Why the Dirt on Trump's Cabinet Picks Won't Stick With Pat Dennis
34:21 Share

Did you know that scientific studies have found most people lie once every 10 minutes? In my new podcast, Truthless, I'm talking to people about the lies they tell, from faking illnesses in high-pressure moments to making up stories on national TV.

From Spotify and the Ringer Podcast Network, I'm Brian Phillips. Listen to Truthless on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Tara Palmieri. I'm Puck's senior political correspondent, and this is...

Somebody's got to win. Donald Trump's cabinet nominees are so obviously problematic. Just look at Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense. He has been accused of sexual assault. He denies that. He's been accused of having a drinking problem. He says he'll stop drinking. And he's also been accused of running two nonprofits into the ground. Then you have Tulsi Gabbard, who has been nominated for director of national intelligence. She has secretly met with Assad and some think she might be a...

asset. You've got FBI Director Kash Patel, or soon to be FBI Director Kash Patel, if things keep going this way. And he comes into the job with an enemies list. Then there's RFK Jr. with his anti-vax conspiracies. I could keep going. These are the type of people who would normally not be confirmed to a cabinet position. But everything that's out there hasn't moved just three Republican senators who could vote them down.

In fact, they seem to be open to letting all of these people just get confirmed. And maybe it's because Trump has said this is a loyalty test. You have to confirm my nominees. He does have a pretty strong mandate having won the popular vote. Maybe they're afraid of the campaigns that have been waged against them, the millions of dollars that are now being focused on these senators to pressure them to confirm these nominees. Or maybe...

the opposition research that has been dug up on these people, most likely from Democratic groups, groups on the left and the right. It's kind of the dark arts of politics. They do opposition research. Maybe they're just not planting it with the right people to get it into the conversation in a way that would pressure these senators. For so long, they've just gone to the mainstream media, which Trump has called fake news. And then that

information would become public and it would create a pressure campaign that would make senators feel uncomfortable with voting. They would be worried that they would not be reelected for voting in that way. Now they're worried about facing Trump's wrath. Meanwhile,

These cabinet nominees are just saying what's in the newspaper is fake news. So maybe these oppositional research groups on the left need to do what Republicans did during the 2024 election. And that is go straight to the content creators, the influencers, the YouTubers, the podcasters like Joe Rogan, who people are getting their information from rather than the New York Times. Is it time to change your media strategy a little bit?

bit. If it turns out that that's where people are going, I mean, people have said that Kamala Harris made a huge mistake by not sitting down with Joe Rogan in the final days of the campaign and that his endorsement was crucial for Donald Trump. So I pressed Pat Dennis, who is the president of American Bridge 21st Century about this. I'm like, Pat, maybe it's time to change your media strategy a little bit if you want people to care.

Turns out mainstream media, people just don't trust it anymore. Take a listen to what he has to say. It's fascinating. Pat Dennis has been described to me as the man who spends all day digging up dirt on Donald Trump. He

He comes to us from the American Bridge 21st century, where he is the president and has led campaigns of opposition research for 15 years. So this is your full-time job, and now you are dug into Trump's cabinet nominees. I don't know. They just seem to be doing okay. It just seems like the work I'm sure you are doing doesn't seem to be hitting, but we'll get into that. But first, I want to talk about what a

typical day is like for you doing opposition research. And I've got to think it's a lot like being a reporter, right? You get leads, you make calls, you look through public records, you try to figure out everything you can on this person. Maybe you even do a little door knocking, talk to some old teachers, some old employers, some ex-wives, I don't know. So just kind of for our audience who maybe is not, you know,

fluent in the fine arts of political opposition research, you might be able to get us up to speed on how you spend your days, Pat. Absolutely. And my days are a little unusual at this point. I've been an opposition researcher for my entire career. I'm from New Jersey, kind of hard knuckle politics place. I

Got my start there as a tracker following Chris Christie around in his first combinatorial race working for John Corzine. Oh, that's a fun one to follow. Oh, yeah. I dropped out of college to do that and I never went back. Really? Yeah.

