The Daily Beast Podcast - Melania Is Unleashing Revenge Dogs on Me: Wolff

Episode Date: July 3, 2026

Michael Wolff and Joanna Coles pull back the curtain on the hidden power brokers shaping Donald Trump’s presidency, revealing why one little-known lawyer may now wield more influence over Trump’s legal strategy than anyone else. Wolff shares explosive new details from his personal legal battle with Melania Trump, explains how Trump’s courtroom tactics are designed to drain opponents through delay and intimidation, and argues that the president’s legal operation now revolves around a modern-day Roy Cohn. They also unpack Trump’s staggering $2.2 billion windfall, Melania’s multimillion-dollar earnings, the Supreme Court’s latest decisions, the growing fight inside the Democratic Party ahead of the midterms, and why Trump’s off-the-cuff foreign policy comments continue to reshape global headlines despite, as Wolff argues, having little grounding in reality.  Visit https://ffrf.us/TRUMP or text TRUMP to 511511 to learn more and join the Freedom From Religion Foundation. #ad  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

My lawyers were in court yesterday. Melania Trump's lawyers, they have moved under something called Section 11. Essentially, they are moving to sanction my lawyers for doing nothing more than bringing the lawsuit against Melania Trump. So this is preposterous on its face. And it is just one of those things that comes with all of Trump style, not just style, Trump's own litigation, which is you do everything, no matter how C-ST sorted and not respectable and bound to be thrown out of court, you do this stuff to cost your opponents more money and to cause delay. Michael.

Joanna. How are you dealing with the heat? I am in the Hamptons and the weather is. Perfect, actually. Breeze, an incredible breeze, underlying temperature yet to break 80 today. Sweet. Small point, but you don't look very tanned. Well, tanning is not good for you, Joanna.

I know, but normally in the summer people get a different shade. You'll buy the beach. That's called unhealthy. Do you ever actually go to the beach? I don't think you do. Oh, I go to the beach. Not only do I go to the beach, I go to the beach every day, Joanna. Really?

I'm sure you don't. Of course I don't go to the beach. I'm in the city working. And I swim in the ocean in the, not that cold, but it doesn't really get to peak moment until the third week of July. Oh, my goodness. even though the sea temperatures at this point. This is, I mean, when I met you, I remember we had an argument with the author, the thriller author, Philip Kerr, over what was the most beautiful place in the world to live? And you insisted it was the Upper East Side.

And Philip was like, no, it's Venice. And you were like, it's the Upper West Side. It's whatever the postcode there is. You know, the thing about having these conversations in which you were a participant in is that, you're, you're a participant in is that, you're, you know, You remember them. It's not that just you remember them wrong. You get them wrong. None of that is what happened.

It's totally what happened. And in fact, it was the other thing because I was the one arguing that Venice was the most perfect place. And Philip, who this is, Philip Kerr is a writer who we both knew very well and who died several years ago. So we can say, and we can credit anything to Philip. he's no longer here. But he was the one who was, he was, I'm trying to think actually, where was Phillips ideal place? It was in the south of France. So this is, so every detail about that conversation you have. Okay. I just want to say that you were the most urban Manhattan man and you vociferously argued that the zip code 100,000.

02.1 was the most beautiful place to live. And now I just find it incredibly. You're swimming in the ocean every day. Something's happened. Something's happened. I'm not sure how to respond to this. Speechless. Because as I say, you have a version of my life which is entirely, it is not entirely inaccurate, but it is in most of its particulars, often inaccurate. Okay, but that's not inaccurate. Anyway, we are not at the state fair, but then neither is anybody else. So that's okay. And you've been talking to your lawyers, I hear. Yeah, I've been talking to my lawyers and curiously to the other side's lawyers, although that was inadvertent. So at any rate, to bring you up to date on Michael Worth. Michael Wolf versus Melania Trump, as it is formally known. Wow.

Michael Wolf versus Melania Trump. And we will come on to what Melania earned last year. And we should at least spend some time during today's podcast breaking out the different earnings. $208,000 for Trump Bible. The extraordinary earnings. But let's go back to your lawyer. So we're going to – I want to talk to you about the Gryft. I want to talk to you about Scotus and the impacts of their decisions and the fact.

that Trump can basically fire anybody he wants now, apart from Scotus, oddly. It's they're elevating their own power as well as elevating his power. But let's start then with Michael Wolf versus Melania Trump. My lawyers were in court yesterday, and we were in court to answer the other side. Melania Trump's lawyers have done something. they have moved under something called Section 11 to sanction my lawyers. Now, essentially, they are moving to sanction my lawyers for doing nothing more than bringing the lawsuit against Melania Trump.

