Transcription
You can go down the list here of of Donald Trump targeting specifically targeting his political opponents, Donald Trump exerting ever more control over courts, media, universities, businesses of him explicitly targeting blue state governors and legislatures, and finally locking in the mechanisms which which might ensure continued electoral success. I mean, this is these are the moves of an authoritarian. Clearly, I think that is becomes a very real possibility that he will undo the impediments to a third term.
Michael. Joanna, tell us about our trip today. Where are we going? You know, we're going inside Trump's head. And we say that as an opener. But I also like to use that as a, as a moment to explain what we're doing here and why we are different from other people and other people. That means other political commentators try gallantly to address this, as has politics, if not as usual politics as we have basically understands it and as we know it as a as it calls, in effect, equation. The president of the United States does something because he understands that will have an impact on something else which will result in in things that are favorable or unfavorable. That's not what what is happening here and it's not what is happening every day. Certainly of the second Trump administration, what is happening is that a mercurial figure is doing whatever he wants to do without regard to consequences. Therefore, there is no cause and effect. And what happens is just what happens in this man's mind, what he wants, his desires of the moment. And it often is just of the moment what happened when he got up this morning. And that is the political climate that we are now.
Okay. So please, can we go inside Trump's head today via the white House forum? We know there was a big dinner last night with potential donors, and apparently everybody is signing up. Well, not everybody, but a lot of companies are signing up to give him 20 million, $25 million, I suppose, to put the company's branding on forks and spoons. Let's be be less generous about that. I think that's a I think what Trump has done, but with with enormous success and shamelessness, is to create opportunities in which you can bribe him. Pay to play. And, and that's, that is, that is really I mean, I mean, this this happens in truth social. You can you can buy shares there or advertise there. Why you would want to is is beyond me because it's really an audience of, of, of I mean, it's a social network with only one person participating in it. A you know, the, in the, in the crypto business is in all of these businesses that, that he has, that he has set up. And now with, with and lawsuits that he brings against you, it is all a way he provides. He, he has provided a series of opportunities, legal opportunities in which you can give him money. So the library fund is one of those which ABC and CBS and various other people have paid into the ballroom is the new opportunity. These are all entities, individuals or entities who can afford to, afford almost any, any amount of money and who cannot afford to be on the, or who think they cannot afford to be on the, on the bad side of Donald Trump.
Well, in fact, I was thinking that he was asking them for too little money. Surely you should be asking for $100 million each. There was a quote, I think it was either in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times with him saying, that people have been asking, can I give you 20 million? Or he'd been saying to people, you know, would it be inappropriate for me to ask for 20 or 25 million people, $1 million, and people saying, no, no, that would be quite appropriate. But I was surprised he wasn't asking for more. It's supposed to cost $200 million. He claims he's going to come in under budget. No construction ever comes in under budget. We know it'll be twice as long and twice as expensive. Well, it does come in the under budget for him because he doesn't pay people. I mean, just his writings. I've forgotten that salient detail. Right. But but what I'm wondering about what what the the sponsorship return is going to be. Perhaps there is no sponsorship return other than access to him. I think that's a that's that's huge. That's a big return. I mean, to, to be to be on the, on the, on the, on the favored side of of a mercurial president who could do anything to you with, with one, one social media post will cost could cost you hundreds of millions of dollars in your share price. He he it he is. And let's remember this. There are there is virtually no constraints on how he is willing to use his power. Right. And I was thinking far too small because I was thinking, oh, companies are going to want to have their names on the spoons or on the napkin holders. What, you know, perhaps a coaster. They may, but that's not the purpose here. I mean, you know, that that may be the purpose at a sporting event in which you're looking for branding opportunities for precisely that reason. This is something, something entirely different. I mean, actually something we really haven't ever seen before. Or perhaps we've had we've had glimpses in some in some in some events when private, private, private enterprise is forced to pony up to do, to do small tasks and inaugural ball, that kind of thing. But this is expanded. In into an unimaginable fold. It's it's a bribe. It is literally a bribe. How do you how do you pay? How do you take advantage of these opportunities to pay into Donald Trump's favor? And, of course, because precisely because he is, as you say, material, there's no guarantee beyond the next week or so that he's going to stay on your side. That's the thing about bullies. But no. Well, that's why you have to continue to find new ways to give him money. And that's the setup. I mean, that's his that's his, his grift, the mercurial side of this pays off.