That's a very hard Scrabble Jersey story. I'm also a Jersey girl, so I appreciate that. And I kind of got into journalism because I liked the muckraking part of it, you know, digging up dirt. And I worked at the New York Post, which famously is a muckraking institution. And I've knocked on many of doors in my life and done a lot of digging and talked to a lot of shady characters to get information. So yeah, hard knuckle politics. And it's in our DNA there. So yeah,

Look, these days, my day-to-day, American Bridge is a large super PAC at this point. There is nobody as big as us doing this kind of oppo research. We have folks on the ground in the States, even right now, who are following people.

around recording their events. And this is, you know, members of the House who aren't going to be up for another two years. We're there now. Like, there's no days off for us. Folks in the Senate, gubernatorial, and of course, presidential and these nominees and everything. So what does a normal day look like? These days, I get yelled at if I do too much research myself because I'm supposed to be at it.

An administrator. But you started from the ground up. What do your minions do? I am still in there. They cannot stop me. I'm still digging it. So basically, look, if we're looking at somebody like Pan Bondi or Pete Hagseth, the first thing you do is you look at all the news stories about them that people have written. That's the stuff that we already know out there. Sometimes the news stories are from, you know, way back in the day and they become relevant again.

But that sets your base. Like this is what's known about this person in the world. And then we look at what's not known about this person in the world. What's buried in, you know, mortgage documents, what's buried in their divorce records, what's buried in, you know, the financial records of their company. And, you know, we get information from people.

anywhere and everywhere. We have a huge public records program. You know, we, you know, lots of online data. We have a list, you know, a checklist of like 200 things we look at every single person. You know, we'll also pull your, your yearbooks. We'll also pull, you know, your student newspaper. So we go back in time. So, yeah,

Our job is processing a large amount of information, which is hard, but the really hard part is figuring out what might voters care about, what might people care about, what might pop up on the poll, what's an important news story that we can get out there for people so that they can know what's going on with this administration or with these candidates.

Yeah, I mean, so much of this is like a symbiosis with the press, I would think, because you can put it on your website and like, maybe it'll pop, maybe it won't. I've looked through your website. There's a lot of information on it, frankly. It was overwhelming for me. So, yeah. I'm also wondering, like, why have you not called me yet? I'm a little, I'm actually not flattered. Yeah.

I will say, I mean, look, I know what your beat has been at various different times. There are probably times where we can work together, but we have a lot of reporters we work with. We also have, we're moving more into content creators and such these days, sort of getting outside of the traditional media. I think one thing we can get into is like, you know,

you know, we're really good if you're Mark Robinson or you're even, you know, somebody a little more respectable than that at getting like a bad headline about you. Right. But I think another like real strategic issue for Democrats, which we can get into is like, we do great with people who read news, um,

for people who read mainstream news. But those are Democrats, and that's not who you're trying to influence right now. If you want to tank Donald Trump's nominees, you've got to get Republicans riled up about it. And you've got to get those Republicans to put pressure on senators who are Republican. And then there's the middle ground of folks who just aren't that engaged in politics. And something pops onto their radar when it's salacious, when it's really sexy, or when it hurts them. And

You know, the thing that we're going to see with these nominees is like we can play whack-a-mole with these nominees. We got a bunch knocked out in 2017. I think there's a potential we could... Really? Not really. There was only Puzder, right? I mean, was there anyone else? Oh, Puzder. Oh, man. You're...

So it's hard to mix up who got knocked out and who was immediately unsuccessful. This is literally a game in Washington. We are really pulling back the curtains right now for you listeners that somebody's got to win. If you get a cabinet secretary, the other party calls it a head. Even in the Republican side, like I was talking to an operative last night who's been like kind of involved is like, well, we had the sacrificial lamb of Matt Gaetz. So like we've already given one up.

And some people wonder if it was like actually strategic, but it wasn't. Just so you know, Trump really did want to have Matt Gaetz be his attorney general. I believe it. He wants a lackey. But I think where us in D.C. can like really lose perspective here is like,

Look, we can knock somebody out. That's embarrassing for Trump. He might lose a news cycle. But ultimately, from a pure strategy standpoint, I don't want to hope for this because I actually like America and hope we are successful as a nation. I should hope so. When he is successful in getting through these unqualified people, these people like Hegseth, who don't know the first thing about running...

you know, the Department of Defense, like that's not a win for him. That's like a real problem because when these people start messing up, like that's going to blow back on him. And more importantly, and they're like, this is a big part of our strategy is it's going to blow back on Susan Collins. It's going to blow back on Tom Tillis. It's going to blow back on these vulnerable Republicans. It's going to shape

essentially the entire, you know, along with his legislative agenda, it's going to shape the entire like electoral water that we're swimming in by 2026. So, right. But the threat right now is that these people will be primaried from the right, you know, and this has basically become a loyalty test. Trump has told these senators, if you vote against my nominees, you're done. And he has a lot of electoral power right now. A lot of them would argue like he's got a strong mandate and it does not make sense. And,

to go up against Donald Trump right now. So you are up against some like serious forces, not just that, but there's been an entire campaign right now to silence even just like testimony from, for example, like some of the women who wanted to testify about Pete Hegseth.

