Q&A: Trump's Mental Stability, Everything Epstein and the WHCD Shooting

Hi, and welcome to The Daily Beast live. Substack. I'm Georgina Tenardo here with. Hugh Dougherty, and today we have so. much to talk about. Everything Epstein. related, theories on the shootings, Trump's mental and physical health. Um, but right now I think we're going to. >> Well, I was just going to dive in and. say also thank you to everybody who's. watching us on YouTube as well. We're. live on Substack and YouTube, which is. pretty amazing, right? Um, so thank you. to all of you. We're trying to be in all. the comments. Um,

it's There's a lot of comments. There's. a lot There's a lot of places to get. comments from, but um, yeah, really. exciting to be here. Thank you, Georgina. >> Yeah. Any questions you have, please ask. them today. We want to answer them all. So, ask them in the chat. We'll be. keeping an eye on them and pulling them. up. Um, we have someone who was actually. in DC for the White House Correspondents. Dinner, um, you know, at like at the event, noticed. it all. >> Uh, I was. Uh, yeah, I was. It's been. It's been a pretty It's been pretty. extraordinary week. Um, I can't remember.

exactly when it began because it never. seems like it stopped, but yes. Um, I was I was there at the White House. Correspondents Dinner. Uh, the White I'm. sorry, the White House Correspondents. Association Dinner. It's very important. to get the title right. Um, for reasons. that I want to talk about. Um, but I. think everybody has seen what has. happened, and one of the things that we. want to talk about is so many questions. that we had about whether this was in. some way staged or stunted. And um,

Georgina, I know you've got You've got. pages of them that you've been. gathering. Uh, and we want to get to, but we are going to get to them. Um, there's There's just so much to talk. about, and um, so many questions have. been raised, as I say, about staged and. stunted. So, I just want to say I don't. believe that it was staged or stunted, but I also absolutely thought that it. was when it happened. And uh, that's a. thing and a transition in my thinking.

that I want to talk about. Um. anyway, I. >> Well, what what changed your thinking on. that? Like what was the turning point. that made you be like, "Oh, this is this. was real.". >> Well, I. Thank you for asking that. It's a really. interesting question. Um. I was. I was right at the back of this vast. ballroom when it happened. And I was. with my colleagues from The Daily Beast. Uh we were on a table together. And I. also I know there's some people are. going to have questions about why were. we even there. And I know you've got.

loads of questions on that, Georgina. So, we'll come to that We'll come to. that in a second. Um or come Maybe come. to that later on, actually. It takes. more than a second. Um. and so, I'm just keeping my eye on the. live chat. Um I just want to reassure. people Joanna has not been fired for her. terrible impersonations. >> Never. >> Never. Absolutely never. She is is. You're right. You have got the T-Move. version. I'm sorry. Um and I do not do any impersonations.

So, >> Neither do I. >> Oh, I was going to ask, Georgina, can. you do Melania? >> I wish I could, but. >> Okay. Well, that's good. That's good. Um. Anyway, uh. just to make sure everybody knows uh we. are not impersonating Joanna. We are not. standing in for her. Uh she will in fact. will be back on You'll be able to listen. to her. on Inside Trump's Head dropping late. tonight and again on The Daily Beast. podcast tomorrow. But uh there's only so. many hours in the day. So, we are the.

fillings. Um. I So, yes, I just want to put put you. put myself as best I can in people's. imagination in that um. in that huge ballroom that I think. everybody has seen. And I think we're. probably able to run some photos as I. talk about this. Um. I was at the very back with my. colleagues from The Daily Beast. And. we'd just about finished the salad. course that was the the first course of. the meal when there's this pop pop pop.

pop pop five pop noise. And it was very clear to us immediately. that it was gunfire. And the reason I. think it was clear was because we were. actually very close to where it. happened. And as people have a lot of. questions about the location of it and. how it how it went down and you know how. could we know this when we were not. somebody quite rightly points out that. we were. we he this was not on the same floor as.

the ballroom. And I think you have other. questions on that. >> say. 6923 said was it really an assassination. attempt when the assassin was on the. wrong floor? >> Right. So the assassin. I should say the attempted assassin and. he's now an indicted attempted assassin. was. on the floor above trying to get down to. the ballroom. So he was absolutely on. his way to the ballroom. And in terms of. physical space he was maybe.

30 ft. up because you know it's a ballroom it's. it's it's high. So he's maybe 30 ft up. In terms of some vertical horizontal. separation. maybe 20 ft. So there's basically. there's two pretty shallow flights of. stairs from where he was brought down by. a very brave Secret Service officer or. agent we don't know which. but a member of Secret Service brought. him down. As I say two shallow flights of stairs. 30 ft back from the and yeah 30 ft back.

from the ballroom. from the doors to the ballroom. We were. about 20 ft from the door from those. doors. So in terms of sound traveling. that's not a far distance. In terms of. is it an assassination attempt if you. are. armed with two guns. and only. a couple of flights of stairs away from. a couple of shallow flights of very wide. stairs away from the target. I think.

that's I think that is a fair. assassination description of a of a. of an assassination attempt. >> Well, we had plenty of viewers, I think, who are really caught up on this wording. from Caroline Leavitt where, you know, like someone here right here. One of our. viewers said, "Before the activities. were about to begin, Caroline Leavitt. was being interviewed. She was talking. excitedly as she couldn't wait for it. all to begin. During her interview, she. said, 'And shots will will be fired.'". >> "Shots will be fired.". >> So, why isn't she being blamed? Viewers.

ask. >> Yeah. So, she did say that. And other people have. used language like that before. >> Mhm. >> And um I wrote a piece on The Daily. Beast. about why. why it's okay to think that the that. this was staged. And one of the. strongest pieces of evidence that people. have put forward is Caroline Leavitt. just before. said, "Shots will be fired." So, I just. want to say. I don't think that is proof of. a stunt or a staging or you know, an an.

attempt at. at setting this up because people speak. like that all the time. And I'll just be. honest, I speak like that all the time. In the last few days, I have been. thinking like every time I say something. that's related to gunfire or fighting or. battles, that's how people speak in the. world of politics which we report you. and I, Georgina, report on. That's how people speak. And therefore, it's normal. It's the.

normal course of events. Now, look, there are some people that are probably. going to talk about uh vi- the violence. of language that is used particularly by. MAGA. And I agree, right? That's a. thing. It's a very live thing that mega. people from Trump down use the language. of violence. Democrats use language that's like that. occasionally as well. So, this is, you. know, a kind of bar bipartisan point. But, that the fact that she said something. about shots were going to be fired is.

not to me proof positive and shouldn't. be taken as proof positive that this was. staged or stunted. But, I do say I just. say I do respect people's views on that. because I understand that and um I think. Hippie Artist 1 I think is on my on my. side of this debate. Um Caroline was. referencing the chewing that Trump was. going to do. Fair point. Um although, one thing he likes a steak well done. Just point that out. Um but, that I. think Yeah, she said it. Mhm. It's It's.