Okay. So what else are you hearing about? What's going on inside his head? He's back from his triumphs in, Israel and Egypt. Big. He did the Charlie Kirk, freedom medal. And then we've had the ballroom. Well, yeah. I mean, what's what's going on? I mean, the big news is inside of inside of the white House is is what's going on at the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court appears ready to to gut what remains of the Voting Rights Act, which will mean a reconfiguration of enough districts, congressional districts, primarily in the South, to, if not guarantee a midterm victory, go a long way to that. To that end, I mean, this is the most this is this is an extraordinarily serious development. I mean, I would say that the Democrats in, in, in, in a way, it has restrained them at or or given them a kind of full measure of, we're given them a measure of hope, that they would in all likelihood, retake the House of Representatives in 2026. I mean, yeah, you know, I mean, the Democrats who find themselves in a helpless position for, for many reasons, have basically fallen back on that, relied on that, that, that, that the that the pure, the pure numbers would say that they would win the House in the midterms because the the party out of power always does substantially better than the party in power. And we're talking about a about, you know, a very small margin so that they would get the House of Representatives, which would allow them to restrain many of the, most extreme aspects of, of the Trump presidency, or at least they Soho. And gather a bit of momentum, too, because it feels like the momentum has dwindled out of the Democratic Party. And and a win would be helpful. They need to win exactly that. They can begin and begin investigations. I mean, they have subpoena power. They have it it it it would it it would if it would not necessarily rebalance things, but it would it would go a ways toward that. And but now and I think one of the reasons inside the white House people have, have, have discussed with, with me why all this, why everything over the past nine months has happened so rapidly is an understanding that it had to happen now, because come 20, 26, God knows. So the assumption in the white House is also that the Democrats will get the House back. That it has been. Yes, it has literally been. Now the assumption is shifting. It's like shifting, like today, today, yesterday, today, tomorrow. We're going to be able to see this, to see this shift in, in real time. And if, if the, if the Supreme Court makes this decision and, and I don't see anyone saying that they will not, then the Democrats, in all likelihood will not hold will not regain the majority in the House of Representatives, which will mean, let's look at this, which will mean not two years of being of of there of him having absolutely no pushback on virtually anything but for years. And not only that, but for years in which he has not looking toward any electoral threat, it's his so what does that mean?
So so, Michael, hold on a second. So this is about, the Supreme Court putting a time limit on something which had been assumed was a central part of the Voting Rights Act, which is to make sure that certain racial areas get representation. This is about racial redistricting. Yeah. And and let's let's understand this. I mean, I mean, that's what that's what I mean, that the Trump people in the MAGA people are like, well, race should not, should not factor into, into anything. And you know, that's a, that's a, that's a essentially the way to say that, that white preference should rule and remember what's happened here that, that historically, especially especially in the South, but not only in the south, congressional districts were were drawn specifically to make sure that there would not be a be a black majority. And and the Voting Rights Act corrected that. And and it, it, it provided the wherewithal to actually, you know, to create to create districts. I mean, the, the requirement to create districts which would reflect, reflect black voters. So now we go back to the other thing. Essentially, that's the Supreme Court says we don't have to do that, that, that anymore. So you can do the opposite of that. And the opposite of that will be to create, and remember, black voters are Democratic voters. So it is different. You can, you can step back here and say, this is not about, this is not about black white. This is about Democrats and Republicans. But the South is overwhelmingly Republican. So that they will then create those, white districts, white majority districts, which will vote Republican. Now, you can go in that in this and the the MAGA people will say, yes, the South is overwhelmingly Republican. So so we should have overwhelmingly, which they already do, Republican congressional districts. But that, of course, this effectively disenfranchized disenfranchizes black voters. And it's I mean, it's uncannily the echoes of what you said Roger Ailes used to say repeatedly about Donald Trump, which was that he longed to go back to the 60s before the voting Rights Act.
