Tangle - Suspension of the rules. - Isaac, Ari and Kmele are chatting in person about the Epstein files, Jasmine Crockett and The Washington Post news.

Episode Date: February 6, 2026

On todays episode of Suspension of the Rules, Isaac, Ari and Kmele are chatting live in person about the Epstein files, opinions about Jasmine Crockett, The Washington Post lay offs and an airing of grievances section where Isaac airs it out about why his Tangle team is incompetent. It's a good one!Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was hosted by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Jon Lall.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Coming up, we're here in person together, the three of us, and we talk the Epstein Files, Jasmine Crockett, and some Washington Post News, and also why my team's incredibly incompetent in our grievances section. It's a good one. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the suspension of the rules podcast.

The only podcast that Camille Fosser is on with co-hosts who have not been named in the Epstein file. We haven't gotten all of them yet. It's going to be an awesome show. I am super excited to be here. We're in person. We're in a gentleman. Yeah.

We don't get to do this very often. I'm certainly not on video. I'm glad to have you guys here. We're here in our studio in Philadelphia, kind of winging it since, again, somebody stole all of our stuff from the studio. It's been an exciting morning of putting this all together. I suppose we should start there, maybe with the Epstein file stuff. Not with the thieving of AV equipment. No, I talked enough about that last week.

I will say, again, if you're listening, if you're listening, we're close. We're going to get you. I know who you are, and we're getting really close. Okay, we cover this day in the podcast, or on the podcast and in the newsletter, but I know there's a lot of demand for us to talk about this on the show. I am getting increasingly frustrated with our audience's response

to our coverage, which I want to talk about a bit today, because I'm trying really hard to give this fair treatment, the Epstein stuff specifically, and to just like stay on what's actually in the files. And before our coverage came out, one of our Reddit users, I don't know if he was like trying to neg me or not, but it felt a little bit like he was.

Like he posted something on Reddit about what our response was going to be. I think it was a commenter, actually. And he was basically right, which sucked. But I, you know, I'm frustrated that it's like being framed badly. So my characterization today was basically like, yeah, we found out some things that we suspected. Like, there are a lot of really skeezy elite people who stayed close with Jeffrey Epstein after many of his crimes were known. Also, there is no smoking gun evidence. or no new evidence brought to light,

as far as I can tell of any criminal wrongdoing released in these files, and no real leads that I've seen reported on, that I saw in the files themselves, that seemed to me to be really interesting or worth pursuing. That might change. There's three million of these things, and reporters are still pouring over them.

But I think that's just like a fair position to take. And I think a lot of people are frustrated by that position because they want us to come out and say, so and so has been revealed as horrible sex ring co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein. And that evidence just hasn't come out yet. I know you guys are generally on my side here, so I'm playing a little bit of home court advantage, I guess. But like, I don't know how else to treat this.

And I guess I'm interested how you guys are thinking about this latest release. And if you're, I don't know, where your feelings are. And if there's anything interesting here that maybe we are under. covering in our own coverage of what's happening? Yeah, I think I've got thoughts here, but I think the first thing is to try to fairly position what I think the reader criticism is, which is that it's not as much that we've uncovered something now that proves there's a big conspiracy. It's that, look, we all know there's a big conspiracy that's happening, and the DOJ is

playing cover up for it. The reason why there's no smoking gun is that the DOJ isn't releasing it. It's not that there's no smoking gun here, therefore there isn't one. So I think it's just that old joke about, oh, I had no idea how far this went, that the conspiracy just goes all the way into the top. And anything, when you come in with that mindset, there's really nothing you can do to disprove it. So I think that's probably the position. And obviously, like the counter to that is, okay, if you're coming in thinking there's conspiracy here for sure, you'd want to ask the question, what is something that could happen that would move you from that preconception? and I don't know what the answer to that is,

but I do think that's the basis. It's not there was a smoking gun. You missed it. It's just that there is a smoking gun. We don't see it. Yeah, I think one of the things that you did, one is I think it was a really great piece. And in particular,

I thought the conversation around Israel and whether or not he is a Mossad agent, the evidence that you put into your essay today, specifically around the kinds of conversation that Epstein was having with, these high-ranking officials related to the Israeli government did not have the characteristics that you would expect from someone who is deep on the inside and understands all of the interworkings of government who's taking their orders from Israel.

It was something pretty pedestrian, if not a little bit gross. How do I make a lot of money? How do I turn my areas political collections into personal profit for myself? I'd like to be wealthy like you. That's what we're talking about. That's pedestrian. but at the same time. Pedestrian as compared to a vast conspiracy.

In regard to the crimes we're familiar with. Or the ones that have been alleged over and over again. And the fact that this is the kind of correspondence he's having in private, stuff that in many instances is embarrassing, humiliating for the people who are involved. But again, not criminal. The Bill Gates stuff in particular, he looks really bad.

He looks like a deplorable human being. There's also nothing in these emails that suggests, anything criminal related to pedophilia, which seems really, really important. And it's also, as you pointed out as well, Epstein emailing things to himself, suggesting things that may or may not have happened. And that is generally speaking in a lot of the online conversation about the Epstein files, but also in a lot of the journalism that we're seeing from both great outlets and ones that are a little more suspect, where you're essentially dignifying his personal musings

in his diary effectively as though it were necessarily true. And I think, you know, I see Belinda Gates, who I have tremendous sympathy for, who seems nothing but wrong tier. But even her public comments about this don't necessarily validate the particular charges that are there. What they say is she was hurt terribly, tremendously by this and indirectly is perhaps a kind of a victim

of Epstein because of the relationship that Bill had, but it's still just a matter of his personal conduct. And is that what we're after here? Was the purpose of this disclosure simply to embarrass powerful people or was it to reveal crimes and actually get to the bottom of whether or not there is some dark, suspicious cabal that's taking place? And again, the evidence doesn't really seem to point in that direction. And at some point, like the most extreme, over-the-top idea about what might be going on here probably should be dismissed if the available evidence and now we have terabytes of it isn't suggesting that there is any there there. Yeah. I mean, I think what's, the Mossad thing is a great example of what's really frustrating. It's like, you know, first of all,

I saw somebody on, like in the Artaangle News community. And I responded to the comment online who said, you know, look, there's this email where Epstein is replying to something. And he says, like, just make sure they know I'm not in Masad smiley face. And he wrote it's my new sign on it. Yeah. And the comment is like, doesn't that smiley face just say

it all? And I'm like, no. That's a real comment? Yeah. And it's, and I'm like, that, like, I don't know how you're reading that. Just if this was an actual Mossad agent, they wouldn't be emailing, making jokes about me. Like, on his personal, it is like, that is the,

the most... Not the CIA. Yeah, that's like as... That absolves him as clearly as anything possibly could. But then this video comes out where it's just like you said, it's like, it's very obvious what the relationship is here that he had to all these powerful people. And the New York Times did tremendous reporting on this. The Wall Street Journal's done reporting on it.

Bloomberg's done reporting on it where they go through this history. How did EFSI make his money? How did he have this rise, this climb? And he was just trading these relationships and these financials. deals and one by one by one. And then he gets in a position where like the Minister of Defense from Israel is calling him up for advice on how to get rich after he's out of government. It's like, yeah, those are the kinds of relationships he built.

Slimy, skeezy, for sure. Is like, Ahud Barak directing him or getting like, you know, compromise on all these, you know, people via sex tapes and stuff. We have no evidence of that anywhere in any of this. It just doesn't exist. So it is really frustrating. I loved and appreciated Lindsay's defense today, or her dissent today,

which feels worth calling out, that she sort of took issue with me focusing so much on the people getting smeared when the real problem with this whole disclosure is A, the people that are supposed to serve most, the victims, got totally fucked for lack of a better term. I mean, they just like,

they truly got scoffer. screwed over. They got named. Some of them have photos showed of themselves nude, unredacted, some of whom, possibly involving minors. Yeah. Right. That's insane. And we're probably non-consensual photos in some cases. So to the degree this file release helped the victims, like, that's what we got, which I thought was a really good dissent. And I appreciated the kind of gut-plunch nature of it where she was like, you're focusing all on these people who got smeared and wronged and, you know, had their name dragged to the mud when we should really be talking about how the victims are just going to be screwed over again. And I think that's right.

