Monday, 02 June 2025

Elon Musk Attacked In Worst Interview Since Don Lemon (Tough To Watch)

100 Percent Fed Up
Hits: 7

I have no idea how Elon Musk stayed calm and cool in this interview, but the man deserves an award because he just suffered through one of the rudest and toughest interviews to watch since the Don Lemon debacle.

Don still holds the record but Olivia Sterns, a Bloomberg anchor, is pushing hard to take the crown.

Honestly, this was just hard to watch, but it’s always worth it to hear what Elon has to say, and in this case it was great to watch him put on a masterclass of patience, class and wit.

From the Qatar Economic Forum (which I can only assume is an affiliate of the World Economic Forum), here is the full interview (I will also put a full transcript plus a full screen video player with slightly sped up speed down below if you prefer those):

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Olivia Sterns:
Elon Musk, welcome to Qatar Economic Forum. How are you?

ADVERTISEMENT

Elon Musk:
Thank you for having me. I’m fine. How are you?

Olivia Sterns:
Very well, thank you, and very pleased to have you with us.
You know, among those here in the audience in Doha are some you will know—people who have backed you financially over the years.

Since you last spoke here in 2022, a lot has changed in your life. You’re not only running multiple companies—you were doing that then—but now you also have a role in government.
So first of all, I hope you won’t mind if from time to time I have to move you from one topic to another because we have a lot to cover in the time we have.

Elon Musk:
That’s quite be all right.

Olivia Sterns:
Okay.

Elon Musk:
Yeah, course.

Olivia Sterns:
Well, let’s start then with exactly the fact that you now have this combination of being a CEO and having a role as a government advisor.
Tell me about your week. How does it work? What’s the split of your time?

Elon Musk:
Well, I travel a lot. So I was in Silicon Valley yesterday morning.
I was in LA yesterday evening. I’m in Boston right now.
I’ll be in DC tomorrow. I’ll be there, uh, after—I’m having dinner with the president tomorrow night, I believe.
Um, and then, uh, bunch of cabinet secretary meetings, and then, uh, back to Silicon Valley on Thursday night.

Olivia Sterns:
But I mean the balance of your time—is it—well clearly it’s a lot—but is it still the case, as you said a while ago, that it’s about one to two days a week on your government work?

Elon Musk:
That’s correct.

Olivia Sterns:
And what does that mean for your corporate life? Because if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered in recent months what you’ve called blowback.
So what is your plan for turning that around—the declining sales picture—and by what stage do you think you’re going to be able to turn it around?

Elon Musk:
Oh, it’s already turned around.

ADVERTISEMENT

Olivia Sterns:
Give me some evidence for that. I’ve just been looking at the sales figures for Europe in April, which show very significant declines in the big markets.

Elon Musk:
Uh, Europe is our weakest market. We’re strong everywhere else.
Um, so, uh, you know, our sales are doing well at this point.
Um, we don’t anticipate any meaningful sales shortfall.
And, um, obviously the stock market recognizes that, since we’re now back over a trillion dollars in market cap.

So, um, clearly the market is aware of the situation. So it’s—it’s already turned around.

Olivia Sterns:
But sales fell down compared to this time last year.

Elon Musk:
In Europe.

Olivia Sterns:
In Europe, okay.

Elon Musk:
Yes, but that’s true of all manufacturers. There’s no exceptions.

Olivia Sterns:
Does that mean that you’re not gonna be able—

Elon Musk:
There’s Europe.

Olivia Sterns:
Does that mean Europe is quite weak? Okay. But you would acknowledge, wouldn’t you, that what you are facing—okay, let’s just take it as Europe—
what you are facing is a significant problem.

This—Tesla—is an incredibly aspirational brand.
People identified with it.
It saw it—they saw it as being at the forefront of the climate crisis.
And now people are driving around with stickers in their cars saying, “I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy.”

Elon Musk:
And there—there are also people who are buying—buying it because, uh, Elon’s crazy or however they may view it.
Um, so yes, we’ve lost some sales perhaps on the left, but we’ve gained them on the right.
Uh, the sales numbers at this point are strong, and, uh, we—we see no problem with demand.