difficult to It's difficult to explain. it. Um. >> We actually have a question here on. Substack as well. >> Yeah, great. >> Sorry, I I we're I'm trying to monitor. both, but I you know, it's Georgina is. far better at this than I am. So, >> Oh, I I don't know about that. But, um. we have this question here um from. Norell asking, "Is it normal that SWAT. the the SWAT-looking Secret Service were. present?". >> Yes. >> At one of these events. So, I think. that's another thing that people some. people are getting confused on because I.

don't know, I've never been to White. House Correspondents Association Dinner. So, what is the normal? Was there. anything unusual or is that all. >> So, there's a lot to unpack there. Absolutely. And that's a That is a great. question from. >> Norell. >> Thank you, Norell. Um. So, I have been to this this this dinner. five times and that is an immense. privilege and I don't take it lightly. And I know I've promised that we'll talk. about why we went and I do want to get. to that, but this question raises a.

whole load of things, right? So, is it. normal for a SWAT team assemble at a at. a SWAT team appearing group of people to. be at this White House Correspondents. Association Dinner. I have never been to the dinner when a. president has been present. >> Oh. >> I have been to all the ones in the Trump. years. uh that. >> hasn't attended. >> Of course, as is well known, he had. never attended. So,

I don't know if they would have gone. before. for two reasons. I don't think they. would have because nobody particularly. important went. Uh myself included. I mean, you know, I. don't get a I don't get a SWAT team. But, um. I've never seen I've never been there. I. have had the privilege of attending. events as a reporter, as a journalist, that are the sort of thing that people. go to. I have been in the White House. Um. you know, and I've been in the White House as a.

journalist, and that gives you slightly. different access to the public tours, which I've also done and are amazing. Um I toured the East Wing, and of. course, I've now witnessed history. But, um. the White House is incredible. It's an. armed camp. And when the president goes. and moves on tour anywhere, and again, I've had the privilege of witnessing. that a couple of times. um. with under Obama and Bush,

there is a huge entourage of you know, we all see the motor cades. The. motorcade is the tip of the iceberg. Before the president gets anywhere, SWAT. um Secret Service arrive. Snipers take. position on on rooftops. A SWAT team is. discreetly located often in the back of. a large, you know, kind of SUV or. whatever. They might be even out on the. street. I've seen that once that you. walk past, and there is the Secret. Service SWAT team. So, there's nothing.

unusual about the president having a. SWAT team accompanying him. What was. unusual here, to me, was the lack of. security around the ballroom itself that. allowed this attempt at assassination to. take place by the man getting so close. to it. That is the thing that is. unusual. Um, now I think. there's also, you were just asking, you know, what's usual and what's. unusual. All the preparations and security that I.

saw went before I went in, before we saw. the SWAT teams, before we saw those. incredibly brave officers and agents out. with long guns, with with with. side arms on holstered, with fingers in. the all in the holding over the trigger. position. Before we saw all that, we. didn't see any of that. What we saw was. the same security as I had seen the last. four times when nobody was really going. So, there we are. Um, there's a couple. of things um in in the comments on.

YouTube. Um, I know, right? I we're. monitoring the situation. Um, I um. HippieArtist1, oh I'm yes, HippieArtist1, I'm sorry, I had read. that right. I I wonder if why the Secret. Ser- I wonder if why Secret Service. wasn't doing their job. Um, I just want. to say HippieArtist1, I think, personally, that the Secret Service were. doing their job. because the president was safe and. protected, and that is the Secret. Service's job. So, I think the bigger.

question is why weren't other people. less protected, and that is technically. the responsibility of the Secret Service. because they're in charge of the event. It's also a question for the White House. Correspondents. Executive Director who was involved in. the liaison about that. It's also a. question for the Hilton Group and the. operator of that hotel. Um, and uh. HippieArtist1 also says, "If the FBI was. doing their job not scrubbing Trump's. name from Epstein which we are going to.

talk about later. >> Yes, it's coming up. >> Would they have known about this shooter. ahead of time? Um, I think a lot of. people are going to ask that question. I. know um, even on the night uh, my. colleagues were speaking to Democrats. who were present who say they are going. to get to the bottom of every failure. that happened here and every missed. opportunity. Um, and Jens 99 asked why. was Patel and Higseth etc. even present? And first of all Jens 99, thank you for. supporting the beast. Um, and thank you. to Happy Hour so what. Um,

Patel and Higseth etc. They were. uh, 13 members of the cabinet. I believe. I'm remembering right, 13. I saw many of. them as they were taken out. Um, there. were other key figures including Kash. Patel, the FBI director and uh, Jeanine. Pirro, the district attorney for uh, the. the United States attorney for the. District of Washington, D.C. Um, >> Stephen Miller. >> Stephen Miller or RFK Jr. is in the. cabinet and he was. uh, planning to pop out for some. raccoon, but there we are. Um,

Uh, so they had all gone basically. because Trump had gone. They'd all been. invited and when Trump travels there's. always an entourage. And one of the. things that is really unusual about this. is the the flex for these people is to. be with Trump, right? This was an. opportunity for them to be photographed. with Trump, to be videoed with Trump, to. be seen by Trump and they took it. Now, is that a good idea. about that number of people being in one. place? Well, doesn't seem like a good.

idea to me. That's an issue for Trump. himself and for Susie Wiles, his chief. of staff who actually wasn't there by. the way. Um, about shouldn't this have been. treated more seriously? But that is very. much an issue for the White House. >> Um, yeah. I mean cuz when you think. about it you have all the the chains of. command were in that room. >> Yes. >> Um, I mean Trump had mentioned, you. know, about rescheduling the center and. >> Yes, and sorry, we missed out Speaker. Mike Johnson. So, the top the the three. people in the line of succession. were all in the room. If things had gone.

very badly wrong, and thank God, and. thank those officers and agents that. they did not, we would currently be speaking about. President Chuck. President Chuck Grassley, who is 92. >> That's That's just a crazy thought to. have. So, that that brings me to I. wonder if at the rescheduled dinner when. they have it, will there be a very vast. difference in how things are handled. security-wise? Do. >> Well, uh. I certainly hope so, uh cuz I would assume that those who. were all there were going would would.

think about attending. Uh, I am just. going to disappoint and spoil this. I. don't think it's ever going to happen in. that form. And I don't think Trump's ever going to. turn up, and I think it's over. But, but, you know, I've been wrong, right? I. was wrong when I was lying on the floor, and the first thought in my mind was. it's a stunt. And for those of you. joining us, um, thank you for joining us. We're. talking about We're going to talk about. Epstein. We're going to talk about. Trump's mental and physical health, but. we are talking about, um, the alleged.

