The Daily Beast Podcast - The Secret Meeting Between Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, the Trumps and Kushners

Episode Date: October 5, 2021

Author Max Chavkin, whose latest book Contrarian is all about Peter Thiel, tells Molly Jong-Fast alleged details from the 2019 meeting that the billionaire had with Mark Zuckerberg, the Trumps and the Kushners that people don’t know. Plus, Congressman Mondaire Jones has some words for Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin and historian Dr. Timothy Snyder explains how we’re “slow-rolling” into a civil war. Come to The New Abnormal Election Eve Party https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-new-abnormals-nyc-election-eve-party-tickets-177538832427 or visit caveat.nyc If you haven't heard, every single week The New Abnormal does a special bonus episode for Beast Inside, the Daily Beast’s membership program. where Sometimes we interview Senators like Cory Booker or the folks who explain our world in media like Jim Acosta or Soledad O’Brien. Sometimes we just have fun and talk to our favorite comedians and actors like Busy Phillips or Billy Eichner and sometimes its just discussing the fuckery. You can get all of our episodes in your favorite podcast app of choice by becoming a Beast Inside member where you’ll support The Beast’s fearless journalism. Plus! You’ll also get full access to podcasts and articles. To become a member head to newabnormal.thedailybeast.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey folks, before we get started, I want to actually tell you about a special event we have coming up on November 1st. Molly and I will be doing the first new abnormal live show with an in-person audience at caveat in New York City. It will be doing a special election eve party where we'll be talking about both local and national politics with guests like Toray, the Daily Beast Harry Siegel, and New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, and we'll get a bunch of other fun people. We're going to do quizzes and have prizes, and it's just going to be a blast. It's a benefit for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and you could stream it from your home or come see it in person. For more info, head to caveat.n.comyc, and I'll put a link in the podcast description. I'm Molly Jongfast, and welcome to The Daily Beast, The New Abnormal. I'm a left-wing pundit and an editor at large at The Daily Beast.

We're here to have fun, sharp conversations with some of the smartest people in media, politics, and science that help make what's happening in the country and the world clearer. Our world has been turned up day down. On the new abnormal, we'll talk about the people who got us into this mess and figure out how to get ourselves out of it. And I'm producer Jesse Kennan. I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. What a fun and an informative show do we have today.

Historian Dr. Timothy Snyder, author of On Tyranny, will talk to us about recognizing the threats to democracy today. Then we'll talk to author Max Chaffkin about his brilliant new book, the contrarian, Peter Thiel in the Silicon Valley pursuit of power. But first, we have the congressman from New York 17th district, Mondare Jones. Welcome to New Abnormal, Representative Jones. Thanks for having me. It's great to be back. We're big fans.

As I see it, Democrats are trying to legislate and Republicans are doing fascism. Discuss. This is so much easier than a law school exam. It's obvious, Molly. I mean, my goodness, the Republican. party of today cannot compete on the merits of its policy ideas, which are deeply unpopular with the American people. So they pivot to disenfranchising large segments of the American population. Right. Exactly. And it strikes me, I would love to talk for a minute. Before we talk about

quote unquote, Dems and Disarray, I would rather talk to you about what is in the bill, because what's in the bill is really popular, and that's why no one wants to talk about it. So tell me what's in the Well, there are two bills. There is the significantly smaller bipartisan infrastructure bill, roads, bridges, highways, physical infrastructure. Then there is the larger reconciliation bill called the Build Back Better Act, which contains the vast majority of the president's economic agenda. And that is what we are also fighting to pass. And when I say we, I mean, not just progressives, but a lot of moderates, the president of the United States himself, the, Speaker of the House, certainly, and the majority leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer.

We are all seeking to pass both the reconciliation bill and the bipartisan infrastructure bill with few exceptions. Right. Some of the stuff in the bigger infrastructure bill is climate, is just a little bit about that. So the reconciliation bill has an expansion of Medicare to include dental vision and hearing, which is popular with 90% of the American people. people. It contains climate action in the form of investments in renewable energy infrastructure like wind and solar, the creation of hundreds of thousands of electric vehicle charging stations,

universal childcare, which is a program that we passed out of the House Education and Labor Committee a couple of weeks ago. And I'm really proud to have led that effort along with others. And paid family leave, which is something that the rest of the developed world already has and that we are fighting to catch up to as the United States of America. We've got investments in housing and so much more. But we cannot do this unless we make sure that we have leverage over people who are very conservative in their ideology. And now I'm talking about Mansion and Cinema over in the Senate and a handful of

really conservative renegade Democrats in the House Democratic Caucus, you know, who wanted to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill first, despite the agreement that we all had to do the reconciliation bill and the bipartisan bill. And so we know that our conservative colleagues want to do the bipartisan bill. Progressives also want to pass that bill. But in order for us to get to a point where we're able to pass the reconciliation bill on top of it, we've got to insist that that pass first. And that is what progressives successfully did this past week. Our conservative colleagues tried to impose an arbitrary deadline of September 27th in defiance of the original agreement. And we prevailed and got the president on our side in saying that, no, we actually need to pass the reconciliation

bill first. It feels to me like Nancy Pelosi, even though she's been around a long time. And Joe Biden, even though he's been around a long time, are really on the progressive side. The interesting thing about this is that 96% of House Democrats support this approach. And so it's not about progressives versus moderates, which is a narrative that much of the media, specifically the New York Times and a few other outlets, have completely gotten wrong. It's about literally every Democrat in Congress versus a handful of obstructionist conservative Democrats. I mean, this stuff is broadly popular, not just. with Democrats, but with Republicans when you do the polling.

