Trump on Inflation and Forever Wars

The interesting thing, more interesting probablyro than what it says about Epstein is JD Vance who is really thrown in front of the bus here. He's described as panicking Every adjective connected to him makes him seem like he is a not on the president's side And and B that he has no idea what he's doing. The message that should go back to Donald Trump. and remember, this is all an audience of one thing ultimately, is that JD Vance was not on Donald Trump's side here. The White House is throwing JD Vance over the side. That's what's going on here Michael. Joanna How are you I'm good. how about you You are solo in the studio without me. I am in London. I'm staying at a British novelist's house as if you can't tell Behind me, there are just books everywhere Someone we both know, Jane Thinn, very popular British historical novelist and It's fun to be in London for a little bit Yeah, no, it's weird that you're when you go away, you go to a mutual friend's house. We're too close We're too close. I see what you mean. We're too close. Well, that's not what people think. That's not what people think that listen to us. I was doing a deep dive into the comments this week not least because there were lots of Ls of remarks about our conversation at the weekend I thought actually it would be it would be quite helpful to let people know. this is not a scripted proodcast. I think sometimes people think our arguments or our disagreements or our conversations are somehow planned in advance. And we always set this up as something, we were both incredibly interested to try and go inside Trump's head. You've spent far more time than I have there. I have lots of questions about it But our conversations are not unlike some podcasts scripted They our goal was that we would talk as we would do anyway as friends and we would just sort of God help us expose it to the world and bring in some stories in the Daily Beast too. So I just thought that would be worth saying it's not scripted. The conversation where it goes goes where it goes and sometimes we's surpris. Well do people think we're rambling this way and that way and missing the point and stumbling over each other, as well as talking over each other Well, they definitely think we're always talking over each other, which we do anyway when we meet each other. But what I wanted people to know was that although this is a podcast, these are actually in a way quite intimate conversations between the two of us, which we would have if we were sitting over a cappuccino in any cafe in New York. Unless we were no longer speaking, which has happened at various points in our relationship. It's only happened twice. We've had two feuds where feud led by you That all is led by you I mean, we have been Good friends, close friends for twenty five years. I don't know how that happened. I think twenty six years We're both in New York media and because we've always lived relatively near to each other, although less so now that you're in Amagansa Well now we do a podcast so we don't have to I don't know where the twenty six years went. So that's the u That's the thing that seems Yeah, seemsing. And then just for people who haven't listened to the podcast before, because I'm conscious with the algorithm, it sometimes gets served up to people and they're like, what are we doing here? Where are we? Oh, we're inside Trump's head What we're trying to do is understand because this is very much a government of one. who this man is, motivates him, what triggers him and why he behaves as he does and always through the filter of Michael's observation that Trump's desire here is at all times to be the most famous, the most talked about man in the world. Yeah. I mean, I think we can even go further than that. I mean, we have as close to a psychopath president as we have pose ever had and even the people around him don't necessarily know what he's thinking, don't necessarily know what he wants This is really the first time, certainly in modern presidential history when the guy in the White House is For all intent and purpose, a loose canon and a loose canon on a daily basis You don't know what's going to happen. The people around him like, okay. You know, and they and they talk this way, you know, is it a good weather day, a bad weather day They don't know and their job and they and they see their job as handling this utterly mercurial presence So they don't really see it as policy and they don't really see it as a legislative act and they don't see it really as running a government. They see it as dealing with this incredibly unpredictable and difficult person. who has become the center of their lives, and in many ways, he's become the center of everybody's lifeves Well, and I think he often doesn't know what he's going to say or what he's going to do, right? I mean, sometimes it's just abs absolutely. No, it literally is moment to moment U Which is why. I mean, if he knew what at least then you could begin to project out and plan out he could tell you That's precisely what he cannot do donon't know. I am a totally reactive person