Loading summary
Transcript76 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is the question of the day in this lawsuit. Where does she live? They are either going to have to prove that they live in Florida or accept the fact that she lives in New York. The first lady does not live with the President of the United States. Their relationship is remote at best. And I think we can probably say, well, certainly of a different nature than any president and first lady has ever had. Not to mention that to our point, the nature of this is that she lives in New York and he lives somewhere else. I'm Michael Wolfe and I am here not with Joanna Coles, much to my disappointment. But Joanna is recovering from a brief hospital stay. I'm not sure she wants to sit. Can we say what? Well, God, she had her hip replaced and she's fine and she will be back on Saturday. I am here, though, with Hugh. Hugh. You know, I don't even know how to say your last name. Is it.
- [01:21]
B
It's Doherty, but.
- [01:22]
A
But Doherty.
- [01:23]
B
Yes, but I accept any pronunciation, Michael.
- [01:27]
A
And Hugh is the executive editor, the true brains behind the Daily Beast, and we have known each other for quite some time now, even though I don't know how to say Hugh's last name. But I'm delighted to be here and let's do it in Joanna's stead.
- [01:48]
B
Well, I'm honoured to be here. It is a pleasure, I should say, as a warning to everybody who's listening and viewing. My accent is from Glasgow, but I am alive and direct inside the same studio as Joanna usually occupies. And I know that she has been reading the comments and she is recovering well. So I'm very glad to only be here briefly.
- [02:10]
A
Michael and she will be supervising whatever we do today and commenting on it. So we will have. In addition to all our other comments, we will have Joanna commenting personally and.
- [02:25]
B
Insistently, which is kind of like an audience of one for me.
- [02:31]
A
Well, it's a world in which there is. We are all an audience of one. Fortunately, our one is not Donald Trump. It is Joanna Cole.
- [02:45]
B
You have just published on your substack, Howell, which is an absolute must read. I think I can only describe this. I think young people would say it's a banger. It is bombshell after bombshell about the update in what is happening in your lawsuit against Melania.
- [03:03]
A
Yeah, no, I think it's a kind of important moment. And just the back explanation. Not too much back explanation, because there can be a lot of back explanation in these complicated lawsuits. But we are in federal court and specifically this week, we have filed an answer to Melania and her husband's lawyer's efforts to get my lawsuit dismissed and, or I guess, or simply or to move it to Florida. So that's where we are. And we have responded to this. Now, I think it's important, let's open the aperture here. This lawsuit is important because it is a tool to get to the bottom of the nature of the Trump Epstein relationship. So all of these 3 million documents, 6 million documents, whatever we are up to, they don't really do that, or they are a very imprecise version of this. This lawsuit is, gives us a precise version. We can ask the questions, what did you know? When did you know it? What did you do? On what dates did this occur? Who did it occur with under oath? These are questions that eventually, unless they roll over and actually they can't, I was going to say unless they roll over and walk away from this lawsuit, but I forgot, they can't walk away from this because this is my lawsuit, I am suing them. They have gotten themselves into quite a fix here. So those questions, if, if we continue to pursue this, which we have every intention of doing and because of GoFundMe. Thank you, GoFundMe. We have the resources to do this. They are going to be in quite a corner. But that's not the only reason the Epstein Trump relationship, why this is important. The other reason which is as important, possibly more important, is that this is a direct challenge to a White House which has carelessly, unilaterally used its power to basically go after anybody whose voice and views it disagrees with. So, I mean, I can't think of a kind of more un American summation of what this administration is about. You think you have free speech? Well, you don't if we say you don't. But this lawsuit, and this is all due to all the credit here goes to my lawyers who have been incredible on this. This lawsuit provides a model, a pushback model. So we, in, in a variety of states, and particularly New York, there are things called anti slap laws and anti slap laws means you, you can't, it's illegal to use, to use the legal process only for the purposes of intimidation and in this case, intimidation about free speech. We're going to su you if you say that although we have no, we have no. There's, there is no, there is truly no cause of action here. The only thing that's going on is the, is the hardship and the burden of being sued. And that is the thing that is going to discourage you from saying what you have every right to say. So we are using those, those laws as a tool to those laws, the anti slap laws as a tool to bite back against, against the White House, who is in pursuit of, of, of me for what I've said. But, but in, is in pursuit across the landscape for, for many, many people, big corporations as well as individuals for what they have legitimately said.
