Bill Maher torches Sean Penn for Donald Trump meeting hypocrisy: ‘You met with Castro and Hugo Chavez'
During an episode of Maher's 'Club Random' podcast on Sunday, Penn ridiculed some of Trump's comments, like his threat to annex Canada, as the pair smoked cigars and drank booze.
Maher interjected: 'But you do, I hope, think I did the right thing to have dinner with him.'
'Absolutely, you're so smart,' Penn quickly replied.
But Penn said he would not accept an invitation to meet with Trump if he received one, and that he wished Maher didn't spend so much time discussing the visit on his show.
'Really, you meet with f****** Castro and Hugo Chavez, but not the president of the United States?' Maher retorted.
Maher shared on his show in April that he met with Trump during a dinner at the White House organized by musician Kid Rock, a close Trump ally who performed at the Republican National Convention last year.
Penn, a longtime Democratic activist, landed big-name interviews in the early 2000s with Communist leaders Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez.
Penn previously said he met with Fidel Castro, though that discussion was not made public.
He also traveled to Iran to cover the country's elections in 2005.
'I saw good results come out of some of those things,' Penn replied. 'I just personally wouldn't trust anything that was said in the room [with Trump], including the personality.'
Maher dismissed Penn's argument, adding that it's 'not a matter of trusting it.'
'It's like saying, 'I don't want this medical test because I don't want to know.' I want to know,' Maher continued.
Penn said he wished Trump's dinner would have been seen 'as less successful.'
'Well it was less successful because I never stopped saying all the things I've always said about him,' Maher argued.
'It would've been successful if he had somehow seduced me into supporting him, so it wasn't successful.'
Originally published as Bill Maher torches Sean Penn for Donald Trump meeting hypocrisy: 'You met with Castro and Hugo Chavez'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
a day ago
- The Advertiser
DC sues to block Trump's federal police takeover
The US capital has sued to block President Donald Trump's takeover of its police department in court, hours after his administration escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department. Washington's police chief said Trump's move would threaten law and order by upending the command structure. "In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive," Chief Pamela Smith said in a court filing. The legal battle playing out on Friday showed the escalating tensions in a mostly Democratic city that now has its police department under the control of the Republican presidential administration. Trump's takeover of the police department is historic, yet it had played out with a slow ramp-up in federal law enforcement officials and National Guard troops to start the week. As the weekend approached, though, signs across the city — from the streets to the legal system — suggested a deepening crisis over who controls the city's immigration and policing policies, the district's right to govern itself and daily life for the millions of people who live and work in the metro area. Washington's top legal official was pushing in court to reverse the order putting the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration in charge of police in the nation's capital. District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb argues the police takeover is illegal and threatens to "wreak operational havoc". The lawsuit comes after US Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Thursday that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume the police chief's duties and approval authority for any orders issued to officers. It was unclear where the move left the city's current police chief, Smith, who works for the mayor. Schwalb argues the new order goes beyond Trump's authority and implementing it would "sow chaos" in the Metropolitan Police Department. "The administration's unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call DC home," Schwalb said. The Justice Department declined to comment on the district's lawsuit, and a White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. At a Friday afternoon hearing for Schwalb's request for a temporary restraining order, US District Judge Ana Reyes seemed sceptical of Bondi's authority to sideline Smith. "I don't see any basis in the statute for her to order the Metropolitan Police Department to act," said Reyes, nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden. The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authority to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally. It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major US cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the Trump administration has portrayed. The president has more power over the nation's capital than other cities, but DC has elected its own mayor and city council since the Home Rule Act was signed in 1973. The US capital has sued to block President Donald Trump's takeover of its police department in court, hours after his administration escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department. Washington's police chief said Trump's move would threaten law and order by upending the command structure. "In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive," Chief Pamela Smith said in a court filing. The legal battle playing out on Friday showed the escalating tensions in a mostly Democratic city that now has its police department under the control of the Republican presidential administration. Trump's takeover of the police department is historic, yet it had played out with a slow ramp-up in federal law enforcement officials and National Guard troops to start the week. As the weekend approached, though, signs across the city — from the streets to the legal system — suggested a deepening crisis over who controls the city's immigration and policing policies, the district's right to govern itself and daily life for the millions of people who live and work in the metro area. Washington's top legal official was pushing in court to reverse the order putting the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration in charge of police in the nation's capital. District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb argues the police takeover is illegal and threatens to "wreak operational havoc". The lawsuit comes after US Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Thursday that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume the police chief's duties and approval authority for any orders issued to officers. It was unclear where the move left the city's current police chief, Smith, who works for the mayor. Schwalb argues the new order goes beyond Trump's authority and implementing it would "sow chaos" in the Metropolitan Police Department. "The administration's unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call DC home," Schwalb said. The Justice Department declined to comment on the district's lawsuit, and a White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. At a Friday afternoon hearing for Schwalb's request for a temporary restraining order, US District Judge Ana Reyes seemed sceptical of Bondi's authority to sideline Smith. "I don't see any basis in the statute for her to order the Metropolitan Police Department to act," said Reyes, nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden. The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authority to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally. It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major US cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the Trump administration has portrayed. The president has more power over the nation's capital than other cities, but DC has elected its own mayor and city council since the Home Rule Act was signed in 1973. The US capital has sued to block President Donald Trump's takeover of its police department in court, hours after his administration escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department. Washington's police chief said Trump's move would threaten law and order by upending the command structure. "In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive," Chief Pamela Smith said in a court filing. The legal battle playing out on Friday showed the escalating tensions in a mostly Democratic city that now has its police department under the control of the Republican presidential administration. Trump's takeover of the police department is historic, yet it had played out with a slow ramp-up in federal law enforcement officials and National Guard troops to start the week. As the weekend approached, though, signs across the city — from the streets to the legal system — suggested a deepening crisis over who controls the city's immigration and policing policies, the district's right to govern itself and daily life for the millions of people who live and work in the metro area. Washington's top legal official was pushing in court to reverse the order putting the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration in charge of police in the nation's capital. District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb argues the police takeover is illegal and threatens to "wreak operational havoc". The lawsuit comes after US Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Thursday that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume the police chief's duties and approval authority for any orders issued to officers. It was unclear where the move left the city's current police chief, Smith, who works for the mayor. Schwalb argues the new order goes beyond Trump's authority and implementing it would "sow chaos" in the Metropolitan Police Department. "The administration's unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call DC home," Schwalb said. The Justice Department declined to comment on the district's lawsuit, and a White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. At a Friday afternoon hearing for Schwalb's request for a temporary restraining order, US District Judge Ana Reyes seemed sceptical of Bondi's authority to sideline Smith. "I don't see any basis in the statute for her to order the Metropolitan Police Department to act," said Reyes, nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden. The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authority to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally. It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major US cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the Trump administration has portrayed. The president has more power over the nation's capital than other cities, but DC has elected its own mayor and city council since the Home Rule Act was signed in 1973. The US capital has sued to block President Donald Trump's takeover of its police department in court, hours after his administration escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department. Washington's police chief said Trump's move would threaten law and order by upending the command structure. "In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive," Chief Pamela Smith said in a court filing. The legal battle playing out on Friday showed the escalating tensions in a mostly Democratic city that now has its police department under the control of the Republican presidential administration. Trump's takeover of the police department is historic, yet it had played out with a slow ramp-up in federal law enforcement officials and National Guard troops to start the week. As the weekend approached, though, signs across the city — from the streets to the legal system — suggested a deepening crisis over who controls the city's immigration and policing policies, the district's right to govern itself and daily life for the millions of people who live and work in the metro area. Washington's top legal official was pushing in court to reverse the order putting the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration in charge of police in the nation's capital. District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb argues the police takeover is illegal and threatens to "wreak operational havoc". The lawsuit comes after US Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Thursday that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume the police chief's duties and approval authority for any orders issued to officers. It was unclear where the move left the city's current police chief, Smith, who works for the mayor. Schwalb argues the new order goes beyond Trump's authority and implementing it would "sow chaos" in the Metropolitan Police Department. "The administration's unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call DC home," Schwalb said. The Justice Department declined to comment on the district's lawsuit, and a White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. At a Friday afternoon hearing for Schwalb's request for a temporary restraining order, US District Judge Ana Reyes seemed sceptical of Bondi's authority to sideline Smith. "I don't see any basis in the statute for her to order the Metropolitan Police Department to act," said Reyes, nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden. The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authority to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally. It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major US cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the Trump administration has portrayed. The president has more power over the nation's capital than other cities, but DC has elected its own mayor and city council since the Home Rule Act was signed in 1973.