His lawyer said on national television, if the Jane Doe speaks, we will sue her. And even now we're reading that like senators have refused to talk to witnesses. They seem like they don't even want to hear about it. And it doesn't, it shouldn't be that hard. You're right. It's only three senators that they can lose. But I don't know. I feel like you're talking to like the Democrats and you're not talking to the Republicans. And that's part of the problem. All this stuff you just listed, there is an assumption that if all that happens and then they get through and win, that means they won.

I'm saying they lose because we're talking about all this stuff. This is extraordinarily important. And this person's going to suck at his job. I understand that. But it's really hard to get rid of someone when they're already in the job. Like our last secretary of defense was in the hospital and we didn't know about it for like a while. OK, so this guy could be drunk on the job.

we don't know about it. You know what I mean? Like, it's really hard to essentially impeach a cabinet secretary is what you're asking for. Trump will happily do that himself as soon as they start to go against him. But here's the thing.

Where am I looking? I'm looking at Susan Collins, who's going to get a hit from who's going to get a primary from the right. Right. And she's going to be attacked on all this stuff. She thinks she's going to be able to stop that. Tom Tillis thinks they're going to be able to avoid that. But I want to win those Senate seats. Right. I think when they get attacked from the right, that will weaken them.

I think when they're weakened, then that is an even better opportunity for us. So then you're not thinking about the cabinet process. You're thinking about weakening a senator who you can eventually the cabinet process is part of eventually replace. OK, so you're kind of playing three dimensional. They eventually have to they eventually have to face real voters. Right. They're going to have this primary, which is a bizarro world, you know.

look at North Carolina Republican primaries, they're a disaster for choosing like electable candidates and they will force you to do unelectable things in order to stay in there.

And then they have to face real voters. And if the real voters have been talking about, you know, you covered up for this incompetent who is now just like engaged in whatever disaster Pete Higgs will engage in at the Department of Defense is the worst possible scenario. And for us, we're about retaking power. That is what we're here for, because we think Donald Trump is incompetent.

He's bad for America and Democrats need to come back in and take control of the Senate and the House. Okay, that's very far down the line. Let's say like Susan Collins just does what Trump says. She never gets primaries. She's never weakened. She's super popular in Maine. It's a super small state. She's got her grip on Maine as long as she doesn't get primaried from the right. I

I'll fight you on that. But yeah, we can talk. We can fight. But listen, let's talk about the things that we've got right now. And that's the confirmation hearings. Okay. Who are your targets? Who do you think are the people that could fall? So, and again, my, our, our strategic goal, knock them out. If we can, we are not under the impression that if we knock them out, Trump will come back with somebody worse. So the goal here is to knock them out if we can, but harm the

the Trump administration one point of approval at a time. All right. They're doing these things that are bad for the American people. And these, uh, hearings are a reason to talk about that. It's a reason to talk about, uh, how Pam Bondi, uh, you know, when she was attorney general in Florida, uh, some folks started investigating her donors for ripping off regular people, uh,

on their mortgages and she fired them for doing that, right? This is the kind of thing that it's just the first time we get to talk about that stuff. And then, you know, assuming they do get through, you know, the lackey senators vote for her, then she's going to be in government, right? And our job is still, Donald Trump needs to, you know, that approval rating needs to come down consistently. Not because we're lying to people, not because we're manipulating people, but because he's appointing unqualified clerks

corrupt people who don't have... So you're kind of like moving the goalposts from like knocking out confirmation of various cabinet secretaries to like sullying the names of the cabinet secretaries and thereby Donald Trump and various senators that voted for these people down the line. I thought there was a point where Donald Trump would give up and stop appointing people and just not have a government. Then I would be laser focused on knocking people out. But yeah, our focus is making sure the American people know

about the Trump administration. What are you most proud of that you dug up during this period of time that has come out into the public that we can attribute to you and your team? Well,

