The Daily Beast Podcast - Why Desperate Trump Is Scrambling to Save His Base

Episode Date: March 22, 2026

Michael Wolff and Joanna Coles unpack a chaotic week inside the White House, from the Iran war’s growing political danger and fears of a midterm wipeout to the bizarre rise of “competitive Christianity” as rival factions weaponize faith for power. Wolff reveals how Trump’s erratic grip on reality is shaping the conflict abroad while aides scramble to contain fallout at home, even as tensions over Israel split his base and immigration crackdowns backfire. Meanwhile, in a surreal twist, Trump’s obsession with building a grand White House ballroom emerges as a defining fixation amid the crisis, and Wolff teases his explosive new Epstein series drawn from firsthand encounters. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Everybody is beginning to say to try to find the political formula in which, you know, Donald Trump and MAGA and this whole enterprise can be saved and beginning to worry that there is not such a formula. Turnout is going to be the key in terms of any chance, and there probably is no chance at this point of holding the house. but it also may well affect the Senate. And if the Senate goes, then Donald Trump goes. So the war itself, beyond the energy crisis,

that sense that he has betrayed his movement is, I think, real and going to bite him in the ass. Michael. Once more, Joanna. We have so much to get through. I want to hear about your new Epstein series. We have competitive Christianity with people trying to out-compete their prayers. We've got obviously the ongoing wall. We've got Cuba.

We've got the ballroom to discuss, which I know you have some info on. We've got the ice mea culpa from Trump and the realization this is not going to be good for them. And we have John Thune, who I'm going to admit is a bit of a new crush for me, that granite joy. is so much more presidential than Donald Trump's kind of mouldy hay hair. And we have the Save America Bill. The Save America Bill. Is it going to save America? So where do we begin?

And we should ask people to sign up if they haven't done to the podcast so that we can try and reach a million subscribers. We're almost 600,000. But our goal is a million. So if you haven't subscribed, please. Do you get tons of extra content? And we're going to be rolling out extra, extra benefits. A membership with benefits.

I assume our goal is not just a million. What? I assume our goal is not just a million. No, no, of course it's not just a million. But a million is very good on YouTube. And we love our YouTube partners and all the other partners, Apple, Spotify, wherever else you get your podcast. So where do you want to begin, Michael? You know, I have a theory.

I'm going to try out a theory here, which is, did I just see a cat? You did just see a cat. It's Saturday. We're doing this from home. I'm just going to introduce one of my cats to the world. Bug say hello. There we go. Normally he sits on my lap and you don't get a chance to see him, but you're getting an unusually intimate glimpse.

I didn't even know you had a cat. I've known you for 30 years. I've never known you to have, I've never associated you with an animal. That's upsetting. I have a dog, or my ex-husband got the dog, and I have two cats, actually, and I had two cats before. But this one is a nosy curious cat, so he may make appearances. Anyway, what is your theory that you want to try on us? You know, I think, but let's, there is this, one of the things that we've seen in the past, in the past week is,

this claim on Christianity. Pete Hegseth, you know, who has spent his life as a, basically as a falling down drunk, has clearly discovered Christ. And Christ is now in his version the reason for this war, because Christ is on our side. I think he, I mean, this is not, this was almost an official public. announcement the other day. And I think that, you know, Pete Hegeseth's view of Christ is that Christ has saved him, right, from a series of adulterous marriages and alcohol.

Yes, and now he's going to save, I suppose, the United States from a quagmire. But on the other, and that's his justification for the war, essentially. Christ is on our side. Christ is is the general. is the commander-in-chief. But on the other hand, Tucker Carlson, who has spent his life as a Juan Episcopalian, has suddenly discovered evangelical fever. And in his version, Christ is the reason we should not be fighting this war.

Mm-hmm. Because Tucker doesn't believe in killing anybody. I mean, he's big on that. I think he has a few caveats there. Of course he has a few caveats. Also, can I just make a point, how much higher can Tucker's laugh go? Since we've known him,

and I remember Tucker Carlson, I know you've not known him much longer than I have, but I remember him on MSNBC back in the day when they paid contributors, and Tucker was a regular contributor. And his voice was definitely lower. And now his laugh is almost at, it's on that scale where you almost can't hear it. No, but I find it actually when it's, it is both ridiculous and effective,

which is in a way of perfect description of the Donald Trump era. But, and I saw him, he did a long interview, and I've seen just pieces of it with the editor of the economist. And he uses that laugh to really puncture her balloon of correctness and in reasonableness. Well, I think we have a click from it. This is an interview he did with Zanny Minton Beddotes, who's the editor of the economist and a friend. And I admired her stoicism in line with his. provocation when she... Yeah, I mean, you might say that, or you might say, as I would, he wipes the floor with her.

You've asked two questions. The first was, do you believe Israel is a right to exist? And the second question was, do you believe Israel should continue to go on as a nation state? And those are very different questions. So I often hear the phrase... Having been created as a political entity in 1948, does that state... Does it have a right to exist? Is that what you're asking?