ADVERTISEMENT

Olivia Sterns:
So what the—

Elon Musk:
And—I mean, you can—you can just look at the stock price.
The—if you want the best inside information, the, uh, stock market analysts have that.
And, um, our stock wouldn’t be, uh, trading near all-time highs if, uh, it was not—
if things weren’t in good shape.
They’re fine. Don’t worry about it.

Olivia Sterns:
Okay. I—I was citing sales figures rath—rather than share price.
Well, tell me then how committed you are to Tesla.
Do you see yourself—and are you committed—to still being the chief executive of Tesla in 5 years’ time?

Elon Musk:
No doubt about that at all.

Olivia Sterns:
Well—

Elon Musk:
No, I might die.

Olivia Sterns:
Okay, sure.

Elon Musk:
To that—I mean, I could still dead, so there’s a slight amount of room.

Olivia Sterns:
Does—does that mean that the value of your pay doesn’t have any bearing on your decision?

Elon Musk:
Um, well, that’s not really a subject of discussion in this forum.
Um, the—I think obviously there should be compensation for—
if something incredible is done, the compensation should match, um, th—that something incredible was done.
Um, but I’m confident that, uh, whatever the, um—
whatever some activist posing as a judge in Delaware happens to do will not affect the future compensation.

Olivia Sterns:
This is the judge who twice struck down the $56 billion pay package that was awarded to you—

Elon Musk:
I think the value—

ADVERTISEMENT

Olivia Sterns:
On the basis—on the current value of stock options, yeah.

Elon Musk:
Not a judge. Not a judge.
The activist who is cosplaying a judge in a Halloween costume.

Olivia Sterns:
Okay.
That—that’s your characterization.
Um, but I think the value—on the current value of stock options—I think the actual—

Elon Musk:
Justice according to the law.

Olivia Sterns:
On the current value of stock options, I think the value of that pay package stands at about $100 billion.
Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of your future pay package?
Your decision to be committed to Tesla for the next 5 years—as long as you are still with us on this planet—is completely independent of pay?

Elon Musk:
No.

Olivia Sterns:
It’s not independent?

Elon Musk:
So pay is a relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla.
Sufficient voting control such that, um, I cannot be ousted by activist investors is what matters to me.
And I’ve said this publicly many times.
Um, but let’s not have this whole thing be a discussion of my alleged pay.
It’s not a money thing.
It’s a reasonable control thing over the future of the company—
especially if we’re building 1 million—potentially billions—of humanoid robots.

Um, I can’t be sitting there, uh, and wondering—
to get tossed out for political reasons by activists—
uh, that would be unacceptable.
That’s all that matters.

Olivia Sterns:
Mm-hmm. Now let’s move on.

Elon Musk:
Okay.

Olivia Sterns:
Well just one question—

Elon Musk:
Now let’s move on.

Olivia Sterns:
Well—one question before we move on to other companies,
which is that I wonder if some of what has happened to Tesla in the last few months—
did you take it personally?

Elon Musk:
Yes.

Olivia Sterns:
And did it make you regret any of—or think twice about—your political endeavors? Because it is—

Elon Musk:
Well, I did—did what needed to be done.
Uh, the—the violent antibody reaction—
um, and I’m—I’m not someone who’s ever committed violence,
um, and yet, uh, massive violence was committed against my companies.
Massive violence was threatened against me.

Who are these people?
Why would they do that?
How wrong can they be?
They’re on the wrong s—they’re on the wrong side of history, and that’s an evil thing to do.
To go and damage some poor innocent person’s car—
to threaten to kill me—what’s wrong with these people?
I’ve not harmed anyone.

Elon Musk:
So something needs to be done about them,
and a number of them are going to prison—
and they deserve it.
Many more will.

Olivia Sterns:
You’re referring to the attacks on Tesla showrooms, but I think—

Elon Musk:
Yeah.
Firing bullets into showrooms and burning down cars is unacceptable.
Yeah.
Those people will go to prison, and the people that funded them and organized them will also go to prison.
Don’t worry.

Olivia Sterns:
But wouldn’t you—

Elon Musk:
We’re coming for you.