I always want to take credit for everything. I don't want to go against any agreements we've had with reporters. I can say you've read stuff in that newspaper that has come from us, and I'll just leave it at that. Which newspaper? You know, big ones. Okay. I'm not going to burn any of the reporters we work with, especially if we have off-the-record agreements. Okay, fine. He's not going to take any credit for it, but he's going to take credit for it. I mean, I can take credit for some stuff,

you know, going back last election. But I feel like, again, you're saying, oh, we dropped some big stuff in the mainstream media, which like Americans no longer trust or care about anymore. But then you're like, we are talking to content creators too. But have you dropped anything big with some content creators? Yeah, well, I mean, the content creators, generally speaking, the way the media environment works, they're not on the forefront of muckraking journalism that is like, oh, you know, it immediately breaks here for the first time and like drives a billion page views. Generally speaking,

The news media drops the initial stories and the content creators talk about the news, right? So it's a two-step process. Yeah, but that's like a cycle that you started with the fake news. So how do you get around? When you start with the fake news, then they can say, as Pete Hegseth has been saying in his confirmation hearings, that's fake news, that's fake news, that's fake news. Like you've started with the problem. They're not the problem, but the problem in...

they don't have credibility anymore. And it's a fact. So you're giving valuable information to people that don't have credibility in the same way that like...

Kamala Harris probably would have been well suited to talk to Joe Rogan because he has so much credibility. Why not drop a big story with Joe Rogan? Or just don't think he would take it? Well, Joe Rogan, I don't think even is set up to take a 13-page documents hit about somebody being corrupt. Yeah. But if you guys really know how to package it the right way as a segment for a podcast, I'm sure he'd take it. Or for a guest on there. Yeah, exactly. I'm not going to say we're not

Uh, we're not working on things like that, but I think there is a sleight of hand here where we can talk about, you know, a decline in trust in the media. And that is a real trend, but it's not an absolute trend, right? You look at the most far right wing, uh, you know, person on Twitter who's, uh, you know, disagrees with me on everything. Uh,

When something comes out that they think is good or they disagree with in the mainstream media, they will happily use that as a proof point. But have you seen that happen so far? Yeah, I mean... Okay, give me an example of a Republican who has seen something come out that has come out through the mainstream media during this confirmation process that you guys were able to use. So I'm not talking about... In this case, I'm just talking about how information gets out there, right? You have Christopher Ruffo out there on Twitter saying that...

The job market is great because he forgot that Biden's still president, right? This is the kind of thing where folks use information that is useful to them. So it's our job to put out useful information. And the best way to do that at this point is still the mainstream media in a lot of ways, but it's got to go further than that.

I think this whole election sort of taught us that the right was more willing to work with alternate media and they got a lot more credibility with voters because they did that. And the left kept doing the mainstream media thing and going to the New York Times, who I'm sure is who you're going to. And they did not, they weren't able to speak to people because the Times has good numbers in terms of readership.

But, you know, they're the Democratic elite and they don't have the same sort of sway. You know, I was talking to someone, a Republican operative who said, like, you know, highly respectful of Jane Mayer at The New Yorker. She's an excellent reporter. She used to pack so much punch. The kind of stuff that she would put out would literally sway votes. Senators, they pick up her calls. They always chime in. And it's The New Yorker. And she would pack punch not just on the left, but on the right.

not happening this time around. And, and that's the feeling it's actually hurt Jane and her reputation in a lot of ways. The fact that this stuff is not penetrating, but I would not also like, yes, we do work with the New York times. Sometimes, uh, that is not our gold standard, our gold standard. If we're launching an initial piece of, uh, you know, an investigative piece, our gold standard, the first place we go to land that is, uh,

the local TV station. That is where we want it to be. If it's good information, it'll get picked up by a local paper, then it'll get picked up by the New York Times. So you would place it in Maine to make sure that Susan Collins' constituency knows this bad story about Pete Hegseth. Although the big reporting on Pete came from Jane at The New Yorker. She had the women, she had the drinking, she had the nonprofits that were falling apart. She had all of that. Yeah.

