The interesting thing, more interesting probably than what it says about 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 so low in the studio without me. I am in London. I'm staying at a British novelists 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. Yeah. No, it's weird that you're. When you go away, you go to a mutual friends 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. They 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 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. 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 when bodes well. Do people think we're rambling this way in 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 the few twice led by you, they're always led by you. I mean, we have been good friends, close friends for 25 years. I don't know how that happened. I think 26 years, 26. We're both in in New York media. And because we've always lived relatively near to each other, although less so now that you're in a Ganser. 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. Yeah, it seems pulsing. And then just for people who haven't listened to the cast 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. 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. I mean, this is really the first time, certainly in modern presidential history when when the guy in the white House is, for all intents and purposes, a loose cannon and a loose cannon 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 in 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, 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. Well, and I think he often doesn't know what he's going to say, what he's going to do. Right? I mean, sometimes it just out. 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 I am a totally reactive person, which is exactly what he is, right? And we are all white knuckling it through this presidency as, 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 Plattner, the oyster fisherman, a little rough around the edges. And 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, his, his personal life may be the linchpin. 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. That's some. Well, I would say that sums up everyone's relationships. Every relationship that breaks up may. Why do you break it? Why? Otherwise anybody could say everybody 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 that these things are wrenching? And then amazingly, we live to fight another day? I think 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 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, 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 Plattner, on top of a series of previous revelations, his Reddit posts, which were unsavory, are 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 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. No, I would have, would have. I would otherwise disqualify anyone who has any kind of tattoo. Well, that would be dismissing everybody at this point, in this, at this cultural moment. Yes. Not well, not you and not me. So. But 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 is, 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. No. And I think that that was I mean, in that particular New York Times story, they had obviously dispensed with that and, and, and taken up this other position of, of, 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 the by their their two Trump reporters about what has gone on in the white House and they've, they've just released a, 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 Haberman and Jonathan Swan? Yes, I am, and I just I just want to I think we should have done to bin this conversation by 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, rivalries, authors. Well, I am, I am, yeah. It hadn't occurred to me either. She she doesn't speak to me. I it's always mystifying. 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, who's 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. No, no, she never speaks to me. I could stand even on 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 not a, not a word was passed between us. That was the story. There's a funny there was a there was actually a document, a Trump documentary of which I feature prominently in, in which there's a shot of that. Maggie Haberman, Michael Wolff, 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 of the Trump administration as the Epstein Files begins to, well, basically waterfall on them. Yeah, I think it's it's in large measure baloney. So so it would be interesting to deconstruct and so can, you know, lay out your accusations of Bologna. And where do we think it's come from? Because there are 1 or 2 people in this story that really stand out. That's where the baloney comes comes from. So in this, 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, Susie Wiles, David Warrington, who's the white House counsel, Caroline Leavitt, obviously the press secretary, the in aide with the title deputy chief of staff staff Taylor. But these are all people very close to to Trump. Steven Chung, the communications director, Todd Blanch, then the deputy attorney 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. And then Pam Bondi, the attorney general, and Cash 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, you can pinpoint you, you know, who's you know who the leaker is going to be just by the process of triangulation. So what does that 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. And then you just triangulate that. They do this all the time. This is 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 Susie Wiles is a is a press obsessive. She's scared of the press. She's in control of the press. She's 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 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 could be expected to do to do her no harm. And so this is, this is going on. 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 in this story and the interesting thing more interesting probably than what it says about about Epstein is JD Vance, who is really dumped, thrown over, over the thrown in front of the bus here. I mean, he looks like he looks like a, like a, like a dope. 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 b 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 talked 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 and give whatever positive spin for himself he can. And and so that would be I'm sure he said no, I saw this as a, as a, as a big vulnerability. And we had to address this blah, blah, blah, blah. 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 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 or 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 did Donald Trump and JD Vance circle each other? But I also thought that what JD 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 two, 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, from from Donald Trump, but he's trying, right? He's tried over the Stein files. He's tried over the war. Remember the leak that 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 yes 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 there'll be two slimed by the end of the second. An Australian. There's two agendas here that we should pay attention to Donald Trump's agenda and Susie Wiles 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 Glenn Maxwell. Should they go to Guillén Maxwell and get her to exonerate the president, which is what they eventually do. But 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 Steven Chung says would be a disaster and would have the victims fanning out, I think, as the expression fanning out across the media to show their outrage there. They're justified outrage over that. Remind me in this story who who suggests that that he should get that she should get pardoned? I can't remember specifically. Is it. Well, well, they're sort of wargaming 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 counsel. And they describe him as just laying out the options. So I know how this one, they, they, they 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 so that would be one of those cover things because it doesn't people just don't lay out the options. That's like, you know, it just didn't happen. There's people there 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 well, nobody liked the idea of the option of pardoning her because let's remind people she got 20 years. Yes. 