So this is preposterous on its face. And it is just one of those things, another kind of thing that comes with. with all of Trump-style, Trump, not just style, Trump's own litigation, which is you do everything, no matter how C-ST sorted and not respectable and bound to be thrown out of court, you do this stuff to cost your opponents more money and to cause delay. Hold on a minute. Can I just ask, what does sanctioning your lawyers mean? Is it like a sort of professional?

Yeah, it's a procedure. You're asking the court to say, to make an evaluation that you have done something a frivolous or capricious or there's a whole kind of litany of these kind of descriptive words that you've done something that really should not have been done. and you are really abusing the court. And in that, in, and if the court finds you of abusing the court, you know, they can, they can, they can find you. They can hold you in contempt.

They can do a variety of things. But this very, very, very, very rarely happens, of course, because, because this is what, you're, you're in a, you're in a proceedings in which everybody is doing something that the other side, aside, does not want them. to do. So the idea of this that you have abused the court because you are, you are suing someone, is by its nature what the whole system is about. So anyway, it is therefore just the thing that you do to cause the other side inconvenience and cost and delay, always delay. Always delay. And in fact, the judge in this case, said, addressed everything to the other side and said, basically, hey, you know, I can't stop you

from continuing this action, but in all likelihood, I'm going to rule against it. And what you are doing is so, um, um, um, so ridiculous effectively that, that the other side could sue you for, ask for sanctions against you for doing this. So, essentially it was a reprimand to Melania Trump's lawyers. Inside Trump's head is brought to you by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. You know what's wild about American history? We literally fought a revolution against a king who claimed divine authority and then turned around and wrote a constitution with no mention of God.

None. No religious test. No state religion. and separation of church and state, that was intentional. Because the founders understood something important. Freedom works best when government doesn't play favourites with religion. But right now, we're seeing more and more attempts to blur that line in politics, in schools, and in public life.

And when that happens, it's not just symbolic. It affects laws, rights, and who gets treated like a full citizen. The Freedom from Religion Foundation is working to protect the First Amendment because it protects everybody's freedom of conscience. Visit ffrf.us slash Trump or text Trump to 511 511 to learn more and join. As America approaches its 250th anniversary, this is about what kind of country we become next. Go to ffrr.f.com. U.S. slash Trump or text Trump to 511-5-Eleven.

Remember to text Trump to 5-Eleven 5-Eleven. Message and data rates may apply. Okay. And who are her lawyers, Michael? Well, I mean, they're, okay, let's step back because this is the really interesting point. On January 26th of this year, I got a, um, a text from the president's personal lawyer, a man by the name of Boris Epstein. And the text said, hey, team, what's our timing on the section 11 filing? So. And I'm assuming that you weren't part of the team.

I was not part of the team. And now, I was not part of the team. And now, Now, I know I am in Boris Epstein's address book because he's a frequent off-the-record chatterer. And to me, along with, I assume, many other people. And as can happen, he was thinking about me and writing a text about me, but it wasn't supposed to go to me. But in that way that things happened, it did go to me. So we were at that point alerted that they were doing, that they were going through a Section 11 filing, okay,

you know, typical Trump stuff. But the more important thing and the larger thing is that it meant that this lawsuit, my Melania Trump lawsuit, was being coordinated at the highest levels of Trump. Trump law. Because Boris Epstein is, I mean, is a fascinating figure elemental to understanding the Trump White House. And I think he was on the inaugural flight of Gryft Force One yesterday. He was always trying to get on on these flights, always wanting to be seen. I mean, this is a big

thing. It's a big real estate play here who can be on the Air Force One or on Trump Force One during the campaign, which proves proximity to the president and which proves that you have the approval of Donald Trump because he's invited you onto his plane. Well, and also you get very specific time with him if you're on the plane with him, right? Because you're all sort of captive. So given that Donald Trump often believes the last person he's spoken to, I imagine that's quite a useful place to be. I think it's more symbolic because he doesn't have to pay. I mean, these planes are extremely large, as you know,

and it's never clear who's going to get time. So it's more of a perceptual thing. You are seen on the plane, therefore, that's the goal, really, to be seen on the plane. And then it's an in, but it also serves as an internal thing. And Boris is interesting. aspect of this is Boris Epstein is widely and deeply hated within the closest Trump circle. Oh, how come?

