Paul Murray Live | 29 May

From the Skying in Center. This is Paul Murray live well.

A you kind, my dear friend. Thank you very much to Sharry Markson of course for doing it. Nobody else does yet it's gott he's no room to appreciate her and all of my other friends and colleagues here. Let's have a great night together. And yes, let us talk about something that may will have slipped through the fingers.

Of much of the news media today.

Remember a couple of weeks ago we told you about Channel Line reporting at the time it's exclusive for them, and it was about China disrupting members again of the Australian Defense Force. This was the scenario where the chopper was flying and then some flares had been released in front of it. If it was not for the skill of the pilot, then they may well have ended up in a scenario where the helicopter may will have crashed

We have made very strong representations at every level to China about this incident, which your regard as unprofessional and unacceptable.

Okay, I'll just wait for the control room.

Can we requeue that and let's play that again when everyone to understand what the Prime Minister said after this story had become public, and what he said was our response to China one more time.

We have made very strong representations at every level to China about this incident, which your regard as unprofessional and unacceptable at every level.

Well, guess what the Prime Minister lied now. That is not my assumption. It is the basic admission of parliamentary officials in Senate Estimates. This was written up today in part by the Financial Review saying the Prime Minister Anthony Abernezi did not seek a phone call with President Jijingping or the Premier after a Chinese fighter jet dedionated flares in front of an Australian Navy helicopter earlier this month.

There has not been every possible level.

Instead, representations are very strong and clear and direct representations made at the diplomatic, defense and political levels, including ah public statements by the Deputy Prime Minister, our Minister for Defense and the prime ministers. Then the public statement that the Prime Minister was making on his feet at the time.

Let me translate that for you.

Apparently, part of our communication with China at every possible level.

Was not a phone call.

From leader to leader was not a phone call minister to minister. Instead, the press conference at Beefweek is considered part of our response to China. Apparently that is what counted in part as confronting China about what had happened.

Again, more from Senate estimates.

Arranging phone calls with China's leaders is not a straightforward or speedy process, so we.

Don't do it very often.

We're going to see the Chinese premiere in Australia very soon, and we will have thorough discussions with him when he arrives.

It's too hard to make a phone call, but we'll tell the public that we did it. It's too hard to make a phone call. But the Chinese premier is coming here. Does anyone honestly believe that, while we are rolling out the red carpet for the second most significant person in the Chinese government, that we're going to say, by the way, about that event a couple of weeks ago, where the behavior of your defense force could have killed members of our defense force.

No, of course not.

You see, China knows that they have got this government right where they want them.

We'll let the trade happen.

That'll make you look better, will send no messages to the diaspora. We'll hope that they're voting patterns which change to the life election, continue into the next election.

Just never call us out. What has now been proven.

In questioning and in this reporting today is the Prime Minister lies. Now we've seen this many times before at every possible level, every possible level. In fact, third time, Control room, Let's bring it back. I wasn't planning to do it, but let's bring it back. Here's the Prime minister third time. Now, given what you have just heard from Senate estimates, what you've just read in the Financial review, does this match up with what the prime ministers said?

We have made very strong representations at every level to China about this incident, which we regard as unprofessional and unacceptable.

Now, this is a pattern of behavior when it comes to this government that when we talk about them sending messages, it's akin to when you want to have when you need to have an awkward conversation with somebody, but you secretly hope that their phone is turned off, so you leave a voicemail and move on. Or in this case, they probably wrote China Police call and send it to a fax machine that hopefully isn't connected at the other end.

But you say, well, I sent a message, was it received? Who cares?

They say, at the diplomatic level? So yes, okay, let's imagine, and I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they don't deserve. Perhaps it was embassy to embassy, but that's not every level. That's not what you've now seen three times from the Prime Minister.

Three times.

They never told us this event happened until the media called them, and then they claim that they spoke to every level of the Chinese government, when of course the proof is there that they didn't. And why do we know that this process is one that's burnt them in the past, because remember Maus Towoomba.

This, of course was the.

Australian navy divers who were trying to free up something that had got caught in one of their propellers. That's when the Chinese decided to fire sonar at them.

One of them got injured.

The Chinese said, oh, it's not us, because if it really was us, they would have been killed. And again the Australian public was not told about this until the Prime Minister was on his way back from the Australian Sorry, from the Asia Pacific Economic Forum of the APEK. That's the meeting where he was face to face with the President of China. He did not raise this face to face with the president. He has not picked up the

Call with the bloke who's coming to Australia, or the bloke who he went and met in Beijing.