But not every news producer at, you know, W-whatever in Maine is necessarily reading a long-form New Yorker article. And somebody needs to go through and make sure like, hey, here's the part of this that applied to Maine. They also may not have the resources to back up whatever you're giving. They may not be able to take, you know, obviously it's opposition research. You have to be able to take the time to then like verify it. We don't just take what you give us. It's mostly tips and leads, I would say. And then, you know, verify it. But local TV in particular is fully equipped to do that.

Yeah. The reason I'm pushing back, Pat, is like, it's great to put all these things forward, although a lot of the things that are damaging about the nominees are already known and nobody really cares. We know that Pat Bondi spent a lot of time defending Trump's election denialism. She's about to become the attorney general. We know that Tulsi Gabbard met with Assad secretly and like that one might be difficult.

I mean, unless you guys have something that you're waiting... I mean, I'm sure there's also timing. Maybe you're holding on to something else or there's another big story that's about to break. But for the most part, it looks like Kash Patel, who has an enemies list ready to go and will be at the Department of Justice, he will likely be the FBI director. So...

What can you do? It's all public knowledge. People know it. This would be the kind of thing that would kill a nominee back in the day. But there's no stopping it when Trump has this mandate that senators are terrified of him. I mean, like there's a million dollar campaign right now just

to make sure that Pete Hegseth is nominated and they have targeted Joni Ernst, who is the head of the Armed Services Committee. She seems like she's ready to go and like she's ready to confirm him in a second. So it's working. It's working. And she's up in 2026. What is working?

Okay. You're burning a million dollars to get the most unqualified person in charge of the Department of Defense. Like that is not a win. That is like a huge problem. Right. And you're forcing a what could potentially be, depending on how the legislative agenda goes, a vulnerable Republican who's up in 26 to take a difficult vote. And that vote, like, you know, think about how easy the Iraq war vote was. Okay. Like it was popular at the time. People

who are unqualified to run these positions are extremely likely to make a real mistake that will then blow back on these senators. So you're really thinking about knocking off senators more so than confirmation. Yeah. I mean, they're the most directly connected to these folks. And yes, our strategy is to ensure that senators pay the full price for everything they vote. And look,

Joni Ernst is destroying her legacy, right? She wanted her legacy to be sexual assault in the military. That is what she worked very hard on. It's what she fought for. And she's throwing it all away right now. That, like, you can tell me it doesn't matter all day. That matters. Yeah. Do you think anyone will fall? Tulsi and maybe Kash Patel. Why? I mean, Tulsi, because Tulsi, there are things that we cannot get access to as American Bridge.

that the American intelligence community can provide to people that I... And you think that'll come up in the FBI report? Yeah. And Cash Fatale... Look, Cash Fatale is a guy whose other job is writing children's books where Donald Trump is a king and Cash is a wizard. This guy, he may be able to fight his way through, but he is...

a walking liability for these folks. So they are willing to take the hit of voting for them, but it's damned if they do, damned if they don't. Okay. And what do you think is in that FBI report?

that you don't have access to. On Tulsi? Yeah. I mean, look, she has her foreign policy views. I think there's some information in there about where those really come from. And that is not me, like, that is me reading between the lines of all the things she said and doesn't over the years. This goes along with like how a lot of senators have privately worried that she might be a foreign asset is essentially what you're saying. Yeah, folks are worried about that.

Okay. And then Kash Patel, it's just that he's a joke. Is that it? It's not that he's a joke. It's a joke with his enemies list. And he's going to run America's premier law enforcement organization for a party that allegedly cares about law enforcement. So like sec defense, fine. HHS, whatever. I mean, none of this is fine. Cool. Let's just keep moving forward, people, because there's a few that we're going to stop.

I don't know. I mean, I keep coming back to this, but this is about a comprehensive anti-Trump, anti-Republican strategy because, look, they won the election. If we had won the election, things would be very different right now. But at some point, they're going to have to run this government and they're going to really screw it up. And it's our job to make sure they pay the price. OK, so it's really a long term game because it's hard to fight the fealty Trump campaign.

the money behind it. By the way, a million dollars seems like nothing. I think they have a never ending list of money. So do you on your side as well. And it's a good time to give Trump some money because then you say, hey, I helped you get Pete Hegseth through right now. Then you cash in your chit later. This is all the transactional working of Washington. Yeah. Which a lot of people think that nobody cares about the transactional working of Washington anymore. People care. Like

People care about inflation more potentially. We'll see if Trump decides through his tariff plan to bring back inflation, which he's pretty much gotten under control. But

People care about this stuff and we'll be able to hold them accountable for it. Yeah. It's just how do you get people to care when they don't trust the media anymore? I know you're still using the mainstream media to get it out first and then hoping that like content creators and other people are going to pick it up. Well, we also put it in like large multimillion dollar ad campaigns. You do ad campaigns too. Yeah. It's just, it doesn't seem to be breaking through this time or we'll see. I mean...

