Breaking News from Pod Save America - Trump's Chief of Staff BASHES Entire Administration In DISASTER INTERVIEW

Episode Date: December 16, 2025

Jon Lovett, Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor react to Susie Wiles's wild interview in Vanity Fair. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Welch's fruit snacks. Big news for your kids' lunchbox. Welch's fruit snacks are now made without any artificial dyes. A snack parents can feel good about and the same delicious taste kids can't get enough of. All made with no artificial dyes. Try Welch's fruit snacks today. All right, guys, Donald Trump's chief of staff, Susie Wiles, sat down for 11 interviews.

11. With Vanity Fair, this is somebody who is notoriously reclusive, as noted in the article. She even sits off camera when all the other staff are on screen. But if she's going to talk to the press, she's going to do it in style. I'd say I think it's one of the most newsworthy interviews I've ever seen and all the time I've been in politics. She's also, by the way, it wasn't just her. It was focused on her.

But Rubio, Vance, Miller, they all sat down with Chris Whipple, who writes about chiefs of staff famously and has written a book on it. And they did it for Vanity Fair. and there was like multiple photo shoots. Yeah, I'm really curious about the process. Because Chris Whipple is a historian, an author, and documentary maker. He wrote this book, The Gatekeepers in 2017 about Chiefs of Staff. The entire interview, which we should get into, reads like someone is speaking like they think they're off the record or it's on background.

Or it's for a book to come out years from now. Years from now. But I will say, as I sat down with Chris Whipple for his book, I was out here. So it was 2013, 2014. And first, he's like, he's a nice, unassuming guy. But like, there's no way you would be fooled into thinking that this was like not. Like he's very like, I'm going to record this. This is thing.

Even though it was for a book. Yeah, he's a journalist. And there's the recorders right there. Like, I don't understand. So let's dive in. Let's talk about January 6th. Did Susie Wiles ever asked the president, wait a minute, do you really want to pardon all 1500 January 6th convicts or should we be more selective? she then says, I did exactly that.

I am on board with people that were happenstancers or didn't do anything violent. And we certainly know what everybody did because the FBI had done such an incredible job. And yet. Setting it up. Setting the whole thing up inside her threat. I'm just kidding. Yeah. But like in contradiction, yes, to what Donald Trump has said about what the FBI did that day.

And she then makes the claim that, oh, actually the people that were pardoned had served more time, which is false. Yeah. she's saying that even the violent people that were pardoned had sort of had the sentencing was on the high end which is not true according to court records as vanity fair points out but basically she's saying here that she was outvoted on some of these violent offenders who should have been in jail but trump pardon them anyway and his claims about the FBI are false these are all people who did exactly what the government said that they had done that's good that was yeah there's a lot of them like that you know where she's it's very um uh just like it's well probably wasn't a good idea, but what are you going to do? There's a number. There's a number of those. She repeatedly contradicts him, yeah. Yeah.

Then, so in March, the 56th day of Trump, President's Day, according to the piece, Whipple asked Wiles, do you ever go into Trump and say, look, this is not supposed to be a retribution tour? And she says, yes, I do. We have a loose agreement that the score settling will end before the first 90 days are over. And then Whipple in August, yeah, well, Wipple goes back in August and says, what's happening like it certainly seems like it's retribution to go after

Tish James for mortgage fraud and she says well that might be the one retribution and he's whipple has have you asked like questioned him about it says it not on her not on her she had half a billion dollars

of his money she laughed which is a way of basically like of course he's going after Tish James she went after his money and then when Comey was being prosecuted.

Whipple questions her about that and she says, I mean, people could think it does look vindictive. I don't think he wakes up thinking about retribution, but when there's an opportunity, he will go for it. Jim Comey's lawyers read that and they felt like Christmas came early because they are going to take that quote and they're going to present it in court and say that this is a vindictive prosecution that the entire case should be thrown out for good. Also, Letitia James, if they try for the third time with her, there are, Like, there's stuff in here. There's so many core documents, I think, in the future that are going to end up having quotes from Vanity Fair in here around ICE and deportations, around the Venezuela stuff was also quite notable. To your point about, oh, yeah, things didn't go the way I hope they would. The shuttering of USAID, she basically says Musk is an avowed ketamine user.

She says she was initially aghast because I think anybody that pays attention to government and has ever been. paid attention to USAID, believed as I did, that they do very good work, and that when Elon said we are doing this, he was already into it, and because he knew it would be horrifying to others, but he decided that it was a better approach to shut it down, fire everybody, shut them out, and then go rebuild, not the way I would do it. She also acknowledges she didn't understand the effect that slashing USAA programs would have in humanitarian aid. She said, I didn't know a lot about the extent of their grant making. I was going to say, there's a lot of this where the ignorance of the team really comes into play here.