is ly what he is Right, And we are all white knuckling it through this presidency. as are, as you say, the people around him. So there's a lot to get to today. We're going to revisit the Epstein files. M There's a lot of new information coming out about them, which of course, Michael, having spent a lot of time with Jeffrey Epstein, has all sorts of observations on We've also got to talk about who's been leaking to Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan in their new book which is kind of fun and why are they leaking? and how are they positioning themselves? We're talking about Trump saying he loves inflation. We're talking about the war. Are we at war? Are we not at war? and we're talking about Bill Gates and then we're going to do a drive by Grahem Platner The oyster fisherman A little rough around the edges And now the nominee of his party in Maine and possibly the linnchpin to whether or not the Democrats take control of the Senate And it would seem like that his his his personal life maybe the linnchpin Yes, and his girlfriends coming out, three of his ex girlfriends coming out last week and saying that having a relationship with him was unsettling and emotionally wrenching. as I pointed out. That sums up all my relationships pretty much. That Well I would say that sums up everyone's relationships. every relationship that breaks up M mean, why do you break up? Why otherwise anybody could stay everyverybody would be together Right. And also why have a relationship if it's not at some point going to be emotionally wrenching? because isn't that the point that these things are wrenching and then amazingly we live to fight another day That's what relationships are. Yeah. I mean, let's let's come back to that because I think that this is I mean, this is a question for life itself, but it also is now a centerpiece political questions. are you you a politician or you a would be politician? Who are you in your world that has nothing to do with politics? You made a very good point, I thought, a week ago when we were discussing the first revelations that had come out about grain plner on top of a series of previous revelations, his Reddit posts which were unsavourory, his tattoo whichich a lot of people actually wrote in and said they knew all sorts of people who had tattoos and they had no idea what they were I mean, how many times have you talked to someone who's got a tattoo of some what they claim is a Celtic symbol or an Asian symbol? And actually they have no idea. but a lot of people wrote in defending him saying he was drug, He was in the Marines, which was actually my point and as the mother of two sons, I feel like, you're only ever one drunken tattoo away from a crisis No, I would would have I would otherwise disqualify anyone who has any kind of tattoo Well that will be dismissing everybody at this point at this at this cultural moment, yes, if not will, not you and not me. So But the point you made was a good one that I struggled with a lot during the M too era when I was editing Cosmopolitan which was this idea that we have to believe all women And of course I understand the structural reasons why women's stories were not listened to and that it was just accepted that sexual abuse, sexual harassment was either part of the workplace or part of the patriarchy. But you made a very good comment, which was we shouldn't believe everybody we and especially on this podcast and I hope we are on this podcast, we should be skeceptical of everybody, men and women. And I thought that was a very good point for us going forward No, And I think that that's was I mean, in that particular New York Times story, they had obviously dispensed with that and taken up this other position of of believing and crediting any woman who makes any kind of charge. But in terms of In terms of being skeptical, I actually want to be skeptical about the New York Times again in their story their story about about based on based on this new book by by their their two Trump reporters about what has gone on in the White House and they've They've just released a short piece an excerpt about what went on behind the scenes as Jeffrey Epstein as the Epstein files became a greater and greater political issue So you're talking about the book by Maggie Habermman and Jonathan Swan Yes, I am. And I just I just want to, I think we should underpin this conversation by by saying, I'm going to remind you that I had you and I had Maggie Habermman for dinner, both at the same time, not understanding that you are, of course, Uh rivalrouous authors. Well I am I am yeah, it hadn't occurred to me either. She She doesn't speak to me. I am it's always mystifying Unwittingly, I had sat you opposite each other. She came in slightly late. It was a book party. it was a book dinner for Ben Smith whose book on The history of digital media just come out called traffic and my memory is that The two of you did not speak to each other the whole evening. No, no, she never speaks to me. I could stand even on the during the Trump trial in New York you know, when the press the press has to line up and And