- [07:42]
B
I thought I would just point out something that Puck, which is a sort of insider publication that covers the media and it covers show business and it covers some aspects of politics, has basically finally woken up to the importance of this lawsuit. And its writer, Eric Gardner, says that he was at the American Bar Association's annual meeting when in fact people were discussing it behind the scenes because in his words, it's underrated potential to change the shape of media law. This is a really big deal that people are finally beginning to get their heads around. That is a case that is going to bring attention to you obviously, but to the first lady, to the Trump administration and to the way in which people have been trying to push back against freedom of speech. And I just wanted to make the point that it's taken a long time for people to realize quite how important this is.
- [08:41]
A
Well, there's a lot of things as we know to realize how important they are. Everything is important here and everything is, it's the one thing about the Trump White House. It elevates everything to a critical level. But we have been persistent, a lot of people, the enormous outpouring of support for this, this lawsuit, over 25,000 individual donors to this, to this cause. So I think that this is, I think that there is a sense, a strong sense both of the importance here. Epstein, Trump and in addition, that this is really one of the first significant challenges to this administration over free speech. But there is another, and I can't but think that the Trumpers are shaking their heads now in disbelief and that someone is going to catch hell for this. There is another aspect of this that they have opened themselves up to by trying to move this case from New York to Florida. And the laws are much more on the Trumpers side in Florida. And I believe that the Trumpers also think that they have much more juice with the courts in Florida. So they want it to be moved to Florida. And Florida is where, where Donald Trump and Melania Trump officially, and I use the word officially in air quotes, have their residence. But this now opens them up to a challenge. Where actually, actually does Melania Trump live? Now, we have filed papers, the papers that we have filed this week go right to the heart of this matter and, and challenge this idea that she lives in Florida. And point by point by point by point we go over the evidence, including the evidence for all to see in this move in Melania, the movie that she does not live in Florida and nor does she live with her husband in Washington in the White House, but rather she lives on a basically full time basis in New York. Basically, she has never left New York. And we go down the list. My lawyers have done this. They've done this incredible job printed out from your substack.
- [11:41]
B
And I'll just remind people the whole filing you have posted on your substack. How I'm just going to hold up. There is so much. It's a crazy list.
- [11:56]
A
No, I mean, I think it's extraordinary. I mean, there is no effort on her part to hide where she is. And I think what's happened here is, you know, clearly, clearly the White House did not want it to frustrate any discussion of Melania and Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. So they did their reflexive thing. They sent me a letter. We're going to sue you for a billion dollars if you don't retract and hide under a roc. Talk about this. And they did this because they do it all the time. And everybody capitulates and says, okay, okay, okay. I did not. For reasons related to both my temperament and the fact that I have willing lawyers and not to mention 25,000 willing supporters on GoFundMe. So I did not. I turned around and sued them, which now puts them in this position of having to justify where actually the first lady or the theoretical first lady lives. So somebody in the White House, I cannot believe somebody in the legal hierarchy is not going to catch hell for this because this is actually, this is the question of the day in this lawsuit. Where does she live? They are either going to have to prove that they live in Florida or accept the fact that she lives in New York. And this is a kind of a message to the country and to history itself. The first lady does not live with the President of the United States. Their relationship is, is remote at best. And I think we can probably say, well, certainly of a different nature than any president and first lady has ever had. Not to mention that to our point, the nature of this is that she lives in New York and he lives somewhere else.