I mean, I mentioned already that 90% of Americans support expanding Medicare. We've got to make sure that we do right by the American people. And thankfully, that transcends the typical factions that you're used to seeing in Congress. Right. I mean, look, there's a lot of narratives going on here. But ultimately, this is really what legislating is. This is what legislating is. I mean, did anyone expect that it would just be a smooth ride given so much ideological diversity within the Democratic Party? No, we have seen historically really significant debates

over Obamacare within the Democratic caucus, whether it was going to have a public option or not, and so many other things. So this is the messy part of legislating, compromise, unfortunately, drama, especially in the age of cable TV. Look, I get that. that you've got a senator from West Virginia. He needs to look conservative. It's a red seat. If he were primary, Democrats would just lose a seat. Okay, I get it.

But cinema, that's not what's happening there. So a few thoughts. First, Joe Manchin has no excuse either. I mean, this stuff is very popular in his state. It's certainly true. And his roads and bridges need it. And his people need it. I'm not saying that Joe Manchin needs to be a progressive

or should be a progressive in the state of West Virginia. But I am saying that the stuff that is contained and the build back better act, which, again, is also known as the reconciliation bill, is extremely popular when you do the polling in his state. And of course, cinema has even less of an excuse. She comes from a state that Biden won and that overwhelmingly supports things like a $15 minimum wage.

As, by the way, do West Virginians. And yet those two senators voted, against the interests of their constituents when they voted a few months ago not to overrule the parliamentarian who said that a $15 minimum wage could not be contained in the American Rescue Plan. We are dealing with people who are looking out for people who are not their constituents. And that is where a lot of the analysis about corporate contributions and also the personal investments of certain elected officials becomes relevant to consider. Let's talk about that for a second. I mean, prescription drug practices.

is this seems like a no-brainer. No one wants to pay $4,000 for their antidepressant or, you know, I mean, I hear stories every day of people who die because they can't afford their insulin or the rationing. Their insulin, I mean, these seem like no-brainers.

But why can't we get them past, Representative Jones? In fact, cinema ran on lowering the price of prescription drugs. This is something that polls among the most popular of the ideas that Democrats set forth in campaign after campaign.

And now that we have the opportunity to allow Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs, we've got a handful of House of Democrats who are refusing to allow that to occur. And I would not be surprised if Mansion and Cinema, if they had to vote on it, would also give us some difficulty on that subject. Follow the money. I feel like there's a real shift happening now when I saw AOC. right about it, which is Democrats no longer want to support Democrats who protect drug companies. I got elected to deliver results on behalf of my constituents for the American people,

writ large, really. And the idea that when given that opportunity, especially after having run on these ideas, that I or anyone else would walk it back, is just nearly unfathomable. until you look at the role of big money in our politics, it's why I am a leading proponent of the small dollar matching provisions in what is known as the For the People Act, which we passed in the House, but is now known as the Freedom to Vote Act, which is a revision of the For the People Act that is acceptable to Joe Manchin. Right. It's still, thankfully, on the House side, in terms of federal elections for Congress, would allow states to opt into a small dollar matching program. The issue is that when you are in Congress, you spend, unfortunately, a substantial amount of time raising money, especially when you run every two years. Right. Especially with respect to people who've been around for a little bit, these folks are used to being able to call upon their corporate donors for support.

But the challenge there is that when you rely so heavily on corporate support, you eventually may be in a position where you, you, are succumbing to corporate influence. Maybe it's the only thing you hear about a given topic because you're spending so much time speaking to corporate lobbyists. Or maybe it's something even more sinister. I don't want to speculate. It's just so much better to have a system where small dollar donors, their voices are being amplified. We'll get better people in Congress that way, by the way, when small dollar donors, their contributions are matched at the rate of six to one. I mean, it's why New York City, which has pioneered such a program, has done so well at getting more working class people and more diverse people, people of color, more women elected to the city council. Now we need that in all congressional races.

Yes. Of course, our mayoral is another story, but I see we're not. I feel like our city council, certain congressional districts, Our mayoral is completely nuts, though. I mean, but let's talk about protesters. I mean, what's your hot take on bathroom gate? Look, I don't support following people into the restroom. I do think that other forms of protests and demonstration are fair game, but I don't agree that the bathroom should be considered inbound. I must tell you, though, I'm far more concerned with,

why Senator Sinema was at a PAC retreat, a political action committee retreat, as reconciliation negotiations are well underway. And she's at the heart of those negotiations. Then I am with what was a minor inconvenience in her life. Right. Exactly. I mean, I thought Biden actually shut it down really well when he just said, you know, this is not a story. But it is fascinating to me to see the same people who thought that generally, January 6 was no big deal hysterical about the bathroom thing. Well, that's because cinema is doing the bidding, really, of Republicans at this point when it comes to the obstruction in which she's been engaging.

And so it should be, I think, telling to her that she's now gotten support from people like Stephen Miller and the party of insurrection. Hopefully, that's a wake-up call for her as she considers her actions moving forward. Yeah, I think that's right. Thank you so much for joining us. Representative Jones, I hope you can come back. Thank you for having me. Of course. Hey, folks, if you haven't heard every single week we do a special bonus episode for Beast Inside,

the Daily Beast membership program. Sometimes we interview senators like Corey Booker or the folks who explain what's happening behind the scenes in media, like Jim Acosta or Soladad O'Brien. Sometimes we just have fun and talk to our favorite comedians and actors like Busy Phillips or Billy Eichner, and sometimes we just have friends around to analyze what's happening in the news. You can get all of our episodes,

in your favorite podcast app of choice by becoming a Beast inside member where you'll support the Beast fearless journalism as well as getting full access to podcasts and articles. To become a member, head to new abnormal. that's New Abnormal.com. That's New Abnormal. tadleybeast.com.