The beautiful boy is a useful idiot and a lot of people will get rich and a lot of people will be happy. What does it say when the leader of our own country will lie to his own citizens about a potential situation that could have killed members of the defense force.

Nothing to see here, I'm albow Now.

Maintime, let's talk about Jim Charmers and the economy that's put in place right now. I hate to report what we've known instinctively for weeks and weeks and weeks that guess what Jim Charmers is wrong on inflation? The Reserve Bank is more likely to be correct on inflation and cost of living? Is that the Reserve Bank is said, unless it is going to be between two and three percent the consumer price index, then guess what they're going to do. They are going to hold into strates or

Percent for bread and cereal.

New homes that are purchased by the people who will live in them again way higher. Not to mention food, not to mention electricity. Someone writing about this at news dot com Dot a U puts it very cleanly. For anyone who is expecting an interest rate cut anytime soon, particularly a government that would fingers cross be one to go to an election sooner rather than later, because the

Of next year.

Now another year and a half. Of the pain that you feel when it comes to trying to pay.

Off a house.

All because, as we have told you many times before, what they will all claim is global factors. There are plenty of things that this country and this government in particular have made things harder for. That is the effect that exists. When it comes to inflation. They have been there for more than two years. In that time, interst rates have gone up twelve percent, up twelve times. I apologize twelve times. When it went up once before the last election the sky was caving in.

Well what do we say now? Oh yeah.

And by the way, about people trying to build homes in either order to rent them out or to move in. Interest rates in part is the reason why, according to the Turnbull Times, forty thousand homes waiting to be built right now are not being built because of high interest rates, interest rates that, according to the market today, don't expect

Major politicality that us been saying, As Nicky says, you know, everything that's going wrong in this country is because of migrants. And you know, I had a sudden flash of people turning up to try to read a property or at an auction, and they look a bit different whatever you defined different as that basically he has given them license to be abused.

Rubbish.

She is admonishing Peter Dutton for a situation that she has imagined and one that, as I have said before, frustrates me because in suburban Australia there are lots of people who look like lots of people from lots of places around the world. Nobody's being abused because of what they look like when it comes to real estate. And maybe Lefty Law, in her bubble of whiteness in and around the Act, perhaps that strikes her differently than it strikes the rest of us.

But it was that particular.

Comment that has been part of my focus. Now, of course I also say this that I'm fine for people to have strong opinions, but come out and join us in the commercial world. Come and join us in a world where your opinions have to stand on their own two feet and people have to show confidence in them by buying access to your service. But of course no,

You know the footballer's apology. Here's the bit worth reading to you.

I regret that when I was making these observations at the Writer's Festival, the nature of the free flowing panel discussion means they were not surrounded.

By every quote substay sorry, substantiating.

Them, which would have had included what I had said earlier on the ABC. Can we go back and play the grab. I'm sorry to keep doing this to your control room tonight, but can we go back and play all of this crap?

Right?

There's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of words before this is what she said.

For a major political ley that be saying, as Nicky says, you know everything that's going wrong in this country is because of migrants, and you know I had sudden flash of people turning up to try to read a property or at an auction, and they look a bit different whatever you defined different as that basically he has given them license to be abused.

She didn't really deal with this at the statement, because of course this hasn't been the focus of much of the conversation. She can, of course, immediately then pulls the shield of the ABC in front of her. This is created an opportunity for yet another anti ABC pylon. Yeah, because you called Australia a racist country. You suggested a situation when fellow Australians would turn on each other because of the way they look when they turn up to an auction. This is not helpful to me. You're the

Let that work speak for itself.

Well, of course, because when you do end up speaking for yourself at libbing, you say things like you really mean, like Australia is a racist country. It is based always on solid research and a lifetime of experience reporting on Australian politics. What that you think that there's going to be Australians turning on Australians at auctions because they quote unquote look different. That work is built on and delivered in the frame work of the ABC's very high editorial

Here's the She was able to.

Produce her school project, the proof everything was right, and didn't really deal with the bit where she just made up a scenario that she was admonishing Peter Dutton for.

Now.

What will happen is that she will, of course be completely embraced by the machine. She will be nothing but defended in all directions because you see, apparently there are people that are beyond criticism, There are people that are beyond observation, beyond ridicule, beyond a joke. And who knew they all work in the one building and they all mark each other's homework A plus.

