Loading summary
Transcript98 lines
- [00:00]
A
The interesting thing, more interesting probably than what it says about Epstein, is J.D. 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 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 J.D. vance was not on Donald Trump's side. Here the White house is throwing J.D. vance over the side. That's what's going on here.
- [00:47]
B
Michael. Joanna, how are you?
- [00:55]
A
I'm good. How about you?
- [00:57]
B
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 Thin, very popular British historical novelist. And it's fun to be in London for a little bit.
- [01:20]
A
Yeah, no, it's weird that you're at. When you go away, you go to a mutual friend's house. We're too close.
- [01:26]
B
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. Lots of remarks about our conversation at the weekend. But I thought actually it would be quite helpful to let people know this is not a scripted podcast. I think sometimes people think that 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. 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're both surprised.
- [02:35]
A
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?
- [02:48]
B
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
- [03:06]
A
in New York, unless we were no longer speaking, which has happened at various points in our relationship.
- [03:13]
B
So only happened twice. We've had two feuds where they're always led by you. They're always led by you.
- [03:23]
A
I mean, we have been good friends, close friends, for 25 years. I don't know how that happened.
- [03:32]
B
I think 26 years.
- [03:34]
A
26 years.
- [03:34]
B
Well, because 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 Amaganza.
- [03:44]
A
Well, now we do a podcast so we don't have to. I don't know where the 26 years went. So that's the. That's the thing that seems.
- [03:53]
B
Yeah, it seems amazing. 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, what 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.
- [04:34]
A
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, I suppose, 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. When the guy in the White House is, for all intent and purpose, a loose cannon and a loose cannon on a daily basis. You don't know what's gonna happen. The people around him like, okay, and they talk this way, is it a good weather day, A bad weather day? They don't know in their job, and they see their job as handling this utterly ridiculous 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 life.
- [05:54]
B
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 just comes out.
- [05:59]
A
Absolutely. No, it literally is moment to moment, which is why, I mean, if he knew what, at least then you could begin to project out and plan out, then he could tell you. But that's precisely what he cannot do. I don't know. I am a totally reactive person, which is exactly what he is.
- [06:21]
B
Right. And we are all white knuckling it through this presidency, as you say, the people around him. So there's a lot to get to today. We're going to revisit the Epstein files. 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 Graham Platner, the oyster fisherman, a little rough around the edges, and
- [07:14]
A
now the nominee of his party in Maine and possibly the linchpin to whether or not the Democrats take control of the Senate. And it would seem like that his personal life may be the linchpin.
- [07:33]
B
Yes. And his girlfriend's 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.
- [07:47]
A
Well, I would say that sums up everyone's relationships, every relationship that breaks up. Why do you break up? Why? Otherwise anybody could stay. Everybody would be together.
- [07:59]
B
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? I think that's what relationships are.
- [08:15]
A
Yeah. I mean, 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 question. What are you? You a politician or you would be politician? Who are you in your world? That has nothing to do with politics.
- [08:37]
B
Right. And you made a very good point, I thought, a week ago when we were discussing the first revelations that had come out about Graham Platner on Top of a series of previous revelations, His Reddit posts, which were unsavory. His tattoo, which 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 drunk, 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.
- [09:23]
A
No, I would have. Would have. I would otherwise disqualify anyone who has any kind of tattoo.
- [09:31]
B
Well, that would be dismissing everybody at this point,
- [09:35]
A
at this cultural moment. Yes. Well, not you and not me, so.
- [09:40]
B
But the point you made was a good one that I struggled with a lot during the MeToo 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 skeptical of everybody, men and women. And I thought that was a very good point for us going forward.
- [10:21]
A
No, and I think that that was. I mean, in that particular New York Times story, they had obviously dispensed with that and. And taken up this other position of believing and crediting any woman who makes any kind of charge. But in terms of being skeptical, I actually wanna be skeptical about the New York Times again in their story. Their story based on. Based on this new book by their two Trump reporters about what has gone on in the White House. And 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.
- [11:23]
B
So you're talking about the book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan.
- [11:28]
A
Yes, I am.
- [11:30]
B
And I just want to. I think we should underpin this conversation by saying, I'm going to remind you that I had you and I had Maggie Haberman for dinner, both at the same time, not understanding that you were, of course, rivalrous authors.
