The Opinions - Has Trump Gone Full ‘Mob Boss’?

Episode Date: May 23, 2026

President Trump’s proposed political slush fund is getting pushback — including from his own party. This week on “The Opinions,” the national politics writer Michelle Cottle and the columnists Jamelle Bouie and David French discuss how the president’s “reparations for rioters” settlement fund may be his biggest miscalculation yet ahead of the November midterms. Thoughts? Email us at [e-mail]. This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Derek Arthur. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin. Mixing by Pat McCusker. Video editing by Julian Hackney. The postproduction manager is Mike Puretz. Original music by Pat McCusker. Fact-checking by Julie Beer and Kate Sinclair. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. The director of Opinion Video is Jonah M. Kessel. The deputy director of Opinion Shows is Alison Bruzek. The director of Opinion Shows is Annie-Rose Strasser. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I mean, we should all just, we should all apply. We say that we were at Jan 6. We were there. We were in the crowd. And we feel victimized. We feel victimized by Sleepy Joe Biden. I'm Michelle Cottle. I'm a political writer for Times opinion.

And I am here this week with my fabulous colleagues, columnists David French and Jamel Bowie. Guys, it's been a minute since the three of us were together. How goes it? It's great to get the gang back together again. I'm glad to see Jamel. Yeah, looking forward to the conversation. and glad to be back.

Got in the band back together. And today we're going to talk about Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund that will essentially compensate people who say they were victims of political persecution. This could, for example, result in some pretty big payouts to the January 6th rioters funded by U.S. taxpayers. Then we're going to unpack some of the recent prime. Mary's. So, as always, lots to cover. Let's get to it. Jamel and David. I know we have talked many, many, many times about Trump's corruption and his chipping away at democratic institutions and norms. Before we get into the specifics, what are you most concerned about with this political

slush fund? With the usual caveat that we are taping this on a Thursday morning. And I realize there's lots to choose from. I mean, yeah, it's like what isn't there to be concerned about? It's an illegal, probably also unconstitutional, slush fund meant to pay off the rioters that the president pardoned at the beginning of his term. You got guys like Enrique Tario, former head of the proud boys, saying that he's going to ask for $2 to $5 million for this fund. And this, you know, this is ostensibly, right, for victims of the weaponization of government. And what does weaponization of government mean in this context? It means people being arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted by a jury of their peers in fair trials. Like, this isn't, this, what weaponization?

It's nonsense. And so it's paying off, it's paying off people who were fairly convicted of trying to overturn a presidential election from money stolen from the American taxpayers for all intents and purposes. And it's crazy. It's genuinely, it's, it is genuinely one of the most insane things I have ever seen. And this is, you know, we're 10 years into Trump, right? So I see it a lot. And this really takes, takes the cake. David.

If anything, Jamel just undersold this. Like, if he's aired in any way, he has undersold this. And here's what I mean about it. I think it might be the most purely monarchical thing that he's done yet in an already monarchical presidency. And the reason why I say that. Now, I fully recognize that this is also a man who unilaterally launched a war on a foreign country. He's been able to look back at sort of past presidential misbehavior in that arena to kind of justify this. And he tries to do that here by looking back at prior presidents who, when friendly groups had filed litigation, had entered into favorable settlements with friendly groups.

Now, this is something, a practice called sue and settle. and a lot of those settlements I didn't like. They were too favorable, for example. But that is not this. Let's break down what this is. So what this is is Donald Trump suing his own IRS, the IRS that he controls, for alleged misconduct that was committed when,

dot, dot, dot, he controlled the IRS in his first term. So he's suing an agency he controls for alleged misconduct that occurred under his watch. then the defending agency is supposed to be the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is also under his control. So here you have he's filing a lawsuit against an entity he controls. This is absurd. And so when a federal government, when a federal judge looks at this and goes, wait a minute,

is this even an adversarial process? Is this a real case and controversy? I mean, this is one side suing itself. And so then what happens? the Trump administration, seeing the looming legal disaster, drops the case, or Trump drops the case, then his own administration enters into a unilateral agreement with him that doesn't just create a slush fund for non-parties to the case.