Why is that? So is he now at this point the sort of the president's personal lawyer, Boris actually. Yes. And he is more than the president's personal lawyer. He is the he is the lawyer that essentially stands between Trump. Trump and all other lawyers within the White House and executive branch circle. So, and to be clear about this and to be clear about the level that he's working at, he is the person who introduced Todd Blanche, who is now the acting attorney general and has

been nominated to become the attorney general. That is, he was introduced into the Trump circle. by Boris Epstein. As a matter of fact, Todd Blanche was Boris's lawyer before he became Trump's lawyer. So they, those two have a, have an integral and profound partnership in essence. And so nothing happens within the Trump legal world, the, the, in terms of, in terms of what Trump is, is thinking,

in terms of how Trump's interests are being reflected in court, in lawsuits, in any of the kinds of procedural, procedural. I'm trying to look for the words to indicate how important Boris is. And I would say he runs the legal show. He runs the legal strategy for Trump. But more importantly, in understanding is Boris doesn't work in the White House. Boris works outside of the White House directly for Donald Trump in a personal capacity. So this is kind of extraordinary that this person who doesn't work for the people, which is to say, us in the White House, is running the entire, essentially the justice. Department in the United States of America.

Wow. And where is he based? Is he based in D.C.? Is he based at Mar-a-Lago? Where is he actually sort of... He's in D.C. But he can't be, I mean, I hope we can flash up a picture of him. He's quite young to be in this role, too, right?

He's in his mid-40s. I think he's 43. He's 43, a Russian emigre, only practiced law for a couple of years, then became a kind of a, you know, GOP political operative, but really came into his own when he hooked up with Donald Trump. And he became a Trump surrogate, one of the first Trump surrogates in 2015, when few people were willing to do this, go on television and say Donald Trump was a great guy and a plausible candidate. He, but even then,

disliked by the staff, disliked by the staff because he was always trying to go around them to Trump. Yeah, I was going to say, how does Boris Epstein get on with, or Epstein get on with Susie Wiles? She hates them. Has always been at odds with him.

As a matter of fact, my book about the campaign all or nothing opens with a with a scene on a zoom call of Boris comes on the zoom call. He thinks his screen is is, he thinks his camera is not on, but the camera is on. And he comes on. He's a big hairy chested guy and he's he comes on without a shirt. And, um, and Susie Wiles has a flip out over this. So he's not who Trump was referring to when he said, I may not have the best lawyers, but I've got the hottest lawyers.

He is. He is. He is. He is. Absolutely not. And Boris, he has a, there's a funny thing about because, I mean, Boris is, and he's also hated because, because he's regarded as a, as a sycophant, as a suck up, as willing to say anything Donald Trump wants to hear. Therefore, catering to Donald Trump's work. worst instincts. And this is even something that Trump makes fun of him for. So during the

campaign and when one of Trump's set up things, and Trump always repeats these things constantly, gets a little joke, repeats it. But one of his jokes, whenever Boris would call, and Boris would call, you know, speak to Trump at least 10 times a day, sometimes 20 times in a day. 20 times in a day. Yes. And he would call. And then also here, this was another something that his name was always spelled wrong on Trump's phone. But anyway, he would call.

Trump would hold up the phone to whoever he was with. And then he would say, oh, it's my Boris on the phone calling to tell me I've been indicted again in what good news that is. So Trump had some self-awareness of the fact that Boris was just a suck-up. But that doesn't really matter to Trump. That is actually becomes finally a recommendation. And Boris has progressively moved forward more and more into that central position. He is the president's guy. Okay.

So what I'm hearing from this is that, Actually, diversion, is Boris Epstein the new Roy Cohn? Absolutely. Okay. Okay. So, Roy Cohn was. I mean, that's a good understanding of this. Trump has always looked toward a lawyer who will do anything,

who will facilitate anything, who will, who. The thing about lawyers is that they basically, they're, their currency is their own respectability. So whatever client they have, they're always protecting themselves. That's what they do. Their probity, let's say, is what is ultimately being traded for among other clients. So they can't risk that too much. They can't compromise that or they seek not to,

compromise that. Their respectability exists independently of their clients, the disreputable clients that they might have. And Trump's lawyers function really, really in exactly the opposite fashion. They are willing to do this. That's what that's that's that's the cost of working for Donald Trump. You must work entirely for him. You do what he wants to do, even if that compromises your reputation. Right. Or even if you end up in jail like Michael Cohn. Yeah, no.

And it's a, I mean, it is that kind of, that kind of thing. That's, that's the, the legal principle is that the system can be, can be bent to anyone's advantage if they are willing to, to suffer that kind of opprobrium of the community. Of the other community of lawyers. Yes, the system is malleable. Right. And obviously all lawyers know that, but this is in the Trump world that's pushed to an extreme. And in order to push it to an extreme, you have to have lawyers, and there are not too many who are willing to push it to an extreme.

