He is a strange creature, but maybe I should have summoned him to our Council.'
'He would not have come,' said Gandalf.
'Could we not still send messages to him and obtain his help?' asked Erestor. 'It seems that he has a power even over the Ring.'
'No, I should not put it so,' said Gandalf. 'Say rather that the Ring has no power over him. He is his own master. But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others. And now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting perhaps for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them.'
'But within those bounds nothing seems to dismay him,' said Erestor. 'Would he not take the Ring and keep it there, for ever harmless?'
'No,' said Gandalf, 'not willingly. He might do so, if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough.'
- The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Council of Elrond
Tolkien scholar Michael Martinez has a very plausible explanation, and it has to do with the Ring's modus operandi - appealing to the personality of the individual:
"Given that Bombadil asked to see the Ring, and that he played with it and at one point had a gleam in his eye, I don’t see any justification for concluding that he was not tested by the Ring like others. Bombadil probably had the easiest test of all because he had already long before made his choice about mastery over others.
Bombadil allowed evil things to remain in his land — not because he wanted them there but because he did not want to destroy them. He probably set the boundaries of that land to keep those evil things from troubling Men and Hobbits (his neighbors).
Bombadil didn’t believe in creating prisons for the barrow-wights and... Old [Man] Willow; he just didn’t succumb to their evil ways. Hence, the Ring could have shown him a world where he roamed free and evil things didn’t bother him (and perhaps didn’t bother anyone else). Or the Ring could have shown him a world where he could “master” anyone and anything. The point is that the Ring definitely could have shown him something, even if it was more absurd and silly than what it showed to Sam.
And obviously, whatever the Ring showed Tom, he wasn't interested."
Tolkien explains why in Letter #144:
"Tom Bombadil is not an important person – to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention, and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function.
The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control.
But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war."
So the thing that makes the Ring so appealing to almost everyone else is the same thing that makes it powerless against Tom Bombadil. He has deliberately chosen to reject control over anything but himself. He himself is good, but he doesn't take sides in the battle between good and evil. He doesn't care about who wins or loses, because he has renounced power, control, and conflict. These concepts have no meaning to Tom. He is exclusively an observer, and his only interest is in things for their own sake. Tom doesn't approve of Old Man Willow's attempt to eat the hobbits, and he stops him from doing so, but he still respects Old Man Willow and his right to exist. The fact that Old Man Willow is probably evil, at least to some extent, doesn't enter into the equation.
The Ring is a device of power, and power is its only means of influencing and manipulating people. Tom Bombadil is diametrically opposed to power, and therefore, the Ring is powerless to corrupt or tempt him. It is interesting (and amusing) to imagine the Ring desperately trying to find a chink in Tom's armor, searching in vain for a way to reach him, and silently screaming with rage when he treats the Ring like a silly little toy. Because the Ring tailors its appeal to the individual's unique weaknesses (i.e., desires), and because Tom has no desires (aside from keeping his wife Goldberry happy), the Ring simply couldn't reach Tom. He is entirely beyond its influence, and it is just another piece of jewelry to him.
'He came and laid his long hand on my arm. "And why not, Gandalf? " he whispered. "Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us. That is in truth why I brought you here. For I have many eyes in my service, and I believe that you know where this precious thing now lies. Is it not so? Or why do the Nine ask for the Shire, and what is your business there? " As he said this a lust which he could not conceal shone suddenly in his eyes.
' "Saruman," I said, standing away from him, "only one hand at a time can wield the One, and you know that well, so do not trouble to say we! But I would not give it, nay, I would not give even news of it to you, now that I learn your mind. You were head of the Council, but you have unmasked yourself at last. Well, the choices are, it seems, to submit to Sauron, or to yourself.
I will take neither. Have you others to offer? "
"Annie Christian was a whore always looking for some fun
Being good was such a bore, so she bought a gun
She killed John Lennon, shot him down cold
She tried to kill Reagan, everybody say gun control
Jenna - my Stardust - I can't imagine what you think of me.
When I was taken, I faced some bitter truths.
I was told that soon enough Krennic would have you as well.
As time went on, I knew that you were either dead, or so well-hidden that he would never find you.
I knew, if I refused to work, if I took my own life, , it would only be a matter of time before Krennic realised that he no longer needed me to complete The Project.
So, I did the one thing which nobody expected -
I lied.
I learned to lie.
I played the part of a beaten man, resigned to the sanctuary of his work.
I made myself indispensable.