A plus ABC plus.

Another example of it again, the multifaceted ways at which they get the same message across. Peter Dutton as always the focus of the government because of course he's the biggest threat to them being able to hold onto government.

But the assumption is the.

Teals won't move anywhere, so don't worry Peter Dutton. It's just a bit of noise between.

Now and then.

We can keep lying about China, we keep pretending to be transparent, you know, all that stuff. We can make the economy worse. But no, no, Peter Dutton is a real problem. And of course one of the ways that they are going to come with Peter Dutton is again to say the Liberal Party has a problem with women.

Liberal Party has a problem with women.

Send the message until they have a statistical problem with women, certainly what happened at the last election. Well, until people are told, I know I'm stumbling tonight so much, I apologize about why the problem with women. Before that narrative starts up, I wanted to show you the essential poll, you know, the one in the Guardian that shows this dead level right now between the Labor and the Liberal Party.

It's not great.

It's a primary vout of twenty nine percent, but still there is no difference right now in the female vote between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party as the equal number one options for women. So it is time to send a message out that Peter Dutton has a problem with women. And if Peter Dutton it doesn't have a problem with women, women should have a problem with Peter Dutton.

Who is the person.

Who is sending this message none other than again one of the High Priestesses of the ABC. Cannot be questioned, cannot be ridiculed because that would be a pilot and that's not helpful for me or national debates. And miss Crab says today among opposition leaders, Peter Dunne is a miracle survival story, but easy about to nuke himself with women vote as well?

Oh here we go.

Pety Dutton is a freak of nature politically that is, oh, always thought you did there. Two years in Dutton is not only still in office, but nobody inside his own party or even the National Party is trying to blow him out of it. Truly extraordinary achievement. Well that's cause Malcolm's not there anymore. But then we get to eventually to the issue that apparently is going to cost the Liberal Party votes with women and its nuclear power.

Apparently.

Truly fascinating detail in the survey that she was having a look at is when you dig down into especially who loves the idea of nuclear and who hates it, the biggest difference of opinion on nuclear, it turns out breaks along gender lines. Yeah, the person who has a problem with women is the guy who's talking about what form of energy, not the guy who literally makes women

Oh yeah, I see the logic now, you remember.

I was particularly annoyed going into the last election about a little decision which was made by the then Palachet government in Queensland. This was a disgraceful and I mean disgraceful decision that they tried to push in I think in the last week of Parliament before the twenty twenty election, and it was to do with the Crime and Corruption

There is no argument, Deputy Speaker, this is undoubtedly a challenging issue, but it is not one that the Palishe government is going to shy away from.

Except they did after we made it rather public what the problem was and the rest of the media started to catch on because all of this had actually taken place pretty late one night or when nobody else was looking.

And this was back when most of the media.

Were pretty much doing whatever the Palaschet government wanted them to, because you know, she's keeping it safe and she's the one who's saving everyone from the you know, it seemed like it was going to be a pretty easy victory. It turned out, of course, to be a pretty easy victory for Palachet, but even that media that was pretty compliant started to blow up about it. The ABC again in particular, started to blow up about it. So you had people like this blowing up about the idea.

It's a real attack on the community's right to information to hold the powerful accountable.

The legislation would have punished a reporter with up to six months jail, but not stop the person making the complaint.

So thankfully it didn't happen. Paul, why are you mentioning something from four years ago, because guess who as the brand new premiere is also fiddling with what you should or shouldn't know about the people who do and don't go before the Crime and Corruption Commission. Now, of course there are people who are found to be corrupt, they are charged to be corrupted, and they go on to the next level. They do not collect two hundred dollars, and they often go to a scenario that could will

Now, there have.

Been plenty of people that have gone near corruption commissions in the past who don't end up getting charged, but because of some of the critical findings or some of the things that have been said during that process, their political career disappears. Because guess what, it shouldn't just be a crime that ends up disqualifying you from being able to be in charge of a ministry and therefore the

Nothing to see here right now. Trump is back in court.

And today is the day when the jury will now finally get the opportunity to start working out whether they're going to find him guilty or not. Now, there was an absurd amount of time, literally all day yesterday was taken up by the closing arguments.

But all of that is done, it is over.

There will be a couple of hours tops, but that would be ridiculous for.

The judge to give his advice to the jury.