Dr. Timothy Snyder is a historian and author of On Tyranny, which now has a graphic edition. I want to talk to you first about where you think America is right now. At the structural level, we have a big problem. And our big problem is that our Constitution, at least as the Supreme Court understands it, enables a pretty easy, straightforward and transparent way to undo voting. You know, the states control voting.

The states control a lot of other stuff. We are set up pretty well for a situation where the Republicans take control in 2022 of both houses. and then finagle in a presidential candidate who clearly loses in 2024, with the consequence then of some kind of considerable civil unrest, because by then a lot of folks are going to be aware of this kind of scenario is possible. They're not going to like it. And I don't think that non-Republican Americans are going to lay down quite the same way that Republicans maybe expect them to lie down.

So that's where we are. I mean, that's like that's the news story, which is before our eyes. I'm not saying it's inevitable. And I'm not saying that it doesn't have deeper causes. But for me, that's that's the scenario which is like right in front of our foreheads. Right. That is ultimately what we've been hearing a lot about, this idea that we sort of roll into a slow rolling civil war. If you look at the way democracies fall around the world, you don't necessarily need a kind of January 2021 event.

What you do need is people to hold back for too long. and you need unimaginative plus malicious legalism to get you to the point where your democracy is just stale and no one really believes in it and the counter candidates can't win. But that's the story of Hungary and it's also largely the story of Russia. The problem is that, like, so there was a guy, Trump, right? And now that guy's no longer president, but his big lie plus basic flaws in our legal and constitutional system opens up this scenario where there's a big media, safe. space for people lying about what happened and there are institutional opportunities to make voting more difficult for some people, easier for other people, and changeable at the end. Right. That's another thing. I mean, what I saw that was pretty scary were these Trumpy

secretaries of state who are running for office who won't admit that Trump lost the last election. Yeah, this is the thing. Like, I mean, this is going to be an old-fashioned conservative remark of mind, since there are very few old-fashioned conservatives around anymore somehow, but you have to have people who believe in rules. You have to have people who have some kind of normative attachment, ethical attachment to procedures and are willing to believe in procedures for their own sake. I mean, the whole justification of our constitution was that the king, that the king was a tyrant because he didn't follow his own procedures. And now we've gotten ourselves to a point. where we think that not following our own procedures is somehow a sign of liberty. But it's not. It's a sign. It's a sign of tyranny. Like, even the folks who only care about the 18th century should be able to suss that out. And it is frightening because most of the time around the world, when people go through these electoral procedures, there is something funny about it. And it's a slippery slope to having, you know, a little something to be a little bit funny to be, to something being a lot funny. And it's very hard to climb back.

up that slippery slope once you start going down it. And I think it's important because it does seem to me like Democrats are not focused on this. They're focused on electric cars and free glasses. And Republicans are focused on consolidating power and getting people on the school board who will rubber stamp Trumpism. I mean, it seems to me Democrats are like in complete denial about this. Well, I mean, I guess I would put in one cheer for Democrats there. I think in fairness, if they had three more votes in the Senate, we would have meaningful reform of our elections. And they, you know, and they, and they, and they don't. That's the single most important thing that the House and Senate could do is make America a democracy procedurally, you know, to clean up the various kinds of rickety messes that we have from the past and prevent, prevent new ones in the future.

I think a lot of Democrats are concerned about it, but they're, they're kind of stuck because they don't have their majority, at least not yet. And there's also, there's also the issue of the Supreme Court. Court. You know, I mean, so Democrats are in this awkward position where they have to be both the party of the status quo and the party of progress. Right. They have to both defend the system the way it is and talk about how it can be better. And so they need, you know, so it's the Supreme Court on the one hand is this reaction, you know, in its current form is a reactionary, largely anti-democratic, not just in its form, but also in its rulings institution. But Democrats hesitate to take aim at it because they're the ones who are about preserving institutions. So they're caught because they're playing all these different roles, whereas Republicans have the freedom to just kind of be against everything,

right, to be anti-systemic, to have no vision of the future, no vision of stability, but just to be anti-systemic, to be anti-everything. So I take your point. I mean, I think that like, I think that there is some degree of like exhalation and like there's an idea that, okay, Biden is in and maybe we're a little bit too worried. And there's like, and I think people just have. trouble taking in the full drama of January 6th and what that means about us. I think that's all there and that's all human. And I think the Republicans, as you say, they have a kind of Leninist concentration on institutions and what institutions really matter. And that's, and that's what that's what they're going for. Yeah, I think that's a really good point. And I hadn't thought of that. I mean,

it makes a lot of sense that it's just Democrats are really conflicted. And how do you save institutions while protecting democracy? When people talk about Weimar, Germany in the 20s and 30s, that was the problem. The center-left party then had to be both the protector of the Constitution, which is super boring, and they had to proffer changes during a time of crisis. It is hard to do both those things at the same time. And Democrats in the 21st century basically found themselves in that trap, that they can't be as radical as they need to be because they also have to preserve the system.

And then they get stuck. So, you know, I think Biden's giving it a shot. You know, he's much more radical than folks expect him to be. But that's their structural problem. And the Republicans have kind of pushed this to their own logical extreme because they have neither, right? They're not about protect. They don't have a future. There's no future involved in a Republican program except climate extinction, if you want to call that a figure.