And all the while, I lay the groundwork of my revenge... "
Trump Pretending with Wall Street Journal Reporter
" MULTIPLE PERSONALITY ORDER
" In the experience of the present author, the notions of the imposter and of pseudologia fantastica might well be expanded to include greater emphasis on the question of multiple personalities and multiple personality disorder. This insight derives from my own observation over a number of years of a charismatic political leader with strong tendencies toward the creation of a personality cult, somewhat on the model of Joseph Smith.
The individual in question is Lyndon H. LaRouche.
In the 1960s and 1970s, LaRouche was remarkable for his intelligence overview and programmatic orientation, which tended more and more to be overshadowed by a crude demand for adulation and unquestioning obedience, precisely along the lines of a personality cult. Over time, one got the impression that LaRouche had several distinct personalities –one perceptive and insightful, one raging, narcissistic, and vindictive, and yet another whimsical and nostalgic.
Needless to say, it was the insistent and vindictive personality which employed the other selves to recruit a following and then impose on them the yoke of his personality cult. In this process, he exhibited moments of charismatic rhetorical appeal, and other moments of the most primitive infantilism. He also neglected the most elementary precautions. On the one hand, he launched campaigns of exposure and denunciation against Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Rockefeller, and other public figures of some power, while at the same time he refused to submit yearly federal income tax returns. It was this latter failing which helped to put him in jail for five years.
On at least one known occasion, LaRouche reportedly boasted of his multiple personalities, while claiming that he had the ability to shift at will from one personality to another, according to his own psychological needs. LaRouche called this his
“Multiple Personality Order.”
The parallels of this syndrome to the case of Joseph Smith are evident. "
Just Too WEIRD: Bishop Romney's Mormon Takeover of America:: Polygamy, Theocracy, Subversion
Tarpley Ph D, Webster Griffin
Progressive Press. Kindle Edition.
" In her discussion of the impostor, Phyllis Greenacre also cites the case of Titus Oates (1649-1705), who was the great protagonist of the fictitious“Popish Plot” during the reign of Charles II Stuart of England. This plot was supposedly aiming at a Catholic takeover of England with the help of the Stuarts. Fictitious though this report turned out to be, its political effects were most welcome to the pro-Venetian Whig party of the English aristocracy.
Without intelligence networks interested in promoting Titus Oates’ story, he might have been relegated to total obscurity. Oates was a mythomaniac, recounting wild inventions he knew his listeners wanted to hear, all in a desperate bid to attract attention. But there were powerful political forces who found his hallucinations advantageous.
This reminds us once again, as in the case of Joseph Smith, to always look for the interaction between the individual impostor and the organized networks which constitute and assemble the audience which the impostor so urgently desires. Some key excerpts from Greenacre:
“An impostor is not only a liar, but a very special type of liar who imposes on others fabrications of his attainments, position, or worldly possessions. This he may do through misrepresentations of his official (statistical) identity, by presenting himself with a fictitious name, history, and other items of personal identity, either borrowed from some other actual person or fabricated according to some imaginative conception of himself. There are similar falsifications on that part of his identity belonging to his accomplishments, a plagiarizing on a grand scale, or making claims which are grossly implausible. Imposture appears to contain the hope of getting something material, or some other worldly advantage. While the reverse certainly exists among the distinguished, wealthy, and competent persons who lose themselves in cloaks of obscurity and assumed mediocrity, these come less frequently into sharp focus in the public eye. One suspects, however, that some “hysterical” amnesia is, and dual or multiple personalities are conditions related to imposturous characters. The contrast between the original and the assumed identities may sometimes be not so great in the matter of worldly position, and consequently does not lend itself so readily to the superficial explanation that it has been achieved for direct and material gain. The investigation of even a few instances of imposture – if one has not become emotionally involved in the deception – is sufficient to show how crude though clever many impostors are, how very faulty any scheming is, and how often, in fact, the element of shrewdness is lacking. Rather a quality of showmanship is involved, with its reliance all on the response of an audience to illusions. “In some of the most celebrated instances of imposture, it indeed appears that the fraud was successful only because many others as well as the perpetrator had a hunger to believe in the fraud, and that any success of such fraudulence depended in fact on strong social as well as individual factors and especial receptivity to the trickery. To this extent those on whom the fraudulence is imposed are not only victims but unconscious conspirators. Its success too is partly a matter of timing. Such combinations of imposturous talent and a peculiar susceptibility of the times to believe in the swindler, who presents the deceptive means of salvation, may account for the great impostures