And that is, that's the Roy Cohn position, and now it is certainly the Boris Epstein position. So from what you're saying, Boris Epstein is now in charge of the Trump legal strategy in Michael Wolf versus Melania Trump. I think he's in charge of the legal strategy in any of the legal proceedings that Donald Trump has a particular interest in. So that runs that that that that runs the dammit of of really Trump interest. Boris is so you can say safely, Boris is everywhere. Boris is everywhere, and he was certainly on Griffith one on its inaugural trip yesterday. They released photos, and there was Margo Martin, and there was Stephen Chung, who we're always hearing from.

Yeah, and let me, there's another, some interesting other background about Boris that I think shed some light on Trump. That first thing, Boris was one of the first people after the 2020 election when very few people were, around Trump were willing to pick up this mantle of, you know, the election was stolen. Boris on his own, because he wasn't working in the White House at this point, on his own, flew into Arizona to begin to coordinate the challenge to the election. They stop the steal. Yes. And Boris was ultimately indicted.

for that, that after Trump became the president again, that indictment was thrown out. But Boris was, there was a criminal indictment for Boris about what he did vis-a-vis electoral manipulation in Arizona. There was another thing. This is, this is, this really goes to show Trump's relationship to the people who are abjectly loyal to him. So in the middle of the campaign, video surfaces because Boris had been arrested in Arizona in a bar called, wait for it, the bottled blonde. The bottled blonde. So this video goes out. It's obviously, you know, getting wide pickup.

And you would think that this would have finished off his, his, his, um, his, uh, his video. career as a significant aid to someone running for the presidency. Nope. So his boss grabs women by the posse. Yeah, Trump just brushed it off. Right. Of course he did because, in fact, their fellow abusers. Or at least fellow alleged abuses if the case got dropped against Boris.

But as we saw from the Supreme Court decision this week, Trump is a sexual abuser in there. as the court threw out his efforts to have them overrule the verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case, the $5 million case. So your lawyers are, do they immediately appeal this sanctioning, this Section 11? What's their response? How long does it take? So this was just a conference on this. So the judges, they've, the other side filed noticed that they are going to file on this, on this section 11. So they go, the judge calls all parties into court and the judge basically said, don't do this. This is not a smart thing to do. Can't stop you from doing it, but it's not a smart thing to do. Now, this goes back to the other thing that lawyers, I'm sure they

will do it anyway because it doesn't, their own reputational damage, their own standing in the court doesn't matter. You do what is, you do what you have to do for, Donald Trump create, and in this instance, cost me more money or cost my lawyers, my side of this more money, and you cause delay. So that's for them is a win. And it doesn't matter if they're going to lose this. And it doesn't matter if the judge is going to think lesser of them for doing this. Okay, so for now, they are using Section 11 to sanction your lawyers as a delaying technique. Right. And then meanwhile, just in the broader sense of this lawsuit, this judge who's a Trump judge, in a complicated ruling in which she decided not to rule on the merits of the case, but accepted the fact that the Trump argument that Melania Trump lived,

in Florida. At any rate, she has dismissed the case so that now we are dismissed the case in federal court, and that is now being appealed, in which actually she acknowledged yesterday that we had gone to the Second Circuit, and it would probably not look so good for the Second Circuit if they, if the Trump, if Melania Trump's lawyers and the president's lawyers, um, continued this Section 11 baloney. Okay. So it's a delaying technique. And do you know when you hear back from it?

I mean, I remember that you got the decision on the judge essentially saying we're not going to hear this in federal court the day before Memorial Day weekend, clearly trying to bury the story. What they didn't realize was we had an episode of Inside Trump's head coming up the very next day so we could immediately talk about it. But do you have any sense of timing here? this another endless? It could be any time that they come back to us. I mean, that's one of the, I mean, this kind of fascinating exposure to this process. The courts themselves are,

for all kinds of reasons, because they're overburdened and because, and because, because justice is slow, take forever. But then add to that the fact that this is a fundamental tactic in all Trump, in Trump laws, Trump litigation. It's fascinating. So we had some insight into Trump's earnings this week, his $2.2 billion, much of which was made from crypto, something that in 2019 he'd said was nonsense and really didn't make any sense whatsoever. But we also had some insight into Malani's finances too,

and she had managed to monetize being First Lady to the tune of 17 million. That's which is extraordinary. I mean, it's extraordinary, beyond extraordinary that Trump gets, makes $2 billion on less than 18 months in the White House. But then the First Lady, who literally not only, literally does nothing. She doesn't even show up. makes $17 million. To be fair, she showed up at the Easter egg roll. I saw her at the Easter egg roll.

