Bill Maher roasts Sean Penn for meeting Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro but not Trump
Comedian Bill Maher lashed out at Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn on the latest episode of his Club Random podcast over perceived criticism of his decision to sit down for dinner with President Donald Trump in April.
Maher, often a sharp critic of Trump, unexpectedly met with the president after an invitation was brokered by their mutual friend Kid Rock. The host left the evening with a revised opinion, speaking glowingly of the commander-in-chief.
That provoked a backlash among liberals, with sitcom legend Larry David penning a scathing satire of Maher's conduct for The New York Times entitled, 'My Dinner with Adolf.'
Returning to the issue in his latest interview with Penn, Maher asked the actor: 'You do, I hope, think I did the right thing to have dinner with him?'
Penn answered: 'Absolutely, you're so smart, you go there... Look, this is the president of the United States, whether we like it or not, it doesn't matter. There's a lot of reasons I was speculating that... it would be good for you to do that.'
From there, the star revealed that he had seen Maher's subsequent account of the visit on his HBO show Real Time and wished that the ensuing coverage had been 'less successful' for Trump.
Maher hit back: 'It was less successful because I never stopped saying all the things I've always said about him. It would have been successful if he had somehow seduced me into supporting him. So it wasn't successful.'
Penn, in turn, suggested Maher could have done more 'editing' in relaying the details of the dinner, suggesting he had gone too far in offering a warm account of the evening, rather than saying simply: 'He treated me fine, that's that.'
Penn, a keen observer of global politics, has previously met with Central American communist leaders Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, and Hugo Chavez, and even the Mexican cartel boss Joaquin ' El Chapo ' Guzman for Rolling Stone, hoping to interest the latter in a possible movie project about his life.
However, Penn told Maher he would not sit down for dinner with Trump, adding: 'The only reason I would not accept an invitation is... it's a long flight.'
Incredulous, Maher reacted: 'Really, you'll meet with f***ing Castro and Hugo Chavez but not the president of the United States?'
'I, I, saw good results come out of some of those things...' Penn said defensively. 'I just personally wouldn't trust anything that was said in the room, including personality.'
Maher hit back: 'It's not a matter of trusting it, it's a matter of seeing it, a matter of experiencing it, knowing it... I'm telling you, there's a very different guy behind closed doors in a different setting.'
He went on to push Penn on whether he would accept a dinner invitation to the West Wing if he, Maher, helped facilitate it, to which the actor answered: 'I would not fool myself that... I was going to get anywhere with him. I know that I wouldn't, I know that I would have no influence.'
Clearly annoyed, Maher said Penn had a 'bad attitude' and declared: 'I'll tell you this about Donald Trump and you don't know it because you don't go to dinners... It's all about personal relationships... I will get you an invite. He's a starf***er in a way. I bet you he would like to meet you.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
22 minutes ago
- BBC News
Trump on a high after 'tremendous' wins at home and abroad
Donald Trump's week began with an on-air expletive as he lost his cool over his mounting frustrations with Iran and Israel's shaky ended with a beaming US president holding court at the White House - not once, but twice - as he celebrated a series of significant political victories at home and was in a triumphant mood, answering questions for more than an hour at a news conference that turned into a meandering boast of his a look at four big wins from this week, as well as a reminder of some things that didn't go entirely the president's way. 1. An 'unbelievable' strike and a ceasefire The successful US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on 21 June was followed just three days later by Trump's announcement of a "complete and total" ceasefire in what he termed the "12-day war" between Israel and Iran. It had a rocky start. Not long before the announcement, Iran fired off ballistic missiles at a US airbase in Qatar, sparking fears of a wider war across the Persian Gulf. Even after the ceasefire, things seemed tenuous. Both sides were quickly accused of breaking it, prompting an angry, expletive-laden tirade to reporters on the White House lawn. By his own admission, Trump only narrowly managed to convince Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call off further attacks on Iran. But ultimately the ceasefire held, allowing the president to proudly claim that his military gamble of an "unbelievable" strike on Iran worked, and point to evidence that he is a "peacemaker" - a sorely needed win as peace continues to elude him in both Gaza and Ukraine. Hegseth talks up strikes in Iran in push for public approval 2. Nato's commitment to 'Daddy' Trump was on his way to the Netherlands for the Nato summit when he got a text from Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, lavishing praise on him for the strikes on Iran - texts the president was more than happy to make his whirlwind visit to the summit, US allies committed to 5% defence spending, something the president had repeatedly and vocally called during a joint press conference, Rutte referred to Trump as "Daddy", a reference to the president being able to broker a ceasefire between Israel and has seemed to embrace the moniker. "I think he likes me. If he doesn't...I'll come back and hit him hard," Trump said at a news