- [11:50]
A
Well, I am. Yeah. It hadn't occurred to me either. She doesn't speak to me. It's always mystifying.
- [11:59]
B
Well, 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 had just come out called Traffic. And my memory is that the two of you did not speak to each other the whole evening.
- [12:18]
A
No, no, she never speaks to me. I could stand even during the Trump trial in New York, you know, when the press has to line up and almost on a daily basis we stood next to each other. Not a word was passed between us.
- [12:37]
B
That was the student.
- [12:38]
A
There's a funny. There was actually a documentary, Trump documentary of which I feature prominently in, in which there's a shot of that Maggie Haberman, Michael Wolf, six inches apart, nothing, never speaking.
- [12:55]
B
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.
- [13:12]
A
Yeah, I think it's in large measure baloney. So it would be interesting to deconstruct.
- [13:18]
B
All right, lay out your accusations of baloney. And where do we think it's come from? Because there are one or two people in this story that really stand out.
- [13:29]
A
That's where the baloney comes from. So in this is the centerpiece of this is a meeting in the Situation Room. And at this meeting, which the story identifies are JD Vance, Susie Wiles, David Warrington, who's the White House counsel, Caroline Levitt, obviously the press secretary, an aide with the title deputy Chief of staff, Taylor Buttowich. These are all people very close to to Trump. Steven Chung, the communications director, Todd Blanche, then the deputy attorney general, his deputy, Stanley Woodward, and then another deputy chief of staff and aide, James Blair, 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. And then Pam Bondi, the attorney general, and Kash Patel are joining by speakerphone. 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 pinpoint, you know, who the leaker is going to be just by the process of triangulation.
- [15:00]
B
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?
- [15:07]
A
Well, 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. And then you just triangulate that. They do this all the time. They are professionals at, at this. There is actually nothing that they are so good at as figuring out who the leakers are. Now let's step back here and understand this and let me do an anecdote from the campaign that Susie Wiles is a press obsessive. She's scared of the press, she's in control of the press. 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 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 all a month, an entire month strategizing about this piece in USA Today. Now just let me say USA Today almost always writes fluff pieces so that for a month they spent strategizing about a piece that really could be expected to do her no harm. And so this is going on. In other words, 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 probably than what it says About Epstein is J.D. vance, who is really dumped, thrown over the, thrown in front of the bus here. I mean, he looks like a dope. I think he's described as panicking. Every adjective connected to him makes him seem like he is A, not on the president's side and B, that he has no idea what he's doing.
- [17:45]
B
That's interesting because I read it, that J.D. 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 talked to them.
- [18:09]
A
Well, no, I mean 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 give whatever positive spin for himself he can. And so that would be, I'm sure he said, no, I saw this as a big vulnerability and we had to address this, blah, blah, blah, blah. But, but the more important thing is that the message that should go back to Donald Trump. And remember this is all an audience of one thing ultimately is that J.D. 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.
- [19:14]
B
Right. Well, that comes across because I was thinking at the end of this, how do Donald Trump and J.D. vance circle each other? But I also thought that what J.D. vance was trying to do was do what Kamala 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.
- [19:46]
A
Well, J.D. vance cannot separate himself from Donald Trump.
- [19:51]
B
But he's trying, right? He's tried over the Epstein files. He's tried over the war. Remember the leak that J.D. vance was the only person that wasn't in favor of bombing Iran.
- [20:00]
A
Again, someone else leaking. So the White house is throwing J.D. vance over the side. That's what's going on here.
- [20:08]
B
Okay, so the Kremlinology of it is so interesting. And also we know that Susie Wiles used to work for Marco Rubio, and that would be her candidate of the two of them, should either of them make it, which I can't believe they will at this stage. Feels like they'll be too slimed by the end of the second administration.
- [20:28]
A
There's two agendas here that we should pay attention to. Donald Trump's agenda and. And Susie Wiles agenda. And they are relatively aligned, but not always aligned.
- [20:39]
B
Okay, so the thing that I thought was most interesting about this excerpt was the discussion around Ghislaine Maxwell. Should they go to Ghislaine Maxwell and get her to exonerate the president, which is what they eventually do. 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, their justified outrage over that.
- [21:17]
A
Remind me in this story, who suggests that she should get pardoned?