And they're undermining the institutions, right? They're just, they're going broke. The reason that the Republican Party embraced Trumpism ultimately was because, they were such a weak party, right? Oh, gosh. I mean, I'm sure they're American historian or political scientists who'd be better enough than I would. I mean, I think they had their own contradiction,

which was, we are the party of the way things are, and we hate Washington. And I think that, you know, and the Tea Party sort of brought out that contradiction and Trump finished it off. But Trump finished it off by saying, no, we're just against Washington. We're just against, you know, we're against everything,

except the things that the leader personally happens to favor, right? And that's Trumpism, because it's not that, you know, obviously Trump was super corrupt, but he wasn't systematically corrupt. He was personally corrupt. And so now the way the Republican Party has shifted is that it's all about indulging personal corruption, right? It's as opposed to like some kind of systemic break for certain kinds of institutions. People now have a taste for being oppressed by the tribal.

leader. And that's, you know, we've had that in American history, but in recent American history, that's relatively new. Right. It is relatively new. I mean, what would you say if you were to look back on a time that is, that sort of resembles this the most in American history? Yeah. In terms of the turning away from the world, you know, the 20s, in terms of the dislocation, you know, the 30s, although the 30s were worse. In terms of the messed up racial democracy, you know, it would be the period after 1877. I couldn't really pick a period. I mean, we kind of have a grab, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, that are going on, right? I mean, they're there, they're, there, and it's also good in a way,

like the 1930s because there's a certain amount of rethinking about what government can do and some attempts in the federal government to, to be much more ambitious. But it is a panoply of fucked upness in a way that we haven't seen in our lifetime. Well, it depends on, it depends on, it depends on you are, right? I mean, my lifetime, I'm 42. 43. Yeah, I mean, I guess what I was trying to say is like, it kind of depends on whether you're black. Right, right, right. So a lot of like what seems new and what doesn't seem new depends on what you think the 60s and 70s and 80s were like. And the 60s, 70s and 80s were generally good decades for, you know, generally, generally, grossomoto, good decades for, for Americans. But, you know, that welfare state that we used to have and that

American dream that we used to have, both of which we've lost, thanks to our own decisions, you know, didn't affect black folks the same way they affected everybody else. That's, that's, that's all I meant to say by that. Yeah, no, and I think that's an important point, and we should always be sort of thinking about how things affect people other than ourselves. So that was a good, I think a really good and important reminder. Talk to me about the book and what your prescription is. The most important lesson of on tyranny is number one, which is don't obey in advance. Right. And don't obey in advance means you have to have your own sense of what's normal. You know, so politics has to begin with ethics. It's not like the Russians say. It's not like Trump says. It's not just a game. It's not just about who's stronger. It's not just about developing a taste for other people's pain. Like it begins with who you think you are and what you value. And you have to hold that steady as the world around you changes. And if you can do that, you know, then the other lessons, which are things like defend institutions, which is number of.

Number two, then the other lessons become possible, right? And then defend institutions is about enlivening things, you know, because American institutions are imperfect, you know, as your initial questions correctly, you know, led us to. And institutions in general only work as well as people expect them to work or help them to work. And so, you know, this, so the second lesson is lean into civil society, make these things work better than they're going to work. And then later, Later on, one of the important lessons up for this conversation is number 10, which is believe in truth. This panoply that you speak of, I'm not disagreeing with you that there's a whole lot of stuff compressed into one moment. But one of the reasons that's possible is that a big lie is like a black hole in politics, which sucks in a whole bunch of stuff at the same time.

So the big lie that Trump won the election enables, number one, a sense of polarization between people who believe in, people who don't. Number two, it enables a safe space in the media for people who want to believe this fairy tale. Number three, it creates a kind of litmus test for a political party. In this case, the Republicans, who believes this and who doesn't? Let's get rid of the people who don't believe it. Number four, it creates institutional opportunities for voter suppression, right? So it packs a whole bunch of stuff inside it. It's not just the absence of truth.

A big lie is a kind of, it's an alternative reality which enables people, you know, to make their vision, like to try to force their vision of what actually happened into the real world with all kinds of terrible consequences. So when you talk about this, it's probably important to talk about this anti-critical race theory happening in the Republican Party right now, because that is a sort of an eraser of history, right? It's cowardice is what it is. It's just cowardice. I mean, an elementary principle of civics is that you take responsibility. And if you want to know what you're taking responsibility for, you have to know something about history. It's not about feeling guilty. It's also not about feeling good about yourself. It's about having a realistic sense of what happened in the world and what happened in your country. And therefore, what's possible? And I mean, being like being a white legislator and saying, I am not enough of a human

being to face up to what American history actually is, is just cowardly. And if you're if you're a coward about the past, obviously you're going to lie down, you know, in front of the future. You're inviting, you're inviting tyranny. And I think it's that like, it's this confusion that Americans have, a lot of Americans anyway, with feeling good about yourself in the moment, you know, with this kind of immediate gratification, like, okay, those, you know, I don't have to think about segregation or I don't have to think about voter suppression, right? That's very attractive. It's like candy, you know, in politics. Like, give me, give me another sucker, right? And, And whereas if you want to be Democrat, like democracy is a process of self-correction.

And to be so and to self-correct, you have to know what you're correcting. And that's not about your feelings personally. It's not about guilt. It's not about it's not about pleasure. It's about it's about this civic capacity to get hold of reality, you know, so that you can maybe change it a little bit. Because Democrats like democracy, republics like Republicans like about republics. But in both cases, those are ideals. We don't really have either of those things.

democracies and republics have thousands of years of history. You know, ours has a couple hundred, and you learn from that history to try to self-correct. The moment you give up on self-correction, you're giving up on both the democracy and the republic, and you can't get to self-correction without history. And in the American case, you can't get to history without racial history. So, you know, if you're going to be a coward, if you can't face up to the past, if you're going to teach your children to be cowards by not educating them about the basic things they need to know, you know, then what you're doing is saying, hey, I would like to be oppressed.

I would like to have people tell me nice stories. I would like to have the tribal leader tell us how we're innocent, and that's how it's all going to end. I'm so depressed. Thank you so much. This was fantastic. Thank you for joining us. Okay. Well, yeah, you didn't ask me the question about how it's all going to end happily, so there we are.