almost on a daily basis, we stood next to each other a not a word was passed between us. That was There's a funny. was a there was actually a documentary, Trump documentary of which I feature prominently in in which there's a shot of that Maggie Habermman, Michael Wolf Six inches apart Nothing Never speaking. Well, I found this excerpt absolutely riveting. I couldn't put it down And it really tells the sort of crisis of the Trump administration as the Epstein files begins to well basically waterfall on them. Yeah, I think it's in large measure boney. so it would be interesting to deconstruct so can you know lay out your accusations of Ballologoney. And where do we think it's come from? Because there are one or two people in this story that really stand out That's where the balologoney comes comes from. So in this I mean this this is the centerpiece of this is a meeting in the situation room And at this meeting, which the story identifies are are JD Vance, Szie Wiles David Warrington, who's the White House counsel Caroline Levitt, obviously the press secretary Uh I'm an aid titled Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor, Budowich. These are all people very close to Trump Stephen Chung, the communications director, Todd Blanche, then the deputy atttorney general his deputy Stanley Woodward. And then another deputy chief of staff and aide James Blair who's who's the political He's the political guy. That's his job. He supervises basically, he has to stay on top of the politics of what's going on U And then Pam Bondi, the attorney general in Cash Patel are joining by Speaker phone. Now The interesting thing is when you do these things And when there is a meeting in which you can name all of the people in it, that means any leak you can you can pinpoint you you you know who's You know who the leaker is going to be just by the process of triangulation So What does that mean? You mean that the leaker has to be someone that was in the room? or how can you tell specifically who the leaker is? Well they can figure this they can figure this out. I mean, you can you can I mean, everybody knows each other here. Everybody knows everybody's agenda. You can begin to eliminate who it would obviously not be, then you're left with who it might be be and then you just triangulate that. They do this all of the time. This is they are professionals at this There is actually nothing that they are so good at as figuring out who the leakers are. Let's step back here and understand this. and let me do an anecdote from the campaign Um, that Susie Wiles is is a press obsessive She's scared of the press, She's in control of the press She's um Um, she's she's always involved in second guessing this, how is the press going to look at something So during the campaign, there was there was a moment when USA today had decided to do a profile on her and had gotten her cooperation on that. And In the middle of the campaign, presidential campaign, she and her staff spent a month an entire month. strategizing about this about this piece in USA today. Now just let me say USA today almost always writes fluff pieces. So for a month They they spent strategizing about a piece that would really be expected to do Do her no harm H And so this is this is going as in other words, we are hearing we are hearing in this story what the White House wants Maggie Haberman to say, And among the things, the person who's really dissed in this story and the interesting thing, more interesting probablyro than what it says about Epstein is JD Vance. who is really dump thrown over over the um Um thrown in front of the bus here. I mean, he looks like he looks like a like a U I think he's described as panicking Every adjective connected to him makes him seem like he is He is a, not the president, not on the president's side And and be that he has no idea what he's doing That's interesting because I read it that JD. Vance understood the enormity of the Epstein files, that he was panicked by what was in the Epstein files. and that he was trying to get the Epstein files out there to pretend that the government was transparent And actually I assumed he'd obviously talk to them I think I think well, no, I mean, what how this would have worked is that they would have gotten this gotten this story and then the reporters go to JD Vance and say, listen, we've heard this and that. and then he tries to cover this up and and give whatever positive spin for himself, he can And and so that would be, I'm sure he said, no, I I saw this as a as a big vulnerability and we had to address this, blah, blah, blah, blah the more important thing is that the message that should go back to Donald Trump. And remember, this is all audience of one thing ultimately is that is that JD. Vance was not on Donald Trump's side here. And remember, Donald Trump's side is very clearly, There is nothing here Epstein has no relationship to him. Why is anyone talking about Epstein I don't want to hear it. If you're talking about it, you're my enemy, not my friend Right. Well, that comes across because I was thinking at the end of this, how do Donald