She turned up to deliver her very strange. I didn't know Jeffrey Epstein speech, but threw everybody into a tizzy, very, very strange. So she turns up, she's turned up at least twice this year. So $17 million for a handful of appearances. And what is the $17 million from? the payment for the Amazon film Melania, the documentary, was that counted the previous year? I'm sure that that's spread out over a bunch of years. It should probably make $17 million

every year. This is, you know, but the interesting thing to focus on here is that, you know, of all the thing, they're, you know, 40 million from Amazon, this and that. That's, that's, that's, that's, money yet in the ether. What we do know is that she literally took in the space of 12 months $17 million into her pocket. And actually, I think some of that is from a meme coin. She has her own crypto action. If I were Melania Trump and I had 17 million from one year, I would demand a divorce. Well, I guess once you have 17 million, then you look at your next 17 million and your next 17 and your next 17. I know, it's never enough, I suppose, isn't it? I mean, it's never enough.

And then since the president has made $2 billion, I suppose you look at the prospects for getting your own, at least half of that. You know, there's a thing I do want to, there was a moment during the campaign, the 2024 campaign, when Trump was, he was annoyed with everybody for taking him to fundraisers. It just was a particular tense moment in the campaign, and there were many tense moments. And he was like, I don't want to do this anymore. I don't want to, I don't want to go to fundraisers. I don't have to go to fundraisers because, and I quote, the crypto guys will give me everything I need.

What did that mean? Meaning that as long as he relaxed regulation on crypto, he would be fine. They would just finance him. Yeah. I think that that's absolutely what it, they had aligned their interests at that point. And the crypto guys had unlimited money and could use the presidency to make even vastly more money. of which Donald Trump is sharing in, and it's not only that they're financing his campaign, they have cut Donald Trump into the crypto profits. Well, and also his licensing deals have gone up. So during the time he was at Mar-a-Lago, they were sort of, you know, sort of $8 million, 9 million in terms of international licensing deals. rapidly rose in 25. And I think the figure I saw was 48 million from the UAE for licensing

deals to put his name on, you know, Trump casinos, Trump hotels, whatever else he's doing. I was amused to see that the actual Trump things that he's producing, notwithstanding the meme coins and the crypto, but his Trump Bibles had only raised 208,000 for the Trump family coffers and his gold sneakers and his fragrance, Trump fragrance, what can that smell like? What is the ingredients in the Trump fragrance had only raised 67,000? So I think post-presidency, he shouldn't think of becoming a perfumier. I think he should stick to the crypto grift and the licensing of his name. name and perhaps, you know, perhaps if Ivanka will be able to do a chain of Albanian

restaurants and hotels once she's got her foothold on her island. I mean, maybe as fascinating as the level of money he is taking in is the fact that this has not appeared to inspired a universal revulsion. that, you know, I mean, in any other presidency, this would have, well, it just would have not, it couldn't have happened. I mean, can you imagine, can you imagine if Joe Biden had come up with some rule on crypto, brought out a Biden coin and made $2.2 billion. Look at the fuss that was made over Hunter. Maybe that's not true, though. Maybe you would look at the other way that that if Joe, Joe Biden had done this in such an egregious way, in such a blatant way, in such a shameless way, in such a proud way.

Maybe people would have said, oh, my God, you know, Joe is really. Good as Joe. I mean, I don't know because I can't understand any other reason why this has not redounded to Trump's imprisonment. It is, and does anyone seem to care? You know, I mean, yeah, I think people care. But in general, not very much. This is not going to the top of the issues that people have against Donald Trump. Well, I wonder, though, I wonder if that's true.

I mean, it's difficult to know. First of all, Republicans are much better at negative messaging against the Dems than the Dems. than the Dems are against Trump. I mean, if I were the Dems, I would have had a national campaign by now attacking Donald Trump on this extraordinary level of money that he's made in the last 18 months.