- [14:16]
B
The biggest shock for me was not just that she lives in New York, but she's got her own apartment in Trump Tower. And I think that's something that rumors talked about. But you've nailed it down here.
- [14:30]
A
No, you know, it's funny because I had. No. This has always been a kind of discussion in the. In. In the. In the Trump Circle. The. His. Hers. Nature of where they. Of where they live in or where they have resided in for many years in Trump Tower. And the two apartments look completely dissimilar. I mean, his is that rococo Trump, and hers is kind of sleek, minimalist Melania.
- [15:03]
B
And you also mention, it seems that Baron might have his own apartment in there. She has a sister who has long been a subject of mystery. She hasn't been photographed, I believe, in more than a decade. It looks like her father might have an apartment in there, too. And I just. You have to go to Substack and see it all because it's an extraordinary list. But you have amazing details of her designer, the person who does her nails, somebody who styles her hair, her interior decorator, her friends, her producers. All of them are in New York. And you've really nailed this down, every one of them.
- [15:48]
A
No, and the other aspect of this, and again, all of the credit here goes to my incredible legal team.
- [15:56]
B
And I've just got to ask, did they all go to the Melania movie together or was it just one? And the serious point actually is you've turned the Melania movie into a source of evidence.
- [16:10]
A
Yeah, well, it is. You know, I mean, this is an interesting thing, that Melania, the movie is theoretically her life, but it's really a disguise of her life. Except if you then kind of dissect it and look closer, this is her. She is trying to live the life of a superstar in New York. And, you know, I mean, I never have given up a long time ago, trying to read the MAGA Vind, but if I were a MAGA person, I would be. I would certainly start to question this. The fact that the President's wife, the first lady, is wholly uninterested, maybe even contemptuous of. Of what the President is doing and is leading this parallel glamour life in New York City. And, you know, one of the things that we've also looked. Been. Been looking at is that, is that she is basically starting a new business life in New York City. And it is. It is a way to exploit her relationship with the President of the United States while actually distancing herself from the President of the United States. So building a kind of Melania brand company, I suppose that's what it is, is a way for her to gain financial independence and also geographic independence from the President of the United States.
- [17:54]
B
Right. Because we know pretty clearly he's not been in his four years out of office. He spent a handful of nights back in Trump Tower in New York.
- [18:04]
A
Yeah, he is not in New York very much not in New York. And she is very much in New York and again building this branding company. I guess she's going to, she's selling endorsements, she's creating Melania products. You know, I mean, she's doing what superstars do.
- [18:28]
B
And presumably she, you're going to go to court, you've already put these papers into the court system. She has to respond to all this.
- [18:39]
A
Absolutely. I mean, there's a series of steps here. So one of the steps that we are asking for is we are asking for, for, or let me put it this way, this is the court could say, oh yes, you're obviously, look at this, this is obviously true. And then they could put the case back to where it began in New York State Court. So that's one option. The other option is that we have asked for discovery, the right to begin discovery. So the right to begin to, to ask the Melania side for all of these documents that would prove that she is a resident, that she is, that her real residence is in New York. So we don't, we don't know which way that's, that's going to go. And of course, because this is where we're in court, they could, the judge, and the judge in this, this, this case, who I have, who we have no reason to, to assume is, is anything but a fair minded judge, but the judge is a Trump appoint appointee. So we don't know what, what, what the effect of that will be. So the judge could, could dismiss this case of which case we in, in which, in which instance we will appeal, obviously.
- [20:07]
B
And I just want to highlight before we move on to many of the other topics inside Trump's head, that one of the funnier, perhaps darkly funny aspects of this is that your legal brief points out that she might produce a driving license as evidence that she lives in Florida, but she does not in fact need to drive and is driven everywhere.