conference, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio laughing beside him. "He did it very affectionately." Soon after, the White House posted various videos of a victorious-looking Trump with the caption "daddy's home". Trump takes victory lap at Nato - but questions remain 3. A 'giant win' at the Supreme Court Trump's week ended on a high note with the news that the Supreme Court issued a ruling that will curb judges' power to block his orders nationwide. While the ruling stems from a case regarding Trump's ability to end birthright citizenship for children of some immigrants, it has sweeping implications. It will be harder for lower courts to challenge Trump's domestic agenda through what Attorney General Pam Bondi described as an "endless barrage" of injunctions. At an impromptu news conference, the president hailed the ruling as a "monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law". The decision allows him to pursue a number of other policy items that had been thwarted by injunctions, including freezing funds to so-called "sanctuary cities" that stand in the way of his mass deportation drive, suspending refugee resettlement, and preventing tax money being used to fund gender surgeries. The president smiled and cracked jokes, inviting reporters to ask more and more questions, as his aides - including Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt - sat smiling beside him. "This was a tremendous win, and we've had tremendous wins," he said at the end. "But this was a tremendous win today." Court ruling expands Trump's power - he intends to use it 4. A peace deal in Africa Some potential worries for the White House The week hasn't been all victories and roses for Trump. The president's biggest legislative priority - a massive tax bill he's dubbed the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" - has hit some roadblocks. Trump has repeatedly urged lawmakers to get it on to his desk to sign into law by 4 July, Independence Day in the US. But earlier this week, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough said that certain provisions violated Senate rules, throwing billions of dollars of cuts into doubt."This is part of the process. This part is part of the workings of the United States Senate," Karoline Leavitt said earlier this week. "But the president is adamant about seeing this bill on his desk here at the White House by Independence Day." And while Trump has hailed the ceasefires in Iran - as well as those in central Africa and last month between Pakistan and India - as victories, he has so far faltered on two of his biggest promises for peace: in Gaza and Ukraine."We're working on that one," Trump said of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine at Friday's news conference, where he did not mention the end of US military involvement in Iran is not guaranteed. During the news conference, Trump was asked by the BBC if he would consider bombing Iran again if he believed they were re-starting their nuclear programme. "Sure, without question, absolutely," he responded.
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Justin Bieber gives major hint about state of relationship with Hailey amid marital strife rumors
Justin Bieber gave insight into the status of his relationship with wife Hailey Bieber on Friday. The 31-year-old singer — whose odd behavior has fans puzzled — was active on Instagram, sharing a slew of photos from their life with son Jack Blues, 10 months. The family-of-three appeared to be soaking up quality time as they kicked off their summer outdoors near a lake. Photos shared to Justin's account, which he just changed from @justinbieber to @lilbieber, showed the model holding their son, pickleball paddles, and walking near a golf cart. While the former child star has been frantically posting a barrage of online content in recent weeks, it's been reported that the Biebers' marriage is under a lot of stress. 'Justin's been a hard person to deal with recently because of what he's going through,' a source dished to Us Weekly earlier this week. 'It's been really hard on her.' The person added: 'Family issues have clouded her success.' But according to the Instagram pictures, which Bieber spread out through multiple posts, the spouses are sticking together. Jack was dressed in a blue and white Toronto Maple Leafs jersey and a pair of jeans in several posts. In another picture, which was also posted by Hailey, the infant sat in lush green grass on a soccer field. 'Justin's going through a difficult time, and Hailey is giving him room to get himself back on track. He's doing his best, but it's tough,' a second source told the outlet. The second insider claimed the pair have been enduring more 'ups and downs' than usual and 'things have been very tense in the last month.' 'Hailey's worried about Justin, especially with a [baby at home]. He hasn't been down like this in quite some time, so there's concern,' it was revealed. There was also a photo of Jack sitting as he played near another child As Justin continues to spark concern online over his bizarre social media posts, Hailey is said to feel frustrated over his 'loose cannon' antics. But, ultimately, the person close to the couple said: 'She knows that's part of the industry and who she's married to.' 'They don't talk about divorce,' the first source insisted. The second insider confirmed the odds of them calling it quits 'are very slim, especially because of their faith.' 'Faith is a big part of their life,' the source said. 'They believe they are soulmates and meant for each other.' 'They'll do anything to make it work,' the second source emphasized. 'They are going to get through it.'
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
REVEALED: America's most powerful judges who protect the Constitution locked in a toxic, secret battle...