And look, we know how invested the judges in one particular outcome, so no surprise, there'll be handed a whole bunch of stuff. That's code for find him guilty, find him guilty, find him guilty. But what has been fascinating to watch is even in parts of the media that have just wall to wall covered this with every detail, and they've only ever had prosecutors on and Trump's one hundred percent guilty that even CNN said what I said last night, that they haven't actually proven the case.

There is reasonable doubt all over this case. Where is Keith Schiller? Where is Alan Weiselberg? How did Michael Cohene get away with stealing thirty thousand dollars hold a pity party for him? Made four million dollars on this thought he'd be chief of staff.

He's a fixer.

Why do we need to know whether or not the former president warre condom or not. It's simply about did the former president know that books his records four centuries for legal fees? Michael cohe was his lawyer. Did he intend to cover up the election or to protect his family?

It's every everywhere he'll never be seen again on their AA Wives. Anyway, we'll talk about this and a whole lot more with Megan Kelly. She thinks, regardless of the fact I haven't proven the crime, it is a lifty jury with a lifty judge and being pushed to a certain decision.

The case really comes down to the jury instructions and the verdict form, and that judge is going to lead this jury right to the water that reads guilty. You know, come here, worthy, drink, drink from the fountain of guilt.

It's right here.

And Kelly in a moment Broman Bishop Stephen Conroy next has no doubt they furiously agreed that Andrew Giles should remain a Minister of the Crown. And a whole lot more here on Paul Murray Life. Thank you very much for watching. Broman Bishop is here with Stephen Conroy. They're both just here to help. They both carry out a

Surely he's got to go.

Right, Well he should, but I'll tell you why it's not. Because he's the pawn of the Prime Minister, right he acts to have him around like a little plaque so he can hav him come out with all the statements he once made and he can cop all the pun an our an easy committee over here, not suffering the pain. That's a classic. That's exactly what happened with the Adurn stuff. Yes, and there's Direction ninety nine and I just love the language today.

Please.

It was the new direction will ensure that all members of the New Review Tribunal will adopt a common sense approach to the visa decisions consistent with the intent of Ministerial Direction ninety nine. I'd love to know what that means. Oh, he tells us. This means ensuring protection of the community outweighs other considerations. Yeah, boy, I want to see that wording.

Well, but don't forget and don't forget Stephen one of the ways that this has certain moved its way out that a bloke from Africa who ended up marrying an Indigenous woman having children with her, says he's indigenous because, among other things, he can play the digerido. This has gone crazy. The Prime Minister says, it's going to flip back the other way. So I don't know partial credit for admitting a mistake, but how big is the mistake right, surely he's got to go.

Look, I think what was also admitted today, which you haven't focused on and some of the media haven't focused on, was quite extraordinary admission by the head of the department that they had failed to do their job. Now, for those who don't know who Stephanie Foster is, she got parachuted into Immigration. Her title was Associate Secretary, so over a year ago she was put in charge. She was there as extra reinforcement inside Home Affairs, so she has had sole responsibility about this for.

Well over a year.

So when Andrew Giles puts it in place, as you've correctly said, it was done and I was surprised by it. I wouldn't have done it myself. Around the Ardourne, New Zealand issuecifically. The minister specifically said, now I need to be kept abreast if there are any knock on consequences of this in this cohort of really bad people over here.

Have you any idea?

Could you please be quiet?

Throwing?

Could you just be quiet and let me finish.

I think she threw.

She threw herself under the bus, and she should resign, So I'll go.

I'll actually go that far.

This person was solely put in charge of the immigration issues. She was supposed to supervise the actual you know, here's a big problem. If it starts to bleed over in here. I need to know about it so I can cancel some more visas.

But what about it?

And then sits there.

No, sorry, let me, I haven't finished, the brown minister and then he says, I'm sorry. We failed. We failed, We failed to keep this area properly staffed. I don't believe that's true. But but I don't believe that area was understaffed at all. I think it is down purely and simply to the incompetence of the official.

And she should resign, so the officials should go.

What's happened also today, you've made this No she they put in place at Minister's direction that her job was to brief him if there were a bleeding of the use.

Of ninety nine.

Board.

So he's never.

This was her responsibility and she failed it, and she's humiliated.

It's the minister's responsibility, and you know it, So.

Okay when this public goes public and says should ye fowl.