I just think she's right about that. But it's just like this whole cacophony of stuff is like, when, when is this going to end now? Which I think is the question you and I have talked about is like, okay, so when will it actually be enough? How many emails do we have to see and pour over before we say, okay, we have a good idea of all these social connections, or is this just going to be some never-ending thing? And I don't know what to do with that. And my honest feeling is starting to turn into like, I think this is enough.

I think this is enough. Like, okay, we got, like, Peter Attia's career is over now. We did it. I guess we did it. Great. High five us. But like, what else are we going to?

Have we advanced anything? for all the women here. I mean, I'm not hearing anything from them that are, that's like, they're so thrilled about all this stuff that's here, that how all this is happening. So, question, like, what's the goal, right? Like, we Epstein was arrested and then I think a lot of people had a lot of frustration about not being able to see justice brought to him. Sure.

And then Galane Maxwell's indicted, sentenced, called to testify, got Galane to a degree, and at this point it doesn't feel like enough because of the breadth of what happened and the quietness with which people who knew Epstein allowed it to happen. So I think there's this sense of injustice of we never really got what we wanted from Epstein and that those around him, they just need to get something. We just got to get something from them. And I think the lack of definition around what that something is is important, which I think is what your point is here.

Yeah. We've talked about the feeding frenzy here that's happening online. It's worth acknowledging as well that this is one of those stories where we're actually seeing all of the AI slop actually pay a more prominent role in this controversy than many, many other stories that we've seen in recent weeks and months. But I've seen so many fake AI videos generated stuff where it's a familiar video of Donald Trump and Epstein together at some party. And suddenly there are children in the foreground or background. and these videos are racking up hundreds of thousands. And I presume in some cases millions of impressions, but hundreds of thousands of views and comments from people, this is sick. I can't believe it. It's odious. Animating even more of the kind of conspiratorial mindset around of this,

the fervor. But to the extent we're talking about what is it that people wanted here? We know Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are, it sounds like probably going to testify. And there are people who want to see Donald Trump testify. And again, given what we've actually, actually seen from these disclosures. Is there anything that suggests that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are responsible

for any kind of crimes? No. Is there anything to suggest that maybe there are very embarrassing things about the relationships that could be revealed or at least alleged over and over again in some sort of open setting like Congress, a congressional hearing? Yes. And that seems to be what we're looking for here. It is the political, the opportunity to further politicize this to hurt your enemies

in some way, shape, or form. And that dimension of it, above perhaps almost anything else, relative to the actual injury to victims here. And people who allege that things have happened is the part that I find particularly distressing. Like, at a moment when you can imagine, there's not imagine. You don't have to. There are so many tangible assesses upon which one could criticize,

say the Trump administration, for example, for its conduct. and to see high-ranking Democratic officials who are saying, well, finally, we're going to like nail him on Epstein-related crimes. What is he hiding? What is the Justice Department hiding? This is, it all feels like not merely a distraction, but a profound disservice to the polity, to the victims more broadly. And finding our way back to some kind of sane conversation about Epstein or about our politics more broadly

actually seems like further away this week after these, these discussions. closures because the demand for this doesn't actually seems to have abated. Like, people want more files, whether or not they exist. I mean, the Trump of it all is interesting, too, because... Yes, actually. Everybody is, you know, one of the prevailing comments that I've seen just in, like, the first bit of response to the feedback to our piece is, like, why aren't you talking about all the mentions of Trump, you know?

Like, he's mentioned thousands and thousands of times, and these new three million files just got released. And I thought the New York Times actually had fantastic treatment of this. They did a whole write-up that's just specifically focused on what we learned about Trump in the latest files. And it's like almost every single one is like the vast majority of the millions of or thousands of mentions are just news articles about Trump being shared via email to Epstein or from Epstein saying them somebody else. And then there's a few in the files that are FBI tip line ideas like tips that have come in the FBI. tip line about Trump that are unhinged. Often anonymous, generally unsubstantiated.

Anonymous, unsubstantiated. Some of them are like talking about yacht parties where they're like eating the intestines of babies and they're cutting their feet and there's no scarring. It's like, you know, stuff, some schizophrenic could call up the FBI and say whatever. And then they file a report about it. And now that's been unredacted and releasing these files. And the New York Times said in their piece,

like we learned basically nothing new about the Trump-Ipseen relationship. There's like a couple more emails where like somebody sort of offhandedly referring to Trump's like pension for young women or whatever, which unsavory, yes, new information, no. Like this is all stuff we know. And like I get the urge to want to do something about it,

but it's like, you know, I saw somebody say, I can't believe like you wrote this. article and there's no mention of all the new Trump mentioned. I'm like, because we didn't learn anything. Like there is nothing new or newsy here with regards to Trump's relationship to Epstein. It is all stuff that we know that we've heard about. And I just like, it's, because it's frustrating for me because we're trying so hard to be like responsible and give it fair treatment. And then the attacks are things that I feel like are so easy to respond to. But it's just, there's so many of them from so many different angles.

Like, why aren't you talking about the Assad stuff? Why aren't you talking about Trump? What, like, why is it that the standards of smoking gun? And it's not the only standard. Like, there can be interesting information without smoking gun. But, like, we were supposed to get proof of this cabal, of like the sex ring, of Democrats who were guilty, of Trump, who was guilty. And we just aren't getting that.

And that feels important to keep reminding people. So, yeah, I don't know. I'm getting tired. That's for sure. I think, like, the point, though, is that we might not have learned anything new about Trump, but what we already knew about him wasn't that great. Like the birthday card, the exchanges where Epstein referred to him as one of his closest friends, if not his closest friend, like that's something where it just seems like it's still,

like there's like inflation maybe between having files be released to learn more information. Right. Having new files be released because it's punishment for the information we already knew. Yeah. Like there's a little bit of a blurry line there of, look, we know that there's a bad relationship between Trump and Epstein. We expect, we suspect there's something similar with Bill Clinton and Hillary's also there. I don't know. Yeah.

But to what extent are we saying we need to know more about what Clinton or Trump knew about Epstein and when they knew it? Or are we saying we need to just keep putting them in the magnifying glass because they need to suffer? Like it just feels like that's part of it. as we want more releases because they haven't atoned enough for the fact that they were associated in the first place. There's one dimension of this that I haven't seen discussed as frequently as it seems appropriate here, and we haven't mentioned it yet,

specifically the fact that the persistence of the Epstein story, just thinking about the context here, says something about the lack of trust in institutions, particularly the criminal justice system and the justice department. Just elites in general, honestly. Yeah, but the Trump administration in particular And it's various efforts to politicize the criminal justice system. And it simply has. It is weaponized the justice system to use it to go after their political adversaries. It's tried its best to put in

various agents in different places who are politically aligned. We've seen this and we haven't talked about it. Maybe we'll get into it at some point soon. But the situation in Georgia where they've simply gone in and grabbed the documents using an outside court, using a particular appointee who was well aligned with them politically, under a lot of strutely. Under a lot of strange circumstances, something very similar has been happening with respect to the Epstein story. Part of the reason we are still talking about this is because no one trusts the Justice Department. And to the extent it was even possible for our faith in these institutions to fall further, the Trump administration seems to be doing everything in its power to ensure that that continues.

Because again, even if there was a problem before, and I've spoken to this, I do think that there have been ways in which the justice system was weaponized against Trump, unfairly in certain circumstances, I think fairly used in others. But even if that was the case, he's made things materially worse in the way that he's gone about reforming things if you want to place it in the most generous way possible. And that is a function of what's going on here too and probably needs to be foregrounded a little bit more frequently because once this particular administration is over, whomever comes into power afterwards and presume that maybe it's a Democrat, we need severe reforms, some meaningful kind of truth and reconciliation process to get back to a place

where people can trust that investigations are taking place and they can be trusted to be generally fair and impartial because otherwise we're going to have this circumstance happen again and again where people expect the only way for us to be sure is to dump a bunch of compromat and unverifiable rumor and innuendo onto the table for everyone to look at and, and, and, And imagine that they kind of see shapes and patterns whether or not they're there. And that seems like a really miserable precedent for us to set. Just imagine your correspondence as a journalist with some source that you're trying to develop who is perhaps a nefarious person, but you're not saying so in the emails because you want to

be able to talk to this source. Suddenly it gets out. And now you're under scrutiny and suspicion as well because you were doing your job trying to surface real information for people. That is already happening here. And this is, it's, it's very distressing. And I think the implications for other contexts needs to be better appreciated.