I don't want to get hung up on the right to... Should it continue to exist? That's how I define narrowly designs. Because the phrase you used was devised by the Israeli government, of course, does it have a right to exist? And so my question to you would be, what does that mean? Why don't you answer my question? It's a very simple question is. Are you asking, does it have a right to exist or do I want it to exist?

Do I seek its destruction? Fine. Answer it that way. Well, of course I don't seek its destruction. I've already said, as you know, because I said it to you. you, I don't want Israel to be destroyed or have to use nuclear weapons. We've established that you are in that narrow terms of Zionist. I am in no sense of Zionist.

I don't want any country to be destroyed at all, and I don't want people to die, particularly ones who committed no crime, because I don't believe in killing innocence, period. Well, we didn't get a chance to hear his laugh there, which is in evidence during the interview. Yeah, it is, it is. But that's also a lesson, a perfect lesson in how to debate. I mean, question somebody else's unquestioned language. And she just gave it up by essentially saying, well, let's not focus on what I said. Well, if we can't focus on what you said, what can we focus on?

I think she was just trying to keep the interview moving because he didn't want to. And he was sort of, I felt like he was trying to pirouette here. Yeah, but she didn't keep it moving. And he punctured her. I mean, she was, you know, you can't talk about the. I mean, that's an interesting thing. Israel's right to exist. And he's, I mean, the language of that.

And that's a phrase which people use without thinking, what does that mean? And the truth is, it doesn't mean anything, which she was relying on, well, we all say this. And he put her on that. So what's inside Trump's head about Tucker? I mean, Tucker is really stuck his stake in the ground. about being anti-war. I want to return to the Christ's thing here, because I think anybody, two theories,

anybody who's bringing, pushing Jesus out into the front, and we don't hear Tucker in that clip, but at other places in this interview, he's wheeling Jesus out. But anybody who is now wheeling Jesus out in this, in this very public way is I'm going to submit running for president. And I think that we're starting to see a shift. And the shift here is not about who's going to pick up the legacy of Donald Trump.

And I think that there's an awareness that the legacy of Donald Trump, if he goes down in the midterms, if this because of this unpopular, war because the economy continues to drag along. I think that's going to be a complicated legacy. So the legacy that I think they are starting to look toward, and they may not entirely have yet realized this, so I like to be in a position to tell them what's in their heads. The legacy is Charlie Kirk. So I think more and more, that's what we're going to see. everybody vying for Charlie Kirk's endorsement from heaven. And we know that at the moment it feels like J.D. Vance is closest to that endorsement.

He talks about God too. Yeah, no, he very much. So all of these people, and I think, and God or Christ, they don't really care about God, that God is for Jews. Christ is for Christians. And they are all using Christ. for different reasons. But the ultimate reason is the identification with Charlie Kirk. And of course, there's some issue very clearly, too, that Christ is the Christ in Israel are inimical in so many ways.

And the irony, of course, is it's hard to imagine a more godless bunch of people. Yes, I suppose. Was that almost a half agreement, Michael? That might be first. It is. I mean, I'm just trying to think, think in my in my Tucker sense, what does godless mean? Well, I think what my observation about it would be, it's this performative, competitive Christianity. When Pete Hegseth goes into his old, I want you to get down on bended knee and pray to God, it just feels like a performance as if he's clinging to something because he's a man drowned.

Well, I mean, I think it's gone further than that. They have turned, and this has been going on for certainly for some time in the Republican Party, that Christ is a political entity. Right. And I mean, very clearly, the evangelicals have a, you know, have their particular use of Christianity, which is pointedly political. But, you know, as we see, as we see the other people come to this. And Charlie Kirk's use of Christianity was different from the evangelical's use of Christianity. But it all is in terms of political meaning and political event. Right.

And of course, the Democrats slightly remind me of the Church of England here, which is that you don't even have to believe in anything to be a member of the Church of England. You just turn up some perfectly nice people, you know, sing a hymn and then wander off into the morning. Well, I think worse that for the Democrats is that they're more like Jews. What does that mean? Well, I mean, to be Jewish, you don't really have to believe in God either. And the Democrats are so, the link between elites, which the Democrats are unfortunately elites, and the link between elites and Jews is so. clearly drawn by the MAGA people and is probably true also is something that the Democrats, I think, are, have not quite figured out how to deal with. They are on the wrong side of

Christianity, so speak. Yeah, I'm wondering in Zoran, Mamdani's New York, whether or not that's true. But anyway, I mean, it's clear that. No, that would miss the point entirely. New York is on the wrong side of Christianity as the greatest Jewish town on earth. Indeed. And of course, who comes from New York but Donald Trump? And what does he do with the Bible? He holds it upside down. He holds it upside down. And when asked what his favorite verse is or his favorite chapter, he can't remember. And he just says so many, got so many. He's still. He's still. not going to choose one because he's never read it. No, well, that's another interesting thing and a confounding thing.