And not just Susie Wiles, but a lot of them. It seems like evil Stephen Miller is the only one who did his homework for the four years prior. And Russ Vote, Russ Vot, vote, whatever the fuck they call him, who she calls a right-wing absolute zealot. But it seems like a lot of them are just like, well, Trump's going to do what Trump's going to do. And if we don't know anything about how the government works, whatever. Yeah, the same thing happens around deportation. She says, I will concede that we've got to look harder at our process for deportation. That's around the Sikot deportations.

And she says, if somebody is a known gang member as a criminal past and you're sure and you can demonstrate it, it is probably fine to send them to El Salvador or wherever. But if there's a question, I think our process has to lean toward a double check. And then they point out that you have tried to make sure there are no double checks whatsoever. And that there are examples of people wrongly. sort of ensnared in this process. She says it could have been an over-resolous border patrol agent. I don't know. I can't understand how you make that mistake, but somebody did. I appreciate the honesty. I mean, like, it's the cardinal sin in this White House is telling the truth

and admitting when you make any mistake and making any change. And she just did it. I wonder if she can survive this with Trump. I mean, time will tell, I guess. He just gave us an interview to the New York Post, apparently where he said, she's fantastic. She's great. They had asked him about, She said that Trump has an alcoholic personality. I really do think that is sort of the least of the problematic parts of this. What she meant was like her father was an alcoholic, and she said that alcoholics tend to have like big personalities. The alcoholism magnifies their personalities.

And Donald Trump thinks that there's nothing he can't do, which is sometimes what alcohol. So it's like it was, that part was fine actually. Yeah. People have put like even, what's his name? Scalise was pushing back. Well, he doesn't even drink. Yeah, that's the point.

Actually, even Trump would acknowledge this. He doesn't drink. He did in the interview. I will say. So the write up in Vanity Fair started with a, bunch of kind of, you know, fragmentary piecemeal quotes out of context that kind of did her dirty. Now, she goes on to hang herself with her own words in context later on on a bunch of issues. But yeah, the alcoholic thing was really weird.

There's a bunch of kind of like fragmented points that I thought were a touch unfair in the framing. Yeah, we'll land there because I do think it's worth like stepping back about what we've learned from this because the sensational quotes, even the ones that are in context, they're important and interesting. We should talk about them. But this was also just a really helpful way of understanding how this White House works. Like on tariffs, what it looked like from the outside is what happened. When Trump comes out with those tariffs and it feels chaotic and like nobody had had it fully baked,

that is because nobody had fully baked it. She says so much thinking out loud is what I would call it. There was a huge disagreement over whether tariffs were a good idea. The advisors were divided. Wiles told them to get on board with Trump. And she said, this is where we're going to get, sorry, Wiles told them to get on board with Trump. She said, this is where we're going to end up. So figure out how you can work into what he's already thinking and they couldn't get there.

Vance has then called in to try to get him to not talk about tariffs today. Let's wait until we have the team in unity. Then we'll do it. But Trump went ahead anyway, which caused a panic in the barred market. That's led him to pause it for 90 days. It was legitimately Trump, completely ahead of the team, a completely half-baked economic policy. What it looked like is exactly what it was. And she even acknowledges that it was more painful

than she expected. Yeah. There's a lot of these mistake acknowledgements would be one thing if it was a single mistake. Like she's referring to a particular deportation with the mom of Louisiana with kids with cancer. But she's acknowledging mistakes that happen on a mass scale, whether it's deportations, whether it's the tariffs,

whether it's all this other stuff. Like they are just, they are. fucking wrecking balls. Trump is the wrecking ball and she just kind of like walks behind him and tries to channel his energies into into productive ends and but doesn't first of all doesn't really know what she's doing does know how to handle him well but then when she loses these fights she's kind of like yeah whatever. That's sort of what I got from it's the like I'm not yeah I'm not saying we're not going to get our hair must a little bit like they're making huge policy choices in a chaotic and like kind of error prone manner across the board a big huge