Max Chaffkin is the author of The Contrarian, Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley's pursuit of power. Welcome, Max, Max, to the new abnormal. Thanks for having me. very excited to have you. Peter Thiel is like obviously very scary. So it is with great anxiety that I interview you for this episode of the podcast. Yeah, I'll do my best to, to allay your concerns. So I do think, you know, there's really, there are actually a lot of reasons to pay attention to this guy. And he is. There are aspects of him that are, that are scary. And that's part of the reason that, you know, that I wrote the book. Were you worried? I mean, the guy brought down a website

were you worried about writing a book about him? I mean, I feel like I would be a little nervous. It's funny, I keep getting this question, and the answer is, yeah, I'm worried. But there's kind of an important couple of caveats. Teal is famous, kind of, as you said, for having been the behind-the-scenes player in the lawsuit that destroyed Gawker media. Right. And it was a revenge plot involving a 2008 post in which Gawker, outed him publicly. Teal's gay, and he had been out to friends and to his co-workers, but not in

that kind of public way. And that was kind of the cause, at least as Peter Teals told the story. And doing that, of course, creates this incredible chilling effect, not just doing it, and then claiming credit for it as he did. And not only claiming credit, but saying it was awesome. I mean, he's talked about it as his greatest philanthropic act ever. And doing that creates this chilling effect, not just for journalists, but also for for sources, of course, because now any, not just any reporter who is thinking about writing a story about Peter Thiel, but any source who, you know, is thinking about talking to a reporter, anyone who's even tangentially related to this is going to be thinking about it and is thinking

about it. I think that you can have, like, smart people can maybe disagree on Gawker, right, and the specifics of that case. But the thing that's really unfortunate is what this did is create kind of a playbook that not just Teal can follow, right, to intimidate other journalists, but any billionaire can follow it. And by bragging about it, by kind of laying it out, he has sort of created not just a permission structure, but sort of a here's a how-to of how to push around journalists. And so, like, I am afraid of Peter Thiel,

but I'm also afraid of any billionaire because any billionaire could do this same thing to any journalist and probably will at some point, unfortunately. Oh, God. All right, now I'm just depressed. Often during these interviews, I cycle through different emotions. Let's talk about Facebook because some of the really shocking allegations in your book revolve around Facebook. Yeah, so Facebook, just to set it up, I mean, Teal started PayPal and started Palantir.

And kind of around the same time he started Palantir, he was the first investor in Facebook. He's the first person really in the outside world to see Mark Zuckerberg for the kind of troublemaking genius that he is. And Teal made a $500,000 investment. He got 10% of the company. he made a billion dollars on that or thereabouts and has been on the board ever since, has been this kind of key mentor and then more recently, you know, as during the Trump presidency anyway, kind of a power broker, somebody who could kind of help Mark Zuckerberg navigate the Trump administration. So Max, you did have some news though that broker this so that he

talked about being more kind of conservatives with the Trump administration. Can you talk to us about that? Can you just sort of tell us the whole story from the beginning on how this came up? Yeah. So Teal's influence in Facebook, starting around early 2016, as I said, he becomes this kind of middleman between Zuckerberg and the Republicans. So going back to 2016, there was this little mini scandal that broke in the spring of 2016, you know, before Trump had the nomination or just as he was locking it up, where a bunch of conservatives started complaining that Facebook was discriminating against their point of view. And I think there are reasons to kind of question the substance of this complaint. You know, conservatives have done exceedingly well on Facebook. I think you could make an argument that, you know, conservative activists have done better on the platform than the left. Yeah.

Ben Shapiro especially. Yeah, this meme definitely was picking up steam. And there had been a little scandal involving Facebook creating this sort of news service. Anyway, Tiel arranges this meeting with like 15 of the top, you know, figures from conservative media. not the kind of far right conservative media, but kind of more like mainstream figures. So, you know, Heritage Foundation. Glenn Beck is there.

Yeah, Ben Shapiro. I actually don't know if Shapiro is in that meeting, but it's, yeah. But yeah, it's the kind of, it's that kind of world, the kind of right-wing talking heads on Fox News and CNN, when they have, you know, obviously CNN is different Fox News, but you know what I'm saying. So anyway, that meeting leads to this kind of understanding

that's brokered between Facebook and the right, where Zuckerberg says to this group of conservatives, listen, like, I care about you. I'm not going to, I'm not going to discriminate against you. He tweaks this or ends this kind of news program that Facebook was trying to create that would have promoted sort of more mainstream journalism over sort of viral social content. Okay, so that probably helps Trump a little bit during the 2016 election, as does Facebook's kind of general position towards disinformation,

nation, which I think comes to some extent from Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel's a libertarian. He's had a huge influence on Zuckerberg. So I think, you know, probably 2016 election, Facebook, you know, does some help for the Trump campaign, but Teal doesn't have that big an influence. Then Trump gets into power. And Trump, as we, as we know, you know, kind of made pushing around, you know, publicly sort of using the bully pulpit or the bully, you know, Twitter account or whatever, to push around executives. And one of the, one of his targets, of course, is Mark Zuckerberg. Trump is, you know, from time to time, railing against Facebook, saying that they're discriminated against him, discriminating against his followers, that maybe it should be regulated like a utility. There's this

kind of gathering storm of conservative anger towards the platform. And some of that anger, I should say, is coming from Peter Thiel. But Zuckerberg, in response, makes further accommodations. And Teal plays a role in that. And that's, and that's, I think, think what you were hinting at. So in October 2019, Zuckerberg was coming under fire for a series of ads that the Trump campaign had run where they were basically lying about Hunter Biden and there was manipulated. You remember the sort of manipulated videos of Nancy Pelosi? Zuckerberg's getting a lot of pressure from like Elizabeth Warren figures on the left to kind of rein that in, to say, hey, you shouldn't be able to lie in a political ad and distribute it to hundreds of millions of people.