Yeah, I mean, that's the Nelly Bulls story is that she's just getting her name dragged through the mud because she was nice to have seen an email so she could take a meeting with them, which is like typical journalists, you know, you're trying to warm up a source, however bad they are. You have to talk to bad people. I mean, it's like, it's crazy that that's happening to her.

Though, again, as I said today, like she doesn't need us to defend her. She did pretty good on her own. But I guess my question about the institutional trust, I mean, when was the last time in American history that a story, a prosecution like this could have taken place and at the end of it, people would have been like, okay. I mean, is that like, is that like error?

that were, I've been thinking about this more and more. Like, is that era reaching for? Real? Yeah. Yeah, you're right. I mean, like, maybe I'm harketing back to something that didn't exist, but it feels like there's more, we are more conspiratorially minded than after 9-11. And perhaps even more conspiratorially minded than after the JFK assassination.

I was going to say, collectively. It feels like post-1968, we have not really had an era in American history where something like this could come out. and they could be litigated by like the DOJ and there could be some big high profile trial and the end of it, everybody's like satisfied. Like I just don't know that that era has existed in recent memory. Or even that thing can happen. That there's something where somebody put something on the table

and you're like, there it is. That's the truth. And everyone's like, we all agree. That's right. Like that's just never going to happen. But you know, I talked about this with John Avalon and the guys over at the fifth column. And the word that kept coming up,

and this was John Avalon was gatekeepers, gatekeepers, gatekeepers. gatekeepers and my comrade Michael Moynihan specifically alluded to the fact that there are all of these people who are journalists online, these independent journalists who are simply not terribly sophisticated. They are not doing a great job reporting out these facts. They are actually contributing to the awfulness of the miasma surrounding this story. And it was better when it was the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal who were doing the thing. And I understood the point that they were making. But at the time that I was listening to it, and we didn't get into it much, so I'd love to have you guys maybe think about this and opine on it a bit. But that gatekeepers thing makes me

uncomfortable. I actually think it's a good thing for smaller media outlets to have access to this. And even for the citizenry in general to have access to this information, the actual deficiency is the profound incuriousness. And worse than the incuriousness is the confident, the confident certainty that people have absent even looking at the evidence, which is leading them to insist that there are patterns in the evidence that don't actually exist. And I don't know how you combat that,

but it doesn't feel like the gatekeepers are the problem there. Well, is that just the price you pay them? If you want to have a media ecosystem where it's just you've got some legacy companies and you've got some gatekeepers and people who are sophisticated and sifting through things and others that are like, I don't know, why are we trusting you, though?

I'm going to go sift through some stuff and ask some questions on my own. And then a lot of people who are distrustful about the institution in general, about elites, about inequality, about anything else, or just pointing at whatever other institution they're talking about that day and go, yeah, yeah, we should be thinking about this. And then as a side effect, you're just going to have a lot of people that are saying, this conspiracy, I'm going to keep in my pocket.

I'm just going to not be willing to dismiss it out of hand. With Epstein, it covers so much of what you could hope to ever be symbolic of every possible distrust about institutions, about elites, about people who run our governments, run our financial systems, about sexual proclivities, victimization. It's just so symbolic of all of it

that it makes total sense to me why anybody would want to say, we haven't done enough about this story. By this story, they mean lack of accountability for people that have any sort of power or authority. If that's the case, and if you're saying, yeah, well, maybe it's a good thing that we've independent journalists out there,

then this is something that's going to happen, is we're going to have some perfect storm come by every once in a while. This one is clearly the most perfect storm because it's lasted seven years, and we're just going to sail through it as best we can. You know, the analogy I would draw, I was thinking while I was talking about like the sort of gatekeeper, the independent media, it's sort of akin to like you go to the doctor, you get a bunch of tests done, you get your blood drawn,

and then you get the results. and you can look at the results yourself. And, like, you have a right to look at the results yourself. And you should look at the results yourself. Yeah. But, like, you shouldn't really fully form your opinion until you hear from the doctor. Right. You know, like, and I've done that where I'm like, oh, my God, like, my levels here are, like, out of the range and whoa.

And I started freaking out. Yeah. And then the doctor calls and is like, oh, don't worry. You know, it's fine. We see this all the time. You probably just, like, had coffee before you. And I'm like, oh, my God. Yeah, I did have coffee.

for the test, my fault. That was, you know. Like, that kind of thing happens all the time. And it's like, we shouldn't live in a world where the patient doesn't get the results to look at themselves. But the patient should still be level-headed and calm about them, you know, and wait and not do the huge speculative whatever. Right, right.

Before they hear from somebody who actually knows what they're doing and knows how to read the results. It's like, again, there are, what I'm seeing from those independent creators and, you know, the people I think have journalism influencers. Yeah, the journalism influencers. Which like, it's weird because I have, now that I've started my own, like, I've started Tangle, I've sort of gotten looped into that now. And I'm often ID that way, especially because I'm doing more and more opinion analysis. But like, I actually went to school for journalism and I went to journalism training programs and I worked as a jerk. So I feel like I have some skills, like some hard skills.

and there are things like how to read redacted documents and email threads and, you know, like, that are skills that some people are really good at. And then I watch them make really basic mistakes where they interpret some sort of redaction that means something that it doesn't mean or whatever else. And it's like, okay, yeah, there are people who are patients trying to read their own blood work and they are just like blindfolded shooting in the dark, basically. and that worries me a lot. And I would never remove the right from those people to see that. Or like, I would never say the gatekeepers need to keep that information for them or like the raw material away from them. But I also think those people have to recognize like who they are and how sophisticated they are. And think about it like that.

Like I should wait for the New York Times reporter who's an expert on FOIA request to tell me what this response from the government actually means. And we just don't live in an environment where a lot of people are doing that. And it's, you know, it sucks. I had a really similar experience today. I was texting you because my son woke up with a horrifying rash all over his body. And I was like putting pictures of it in a chat GPT. And while I was doing that and chat GPT is telling me like, you need to go to the emergency room right now. Your son's having an allergic reaction and like this is serious.

Oh, I didn't realize it said that. It said that. Yeah. And then I was also texting a friend of mine. who's a pediatric emergency physician, and he saw the pictures and was like, eh, he doesn't look that bad to me. Like, is he drinking water?

Yeah, is he eating? Yeah. Is he, like, interacting normal? Like, yeah, he seems totally unbothered. He's like, don't worry about it. Like, if he starts breathing weird or he starts rejecting food, like rushing to the ER's lipsop really bad, but, like, you should just get to the doctor ASAP.

And then I went in and turned out he's having an allergic reaction to, like, his amoxicillin. And the nurse was like, yeah, he's fine. You can take him a daycare, just like, stop giving me, maxisone, it will clear up. Like, I'm an idiot with chat CBT. Like, we're riling each other up and I'm getting ready to rush him in the emergency room. Although it did get the diagnosis right.

Yeah, it did. It did say that he was having an allergic reaction. And it was, so it was like kind of half right. But it's just another example of like, I went to the emergency room physician guy who works in pediatrics. And he's like, I know exactly what's going on here. It's one of two things. This is what you need to do. Don't freak out.

You're fine. And that's like the person. should be going to. And I think that hierarchy exists in the news space too and we don't have enough people abiding by it. Such an interesting analogy because at the same time, I know one of the reactions that I'm having thinking about the doctor analogy is how many times I've listened to a doctor and gone, that's not right. Because like a lot, I mean, sometimes this is a saying that I like to come back to sometimes when I'm thinking about medical advice is doctors are experts. on the human body, and you are an expert on yours.

That's right. And it's good to try to make sure you're getting the best advice that you can and try and understand things from experts where you don't understand. Like, I can't interpret these blood tests. But at the same time, like, if I go to the doctor and they can test my knee and say, I've torn a ligament there, you should probably do a little rehab and be fine. Like, well, no, I actually, I kind of, I'm an athlete. I play sports.