Olivia Sterns:
Wouldn’t—wouldn’t you—
but wouldn’t—wouldn’t you acknowledge that some of the people who turned against Tesla in Europe
were—were upset at your politics
and very few of them would have been violent in any way?
They just objected to—
to what they saw you say or do politically.

Elon Musk:
Well, it’s certainly fine to object to political things,
but it’s not—
it’s not fine to resort, uh, to violence
and hanging someone in effigy and death threats.
Um, that’s obviously not okay.
Um, uh—you know, uh—that’s absurd.
Um, that is, uh, in no way justifiable at all in any way, shape, or form.
And—and, uh, some of the legacy media nonetheless have sort of justified [it],
which is unconscionable.
Shame on them.

Olivia Sterns:
Let’s talk about your other companies and in other business areas.
SpaceX.

I saw that you said in a speech at the West Point Military Academy recently
that the future of warfare is AI and drones.
And obviously defense is an increasingly booming sector with the state of the world at the moment.
Do you see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones?

Elon Musk:
You certainly ask interesting questions that are impossible to answer.
Um, so—
no. SpaceX is, uh—it’s—it’s the space launch leader.
So SpaceX doesn’t do drones.
Uh, SpaceX builds rockets, satellites, and internet terminals.
Um, but SpaceX has a—has a very dominant position in space launch.

So of the mass launch to orbit this year,
SpaceX will probably do 90%.
Um, China will do the remain—half—half of the remaining amount, so 5%,
and the rest of the world, including the rest of the U.S., will do about 5%.
So SpaceX will do about 10 times as much as the rest of the world combined—
or 20 times as much as China.
And China is doing actually a very impressive job.

Um, the reason for this is that we are putting into orbit
the largest satellite constellation the world’s ever seen—by far.
Um, so I think at this point about—maybe approaching 80% of all active satellites in orbit are SpaceX.
Um, and they’re providing global, high—high-bandwidth level of connectivity throughout the world.
In fact, this connection is on a SpaceX connection.

So I think this is a very good thing,
because it means that we can provide low-cost, high-bandwidth internet
to parts of the world that don’t have it or where it’s very expensive.
And I think the single biggest thing you can do to lift people out of poverty and help them
is giving them an internet connection.

Because once you have the internet connection,
you can learn anything for free on the internet,
and you can also sell your goods and services to the global market.
And—but once you have knowledge by the internet and the ability to engage in commerce,
this is going to greatly improve quality of life for people throughout the world.
And it has.

And I’d just like to thank anyone in the audience who may have been helpful in, you know,
with Starlink and getting it approved in their country.
And I think it’s doing a lot of good in the countries that have approved it,
which is—I think at this point—130 countries are very happy with it.

I—I—I don’t currently anticipate SpaceX getting—getting into the weapons business.
That’s certainly—it’s not an aspiration.
We’re—we’re frequently asked to do—to do weapons programs,
but we have just not a client.

Olivia Sterns:
Do you envisage SpaceX, or indeed Starlink as a separate entity,
publicly listing in the near future or at all?

Elon Musk:
Um, it’s possible that Starlink may go public at some point in the future.

Olivia Sterns:
And what would be the—
I’m—
what would be the timeframe?

Elon Musk:
I’m in no rush.
I’m—I’m in no rush to go public.
Um, the—you know, public is, I guess, a way to, um, you know, potentially make more money,
but at the expense of a lot of public company overhead
and inevitably a whole bunch of lawsuits, which are very annoying.

Um, so really something needs to be done about the shareholder derivative lawsuits in the U.S.,
because it allows plaintiffs’ law firms who don’t represent the shareholders
to pretend that they represent the shareholders
by getting a puppet plaintiff with a few shares to initiate a massive lawsuit against the company.

And the irony being—the extreme irony—
that even if the class they purport to represent were to vote that they don’t want the lawsuit,
the lawsuit would still continue.
So how can it be a class action representing a class if the class fought against it?

And that’s the bizarre situation we’ve got in the U.S.
It needs—it’s in dire need of reform.
And—as anyone who’s run a public company experienced this—
it’s an absurd situation that needs change.