- [21:24]
B
I can't remember specifically, is it. Well, they're sort of war gaming it out. And someone suggests that. I think what they're doing is talking through the options.
- [21:36]
A
It's actually, you know, this is funny, right? Because it's Dave Warrington, the White House counsel, and they describe him as just laying out the options. So I know how this went. The reporters called up Dave Warrington and we said. And said the following. You said the following. And he said, I was just laying out the options. So that would be one of those cover things. Because it doesn't. People just don't lay out the options. That's like. It just didn't happen. There's people, they're making arguments, they're throwing out, they're looking for. Do I get approval on that? Somebody like that idea. This is not laying out the options, but.
- [22:21]
B
Well, nobody liked the idea of the option of pardoning her because let's remind people she got 20 years for sex trafficking.
- [22:29]
A
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 that they may have offered Ghislaine Maxwell something 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 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. 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. The suggestion that if you go along, we'll go along. It's one of those things. I can guarantee you that that is exactly what it is.
- [24:01]
B
Okay, well.
- [24:02]
A
And it is not people in this,
- [24:04]
B
in the way it's framed in the book. There's a pardon, disgust, 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. Not lacks the security, but anyway, just
- [24:37]
A
to go back to this. And it's the problem of the New York Times arriving on the scene. Everybody is mobilized to supply the New York Times with his or her agenda. And in this tightly controlled White House, it's pretty much going to be a Trump Susie Wiles agenda.
- [25:00]
B
So do you think that, I mean, in terms of what's inside Trump's head over this book, 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 he was doing was changing the narrative. Everything was coming back to the Epstein files. And it was a much bigger cris than hitherto for people understood.
- [25:39]
A
Well, 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? 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 it's not as if this meeting occurs and then a delegation goes to Donald Trump and they say this is a major crisis because then they would have 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 15 years. And that's what nobody can examine, question, admit to, deal with finally. 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 that this would just be added 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 MAGA base saying, Epstein, Epstein, Epstein.
- [27:19]
B
And that was one of the points that J.D. vance was making, that he thought this story was so serious it was going to split the MAGA 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's 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 this has not been done in conjunction with the White House. And Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister is actually arriving and going to be doing a presser 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 Keir Starmer is upstaged by the release of the Epstein files, which turn out to not be the Epstein files. And there's nothing new in them. So the whole thing is a farce.
- [28:35]
A
Let me just interject that I guess the modifier poor is now always attached to Keir Starmer.
- [28:42]
B
Unfortunately that's true. And actually as I'm sitting here, the Defense Minister in Britain has just resigned saying that Keir Starmer won't fund him and it's all a shit show. So yet another thing for poor Keir Starmer. 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 saying, I don't care, release them all. Release them all. And the 3 million, the 3 million pieces of Epstein files, many of them just sort of raw FBI files put out there, led to Pam Bondi's demise.
- [29:20]
A
And what you see here is what happens 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 story is really just a story about people fromfering around and not knowing what to do. And it's because you are at odds, they can never be at odds with the President of the United States. They can never fashion a view and an initiative and a policy which they might have to convince the President of, cause he can't be convinced about anything. So what do you do in that situation, actually? And broadly speaking, how do you govern in that situation? And this is a pretty good sort of under glass example of why nobody can really function in this White House.
- [30:26]
B
Well, and as a side note, you get real insight into Dan Bongino 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 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 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.
- [31:18]
A
I would look at that somewhat differently. He's a disaffected employee, so 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.
- [31:36]
B
Very much a dubious source. Well, I found it a very interesting read, as I found the interview with Kathy Rummler, 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 $80 million in stock and I think a $24 million salary. But she.
- [32:05]
A
We should all leave Goldman Sachs.
- [32:08]
B
I would leave anywhere with $80 million 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, their PR department should put us on their payroll, is that.
- [32:26]
A
I'm not giving props.
- [32:27]
B
No, you're not. You're absolutely not. But this was an interesting interview because she really explains how she got caught up in his web.
- [32:38]
A
But just to be clear, the New York Times published it, but it was not by a New York Times person. It was actually an outside opinion contributor who did this interview. And then the New York Times published it.
- [32:51]
B
Well, and 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 Jeffrey Epstein because he was. Said that he was representing Bill Gates, who might need some legal representation. So, of course, she took the meeting. And 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.