As part of that pushback, Zuckerberg gives a speech in Georgetown where he justifies Facebook's refusal to do so. And then he has a meeting with Donald Trump. And in that meeting are Donald Trump and his wife and Zuckerberg and his wife and Peter Thiel and his husband and Jared Kushner and Ivanka. Oh, Jesus. Not a table I want to be at. It's like being in hell. Sorry, gone. That meeting was a secret.

No one knew about it for a couple months and it came out. and then still what exactly happened in that meeting was a secret. I'll give you some sort of insights, and some of this is new in the book. After the meeting, Teal told a friend, according to the friend, that Zuckerberg and Jared Kushner basically reached an accommodation where Facebook was going to continue to kind of, you know, basically have a soft touch on Trump in the Trump campaign and would, you know, have a soft touch on conservative political websites. And now Facebook has denied this.

And there's been this kind of discussion about, you know, what exactly happened. You know, Facebook says it's ridiculous. Zuckerberg has said it's ridiculous. Right. And I mean, if you can't trust Mark Zuckerberg. And there seems to be a lot of metrics that show that there's a pretty heavy weighting towards conservative sites. Even if you look at the top 10 Facebook sites every week, it's like Ben Shapiro is one.

through sex. Exactly. Yeah, it's like three Shapiro's, five Bongino's and, you know, an acute puppy or something. But yeah, I mean, I think the thing that I just shared, Teal's assessment of it, right? That is interesting. And maybe Teal misunderstood or whatever, or maybe

his friend is misunderstood Teal or something like that. But the thing is, when you actually look at what has happened since then, as you said, it's pretty clear that Facebook did kind of go easy on the Trump campaign. Not just because, not just because of the the sort of sudden burst of conservative websites.

You know, right after that October meeting, Facebook created these, I forget what they called it, but it was sort of like news sites that were blessed as legitimate sources. And, you know, on that list is Breitbart. And the daily caller. Isn't the caller on the fact checker list? Yes. And, of course, Ben Shapiro is another one of these kind of gets in this kind of privileged position. And you could argue, you know, you can kind of like talk through each of those.

And, you know, I think Breitbart today is a little bit different from Breitbart, you know, as it was under Bannon and you know in 2015 or something i mean but i think that's a stretch okay i'm just trying to you know give the other other other other side of it but you know you add all that up and then you add in reporting from buzzfeed in particular that that has done a lot of did a lot of good work you know kind of in the run-up in the 2020 cycle around sort of the ways in which facebook was sort of accommodating to these people kind of giving you know ben shapiro and his ilk a little more leeway than they might give the rest of us. And then when you look at the way that Facebook actually related to Donald Trump,

I mean, when Trump, you know, makes that, you know, looters, shooters statement, which is kind of a call back to George Wallace, Twitter bans it and Trump and Facebook doesn't. Now, of course, Facebook eventually, you know, after the January 6th insurrection or failed insurrection, you know, does ban Trump. So they do act. And I think there's probably credit to be given there. But I think there was a clear case where Facebook saw that, you know, being nice to Trump, and this is kind of what I report in the book, what, what, what, what to the extent that there was a deal, the deal was, you know, be nice to Trump and Trump is going to kind of back off the company. Stop, you know, getting on Twitter every day and saying, you know, Facebook, you know, Mark Zuckerberg needs to go to jail and, and Facebook should be broken up. And now we're seeing him do it again. So I mean, you know, now that he's, you know, sort of, I guess, exploring a 2024 run. So, so, so that pressure is, is, is, is, is always going to be there for somebody like Zuckerberg. And Teal then is the broker, is the person

who is both trying to, you know, basically push Mark Zuckerberg towards the right, you know, which is where Peter Thiel is, but also to some extent perhaps defend Facebook against these allegations and find ways to accommodate, you know, folks like Donald Trump. Uh, my heart hurts. Max, so there's been a lot of speculation out of pure Teal's motivations are more in the ugly Bannon stuff of like white replacement theory or if it's just profits and he just wants his companies to do well. What do you see around this spectrum of things and what do you think his political motivations are?

Well, I'm glad you mentioned Bannon because I do think that that is a clear touchstone, you know? I mean, I think when you think like, well, what does Peter Thiel believe? Bannon was his kind of key ally in the White House, you know, when he had influence in the White House in 2017. And I think that that kind of, you know, ban in hard right nationalism with like extremely, you know, extremely hawkish on immigration.

Like that is, that is what Teal believes. Now, also though, Teal is an investor and he's a brilliant investor. And part of the reason I think, you know, it's worth doing a book on him. And part of the reason it's worth, you know, whatever, admiring him if you're a conservative or being scared of him is that he's so good at it. I think it's very hard to untangle the investment with the ideology. Like the way I think about of him is, you know, the Koch brothers in the 90s and 2000s, right, they had this kind of amazing thing going where they had the business and this political project

that's kind of focused on influencing the mainstream Republican Party. And those two things work together. I mean, you know, there have been a couple of really good books written about this. I think Teal's trying to play that role with the hard right. If there's a Trump political party or a Trump faction, Teal wants to be the Koch brothers to that faction. And so it is ideological, but of course the ideology has business implications. Teal got very rich, much richer than he already was during the Trump presidency.