Well, well, well, very in a very in, in a, very pointed way. I mean, what Roger Ailes said to me and just as a background here, you know, I mean, I may appear to be a liberal and I suppose I am a liberal, but I've had long relationships with, with a variety of right wing figures, including Roger Ailes, who, I was friends with for a long time. And we should remind people, started Fox News. Yes. I mean, Roger Ailes is a is a pillar of what is happening now in American politics. But Roger said said to me once, and we were talking about this and this was in the in the throes of, of, of the of the Trump election. So it was this was in 2016. So he said he said, so the people, you know, they live in, you know, 2016, he said, the people, the people I, speak to, the people who Fox News is for, they live, he said in, you know, in, you know, in 1965. And then he added before the Voting Rights Act. So, so that observation of his appears to be possibly coming to pass. And I reading around this, I saw it might impact as many as 12 Democratic congressional seats, which is, you know, would be devastating to the Democrats in the midterms and going forward. And said this in the in the broader scheme of things, that that the broader scheme of things is not only that that the that the Trump administration has systematically done away with D-I preferences, but they have substituted effectively white preference, a white preference mandate. And recently, I mean, I think I think it was just just yesterday they they they announced the dismantling of the substantive dismantling of a particular immigration program in favor of, of, of, in Europe and in Europe and in south, the south of the South African white, immigrants.
So what is the Democrats response to this? How did they. Because this does seem, at first of all, it's a Supreme Court decision, which is hard to undo. And secondly, how do people make this issue immediate for voters? And thirdly, you said the black vote is Democratic at the last election, certainly there was a movement among black men for Trump. Yeah. I mean, the Democrats I mean, that was a I mean, but I mean, let's let's be clear, even with that movement, the black vote is overwhelmingly Democrat and remains overwhelmingly a Democratic vote. But, having said this, I don't I don't know. I mean, there, you know, I mean, you look at a voting is you look at a map, and, and if you suddenly have the map itself turned against you, good. Luck. Right. Very and very hard to know because it's a relatively complicated issue, how you get people worked up about it.
Well, I hear I, let's, let's see if we can get people worked up about it. I, you know, I have said all along and I think I just, just said it the other day that the that the whole idea of a third term for Donald Trump is specious. You know, I'm, we were talking about Bannon. I think you called it a spread that you I think you said this Bannon baloney. And then there's a special level of Bannon baloney. No, no, I said there's baloney. And then there's Bannon baloney okay. There's that. Right. That's what you said correct. But he's certainly been putting it out there that Donald Trump will run in 2028. And we know they've got those hats they throw out. When I said this then I had a little sit down with myself and I was I was thinking about this and you know, the thing about an authoritarian and again, you know, I mean, you can go down the list here of, of Donald Trump targeting, specifically targeting his political opponents, Donald Trump exerting ever more control over courts, media, universities, businesses of him explicitly targeting blue state governors and legislatures. And finally, locking in the mechanisms which which might ensure continued electoral success. I mean, this is these are the moves of an authoritarian, clearly. And the problem with this is that in authoritarian breaks so many rules and make so many enemies that in order to avoid in order to avoid retribution, he has to stay in power. That is the nature of the game that is being played. So, and, and if he has four years of, of, of dominating government, all branches of government, you know, I mean, I'm going to take it back. You know, I think that is becomes a very real possibility that he will undo the impediments to a third term that actually, if you think about it, as he pursues this course, he will have to do that because the consequences of, of, of the Democrats taking power would be, would be devastating for him.
Well, that's just an extraordinary thought. And also, there was a photo that I think was in the New York Times yesterday where he was standing with Pam Bondi, Cash Patel and Todd Blanch. And you just thought he's completely nobbled the DOJ, which is now run by two of his former personal lawyers and, he's put in cash, Patel, a former T-shirt salesman, to run the FBI Keystone Cache, as we call him at the Daily Beast. And he's gone after his his the people that tried to. Well, he's gone after his declared enemies. And and now you've got the press. Now you've got the prospect of John Bolton being added to James Comey. Jack Smith and Letitia James and Lisa Cooke, a list we read off at the last podcast. Adam Schiff. And might. Apparently be the next, Adam Schiff, a sitting senator, of course. You know, we're we're in entirely new territory here. And I don't know what I mean. I'm I don't know what to say. I mean, in in fact, you know, I think that that, you know, as I've, I mean, I'm being essentially an optimist or thinking of myself like, like that and thinking all things pass. And, and Donald Trump is unique and, 79 years old and or, or all of the reasons that one might think that this we are we are in a temporary a quite a horrifying but a temporary condition. I am, newly alarmed in a way I haven't been.