attempt attempted assassination on. Saturday night at the White House. Correspondents' Association dinner. I. know. Thursday is down the line, uh, but. there's so many questions that still. ready to be asked. And for those who are. joining, I was there. I It seems I keep. thinking this is like a really bad flex. Uh, it's like the ultimate name drop, right? Oh, I was there. Uh, it's not how. I'm taking it. I just wanted to ask. answer people's questions. >> personal like take on the Yeah, a very. scary evening. >> Yeah, it was a very scary evening. I'll. be honest, it was a very scary evening. for, uh, many people. I think it was.

almost a scarier evening. I know from. speaking to people, for those who were. outside the hall, and who couldn't. really work out what was going on. Um. Uh. >> We do have a question here from, um, Kevin Hogg, who is wondering why did. they break protocol and protect the VP. first? >> So, this is a really fascinating thing. You're right, Kevin, and thank you for. your question. Um the protocol is to. protect the president. first, right? But, let's go through some.

buts here. It's very unusual for the. pair of them to be in uh public. Obviously, it's not absolutely public, but to be together. in a. in a a space that is not completely. under the control of. uh either the White House or their. campaign. So, this is really unusual. What then goes on to be more unusual. here is that we have. different details guard each man. The president has the biggest security.

detail. We all know that. It's a huge number of people. J.D. Vance also has a security detail, and it's a slightly smaller number. That. didn't That That aspect of it isn't. material here, but what is material, uh. Kevin and Georgina and everybody who's. watching, is the topic that we want to. talk about later is health, right? >> Yes. >> J.D. Vance is 41. He is slim. He's. slimmer than he was before, actually. He. is slim, and he is, you know, he's 41,

right? They grabbed him by his lapels, and he moved up. And we've all seen that. footage, and he moved. The simple fact is that Donald Trump is. 79. He is not a fit man. He's not a fit. 79-year-old. He is a large presence, although. physically diminished since the last. time I'd seen him in the flesh. He is a. large presence. So, his body is bigger, and there's the same, you know, like. you're in this confined space on a.

stage, and I've. I do not have the any insight cuz I I. wasn't on the stage, but I've seen the. We've seen the coverage of it. Obviously, the um. the space that they have, they have to. grab them and drag them. So, he's big. What's the safest thing to. do? Get him down because they have to. get him down out, you know, to minimize. the target that this big target. represents. And then it took five of. them, I think. I Somebody will correct.

me in the chat. Please do. Um I think. it's five people. Maybe it's four. Um. That's It's more work. So, it's not a. question of protocol that was broken. It's the simple practicalities of moving. a large elderly man. And. you know, many people will be kind of. familiar with challenges that they have. in their family or whatever. Uh. It's very relatable. But he's the. president. So, crazy. Um I've just got. to mention one comment, by the way. Um.

What kind of fire marshal would sign off. on jamming that many people in a room? Uh can I just say, every year that I. have gone to that dinner, that's exactly. the point that everybody always has. because the chairs are that close to. each other. That close. Uh and it's. usually a comment that is made as. somebody tries to squeeze past you. And. so, I'm sorry. And you're moving. And. they go, I don't believe the fire. marshal signed off. It's a really good. question. Uh I would love the DC. authorities to answer that. I suspect.

they might have to uh as, you know, it's. a very valid question. Um sorry, Georgina. I'm interrupting you. >> Oh, no, you're not at all. Um I think. well, something actually um Kevin had. also said in the Substack chat, um it's. just as a comment saying that uh as. maybe one of the reasons why people are. so skeptical of if the shooting was. staged or not um or it's real, um he. said, "The Trump regime is so given to. constant deception that even the truth. becomes unbelievable." And I think that. actually brings us beautifully to one of.

the other topics, which if you're. joining us today, we're talking all. about the shooting that happened in DC. um at scene. And. >> I mean, we should say this is Georgina. Donardo and I'm Hugh Docherty. So, >> and back into it. Um, >> Well, actually, um, before we get to. that topic about, um, the Trump, you know, the the Trump. approach to truth, I just want to tell. people, I said briefly earlier, I was on. the floor. and I the first thought in my mind, and.

I think we've actually got some video, uh, that I took when I was lying on the. floor, which, uh, shows you some idea of. the perspective that I had. Uh, I was. kind of doing like that. Um, the first. thing that I thought, quite honestly, was this is a stunt. And the thing that. flashed through my mind was that's. exactly what he would do. He would do that. He, you know, you're. we all remember he dressed up at. McDonald's and served fries through the. the drive-in. He drove a garbage truck.

while wearing I can't remember what. color it was, but, um, >> Orange and red. >> Orange Was it orange overalls? No, that's No, it's been green. >> Yeah, wait. No. >> I I If you see Trump in orange overalls, people, it's AI. It's. It's wish fulfillment. Um, it's the but. this is a guy that's done that. He He. was the celebrity apprentice ringmaster. He has done stunts. He, you know, in the. '80s he used to pose with those giant. checks that we all remember from the. local newspapers of our childhood and in. my case of my error career. So, that's.

what was going through my mind, right? That's what he does. That's how he is. And everybody who's talking about the. the question about the relationship to. truth, absolutely. It's really hard to. trust an an administration. that, uh, consistently attacks the press. and attacks, uh, attacks press with. being fake news and I think, Georgina, you may have been called a deranged glue. sniffer. By Were you not? >> Yeah. >> Um, uh, you know, Joanna and Michael are.

called, uh, you know, accused of being, uh, what is. it A a lying sack of [ __ ] my language. here it's not my language that the White. House. lying sack of [ __ ]. you know this is a regime. sorry I shouldn't use that one this is. an administration which people often. call regime because they feel that it is. not an honest administration it's. administration that does not traffic in. the truth so sure it's it's a reason to. think that and that's absolutely what I. thought and the reason that I don't.

think that. oh sorry yes you don't like my music it. was a high it was high vis jacket as we. call it in the UK that is our term for. it yes. it's it's. it's it's an administration of which. that is believable and I've dealt with. this in an article I wrote in the Daily. Beast. please go and check out Daily Beast. I. the the thing to me is. it didn't go well for them as well as it.

wasn't a great stunt if it was a stunt. it was not a great stunt things went. wrong. and. therefore to me this the indicia as. lawyers like to say of stunt quite. aren't quite there. >> Yeah which I totally understand that cuz. if you think back to the butler. assassination attempt before afterwards. you know the way that the Trump. administration handled that and even the. photo I remember of him holding his fist. up like it's such a showmanship approach.

to it which really you know just like it. it changed the course of an election not. completely but. >> Well arguably and certainly what we know. is that Donald Trump thinks it changed. the course of the election and again. people have taken that I think that. motivation as something that makes them. think that he would do this again. >> exactly. but I think you. we have the photo. like such a memorable image and showing. that he is a showman like taking a very. scary moment I'm sure again and.