I want to have the surgery. They're like, I don't think you need it, though. Like, well, I think I know what I. I need more. I appreciate the diagnosis. But for the, like, for the cure or the cause, like maybe that's something we should talk about more as peers here. I appreciate all of that feedback. And I think you guys are kind of confirming my impulses around this because I felt a little uneasy coming out of the conversation about the gatekeepers. But I do think that the locus of the problem is probably closer to the media consumers,

which is to say, dear listener and viewer, it's your fault. Or at least. Done. We're done. The onus is on you. I think there's something about the kind of priesthood of the journalist or the medical professional. Well, the expectation is they are going to give us the absolute distilled truth, the revealed wisdom sent down from heaven. When, no, they are practitioners of a particular trade. It is a difficult trade. They're going to get certain things wrong and certain things right. And if you are exercising dutiful skepticism every single time you come into contact with a story or a media report, especially if they're going to get certain things wrong and certain things right, and if you are exercising, exercising dutiful skepticism, every single time you come into contact with a story or media report, especially if you're something really important to you, something about the health and well-being of your child, or about the future of the country, take a moment, that's interesting, I'll consider it, what might they be overlooking, where might their biases be? Perhaps I should consult some other perspectives. Retail. I'm so glad I retangle, which does that coalition for me and also gives me

the perspectives of people who I've come to know, and I know their biases a little bit, this is all helpful in orienting us towards the truth. And if we have this sense, that reaching absolute certainty may always be a way off, but kind of compiling evidence over time is perhaps a better way to operate in most circumstances to make better decisions about our lives and about important matters in our politics. I think we'll probably be a little bit better off.

And my suspicion is that the emphasis on gatekeepers is much more in the direction of the priesthood and purifying the temple and doesn't actually get us closer to the well-informed populace. who can thoughtfully navigate the news cycle and whatever the next Epstein drama is to come out of that a little more sober and thoughtful and to be prepared to punish politicians

who are looking to exploit this nonsense for their own benefit of whichever party. Yeah. Yeah. We'll be right back after this quick break. Well, two things. First of all, at the top of the show, I made a joke about Camille's colleagues

being in the Epstein polls. For the purposes of my legal protection, I should clarify. They were in NEPC files, but they were just somebody who was sharing articles that they wrote, which is how easy it is to... Why are you defending them? I don't know. I just, I hope like Moynihan's not litigious or anything. Also, you know, we're sitting here talking about sleazy, rich people and gatekeeping journalists, so we should probably talk about the Washington Post layoffs. She's a good transition.

I mean, I just, oh, I have a lot of feelings about this. I guess maybe to start, I'll put my, I'll throw my cars on the table, which is like, I grew up as a kid, my dad, my parents are from D.C. I know you're from D.C. My, you know, my dad grew up in, in Northwest Washington, D.C. My mom grew up in Annapolis. So, like, when I was a kid, my parents were reading me, the Washington Post every morning, especially the sports section because we're all,

we were Redskins now, commanders fans. That's okay. I forgive you. Yeah, we just, like, we, that is my number one sport. Number one thing I care about is like commanders football.

My dad and I watch every game together every year. It's just like hearing that the Washington Post sports section is gone was sort of like just a surreal, oh my God, this is something I never thought was going to happen. And it also sucks because there's a ton of really good reporters who have lost their jobs. And this industry is really tough.

And like, I feel really grateful to be on this boat here at Tangle with some stability and job security. But I know what it's like to not be there. And it's so easy to be like, they deserve it. They suck. Like, you know, that's what you get for doing bad work. Nobody wants to pay for. But like a bunch of people lost their jobs, including reporters who are sitting in war zones in Ukraine, reporters who are like pregnant with their first kids.

I'm seeing all this stuff pop up on my Twitter feed, you know, losing their health benefits, stuck in a war zone. I mean, there's like real people who are decent, who are getting screwed over here. So I really strongly feel that just regret and sadness about the Washington Post kind of being eviscerated before our eyes. But I'm also like, I don't know that just because Jeff Bezos is a billionaire who could, you know, fund the paper with 1.2% of his wealth for the next 10 years, that he should do that.

A media organization is a business, and if it's not making money, that's kind of a signal from the market that it's not offering something that people find of value, and maybe, therefore, it needs the course correct. And I don't know that's like a bad or evil thing, and I'm sort of torn about it, because, like, my preference would be Jeff Bezos snaps his thing,

and makes the sports section last for the next century, because I love reading the Washington Post sports section, and I love the Washington Post as a newspaper. You know, it's a great source, especially of international reporting, which is one of the places that got decimated. So I don't know. I'm curious how you feel.

I know you were like hobnobbing with a bunch of journalists last night, and I know it's the talk of town right now. But I'll lob it to you first, I guess, because you're also a scumbag libertarian. So you don't have any feelings. You probably don't care about these people. No, not at all. I mean, look, I have a very similar relationship to the Washington Post, the one you described.

I believe we probably had a subscription to the Post for as long as I lived at home with my parents. And I would certainly read it. And Sports Page was important, but mostly to look at how bad the skin's lost. That's a longer conversation. But I was at an event last night. I don't think this was off the record at all. They didn't say so. So it was for substack in Netflix.

It was a dinner for independent journalist in Manhattan. And you can imagine that on the day that this news has broken to be in a room where a lot of prominent journalists are, not just independent, but some establishment folks, folks from CNN, et cetera. Virtually all of the conversations that I would overhear were about what happened at the Washington Post. And generally speaking, people were, the rejoinders there were not. they deserve it, they had it coming. It was more so. Jeff Bezos failed. He screwed up. These people are suffering for someone else's bad decision-making, et cetera, et cetera. There was this expectation that, well, he should just continue to fund it. This is, he could have do this if he wanted to. There's obviously some political motivation here.

Is there a political motivation? I don't know. I think it's hard to speak to. I do think the Washington Post, particularly the opinion section, where to the extent Bezos's fingerprints are all over that publication in recent years, he made the decision to push them in the direction of being more kind of free minds and free markets a la Reason magazine. It's also been the place where you will find the most scathing, and I think articulate critiques of the Trump administration. So, I mean, George Will is there, writing this stuff from a traditional conservative perspective, lambasting the administration. And I think that seems important if we're going to talk about political motivations. but specifically on the post and kind of Bezos's record,

since acquiring the posts, I think for the first decade that he owned it, made it profitable. He created this kind of technologically oriented unit within the paper that was actually selling services to other smaller publications. It made the post more dynamic. They were profitable. They got to ride that kind of Trump wave. And they've gotten into the same trouble

that virtually every publication in the country is dealing with. The New York Times is exempted from that in terms of establishment publications. I think the Atlantic seems to be doing better if you believe their numbers. I'm generally inclined to. But the Washington Post hacked off its sports section just like the New York Times already did. The Washington Post is closing down foreign bureaus, just like so many other publications have already done.

To the extent there are mistakes being made, maybe. But it's also the case that these are just market dynamics. And they have to be permitted to play out. and the market has to find its new level. And I wonder sometimes if it's even so much that the Post isn't doing good reporting and therefore the product doesn't really fit what people want in the market. And the economics of the economic models that have been employed are just different. These institutions are older and bloated.