What about the King's protests this week? And are you feeling optimistic about those as a voice for people? No. I mean, they seem I mean, I think I think the issues I mean, if, if, if, if someone had asked me, I would say that that's, I mean, how do you stage an effective protest here? I've been actually thinking about that. I don't know, I, you know, I would say 10 million people have to go to Washington, you know, these these, discreet and somewhat quaint protests in various places, no matter how many people. And there will be a lot of people, and they seem very civic minded and, and, very as things should be. But but I'm not sure that there's any effectiveness there. 10 million people, however, in Washington would be a moment in history. It would be a moment in history. And we may be at another moment in history. And also the the Supreme Court decision is one of those things that seems to have snuck up on us. And, I know this is and we've discussed this endlessly and so have other people, but this sense of the zone being flooded with news, no one knowing where to look. And then suddenly we go from, what could be a historic piece in the Middle East to what could be a historic decision back at home, which allows him to run again in 2028. In our defense, or sort of, the people in the white House are also caught off guard by this. Oh my God, you know. They're going to be stuck there for the next four years. Somebody else said said to me, you know, and this is not the first time. Never underestimate the luck of Donald Trump. Never underestimate the luck of Donald Trump. And also then he's had unlike to as you're always saying, not only does he have great wins, but he also has great losses. I mean, it is it's remarkable to think the midterms are only one year and one month away. Not even I mean, they're a year and three weeks away. We just have to crawl through to them. Yeah. I mean, so another phase in this presidency is going to start. I mean, it'll start, you know, it is starting now. Because the midterms will be, you know, it's it's last chance saloon.
Well, we have two, governor races going on as well, one in new Jersey and one in Virginia. You know, in those in both in and both of these races are concerning because the Democrats are not doing as well as one might have thought they would have done. They are milquetoast Democrats. Well, and it's interesting when you say milquetoast Democrat, because actually, Mikie Sherrill, who's running for governor of New Jersey's, actually anything but that. In normal times, you know, she was a helicopter pilot. She's got four kids. She's deeply impressive. But impressive is different. Is is is is is different. She's at first she is. But she, she, you know, she opens her mouth and it's, you know, and we go to sleep, you know, there is no message. What is the message? The message is I, and better than the Trump people. You know, I mean, that's I mean, I mean, to me, that's, that's certainly a reasonable message. But but the message is, I am not louder than the Trump Trump people. I am not clearer than the Trump people. I'm not, more original than the Trump people. I am not cleverer than the Trump people. And I can't keep attention like the Trump people. Yeah. And, and so, so these are, these are the issues that the Democrats are facing in their profound issues they run against. They are symmetrical candidates. They run against asymmetric candidates.
So we mentioned Roger Ailes, who was the founder of, Fox News. What about the proprietor of Fox News and of course, the Wall Street Journal? That's been very provocative around the Epstein birthday letters. And of course, Donald Trump is suing them. What are you hearing about that case? Let me add that I have, I am Donald Trump's chronicler, but I am also Rupert Murdoch's chronicler. You are? You've written two books on Rupert Murdoch. Only two books and four books about Donald Trump. Yes. And but but the again, the context is Rupert Murdoch has been the media baron, the media proprietor, who has most assiduously and successfully propounded a set of conservative values that have helped, certainly have laid the groundwork for Donald Trump at the same time. And just one of those ironies, Rupert Murdoch has personally detested Donald Trump. And, Donald Trump has represented a kind of conservatism that Rupert Murdoch is not, has not, is not at all, a part of Rupert Murdoch is an old fashioned business guy, buttoned down, conservative. The fact that he is been the proprietor of Fox News has always been difficult for him and has created a rift, which will never be healed in his family. Now, however, it appears that, that Rupert Murdoch, like much of the business community has, has gone is going full mega. Murdoch, by the way, is 94 years old. So this is a last moment in the sun for him and I. And I think that he, like many, many Republicans and conservatives, sees no other. There's no alternative here.
Well, you. Said I mean, we know that Murdoch's mother live beyond 100. So it's possible like the president, he's just got, a gene that is resistant to all bugs and he just keeps going on. Well, no, well, nobody has that gene. So that's, you know, somehow by the fluke of this, that the other thing. But, in all likelihood, Rupert Murdoch dies in a week or so. In a week or so. That's very I. Mean, just I'm just giving you the actuarial facts. Okay. But he's not. But billionaires don't actually seem to come under the actuarial facts, so. Well, yeah. So he's got an 85. Year old, almost 95 year old in March. They didn't come under those actuarial tables as we all do. I just a push back. It's possible that, Rupert Murdoch could outlive the next three years of Donald Trump's presidency. By 1 to $100, $200. I would be. Oh, I'll put $50 on that. I, you know. Yeah. I used to work for Rupert Murdoch, and I will say that he seemed to have other worldly, another worldly, astute mind. You said to Donald Trump, I think they're both going to outlive all of us.