The Age
a day ago
- The Age
Forget Downton Abbey and Bridgerton. This is the period drama you need in your life
Time travel doesn't exist yet, and let's be honest, if it did, humans couldn't be trusted to use it responsibly. Thankfully we have television, able to transport us back in time to a world before television. To a time when cars were horses, and jeans were the distant dream of someone trapped in a corset. And there are certainly a lot of televisual time machines floating around out there these days. Since the success of Downton Abbey, Julian Fellowes' historical drama following the lives of the aristocratic Crawley family and their domestic servants in the early 20th century, we have officially been living in the age of scandalous prestige period drama. And what a time to be alive! In the wake of Downton Abbey, TV has gone all in on luxurious sets, fabulous old-timey clothes, and giant casts of people far sexier than you'll ever find depicted in some dusty oil painting. The historical accuracy is rarely (read: never) the point: we're after big costumes, big mansions, big betrayals and big reactions, preferably in an accent that actors probably call 'Olden Days'. They come in all styles, united through the inherent melodrama and wondrous escapism of watching rich people suffer rich people problems. Some are overly self-serious (Wolf Hall), some are utter schlock (The Tudors). Some prioritise romance (Victoria), others the potent cocktail of humour and violence (The Great). Some go for opulence and spectacle: The Crown was famously one of the most expensive shows ever made. And others crank the sex appeal up to 11, a smorgasbord of witty repartee and semi-nudity: ahem, Bridgerton; ahem, Mary & George. But one period drama on television right now outdoes them all. It's ambitious, lavish, provocative and utterly engrossing. It has also flown under the radar, lost in the maelstrom of shows set in the histrionic days of yore. Julian Fellowes' follow-up to Downton Abbey is even better than its predecessor. It just aired its third season on HBO; in Australia, it streams on Paramount+. It is called The Gilded Age. The Gilded Age is set in New York City, during the boom years of the 1880s. It primarily follows the trials and tribulations of two extremely rich families – the 'new money' Russell family, whose patriarch George is a ruthless business tycoon and ambitious futurist, and the 'old money' Van Rhijn-Brook family, whose wealth has been inherited over generations and who refuse to accept these new-timey industrialists into their exclusive society. When approached without irony, a show about the rich and royal quibbling over etiquette and reputation can become tiresome quickly (looking at you, The Crown). But by moving the setting from an old country estate in England to the bustling streets of a booming New York, Fellowes presents a world slightly more recognisable to us modern plebs, and therefore ripe for satire. In the reality we live in, where the pettiness and trifles of the obscenely rich are the catalyst for so many of the world's ills, there is a joy in seeing that entitled upper crust confined to their ballrooms and mansions, where their rivalries and game-playing are pure spectacle, rather than likely to bring about the fall of civilisation. It's riveting and hilarious, rather than terrifying and depressing.
Sydney Morning Herald
a day ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Forget Downton Abbey and Bridgerton. This is the period drama you need in your life
Time travel doesn't exist yet, and let's be honest, if it did, humans couldn't be trusted to use it responsibly. Thankfully we have television, able to transport us back in time to a world before television. To a time when cars were horses, and jeans were the distant dream of someone trapped in a corset. And there are certainly a lot of televisual time machines floating around out there these days. Since the success of Downton Abbey, Julian Fellowes' historical drama following the lives of the aristocratic Crawley family and their domestic servants in the early 20th century, we have officially been living in the age of scandalous prestige period drama. And what a time to be alive! In the wake of Downton Abbey, TV has gone all in on luxurious sets, fabulous old-timey clothes, and giant casts of people far sexier than you'll ever find depicted in some dusty oil painting. The historical accuracy is rarely (read: never) the point: we're after big costumes, big mansions, big betrayals and big reactions, preferably in an accent that actors probably call 'Olden Days'. They come in all styles, united through the inherent melodrama and wondrous escapism of watching rich people suffer rich people problems. Some are overly self-serious (Wolf Hall), some are utter schlock (The Tudors). Some prioritise romance (Victoria), others the potent cocktail of humour and violence (The Great). Some go for opulence and spectacle: The Crown was famously one of the most expensive shows ever made. And others crank the sex appeal up to 11, a smorgasbord of witty repartee and semi-nudity: ahem, Bridgerton; ahem, Mary & George. But one period drama on television right now outdoes them all. It's ambitious, lavish, provocative and utterly engrossing. It has also flown under the radar, lost in the maelstrom of shows set in the histrionic days of yore. Julian Fellowes' follow-up to Downton Abbey is even better than its predecessor. It just aired its third season on HBO; in Australia, it streams on Paramount+. It is called The Gilded Age. The Gilded Age is set in New York City, during the boom years of the 1880s. It primarily follows the trials and tribulations of two extremely rich families – the 'new money' Russell family, whose patriarch George is a ruthless business tycoon and ambitious futurist, and the 'old money' Van Rhijn-Brook family, whose wealth has been inherited over generations and who refuse to accept these new-timey industrialists into their exclusive society. When approached without irony, a show about the rich and royal quibbling over etiquette and reputation can become tiresome quickly (looking at you, The Crown). But by moving the setting from an old country estate in England to the bustling streets of a booming New York, Fellowes presents a world slightly more recognisable to us modern plebs, and therefore ripe for satire. In the reality we live in, where the pettiness and trifles of the obscenely rich are the catalyst for so many of the world's ills, there is a joy in seeing that entitled upper crust confined to their ballrooms and mansions, where their rivalries and game-playing are pure spectacle, rather than likely to bring about the fall of civilisation. It's riveting and hilarious, rather than terrifying and depressing.