of history. There are, however, instances of the repeated perpetration of frauds under circumstances which give evidence of aprecise content that may seem independent of social factors…. “It is the extraordinary and continued pressure in the impostor to live out his fantasy that demands explanation, a living out which has the force of a delusion, (and in the psychotic may actually appear in that form), but it is ordinarily associated with the ‘formal’ awareness that the claims are false. The sense of reality is characterized by a peculiarly sharp, quick perceptiveness, extraordinarily immediate keenness and responsiveness, especially in the area of the imposture. The over-all utility of the sense of reality is, however, impaired. What is striking in many impostors is that, although they are quick to pick up details and nuances in the lives and activities of those whom they simulate and can sometimes utilize these with great adroitness, they are frequently so utterly obtuse to many ordinary considerations of fact that they give the impression of mere brazenness or stupidity in many aspects of their life peripheral to their impostures…. “The impostor has, then, a specially sharpened sensitivity within the area of his fraud, and identity toward the assumption of which he has a powerful unconscious pressure, beside which his conscious wish, although recognizable, is relatively slight. The unconscious drive heightens his perceptions in a focused area and permits him to ignore or deny other elements of reality which would ordinarily be considered matters of common sense. It is this discrepancy in abilities which makes some impostors such puzzling individuals. Skill and persuasiveness are combined with utter foolishness and stupidity. “In well-structured impostures this may be described as a struggle between two dominant identities in the individual: the temporarily focused and strongly assertive imposturous one, and the frequently amazingly crude and poorly knit one from which the impostor has emerged. In some instances, however, it is also probable that the imposture cannot be sustained unless there is emotional support from someone who especially believes in and nourishes it. The need for self-betrayal may then he one part of the tendency to revert to a less demanding, more easily sustainable personality, particularly if support is withdrawn. “The impostor seems to flourish on the success of his exhibitionism. Enjoyment of the limelight and inner triumph of ‘putting something over’ seems inherent, and bespeak the closeness of imposture to voyeurism. Both aspects are represented: pleasure in watching while the voyeur himself is invisible; exultation in being admired and observed as a spectacle. It seems as if the impostor becomes temporarily convinced of the rightness of his assumed character in proportion to the amount of attention he is able to gain from it. “In the lives of impostors there are circumscribed areas of reaction which approach the delusional. These are clung to when the other elements of the imposture have been relinquished…. “Once an imposturous goal has been glimpsed, the individual seems to behave without need for consistency, but to strive rather for the supremacy of the gains from what can be acted out with sufficient immediate gratification to convince others. For the typical impostor, an audience is absolutely essential. It is from the confirming reaction of his audience that the impostor gets a ‘realistic’ sense of self, a value greater than anything he can otherwise achieve. It is the demand for an audience in which the (false) self is reflected that causes impostures often to become of social significance. Both reality and identity seem to the impostor to be strengthened rather than diminished by the success of the fraudulence of his claims…. “The impostor seems to be repeatedly seeking confirmation of his assumed identity to overcome his sense of helplessness or incompleteness. It is my impression that this is the secret of his appeal to others, and that often especially conscientious people are ‘taken in’ and other impostors as well attracted because of the longing to return to that happy state of omnipotence which adults have had to relinquish….
Just Too WEIRD: Bishop Romney's Mormon Takeover of America:: Polygamy, Theocracy, Subversion
Tarpley Ph D, Webster Griffin
Progressive Press. Kindle Edition.
John Miller:
How are you?
Interviewer [Female]:
Good. How are you? What’s your name again?
John Miller:
John Miller.
Interviewer:
And you work with [indiscernible]?
John Miller:
Yes, that’s correct.
Interviewer:
John Miller. Can you sort of -- I guess we’re going to try and put a story together and we have a deadline of today because our magazine closed, well, basically yesterday but we’ll probably get something together – you know, it’s been on the cover both here and the Post.
John Miller:
Yeah, I saw that.
Interviewer:
What kind of comment is coming from, you know, your agency or from Donald?
John Miller:
Well, it just that he really decided that he wasn’t, you know, he didn’t want to make any commitment. He didn’t want to make a commitment. He really thought it was too soon. He’s coming out of a marriage, and he’s starting to do tremendously well financially. As you saw, he got his licenses five to nothing the other day and totally unanimous. And he’s really been working hard and doing well. And probably, as you know, there’s a real estate depression in the United States and he’s probably doing as well as anybody there is. And frankly, he wants to keep it that way. And he just thought it was too soon to make any commitment to anybody.
Interviewer:
So what is going to happen when -- is she being asked to leave
or is she going to be allowed to stay?