- [20:33]
A
Right. And those are the, so the only evidence that they so far have indicated that they have to, to argue that she is a Florida resident is this driver's license. And all you need in Florida to get a driver's license is an address, a second home and obviously they have a Mar a Lago address and the fact that she votes in Florida, but there too, all you need is a island is an address to vote in Florida. And the law is actually is much clearer on what comprises a residence. A residence is a place where you actually live, where you spend your time, where your connections are, where you have built a life, where your heart is. And in fact, she has said over and over again in does in Melania the movie, that New York is where her heart is.
- [21:38]
B
I gravely feel the absence of Joanna here because you have, in fact, captured tweets and quotes from Melania the movie of using her words. And we don't have anybody to do her accent. So I think you have to get Joanna to read them out on the next episode.
- [21:56]
A
Can't wait.
- [21:59]
B
So staying at Mar a Lago, as it were. I think there's a fascinating story that has come out this week that the Trump appointed Director of Election Security, something that I think we can all agree sounds like a good idea, is in fact, he's a man called Kurt Olson, is in fact, basically an election denier. And I wanted to raise him with you because you, in fact, have a huge amount of knowledge of this man, Kurt Olson.
- [22:31]
A
Yeah, no, I mean, and in fact, I did not know that he was in this job. So they've clearly kept him under a rock, and for good reason. He came into the picture, into the Trump picture at the end of just after the 2020 election. And that was a moment in Trump time, and it's almost hard to remember now, the Trump world divided between the normies and the crazies. I mean, very clearly. And people in the Trump world would identify themselves. I'm a normie. The crazies and the crazies, where the people around Rudy Giuliani crazies didn't identify themselves as crazies. Yeah, no, actually, they identified themselves overnight as the real. The real Trumpers. And one of these people was this guy, Kurt Olson, who was a lawyer who began offering them part of the legal rationale, what the normies would describe as the wacko rationale for why the election had been stolen, according to. According to Donald Trump. But he was of all of the crazies. And there were, you know, quite an. Quite a number of crazies that came into the picture at that point. You know, in the. My pillow guy. What was it, Lindell?
- [24:15]
B
The best night's sleep in the whole wide world.
- [24:18]
A
Yeah. And. But Kurt Olsson was judged as the craziest, as among the craziest of the crazies. I mean, people would literally. The normies would literally roll their eyes. There is nobody, nobody in the Trump world who was as extreme and as peculiar as Kurt Olsson. Now, one of the things that then happened is that, you know, and all, again, it's almost hard to remember this, this point in time. 2020, 2021. After January 6, Trump returned to Mar A Lago in defeat, in exile and in disgrace. And, you know, the, the Republic, the certainly the Republican establishment, many, many of the normies in the first administration all were keeping their distance. This was arm's length. You know, this guy, this, this guy, I. E. Donald Trump went off the deep end, all of this election denial stuff. And nobody, not even Trump's family at the time, thought that this was subscribed to this idea that the election was stolen. The were clear to all. And even if you could isolate situations in which you might plausibly argue that something was amiss, none of those situations, none of those situations changed the balance of the numbers. Donald Trump lost the election in 2020. That was it. Cold.
- [26:10]
B
But no, he's back trying to change history.
- [26:13]
A
Well, absolutely. But in that period after he returned to Mar A Lago, the only people who were around him, and this was for quite a number of months, were the election deniers. And Kurt Olson was one of the people always hanging around Mar A Lago, often hanging around with the MyPillow guy, actually, Lindell. So. And I can't think of anybody, and this is again, this reality inversion, anybody, even those people in the Trump world who imagined a future world in which A, in which Donald Trump would be president again, but B, in which these crazies would come to assume significant places in the Trump orbit. I mean, Kurt Olson as the head of election security, I mean, we're at a level of, I mean, every day, the Trump administration, the second Trump administration, is a level of preposterousness that we might not have imagined, but we have pushed it even further with Kurt Olson and a word from our sponsors and.
- [27:38]
B
We are back inside Trump's head. There's a new White House spokesman who's putting himself out there. He's called Davis Engel. He's a young MAGA friendly guy. He called our reporters glue sniffers this week.