- [33:27]
A
And now, I mean, I know. I know Kathy pretty well and have spent a lot of time with her. And I mean, I certainly think she's getting a bum rap on this. And, you know, I mean, the central question in which she is trying to explain here is that she had no idea that Jeffrey Epstein was. What 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. And doing what so many middlemen do in New York. And I mean, certainly in my relationship. Well, my relationship with both Jeffrey Epstein, but. And Kathy Rummler particularly, there's never been. I mean, in all of the time Kathy Ruemmler and I have spent and 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 Jeffrey Epstein was living or perhaps had lived, because the crimes he's been accused of occurred before Kathy Rummler came on the scene. So she had certainly no idea that this had taken place.
- [35:01]
B
So just like New York has Fleet Week, it feels like it's Epstein Week this week because we've had Kathy Rummler's interview in the Times, and now we've got Bill Gates testimony to the Oversight Committee, which apparently took place behind closed doors.
- [35:15]
A
And Kathy Rummler will come up and she's testifying very soon.
- [35:20]
B
Right. And of course, the Clintons testified earlier this year, and Bill Gates, like Kathy Rumlow says, enormous regret I was involved with him, but also has a sort of similar story of how Epstein snared him into his network by promising committees that would help raise money for global health.
- [35:43]
A
The only thing that I would like to qualify this. I mean, I'm sure that this is all actually true and. But that these people, Bill Gates, Kathy Rummler, had an incredibly positive feeling for Jeffrey Epstein. They were. What would. They were pleased to be in his company. They were his friends, I suppose, very clearly. I mean, I think the Bill Gates of it all. I think that Bill Gates. I mean, the way I would read this 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 at that time was very much opposed to this, and I think probably made it a condition.
- [37:12]
B
Well, and he then says that after he refused. 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.
- [37:31]
A
Yeah, that's what he says. Although I didn't in reading this, and I mean, I haven't read 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 suddenly Bill Gates inferred this or Jeffrey Epstein wanted him to infer this. It's one of those kinds of things which, I mean, I don't want to. 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.
- [38:20]
B
Well, and that's what Kathy Ramler 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 her Goldman Sachs stopped. But do you think that this is the end of her career now, that she has to do something completely different?
- [38:49]
A
No, not at all. I mean, she's not being accused of any crimes, she's not facing. She's not facing anything except the opprobrium of having been connected to Jeffrey Epstein. So, I mean, Kathy is incredibly talented and, you know, and well connected. And that will, I'm sure, turn into something. I mean, she's not going to be without opportunities as she should not be.
- [39:25]
B
The other person that was up also was Leslie Groff, Epstein's assistant for 18 years, who also says she never saw anything untoward and that he compartmentalized his lives. Michael, the other thing, as we say, it's been Epstein week. 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?
- [39:52]
A
You know what I really love?
- [39:53]
C
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 know. Do you know we've been taking out millions of barrels of oil? Nobody knows it. You know who doesn't know about it? Iran. Until right now.
- [40:10]
A
Now it turns out everyone knows about that, 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. I 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 head. It's, again, I cannot be challenged on any basis, for any policy, on any detail. The fact that inflation is a prime political issue, that it is actually one of the issues that got him elected in 2024, and that that might somehow be a challenge to him now and a threat to him. 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. Extraordinary.
- [41:24]
B
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 emboldened Iran. Iran is in a better position than it was before the war, and he's pretending it. None of it's happened.
- [41:44]
A
And remember, 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 it's not just that this is mixed signals. This is topsy turvy.
- [42:06]
B
It's topsy turvy. And do you think the American people say see it?
- [42:15]
A
Yeah, of course they do. I mean, this is a very potent issue. This is, again, one of the issues that got him elected. No more forever wars. Okay? Now he's gotten himself a forever war. I love it. I love. That's what we're going to hear him. I love forever wars.
- [42:35]
B
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. Naomi Serafina. Trump's control of his fools was subliminal. Now the hope for our nation looks minimal. Trump's killing and thieving 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 Serafina 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 Haggar's coming up for some ridicule
- [43:52]
A
there on the sphincter note. Let's read ourselves out. Thank you, Ryan, Rachel, John, Neil and Heather.
- [44:09]
B
So the good news is we have so many Beast Tier members now, there are too many names to read out, and we really appreciate your support.