John Miller:
Well, he treats everybody well. You know, you don’t know him, but he’s a -
Interviewer:
No, I have met him.
John Miller:
Have you met him? He’s a good guy and he’s not going to hurt anybody. The one article said he was going to throw her out of the apartment is total nonsense. He is going to always treat her well as he treated his wife well. I mean, he paid his wife a great deal of money. He did it in a very bad period of time and, ultimately, that was settled. There were those that say that that was even put that way. I don’t know if you heard that but that Trump became poor until he got his divorce. And then all of a sudden, he’s been doing very well and I guess you probably heard that, too.
But he treated his wife well and he treated -- and he will treat Marla well. He’s somebody that has a lot of options, and, frankly, he gets called by everybody. He gets called by everybody in the book, in terms of women.
Interviewer:
Like who?
John Miller:
Well, he gets called by a lot of people.
Interviewer:
Yeah. Well, what about -- this Carla Bruni, I mean, how important is she right now? Is she [cross-talking]?
John Miller:
I think it’s somebody that -- you know, she’s beautiful. I saw her once quickly and she’s beautiful and all, but I think that he’s got a whole open field really. A lot of the people that you write about, and you people do a great job, by the way, but a lot of the people that you write about really are -- I mean, they call. They just call. Actresses, people that you write about just call to see if they can go out with him and things.
Interviewer:
You can’t say, like, did Madonna ever really call?
John Miller:
He was so set up with that. You know, Madonna called and what happened -- I mean, I don’t know if you want to listen to this.
Interviewer:
No, I do.
John Miller:
Do you? Do you have a second?
Interviewer:
Yeah, obviously.
John Miller:
What happened is it was a benefit at the Plaza Hotel which he owned for Vreeland, Diana Vrelland, or no, for Martha Graham. It was a ball benefit for Martha actually just before she passed away. And Madonna was there and she came in a beautiful evening gown and combat boots. She was wearing combat boots, and Trump was asked to go over to meet her. And he was there just for a little while to say hello and to make a speech and make like an introductory speech.
Madonna was in the room, and so somebody from Madonna’s entourage, because she comes in with an entourage of dancers and everything else, and somebody from Madonna’s entourage came over and said, “Would you go over and say hello to Madonna?” And so he went over and said hello to Madonna and he gave his autograph to the dancers. She said, “These are fans” and all this. “Will you give them the autograph?” So he said, “Best wishes” or something. And then all of a sudden -- and that was the end. And then he said goodbye to her and that was literally the end. He’s got zero interest in Madonna. It was literally the end.
And the next day in the newspapers, they had a story that he wanted to go out with her and everything else. Besides that, that she was sitting there with her boyfriend. I think his name was Ward or something -
Interviewer:
Yeah, Tony Ward.
John Miller:
-- and she was sitting there right with her boyfriend. So, I mean, it wouldn’t be appropriate.
Then the next day, there was a story that Trump went to [inaudible] and Madonna was supposedly at [inaudible], and that was another total nonsense. So, somehow, there was a thing. And then she called recently about this fight and wanted to go out. You know, she’s got this PR machine that I guess you people play to very well but it really was nonsense. So, anyway.
Interviewer:
I don’t think we ever reported that about Madonna and Donald.
John Miller:
Well, she called and wanted to go out with him, that I can tell you. And one of the other people that you’re writing about -- by the way, I’m sort of new here.
Interviewer:
What is your position there? John Miller: Well, I’m sort of handling PR because he gets so much of it.
And frankly, I mean, I could tell you off the record. Until I get to know you, off the record, I can tell you that he didn’t care if he got bad PR until he got his divorce finished.
So when he got a lot of bad financial stuff, he liked it because, you know, it was good because he could get a divorce finished. And once his divorce is finished, if you noticed since then he’s doing well financially and he’s doing well in every other way. The licensing was five to nothing. And people are saying how come all of a sudden he’s doing so well? And then I guess Newsday about two weeks ago did a story on that. So I’ve sort of been put in here to handle because I’ve never seen anybody get so many calls from the press.
Interviewer:
Where did you come from?
John Miller:
I basically worked for different firms. I worked for a couple of different firms, and I’m somebody that he knows and I think somebody that he trusts and likes. So I’m going to do this a little part time, and then, yeah, go on with my life, too.
Interviewer:
Is he trying to -- I mean, is Marla trying to reconcile all this or is this -
John Miller:
Marla wants to be back with him and he wants to be with her, but he just, he just feels it’s too soon.