And unless they reform the possibility of them surviving beyond whatever sort of endowment Jeff Bezos may decide to leave it or not, the prospects are going to dwindle. So I think there is a real benefit to taking a scalpel to the institutions to try to imagine how things could be different. And I think part of the challenge, and again, this was a dinner for independent journalists,

is that the new media landscape is such that establishment publications are in turmoil and there is a universe of interesting independent publications being founded on ghost and on substack, publications like Tangle, independent podcasts, the various journalism influencers of variable quality, and a lot of them are thriving. And some of them are doing good work and are breaking news stories. And some of those Washington Post journalists will make the transition over. And even CBS News, I think what's happening there, Barry's influence there, certainly a lot of scandal. But is it the right impulse for CBS News to look at itself? This

celebrated, storied media organization and say, well, how do we go into the future? What attributes do we need? Do we need to be more like CNN? Do we need to be more like some other broadcast network? Or do we need to do the kind of stuff that the free press did in order to build an audience online, to have more direct, meaningful engagement with its subscribers? I think it's probably that latter thing. Whether or not you agree with Barry's politics on any particular issue, I think that practical fact of thinking about what does Joe Rogan's success say for the way that newsrene and journalism ought to operate in general. And I don't think that means talking about space aliens necessarily, but it may have something to do with the kind of way that you are shaping and delivering content,

with the cadence of that content, with a different approach to long form. And then there's the whole longer conversation about how to do really expensive stuff like investigative journalism, which is just hard to make profitable as ProPublica and various other organizations have demonstrated. Before you go, Ari, I mean, I will say it feels a little bit like a dodge to the core question, which is like if you had, you know, if somebody came here, it was like,

I mean, I don't know what your net worth is, but... Not enough. But I'm saying, like, Camille, $5,000 and you can keep the Washington Post alive for 10 years. I wouldn't want to keep it alive as it stands. I think you probably have... Not probably. You have to restructure the paper. The model that the Washington Post and the LA Times and the Baltimore Sun and any other publication you can think of that has existed or currently exists over the course of the last 20 years is all wrong for the current media landscape. It just is.

The economics have changed such that if these institutions don't make severe serious changes, they simply cannot go forward into the future. The New York Times is not the publication it was. the fact that it has the athletic, the fact that it has this panoply of different services, when you subscribe to the Times, you're subscribing to their technology. That is what is keeping that publication afloat. The fact that your local newspaper defended on classifieds, it simply couldn't continue to do that in the world where Facebook and Craigslist exists. And if someone just gave them money so that they could keep operating in that way for a decade or two, at the end of that decade or two, we would be in a much better, worse situation

because those publications would simply disappear because they did not have viable business models. And I think in defense of Jeff Bezos, he's probably doing them a meaningful service in trying to make them more competitive corporately as opposed to simply giving them unlimited capital to burn while staying the same. Might it fail, it may.

But if Bezos hadn't acquired the post when he did, would the post be in a better sense? situation today or a worse situation. And I have a difficult time imagining that the situation would obviously be better if he didn't acquire it. I think the thing that feels weird about it, though, is that you have somebody who took over the post with just as well imagine to be Rosebud style wealth, just unlimitedly deep pockets. I love the citizen gain response. And the solution to turmoil is, yeah, sorry, you guys got to suffer, sorry. But now I know that's a little simple.

But that is the optics. And also, when you take over a publication like The Post and you have unlimited wealth, it does beg the question of like, how much stake do you actually feel on what's happening here? If it's just a project of yours and it can lose money, you can act people from it, whatever. Like, what does Jeff Bezos actually care about it? And I mean, I feel like that's still an open question. I think it's a good point that the news media businesses are changing. I think it's salient that they're closing their international desk. Sports desk is, like how much is the Washington Post really local paper as much as they're covering D.C.

It's the nation's capital, and this nation's actually someone important globally. So it does make sense that they would close Isaac's childhood sports paper. I know how you feel all the Post Gazette closed down or announced the closing down last month. Big deal in Pittsburgh. So like that sucks to see that happen. It's like decently sized regional paper

and a decently sized regional city. And you will ask questions like, okay, similarly, the Post Gazette in Pittsburgh and Washington Post business models as local papers, kind of struggling. That's not super new, but we know that that's true and it's valid. But a publication of the post that can actually send resources abroad to do coverage, there aren't that many of them.

No, it's true. And something, I'm glad you brought up at the Times, because something that's important about their model is they have games, they have recipes and style and the athletic, and all of that allows them to do that serious reporting that's sort of like the shibboleth that gets them in the doors at a living-seeing organization. And when you don't actually, when you can't pay that cost anymore, it's going to hurt you.

Not just as not just the American consumer and our ability to access important coverage across the globe, but it's going to hurt the way that they appear too. It's going to hurt their brand. And that's an important thing. And it comes back to the point of, is that an important thing that bays us? If he's just thinking about this as a business, is that something that actually matters to him? Because, I mean, he could just pay for it. but he's not.

So what does matter to him? Is it just like self-correcting editorial? Editorial's been interesting. I think they have been critical of the Trump administration. They have been outright partisan. So it has been interesting to read them. But, you know, they are still getting a lot of these questions of, but what are you guys doing?

I think we knew what the Post was doing previously. And we know what the Times is doing. you know what Washington Journal is doing, what national reviews doing. We kind of get what their editorial basis is. And WAPO, I don't know. They also just lost a ton of talent. I mean, a bunch of people left over the last six months. We got job applications from people who are fleeing Washington Post.

There is sort of one element of this story that I feel like has been a little bit under-discussed because we memory-hole everything that happens more than two weeks ago. But like, there was this giant push from all of these people to punish Jeff Bezos for, like, what he wanted the editorial direction to be or bringing in Will Lewis. He's like the publisher. And people just like canceled their subscriptions in mass. Yeah. And now those same people are like, why are you firing all this boy? I'm like, you just fucked everybody.

Like you canceled thousands. And you can see their chart. Like this movement started. and then, yeah, they lost like millions of dollars of revenue because all you guys canceled your subscriptions and then you turn around and are like, I can't believe you're not supporting. It's like, well, they were making a bunch of money off subscriptions

and then you sort of had a successful campaign to destroy that business. And so they responded the way that was obvious. They were always going to respond, which is like fire a bunch of people. Right. Like the people getting hurt are the ones who work for the post. It's not Bezos. Right. It's like, and I, it's like that sort of digital activism that,

it's so frustrating because it's like this was obviously what was going to happen when that and again, I'm a proud subscriber of the Washington Post I didn't go down that route. I didn't like what Bezo, you know, I didn't like him sort of saying that the editorial board was going to start taking this kind of like free market, you know, I think that's a good position.

I agree with some of what he was saying, but like I want the editorial board to take this is my, this is my philosophy. This is your philosophy. It's like what Elon Musk is doing on X. It's like, don't thumb the scales for your views and that's not what I want. So I understand why people objected to that, but it is just kind of funny to watch the reaction now.

Right. Like, we're going to destroy the post to punish Bezos. And he's like, okay, I'm going to fire everybody because you destroyed the post. And they're like, why do you fire everybody? Really similar to what our Uber driver is listening to last night. Oh, yeah. I think this theory of like cancel your subscriptions to everything. Scott Galilee, Prof. G. was on Sir Connish.

And we were listening to XM radio on the Uber home from dinner last night. and Scott Gallower is basically, he started this website, I think it's called like Resist and Unsubscribe.com or something. That's not a promotion. Because it might not be right. Yeah. And he's like telling people to cancel a bunch of their subscriptions in order to punish the Trump administration.

Right, because the Trump administration's going to respond to economics and the bottom line. So like if the market's dip, then they'll respond. So it's like anyone who does business with ICE, but then also people who don't do that. It's just any subscription. Just fuck the economy. Make Trump sad. Unsubscribe.

He's not going to be the one who hurts the most in that situation. Unsubscribe advocacy. And our Uber driver was driving and he's listening to Scott Gowley be like, you have to cancel like your door dash, your Google. And the Uber driver was like, not Uber, I hope. We're all like laughed in the car. We're like, yeah, that would suck. For you, mostly, you know, we would just take lift.

Which like that. And that is like, you know, people don't think a lot about. Yeah. I think there, or I'm not saying people don't think a lot about, but I think there are sometimes these funny repercussions for that kind of out. You're imagining you're striking one area. But like as you're punching through 20 pillows on the way to the wall, and the wall kind of feels it, but the pillows are really getting brutalized.