In other words, people who weren't even parties to this at all. There's no judicial oversight. The slush fund is going to be conducted entirely according to his own at his own discretion according to his own procedures with the people that he selects. And then to top it all off, this same agreement grants him, his family, all the parties to this lawsuit, this sort of in perpetuity, or this kind of version of a civil pardon. In other words, it has a release of liability against Trump and his family that is extraordinarily broad. And why is this so important? Because Trump has the power to pardon, but the power

to pardon only applies to crimes. It doesn't apply to civil lawsuits. So if he violated the law as president, he would be subject to civil litigation, even if he pardoned himself. Now he and parts of his family are immune from civil lawsuit brought on matters, arguably. unrelated to this very case. And I know it's a lot less consequential than a war in Iran. But as far as a matter of assuming power, just grabbing power and using it just entirely to settle scores, to pay off friends and allies, I mean, this one absolutely takes the cake. And this is an administration so corrupt that as I, you know, I was talking in an interview this week, I said, the Gilded Age guys are angry right now that they were born in the wrong century. Because if they really wanted some grift and graft,

now is the time in this administration. And this stands out even in that milieu. Okay. So just to boil it down, we're talking about. Other than that, totally fine. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like that? So there's a slush fund for his allies, overseen, it's going to be overseen by his friends. They're already jockeying over who's going to be on the panel that oversees this. And blanket immunity for his family. And it's all going to be funded by us, right? One of the things to mention, though, if you are part of the group overseeing the Fluss Fund,

you can use the Slash Fund to reimburse yourself for all your expenses. So if you want to, for example, take like a nice per die. get like a fancy hotel while you're doing the business of the slush fund under the terms of the agreement you can use the money to pay yourself a nice little fee so what if i applied where are they going to let me are they going to let me distribute the such it's my money i feel i should be involved here i mean we should all just we should all apply we say that we were at jan 6 we were there we were in the crowd and uh we feel victimized we feel victimized by sleepy joe byden by the way as you guys are talking I'm remembering another big legal thing.

I forgot in that whole litany. Oh, throw it in. I don't want to leave anything out here. Just real quick. This is, I can't believe I didn't have it in the initial screed. David. I'm so sorry, incomplete screeds are a podcasting sin. Thank you.

Without question. But if I'm a normal human being, let's suppose there is magamike and blue bob. Okay. So if I'm magab, Mike now, I could have taken my flagpole and used it to beat a police officer, have spent time in prison for assault, now I'm pardoned, and now even though I physically attacked a police officer, I could file some sort of weaponization claim, maybe claiming I was in, I was poorly treated in prison

or something happened in the trial that deprived me a due, you know, just use whatever hook. And Maga Mike, who beat a police officer with a flagpole, could get half a million dollars. million dollars, who knows? Then you have Blue Bob. Blue Bob is protesting ICE in Minneapolis, and let's say an ICE officer smacks him in the face or tasers him or pepper sprays him for no reason. Or shoots him.

Sorry. Or shoots him. Well, is Bob going to be able to apply to that slush fund? Well, I mean, he can apply, but good luck. But then let's say Bob then tries to get compensation through a normal legal channel for getting compensation. from a federal officer who's violated your civil rights. Well, good freaking luck,

because there is this just massive web of immunities that really wall off federal officials from accountability, far more than state and local officials. But if you're maga mic and you beat somebody with a flagpole on January 6th, there's a chance that money could be flowing into you. So every direction you turn on this, it's terrible, and that's without justifying one I over.

of the sue and settle practice I talked about earlier. So I know that there are two police officers who were at the Capitol on Jan 6 who've already sued to try and stop the fund. Is there a legal path, do you think, forward to stop it? That's a very good question. I think as far as on the merits, there is absolutely a legal path,

just grabbing $1.776 billion from general funds that were appropriated for legal settlements, and use them in cases that aren't real cases, there's a lot going on here legally, but everybody who files a lawsuit has to have standing. They have to show that they themselves have been hurt by this action. And as a general taxpayer, I can't say,

well, that's $1.776 billion. I'm never getting back or whatever. That my portion of that one point. That doesn't count as standing. And so the question really is going to be, who has standing? and when is a case ripe? In other words, when is there actually something to sue?

