter asks Daniel Craig if there could be a gay James Bond. His reaction says it all. pic.twitter.com/lsV4w3UBnP — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 4, 2024 Still, Entertainment Weekly put out a very woke list of their top 10 picks for the role last year which only included 3 white men: It’s strange how the left believes changing fictional characters to fit a woke agenda is “progress.” How progressive is it, really, to give a recycled white role to a black person instead of honoring them with their own, unique character? How feminist is it to give a woman the recycled role of a man instead of creating a strong, original female character for her? Actors as talented as Elba deserve better, as does a role as established and iconic as James Bond. If studios want to create memorable characters that resonate with modern audiences, they should do the hard work of building something original instead of revising what already exists and calling it progress.

Ever since the votes were counted in Maine on Tuesday night, and Graham Platner officially became the Democrat's nominee to take on incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins in November, the leftist media has started to portray the match-up as a choice between a catastrophic status quo, and a super hero, who will help right all of the horrors created by Donald Trump. Wednesday on Fox News's The Five, Jessica Tarlov exhibited that hysteria, and it didn't go over well with Greg Gutfeld. The left has called Donald Trump a Nazi for years, and now they support a man who has a Nazi tattoo on his chest. The irony was not lost on Gutfeld as he tore into the strategy. GUTFELD: I step back and I see what happens when you frame everything as an existential threat. For Democrats, who are always fighting Hitler, every tool is acceptable including electing a Nazi to fight Hitler because you need to win the Senate to destroy Hitler. So if you think about all of the bad things that have happened, say, in the last 10 years or so, they are directly linked to this framing, that we're fighting a fascist dictator. They built a frame that excuses the behavior that they condemn.... And now you see the Democrat embracing a Nazi misogynist because the circumstances are life and death, even though they are not. The Democrats always portray this next election as something that will cause the end of the world. That way all of their so-called principles can easily evaporate. He then drew a distinction, and offered some advice to Democrats. GUTFELD: For us it's not existential. We think Platner sucks and he's a pig, but you know what? We'll keep living, but Democrats, they are like fentanyl addicts. And politics is their fentanyl. So they don't care what they look like when they are doing it. What should the remaining principled Democrats do? They should support Collins. She's a liberal Republican. She has an incredibly low American Conservative Union rating. That doesn't seem to me as an existential choice.... In reality, if Collins wins life goes on and nothing really changes. In politics, if Platner loses, a fascist regime will destroy democracy because in politics, the stakes are delusionally  high. Who made those stakes high? The Democrats. When it was her turn, Tarlov jumped right on Guffeld's take, and he fought back. TARLOV: And to what Greg said about nothing changes if Susan Collins is the senator, again, if she wins re-election, that is the problem for Mainers and that's the problem across this country. They want change agents.  GUTFELD: : What happens if you don't get it? TARLOV: What do you mean? GUTFELD: Does the world end? TARLOV: You know what happens? Susan Collins, who touts her independent streak, now votes with Trump 95% of the time. She continues to back his agenda and guess what, there's gonna be one, maybe two Supreme Court seats up, and Susan Collins will vote for his nominee, who will be an even younger Brett Kavanaugh, like she did for Kavanaugh, and you know who won't do that -- Graham Platner will stand in the way. GUTFELD: You're validating exactly what I said. You're painting some kind of existential -- TARLOV: I do think it is. Then Gutfeld cornered her. GUTFELD: : You would vote for him. TARLOV: I feel lucky that I'm not voting in Maine right now. I think It's a very tough decision. And then the real hysteria.  TARLOV: Susan Collins loves to say I'm pro-choice. The Dobbs decision, right. Throw it back to the states. We have 13 states alone that have trigger laws where if you are six weeks pregnant you can't get access to reproductive healthcare. That is something that mortally offends Susan Collins but yet she votes for Republican nominees to the core to go ahead and  put through a decision like the Dobbs decision. GUTFELD: Which would be fine.  TARLOV: No it's fine to you, it is not fine to the women who are bleeding out who can't get the care that they had. GUTFELD: Bleeding out? TARLOV: That's what happens, Greg, if you go to an emergency room -- [cross talking] GUTFELD: Do you see the point if Susan Collins wins millions of women will bleed out. That's what they want you to believe.  In addition to claiming that women will bleed out if Collins wins, Tarlov, who had previously said of Platner, "I find him to be toxic", wouldn't say if she'd vote for him if she could. This goes a long way in confirming Gutfeld's take on the left's existential threat narrative. 