At any rate, in in the time that he has left. There's a couple of couple of interesting things going on. There is, he just published a book in the UK of which the Trump White House, a book that that made certain assertions about Melania Trump, and, assertions which, which have have been made in various other quarters. But, the Trump people got extremely upset about this. This is Andrew Lonnie's book entitled, which is about Prince Andrew and Prince Andrew's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. Right. And, Harpercollins in the UK published this book without without incident or too many questions. The Trump people sued and immediately the, the, the the publisher, the publisher, recalled or pulped the book or, you know, essentially bowed down. I think they edited the version, but they had 60,000 copies of the book already out in stores. No, I think that those have now been, Have those been recalled? Yes, yes. So, and, and now the Wall Street Journal. So the Wall Street Journal has been a kind of sketchy on, on, on this thing of, of of certain parts of the journal, the opinion pages being very pro-Trump. They haven't been pro tariff. They haven't even put a tariff. Yeah. They there's some. Yes. I mean that that would also be a murdoch, a murdoch thing. It'll be interesting to see if they actually turn if, if Murdoch is turning pro MAGA. How much, how much the editorial pages, clean up those slightly anti-Trump positions. So the news, the news pages have been aggressive on the Epstein issue. So aggressive, in fact, because they've published the birthday letter, I think they actually published it twice. Has led to a, a $10 billion lawsuit by the Trump White House, not the Trump White House, by Trump personally against the Wall Street Journal. And in in a world of some proportion, Murdoch doesn't settle lawsuits. I mean, Murdoch is has been a libel defendant for 70 years. He just he just takes a knee. And they're probably one of the one of the best libel litigation organizations in the world. They're just good at this. They don't do it. And, now, however, there there is, there is, tremors in the, in the company that this is not going to hold that that Rupert in his new MAGA hat. Is is might be more loyal to Trump than to his newspapers, which would be a staggering event. And there's another interesting aspect of this that that, the Trump administration has, has worked out this tick tock owners, this tick tock sale from the Chinese in which they basically they basically seem to be controlling the sale and letting whom letting their friends in cronies participate in it. And and, and Rupert Murdoch and in the, in news news corporation that I mean he has essentially two two companies news corporation fox I believe it's News Corporation would have a piece of this and. That's run by Lachlan, right. Yeah. Well both companies Lachlan now runs runs effectively both companies. But but Rupert Murdoch still effectively runs them. But with his son as the, as the CEO. At any rate, is it, I mean, and this is certainly, certainly the worry in, in, in Murdoch circles that the cost of Murdoch's participation in the TikTok deal is, is, is a forthcoming settlement of the, of the Trump lawsuit against the Journal.