When are there actually procedures to attack? And so that is a much more complicated question, especially since Supreme Court has been, if anything, kind of rolling back, peering back standing a little bit. So it's going to be very interesting to see who ultimately has standing to challenge that, but it's hard for me to see how this fits within any legal structure contemplated by federal law. Jamal, do you see a, so shifting to the political, do you see a political path forward?

Could this be an issue that folds into the Democrats railing against corruption? Could it be effective as a campaign issue? Where do you see this going with politics? As we were speaking, I saw a poll from the American Research Group. middle of the road poster, you know, not, not, you're not looking anything crazy. Um, Trump approval disapprove 65% approve 31%. I mentioned that because, uh, it seems to me that this weaponization fund, this, the slush fund, these reparations for Jan Sixters, quick parenthetical, you know, for a long time,

people have been like reparations for slavery, reparations for Jim Crow. That's crazy. That's insane. Who would, who, who, how could you ever do that? And meanwhile, with the stroke of a pen, we now have reparations for rioters. It's very exciting. A protected group. A protected group.

Subject of systematic discrimination. So we got this reparations fund. And I have to imagine that this is wildly unpopular with the public for a couple reasons. The first is that just by proximity to Trump. Trump is so unpopular that this becomes kind of unpopular by extension. But the other thing is it's such a shift. striking example of the president's fundamental indifference to the economic prospects of ordinary Americans. It's Trump saying, I don't care about that. When you're negotiating with Iran,

Mr. President, to what extent are American financial situations motivating you to make a deal? Not even a little bit. And also, I'm only going to lift a finger to give money to people who help me do something that most Americans agree was at the very least a crime and was wrong. This is such a potent symbol of the president's corruption and disregard for the economic well-being of ordinary people. And just sort of too clever by half trolling. Ha, ha, ha, to $1.776 billion. It's like, that's not clever. That's just rubbing it in people's faces.

And I just have to imagine that this isn't going to cause, like, the president's approval to collapse. But it's going to add, once again, in a very potent way, way to the just distaste that the broad public has for the president. And I, you know, Democrats are already kind of like, you know, really, really running with this. And I think they should. I think it's the right thing to do. But if I were, you know, if I were a lawmaker, I would say something like, listen, even

if a court doesn't overturn this, this is clearly illegal. This is, we didn't appropriate this money for this purpose. And if you notice, you know, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment suggests, or is it Section 4, one of those, suggests that we can't be paying out money to insurrectionists. And these are people who were convicted of insurrection. And so as far as I'm concerned, anyone who takes a penny from this fund is liable for congressional investigation. And we will refer, we'll find some way to do a criminal referral. But we're going to treat this as if you are engaged in a crime if you take a penny from this fund. Just put that out there.

Just say sort of like, it's tainted money. You touch it. We're going to go after you. David. Anything? You know, I was going to tell me that that would be against the law. Yeah, it's probably not criminal to take that money. The law is all flexible.

It's all flexible these days. It's like, what is the law really? Probably not criminal to take the money. but the, I will say, you know, it's interesting. We're seeing this combination of factors happening right now. Trump is doing this at the same time that he is flexed in enormous amount of control over the GOP at the grassroots level with defeating five Indiana senators who defied him on redistricting, getting rid of, you know, Congressman Massey, getting rid of Senator Cassidy. And there are two things that are happening as he does this. One of them is that he is showing everybody that, and he's putting these Republicans even more in a box than they were.

They're in a terrible position for which I have no sympathy. And the terrible position is they, if they defy Trump, they are in all likelihood going to lose their job in a primary, if not now, maybe the next cycle. If they don't defy Trump, they are tying themselves to, as Jamel just outlined, they're lashing themselves to the mast of a sinking ship. So it's either you go down with the ship or you go down at the hands of primary voters. Those are your sort of two options. And why I said I have no sympathy is they could have put a stop to all this, as we know, after January 6th, which any healthy functioning political party would have put a stop to this after January 6th. But they chose not to.