- [27:52]
A
He called them what?
- [27:54]
B
He claimed that our reporters are sniffing glue. Sniffing glue because we asked about the President's health. But anyway, Davis Engel, White House spokesman, said of Mr. Olson, the president has the most talented and qualified individuals serving as part of his team, including Kurt, which is a kind of remarkable endorsement. Right? Everybody knows the guys are crazy. And here he is, his name is on an FBI warrant. He is giving information to Tulsi Gabbard, maybe not surprising that they are together and he is, he is right there in the heart of, the heart of the White House.
- [28:38]
A
No, I mean, this is, I mean, one of the themes of this second administration is the, the kind, the kind and caliber of people who have been allowed into it. And this has happened because a higher caliber of people, of, of, of professionals with reputations have not gone into the White House. And also because the President of the United States decided that what he wanted in this White House, he had done. He had done it before. He realized his mistake, the mistake in the first administration was to have people who were at least capable of independent thinking in this administration. He wanted people who were and would be and would reliably stay lackeys. And Kurt Olson, I can't think of a more archetypal Trump lackey than Kurt Olson.
- [29:47]
B
Well, I might have a name for you that could, even, could beat him. Maybe not Pam Bondi. I think there's a lot to talk about this week with Pam Bondi.
- [29:59]
A
Yeah, no, and of course, Pam Bondi would be an absolutely other example of this. Remember, and just to set the Pam Bondi context, his first choice for Attorney General was Matt Gaetz. You remember, Matt Gaetz was accused of all kinds of, of sexual abuse. Matt Gaetz had been the son of a prominent Florida politico and got elected to Congress on that basis, a Nepo baby. And basically his identity was as a Florida low life, playboy type and proud of it.
- [30:43]
B
I was going to say, you make those sound like bad things.
- [30:44]
A
But, and, and then, and so low life and so playboy, that he was one of the few people, possibly as I recall, maybe the only person to be so disreputable that he was that his nomination, that he didn't survive his nomination. He had to drop out. But even then, if people in the White House, in the Trump circle would say if Matt Gaetz was the least qualified in Florida to be the Attorney General, the second most, least qualified person was Pam Bondi.
- [31:28]
B
And we saw her this week on full display, I guess, being questioned by the House Oversight Committee. I think everybody has seen some of those clips of her yelling, yelling, screeching, insulting, refusing to answer a question on the basis that the Dow has now passed 50,000.
- [31:48]
A
And just let me interrupt you to just further set the context here. I think we've become relatively inured to the fact that people from the Trump administration come before Congress and scream at them. This is a wholly new, a new level of political behavior. It used to be you came before Congress with a certain degree of humility. First, the world, you were on view for the world. Second, this was the United States Congress. It, like the United States, it, like the White House, is owed, is owed deference and respect. In fact, the entire structure of the United States government of the separation of powers effectively dictates that. So this is an entirely new way for the executive branch to approach the legislative branch, which is to say to exceed it, no authority at all, to heap contempt on it.
- [33:06]
B
I think one of the questions is, what's this mean? And Joanna, from her sickbed, I will say, has filed a column, and I'd urge people to go to Daily Beast and read it. But her point is that Pam Bondi's nasty woman act, Joanna's view, has probably lost her the support of Trump. And I thought there's something, there's something.