decisions. It's like, yeah, you know, it didn't go exactly the way I would have hoped. Well, a lot of people are going to die. Yeah, I mean, I think past Chiefs of Staff for Donald Trump got in trouble because they try to disagree with him and push back on him when he did things there were, I don't know, illegal or unconstitutional or immoral or unethical or bad for our national security. She seems to just give up. And to the extent she fights, keep it private, which I guess maybe is a better way to keep your job, but it's not exactly painting her in glory in this story. Right. Like, if this where this is all what's interesting about this piece is it if you didn't know just the amount of destruction and menace that Trump was pursuing it reads like a kind of like after action like

here's what's been working here's what's not working I'm a competent person these are all smart people around it but this is sort of roving bands of sort of zealots and goons the one part that I thought was also worth talking about is what she says about whether he will run in 2028 and just how explicit she is about how it is bullshit. He acknowledges it privately that it's bullshit. Yeah. He wants to, he like jokes about it, knows it gets people riled up, but actually just would actually even in his behind the scenes is sort of like, I'm going to be done after, I'm going to be

done after another four years. Which he's sort of gotten to recently, but it is interesting that even privately that's what he's been saying to. I think that, I think on the 2028 front, maybe the newsiest non-Susie Wiles quote in this whole thing is from Rubio. Who said that if JD runs, he will not run and he will just support him. Do I believe him? No. Do I think he has to say that? Absolutely. I don't know. It's a pretty, yeah, I guess he does have to say.

I had the same thought, too. Like Hatterbert here, it's just sort of... He couldn't even make it seem like there's any daylight there or hesitation. You're right? Because then it opens up, yeah, then it's World War III. Yep. Right, right. The other part that I thought was interesting is Susie Wiles just directly compares Rubio and Vance about how they went from being such antagonist to Trump to being in his pocket. And she says, Marco was not the sort of person that would violate his principles. He just

won't. And so he had to get there. By contrast, she suggested Vance had other motivations. His conversion came when he was running for the Senate. And I think his conversion was a little bit more sort of political. I love that because essentially what she's saying is, you know, J.D.'s a hack so he got there faster. But like, Marco Rubio went from doing events where he was saying Donald Trump's got a little dick. to being the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor 10 years later. It just took a longer amount of time. Marco realized, like, wait, if I become National Security Advisor and Secretary of State,

I can do my little project of toppling the Venezuelan government. Ooh, this sounds exciting. Like, that's how we got there. Right, yeah. The getting there, I think, is more like, can I tell a story that isn't as political as the van story? Can I make it seem that way even to myself? Yep. I was stunned, speaking of Venezuela, by her quote on that.

And she talked about the Trump's Venezuela strategy. it is. Yeah. He wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle and people weigh smarter than me on that say that he will. So apparently this is not about drugs in any way shape or four. This is purely regime change, which we all knew, which we all knew, this is about seizing oil assets and, you know, a right-wing political agenda in Latin America, but she just says it out loud. And she does maintain that they are all like bad drug dealers on the boats because then she, this is another like, doesn't really understand government thing. She was like, the under-told story is how talented the CIA is and knowing who people are. It's like,

well, people kind of know that the CIA. Yeah, it's what they do for living. I'm pretty good at it. I mean, there's a lot of stories about the CIA. Some of them are the ones where they knew who was in the boats and some of them are stories where they had no idea was in the boats. Yeah, and a lot of big mistakes in Latin America in particular over their history. But on the other side of this, she acknowledges that drug smolling is not a death penalty offense. She also says if war is declared only by the president, she says that they don't need congressional approval of what they were doing for the boats, but attacking targets on Venezuela's mainland would force Trump to get congressional approval. If you were to authorize some activity on

land, then it's war, then we'd need Congress, but Marco and Jay to Sam Exander are up on the hill every day briefing. Another big quote. That's a big deal. I don't, I'm sure they would just walk it back somehow, but that is not to me what they're what they're claiming. Well, no, there's, there's been reporting that Republican senators have been, and I didn't know if it was real or not, but this seems like it is, that Republican senators have been saying when they get brief, that Marco says, don't worry, we will come to you if we're going to do lands. Certainly, but it's not what Trump is saying. No, but that's important, right?

He's threatening it right now. And the threats are not meant to be carried out. I doubt they'll seek an authorization for the use of military force, but I bet they'll do something using the War Powers Act and go to Congress that way with a briefing or notification or something. That was my interpretation. But it is a big kind of comment for the legal case. There's also a really kind of, it's just all just very ugly sort of section about Putin and Ukraine.