And al believes he wrote because he liked the flogging, so he can do what he wants. And honestly, it was the trade off of the addern agreement. He wasn't going to send New Zealanders back to New Zealand when they had done really bad things.

Now forgive me, lots of people have had plenty to say about that. Even though we could go on for a while, they can Kelly's up in a couple of seconds. I have no doubt that both of you were watching my editorial taking notes Stephen the Green furiously. So I am going to, without notice throw a question at both of you. Sent in estimates yesterday it comes out financial review reports. I give it a bit more focus tonight.

Hed at Beef Week.

That's right, just like he lied the last time when it was of course hmas to Wombo. Yet this will be the longest conversation that you'll see about it on television and radio, because the circus moves on.

Absolutely. If you'd said it in Parliament then he would be in trouble. But that's he's just not up to it. For all I've said again and again over twenty years, I sat in that chamber with him, and nobody ever said he was leadership material. And I watched I think Bridget mackenzie was pointing out that the troops are getting restless. The ones who see themselves as potential leaders who do a better job, they start to get redless.

Because they start to see.

Is that my seat that's going?

Where am I?

It is?

It becomes like a tagent within a political party.

But okay, Stephen, back to the shadow defense stuff, right, what would you have said of a prime minister who said that they've raised it at every possible level, but the reality is they haven't.

Well, Paul, I know you have a real be in your bondom on this one. I just don't accept your basic premise.

Okay.

The way you're trying to interpret the Prime minister's words, it's your interpretation of the primary resource.

I don't agree. Okay.

One of the key differences, no one, no one remotely thinks that meant he picked up the phone to g and go on.

That was the impression you meant to make, Paul.

That is that that is just a delusional interpretation. Okay. The one key difference between labor and liberals on this issue is they're not conducting what you would call foghorn diplomacy.

Okay, you're screaming the Chinese rooftops just quietly.

Would you have gone made about that? Knock it off? You would right as.

A defense minister to the other defense at the moment, because the evidence at the moment is that didn't happen.

At the moment the Chinese engaged in such consistent, disruptive behavior, you'd have to have a permanent open line to the Chinese. That is not how diploment, how you want to try and explain it to And it was a disgraceful, a disgraceful attack. But I'm a commentator. You're a commentator. We get to do that. The failure of the last government was that couldn't walk into gum when it came to China. We're able to overtly openly critical.

Steven that the this current government keeps boasting about having restored communications with the Chinese, which was absent from the last government. You keep saying, as others do, but they couldn't pick up a phone to make it complaint about what had happened.

That handsome texting not critical. I'm not critical.

I'm not critical of the previous governments in terms of it took some robust positions, but the sort of response for your suggesting is as moronic as moronic as Tony Habbitt going I'm going to shirt front Pewtin. If that's the definition of diplomacy, I'll leave that to Bromwin and Tony bish. But that's not how it were. I would like in the real world of diplomacy to.

Ring the other defense miss to say hey, knock that stuff off right, or hey can you tell.

Me more about this? There's a way I get it, you know, just pick up the phone and start screaming.

But the idea that they are telling the Australian publics, they're not going to Yeah that's the point, right slash.

They're going to ignore China. China are going to ignore all of our protestations. It doesn't matter.

Sure, but.

People, he pretended that you are trying.

He is your interpretation, he said, he said we the gravity is the word.

He was fine, and we have made that trade and go.

We means I picked up the phone and ruck call g that's what That's what it means.

Just a quick one.

I don't think Trump will get convicted.

Just one newsplash for you, all right, Well from there now you've made me happy. At the end you call be disgraceful and all the rest of it. But we agree on that. Thank you, guys.

Meghan Kelly is nicked straight up of the break you're on for Murray live her thoughts on the Trump trial from.

An agree that he shouldn't be found guilty.

Correct, Absolutely, our favorite time of the week to talk to our favorite person in the world, none of them, the wonderful Meghan Kelly in the United States.

How are a rock? Start?

How are you doing?

For so?

Closing arguments in the Trump trial, it took up all day.

This should have been like one hour your turn, one hour, my turn. Let's get on with it.

Kill me.

I mean absolutely loving the sound of their own voices. And I have to make a distinction here between the defense and the prosecution. The defense has a man's potential freedom on the line, potentially the freedom of the country, the future of the free world, since they're banking on this thing stopping Donald Trump from winning. He took just over two hours, almost two and a half hours.

That actually is.