I mean, not even over a period of time. Not even 18 months. Right. Okay, so not even 18 months. Nearly 18 months. But they should have had a message that came out from every Democratic mouth across the country. And instead, I guess maybe this is what's behind the Democratic Socialists' sudden

rise in Colorado. I mean, you saw Michael Bennett just getting pushed to the side by Phil Weiser. You saw the incumbent in Colorado getting kicked out by the Democratic Socialist new candidate who was born the same year as the incumbent actually went into Congress. So there's clearly change going on, but the messaging around it just seems missing. Well, I mean, the messaging partly is that. I mean, that's, that's, I mean, the messaging there is internecine within the Democratic Party. And it is either you're too old or you haven't done enough to stand up to Donald Trump, which is clearly they haven't, but they haven't because, because Donald Trump is, is, because nobody quite knows how to stand up to Donald Trump because the fact that Donald Trump has made

$2 billion in a very short time in the White House does not seem to have the effect that everyone would assume it should have. I mean, why hasn't every Democratic governor been out there with talking points about this? This is a moment where the Democratic Party could entirely unite around this message of corruption and connecting it to taxpayer dollars, connecting it to, this is not what he's supposed to be in the presidency for. I think probably the answer is because they don't think it has all, it has the traction that we would ordinarily think that it should have, that there is something that this is built into the Donald Trump personality. It's Donald Trump. Of course he's going to make money on this.

He's a businessman. He's, you know, that the fact that Donald Trump is not only shameless but proud of this appears to have this other, this confounding effect. And it's not just in terms of his, of his grift in corruption. Obviously, it's in terms of almost anything else. anything else he does that one would have thought would cost, would would have an extreme political cost. The women, the, the, the ballroom, the Kennedy Center, all of this kind of thing that

you would say, this should cost him. And it may, and maybe it will cost him. And that's, that's what we're looking toward the midterms to see. But so far, given the fact that he's been elected to the presidency twice, it's a, I mean, there is a, there, this is a complicated thing that American politics has not been able to digest and process. Okay. Well, in our last conversations about the midterms, I was slightly sloppy in describing the California vote counting as, and we heard from someone who's worked in the elections in California for 30 years, who was irritated by that comment. And I don't blame her really.

What I was trying to point out was, I thought it was odd that California seems to take so long to bring back a verdict on who's won because so many people in California use mail-in voting and it seems to take forever to count. But I didn't mean to say the process was sloppy. assured me that the process is in fact meticulous. Even Steve Hilton, the Republican gubernatorial candidate who's now crept in as number two, has said there's no indication of election fraud whatsoever in California. But I wanted to point out that I shouldn't have used the word sloppy because I don't think it probably is sloppy. No, but the word you should have used was inefficient.

And it certainly is inefficient. It certainly is, I mean, I think the Californians, I acknowledge this and and I think they've just they've just authorized a new expenditure to deal with this. I mean, this is a procedural process that if not, if not, if not sloppy, certainly not something that anybody has certainly not urgent. And I think that's a problem. I mean, it has, it creates, it creates doubt where there should not be doubt. Right. And that's a bureaucratic responsibility that clearly nobody has taken as their own. Maybe there's no way around it.

I mean, we saw the Supreme Court at least uphold the fact that in Mississippi, you know, votes can be counted if they've been postmarked on the day of the election, even if they arrive a bit late. Well, yeah, but there is a way around that. You've got more people, better systems. You know, California is a standout among 50 states in taking its sweet time. Well, and also it does have Silicon Valley, and you would think if you can do online banking, why can't you vote online? There must be some way of doing this, surely. Well, but that's a different subject.

Now, you know. Right, but the world has sped up. We now have technology since people started voting. surely they must be able to do it. Well, yeah, yeah, but okay, voting online is somewhat. We don't vote online and for good or not so good reasons. But right now we vote the way we vote, and California takes much longer than anyone else.

Right, and all I'm saying is if we voted online, it would be instant. The results would be very easy to tally. We do everything else online. I don't even know, but that's not, That is not related to California, and California is a major issue. And California has got to solve its problem, should solve this problem and has got to solve its problem, and has nothing to do with voting online.

This is how people vote right now. This is the, this is the, this is how it works. And you've got to, you've got to perform within that. And they don't. So whether you want to call it sloppy or inefficient. And it's, you could say, call it certainly broken. Okay. All right.

Well, I don't think we was, well, I certainly wasn't trying to suggest it was, however, fraudulent, which is what I was anxious that I'd inadvertently suggested. So, Scotus, a lot of comments on the fact that no one can believe Scotus takes three months off for such, for a holiday. I mean, it's crazy. Why do they get three months vacation? Who else gets three months vacation? They've got a job for life. They're allowed to do a side hustle and write books and pull in a million dollars here for an advance or, you know, do something else. They're allowed to take RVs in the case of Clarence Thomas. So why is it that they get to have a three month vacation? Anyway, I'm all for longer vacations for more people. And in the case of the Supreme Court, it means three months. without without Trump favoring decisions. So I think we come out ahead on this.