- [33:31]
A
She says, I'd push back on that, actually. I mean, you know, I think it's true he doesn't like nasty women, but let's be clear. He doesn't like women who are nasty to him. He is perfectly comfortable and even proud of his women who are nasty to others. And we have seen this again and again by the kind of lawyers, the lawyers that he has surrounded himself with. Alina Haba, one of the nastiest pieces of work. I mean, even Trump used to call her aside and say, hey, you talk like a truck driver. You should maybe kind of smooth that out. But he, of course, has appointed her to all kinds of legal positions in which his mean woman could, could, could do her mean act against his opponents. So that's all. That's always a good, a, a positive attribute for Trump. And Pam Bondi, I think, was doing exactly what, what I think she was speaking to her audience of one. And Trump is always in these situations, urging people on, especially his lawyers. And I had been, you know, during the campaign, many instances where the lawyers, his lawyers are trying to, are, are in court and trying not to offend the judge and trying to make the best out of perhaps a not such a good, a good situation, but, but following basic protocols, trying to keep this on a reasonable plane. And then they take their break, they go into the break room, and then Trump reams them out, literally, I mean, viciously, for not being more aggressive, not being more oppositional, not standing up. How could you do. And then he would belittle them. How could you do this? You laid down before this despicable judge. You didn't stand up to him. You didn't insult him. You have to insult him. So, you know, it is all again and again and again and again. What is the Trump playbook? Confront, confront, confront.
- [36:08]
B
So I've just. I just. I have to quote from. From Joanna, and I can't do accents, unlike Joanna. So this is. This is.
- [36:17]
A
I thought. I thought all. All Brits could do accents.
- [36:23]
B
I don't want to. I don't want to being accused of impersonating the Joanna Coles. So I'll just say Trump prefers women who smile, women who glide, women who understand that in Trump's court, volume control is permitted, but only if it belongs to him. But she does point out that Trump once boasted of his legal team that it might not be the top lawyers, but they were the hottest lawyers, which I know is something that you've, in fact, heard directly.
- [36:51]
A
Yes, that is my. My scoop.
- [36:54]
B
Yes. Where do you rate Bondi after this as a survivor? Because she has been.
- [37:03]
A
You know, I think she has been. It's been iffy for her for a while. But I think that that's almost. That that is apparently a misunderstanding of what is happening in this second Trump administration, because basically nobody has been fired. So, I mean, it's an interesting. I mean, the first administration was full of dead bodies almost day by day.
- [37:34]
B
They were usually like two or three every Friday. It was, you know, it was kind of, oh, it's almost.
- [37:38]
A
There's none this time around. So he has made the decision. It is us against them, and us are this group of sycophants that he has established around them, and they exist because he knows they will do what he says. Now, that might mean that they are incompetent. That might mean that they embarrass themselves. That might mean that they are some of the least effective representatives he might have, but that doesn't matter. The fact that they are absolutely, 100%, abjectly, humiliatingly loyal overrides anything else. And once more, a commercial message.
- [38:32]
B
And here we are back inside Trump's head. And that brings us very neatly to one of the more extraordinary displays of the week, which was the shutdown, the total shutdown of the airspace over El Paso. A very bizarre incident, which, I mean.
- [38:55]
A
I think they announced it was going to be the air corridor there would be closed for 12 days. I mean, this was extraordinary. I mean, this is a big 12 days. Closing a major air corridor would be a profound economic impact, not to mention the inconvenience.
- [39:17]
B
They also announced it in the middle of the night. People woke up to this news completely.
- [39:22]
A
People in the airport on their way to go. So what happened here? And actually, nobody knows. There's a series of things. First, the administration announced, announced, announced something that sounded like pretty Damn close to UFOs. The, the cartels were, it was a, in a, a drone attack on the, on by the cartels, by the drug cartels. I mean, that was, that was literally, that was the official announcement. And then that could not hold. I mean, that could not be sustained. And it turned out that in fact there was an anti drone weapon, a laser weapon is what they're saying, that was lent to the United States, was lent from the Defense Department, from Pete Hicks's Defense Department to the border, to the border Command, our border command. And they seem to have used this or seem to have used this as a form of a demonstration or used this as a form of, I don't know, maybe they got drunk and shot it, I don't know. But the FAA had no idea that they were using this. And the FAA determined that this was a real danger for air traffic in the area. So then they not only shut the airport in El Paso, they shut the air corridor. So I think you have a couple of things going on here, but the base thing, and it's really something that should be focused on is the level of pervasive incompetence throughout the federal government. Why is the federal government incompetent? Because it has fired all of the competent people and invited in people who are rankly not competent and also just gotten rid of so many people that there is nobody doing the job that needs to be done.