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 message is do we want to send. And a key message because it's a it's a big vulnerability for them is the is that they may have offered Glenn 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, they she's moved to a better prison and, and life is looking up for her. So I and I am sure that there is that there is no record of anything being offered to her. And they probably did debate the, the, the merits and the upside and the downside of what she might be offered, and probably came to the conclusion that this 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, the suggestion that if you go along, we'll go along one of those things. I can guarantee you that that is exactly what it is. Okay, well, it is not people in this the way it's framed in the book. There's a pardon discussed, there's a reduction of sentence. And then they moved 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 laxer security. But anyway, just to go back to the 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 agenda. And in this tightly controlled white House, it's pretty much going to be, you know, a Trump Susie Wiles agenda. So do you think that, I mean, in terms of what's inside Trump's head over this, 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 could nothing he was doing was changing the narrative. Everything was coming back to the Epstein files, and it was a much bigger crisis than hitherto for people. Were people understood? Well, it's a curious 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 we're 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 15 years. And and that's what nobody can examine, question, admit to deal with. Finally. And Donald Trump's way of dealing with that is is just it doesn't exist. And that's a way that Trump has dealt with so many things that that this this would just be added to the to the nothing exists here list. And at the same time, in many people on the, on the MAGA base, that's the complication here. It's not just Democrats saying Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, it's the mega 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 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 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 realized that 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 oppressor 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 Porcius 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. Let me just interject that I guess the modifier poor is now always attached to cure Starmer. And now, 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 the shit show. So yet another thing for poor Keir Starmer. But 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, drums say I don't care. Release them all. Release them all under 3 million. The 3 million pieces of Epstein files, many of them just sort of raw FBI files put out there led to her, led to Pam Bonds 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 from 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 and an initiative and a policy which might which they might have to convince the president of because he can't 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 of sort of under glass example of of why nobody can really function in this white House. 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 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, it's my only point is that he has no no sense of service, that normally people going into those jobs to be the, you know, 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 Bongino, 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 Rumley, who's really the most senior woman that's gotten caught up in the Jeffrey Epstein affair. She was a Obama's White House lawyer. She went on to be the chief counsel, 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 we should all leave Goldman Sachs. I would leave anywhere with a $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 put us on their payroll. Is that I'm not giving props. 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. 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. Well, and I think she approached them to 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. And now, I mean, I know, I know, I know Kathy pretty well and have spent spent a lot of time with her. And, I mean, I certainly think she's getting a bum wrap on this. And, 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 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, and doing what so many middlemen do in New York. And I mean, certainly in my relationship when my relationship with both Jeffrey Epstein but and Kathy Rumley particularly, there has never been never I mean, in all of the time, Kathy 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 that that Jeffrey Epstein was, was living or perhaps had lived, you know, because the crimes he's been accused of occurred before, before Kathy came on the scene. So she had certainly no idea that this had taken place. So just like New York has Fleet Week, it feels like it's Epstein Week this week because we've had Kathy Rumbles interview in the times, and now we've got Bill gates testimony to the Oversight committee, which apparently took place behind closed doors. And Kathy Rumley will come up and she's testifying very soon. Right. And, of course, the Clintons testified earlier this year and a Bill gates, you know, like Kathy Romney's 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. The only the only thing that I would like to qualify this. I mean, I'm sure that this is all actually true and but that all that these people. Bill gates, Kathy had a, you know, a incredibly positive feeling for Jeffrey Epstein. They were what would. 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 mean, I think that Bill gates, I mean, the way I would read this is that is that Bill gates really like 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 the at that time was very much opposed to this. And, and I think probably made it a condition. Well, he then says that after he refused to have a business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein then tried to leverage Bill gates, his relationships with in particular to Russian women, to manipulate him. Yeah, that's that's what he says. Although I didn't 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, you know, Bill gates inferred this or Jeffrey Epstein wanted him to infer this. It's one of one of. One of those, those those kinds of 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. Well, and and that's what Cathy Rambler 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, stop. 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 the opprobrium of having been connected to Jeffrey Epstein. So, I mean, Cathy 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. The other person that was up also was Lesley 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? 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 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. Now it turns out everyone knows about that. That this is that. The New York Times wrote this story several weeks ago. I 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, on, on any basis for any policy, on any detail. The fact that inflation is, is a prime political issue, that it is actually the issue. One of the issues that got him elected in 2024 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, extraordinary. 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. 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 it's not 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? 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 for that's what we're going to hear him. 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, Sarafina! 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. Seraphina as Trump's war goes to hell expedited and his evil infects the world blighted. The Secretary of war remains on all fours, licking Trump's sphincter delightedly. So Hagar's coming up for some ridicule there. On the sphincter note, let's let's read ourselves out. Thank you. Ryan, Rachel, John, Neil and Heather. 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.