And when you see these candidates that he's pushing, they're not just pushing views that are sort of hardcore nationalistic or whatever. They're also pushing policies that will help Peter Thiel and will improve his bottom line. But here's a question for you that I think is just, I just want to engage. for a minute. Trumpism is actually, I mean, just as someone who, you know, has some ideas about business being married to someone who's venture capitalists, Trumpism is quite bad for business, ultimately. I mean, it's not capitalism, it's crony capitalism, right? It's like attacking companies that piss you off. It's, I mean, I understand that this, you know, he's trying to work it for himself, but he must have, I mean, the reason the Koch brothers turned on Trump

in the way that they did, which isn't very much, but a little bit, was because they deemed him bad for business. I mean, is Peter Thiel just so ideological that he doesn't really care? Well, I think there are aspects of Trumpism that you say that do threaten, I guess, parts of the tech industry. And of course, for instance, you know, as I said, Trump was hammering, you know, Facebook and the rest of the tech companies every day. Peter Thiel, you know, was an investor in Facebook and is on the board.

Now, you know, you look a little closer, though. Teal has not actually owned a lot of Facebook stock since, like, 2012. A personal attack on Facebook, while if, like, Mark Zuckerberg were, you know, were deposed or something, that would hurt Peter Teal's influence. It wouldn't necessarily hurt his wallet. And the thing that Teal was doing during the Trump administration was kind of trying to redirect some of that energy towards Google. So Teal gave a big speech saying that the CIA should investigate Google's, you know, collaboration. with the Chinese government. That's a spurious allegation.

Yeah, I'll say. But it had the effect of kind of focusing Trump for a couple of news cycles on Google and away from Facebook. Teal has a major defense contractor, Palantir. I mean, he's a different kind of capitalist than your average tech guy in the sense that a lot of his net worth comes from this defense contractor.

And so nationalist politics, while, yeah, it's really bad for, like, Apple, which sells a lot of smartphones in China or really any company that, depends on the global supply chain, a lot of Teal's companies stand to kind of benefit from that Trumpist approach. That's not to say that Trumpism is like is a consistent ideology that, you know, necessarily helps anyone. In the past, Peter Thiel had kind of this stuff of like, you know, 10 years ago, there was a lot of libertarian things like sea steading and things like that that everybody

was kind of laughing at that he had a toe in that he really wanted like this ideal world of no regulations. Do you think that's where he still is at, or is he found another way where he thinks he's going to, instead of leave America with his policies and find an incubator outside of its borders, that he wants to make all this happen within its borders? Well, you're pointing to like a really important inconsistency in Teal's ideology. And I think there is an extent, and you know, I talk about this in the book. I mean, there's an extent to which he doesn't really have an ideology because because some of these things are almost irreconcilable. Right. So C-steading, this kind of hyper...

Will you explain? So the idea of C-steading, which Tiel kind of helped, he didn't create it, but he funded the nonprofit that they created it. It's this idea that you're going to create these floating ships or floating islands or like, you know, platforms, like offshore oil platforms, that people will go to live on. And on those platforms, you know, there'll be no taxes. There'll be no government. You'll be able to kind of do whatever you want. So it'll be like, you know, an economic refuge for wealthy people, but also a place where, for instance, drugs are legal, where pharmaceutical companies can, you know, do whatever they want. You know, there's no FDA. And so it's this kind of almost like a crazy thought, a crazy libertarian thought experiment.

You're like, what would a libertarian paradise be? And you just sort of make one on a cruise ship. The idea has kind of gone sideways, but TEL has continued to support aspects of this philosophy. And I think, you know, really does kind of strongly believe, you know, that, that, that, at the very least the taxes that he shouldn't be taxed, you know, by the government or shouldn't be taxed to the extent that the government wants to tax him. As you say, this is completely inconsistent with Trumpism. And there are tons of aspects of Teal's career that seem inconsistent with Trumpism. And I think that is a reason why, you know, the question that, that I think Molly asked earlier about, you know, is he just out for money? I mean, where you do sort of wonder,

is this, are these ideas part of some kind of coherent worldview? Or are they just a series of positions that are advantageous to Peter Thiel, the hedge fund manager. And I think the latter, although he does, I mean, I think there is always some, there is earnest belief here. It isn't just completely cold-blooded, but I think he tends to embrace positions that are advantageous. And the thing that's advantageous about C-steading and these similar movements is it's a way to advocate for lower taxes. Right. Oh, Jesus. We're all going to die. Do you get the sense that he is, going to be that his involvement is just going to grow? I think in Silicon Valley he's kind of at a turning point where he hasn't he hasn't actually lived in Silicon Valley for a while.

Is he live in Texas? Well, he's no, I mean he sort of relocated. He was in Miami for the pandemic, or sorry, Maui for the pandemic. Oh, that's smart. He did not go to New Zealand where he has citizenship and where many people had sort of assumed that he would go. A lot of my VC friends went to New Zealand. Yeah, I mean, Maui's, you know, probably gets you a lot of the same It's the same flavor. I think Maui's a little more fun, too. Yeah, and then he bought a place in Miami. So it's sort of unclear, honestly, where his residence is going to be for 2021.

But my guess is he's got a lot of capital gains. My guess it's going to be somewhere that does not have a state capital gains tax. So Miami. California, yeah. On the other hand, though, he is continuing to make lots and lots of tech investments. Founders fund, his venture capital firm is still, you know, with one other firm, you know, the basically the biggest deal VC in tech. And but I think the real place where he's got a ton of influences is in politics.

You know, Teal after, you know, the Trump, the failed insurrection, you know, kind of really blew up the Republican Party in a lot of ways. And Teal has emerged with this kind of effort to play patron to the Trumpist movement. And we're seeing that with the $10 million investment or $10 million donation. into a PAC funding JD Vance. Can we talk about J.D. Vance for a minute. Vance worked for Teal, right? So Teal sort of read his book, discovered him and hired him, right?