assassination attempt blood on your face. and turning it into that and I think. that as you said as you say Hugh is one. of the reasons I think so many people. when this happened it was like oh he is. down in the polls like he's getting all. these questions and trying to distract. from Epstein Iran everything in the. world and oh could this happen but when. you're there and you look at all the. facts I mean. >> Yeah. Um and. sorry. somebody in the comments is rightly. correcting me I used the term.

administration and Georgina you you. should have been correcting me and to. those who. those who have accused me of speaking. over Georgina I'm kind of guilty sorry. >> Oh no no no. >> Shut please shut me up. Um I I said. administration of course he was not. president at Butler. Um I just meant the. current you know current iteration at. that time it was a campaign. Um apologies. >> You know Butler's actually right by my. house so. Similar but um I think we're mentioning. Yeah. We have a video from DC that you.

took. Um I think pulling up. And I'm I actually haven't seen this. video but um. >> It's uh this is this might be his. YouTube I don't actually think it's not. is it his YouTube premiere? It's. certainly it's a Substack premiere. Thank you to everybody on Substack. >> Yeah thanks for joining us. >> That's uh. uh this that's that's our first premiere. on Substack. Um just as a warning to people who are. watching it um when it comes up it is. it was taken by me um.

you know in fact it was my right hand. on my phone and. I was lying in the ground and I was like. that and as anybody knows it's kind of. difficult to keep your finger on it. forever so at one point I does that and. it's slightly chaotic um but I think it. gives some idea. of what people were seeing. >> Yeah. Being a journalist and reporting. even in potentially life or death. situation.

>> And then. Oh dear, there's a good question here. for you and me at Butler. Do I like my music? It's probably you. and me at Butler, Tina. >> Me.

>> Well, I think a lot of the. Yeah, the security people have all come. out. So, So, there there we are. And I know this is. still playing out. Um. That's kind of the perspective everybody. had. And I just want to say that um you.

can see a tall guy who's kind of got his. hair in a sort of man bun. >> Bun. >> Yeah. He is, I believe, FBI, but. certainly. uh an agent. And you can see that he. moves really slowly. >> Like. >> And I think that tells you. I think that tells you the calm and the. courage that was exhibited by those. officers and agents that night. Now, we've been talking about this. And one of the things that we wanted to. talk about um is the bigger picture here.

of you can't trust Trump. Quite you know, we talked about him. being 79. Um and we talked about his bulk, but. there's another aspect of this that I. know a lot of people have been asking. about. >> Our mental health, which I will quickly. defend myself. I didn't want to. interrupt the video, but I will say I. have a solid alibi. Even though I'm from. your buttler, I was actually in DC in. the Pentagon at the time. So, I'm sure. they have footage, you know, reporting. in the Pentagon. >> are so daily beast daily beast people. are not always present. >> Oh, good. Yeah. Yeah. Um.

But, anyways, um it does bring us to, you know, with all of this, as many of. you have pointed out, um that there's. just uh it's hard to believe the. administration when there's other lies. and confusion coming out. >> Mhm. >> Um even if you know, this is a. completely real thing that happened. Um. it brings us to Trump's mental stability. cuz a lot of that stuff is coming. straight from the president's mouth. >> Yes. >> Um. >> Yes, absolutely. Um. sorry. >> I was just going to uh say one question. from Mike W.

Um the question is, how far down the. mental deterioration hole does he get to. go? Um. sorry, I lost my place before something. is done with a lot of question marks. that I think are deserved question. marks. >> Yeah. Um. Wow, right? Um. I think the first thing about this is. the truth. >> Mhm. >> And the problem that we've been talking. about about people don't believe that. what what happened on Saturday night was. true is a problem about about our. ability to to be confident in truth.

And the the question over Trump's mental. acumen, his cognitive abilities, is one that this administration. has been incredibly incredibly. uh unwilling and. I was going to say unable, but you know, they are able to, they're just not. willing to address. Um. The reason to not address it, obviously,

is. if the president is not cognitively. capable, the president there is a. mechanism to remove the president. But, the 25th Amendment is very. complicated. And there is no political. willingness. >> Mhm. >> around. um Donald Trump to do that. They don't. Nobody in his inner circle perceives. political advantage to them. to doing that.

>> Which we did have I'm trying to remember. we had a question from someone that was. so beautifully worded. I want to make. sure we get I find it so we can give the. viewer credit about the 25th Amendment. Um Nancy Banfield says, "So what can we. do to change the process for invoking. the 25th on the basis of lack of mental. health?". >> So, that is a Do you know what? This is. really really good point, uh Nancy. Thank you for Thank you for asking that. And um hopefully hopefully when you. hopefully you're watching you're able to. get it. So thank you. Um.

the Democrats are in fact working on. this. Now, the Democrats in the House at. the moment do not hold the majority as. we all know. >> As we know. >> And therefore they can't really do. anything, but Jamie Raskin, uh who is uh. very well known obviously as a as a. senior Democratic representative, previously a constitutional uh law. professor at Harvard, is drawing up plans for a commission on. the president's mental health. >> Mhm.

>> And this is, you know, um comment of that president must. basically run around with his pants on. the head in his head to get 25th. Um I. hope that that is somebody from the. United States who's making that comment. If it was somebody from the United. Kingdom, um the meaning of pants is a. bit. Yeah. Anyway, um I thought that would. certainly I would hope get you 25th. either way. Um so Jamie Raskin is. planning to legislate to set up a. commission which would assess the. president's mental health. And.

is is very likely to subpoena Donald. Trump's doctors. Now, Donald Trump's doctors are. in many cases, in fact in all cases now, are people who work for the government. Which means in theory that if Congress. asks them to come and discuss things, then they should. Now, there's a whole lot of questions there, so I'm not going to, you know, sort of. unpack this too much, but. if we get the White House physician in.

front of this panel, it they will ask. him is he genuinely cognitively capable. What are the tests that you have done? What happened? Where is his physical? Because that's another thing, we don't. have his physical. It's It's just about a week overdue now. since last year's. >> And do you think if if this happens and. we get him in front of Congress, >> Yep. >> will it be any different than when we. see like Pam Bondi, Pete Hegseth, people. within Trump's administration coming to. speak before Congress and not always.

necessarily answering the questions? >> Yeah. Well, I think that's an. That's an ex- I mean, first of all, that's an excellent summary of what they. do, and I think you're being almost been. charitable to them, but. the um. the calculation that Jamie Raskin is. very openly making, and he's speaking. about this openly, and we we desperately. hope to have him on as a guest. Um. >> Come on, it'll be great. >> Please Please. Please, Representative Raskin, if you're. watching, um please come on. But um we're we have. reached out, we are in talks, it's not. We're not This is not our only method of.

contacting him. Um anyway, he is quite open that what he believes. is that by highlighting this issue. properly with the power of Congress and. quite possibly the power not just of the. House but of the Senate, that by making. this the top item of every legislator's. inbox, of all the news agenda, that the. the question of is the president unwell. is going to dominate national life. >> Mhm. >> because it's finally and properly being. asked. Now,

Hippocrates, when you're right, the. doctors have patient confidentiality. And that can it that could be a shield. But, and there is a big butt here, if the political environment changes, if. everybody is talking about the cognitive. ability of the president having. declined, then. the the question about confidentiality. kind of goes away because the people. around Trump perceive that they need to. do something. Every politician thinks they're going to. be president. There's no doubt that J.D.