A highly anticipated ruling by the Florida Supreme Court late last week all but ensured the defamation suit filed by Navy veteran Zarachy Young against the Associated Press would get revived on appeal. And just days after telling Florida’s First District Court of Appeal to ignore the AP’s own stylebook in the case, the newswire’s lawyer wanted the court to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling as well. Those who have kept up with NewsBusters’ coverage of Young’s successful defamation suit against CNN, may recall that the news outlet attempted to get Florida’s 14th Circuit Court to put off progressing the case until the Supreme Court finally issued a ruling on Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company. Simply known as Perlmutter, the ruling provided new case law on, among other things, how trial-level courts were to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard to punitive damages claims in the pleading stage of a proceeding: The trial court does not act as a fact-finder in a proceeding under section 768.72(1). It must not weigh the claimant’s evidence, meaning that its role is not to decide the truth of the matter. In conducting its review, the trial court must “consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Of course, the allegations contained in the claimant’s proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence—the whole point of a proceeding under section 768.72(1) is to determine whether the claimant can show reasonable evidentiary support for those allegations. How does did apply to Young’s case? Cutting through the legalese, when Judge William Scott Henry threw out Young case against the AP (and his case against Puck News) he argued against the quality of the evidence presented in the early pleading stage, and directly compared it to what was presented in the CNN case, writing: As discussed above, these decisions are not defamatory, but rather protected editorial choices.’ As such, Plaintiffs cannot rely on the choices made by Defendant to substantiate a claim for punitive damages. Since none of the statements in the Articles were defamatory and Plaintiffs have not proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, or ill will, hostility or evil intention on the part of Defendant in publishing the Articles, Plaintiffs have not met their threshold burden of proffering sufficient evidence as would support a punitive damage claim in this case.  As part of his appeal, Young argued that was one of the reasons the ruling was improper.  A flurry of filings in the defamation case against the AP followed the Supreme Court’s Perlmutter decision. After Young’s counsel filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority on Thursday to bring the ruling to the attention of the three appellate judges who heard oral arguments, AP’s counsel Charles D. Tobin shot back the next day with a two-paragraph request for them to ignore the ruling: Appellee The Associated Press (“The AP”) submits this brief response to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority regarding the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, No. SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026) (“Perlmutter Op.”). Since the trial court did not apply the clear and convincing standard in its ruling related to punitive damages nor did it rely on anything submitted by The AP, the Perlmutter Op. does not apply to Section II of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Initial Brief or Reply Brief, as their Notice of Supplemental Authority asserts. On Saturday, Young’s counsel requested the court strike the AP’s response, alleging it was an improper motion: “The Response is unauthorized by Rule 9.225, which governs the provision of supplemental authority to the Court following the conclusion of briefing. Further, the Response impermissibly contains argument regarding the authority cited in Appellants’ Notice.” While the Supreme Court ruling in Perlmutter didn’t address the key points of Young’s defamation case (AP’s stylebook, the use of “smuggling,” etc.), it directly pertained to how and why the case was thrown out in the early pleading stage of the proceedings. It was through discovery that Young was able to obtain the evidence for actual and expressed malice. The dismissal of Young’s case could turn out to be a short term victory that only dragged out the case for nearly a year.

As the World Cup opened in the U.S. in Los Angeles on Friday, MS NOW’s David Noriega warned of possible political unrest in America amid the start of global soccer tournament. He said the World Cup was a window into “the politics of a host nation and into the geopolitical moment,” which he referred to as the U.S. hosting in “a moment of great turmoil.” Noriega's fearmongering came after MS NOW Reports connected the expiration of the FISA warrant program, set to expire on Friday, to the start of the World Cup. He then began his portion with an explanation of the security challenge of the World Cup, and explained possible protests that were, of course, anti-Trump. The LAPD told Noriega they “expect protests,” which Noreiga expanded upon and stated, “The protests could come from any number of places: anti-ICE protests, anti-Trump protests.” He also mentioned possible anti-Iranian Islamic Regime protests “by Persian communities in LA against the presence of the Iran team, the team representing the current Iranian regime here in the United States.” He also talked about LAPD staffing shortages and noted the federal government was essentially funding the police department through special programs from the Department of Homeland Security.   As the World Cup kicks off on Friday in LA, MS NOW reporter David Noreiga warned of possible unrest and protests in a "moment of great turmoil" as "World Cups are always sort of a window into the politics of a host nation and into the geopolitical moment." pic.twitter.com/bjhQDU7MOB — Nick (@nspin310) June 12, 2026   Noriega turned to talk about the politics of the moment, relating back to his mention of possible anti-Trump administration protests. He mentioned the “global significance” of the tournament before he came back to politics: The World Cups are always sort of a window into the politics of a host nation and into the geopolitical moment. In what could be described as a warning or a moment that framed the U.S. as an unstable country, he related the security of the World Cup events back to American politics and the period of global conflicts: And in this moment, what we're seeing is the U.S. co-hosting this event in a moment of great turmoil and uncertainty and instability (...) Noriega then opined there could be threats and unrest, from even possibly Americans: “(...) That's going to show up in a lot of different ways, whether it be threats or unrest from the American people themselves or something that we can't, at this point, even predict. “ Noriega’s reference to unrest from the American people seemed to frame his entire words about “a moment of great turmoil” as a hit on American politics and the current Republican administration. The fear of some international reporters - even American reporters like Noriega - who wanted to frame everything as a referendum on Trump policies was astounding. They have pumped out constant disapproval and a barrage of stories about denial of entry to a Somalian referee who has alleged ties to people associated with terrorism, even as a Democratic representative said it seemed to be a valid denial. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW Reports June 12, 2026 12:10:54 PM Eastern (...) Noriega DAVID NORIEGA: We spoke to the LAPD’s head of the incident command division, who said that they expect - it's a citywide challenge. They expect, for example, protests. The protests could come from any number of places: anti-ICE protests, anti-Trump protests, but also, interestingly, in advance of Iran's first game in the United States on Monday, protests by Persian communities in LA against the presence of the Iran team, the team representing the current Iranian regime here in the United States. The LAPD, Alex, has been facing pretty substantial staffing shortages for years at this point. When we asked them how they were sort of managing that in the face of this massively complex security event. They told us that they're confident. They're not worried about it at all, mainly because they have a bunch of overtime for their officers. That overtime comes primarily, or not primarily, it comes largely from an influx of funding cash from the federal government, the Department of Homeland Security. They're also working with the FBI, for example, on a counter-drone program. Cheap commercial drones are everywhere now, and they present a potential security threat.  Look, when I look at all of this, everything that I'm telling you, what I see is that this is a massive, globally significant event with huge crowds. The World Cups are always sort of a window into the politics of a host nation and into the geopolitical moment. And in this moment, what we're seeing is the U.S. co-hosting this event in a moment of great turmoil and uncertainty and instability, and that's going to show up in a lot of different ways, whether it be threats or unrest from the American people themselves or something that we can't, at this point even predict. Alex? (...)