- [41:46]
B
It does seem like this laser was in fact previously secret weapon that the country's enemies weren't supposed to know existed. And one version of events is that they shot down a party balloon. So having said that, Pam Bondi, who technically is under oath, said that it was continued even hours after everybody else had abandoned this version of events, told the Democrats that it was a drone invasion. So it's.
- [42:19]
A
No, I mean, this is an extraordinary sequence. I don't think that this has played out and it is so weird that I don't think it has the clarity that it will begin to get that this is an example of something so run amok, that nobody knows what they are doing, that this is the gang that couldn't shoot straight, that everybody is, you know, the other, the, the other day we talked about, about, about Trump, late night, being off his meds. The entire government is off its meds.
- [43:02]
B
And equipped with lasers.
- [43:05]
A
And equipped with lasers, we think. Lasers. What kind of lasers? What are they talking about?
- [43:10]
B
We don't know.
- [43:11]
A
I. I don't think this is going. I think this is an incident that is going to come to haunt this government. This is an incident that has to be explained. Pete Hegseth. And this is an incident that is going to focus on, well, possibly conspiracy, of course, but I think that the real conspiracy is a conspiracy of the incompetent, as so many conspiracies are. Hagseth is incompetent, the border people are incompetent. Whoever shot this off at a balloon is obviously incompetent. And not to mention, what was the point of closing the airspace for 12 days and then the White House ordering that it be opened back up? So is it safe there? Is it safe?
- [44:06]
B
It's a very good question. We don't know the answer. And the people that you might rely on, Technically, the airport's not under the control, but air safety is under the control of Sean Duffy and we rarely mention his name.
- [44:22]
A
Everybody is going to have to answer questions here, I would hope, and assume.
- [44:28]
B
Sean Duffy, of course, started his career in reality television. So the perfect qualification.
- [44:37]
A
There you go. And I think that this is a good place to end because I think we end on. A major note. They are going to have to explain this, and I do not think that there is any way to explain this in a coherent, believable and credible fashion.
- [45:04]
B
I absolutely agree. And you say end it on a note. There's one note that I believe we have to end it on. We have, again, some amazing limericks which have been sent in and this is a rare opportunity for Joanna not to deliver them. So you get them in a Scottish accent, get in the comments. You can judge whether you prefer it in. In her more educated tones. But I just want to thank, of course, Garfried, who has delivered. Again, these are reflections, Michael, on the last episode, which was, of course, fascinating exploration of Trump and his phone. So you have once again inspired. And I'll just start with one from Garfield. There once was a caller in chief who dialled up his rage for relief. No memos, no threads, just voice in their heads. A hotline for dominance grief. Thank you. And we have an excellent one from. I'm hoping this is right. Edits C3X but edits C3X. If I got that wrong, get in the comments and we will try and clarify it. There once was an old man in bed, swaddled in the wrapping of the food he'd been fed. Some unfortunate he dial, then spew forth the bile that sloshes around inside Trump's Head. Thank you for the shout out.
- [46:40]
A
Fantastic.
- [46:42]
B
Well Michael, I've been honoured to be in the seat here for Joanna but but I'm delighted to say that she will be back in that special place with Fantastic.
- [46:52]
A
We'll see Joanna on Saturday. Meanwhile, thank you Hugh, Dr. D. Thank you.
- [46:59]
B
Thank you for having me. 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. Thanks to our production team, Devon Rogerino Ryan Murray Rachel Passer Heather Passaro Neil.
- [47:18]
A
Rosenhaus Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast the Last Laugh and our Star Studded the Daily Beast podcast@thedailybeast.com podcasts if you enjoyed this.
- [47:29]
B
Episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to thedailybeast.com membership podcast and sign up today.