Interviewer:
What about the ring?
John Miller:
Well, it was never an engagement ring, because that was my first question. It was never an engagement ring. It was a ring -- I mean, he wouldn’t buy the engagement ring. Actually, he bought the ring at the Taj Mahal at Tiffany’s. The only place that Tiffany’s has that, you know, in a hotel is because of his relationship with Tiffany being the neighbor next door to Trump Tower and Tiffany decided to open up a store at the Taj Mahal. And this was a way of giving Tiffany some business in addition to getting Ivan -- geting Marla something that would be nice.
So he did that, and as I told him and other people told him, when you want to buy a present, don’t make it a ring the next time. It was a little confusing.
Interviewer:
Make it a chain.
John Miller:
Make it anything. Anything but a ring, I guess.
Interviewer:
Do you think there’s any fear that Marla will spill everything at all or -- ?
John Miller:
It doesn’t matter to him. He truly doesn’t care. I’ve never seen somebody that’s so immune, that he gets immune to, you know, some people would say you got bad press three or four months ago. Now, he’s starting to get good press where I don’t know what you call this but this is a big press.
But I’ve never seen somebody so immune to -- he actually thrived on the bad press initially. And once the divorce was over, he said, “We have to change this” and it’s very interesting. Frankly, if he got good press during the divorce, he’d be in court right now because she settled because she thought that she better believe the press and she settled. And now, he’s doing great and now she would like not to settle.
Ivana, when she didn’t settle, she made a huge mistake and she’s now had a huge fight with her lawyer, Michael Kennedy, over why they made the settlement. And it’s over. He sort of laughs at everything.
Interviewer:
How does Donald feel about Ivana’s [indiscernible] with Barbara Walters?
John Miller:
Well, it was a total violation of -- I mean, I could tell you -
Interviewer: Yeah. But then, that was -- I mean, did the judge, Phyllis What’s-Her-Name?
John Miller:
Gangel-Jacob, yeah, but that’s going to be -- the judge felt that when Donald got Ivana to sign that agreement, that Donald got Ivana to void her rights and that the judge was wrong because there’s so much case law on that. And what happened is the judge said -- by the way, she can take that clause out. She just said she’s not going to hold Ivana in contempt. In other words, if somebody -- if she violates and she’s not going to put Ivana in jail for violating. Okay? So she didn’t void that clause.
Now, Donald’s got a decision as to whether or not he wants to pay her any more money because by violating that clause, he in theory doesn’t have to pay her any money.
Interviewer:
Being the good guy that he’s trying to be -- I mean -
John Miller:
I’m not sure what he’s going to do. Again, you could say that she shouldn’t have done that either. I mean, you sign an agreement, you go through months and months, and she can’t say she didn’t know this one. And what he did was smart because he got not only Ivana to sign the agreement, but he got Ivana’s lawyers to sign the agreement that she’d do it, that she speaks English perfectly, that everything in the agreement is known and studied and everything else.
So, in theory, I think he could probably -- you know, I think that could have cost her many millions of dollars. I don’t know that he’s going to enforce it or not.
Interviewer:
What about that whole thing that was brought up in the news whether Marla wouldn’t sign any sort of prenuptial? Did that have anything to do with the ending of the relationship?
John Miller:
No, no.
Interviewer:
Was that true? I mean, was he trying to get her to sign anything?
John Miller: Well, I can tell you this. Just off the record, there’s no way he gets married without a prenuptial agreement. You understand that. It was painful but worked in the Ivana case because, you know, while it was challenged, it still ended up being upheld and worked. And frankly, she got not exactly one penny, she didn’t get one penny more than what the agreement called for. So that’s that. And she spent a lot of money on lawyers and a lot of money on everything and that was the year of the circus, but they do stand up.
I can tell you there was never any talk of marriage from Donald’s point of view. I can also say that Marla would’ve liked to get married, obviously, but it was just something he didn’t want to do. It’s just too soon. And, you know, hopefully, he’ll maintain a good relationship with Marla. [Indiscernible] but it’s just too soon.
Interviewer: What about this Ivana thing? It says in the Newsday Trump also told friends that when he and Ivana met last week, she indicated that she would be interested in reconciliation?
John Miller:
Ivana wants to get back with Donald, but she -
Interviewer:
Really? After saying on Barbara Walters that she never would?