Okay, well, that's a good repost. I actually don't agree. I think that they could get a month off. I think a month will be absolutely fine. I don't see why they can't do what the French do and just refuse to return calls in August. And you take a lot of vacations.

I don't take. I never go to it. I'm always working. Michael Wolfe, I was not on vacation. I was looking after my mom and then I was on a work trip to France. I had three days at the end with my older son, which was heaven. A work trip in the south of France in Cannes.

Just to point this out, Roseé, remember that conversation? Of course, Roseille all day. A lot of people were very upset that you attacked Roseanne, and one person wrote in to say that the Queen likes Roseanne, the Queen likes Roseanne, even if it is a mid-drink, the Queen likes Rosez. Ah, the Queen. those notable taste makers. But just to can...

The queen catching astray there. You went to an event that I have been to many times and a pure boondoggle. Just to point this out in defense of the Supreme Court, nothing gets done. Everybody says something gets done. I've never seen any business get done in camp. Actually, I did some business in Cannes,

so there you go. Okay, let's see. You know, people think they do business. They have a conversation. They go to a meeting. Well, actually, what you do is you meet people for breakfast. You meet people for lunch. You meet people for coffee.

I know. I've been there. And that gets you absolutely nothing. Okay, well, we'll see. Except breakfast. Except breakfast. Okay. Well, it's a good way to catch up with people.

Find out what's going on. In fact, I did do some business. So there you go, Michael Wolf. All right. Let's talk about SCOTUS decisions. We've had this discussion before that I, in, in my view, the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are threading the needle. It's not, it is all about what they have to give Donald Trump and what they can hold back from him and all

about how to measure. It's all about power, essentially. It's all about politics. So the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be above politics, which is supposed to be a, a, a, all, about the application of the law, a, you know, a nation of laws and not men has flipped that on its head. It's all about Donald Trump. Everything that goes through their head is about Donald Trump, how Donald Trump is going to react, how they need to react to Donald Trump, how they function within the political system.

And of course he actually appeared at the Supreme Court, which was a first, during the birthright citizenship arguments. That didn't seem to have had an effect. Or maybe it did because it was a six three decision against him. Maybe the three that were in favor or dissented from the decision were intimidated by him. We were wrong about our characterization of that the other day. I mean, when we were talking about the decision had just that second come out. Yeah, we literally got a newsflash as we were talking about it. But it's a significantly more equivocal decision than we had portrayed that.

So in a decision which should have been, you would have said, okay, well, this is, you know, this is an obvious one. This is nine to zero. or at least seven and two because you have two. Right, we've got Alito and Clarence Thomas that are always going to vote for Trump. Yes, who are, you know, gone in some strange world. But it wasn't, you know, and it was much closer to, you know, essentially they were saying, well, this is open to debate. And, you know, and the, you know, I think the danger now is that it is that they have opened it to debate and that this will go on in a, you know, Roe v. Wade sense and become a political issue.

So, so and again, so I think that was the gift that to Donald Trump. Okay. You know, we don't, we really can't, we really can't rule out birthright citizenship. Hello. But, you know, it's something Donald Trump wants. How can we go? Is there a kind of a middle ground here? And again, it's always that kind of thing. And everything they do is what do we have to give to Caesar? Well, to your point about whether or not that debate just keeps going on, it does seem as if the skirmishes with Iran are going to keep going on now.

And then Donald Trump was calling for Syria to get involved. The head of ISIS now in charge of Syria, now president of Syria. He was like, well, what, the Syrians should be involved. No, they should be involved. I think that that was extraordinary. I mean, you know, the Syrians, I mean, essentially they were saying, well, the Syrians should go and they should go to go fight Hezbollah. The Syrians who have had now years and years. of war and who have basically said, oh, my God, you know, we got a, you know, we have to rebuild,

we have a nation to rebuild here. We're not going to get involved in this. I mean, this is so, so, and Donald Trump is in that way he has of just, just speaking, just comes, where does it come from? I mean, it comes from the fact that he has, and this is the, this is the, the point, no idea what he's talking about. So much of what he says is not only uninformed, not thought out, in which he has gotten no advice about, but it just comes off the top of his head. Where does that come from?

It comes from nowhere. Right. I mean, has he just looked at a map and thought, well, Syria's near Iran. Why don't they just get involved? Let's get them involved. I mean, that sense of, well, as you say, just creating foreign policy on the fly with no understanding. No, but it's even more than that. And again, that thing that people can't get their heads around.

It's like the $2 billion. Here is a man who has no fucking idea what he's talking about for a good part of the time. And we kind of go, yeah, okay. Okay. Well, do we don't do that. We're trying to point it out. There are lots of people pointing it out that he has no idea what he's talking about half the time, more than half the time. Okay.