Your prediction is that he'll lose two more. That seems like a lot for a guy that won the popular vote. But I do just think like your conception of what our goals are is winning news cycles. No, that's not what my goal is. My conception for you is I thought your goal was to actually take out problematic nominees. Yeah.

But it doesn't sound like that's your goal anymore. You're like, no, no, no, we can't do that. But we'll get the senators later and then we'll get the Democrats, the House. And then like in four years, maybe Democrats will win again. But like by then, who knows? It's all in service of winning elections. That's what we're here for. Take back power. It's more about the elections rather than the nominees, sort of. That's what you're saying. Okay. Yep.

Well, let me know if you guys ever decide to do a different media change. You decide you want to go into talk to podcasters first. Hey, I love talking to podcasters. Yeah. Later to, to claim that you planted, you know, a story somewhere else. And, uh,

obviously, like as journalists, we can't just take opposition research for everyone who's listening. Like you have to verify it, fact check it. And you're a democratic organization. If I was going to take opposition research from you, I'd have to like, you have to understand who's funding it, sourcing it, what is the purpose of it. And you have to do the entire, you have to do all the checks and balances. And frankly, you're right. A lot of new media does not understand the basics of journalism. I hate to say it. They'll just slap it online or they'll

They won't do the vetting. I've gotten a lot of shit oppositional research in my life that I've had to say, thanks, but no thanks, bro. That's probably a lot of the things that I cycle through. And that's a real vulnerability, right? If you give it to somebody who's not equipped to vet it, you're potentially in a situation where you could have a great attack

that is mishandled the first time and it allows them to push back against it in a way that disqualifies the entire attack. So we're really careful about that. Right. Well, we'll see what happens if you have anything. And is there anything more that you guys have held back that you're waiting? It's a lot about timing as well, I'm sure. We have a few things in the hopper, yes. One last thing before I jump off with you, because I do think this is interesting and it's kind of been underreported or at least people haven't noticed this. So apparently during the Biden administration, he decided that

FBI checks would only be viewed by the chairman of the committee that was overseeing the cabinet nom. Right. And that chairman was not allowed to share that information from the FBI check with anyone in the committee. So, of course, the Trump team is doing the exact same thing. Why would they change that?

Why did they not want to be transparent about their cabinet nominees? I would think if you're going to be a cabinet nominee, your FBI check should be almost public. I think any human being should be able to look at your FBI check. I mean, look, I love transparency. I do not think like those FBI checks, like we do some thorough...

but those FBI checks are like really going into your life in a way that is not designed for public consumption. So look, it is what it is. Uh, this information, you know, a lot of these folks have not worked to hide how controversial they are. Like Tulsi Gabbard has not worked to hide, um, you know, all the things in her background. So it's a feature. If anything, the controversy is a feature that makes them more desirable to Trump in a lot of ways, potentially. Uh,

I think that might actually be beneficial for Trump in some ways. What it is not beneficial for is the Republican brand and the rest of the Republican Party. And I think you saw 2018, 2020, 2022, that they can pay the electoral price that ultimately, like, he's really good at dodging. He's not up for reelection either. And...

It's unclear if he really cares about his successor or setting up the party for what's next. He does not care. Okay. Well, thanks so much for your time, Pat. And thanks for willing to talk strategy with us. Yeah. Thanks for having me.

That was another episode of Somebody's Gotta Win. I'm your host, Tara Palmieri. I want to thank my producers, Christopher Sutton and Connor Nevins. You can check out my work at puck.news slash Tara Palmieri. You can also check me out on YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter, Blue Sky, TikTok. It's all at Tara Palmieri. That's T-A-R-A-P-A-L-M-E-R-I. I'll be back next week with a special inauguration episode. ♪