Zelensky. She says, if we had to do it over, I wouldn't have had cameras in that meeting where Trump and Vance losing on Zelensky. And there's just this carving up of Ukraine that experts think that if he could get the rest of Donetsk, that he would be happy. Donald Trump thinks he wants the whole country. Rubio sort of having the same thought. Like, when were you thought about that? Well, if Donald Trump thinks that Putin wants the whole country, that undercuts all his public comments about how Putin wants peace, and it does make you wonder, okay, so why are we forcing these guys to give up 20% of their territory to permanently limit the size of their military and the weapons capabilities of their military if we think long term Vladimir Putin is going to go for the rest

of Ukraine. Now, I think Donald Trump is right here. You just have to read Vladimir Putin's speeches. You don't need the brilliant CIA minds to tell you this. He's like talked about how, you know, the historical links between Russia and Ukraine. But yeah, I mean, she sort of undercuts their entire strategy here. Well, it's also shows why, like, if you're Zelensky, you don't want to be. to do any deal that doesn't have an Article 5 like security guarantee because if that's what's

going to happen, which is what he's been worried about the whole time, which is why he was fucking yelled at in the Oval Office to bring it back to that. Yeah. Now, the cavalier, it's also just so glib because she describes how she, from afar, thought Trump and Putin had this admiration. She has a signed photo of her and Trump, her and of Putin and Trump in her office signed by Trump, which is a, like, I, it's just a, what a, like, what an ugly photo to have. signed as if it's some fucking souvenir?

Yeah. So this is a person who's been discussed as this behind the scenes Machiavellian political genius. And I was struck by the number of times she sounds unbelievably naive. Like, for example, she's talking about the Helsinki summit. Watching it at a distance in Helsinki, I thought there was a real sort of friendship there, or at least an admiration. But on the phone calls that we've had with Putin, it's been very mixed. Some of them have been friendly and some of them have been not. He's an evil dictator who massacres his own people. He sent, there's been like a million Russian casualties in just the war on Ukraine. You think this guy is like a good dude who wants to be buddies? What about the kidnapping of, just the kidnapping of children from your Kandism and that has

kidnapped thousands upon thousands of children from this country? Do you guys catch the caption that Vanity Fair put on that picture? No. The signed picture of Trump and Putin. The caption is, Fannie Foges, two old friends in better times. That's good. That's a good bit. That's very good. Really funny. It's really funny. One just, this is just one one thing I jumped out. Vance told me that he hopes to minimize GOP losses in 2026. I think a good midterm election for an incumbent presidency would be to lose a dozen seats in Congress and two or three seats in the Senate. I think that it will be better than that. He knows he's on the record. He wasn't confused. Yeah. But what an undercutting thing for him to

just to be just for his own benefit. Oh, I think that's I think that is him wisely trying to lower expectations. Oh, I understand why he's doing it for his own sake. I don't think that is like that is not what the administration is saying publicly. That is not what Mike Johnson is saying publicly. That is not what Mike Johnson is to vulnerable members threatening to retire. Right? Like you, like there's no value to having the vice president saying, yeah,

we're going to get shellacked, but not so bad. Like that's, that's good for him. That's sort of, well, like, yeah.

Well, it's sort of, it's becoming the messaging because that's like what the RNC chair said last week that they got all upset about that like, yes,

we're supposed to lose because historically we're supposed to lose, but it's Donald Trump who can help us and do better than usual. It's like that kind of, yeah, but I just, that's not what he,

he's just sort of kind of, I think, doing his own, doing serving thing himself here but again wild sounds naive i mean she says that she thought the gopi had a chance of electing the governor in new jersey what they wild what 15 points like i thought this was a political genius who had access to polling yeah data and information like no you look like a moron if you told the president that yeah she's like he thinks i'm this vengali it's like guess not uh let's talk about let's let's close on ebstein here uh first of all she acts she

to your point about being naive she seems genuinely caught off guard by the attention to ebstein She says whether he was an American CIA asset, a Mossad asset, whether all these rich, important men went to that nasty island, did unforgivable things to young girls. I mean, I kind of knew it, but it's never anything I paid a bit of attention to. See, I think that's defensible. I think that's where most people were, and it was just like freaks like Cash Patel and Dan Bongino that really like kicked this up. And it became like a kind of big manosphere thing. Yeah, I mean, I think that's right. But as you're entering office, you have all these.

people clamoring for information about it. You then are in meetings where you're deciding to put Cash Patel and Dan Bougino in charge of this agency. She goes after Pam Bondi. She says, I think she, Bondi, completely whiffed on appreciating that this was the very targeted group that cared about this. First, she gave them binders full of nothingness. And then she said that the witness list or the client list was on her desk desk.