Vance, Marco Rubio, and a long list of. people in that cabinet think that they. will have a crack at the presidency at. some point. >> Mhm. >> And if they sense that the best and most. expe- expedit-. best thing expeditious thing to do is to. get on board with the 25th Amendment, present themselves as the Republicans. who saved the republic, they'll do that. And that's like Nixon, you know, the men. in the gray suits went to see Nixon and. said, "We won't We won't help you. You'll get You will be impeached and.

removed.". It's quite possible that the same sort. of. mood music changes. So, that's probably. why we should talk about the details of. what's going on. in terms of. what are the questions about, you know, I think you've quite well specific. questions about what he's up to. >> Quite a lot. Um I think there's there's. one that really interests me here um. from Gerald Riley who is asking about um. well, I guess just just have the context. a little bit with Trump's mental health. um being this topic of a debate. You.

know, the president obviously is the one. who has access to the nuclear football, meaning the nuclear codes um to launch. nuclear weapons. Um and with all of. that, what is the question of people who. are in that whole chain of command and. would actually be involved in that? Do. they have a responsibility to stop that? Gerald asks, "What happens if the. commander of the nuclear arms submarine. goes mad? Is there a process to handle. it?". >> Um well, I think it's two different. things there, right? So, it's so the the. nuclear armed submarine is a process to.

handle that. Yes, uh, they chuck him in the brig, basically. Um, you know, I think they probably the. executive officer would be the one that. would, um, on the submarine would. probably be the one to act. Um, I think. I'm not immediately familiar with the. Navy's code of, uh, sorry, chain of command protocols in a. nuclear submarine, but broadly speaking, um, the executive officer of that. submarine is likely to say, "I'm. declaring that the captain is unfit.". And, uh, if he's really unfit, they.

chuck him in, you know, I don't know, lock him in his cabin, basically. Um, >> I don't I I'm not super familiar with. the submarine, but I am familiar with. the football. >> Well, and the and this but this is what. is so good about this question, actually, is it raises the much more. difficult question. Does somebody get to say the president's. mad and stop him from using the codes? And, I hate to say this, but there are. constitutional scholars that are kind of. kind of broken up on in theories on. this, and they're not 100% sure that he.

can be stopped. >> Mhm. >> It would rely on. the the nuclear football, by the way, is. an expression. It's It's actually not a. football. I know. We've all We've actually all seen the. outside, and some of us, uh, I've been. lucky enough to be around presidents. where you see it in real life. A staff. officer, um, carries a large suitcase and in that are. the codes for the the United States. nuclear deterrent. >> Actual like not, uh, in the suitcase.

it's actually more of like a phone. device, and the president has something. called the biscuit on him, >> Yes. >> which has more of the codes to activate. it. And then the military aid will. >> Apologies. Yes. Um, and. you know, a lot of people have said it might just. come down to whether that guy uh, says, "Oh, no, the president's too mad.". Weirdly, there is actually historical. parallel for this here. And it's again, it's Nixon. Um.

Kissinger. noticed that Nixon was getting very. drunk. Um Nixon was born and brought up. a Quaker, but. things went off the rails a bit. Um and. he was turned out to be fond of. martinis. And in the the last dying days of his. administration uh he was regularly. in a state of an inebriation that you. wouldn't trust him with nuclear codes. Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State, very powerful man, a very controversial. man, uh sent a memo saying that any.

commands were to be run by him. >> Oh, and another. >> And constitutional scholars actually are. divided on whether that's. constitutional. So, >> Yeah. >> it's it's a fascinating question. Um and. I don't think I've answered it because I. think there's probably no answers, and. that's kind of a problem. Um. >> Well, I mean, that's probably the why. people are so scared because it's Have. we seen a situation like this before? I. know that we have. um. even uh B.I. Feldman here asks, "Are we. certain Donald won't seek a third term.

or some way to remain president?". >> Uh. I'd love to I'd love to. I'd love to tell you the answer, Georgina. We'd love. uh. Legally, like legally, obviously not. >> And this is another thing where we've. never Have Have we had to wonder this. before in history about a president? Or. has it always just been assumed that, you know, the. two-term limit will be. >> So, until, you know, until the two-term. limit came in as a constitutional. amendment, um it was never known, but it. was a convention. The convention, of.

course, was broken by FDR, but that was. in a time of a time of first of all. significant national emergency, and, you. know, uh and it in a time of war, I should. say. Sorry, but um but after a. significant national emergency in the. form of the depression. Um. Um. we've always assumed that they would. follow the 25th Amendment. Yeah, sorry, that they would follow the two-term. limit. as part of the Constitution and. I'm sorry, I can't offer any reassurance. in that. I can offer reassurance that. I'm not wearing meta glasses.

They are. >> They're very nice though. >> That's very kind. They're Cutler and. Gross. There you go. They're not meta. I'm not meta. Yeah, we just don't know. We don't know. >> Well, I think when a recent event that's. brought some people wondering more, not. even the mental side, but the physical. side of Trump's health was when the king. came to visit. to the White House and this photo came. up where you see. Trump and the king shaking hands and. neither of the hands look very healthy. And I know talked a lot about it with. Tom Sykes the other day. So tune into.

that one if you want to see a way more. in-depth analysis of everything in that. But with Trump's whole physical health, what are the concerns there? >> Well, we've all seen the hands. We've all seen. the cankles. Most people, you know, would be concerned if they. took those conditions. He takes aspirin. to thin his bloods and I know somebody. in the comments have pointed out that. that his blood must be exceptionally. thin. Do you know who else's blood must be. really thin? Stephen Miller. He is scary. pale in real life. So pale. Even paler.

in real life than I thought in not real. life. Um, yeah, the heart disease, cognitive. cognitive heart Sorry, congestive heart. failure. And we know, obviously, that there are, you know, if you're unhealthy physically. unhealthy, that can have mental. cognitive effects as well. Um, there's a lot of questions here. Is the. president capable? Why is he not. sleeping? That's another aspect of this. >> these Truth Social rants coming in at. 4:00 a.m., 3:00 a.m. All these times.