Trump and JD Vance circle each other. But I also thought that what JD Vance was trying to do was do what Carmala Harris had not managed to do, which is to separate himself from Donald Trump over the Epstein files because at this stage too, it wasn't entirely clear whether or not something would come out that would absolutely nail Donald Trump in a criminal sense. Well, JD Vance cannot separate himself from ond Trump But he's trying, right? He's tried over the Eetstein files, he's tried over the war. Remember the leak that JD Vance was the only person that wasn't in favor of bombing Iran? Again, someone else leaking. So the White House is throwing JD Vance over the side That's what's going on here. Okay every ye theity of it is so interesting. And also we know that Suzie Wiles used to work for Marco Rubio and that would be her candidate of the two of them. Sould either of them make it, which I can't believe they will at this stage, feeles like they'll be too slimed by the end of the second admonistration There's two agendas here that we should pay attention to. Donald Trump's agenda and Susie Weild' agenda, and they are relatively aligned, but not always aligned Okay, so the thing that I thought was most interesting about this excerpt was the discussion around Gillenne Maxwell. Should they go to Gillenne Maxwell and get her to exonerate the president, which is what they eventually do U but what is she going to get for that Because she's not going to do it without something There's a suggestion that she gets pardoned, which our friend Stephen Chung says would be a disaster and would have the victims Fanning out, I think is the expression, fanning out across the media to show their outrage there The justified outrage over that Remind me in this story. who suggests that that he should get that she should get pardon I can't remember specifically, is it U Well, well, they're sort of war gaming it out and someone suggests that I think what they're doing is talking through the options. It's actually, you know, this is this is funny, right? because it's Dave Warrington, the White House councsel And they describe him as just laying out the options So I know how this one. they they they um eporters called up Dave Warrington and we said and said the following Um You said the following. and he said, I was just laying out the options So So that would be one of those cover things because it doesn't. peopleople just don't lay out the options That's like, you know, it just didn't happen Um, There's people, they're making arguments, they're throwing out, they're looking for, do I get approval on that? someomebody like that idea? This is not laying out the options. Well, nobody liked the idea of the option of pardoning her because let's remind people she' got twenty years extrafficking Yes, ah, but that's the key point here That's the point which they're trying to make. Nobody liked the idea of pardoning. So therefore, you can also assume the opposite of that. In other words, look at this as a structural response The New York Times is coming. They have a thing. We have what messages do we want to send and a key message. because it's a big vulnerability for them is the is that they may have offered Galaine Maxwell, something U And now they're saying no, no, we didn't. not to mention the fact that as soon as she gave them what they want, she's moved to a better prison and and life is looking up for her. So And I am sure that there is that there is no record of anything being offered to her. and they probably did debate the merits and the upside and the downside of what she might be offered and probably came to the conclusion that this could look very bad. Nevertheless, they wanted her to do a very specific thing, which she did. So how do you get her to do that? Well, I don't know. what do you call it? a soft offer, the implication of an offer Um, the suggestion that if you go along, will go along One of those things, I can guarantee you is exactly what it is. Okay. It is not a way in this In the way it's framed in the book, there's a pardon discussed, there's a reduction of sentence and then they move jails, obviously, which They do because according to Todd Blanche, she's received death threats. so they can't keep her in the security jail in Florida where she is. So they move her strangely to a prison camp in Texas, where as we've said before, she has a relative. She has a sister living in Texas. But if she was getting death threats, you would think she might want to have tighter security knock access security But anyway, just to go back to this and it's the problem of of the New York Times arriving on the scene Everybody is mobilized to supply the New York Times with his or her gender. And in this tightly controlled White House, it's pretty much going to be You know, a Trump Suzie Wiles agenda So do you think that I mean, in terms of what's inside Trump's head this over this book H What this excerpt implies is that the White House was basically almost entirely focused on the Epstein files, that while Trump was frantically trying to bat it away, this was the one scandal that had