There is no client list, and it sure as hell wasn't on her desk. And then as Vanity Fair points to Vanity Fair's own reporting about agents in the New York field office combing through the Epstein files, assuming they were looking for Trump's name. And she says, I don't know how many agents look through the things, but it was a lot. They were looking for 25 things, not one thing, one thing potentially being Trump's name. And she says that Trump is in the file and we know he is in the file and he's not in the file doing anything awful. But he was on the plane.

He's on the manifest. They were, you know, sort of young single, whatever. I know it is a passe word, but sort of young single playboys together. Trump was like in his 50s at that time. Yeah, it's a weird thing to call a convicted pedophile of Playboy. Yeah. I mean, confirming that Trump was on the plane, confirming he was on the manifest. He always says he's not on the plane.

This is really bad. I don't, imagine walking to the Oval Office and having to explain this one, to Donald Trump. How about her saying that she and Donald Trump had no idea why Maxwell was moved to the club fed and that Trump was really unhappy when he found out. and she's going to go, if Chris Whipple wants to know, she'll go find that out for him and never. Never does.

Never go back to him on that. And that it was Blanche's idea. Yeah, Todd Blanche's idea was to interview her. Which is, that is really, like, well, to interview her, like, not to move her to the. We don't know. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but she didn't say that Todd, it was his idea to interview her, right?

But so clearly he's involved in some way with this, I mean, with this ridiculous decision to move her to her minimum. We don't know, but it seems certainly like, like she's pushing it on to him that this was sort of the Todd Blanche project in some way. Well, they also make her sound like a passive actor. The president was ticked. The president was mighty unhappy. I don't know why they moved her.

Neither does the president. Well, why don't you call over and fix the problem? You're the fucking White House chief of staff. It's wild that she maintains that the Epstein, the birthday note, that the Wall Street Journal published was not Trump. Yes. He must be telling them, like, it's not me. Like, he must just swear up and down that it's time.

Who knows? It could have been like one of his people were like, this is a funny note we're having from you. You want to sign it? And then he, like, signs it. You know what I'm saying? Like, who knows? But, like, it was his fucking note. Yeah, I saw that too.

I sort of like, as much as she's divulging in this, there's not a lot of equity in her saying, actually he did write the note. It would be a pretty crazy thing for her to concede. And I presume she has no knowledge outside of what Trump tells her. So whatever she actually, what it tells her. So whatever she actually believes, sort of a freebie to agree because they're suing. And then she also notes that he could be deposed. And she says if he would, if he had to be, he would be.

Also, by the way, she totally undercuts Trump and says there's no evidence that the Bill Clinton visits happened, according to Wiles as to whether there's anything incriminating about Clinton in the Files, the president was wrong about that. Yeah, president was wrong that he visited the island, which big admission. Yeah, one last note, this is one of the piece parts that got pulled out where she says the vice president has been a conspiracy theorist for a decade. I, like, that's being like sort of, that is not the worst thing she says about Vance by a long mile in this piece.

I actually think the part about being political and going over to Trump is a much bigger deal. I think she's saying he was part of the people that understood the kind of underworld of politics that cared about Epstein. that point, I thought this was really interesting that a senior white officer described the mindset of an overlapping block of voters who are angered by both Trump's handling of the Epstein files and the war in Gaza. It's as much as 5%. Union members, the podcast crowd, the young people, the young black males, they're interested in Epstein and they're the people that are disturbed that we are cozy with Israel as we are. And she also, this is the group of people that Wiles says Vance is concerned about,

that she's concerned about because these are the people that are not MAGA but are potential for future Republican voters, potential Rogan people. And it's just interesting how clear like they have a group of people in their mind, sort of apolitical, maybe anti-woke, but sort of conspiratorial group of people that Vance is clearly thinking about. I thought that was interesting. One, two, a one, two, three, four.

Give me a break, give me a break. Break me off a piece of that kick cat bar. Hatch off a crispy taste. Off a piece of that kick cat bar. Have a break. Have a Kit Kat. I think they're right. I think that there's definitely, a group of people in that space that is probably horrified by both Jeffrey Epstein and what was

happening in Gaza. And they're not happy with Trump on all of it. And also she mentioned that like how Trump talks about Netanyahu so often. And she says, quote, I'm not sure he fully realizes that there's an audience here that doesn't love it. Yeah. And she says, if you dive deeply, oh, this is a White House source talking about this dynamic. If you dive deeply into the internet, you will find things that say, well, why don't we just