They made their bed, but you know what? They also made our bed as well. And we're all in it. We're all in this together now. But one of the things that's happening, as he's targeted Cassidy, he has made a lot of Republican senators angry. Now, what are they going to do about it? Are they going to see them the green room and then continue to do everything that he asks in voting? Or is at some point, are we going to see one or two more people peel away?

I can tell you, it was already peeled away as Cassidy voted for the war powers resolution. I mean, Cassidy is unchained at this point. But this is the box that Republicans are in, and the larger American public, independence, and of course, Democrats are running away from them as fast as they can. And MAGA never had enough all on its own to make Trump president. And they are now alienating everyone who isn't MAGA, slowly but steadily. You can see the line moving. But it has been uninterrupted downward line since he was sworn in.

And this is not going to change that. trajectory. And it's not done. I mean, we've we've seen a lot of news in the last couple of days how Trump, you know, cleared the boards with his revenge campaign and it's, it's not done. He's already teed up some more victims that he'd like to target. He's mad at, I think it's Brian Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania, who has not been all that keen on some of his projects like the ballroom or whatever. And then basically the same day that Massey went down, I think Trump was endorsing Ken Paxton in the Texas Senate. That made people very angry also.

And this is one of our favorite races, David. And that has absolutely gobsmacked Republican senators who have always viewed Ken Paxton, who has such a long list of scandals attached to his name. And it's a very flawed candidate. They've always viewed him as the weaker opponent for James Talarico, the Democrat, who is, trying for this seat. And now they're just like, what is the president doing? But I have to say,

I'm right with you on this. It's just like, this is too little too late guys. This is what happens when you allow your party to be hijacked by a guy who wants to be king. Jamel, have you thought, what are your thoughts on the primaries that we've been watching? No, I mean, I think the Trump's main concern in all of these things is not so much the viability of the Republican party in November, but just sort of can't he punish people he dislikes? And should they hold on, can he have people there who will be even more, you know, sycophantic and willing to defend him and shield him and make Congress as, you know, bootlicking and supine as possible? That's his only real interest because, frankly, Trump's autocratic aspirations are not possible without a totally

acquiescent Republican Party. It's just sort of there's a Republican Party that showed 30% more fight in a willingness to defend its own prerogatives and to defend its sensible ideals would render Trump inert as a political force. Massey has just been outright defying the president in numerous places. And Trump can't let that stand because if Massey were to, if he had won his primary, it would just send a signal to other maybe wavering Republicans. Hey, you can do this. And hold on.

The president's grip on the Republican base isn't that strong. But as far as winning elections, you know, I think a lot is already baked in. And if you were a Republican concerned about holding on to the House and Senate, the time to act was back in January. It was back in February. Now, it's too late. and we're likely in for a hot, expensive summer that people are going to leave very irate into a fall where the price of goods will continue to be high, where we might, you know, be entering like an actual economic slowdown.

And under those conditions, there's really not that much you can do to save a house majority. Even, you know, the recent gerrymandering, the Supreme Court decisions, all those things I think are quite bad. But they help you hold the house in a neutral national environment where all things are equal. They do not help you hold the house when the president's approval rating is reaching the bottom for a post-World War II president. And when the generic ballot is showing, our recent near time, Siena poll had Democrats up 11. This is in May. If the generic ballot is showing like 12, 13, 14, 15 points in October, there's like there's nothing you can do. And it has been so notable.