stuck to him that nothing nothing he was doing was changing the narrative, everything was coming back to the Epstein files. and it was a much bigger crisis then Hith the two four Uh peopleeople were people understood Well it's cur it's a curious, it would be then a curious crisis because Trump doesn't see it as a crisis So actually The crisis is that the president doesn't see this as a crisis. so what do we do? U And the answer is mostly because it's Donald Trump we're going to be in relative disarray, which they have been about this. because there's not it's not as if This meeting occurs and then a delegation goes to Donald Trump and says and they say, you know, this is a this is a major crisis because then they would have to start to start to face the implications of what this crisis is. And so what this crisis is, of course, the underlying this, is that Donald Trump has this close relationship to Jeffrey Epstein for almost fifteen years. and That's what nobody can examinineed. question admit to deal with finally U And Donald Trump's way of dealing with that is just it doesn't exist And that's a way that Trump has dealt with so many things This this would just be added to the to the nothing exists here list. And at the same time, And many people on the MAGA base, that's the complication here. It's not just Democrats saying Epstein Epstein, Epstein. It's the MGa base saying Epstein, Epstein Epstein. And that was one of the points that JD. Vance was making that he thought this story was so serious it was going to split the MGa base. Charlie Kirk was very concerned about it splitting the base And also the incompetence with which Pam Bondi dealt with it, her promise that the Epstein files were on her desk And then there's a fascinating scene where she do you remember where she calls the influencers in? and she gives them all a book and it says The Epstein files on the front. I mean, a ludicrous piece of staging and she gives them all big plastic white files and then they realize that That this has not been done in conjunction with the White House. and Kir Starmer, the British Prime mininister is actually arriving and going to be doing a pressure from the Oval Office that day. So they say to the influencers, you cannot post about this. There's an embargo, there's an embargo, because Donald Trump doesn't even know these things have gone out yet. But of course the influencers immediately take pictures of themselves clutching these plastic binders of the so called Epstein files, which they immediately post And so Paul Kia Starmer is upstaged by the release of the Epstein Fars, which turn out to not be the Epstein Fars and there's nothing new in them So the whole thing is a farce. Let me just interject. I guess the modifier pur is now always attached to Kirstarer. No, unfortunately, that's true. And actually, as I'm sitting here, the defeence minister in Britain has just resigned saying that Kiirststara won't fund him and it's all the shit sh. So yet another thing for Por Kia Staha. But the mishandling of the Epstein files, then the sudden dumping after the Republicans had joined with the Democrats to demand it. And then, of course, Trump say, I don't care, release them all, release them all and the three million H the three million pieces of Epstein files, many of them just sort of raw FBI files put out there U l to her led to Pam Bondi's demise. Yeah. And what you see here is what happens with When the administration itself has no direction from the president, when it has no direction from the president It really doesn't know what to do because they have no independent life And this is this is this story is really just a story about people um fing around and not knowing what to do. And it's because it's because you are at odds. They can never be at odds with the president of the United States. They can never they can never fashion a view and an initiative and a policy which which they might have to convince the president of. because be convinced about anything So so what do you do in that situation? actually, and broadly speaking, how do you govern in that situation? And this is this is a pretty good good sort of undergass example of why nobody can really function in this White House Well, and as a side note, you get real insight into Dan Bon Gino, who is furious that he's given up the millions of dollars that he says he was earning in his podcast to do this stupid job that he's He's been one of the big creators of the Epstein File conspiracy. He's now undermined by the decision to release them as they did. And he's just furious that he's losing money over it. I mean, my only point is that he has no sense of service that normally people going into those jobs to be that you the deputy FBI director would at least have a sense of interest in the job, care about the job, care about America. And what Dan Boncino, according to this book cares about is the fact he's lost all this money, which is why he leaves I would look at that somewhat differently. He's a disaffected employee. So that's that's that's his defensiveness and hurt coming out. That's what we're seeing here. which