Olivia Sterns:
Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it?
You’ve certainly got his ear.
I imagine that you’ve put this to him.
Is this something you’re trying to change before any Starlink IPO?

Elon Musk:
We need—we need a law to be passed.
Um, the trouble being that you need 60 Senate votes,
and the Democrats will vote against it.
Um, the—the plaintiffs’ bar is, I believe, the second-largest contributor to the Democratic Party.
That’s the issue.

At the state level, this can be solved.
And—and I should say Texas recently passed a law which,
at least at the state level, made lawsuits much more reasonable,
because you have to get at least one in 33 shareholders to agree
that they are part of a class of shareholders—3%.
Okay.

This will really help with frivolous lawsuits.

Full screen video player with captions added if you prefer this:

Let’s just say Olivia Sterns is getting absolutely destroyed in the comments:

With some even calling her a “HUGE BITCH”:

I would never say that, but it seems to be a fairly strong consensus on X.

Imagine thinking yourself better, smarter or superior to Elon Musk in any way, as you sit in your little chair asking questions to a man who accomplishes more in a month than you have your entire life and career!

In fact, she is SO inconsequential that I didn’t even know her name.  I had to look it up.

But everyone knows the name of Elon Musk.

And now if you want to see the worst of all time, the crown still goes to Don the Lemon, but the gap is very small.

Don wins only because Elon offered him a show on X, and he squandered it away by doing an attack interview that was very poorly researched, thereby leading Elon to withdraw his offer and now Don Lemon has resorted to doing weird subway ambush videos:

Two Years After Being Fired By CNN, Don Lemon Now Harassing People On The Subway In Bizarre Video

So sad.

And creepy.

Anyway, here is the WOAT -- the Worst Of All Time (if you can stomach it):

Here Is That Infamous Don Lemon – Elon Musk Interview (Warning: Hard To Watch)

Here Is That Infamous Don Lemon - Elon Musk Interview (Warning: Hard To Watch)

Ok, here it is folks!

You've probably heard a lot about it...

Seen clips....

But now the full interview has been released.

It's "The Don Lemon Show, Episode 1" which is so funny to me because Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson were fired last year during the same week.  Same exact time.

What has happened since then?

One guy got to work.

Tucker interviewed Russia's President Putin and 80 other people!  (he's currently on Episode 81).

Don?

Don seemingly farted around and is just now getting around to his first show....and even that one he has majorly screwed up so much so that Elon Musk nearly walked out of the interview multiple times and then reportedly cancelled an exclusive deal he was going to offer to Lemon.

After you see the interview, you'll know why.

It's HARD to watch.

Really bad.

It's not an interview like I've ever seen before.

Usually when you interview someone, you want to know what they think.

Don didn't want to know what Elon thought, Don just wanted to interrogate Elon.

It was more cross-examination than interview....and a bad one at that.

In Elon Musk, you have a certifiable genius.

A man who runs multiple successful companies and literally is a "rocket scientist" among other titles.

Lemon struggled to keep up, but even on simple topics.

One of the worst parts was Elon explaining to Don Lemon at least 5 times how imposing DEI standards is and will lead to "lowering of standards".

Lemon was perplexed.

Elon appeared baffled by the end of it not just that Lemon disagreed but that he seemingly didn't have a solid grasp of the basic parts of the premise of the question and answer.

More on that down below.

Another incredible part was Elon Musk explaining how an influx of illegal immigration gives more power to big blue states in the Electoral College.

Lemon claimed the opposite was true (and he is wrong) and he made a fool of himself on camera.

Memo to Don Lemon: it's VERY unlikely you are right about something and Elon is wrong, at least when it comes to objective facts.  I'll go ahead and assume the rocket scientist is right 999/1,000 times.

The interview is still worth watching, not because of Don Lemon but in spite of him -- because Elon is still fascinating to listen to.  Even annoyed Elon.  Honestly, he kept his composure remarkably well.

Here it is on YouTube:

And on X, with time stamps:

https://twitter.com/donlemon/status/1769692006551593144

And now to address Don's opinion that DEI will not lead to lowering of standards....

Does this count?