When does he sleep? We see his schedule. It's packed all the time. When is he. sleeping? >> Yes. And we are conducting analysis and. tomorrow on the Daily Beast we're going. to have some form of analysis. we're. trying to work out when exactly did. Trump sleep properly in April. Uh cuz he. just keeps truthing. Truth, truth, truth. Um you know, there's other. questions about the physical health. Is. he on any sort of stimulants or. something to deal with the problems that. are that he obviously has around the.

circulation. Uh does he behave like. that? Those are questions that just to. go back um that Jamie Raskin, I'm sure. is going to be forcing answers out of. the White House as best he can. >> Mhm. Well, I think. >> Um oh, sorry. I've I've spoken over you. again, Georgina. Um. we're talking about sleeping at night. >> Yes. >> But we know when he sleeps. >> During cabinet meetings. Or any other time where there's a camera. around sometimes. >> Yep. Yep. And uh. we relentlessly document that on on the.

Daily Beast uh because I think it's. right that people know about it. >> And there's some great reporting there. to check out. Um. but I do know that something else the. King's visit brought up. Not only health. concerns, but also um as one viewer. points out, um do you ever wonder how. much Trump and Charles discussed Prince. Andrew? The guy who they both know very. well and who was in big trouble. To me, it feels very much like one of the major. purposes of this visit. So, of course, this has now brought up Epstein again. >> Right.

>> Which do you think that was discussed in. this visit? >> Wow. Well, Epstein, Epstein, Epstein. Um. I don't think it was. Um I think um. I I'm fairly confident having been an. editor for. some time in the UK and as a reporter in. the UK, the King is incredibly well. advised and incredibly buttoned up. And there is not a. there's not an iota of me that make that. thinks he would bring up Epstein.

Um. did Donald Trump bring up Epstein? >> I don't know. >> There was a picturesque pause there of. thought. And I don't know. And I. >> I think only. I will leave that conversation to Joan. and Michael for Inside Trump's Head to. try and determine that cuz. >> Yes. >> who knows what goes on in there. >> Who knows what goes on inside that head. One of the things. that links to his physical health is. that Trump has definitely been.

uninhibited in what he says on Truth. Social, on in you know, in person. Um we saw him absolutely melt down at. Norah O'Donnell on a special 60 Minutes. interview. Um. you know, those. uh moments suggest that he is. uninhibited. And like it's just age, right? As you get older you become less. inhibited in your your speech and your. conduct. And I. Well, I don't know. I technically judging his boss, so.

uh. I she might say that that's happening to. me. Maybe. >> No. >> Uh but it is a serious point that age. disinhibits. Um. And I therefore. can see a world in which he said. something. Um what I know he didn't say. uh or what I know he didn't talk about. is anything about the truth about what's. going on with Epstein because what we. hear from Trump is. um about how he's been cleared and about. how he knew nothing about it. And well,

uh that's. something that the historical record has. differences to. >> Mhm. And I think something else, I mean now. while we're talking about Epstein, a lot. of people have asked, can you subpoena. unredacted Epstein files? That one. exactly came from Lou Mary. Thank you. for asking questions. If you guys have. any more, just to catch you up, we are. talking everything related to Epstein, the shooting in DC, Trump's mental. health, everything going on in politics. right now. But specifically, we're tying.

back to the thing that seems like the. president wants to try and get away from. Jeffrey Epstein. >> Uh well, the answer of can you subpoena. the unredacted Epstein files is uh you. shouldn't even need to subpoena them. You absolutely. absolutely can. And the Democrats have. absolutely said they're going to do. this. Um obviously Ro Khanna, uh the the the campaigning congressman. who represents Silicon Valley and has. with Thomas Massie, the. >> There's an effort, yeah. >> Yeah. Dissident, I guess, Republican.

Certainly the Trump enemy. Uh they have. together. they are incredibly angry that they have. not seen the that we have not seen. unredacted Epstein files. That the. redactions in the Epstein files look. There are valid reasons to have. redactions of victims' names, of the. personal details of people who are. pulled into these. There are you know, there's even like normal people's social. security numbers. So comprehensive is. this is this massive documents. So when we say the unredacted Epstein.

files, what we think we really want to. get at is all the things that have been. conveniently covered, that we want to. know what is in there. And I don't need. to know the social security number of uh. a court clerk or a police officer. And. that's, you know, I wouldn't. But why are the names of people who sent. emails redacted? >> Mhm. >> So yes, I think that the first thing. that um Congress, including Ro Khanna, including um Jamie Raskin, um including.

uh a number of others are going to go. for is a subpoena. And and there's no doubt they would. succeed in court. They may have to fight. the Trump administration for a very long. time. >> Well, as we're waiting for that, cuz. hopefully, you know, sooner than later, but like you said, who knows how long. it's going to take. Um peop- Some people. have been wondering, I mean, there was a. little distraction from Epstein at Casa. Siena. It wasn't as much in the. limelight as always. And then the first. lady had could we call it like press. conference? Um. >> A speech. >> A speech. Not press conference.

>> take questions. >> Didn't Yeah, no questions. But. >> We are taking questions. Uh and we want your questions. Melania. is not taking questions and does not. want your questions and also doesn't. want, as we know, Michael Wolff's. questions uh in his lawsuit. >> What What did you make of that? Cuz here. we have a question from um a one viewer. who says, "Wouldn't it be amazing if. she, meaning Melania, comes forward and. spills the beans on him and Epstein and. all his criminal activities?" Do you see. that happening?

>> Oh. Oh my god. Uh. well, you. um uh. sign me up. Um do I see Melania changing. position? >> Mhm. >> Um I don't. Uh I think she's very. aggressively wanting to make people. She very aggressively wants people to. know. that she is unconnected to Jeffrey. Epstein. Now, >> Mhm. >> Um I'm you know, choosing my words. carefully here cuz I want to you know, be clear that I about what we can what.

we report is based on fact and on. information. We know that Melania was. photographed with Jeffrey Epstein. We. know that she corresponded with Melania. with uh Ghislaine Maxwell in very. apparently intimate terms of um. >> Sweet pea. >> Mhm. And G. And uh we know that she was. introduced to Donald Trump by Paolo. Zampolli, a modeling agent who himself. was absolutely um a friend and a party. friend of Jeffrey Epstein. >> Mhm. >> And.

um. he or he's a party friend. I whether he. was a close friend I don't think is a. different question. Um we know that Donald Trump hung hung. out with Epstein before. So, um Melania. is very clear that she does not want. people to have the impression that she. is close to them. Uh there is obviously reason to think. that they did in some way know each. other. And just to go back to these. Democrats, they want to get to the. bottom of this. >> Mhm. They may want to question her. They. may want to get her in front of. Congress. They may want to get her under. oath, and I think they will fight very.

hard for that. Um whether she changes and spills. I I would. gamble not. Um and we don't know what. she knows, right? We don't know what we. don't know. >> What would you uh when you saw that. press conference, what were your. thoughts on that? What did you think her. I'm not press conference I keep saying. press conference. I'm sorry about that. Her speech. Um what were your thoughts. on that? What was her reasoning maybe? >> It was a shock. Um it's one of the. there's been two shocking events in. April. Uh and the first one was Melania.