John Miller:
What is she going to say? What is she going to say? She’s going to say when he’s with somebody else and had other people lined up, is she going to say, “Yes, I want to get back. I want to get back.” You know, she’s a pretty savvy woman and she’s not going to say -- I mean, he’s living with Marla and he’s got three other girlfriends, and then, and she’s not going to say, I really want to get back, you know? She wants to get back, she’s told it to a lot of her friends and she’s told it to him, but it’s so highly unlikely. That’s off the record. He left. I mean, it was his choice to leave and he left.
Interviewer:
He left for Marla.
John Miller:
No, he didn’t leave, no. See, that’s the biggest misconception of this whole thing. The second question I asked about after the ring was the biggest misconception is he left. He didn’t leave for Marla. He really left for himself. He didn’t leave for Marla. He never left for Marla. He was going to leave anyway. Marla was there, but he was going to leave anyway. Whether there was a Marla or not he was going to leave anyway.
So now he has somebody else named Carla who is beautiful and I guess you have something on her. I don’t know if you do or not.
Interviewer:
No, they won’t talk about her. He didn’t say anything about her. I mean, she’s a daughter of who -
John Miller:
Well, she’s a very successful model, etc., etc. But again, he didn’t leave Marla for her. He just wants [indiscernible], he does things for himself. He leaves for himself, he does things for himself. He, when he makes the decision, that will be a very lucky woman. But he’s not going to do that until he makes the decision. You know, when he makes the decision, he’s very capable of a total commitment when he makes the decision. But he felt it’s too soon. Off the record, he probably felt Marla wasn’t the right one, or whatever, but he just felt it was too soon.
Interviewer:
How did he meet Carla?
John Miller:
At the Plaza Hotel, she was doing a Carolina Herrera fashion show.
Interviewer:
Was Ivana there, do you think? Does she go to fashion shows?
John Miller:
Well she goes to them, but less so since, you know, since -
Interviewer:
When did he meet Carla there?
John Miller:
Probably a few months ago.
Interviewer:
Uh-huh. Have they been able to see each other?
John Miller:
Well, not really. And again, I heard with Carla -- I mean, I’ll give you -- this is getting to be -- this is a little different from what I normally discuss. This is I think an interesting point. Carla is a very beautiful girl from Italy whose father is one of the wealthiest men in Europe.
Interviewer:
Who is he? What’s the name of her father?
John Miller:
Her father’s name is -- her name is Carla Bruni Tedeschi.
Interviewer:
How do you spell that?
John Miller:
I don’t know. She doesn’t use the last name because it’s too complicated, you know [indiscernible]. But anyway, but her father is one of the wealthiest men in Europe. Carla is extraordinarily beautiful and didn’t want to be a model except that every time she’d go to a show, [indiscernible] to look, Ralph Lauren and various people would say, Carla, you have to be on the show, etc., etc. So she does all of the top shows and she’s always very busy and very successful, etc., etc. She was having a big thing with Mick Jagger. Did you hear about this?
Interviewer:
Well, I’ve just been reading about it.
John Miller:
What happened is she was going with Eric Clapton.
Interviewer:
Mick Jagger, who was married at that point?
John Miller:
Mick Jagger, as of three months ago she was having a big thing. [indiscernible] What she - Just doesn’t want to be in the limelight. What she was having a very big thing with Mick Jagger. And then what happened, she was going with Eric Clapton, and Eric Clapton introduced her to Mick Jagger, and then Mick Jagger started calling her, and she ended up going with Mick Jagger. And then she dropped Mick Jagger for Donald, and that’s where it is right now. And again, he’s not making any commitments to Carla either just so you understand. Interviewer: What kinds of things have they done? I mean, do they go out? [Indiscernible]
John Miller:
Well, they just get along very good and she’s very pretty and all of that stuff. But, you know, he doesn’t have any idea who she is, right? When he meets the right woman, it’s going to be a great relationship and it’s going to be a very, you know, because he believes strongly in the marriage concept. In all fairness, he was married for 12 years and he was happily married for 12, you know, for many of those years, I guess, and he believes in it, especially in this society today, I can tell you. But he believes in it.
Interviewer:
Where is he living now? I mean is he -
John Miller:
He lives in Trump Tower. He has the apartment at the top of Trump Tower. Interviewer: Okay. And Ivana also has an apartment at Trump Tower? John Miller: She has an apartment at Trump Tower, but the court order is that she has to leave within a period of less than a year.
Interviewer:
Yeah. Right. Okay. Listen, can I -
[ End of file] [End of transcript] [End of file] [End of transcript]
“More than a medical scientific problem, AIDS is a sociopolitical IMPOSITION.” "