I am sympathetic to kind of spending your money in a way that is consistent with your values. Totally. And I think that's reasonable. But I would agree that this is a little different. and it's a bit more theatrical and people would benefit again by imagining things in a slightly more complex way. But I do think one thing that's worth underscoring again

is just the interesting dynamics with respect to the ascendancy of independent publications. And particularly, I mentioned it was a substack Netflix party that I was at. And for Substack in particular, I was thinking a lot about the media names narratives that surrounded the organization, but four or five years ago, when we were being told continuously by very prominent publications that Substack had a Nazi problem over and over and over

again. And the room I was in yesterday, much more left of center. Not that Substack is, but it is the case. And I saw Chris Rufo posting about this in the past week, the activists of Manhattan Institute, about the fact that so many of the top publications on Substack now are decidedly left of center. To the extent CNN and these various other publications have emptied out, a lot of those folks are on CNN, a lot of, I mean, are on Substack now. They're actually having a tremendous amount of success. And the readership at Substack has changed to the extent it was heterodox before. It is now kind of the previous establishment now lives on Substack and is making a bit of a killing. I saw Brian Stelter yesterday.

days, one of the people I saw. And just kind of jokingly, we were having a conversation. Again, I don't think this was off the record. I think it's fine to share. But he was mentioning, like, Oliver Darcy, who's left and is doing his own thing at Beehive now, on Beehive. I don't remember the name of his publication. And while Brian is back at CNN, it is like, you know, Oliver's doing great. Maybe I should have stayed over there with him. I mean, there's all sorts of rumors. He didn't say this. I'm saying this now. Context. There's all sorts of rumors swirling about the future of CNN. it's anyone's guess what happens to an institution like that that has a beautiful new building that I've been inside of many, many times,

but is struggling because it is so expensive to operate. I mean, again, and similar thing is CNN does really good international reporting. You can definitely say what you want about CNN. Yeah, right, great news desk. But you can say what you want about their editorial. And we've said plenty. But the cost that you get of these institutions, these keepers of the gate, if you will,

that are losing some of that killing because of X, Y, or Z while substack or people like Tango are doing okay, is that you don't get those resources in order to do those expensive jobs. I think, like, that's the thing I keep coming back to here. I know I'm not from media. Like, you guys have that background. I'm kind of new to the game. I just make sure the words look good on page. But, like, the thing that I keep thinking about as somebody who's new to media, like, professionally,

is this is what I always value. about Washington Post. So, like, that's the thing that concerns me. Like, I don't really, doesn't bother me too much that, like, they're changing the business model or people are fired. They're going to find new jobs, I hope, and be all right. But the thing that concerns me is, like, where are we going to get the people? Like, who's actually going to do that news then?

Yeah. Because, like, there's not too many other people are going to replace them. Like, there's Lyft and there's Uber if we want to get ride shares. But to cover, like, Damascus desk, there's Washington Post, CNN, and New York Times. the best we got. I think we probably need to pick up the slack some. We as an institution, Tangle, but I also think there are people on Substack

who have some of that expertise and who are doing the reporting. And it's already the case that in the New York Times, you will read an essay about some important matter and they will be quoting a source, who is a journalist, who works on Substack, who has deep information and great intel from the Iranian regime.

And you could maybe only find it there. And finding a new way for publications like Tangle to be clearing houses for that sort of stuff to bring those people to folks' attention is, I think, going to be an important thing going forward. But also, yeah, us figuring out how to do more original reporting and investigative stuff and even just really great interviews as we began to get more and more access on account of the kind of visibility of the platform. There's that Derek Thompson line, the history of media is the re-bundling of debundled bundles. Yes. So that's just kind of natural. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right.

Well, we have in the last few weeks on this show, we've impugned Democrats repeatedly for being so uninteresting. We can't even create a single news story. But we have a good one this week. There's some nice infighting happening. Some really tasty advice. So tasty finally.

We got some Democrats to talk about and criticize and make fun. Everybody thinks that we're like turning into a big leftist network because all we do is talking about the service. And really it's just like Democrats are just so boring. There's nothing. They're also not in power in a lot of places. Sure.

But they are going for a Senate seat in Texas. And the gas has been thrown on the fire because there was this state Senate race in Texas in a district that I believe Trump won by maybe 14 points or 17 points as recently as 2024 that a Democrat just flipped. which, as you can imagine, shalacking. Shalacking created a five-alarm freak-out fire at the RNC headquarters. Like, if this is the map we are looking at, which it won't be because it's a state Senate race and like an off, you know, cycle election.

But it would be a very, very bad midterm for Republicans. And it is indicative of a really big mood vibe shift. So once again, ad nauseum, we do this every year. Democrats are talking about. Maybe they can win a state Senate seat. And there's this tangle happening between James, Tlerico and Jasmine Crockett, J. J.T. versus J.C., Jasmine v. James. There's some good stuff happening.

Keep spinning it. Yeah. And I guess the thrust of it is, I mean, first of all, I want to hear from you guys about who your allegiance is or with. But the thrust of it is that you have this sort of, I think James Tyler, you go more moderate, maybe more appealing. You know, polling suggests probably more appealing

to like broad Texas base, criticizes the Democratic Party, has nuanced views on things like immigration. It's being accused of maybe saying some unsavory things about his previous opponent, Colin Allrad, calling him like a mediocre black. Which unclear. Unclear and also unsubstantially.

It's not like a recording. It's hearsay from somebody on TikTok who is like a staffer or something. I don't know. It's very confusing. And now he's running against, again, allegedly said like a sophisticated, you know, politically savvy black and Jasmine Crockett. Black woman. Black woman. Yeah.

And so he's getting hammered for that. And Jasmine Crockett is very progressive. She's very left. She's very, she's like the. fighting kind of, you know, often in the trenches with people like AOC. And there's this debate about who the Democratic Party should kind of rally behind. And whether Democrats actually have a chance in Texas, which I don't think they do just for the record.

And I've taken, I just take that stance every year until it's wrong. And it's just right every year. But I still don't think they do. That's it. We can stop talking about it. Yeah. But yeah, I'm curious, you know, how you guys are thinking about. this. Maybe you want to go first, Camille. I mean, what have you been reading and what's the

storyline here you're interested in actually following? Well, the dimension of it that I think is most interesting in some levels is that this race, identity politics stuff can still cause so much scandal for Democrats. Again, with respect to just the infighting, taking shots at themselves. It is a Democratic primary, so you would expect there to be some criticism. But this involves two of the most prominent young Democratic stars. Jasmine Crockett, we were debating it earlier before we started. I would say that she's probably top five, maybe even top three most recognizable Democrats in Congress broadly.

And certainly- It's crazy. I found that too. I think it's true. She's uniquely visible. And look, I mean, Marjorie Taylor-Green is gone. AOC is probably at the top of the list, quite honestly. And Jasmine Crockett is as well, and not because she's,

she's so progressive. She's not even squad. She's actually a little bit more establishment in her willingness to kind of play on all number of sides. What is interesting is that she has the same approach as Gavin Newsom. With respect to Trump, they want to kind of be like Trump with respect to how they message and talk to their audiences. They don't mind cursing at the appropriate moment or in a moment that seems appropriate, even if it's uniquely unnatural. They don't mind code switching in particular way so they can be more foxy or hood in Jasmine Crocket's case. She is a really sophisticated operator. I've heard her be exceptionally aerodyte. I've also heard her kind of get into the trenches and talk like she's in the hair salon or

something like that. I don't have a favorite between these two candidates, but I do think that for a race that is going to be so important for Democrats and for two people who are so important to Democrats, for them to be involved in this kind of beef, animated by a political influencer TikTok video. Again, we don't have audio of what he said or a video recording of it. That's kind of strange. And I don't think it's a matter of just kind of the media paying attention. This is still something that is happening a lot. And I should say to the Democrats credit as well, the shutdown fight, we haven't talked a lot about it because it's over. But Democrats were able to use the whip hand here. You had Donald Trump calling Chuck Schumer to have a conversation about this and try to get

this resolved and you have Democrats almost certainly going to be able to extract some sort of legislative victory with respect to ICE reforms. That is unusual territory for us to be in. This is the first time it's really happened in this second Trump administration. So while they're getting their act together in some respects, and I think circumstances have kind of benefited them in that way, I think we're probably going to see more of the Crockett-Threco kind of dramas play out amongst Democrats. Well, you know, speaking of memory holding things here, this is the Texas Senate race. It wasn't that long ago that we're like, man, Republicans are in trouble.

There's a lot of infighting here with Cornyn and Paxton. And it's not as if this is going to be some sort of slam-dunk case for the Republicans on that side. No. Like, it's, Paxton was the AG or is the AG and is running for that Senate seat. Cornyn hadn't been fundraising a ton because he thinks he's going to win, but the Polling's really close now, so who knows. And it just kind of reminds me that, like, that's where we were six months ago. Now we're talking about this six months from now when the election's, like, really underway.