Um I was utterly shocked that she wanted. to address. uh Jeffrey Epstein in any way. I was. utterly shocked with the explicitness. that she spoke about Jeffrey Epstein. And I was utterly shocked because once. you have started speaking about a topic, people have questions. That's why we're. doing this, right? We I wrote an. article. I want questions. You're you. know, you you've got we've gathered. questions, and that's what we want. If. you don't want questions, don't don't. say something. >> We've got We'd love to take them.

>> Yes. Uh and we'd like your questions for. Melania, as well. Uh we may not be able. to answer them, but it'll help us work. out our reporting. >> Do a little inside Melania's head. >> Yes. Uh yes. Amazing. Again, sign me up. >> New podcast. >> Um. I think I think what what is important. here is that the amazing thing about. Epstein is there are new developments. all the time. >> Mhm. >> And this was an absolutely shocking. development. It was. I'm I'm reluctant to say it was a.

bombshell because people were asking. about Caroline Leavitt and the use of. the words of of of words from violence. and war. Well, bombshell was from there, and we use it all the time. But this. really was incredibly shocking. It was. And again, I'm using going to use the. word explosive. It was. um. and I you know, I think we all we were. all in the newsroom watching it and. completely shocked and surprised that. she'd spoken about it. As I say, there. are new developments literally every. day.

>> Well, not to use that word again, but it. does feel like we got a new development. today from the New York Times. An. article came out um about Epstein um. that I don't know Hugh, I think you're a. little more knowledgeable on this. Can I. pass to you? >> Well, um yeah, I I'm going to give huge. kudos here to New York Times um who are. doing a job of standing up for the free. press for freedom of the press uh in. fact with this. Um they have discovered. um they've been they've obviously been. investigating this for a long time and.

we The Daily Beast we've been. investigating Epstein since 2011. Uh so. I just want to say we absolutely give. huge kudos to people who who who make. breakthroughs here. Um they have been told. that or they they they have evidence. that a cellmate called Nicholas. Tartaglione. Tartaglione I'm not. >> I feel Italian not knowing how to say. it. >> Well, I'm not 100% confident. I I'm not. Italian or Italian American so um but uh. Nicholas Tartaglione.

recalled that there was a suicide note. >> Mhm. >> And that is just if this is true, it is. huge. Now. um we've been talking about conspiracy. theory thinking and about why is it. legitimate to think that something has. been uh. staged or stunted and of course I think. most people probably majority of people. don't believe that Jeffrey Epstein. killed himself and um I would currently. say I think he did.

>> Mhm. >> Uh but there are plenty of people who I. respect and Tina Brown, the legendary. founder of The Daily Beast uh with with. Barry Diller. um has now come to the view that it's. more likely that he was somehow. killed than that he took his own life. Um, so, you know, I'm not at all. dismissive of people who don't think. that Jeffrey Epstein took his own life. Um, however, the idea that there was a a. note that was discovered in July 2019.

Um, the first time that Jeffrey Epstein. was found in his cell, apparently in a. suicide attempt, this time it was not. successful. He had, I I kind of reluctant to do too much. detail about about the methods of. suicide because uh, we try not to do. that explicitly because people can. listen and get ideas, but essentially he. was found uh, with a strip of cloth, um,

that that looked like he'd been trying. to use it to tie around his neck. He was. unconscious, but he was not dead. He was. revived and, um, he was returned to the returned to. different cell, but he was returned, you. know, he was returned to the same unit. in the from. uh, in that in the jail in the. Metropolitan Detention Center. So, what. is claimed by the cellmate at the time. is that there was a note which said in. part, or maybe in full, "Time to say.

goodbye.". Which is absolutely chilling. >> Extremely chilling. >> And the reason that I want to praise New. York Times for this is because they have. gone to court. to seek to unseal secret documents which. would speak to whether this note is. whether this man's recollection is true. >> Mhm. >> and therefore allow us to see if there. was a note as he recalls and.

if there was, to see it and to be able. to help assess what happened to Jeffrey. Epstein with that in mind. >> Mhm. But, the. um so. it's an interesting question, right? The. Justice Department, which runs prisons, uh. says that the agency has not seen this. First of all, that's the Trump That's. Trump's Justice Department. It's under. the control of the acting attorney. general, Todd Blanche. So, you know, I think there are. questions that one has to ask about the.

veracity and accuracy, but even if we. take them at their words, the current. Justice Department is who they speak. for. They do not speak for the previous. Trump Justice Department. They don't. speak for the Biden Justice Department. And the um. there are record There are records. in other So, there are files in the. Epstein files which have something that. might line up that suggests there is. some sort of document um that may have a. reference to this. And I'm using all.

those conditionals very carefully. >> Um. If. If the Times is successful in unsealing. the the the available information, first. of all, this is information that would. probably be in the Epstein files and. therefore clearly. isn't there. Um. it would it would be the first time. we've ever seen something that would go. in the direction of suggesting. um that that Epstein was of a mind to. take his own life.

That would be an absolute. >> As you said, let's use the word but. >> Let's use the word. >> bombshell. >> Uh but also just remind people, first of. all, it may be that the Times is. successful in unsealing all the. surrounding documents and it turns out. that there never was such a note. Um you know, the recollection of. somebody who shared a jail cell with uh. a pedophile um many years ago. could be clouded by the by the by you. know, um by the the fading of memory.

Um, it's also possible that it will. turn up and it will rather clearly not. be from Jeffrey Epstein. If that's the case, then that would just. add another layer of mystery to this. Um, you know, I've I've been involved. other places. Um, I wasn't at the Daily. Beast in 2011 when it did such. magnificent work with Tina Brown editing. it and Ken Auletta Sarnoff. writing these incredible stories, really. breaking open the whole scandal. And but. I didn't cover.

and involved in coverage of Epstein. since 2011. And I don't think. since his death we have seen such a. significant. sudden. appearance of. something that rocks that could could. rock the case and and certainly rock the. perception of people that people have of. the case. >> Which I feel like has been kind of the. theme of this live stream, perception. You know, how everyone is seeing.

something, how people are seeing the. shooting, how people are seeing Epstein, and this is how people are seeing Trump. And this is definitely something that I. think would change how people see. Epstein's death, um, potentially. So, I. look forward to seeing the New York. Times reporting. >> And yeah, yeah, sorry, I was going to say, and it may. change the perception of people who. don't believe he took his own life in. the other direction. That's totally. possible as well. So, it's a real. it's got a real potential to change this.

case and. we've been talking about Trump. Um, any any action on the Epstein front any. of that is really bad for Trump and. uh, hate to say it, but he will need a. distraction. >> Yeah, and. I don't I I don't think I can say what. what that would be. I I have no idea. what the next distraction will be. Hopefully, it's not too dangerous. >> Well, I certainly I'd rather it wasn't. about um, um.