you know, Trump has been out there bragging, literally like, we've won all our races this month. He's talking about races against his own party, against his own incumbents, in which his vengeance monkeys have spent literally tens of millions of dollars in races that we're going to be red and we're going to be with conservative candidates. These are not rhino squishes he was launching this against. So he's doing this victory dance, rubbing everybody's, face in this. It cannot be good for the party just strategically. Oh, Michelle, can I coin the term vengeance muckies with proper attribution? Oh, you may have my term. Yes, you may have my term. Okay, okay. Go forth. That's tremendous. Very vivid. But yeah, Chamell has called these gerrymanders

potentially dummymanders, which is a phrase that I really like. And what Trump has done is he sort of cemented the momentum of these dummymanders, which when Shane Massey, the senator from South Carolina, I wrote about him over the weekend, got up and refused to go along with the gerrymander that would have eliminated Jim Clyburn's seat in South Carolina. And the hope was to turn South Carolina, which is about a 65, 35, 35, 6040 red state, turn it into seven Republican members of Congress and zero Democrats, and he stood up to oppose that. He made two arguments. One was very principled, which is the one I focused on, which is we don't jump. We don't say how high when a president of United States tells us to jump. There is a separation of powers here. But he also made some pragmatic points, which are when you do these

gerrymanders, and we've said this before, you lower your margin for error. And in my home state of Tennessee, they gerrymandered Memphis, just lickety split after the CalA decision. And now there's Memphis has been divided up, but if you look at the margins, these margins, they really decreased. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that you could have instead of the eight one, you could have three, six, or two, seven because of this. And so again and again, what you're seeing, the common theme here is just a monumental amount of hubris that we can do whatever we want, to whomever we want, for who, whomever we want, and we will not pay a price. And they can be forgiven for thinking that because

the January 6th president won an election, which has led them to believe that they can do anything. And now, you know, it's like mask totally off. He's not even pretending to be in the sanitation business anymore. He's just like, yep, I'm a mob boss. That's what I do. I want to go to that point about just that they can't imagine political consequences. I really think this this downstream of something that really has taken off, took up on the online right and kind of like part of online reactionary conversation, which is just referring to people as MPCs, non-playable characters. Like, I think there's this pervasive sense that your political, and I've written about this

before, that your political opponents aren't real, that, you know, that the protests in 2020 were the product of Soros or whatever, or that whatever, the elections you lose are because of fraud and mass illegal voting, or your political opponents are, they don't really believe anything. They're just being funded by nefarious forces. Like a really pervasive, the actual belief that the only people who are real, the only political world that is real is MAGA and everything else is fake or an op or something. And I do think that there's a basic, you know, lack of psychological understanding of, um,

of the existence of other people. Some Olympic grade solipsism is where you're telling us. Right, right. Olympic grade solacism is exactly right. And just from a purely kind of strategic perspective, that's that is, that's how you lose wars, right? Notably, that's why we're losing this war. But that refusal to see the people on the other side as people making decisions and people who have an agency and can take actions leaves you profoundly ill-equipped for when they

exercise of that agency. And you see this again and again with this administration. You saw it with Minnesota. You saw it with the reaction to the National Guard deployment. Like I said, you're seeing you saw it with the Iran War, which they did not imagine that the Iranian regime were like actual actors who could make choices. And I think that the, you know, there's a pretty good chance they're going to see it in November when after insulating themselves for two years, from any kind of public response, they're going to be shocked when there is quite a strong public response against the behavior of the administration.

And it's going to lead. I mean, we all know it's going to lead to accusations of fraud, declaim to the election for a way that they should be disregarded, all this stuff. They're going to claim again and again that this is all fake and should be ignored. Okay, so what we've been seeing in the primaries is actually a highly, energized, mobilized, democratic primary electorate, including in states like Texas, it has the Republican

Party freaked out and a lot of questions about, well, what can Trump do to turn it around? But as best I can see, Trump doesn't even really seem motivated to focus on things that could turn it around. I mean, he's doing his ballroom and his arch and the reflecting pool and his war, and maybe he's going to invade Cuba and he's making statements about how he doesn't care about Americans' affordability crisis. What, I mean, what am I missing? What do you guys see that he is aggressively investing in

that suggests he gives two figs about, you know, turning this around? Besides rigging the game, of course, but that's different. Rigging the game is how he likes to play. but in terms of actually accomplishing or telegraphing that he's focusing on something that voters actually care deeply about. I don't think there's any evidence that that even crosses his mind. I mean, I do think that, it's two things. First, it's sort of he himself lives in a world defined by the power of positive thinking, right?