This is going to be a memory, and we're going to go right back to Isaac's first thought, which is like we're talking about a Senate seat, Texas. Let me just check the polls. Oh, yeah, Republicans are up plus 12. Why does this even matter? And until that changes, that's kind of my position, too. It's like it's Talarico or it's Crockett for the Senate. I think Crocket has a lot of name recognition.

You're right. She's a really good orator, and she knows how to play whatever crowd she's in front of. I have a hard time believing that she's going to lose that nomination right now. I don't think I know enough about how they compare to each other as candidates to say, I prefer one or the other. So I would refrain from doing that. But I think whoever ends up winning that, good luck.

You are still running in Texas. And the nice thing, the one thing that I do know, that gives Talarico an advantage here, So he does seem to have a better polling amongst the demographic that's going to matter in the general, which is moderate Latino voters. Like, if that's a thing that Democrats end up thinking about in the primary, then maybe that's going to be a difference maker. Ultimately, I mean, I don't want to think it's worth overthinking. It's an infight. It's before primary. It'll happen.

It's a minor scandal now. We'll probably wash away in a couple months. When it does, the person with higher name recognition who's a really good speaker is probably going to win. That person is a D next to their name. they're in Texas, they're probably going to lose to whoever comes out of the Republican side. I think the last reporting that I saw that came out about the polling was that Tallarico was pulling three points behind like a name brand generic Texas Republican, and Crockett was seven points behind.

And that was like this internal R&C polling that they viewed as being like very frightening. I'm Team JT. I'll just go out and say it. I mean, I think Crockett's kind of a blowhard, to be honest with you. I'm just so tired of like the social media star theater people dominating Congress because they're good orators or they code switch or they know how to grab people's attention of their imitating Gavin Newsom or Donald Trump or whatever. I'm just, I'm exhausted by it.

I'm like, Marjorie Taylor Green's gone. Thank gosh. Like, I mean, whatever. I appreciate the evolution she's having, people who change her mind politically. But it's like she is somebody. I want to see more of that. She sucked up so much oxygen when there were so many more important things than the things she was doing. And when I see Jasmine Crockett, most of the time I see her in the news, it's like she is sucking up oxygen about things that strike me as much less important than the things that should be taking up oxygen.

And that makes me very skeptical of her. I guess this is an example. It's like we're talking about some TikTokers. report that's unverified, that's like just rage baiting. And from what I've read about James Tolariko and like seeing him talk and stuff, I mean, these comments aside, the veracity to them aside, like he seems like somebody who's really willing to criticize Democrats. He's willing to buck the party. He's actually representative of a lot of like blue dog moderate Democrats who exist in Texas, which is like the kind of candidate

Democrats should put up. I mean, this is the other thing that frustrates me about the Democratic Party. And Republicans don't do this. You know, Republicans are really good. Like, when there's a Republican running in New York, he is a Republican that is running for Republicans in New York. Democrats tried out these candidates in a place like Texas. Like, I'm sorry, Jasmine Crockett is not some, I mean, maybe she'll prove me wrong, but I don't think she's somebody who statewide is going to have a lot of success connecting with the voters she needs to win an election. James Tolerico could, so they should run him and the party should back him. If that's what they want to do, if they want to win the election, Republicans are really good at that.

They will run a different kind of Republican in Long Island than they're going to run in Oklahoma. And they're totally comfortable with that. And they're like sort of have this big tent party mentality. These days, it all requires fealty to, you know, the emperor, Donald Trump, which frustrates me to no end. And I don't like. But I'm just, you know, I don't know. And again, maybe Blowheart is like a little too strong, but I am just, I'm tired of just the people that are going to fundraise nationally winning these states. And the people who are, it is all performance arts.

And when I see Jasmine Crockett operate in public, it looks to me like someone who is doing performance art. And I don't like that feeling. I had a conversation with someone last night actually, we were talking about Gavin Newsom. And I said, you know, I don't know, blah, blah, but he's really good at what he does. what is it that he does? I don't think you mean like governing California because that's not what I think about when I think Gavin Newsom. He's really good at what he does.

It's the other thing. It's that other aspect of him as a politician and as a political operator, the kind of shrewdness. And I don't know that we want to optimize for that. And the last thing I'd say about this is Democrats should be very careful if they're looking at the success of the Trump administration

electorally and the way that they are actually operating with respect to messaging and the culture. The fact that everything has to be super-based, that they're making these videos that are kind of obnoxiously over the top. It's not about prestige so much as like owning your opponents. I don't know that Americans really want that. I don't know that the average voter is desperate for that. I think it works online, but that old adage, old Twitter is not real life. No, I remember Aristotle saying that. still true. I think that's still true. It's working. Some of that stuff will go viral. Oftentimes, it goes viral for the wrong reason. And, you know, I'm so with you. I think that when it comes

to midterms and then later, when it gets to the next presidential election, people are going to remember the kind of errors they're putting on now. Use it to bludgeon them when it gets time to actually make decisions because I think, like, the thing that's going to matter at the ballot box a lot is, you're doing that thing that we don't really like anymore. And I will plan a flag right now and say, I don't think Gavin Newsom is going to win the Democratic nominee. And I think that's going to be a lot of why. I think he's just like doing this schnick. And people are like, we're kind of going with Pete.

Because he's like normal and you're being weird. And like, we're over that. And I think that's probably going to be simple when it gets to that time. But now we're talking about more than Texas. And again, it's going to go red. I don't know. I don't know. Sure. No, we don't know.

We don't know. We don't know. All right. All right. Well, we got to wrap up here. We're all in the room. Normally, this is the part where I'm like, John, put, John's right. John, come here.

Dip your head in front. All right. All right. So we say, John, play the music, John. Yeah. The airing of grievances. Between you and me, I think your country is placing a lot of importance on shoe removal. All right.

It's time for some grievances. It's nice to do this in person. All right. Wow. Hand-ups. Let's go. Yeah, I'd been refraining from travel grievances just because I feel like they're almost too easy. But I'm going to make it a recurring thing.

Shots fired. Like any time, no, sorry. Sorry, I didn't mean to fire shots at you. But I will now. That's fine. I will do it right now, which is that your travel grievances, you don't know. Travel grievances. Oh, okay.

Oh, my roller bag won't go through the airport. I couldn't get on first class on my flight. I had to take a helicopter across New York. Yeah, come on, brother. The issues that I have with airplanes are unique and constant. I went down to a tournament in Florida this weekend. Coming from Vermont, this was a new one. I guess the equivalent of the airplane tugboat

that pulls the plane adjusted so it can get into the gate and out of it. The tow bar that they attached the plane froze to the plane, which is fun that it can do that. And the pilot was like, we're going to delay coming out of here just so we can try to work it off 20 minutes later. 20 minutes is a long time, by the way. When you're sitting on a plane. Right.

Like, it's one thing in a story to say, this happened 20 minutes later. Just imagine sitting on a plane for 20 minutes with no update. And then they come on the overhead in the PA, the pilot says, couldn't get that off. We're going to have to get ground maintenance to come out with the blow torch. It's like, Juan, why do you not have that? This is Vermont. We're not in Atlanta.

We're going nuts because it's snowing. Like, this is something that happens every year. You just have your blowtorch handy. Have a thing that's going to melt the ice or the thing that's frozen. So they had to wait for somebody to get one. Then like 10 minutes later, they're like, oh, no, one of the guys, one of the members of the gate crew just like figured it out. Oh, cool. There's one dude who's like, no, he's got a Jimmy and Carter.

And then, okay, we're off. Would have missed our connection if not for the fact that everything's so uniquely terrible now everywhere that that flight was delayed. So we're able to make our connection, get down to Florida. Great. On the way back from Florida, our flight would, was delayed, myself and my co-coach, to the point where we had to cancel, re-book. So now we have one flight

that we're trying to catch 30-minute layover in JFK. So it's pretty tight. Get on the plane immediately delayed. Just sitting there, just delayed, just because normally, just because fuck you, it's a delay. The reason was we're still getting the bags on, which is a little backed up because there were so many delays. So the bags are going to take a while getting on.