Yeah, that's how it seems. And Vance is very much in the kind of... Teal has a type, right? And his type is conservatives who are kind of bomb throwers, but who can fit in, who can kind of hang among the liberal establishment. So J.D. Vance, of course, you know, Yale Law School, has a Ron Howard movie, has a best-selling memoir. more. Like, he's very much a figure of the kind of liberal establishment as Steel sees it, but he's also

this bomb thrower who, you know, is going around saying that Alex Jones is a better source of information than Rachel Maddo. And Vance, as he said, worked for Mithril Capital, which is one of Teal's firms, Mithril's an investor in Palantir. That only lasted a couple years because Vance then, you know, sort of pursued a political career. But Vance also has this venture capital from Naria, where Teal is an investor, probably the main investor, like once You know, because once, when somebody starts a venture capital firm, like if you can get a key, you know, limited partner like Peter Thiel, especially somebody who's willing to put their name on it, that, you know, brings in other investors. And this firm Naria, Vance and Teal have both invested in this conservative website Rumble. So they're doing business together still.

And so Vance is like, he was kind of a never-trumper, but right around the time that Peter Thiel, you know, donated $10 million to his pack, Vance had a check-de-heart on Sebastian Gorka's podcast. and realized, you know, in fact, Trump was great, and, you know, he was, he now says he was wrong about it and is kind of just embracing the kind of hard right nationalism, nativism, you know, the whole deal. Right. From Yale to Sebastian Gorka. I mean, talk about a career going horribly wrong. Change of heart on Sebastian Gorka's podcast. It's the worst song title I've ever heard. It's maybe, though, it's the only way, you know, you can win a Republican primary now. I mean, you know, and, you know, And Vance may not win. I mean, he's got a competitor who is also running as a Trumpist. Yes.

He's actually got many competitors. Yeah, totally. And I think these guys that, I think there is a question about whether Teal's type, which is, as I said, these kind of like hyperverbal, you know, elite troublemakers, has any appeal. We do have a couple, though, who have already made it into Congress. So Josh Hawley was a, you know, kind of a protege of Teal as well as, so was Ted Cruz. And again, they both fit that same kind of, you know, Ivy League plus, you know, plus Alex Jones or whatever. Plus a hideous human being.

Thank you so much for joining us. This was great. I'm so excited for the book. Yeah, thank you for having me. What's crazier than QAnon? More outlandish than Pizza Gate? And scarier than a Mexican getaway with Ted Cruz? The answer is what the American right wing has planned next.

Be one of the first to listen to Fever Dreams, new podcasts from The Daily Beast, tracking the conspiracy slingers, orange acolytes, and straight-up grifters pushing to retake power. Every Wednesday hosts Swin Subisang and Will Summer checking in on the movement

of the radical right. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash podcasts or your favorite podcast player to catch the first episode and get subscribed. That's fever dreams which you can subscribe

to wherever you get your podcasts. Jesse Cannon. Molly John Fast. What's going on? A lot of fuckery. So I just want to talk about this. For a second, the scandal that by tomorrow you'll be sick of, but is just growing. By tomorrow is really optimistic for me.

It is currently, as we tape this, mushrooming like things that are mushrooms. So Bathroom Gate, this weekend, some activists followed Kirsten Cinema into a bathroom. She was teaching at her class in Arizona at the state university. Right. And some activists followed her into a bathroom. This got white supremacist Stephen Miller very angry. If you're being defended by Stephen Miller, it's not a good sign. Molly, did you notice Stephen Miller's new Twitter picture that he's so white that the photo

actually comes out grainy because they used a white background with it and they can't get contrast between his skin without adjusting the contrast and not have it be grainy. My fellow Photoshop heads will know what I mean. I just miss the hair in a can. I want him back with the hair in a can. I agree. But this fucking bathroom gate has now become a right-wing talking point. The right is very mad.

They're mad that one of the activists was an illegal immigrant. Very mad because they don't like that. And they're very mad about people harassing Kirsten Cinema because the people who supported the January 6th riot, you may or may not know this, but they are. are all about civility. It seems odd that the people who wanted to, quote, hang Mike Pence

are concerned with civility, but there you have it. Molly, you're forgetting there's somebody else who was mad about this. It was Kirsten Cinema was mad that there was no bomosa station inside the bathroom. So Joe Biden

asked about it because press conferences are for asking incredibly stupid questions and he said this is what happens. And And he's right. And he said, I don't condone it. I don't think it's great. But it's what happens.

It was like a two-second answer because, you know why? Because it's a two-second bullshit scandal. And that is why I say to you, fuck everyone, including Kirsten Cinema, who's involved with bathroom gate, get me some almonds and a tan suit right now. Jesse Cannon, who is your fuck that guy? Mine is a favorite of the pod. Oh, let's hear it. Friend of the pod? Enemy of the pod?

One disgraced former mayor, the man with the ultimate glowdown of the last year, even though he was starting on a pretty shitty place. Rudolph Giuliani had to testify the other day about the election, quote unquote, being stolen, and they asked where he got his sources to claim that the election was stolen. Molly, what reputable source did he say he got it from? Facebook? That is correct. But of course.

Every conservative old man's favorite news source, Facebook. And, you know, while we can't for once blame Facebook for this, what we can say is, is my God, it is so sad that this is where we're at, that this is where people like him are getting their information. I mean, it's sad, but it could be, you know, so if you're a fuck that guy of this week is Facebook and it should be shut down. and Mark Zuckerberg should be I'm accepting this as a proper hijack of my Fuck that guy And I've been allowed to pass Okay good

On that note We'll wrap this episode of the new abnormal From The Daily Beast In future episodes We'll be talking to smart folks From the Daily Beast and beyond From media, culture Politics and Science

We'll help us understand What's happening to our country and the world We hope you'll subscribe to us On your favorite podcast app and share the show on social media. Thanks so much for listening, and we'll see you again on the next episode. Want more great listens?

Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline.

Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.