put BB at the Resolute Desk? And we talked about this yesterday in Ponce of America, but like there is a sort of an anti-social mindset. There's a conspiratorial mindset. It does overlap with an anti-Semitic mindset, not to say criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. But in this case, you do feel like that's what they're kind of thinking about this group of people. Just to wrap this up, there's something that Rubio says in an interview about Wiles that I thought capture the dynamic that we see throughout this piece, which is there's this idea that people have, I think, that was very common in the first administration, that their objective was to control the president or influence the president or even manipulate the president because they had to, they had to in order to serve the national interest. Susie just takes the diametrically opposite viewpoint, which is that she is a facilitator

that the American people have elected Donald Trump. Wiles says elsewhere in the piece, I hear stories from my predecessors about these seminal moments where you have to go in and tell the president what he wants to do is unconstitutional or will cause lives. I don't have that. I'm not an enabler.

I'm also not a bitch. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's terrible. It's just terrible. You're not serving your boss well.

So you're not angering him in the short term, but you're allowing to do, awful unconstitutional illegal things like great work. It's sort of the definition of an enabler. Yeah. Well, that's like those are revealing about it. Tell me when you have not enabled him because you basically have made the argument that your job is to enable him.

Show me on the doll where you enabled. Yeah, like she says at one point like, you know, sometimes I make an argument and I lose the argument and that's it. Like, okay, you made the argument. But if you made the argument about something that you believe is either harmful to him or the country or unconstitutional and then you just like don't push any further than you've enabled. Right.

Like it's the idea that like the vibe is what counts, right? Like my vibe is I push back here and there, but I try to get things done. But that would be fine if the president was a law-abiding kind of technocrat. He's not. He's a glomphing maniac who doesn't care about the Constitution. You have an obligation to push back. If not in his interest, then in the countries. Right.

Ultimately, he's the boss. But like you should have a line that you personally will not cross. Moral one, an ethical, legal one. My overall take on this piece was like, oh, this is how. people who don't think they are getting into an authoritarian regime end up justifying it to themselves. If that's the case with her, maybe she didn't, I don't know, but it seems like that from what we know about her is that in the 90 days thing on

the retribution is what really good for me. She's like, well, the president and I have an agreement that after 90 days, no more retribution. And then he comes after, it comes back to her after 90 days and ask the questions about James and Comey. It's like, what happened to the agreement that you struck with the president that there's no more retribution? Because now it's like, well, then he just did this one. Then he had to do this one, they had to do this one. So it's fine. We're just going to keep going.

Like, you can see just her rationalizing and justifying everything in her own mind as the time goes on, because this is over a whole year, these interviews, the time goes on. She's like, yeah. Building the concentration camps created jobs. Right. And that's why he was elected. Exactly. Well, it's funny because she talks about how.

What else are we supposed to do about the afford? You guys want us to take care of the affordability crisis. So we try to build some concentration camps. Obama had shovel ready. to make more housing and now you're bitching about that. We dig mass graves and now you don't like shovel ready to us. The media will never, the fake news media will never give us credit. I think it's a good place to live it.

One last thing about all this though is because I do think there's a lesson too about how people work with Trump. And she like and it actually goes to how much her baseline has moved as you were saying. Because she says that when she first was working for Trump in 2016, he like reamed her for a bad poll and was like yelling at her and yelling at her and yelling at her and yelling at her. And she kind of just stops him and says, like, I'm not going to be the kind of person that has my hair on fire. If you don't want that, then you don't want me. And he loves it. Got a negam. And it called her right back, right?

Like, there's so many people that kind of genuflect and kind of lay themselves on the ground at the feet of Donald Trump. But like, she does know how to work him as much as she does, I guess, also chooses not to do it. Well, that's Susie Wiles. May her memory be a blessing. The last thing I just all standing behind her. I do think she, I do think that like, yeah, it seems like she hangs on. It seems like she hangs on. Luckily, this is all in print.

If this was an interview on camera, I think she had real trouble. But the fact that Donald Trump has, someone has to physically make him read any of this. It's going to take some time. And she's like Laura Lumer defending her and stuff, like all the heinous right winger. So that's Susie Wiles, Trump's enabler. If you would like to enable independent media to continue to make content to compete with the right wing on YouTube and to support what we're doing here to get this kind of. of information in front of more people. Please do us a favor and hit subscribe. It really helps us. It helps us build the Ponce of America channel. Helps us make videos like this and so many others.

So please, please, please hit subscribe, comment on this video, share this video. It genuinely is how we build a bigger, progressive, independent media ecosystem when we know the right has such a head start.