A reasonable amount of time. Could have done it shorter, but it's not totally unreasonable. The prosecution estimated four and a half hours. They're still going right now, and this poor jury, they're only human. They have to sit there and they have to look at the guy as he's talking, and you know, for them, now this is our what So four and a half two and a half says six and a half.

Is that whatever is, it will be like seven hours.

And they have to actually keep looking at him like I'm interested, I'm paying attention.

You know they're yawning. You know they're getting the glassy eyes.

And this prosecutor, had he been smart, would have kept it tight, tight, tight, excuse me, Paul would have kept it tight, tight, tight, would have gotten up there and saidification.

You know they did that.

Here's how you know of business records in order to conceal or commit another unlevel act.

Here's how they did that, and here's the unlovel act.

That's it done by keep it clear, give him three clear points to hold on to when they go back into the jury room. He made it harder for them to understand this very complex legal theory and did himself no favors.

I don't think that the prosecution has made its case. So what did you think all of the defense and trying to get to that one jura who might hold the whole process up and finish this thing off.

I didn't like it. I didn't like it.

I just he too, It's like, stop meandering, here's what happens. People fall, So in love with the case that they heard or they thought they tried, that they forget the importance of clarity and brevity. Like the jury, I understand, the rest of us have been on the outside analyzing this thing to Kingdom Come for weeks now. The jury was in there for all the evidence, but they're.

Not following it.

When they go home with NonStop CNN, Trump porn analysis and every single podcast known to man and all the newspapers like, they're probably going home and doing what they're supposed to do, which is tuning out the coverage and spending time with their families. So what they need now is just a very clear roadmap. The best thing the defense did was ten reasons why there's a reasonable doubt that they ended with that.

That was very good.

That's a nice clear way of getting after their main points. I actually thought they could have picked better points, to be totally honest with you, But fine, that was the clearest thing I've heard. But the prosecution's been all over the map and still still, Paul, I think they'll be rewarded for it, because, as you and I have discussed, the case really comes down to the jury instructions and the verdict form and that judge is going to lead

It's right here. And there have already been some rulings behind the scenes. We have yet to see the jury instructions.

He hasn't released them, even though they are the public's business. But we understand, for example, that the prosecution proposed a jury instruction, and we've read that the defense did not object, which seems impossible and I really hope is wrong. If so, Trump's going to have an inassistance of council grounds for appeal if he loses. But there is a suggestion in these jury instructions that a general intent when it comes to proving the fraud count is enough.

That's not true.

In the law.

There needs to be a specific intent when you're talking about a fraud case. And the only areas in which they say a general intent to defraud, like, gee, I'm just going to commit a fraud. I'm going to commit a fraud today. I'm just like some general people out there, I don't know who. The only times where the courts allow that, and the Supreme Court just only recently upheld this is in connection with dough financial frauds money, which is even arguably the case here. So who specifically was

And what about the garbage outside tonight?

Robert de Niro, officially sent by the Biden campaign, makes himself look like an idiot and reminds us why Trump is so popular.

It's so stupid. It was colossally stupid.

If you're going to send somebody to go speak outside of the Trump trial, make it someone who's universally beloved, like a Michelle Obama.

You know, she's not universally loved, She's not loved on the right.

But I'm saying, like, at least within the left and the center left and maybe even some center righties. Robert de Niro has gone so hard partisan over the past eight years. He is like example number one of Trump arrangement syndrome. He's one of those on moving to Canada if he wins, and he's never gonna leave the White House. If he wins, We're going to have Trump forever more.

He's going to go.

And in the not too distant future, even if Trump says he shouldn't have to.

But an event, he.

Didn't do that the last time, Paul, can you really picture a scenario in which Trump is more determined to hold onto power than he was at the last time in twenty twenty, you know, going into twenty twenty one.

And what did he do? Ultimately he left. He did leave. He did it under protest.

He was a baby about it, he pouted and then some but he left. So but this is the latest narrative from the left that he will never leave. And on top of that, they bring out two cops who were there on January sixth at the usk Apital. Who are I mean rabbid Trump haters who are on CNN every night telling another terrible story about Trump for their feelings about So.

It's likely no one's listening to them, like literally nobody.

And so the other plan that we learned today that the White House has is apparently Joe Biden, mister, I'm not involved in any of this, even though I just sent my campaign to make comments about the trial at the trial site. Is when and if Trump is convicted, prepared to deliver a statement himself from the White House,