So as long as he is like everything's going to work out, he genuinely believes everything's going to work out from. The other thing is that he has organized his White House. in a way that he does not receive contradictory information. He does not receive anything but the rosiest possible picture. He is like, well, I'm 100% with MAGA, right? He has no sense. First, like he does not. It's like my parents.

I'm 100% with my parents. They love me, right? He doesn't understand himself first as like president of the entire country. So like broad approval ratings just don't matter to him. And second, you couldn't, if you were in the White House, you can't, if you're Susie wiles you can't tell him that anyway because he doesn't want to hear it it's bad it's bad information it doesn't sound good so he way hand waves it away this is his thing when anything when anything whenever anything is negative he's like well it doesn't really exist um and so that just means that there's

there's nothing that's going to turn this wrong back back last november after the elections in virginia in new jersey i made the point somewhere that For things to turn around for Trump, you have to imagine him being capable of taking actions that can respond to public discontent. And I said at the time, there's no evidence he's capable of doing that. And this is, it's still true. There's no evidence whatsoever that he is capable of taking actions that respond discontent. So I think that what we should expect over the course of the summer is he's going to continue

to, you know, dither and dather and double down on his mistakes in Iran. He is going to maybe try to look for some shortcut to deal with rising fuel prices. I won't be surprised if they try to repeal the gas tax, which incidentally would be great for the president's fossil fuel donors. They can make some more money. But there's not going to be any meaningful effort out of Congress for the White House to deal with what I think will be quite rapidly rising prices over the summer. And we're going to enter the fall.

And I really think it's going to be, you know, a speed run of George Sabe Bush's second term. You know, we're going to be in the fall of 2008 with this president pretty soon. The playbook here is not, I do not believe the playbook here is provide voters with things they like. The playbook is going to be to try to rerun all of the previous playbooks in the most, in recent history against the Democrats, trying to freeze the party in Amber around 2019, 2020, run again against wokeism, et cetera. You're seeing this with, you know, Tolariko, for example. Tala Rico now is a real contender. I'm still of the belief that it's, that Texas is sort of the final boss of the Democratic Party's quest.

That they, they, it's very hard to get over the hump in Texas for Democrats, even with this matchup. But I think Tala RICO has a far better chance against Pax. that he had against Cornyn. But the playbook is going to be... Wait, wait, no, this is your opening. You have to do your standard Paxton synopsis. Why does he have the best chance?

Every time, David, I need it. I need to hear it. Michelle, the multiple times adulterer, corrupt, impeached by his own party, attorney general of the state of Texas, who is an election denier, and who is actually one of the most loathed political figures in America by his peers. It is very difficult to find anyone who would say, yeah, Ken Paxton, great guy, just awesome guy. But, you know, the instant and the impeachment, when he was headed for impeachment and conviction in Texas, and then his rescue became a cause of MAGA. And ever since then, he has become a MAGA darling. And I don't think

in spite of all the scandal, I think because of all the scandal in part. I think the more transgressive he is, the more parts of MAGA really like him. And so the playbook is not going to be Ken Paxton, great guy. The playbook is going to be James Talariko, woke, woke, woke, woke, woke, woke, vegan, woke, woke, woke. And that's going to be the playbook across the length and breadth of the country. And what's interesting is when you talk to some Republicans, MAGA Republicans, They feel, you can feel that they seem, they still seem very confident that when they unleash sort of the woke barrage on the American people, that they're going to win and that there's this conviction that they have that as much as the American people may hate Donald