And where's my headline in the New York Times? Donald Trump has no idea what he's talking about. You see, we are forced into a situation because we lack the language. We lack the affect to say here the president of the United States is, as I say, we lack the language. The President of the United States is crazy. The President of the United States is the stupidest man, obviously, to ever, ever occupy this office. The President of the United States has no grasp of the issues that he's charged with making decisions about.

And yet, he's managed to make $2.2 billion in his first year. Well, we'll be back on Saturday with, we've actually got an election episode on Saturday, haven't we? We've not exactly predicted the midterms, but yeah, we've been talking about the midterms, which is essential for July the 4th. Speaking of the New York Times, the New York Times had two competing articles, one in which it says control of the Senate was up for grabs. the other one by Nate, what's his name? What's that guy's name? Nate Silver.

Nate Silver. A pollster. The Times pollster who is invariably wrong and then invariably authoritative about why he was right. Even if he was wrong, this is why he was right. But anyway, his He has his piece today was I think today or yesterday was that

that the Democrats, it was highly unlikely that the Democrats would take the Senate. Well, Michigan is an interesting one. Have you been following that AOC came out and endorsed one of the candidates? The primary is actually August the 4th. And I have one or two friends in Michigan who called just saying this will be an absolute disaster if they go for a progressive in Michigan. This is a state that Donald Trump won and that if they go non-moderate in Michigan,

they will lose, lose, lose. Well, that's, you know, from one side, I mean, that's, that is the discussion within the Democratic Party. And it is between the moderate faction and this new, younger, really energetic. Significantly energetic, significantly more left. People who seem to be winning election after election. All right. Well, let's talk about the midterms on Saturday.

In the meantime, I know you have to, you've got an appointment with the beach. I've just got an appointment with the office. I thought you were coming out here. Don't I have to entertain you? I think you might have to entertain me. I'm not coming out until tomorrow. I'm coming out for 36 hours, Michael. That's the only time off I allow myself.

I'm coming out for 36 hours, and I'm looking forward to seeing you out there. On a helicopter, I'm sure. I'm actually not coming out on the helicopter. I'm coming out on the Jitney. The helicopter was booked. I see. Well, the Jitney is running at five hours to get out of

here to get out here now, I understand. Yeah, I heard that, but I'm coming on Friday lunchtime, so I'm thinking that the journey will actually be fine by that. I think the roads will be fine by then. Most people will be coming out tonight. Okay, well, in a measure. We'll take the measure. We'll take the measure. We'll take the measure. All right. I'm looking forward to seeing you out there. I'm looking forward to a slightly, I'm looking forward to lesser temperatures than the sea breeze. And I'm really looking forward to a lot of rosé. I don't know what to say. You don't have to say anything.

You just have to thank people. Our enduring thanks to John, Rachel, Matt, Heather, and Neil. And I think there's one more person I've forgotten. Doug. It's Doug. You just made that up. You've just made that up. And it's not Matt.

It's Matt. You've just made Doug up. But if there's anyone called Doug out there who wants to come and work on the podcast and you've got the right qualifications, let us know. If you can handle Michael's tech requirements, then good for you. And don't forget to subscribe to the Daily Beast. Michael, we're 2,000 off, 700,000. And do you know, we haven't even been going a year. Inside Trump's head has not been going a year yet.

We're going to have to think of how we celebrate our annual anniversary, which isn't until the end of August. actually. So we've got some time to think about it. We can talk about it this weekend. We can talk about it this weekend. Okay. And how are we going to think about the midterms and where we go? And we got various invites from people across the country, actually, which is very exciting. I'm still up for Mount Rushmore, though. A couple of people wrote in and said absolutely not. It's really trashy, which I find hard to believe. But it looked very good in South by Southwest. You've had presidents, the faces of presidents.

carved into a mountainside? You don't think that's going to be trashy. I think it's going to be inspiring and sort of awe-inspiring. And I'm going to make you run across the top, like in that scene from this north-by-north-west. Yeah, great, great movie. And they're running across those faces. I can see you doing that.

Also, a lot of people appreciated the photo of you with hair. I'm not even going to respond to that. I will, well, I'll see you in the Hamptons and we'll see everybody back here on Saturday for our next episode of Inside Trump's Head. Thank you if you have been for joining us. Big thanks to our production team, Ryan Murray, John Romero, Rachel Passer, Heather Pissaro and Neil Rosenhaus. So the good news is we have so many Bee Beast tier members now. There are too many names to read out and we really appreciate your support.