A fiery dispute between two of America's most powerful judges was on public display on Friday as the Supreme Court handed down a bombshell opinion on birthright citizenship. The nine justices who sit on the court frequently tout that relationships between them, despite deep ideological divides, are cordial. But as they wrestle with issues that have left the US bitterly divided, not all of the spats between them fall directly along their political party lines - hinting that they might just not like each other on a personal level. The justices' secret personal feuds have seemingly become so fraught that they are counting down the days until the SCOTUS summer recess - which will be a welcome respite from both work and colleagues, according to Chief Justice John Roberts. This week, the court's liberal wing erupted in spectacular fashion against the six-judge conservative alliance during the biggest ruling of the year thus far. Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett, 53, ripped into liberal dissenter Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's arguments in her 6-3 majority opinion in a major birthright citizenship case, with comments that come close to mocking her intellectual rival. Writing for the conservative majority of the court, Barrett hit back at both Jackson and fellow Justice Sonia Sotomayor who dissented. Barrett's scorched earth reply took aim at Jackson mostly, spending 900 words to repeatedly rip into the Biden appointee and the court's most junior member. At one point, Barrett's comments came close to mocking her intellectual rival. She wrote: 'Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.' Barrett accused Jackson of mounting a 'startling line of attack', which in her view was no 'tethered to any doctrine whatsoever'. Some lines resemble jabs from a political debate. 'Justice Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands 'universal adherence,' at least where the Executive is concerned,' goes one. In perhaps the most sneering comment, Barrett writes: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Jackson had issued ominous warnings in her own blistering dissent. 'Disaster looms,' she said. 'What I mean by this is that our rights-based legal system can only function properly if the Executive, and everyone else, is always bound by law. 'Today's decision is a seismic shock to that foundational norm. Allowing the Executive to violate the law at its prerogative with respect to anyone who has not yet sued carves out a huge exception—a gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound,' she wrote. 'What is more, to me, requiring courts themselves to provide the dagger (by giving their imprimatur to the Executive Branch's intermittent lawlessness) makes a mockery of the Judiciary's solemn duty to safeguard the rule of law,' she added. Jackson, 71, cited a ruling about the 'accretion of dangerous power, and wrote that the Court has 'cleared a path for the Executive to choose law-free action at this perilous moment for our Constitution—right when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints.' She warned of a 'rule-of-kings governing system' compared to a 'rule of law regime.' 'At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government's self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.' Jackson even began the opening section of her argument by dispensing with the traditional saying that she 'respectfully' dissents. 'With deep disillusionment, I dissent,' she wrote. So did Sotomayor, who wrote simply, 'I dissent.' The decisions handed down this week have continued a trend of the liberal judges in the court often losing rulings in the most impactful cases. Sotomayor dissented in the court's 6-3 decision that public school parents must be allowed to take their kids out of lessons involving LGBT books. In her dissent, she warned of a nightmare for schools, saying the ensuing 'chaos' and 'self-censorship' would threaten to 'end American public education as we know it'. She said: 'Today's ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The reverberations of the Court's error will be felt, I fear, for generations.' It is not always as clean cut however, with a decision issued on Friday that endorsed a multibillion dollar fund to expand telephone and broadband services being passed through by a coalition of three conservatives and three liberals. The fund has been used to expand service to low-income Americans and people living in rural areas and Native American tribal lands, as well as other beneficiaries such as schools and libraries. The 6-3 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) funding mechanism employing mandatory contributions from telecommunications companies had effectively levied a 'misbegotten tax' on consumers in violation of the U.S. Constitution's vesting of legislative authority in Congress. The fund has been used to expand service to low-income Americans and people living in rural areas and Native American tribal lands, as well as other beneficiaries such as schools and libraries. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the ruling, wrote that Congress had provided ample guidance and constraints on the Federal Communications Commission operation of the fund. 'We hold that no impermissible transfer of authority has occurred,' wrote Kagan, who was joined by her two fellow liberal justices, as well as conservative Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three conservative justices - Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. The birthright citizenship ruling was hailed by President Donald Trump on Friday, who told reporters: 'This was a big one. Amazing decision, one we're very happy about. This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it's all about.' Basking in his victory during an impromptu appearance in the White House briefing room, the president vowed to push through 'many' more of his policies after the court win, including curbs to birthright citizenship. The president said he would 'promptly file' to advance policies that have previously been blocked by judges. He said: 'This morning the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.' Friday's case stemmed from an executive order Trump signed as soon as he took office that ended birthright citizenship - the legal principle that U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to individuals upon birth. Under the directive, children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens, radically altering the interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment for over 150 years. The Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of Trump's order purporting to end birthright citizenship and left open a legal path to challenge it.