Trump or maybe discontent with Donald Trump, they dislike the Democratic Party more. And so look for this campaign to be not, look what we did for you to make your life better. But look at it to be, do you want those awful woke, woke, woke Democrats, have I mentioned woke before woke Democrats in office? And that's going to be the way the campaign is going to be run. Okay. And I like to think that that doesn't work as well when people are actually dealing with the economic incompetence of this administration. But that's just me. And also when you're dealing with a different electorate, I mean, I think it's like when, yeah, when Trump is in the ballot a lot of low-profileged,

pension of the voters come out, come out in hopes that voting for Trump is going to make them more prosperous. But if two years later, that hasn't happened. And in fact, the opposite has happened. And then you have a bunch of very angry college-educated voters who are leaning Democratic coming out. I think it's sort of, yeah, you can run a woke, woke, woke campaign. I think what's likely to happen is it's just going to be a general collapse in Republican turnout

and a surge in Democratic turnout. And that, that doesn't get you. plays good if you're a Republican. Okay, we're going to, we're going to land that there. And it's time. Recommendations. Jamel, we've missed yours. Hit us.

Sure, I watched recently for the first time. Warren Beatty's 1998 film Bullworth. And how do I say this? It's insane that it got made. it's a Hollywood production and Warren Beatty obviously a huge star and it is simultaneously extremely cringeworthy and also sort of daring and brave in ways and did I say insane already kind of an insane movie and I don't know quite what I think of it but I do think it's worth watching both as an artifact of American politics in the late 90s,

but there's something actually quite prescient about the sorts of concerns that are going to animate politics 20 years later. And as, I think, a showcase of Beatty in particular, who I think is one of the most fascinating stars of his generation, he is obviously extremely handsome and quite smart and savvy,

but he often plays these characters who I could best describe as hymboes, who become self-aware and then lose their minds. And I just, it's, it's, that's, that's the character in Bullworth, a kind of vacant guy who, that should go into his obituary whenever that, you know, just, I'm just saying. Who, a kind of vacant guy becomes self-aware of his own vacancy, uh, and then loses his mind.

And, um, yeah. So watch, watch Bullworth. Very strange movie. glad I saw it. Don't know what I think about it. Okay. David? Man, it's always hard to follow Jamels because mine are just so basic.

But here is your basic enjoyable streaming recommendation of the week. Do you remember the show Jury Duty that was, you know, you had a guy who was a normal guy? I didn't watch that, but I do. Oh, oh my gosh. Okay, well, I have a double recommendation. Jury Duty from a couple of years ago. and then the next one, which is Deary Duty presents company retreat. And here's the premise of both of them.

Is you take one person who's a normal person. They think they're part of a documentary. This is a documentary about a small business making a transition from father to son. And you bring in a normal guy, and everyone around him is an actor who's literally insane, just crazy, funny ways. And they're always writing. theme this week? They're always writing this line between absurdity that's realistic enough to be funny, but absurdity that's so unrealistic that the guy kind of wakes up to it and realizes he's in

something. They've both times selected just like good guys, like just good, solid people who are sort of like the island and the storm around them. And so it's both laugh out loud, hilarious, but then sort of oddly heartwarming that they're that there are folks out there who just are good folks trying to do their jobs with integrity as kind of the world crumbles around them. So it sort of feels like a metaphor for like, I don't know, America, but it's fun. It's fun. Okay. I am going to go with Netflix's how to get to heaven from Belfast. I know you think that I have like some kind of some Irish obsession, David.

You may be right, but I'm listening. You've never led me wrong. This one is a comedy slash mystery about three millennial women who were childhood friends who get this message to return back to their tiny hometown because their fourth girlfriend has mysteriously died. So you start from there and it is a, it's spirals. There's conspiracies, there's twists, there's turns. It is simultaneously exciting and kind of creepy, but also just drop dead hilarious. It's, I don't know if any of you watch Dairy Girls, but this is the same folks, and it is absolutely brilliant. I highly recommend. So go forth.

And with that, I think we're going to end it. Let's land that plane. As always, guys, thank you. We've solved the world's problems. I will now be going to prepare my application from the slush fund. And I'll let you know how that goes. Good luck, Michelle. Jamel, say goodbye.

Oh, yeah, I should say goodbye. Good luck collecting your reparations, Michelle. I choose to reject your patronizing tone.