I it's I'd rather it wasn't somewhere. that it's not something that involves. people being put in danger. I'll just be. clear about that. Um. I just wanted There's one thing that I. wanted to address which I promised it I. promised we would address I promised we. would address and we kept talking about. uh things that I think are incredi- much. more important and significant, but um. many people. have said to me before and after um why. is the Daily Beast going to the White. House Correspondents Association dinner? >> Yes. >> When Donald Trump is there and um. I think there was a couple questions in.

the comments, a couple criticisms in the. comments. Um. And this is a decision that we put a lot. of thought into. I just want to, you. know, kind of address that. Um. We were going to go to the White House. Correspondents Association dinner before. Donald Trump uh I believe before Donald. Trump was actually invited properly, but. certainly before we knew that Donald. Trump was going. He was invited by the White House. Correspondents Association. Now, this is, you know, uh this is a body that is a group of.

people who cover the White House. So, we. have members of staff who are members of. that association and I'm not I wouldn't. be eligible, um but Farra Thomson, who's. in the White House basically every day, is obviously a member. >> some great reporting. Check her articles. out. >> Um. uh Sarah Youssef is also in the White. House frequently as a member of the. association and um our columnist Eleanor. Clift, who's been with uh. with was with Newsweek, you know, is a. legendary figure in uh in Washington, uh part of the McLaughlin Group for.

those who remember, um is a member of. the White House of the association. We. have other members, but I I'm. That group elects a president and a. board. And the president and the board. are elected by the group and they, the. president and the board, themselves. decided that they should. uh invite Donald Trump. And I'm not. party to their decision-making and. whether that was difficult or not, but. that was what they did. When that happened and he accepted it, we thought very carefully about this and.

there were a number of factors here. First of all, the. the the reason that I keep very. consciously saying the White House. Correspondents Association dinner is. that it is the dinner not of the White. House, but of the Correspondents. Association. So, they're inviting the. president onto the journalists' um. ground. And that means it's very actually very. rare for the president, this president, not all the presidents, but this. president to be somewhere that is not um.

his own turf. He stays at the White. House, he goes to Mar-a-Lago, he goes to. uh. you know, uh the odd rally, he goes to. international things, but not really his. turf, right? So, what we thought, and I will say lots of. people have different opinions on this, and I respect that, and it's a very fine. decision, was that. we should still go because.

it's not it's it's unusual for this. president to be in a room which is not. of his supporters, that does not clap. routinely, that does not cheer, and does. not holler. >> Yes men. >> And bunch of yes men. And um that's kind of we think and a. significant part of the press's job is. to to be a neutral, you know, we are not. partisan at The Daily Beast, we are. punchy, we are not partisan, we are not. advocating for the election of a.

different president from a different. party. So, that was one factor. Another factor is. that this dinner raises money for. scholarships for young journalists, many. of them from HBCUs, and it's incredibly important, you know, diversity in our industry is. problematic. And anything that helps with that is. something that I think is good. And with. the privilege on our table. um was one of the judges who judges the.

the scholarship awards. And she had obviously never been at this. event. And she'd taken these students. and they were they are scattered around. the room. And they are really part of they're an. important part of this. So, that was. part of our decision. The other decision. The other part of our decision is that. um. the uh the White House Correspondents. Association gives awards to good. reporting. And at the same time as it. was known that Donald Trump had accepted. an invitation, it was also known that an. award was going to be given to the Wall.

Street Journal, which had an. extraordinary scoop to go back to. Epstein of the drawing that apparently, allegedly, uh Donald Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein for. his 50th birthday, which is very clearly. female shape. And and like spoiler. content alert here, that his signature. represents her intimate area. So, that award was going to be given. And that award I didn't get to vote, but. I would totally voted for that. And that. is an award shows the independence of.

the press that they were going to give. this award. uh at dinner with the president. So, all. those factors to us. said we should go. And another factor is. that we are reporters first. We actually. didn't take any guests. We went as. reporters and I'm an editor, but you. know, fundamentally I'm a reporter. Um and. we went to witness and be there. And I. think it's very difficult to say you're. a reporter and boycott something. I. appreciate that many people reached a. different decision because you have to. pay.

uh $450 per head and people stand up for. the president. A courtesy, of course, that in this country the president gets. as head of state, doesn't get to when he. goes abroad. Um. but uh. you know, uh that that was a decision that we That. was a decision that we made after a lot. of debate and a lot of thought. Uh other. people. took that finally whole decision and. went on the other side because they they. believed and I, you know, I have. absolutely give them credit for that. that inviting a president who has.

attacked the press is. uh as can be seen as a reward for. attacking the press. Um but I just wanted to address that. point and get it on the record cuz I. think it's a very legitimate question. and it's important that people who are. people who are watching this understand. my respect for those who decided that. that was not the thing to do. And I have. friends who took that view. I have. friends who fall fell in line with me. And I mean friends at other outlets, I. should say. Um some other outlets that.

went are clearly ones that have more of. a partisan support for the president. Fox News. um was there. The Washington Examiner, which broadly sways right, was there. Um. CBS News was there. And. >> Maggie Haberman was there. >> the whole the whole, you know, topic of. of uh. endless discussion. And they invited. significant figures from the Trump. administration. Um. should they have done that? I think it's. a something that they should they. probably. that they Well, I don't know if those. outlets had internal debate about.

Certainly, I know other outlets did not. invite people from the Trump. administration because they wanted to. say that they were there as journalists, not to schmooze. It's a very difficult question. Um. there's already debate. Um I'd be, you. know, I've been replying to people on. Twitter. And please, um. you can find me on Twitter at. hughdoucette. It's h u g h d o u g h e r. t y. I'm You can uh message me on the in. the comments. I've been in the comments. on the story because it's important, I. think, that people people deserve. answers, which kind of is the topic of.

this show, right? People deserve answers. about Epstein, about mental health, about physical health, about the what. happens when things go wrong, and about. was it genuine. >> Which I think that's a great note to. leave on. We have held you guys for over an hour. So, thank you for staying with us. It. was great talking about all this. I. mean, there's so much going on. Of. course, there's so much more to unpack. And tune in to our next live stream to. hear the other whatever new updates and. developments there have been.

But, thanks for joining us, guys. >> Thank you for having us. >> Yeah. >> Thank you for being with us. Thank you, Jordyn. Amazing job. >> know I'm not Jordyn. I'm not Jordyn. >> I'm not Jordyn, either. >> Hopefully, you know, >> We are all Jordyn. >> A little. >> And yes. >> Okay. >> Jordyn will be back. >> Yes. >> Tonight on Inside Trump's Head, tomorrow. on The Daily Beast podcast, over the. weekend on Inside Trump's Head, plenty of Jordyn to come. >> Exciting. >> Thank you for Thank you for.