You had mentioned that, one of the reasons that people were surprised to see Rupert Murdoch at the Windsor Castle dinner with when Trump went for his second state visit to the UK and was greeted by King Charles, was because he was hoping that he could reach some kind of a settlement cash settlement settlement for the library. Yeah. I mean, just the fact that Murdoch was there was kind of astounding. I mean, Donald Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion, and yet Rupert Murdoch shows up for dinner with him. What? That that says something. But what is the statement there? Well, and it's it's fairly astonishing that he ends up having dinner at Windsor Castle, giving the Haskell that his newspapers have given to the royal family. I would assume that, that that invitation, in fact, was issued by, by the Trump side. Fair. But they must surely they must have had to run it by the King. That sounds so grandiose, doesn't it? They must have had to run it by the king. I'm sure they didn't have to run any of it by the King. They probably ran it by Peter Mandelson before he was fired for his friendship with, with Jeffrey Epstein. Peter Mandelson, of course, being the then British ambassador who'd managed to organize this whole event, which was seen as a triumph until he was fired the week before it happened. Oh my goodness, oh my goodness. So much still to discuss. But this is the first time you're thinking that Donald Trump might actually run in 2028 and that the the path is being cleared for him by the Supreme Court? Yeah. Mark that. Michael a bit of a gloomy one for people today. I was trying to cheer people up with the idea that if you were invited to the state dinner, you might get caterpillar, the, you know, industrial machinery, company sponsoring your napkin ring. Or you might get metal, glass to drink out of. But it's it's a bit hollow. Yeah, I don't know. Let's let's mark this. I mean, I think that this is I mean, I mean, I feel in my own, my own sense of this. It's been it's been on a on a on a slow and now faster and faster downward sense of, of hopelessness, of doom. I mean, we've also talked about how oddities that you can go out into the street today in New York, the sun is shining, people are walking everywhere. They're clutching their cappuccinos, which I will say, several people wrote and complained that we had used that, as as an example, because the price of coffee is going up and that a lot of people actually can't afford to pay $7 anymore for a cappuccino, especially as we're in the middle of a shutdown, which we haven't even discussed. And we should come back on Tuesday and talk about the shutdown, assuming it's still going on. But I went online on Amazon today to order coffee and couldn't believe how expensive it was. So the cost of living is also going up. But whether or not it will go up enough to convince people in the 12 threatened districts in the South to throw up, Democratic candidates still remains to be seen. So we'll be back, in fact, on Saturday talking about everything. Well, what else will we be talking about tonight? Who knows? The world. The world could change tomorrow.
So you know what I'm going to do to cheer us up, Michael? I'm going to, I'm going to go through some reader comments. Here's a good one from a Henry Mendelssohn 4356. Do you think the new white House ballroom will be torn down by a future Democratic president? So he's looking into the future. He can see a future Democratic president. Yeah. No, I mean, this is this is why these things are built. They're very hard to tear down. They're actually easy to build. Easier than we thought anyway. And harder to tear down. Especially when you have a builder president. I will say I do think they did need a ballroom. Just not this ballroom. Because it's weird to go there and then be in a tent. Actually, I want to I want to, challenge that. You know, I've always found that when you go to the white House, you're struck by its modesty. And in a way, that's reassuring. I think it's weird to go to the white House and then have to go in a little golf cart down to a tent for a big event. I just think that's strange. And they should have entertaining. You see, to me, it seems, seems very Amish. Well, I love did you say Hamish? Hamish. What's. Hamish? I'm not going to tell you. You have to. Go, okay. I have no idea what Hamish is. Listen, I'm not saying that I don't love the modesty of the white House. I find everything about it extremely. As we've said before, it never gets old. But I do think they need an entertaining space. I just didn't expect it to be a Trumpian ballroom. I was talking to someone the other day who'd run into Donald Trump at the white House, and Trump cornered him and said, how much do you know about chandeliers? Because I know a lot about chandeliers. And this person had said, well, tell me about chandeliers. And Donald Trump said, what gives the best light is that a silver chandelier, a clear chandelier or a gold chandelier? And this person had obviously said a gold chandelier. And Trump had said, exactly right. Gold chandelier gives the best light. How come Tylenol asks Charles. Zoning, doesn't sue the administration. That is a good question. Why aren't they suing or at least suing Robert Kennedy Jr? I don't know the answer to that. Can we go inside McCormick Johnson's head on one episode? How is he balancing Trump's demand for loyalty with his duties as speaker and his Christian values? And that's from a radical. Well, that's an easy I've. Obviously, he only has one master. And, and it's. And it's not God. He's in it in Jesus. Christ. Just look and say, yeah, okay. And let's have a look. This is from Phillip Eagle. It. Oh, an seven five. So what do we know about Glenn and Jeffrey Epstein's involvement with intelligence organizations? Which ones? We don't know anything. And and nor does anyone else. So anything that you've heard is somebody making up something. Okay, we will be back on Saturday and perhaps we'll take more comments. Good. All right. Read us out, Michael. What does that. Mean? It means you have to tell people to subscribe to The Daily Beast because we are independent media. Apparently, that you can push and and you're going to be our subscriber for life. And, And you can be a member of the database community. And you can be a member of the Daily Beast community, although I don't exactly know what that means. It means you get access to us and it means you get extra content. It's kind of irresistible. You can call me anytime. And a shout out to our top tier beast members Karen White, Heidi Riley, Connie Rutherford, Sharon Shipley, Andrea Hodel, and Free DC. And thank you to our production team, Devin Roger Reno and Yvonne Earth and our editor, Jesse Millwood.