The Bar Exam Will No Longer Be Required To Become An Attorney In Washington State

If you want to become an attorney but don't want to take that pesky "Bar Exam", you might want to move to Washington State.

I can't even believe this is real, and yet it is.

Yeah, you know the BAR EXAM that attorneys spend months studying for, almost around the clock because it's so challenging?

The thing that makes sure we don't just have tons of uneducated DEI babies becoming attorneys?

Well, that's going away.

Why?

DEI, of course.

Yeah, who needs stupid little things like licensing tests if not everyone can pass them?

That's not FAIR, is it?

That's not EQUITABLE, is it?

Well, actually just as Democrats did with voting, I view this as HIGHLY racist.

What is the message we are sending here?

"Diverse" minorities are not smart enough to pass the Bar?

So in order to "level the playing field" we'll just get rid of that requirement?

That is WILDLY racist!

How utterly offensive!

It's just as offensive as when Democrats claim minorities are so dumb and poor and have zero access to any transportation, so you can't possibly make them get an ID to vote!

What nonsense.

And also wildly racist once again.

The whole thing reminds me of the (horrible) interview Don Lemon did of Elon Musk.

Horrible because of Don Lemon.

Elon is endlessly fascinating to listen to, but this was tough having to wade through Lemon's cross-examination (not an interview of any normal kind).

But there was one particular point where Elon says DEI will lead to LOWERING of standards, and that will become dangerous.

Don Lemon, who I think is just not very smart, could not comprehend that point:

Elon explained it at least 5 times and Don still couldn't grasp it.

Not only that, but he claimed there was no evidence of it happening.

Hey Don, here's Exhibit A.

Does REMOVING the Bar Exam requirement count as evidence DEI is forcing people to lower their standards?

It's bad enough when it's the legal field, but that is often not quite life and death.

But mark my words, the same thing either IS CURRENTLY happening in the medical field or it WILL SOON happen.

And that will lead to deaths.

Here's more on the removal of the Bar Exam, from the Washington Examiner:

The Washington Supreme Court approved multiple new avenues to become a licensed attorney in the state Friday, none of which require taking the bar exam.

The court approved new ways for law students to become licensed attorneys in the Evergreen State. One method is an apprenticeship program for law school graduates who work under an attorney for six months, then submit a portfolio for review. The other option is to complete 12 credits of skills coursework, 500 hours of hands-on legal work prior to graduation, and submit a portfolio for the Washington State Bar to review.

“These recommendations come from a diverse body of lawyers in private and public practice, academics, and researchers who contributed immense insight, counterpoints and research to get us where we are today,” Washington Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis said in a statement. “With these alternative pathways, we recognize that there are multiple ways to ensure a competent, licensed body of new attorneys who are so desperately needed around the state.”

Law clerks can also become lawyers without going to law school by completing standardized education courses under the guidance of an attorney and 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern.

In 2020, the Washington Supreme Court created the Bar Licensure Task Force to examine alternative paths to becoming a licensed attorney in the state. The task force looked at the “efficacy of the Washington state bar exam” and assessed “disproportionate impacts on examinees of color and first generation examinees.”

While Washington’s alternative licensing program has a DEI element, states with similar programs have implemented their programs for other reasons.

California is considering DEI as a barometer for expanding its licensing program that would help students “avoid the heavy expense of preparing for the traditional bar exam — a burden that falls disproportionately on historically disadvantaged groups, including first-generation graduates, women, and candidates of color,” according to Reuters.

The new avenues to becoming licensed address the “serious legal deserts problem” in Washington and “help remedy the fairness and bias concerns with the traditional licensure,” according to Seattle University School of Law Dean Anthony Varona, co-chair of the task force.

Washington joins Oregon, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire as the fourth state that no longer requires the bar exam to become a licensed attorney. Supreme courts in California, Minnesota, and Utah are considering similar moves.

The court’s order did not say when the new methods will be implemented, but directed the Washington State Bar Association to create a committee to work on implementation.

How utterly offensive to claim minorities are not smart enough to possibly pass the Bar Exam.

Stop this madness!

America stands for Equality of OPPORTUNITY, not Equality of OUTCOME.

Learn the difference.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

View the original article here.


Source link

Search