Cool. 20 minutes later, they're like, we're almost done with the bags, guys. It's just a wait. And then 20 minutes later, we're taxing. So it's like, okay, there goes the 38-minute window. We're late-arriving, late taxing. We had to catch the flight at 10.30.

We start de-planning at 10-25. So that's gone. It was the only flight that we could have gone from New York. So New York, Sunday night, sitting there with my co-coach, and our options are either we reschedule the next day for a flight at three, get home. And we both really want to get home. He needs to get home because he made a promise to his wife every tournament.

I'm going to be home 6 a.m. And for you. And first mistake. I also, well, I also wanted to get back because I'm like, I don't want to have to stay in New York. And then like I'm going to what Monday, take a flight up to Vermont so I could take a train down to Philly the next day. That makes no sense.

So I should stay here, which means I'm not going to be at home for a week. I don't want to do that. So my co-coach, Jake, is like, I'm just going to drive. I'm going to rent a car and drive. Do you want to come? I'm like, yeah, I'll absolutely do that. I'd gotten an hour and a half asleep the night before that week, because of like a car,

was going off in windy-ass Florida. It sounded like a cat was giving birth next to the front door because the wind was howling so much in like 35-degree Florida so I could not sleep. So I'm like, all right, Jake, I'll drive with you. But I cannot drive this for a shift because I can, like, my head hurts. I'm dehydrated and I'm running on no sleep.

It's like, it's cool. I got it. And he just drove the whole way. Wow. Like a fucking hero. Like I was up after an hour. Like after we got out of New Jersey, I was up and I was like being a good shotgun and talking. to him. So I got another hour and a half that night.

I was so exhausted Monday when we got back. Got home up in the front door like by five. Jake made like I just promised to his wife. Legend. But that's like, why do I drive or why do I take cars or take trains places?

They don't work. And I'd rather just like, I'm taking the train back from Philly tomorrow. It's going to be a nine hour train ride. And that whole train ride, I'm going to be sitting with Wi-Fi, doing work, able to get up and walk. knowing that the train is going to drop me off when it's said it does. And an airplane is just going to break your heart. And, you know, I'm not signing up to get my heartbroken too much.

Other than like two more, three more times this year, I have more tournaments to go to and I have more grievances to share with you guys. All right. Oh, my gosh. Camille. That was epic. I can relate to the story that you just told. Primarily because I fly more, the only people who fly more than me are the crew of any of the flights.

that I happen to fly on at this point in my life anyways. But I don't have a grievance about airlines today. My grievance is about congressional hearings. And this is perhaps a nested grievance because this week there were multiple congressional hearings that just got me so annoyed. One involved Netflix, CEO, coming to Capitol Hill, to talk to congresspersons and try to persuade them

that this deal is a good deal. And we ought to be able to do this. We're not going to have an unfair monopoly going forward. I'm not even going to weigh in on that. The clip you probably saw from that was Ted Cruz asking whether or not we are on stolen land. And these prominent media executives responding in a way that was kind of not quite laughable, just not taking the moment particularly seriously because it isn't very serious. Are there questions about kind of bias in Hollywood, et cetera, et cetera? Sure. Should you ask questions about whether or not Netflix?

will enjoy an unfair monopoly after this potential merger, maybe. But it also seems to me that Netflix is under, in Hollywood in general, under so much pressure from AI and independent. You said you weren't even going to go there, but you're going there. Yeah, come on. Anyways, it's just they're so profoundly unsurious. And the other hearing that was this week was related to autonomous vehicles. And it's, again, Congresspersons talking about this technology

that they do not quite understand. And they never really do. This is Mark Zuckerberg being asked about how Facebook makes money. They don't know what they're doing. It's all theater. And I wish, wish, wish, wish on some level. And this, I suppose, harkens back to the Epstein conversation. Maybe we should just stop televising these things.

Maybe we should just put a moratorium on congressional hearings for the foreseeable future. I never learn anything valuable. Someone maybe makes a mistake and says something in an elegant way. Every once in a while, you get a moment. where Ted Cruz, not Ted Cruz, but Rand Paul is cross-examining Marco Rubio, and he just completely owns him in the best possible way. And that's interesting. That's a kind of theater, but that theater is actually necessary.

These are politicians talking to each other and debating with one another. But when you summon experts in particular fields, executives from prominent companies to Capitol Hill to interrogate them. And you ask them, what do you think about this Billy Eilish quote? And you won't let them talk. No, no, I have just limited time here. Let me get my shots off. So you can look like a dope, not answering the question that isn't really a question.

Fuck out of here. Who is this serving? I don't like it. I want it to stop. And I think it's bad. That is my grievance. Nice. It's a great grievance.

I will say I did see a congressional hearing recently that I thought was enlightening, I guess, a little bit. Oh, good. And I'll tell you, the moment went viral. It was all over X and Instagram. And I think it was a Democrat, but I'm not a hundred percent. I think it was a Democratic member of Congress who was asking these healthcare executives to raise their hand. Like, if you are the CEO of a healthcare. Oh, yes.

And then like, if you own a hospital, if you own the PBMs, if you own an insurer. And they're just like up and up. So just to be clear, like, you five own every single part. And it was like, oh, yeah, that's probably not good. And it was one of those things were actually, like, seeing a little bit of the shame and the realization on their faces as their hands keep going up

was, it was like nice to watch that versus just kind of read about it. You see, my libertarian... I do. I do. I mean, make me turn me off from that because, yes, healthcare is expensive, but it's not just because some people

are making some money in it. We gotta not go there. Yeah, we're not. Yeah, we can't open. That's another time. All right, my grievance this week's actually about my team here at Tangle. That's right.

It's mostly Will. Great. I'm back. Yes. We have a bunch of the team, not the whole team, but a good chunk of the team is here in Philly this week. And we're doing a bunch of team stuff.

And yesterday, our day ends, and we go back to the Airbnb that they're all saying here in Philly. And I had the great idea of like, we should all watch the Melania documentary. Oh, yes. And like sit down with like a couple beers. And maybe we can, write about it.

Like there'd be some, this is like a content. Where this is going. None of us have seen it, right? And we're like, okay, well, we're not, there was like no movie theater showing. We had dinner, whatever.

We had like a two and a half hour gap. And like, I won't name names, I guess. I kind of already did. But like, some people were like, yeah, I'll find it online.

Like, we'll just rip it. And my crack team of journalists that I've hired for like three hours tries to find the Melania documentary online, confessing me some illegal activity here. Yeah. I don't know if this is a good idea.

No, no, no, no. It's fine. I wasn't there. Re-broadcast it. That's when you get in trouble is rebroadcast. Downloading, it's bad, too. Yes, not as bad. Well, don't worry because we didn't download it because none of them were capable of finding it online,

which is the most embarrassing thing ever. That is worse. I think it speaks more to Bezos's cover-up skills here because, like, I, or the lack of demand. I may or may not be very good. I'm sitting there. I'm like, what do you mean? None of you can find it. Like ripping a movie is like the easiest thing you can do on the internet.

Allegedly. And they're all like on their computers. They're like in the command center. Because allegedly we've all done this very well. I mean, I feel like I could, I've absolutely done this. Not with that particular film. I'm confident that if I took five minutes, I could find it. So we're all of us.

So yeah. So were we all. Everybody shared that confidence and zero people found the film. We're in a PDFs, finding links to other things. Like downloading Chrome extensions to like zap the thing, the modals that come up over the top were like, you found it. It's good. It's just a trailer and then two hours of black screen silence.

Come on. Really? Give me 15 minutes after we're done. Sure. You got it, bud. I'll watch you. Nothing illegal happened because we were incapable of doing anything illegal, which is the most embarrassing thing ever.

15 minutes. That's my grievance for this week. We need more criminally inclined fangle staffers, more capable criminally inclined. I just looked around the room and I said, did I hire a bunch of incompetent people? We can't commit one simple, low-level crime together. Unreal. Are you going to do anything, John? Play the music.

Cut it. We're good. All right. That's it. It's good to see you. Nice to have you guys in real life. This is good. It's touch you.

All right. I don't yet. I don't know if we should end this episode on that note. All right. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me. Isaac Saul and our executive producer is John Wohl. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas.

Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman. with Senior Editor Will Kback and Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canute, and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at readtangle.com.