makes him a kind of a you know, again, a kind of dubious source. Very much a dubious source. Well, I found it a very interesting read. As I found the interview with Kathy Rumler, who's really the most senior woman that's gotten caught up in the Jeffrey Epstein affair. She was Obama's White House lawyer. She went on to be the chief legal counsel for Goldman Sachs. She's now leaving, I think at the end of this month happily with eighty million dollars in stock And I think a twenty four million dollars salary. but she we should all leave Goldman Sachs. I would leave anywhere with eighty million dollars in stock. That sounds delightful But what's interesting about the interview, which is the first that she's done and we're giving a lot of props to the New York Times today. The PR department should put us on their payroll is that I'm not giving problems No I you're not you're absolutely not. But this was an interesting interview because she really explains how she gets caught up in his web. But just to be clear, the New York Times published but it was not by a New York Times person. It was actually an outside opinion contributor did this interview and then the New York Times published it. Well, I think she approached them too, because obviously she wants her side of the story out too, but that she had been approached initially by Geoffrey Epstein because he said that he was representing Bill Gates, who might need some legal representation. So of course she took the meeting then he you know as you have always said, used other people as bait to create a network around him. and she was very central to that network. But she's one of the people that's gotten caught up in it. She's supposed to be one of the brightest lawyers of her generation. now And I mean I know know I know Kathy pretty well and haveent spent a lot of time with her. And I mean, I certainly think she's getting a bum rap on this And u You know, I mean the central question and which which which she is trying to explain here is that she had no idea that Jeffrey Epstein was Jeffrey Epstein was doing when he was not A when he did not appear to be a legitimate businessman operating between many significant people and u Um, and and doing what so many middle men do in New York And I mean, certainly in my relationship, well, my relationship with both Jeffrey Epstein, but and Kathy Rumler, particularly, there's never been never, I mean, in all of the time Kathy Rumler and I have spent in a lot of it talking about Jeffrey Epstein Never once Was there a a hint of her awareness. I had certainly no awareness, nor did I get a hint that she had any awareness that that um Jeffrey Epstein was was living or perhaps had lived because the crimes he's been accused of occurred before before Kathine Rumler came on the scene. So she had certainly no idea this had taken place. Are you one of those media strategy people clicking through slides, scrolling spreadsheets? Yes, goodood. This is for you. Because on Spotify, there's an audience that's different. locked in Loyal, invested. They're called fans Fans don't just listen to music, they feel seen by it, like it belongs to them So when your brand shows up on Spotify, that's who you're talking to. And you're right next to artists like me, Lizzo. So, are you ready to talk to fans? Spotify advertising. You're among fans Just like New York has Fleet Week, it feels like it's Epstein week this week because we've had Kathy Rumler's interview in the Times, and now we've got Bill Gates's testimony to the oversight committee, which apparently took place behind closed doors. And Kathy Rumler will come up and she's testifying very soon. R And of course, the Clintons testified earlier this year And Bill Gates, you know, like Kathy Rumlo says, enormous regret I was involved with him, but also has a sort of similar story of how Epstein snnared him into his network by promising committeees that would help raise money for global health. The The only thing that I would like to qualify this, I mean, I'm sure that this is all actually true. that All of that these people Bill Gates, Kathy Rumler had a you know, a An incredibly positive feeling for Jeffrey Epstein Um, they were What would Um, They were pleased to be in his company. They were his friends, I suppose. I mean, very clearly. I mean, I think I think the Bill Gates of it all I think that Bill Gates, I mean, the way I would read this that is that Bill Gates really liked Jeffrey Epstein and they really had a lot in common and he was really kind of enthralled to be able to go to Jeffrey Epstein's house. And then Jeffrey Epstein tried to push him into a business relationship Jeffrey Epstein, this is what ultimately what Jeffrey Epstein did for a living. How do I have these How do I create relationships with incredibly rich men And I think it foundered there. Either because there are other people advising Gates because of his wife, I think his wife Wife at them at that time was very much opposed to this and and I think probably made it a condition. Well, and he then says that after he refused to have a business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein then tried to leverage Bill Gates's relationships with in particular two Russian women to manipulate him Um And that's and That's what he says. although I didn't read in reading this and I mean, I haven't read the entire the entire transcript of this, but I mean Bill Gates doesn't particularly offer any evidence of that. So I don't know if that's a kind of kind of suddenly in, you know, Bill Gates inferred this or Jeffrey Epstein wanted him to it infer this. It's one of one of Um One of those those those kinds of of things which I mean, I don't want I'm not excusing Jeffrey Epstein here. and But you can see that kind of conversation going on among many, many people in trying to do business with each other Well and that's what Kathy Rumler says. And of course, now you point out that she's also going to be giving evidence. It's very clear that this interview is a sort of opener for her Everybody on the oversight committee will read the interview and so she's sort of getting her story out there first. Do you think that she will be able to work as a lawyer again. I mean, happily she doesn't need to because she's got Goldman Sachstop, but do you think that this is the end of her career now that she has to do something completely different No, not not at all. I mean she's not being accused of any crimes. She does not she's not facing She's not facing anything except except the the prorium of having been connected to Jeffrey Epstein So I mean, Kathy is incredibly talented and Um, you know, and well connected and will I'm sure turn into something. She's not going to be without opportunities as she should not be. The other person that was also was Leslie Groff, Epstein's assistant for eighteen years who also says she never saw anything and that he compartmentalized his lives. Michael, the other thing, as we say it's been Epstein Wek, we can come back to Epstein, but I did want to talk about Trump's remarkable quote this week saying he loves inflation. Can we play the clip? No, I really love. I love the inflation. You know why? Because as soon as this war is over You know, I can say it now. Something you didn't. you know, we've been taken out Millions of barrels of oil Nobody knows it. You know who doesn't know about it Iran until right now. Now, it turns out everyone knows about that. this is that the New York Times wrote this story several weeks ago It's just that it is as though this war is now occurring in some other time and place mean It is as though not remotely relevant to him Now how he can then say, I love inflation, how that comes out of his mouth What is in his head to make that come out of his mouth I can tell you what is in his in his head is it's again I cannot be challenged on any basis for any policy on any detail The fact that inflation is is prime political issue, that it is actually the issue one of the issues that got him elected in twenty twenty four and that that might somehow be challenge a challenge to him now and a threat to him. He can't he can't abide that So therefore, the threat The literal threat, the literal political threat that is coming at him, he then embraces. I love it rainary. It's just the most strange thing for him to say and also the idea that somehow this war is going to be over The war has bolden Iran, Iran is in a better position than it was before the war and he's pretending none of it's happened. And remember, we were the war was over the day before yesterday. And now we are literally back to war today. I mean, we are exchanging fire. The Iranians are shooting at us. We're shooting at them So's it's not just that this is mixed signals. This is topsy turvy It's topsy turvy and do you think the American people see it Um Yeah, of course they do I mean, this is a very potent issue. This this is again, one of the issues that got him elected. No more Forever wars. Okay, now he's got himself a forever war. I love it I love That's what we're gonna hear. I love forever Wars I love Forever Wars. All right. so We have some very good limericks today and I'm conscious that we've gotten a little behind on them, but we have a wonderful one here from someone called Boomer Dragon Cat. Donald's Becoming Unhinged, a show upon which we've all binged. But all be aware, there's more that he'll share As he burns, he hopes all will be singed. I liked that. There are two rather good ones here from someone called Naomi U Naomi Serafina control of his fools was subliminal Now the hope for our nation looks minimal. Trump's killing and feeving have left millions grieving that's the price of electing a criminal some very good scanning there and then a bit of a cheeky one here from Naomi Serapfina. as Trump's war goes to hell expeditedly and his evil infects the world blightedly, the secretary of war remains on all fours, licking Trump's sphincter delightedly So Heager' coming up for some ridicule there. On the sphincter note Let's Let's read ourselves out. Thank you, Ryan Rachel John. Neil. So the good news is we have so many bebeast tier members now. There are too many names to read out and we really appreciate your support