And I don't think anybody, even the other MAGA people, can quite interpret this and get their heads around around this, that Donald Trump is the guy, was the guy, is the guy most embraced by the Christian political movement. And I mean, I can't. After all these years, I still can't begin to possibly explain that. The most debauch, depraved, godless guy, truly godless. Because he gave them the Supreme Court, because their issue was abortion for the evangelicals,

and he gave them the Supreme Court. Yeah, well, I think it may be even something deeper than that. They have the ability to essentially black men. mail him. He is so exposed on this issue that they provide his only cover. Does that make sense? The evangelicals provide his only cover. Yes, exactly, exactly. So they know, you know, this guy is, this is Donald Trump. But if we, if we support them, he gets to not be in some sense Donald Trump. And they give him air cover for all his previous sins. Right.

So that's a kind of leverage or blackmail over him. He has to deliver to them, constantly has to deliver to them because he has no independent basis in, shall we say, Christ. Okay. So let's move on to the war itself because I am thoroughly confused about where we are, as I think are most people. and we've got a Trump truth social post from last night slash this morning. We're recording this on Saturday morning saying we are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the terrorist regime of Iran. And then he goes on to say that we've completely degraded their missile capacity

and everything else pertaining to them. We've destroyed everything, basically. But of course, what we haven't managed to sort out is the Strait of Hormuz, which in another moment I caught myself thinking sounds like a great title for a novel about The Last Heterosexual in some kind of place like Mikanos or Fire Island. I just loved the idea of it, the Strait of Hormuz. And Hormuz is such a glorious name. Anyway, he's now saying because we don't use the Strait of Hormuz,

we shouldn't have to guard it, we don't need it, we're energy sufficient, and everybody else should guard it. So what are your thoughts on this? Well, two thoughts. You're making Donald Trump sound more like Donald Duck than Donald Trump. Fair, totally fair. I'm just trying not to give him the benefit of an English accent. And of course, we know that while he's saying this,

we've got vessels packed to the gills with Marines steaming towards the Gulf for potential boots on the ground. Well, let me. there was a New York Times editorial, I think today or maybe it came out yesterday, saying that Donald Trump is lying about the war. And I think that's interesting. It's interesting because of what it says about the New York Times and interesting what it says about Donald Trump. What it says about the New York Times is that after so long they continue to fail to understand this guy. What it says about Donald Trump is, is, he's not lying. That's, and the more dangerous fact of this is that he's

not lying. The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, and the truer fact inside Donald Trump, Donald Trump's head is that he actually believes what he says, that it is a such a, a, a, a profound misunderstanding of reality that all of this comes out, comes out in such contradictory terms in the same sentence or in sequential truth social posts. It just in it, to the extent that it means nothing, confuses everything, is helpful to nobody and points in no clear direction at all. So it is not lying.

God, the New York Times, it's really, really, how do they not get this? Well, I knew it was a, it was a lot. editorial from the editorial board and it just pointed out all the lies that he had told from the crowd sizes in Trump 1 to all sorts of things. Even that's a profound. Don't they get that? I mean, these are not lies. No one would tell such lies about such obvious things.

It's a much more serious condition, which is that he can't evaluate, appreciate, analyze, and accept reality. Which is just a terrifying, it's a terrifying thought as our troops are steaming towards the Strait of Hormuz. Well, I find it to more terrifying, almost that the leading newspaper in the country is so dim-witted. Well, you could argue that it's actually more frightening

that so many people voted for him and that he's the most important person on the globe right now. I'm trying to think about that as a, that's not in either or a situation. It's all of the above. Those different can be true at the same times. The New York Times is dim-witted and Americans are dim-witted. Anyway, I actually know, so I've been having a few conversations with people in the White House who are having to deal with this.

Now, imagine you're a person, you're in the White House, you have a position of responsibility. This is the, you know, certainly the thing that confronts you when you get up in the morning and pretty much every minute of the day that there is a war on. And if you're in the White House, you also have your half of your job is political. So it's like, well, what is this going to mean for us? And the answer to that is that it's going to be very bad, or it is potentially or likely very, very bad. So how do we begin to think about this? And it seems like they are starting to adapt of a formula here.

And the formula still has many unknown variables, but it really is all. about until next fall. How do we get to next fall? Where will we be at at that point in time, September and October when people are going to start to make their decisions about the midterms and, in fact, actually in many places, start to cast their votes? And so it's, it's does the war, at what point, how much longer, how much longer can the war go on without the war? that bleeding into those, into those months. So the unpopular war plus, plus the energy markets,

when will, if we get out of Iran in a month from now or two months from now, does that mean that the energy markets immediately return to normal? No. So how long before can the energy markets, Depending upon when we leave Iran, can the energy markets return to normal by September? One of the questions that's going on. But at the same time, if we don't accomplish at least the most basic things that the, that the President of the United States has declared we are there to do, if we don't accomplish those things, do they bleed over into September and October?

So if we still have a situation in which the actionable nuclear material has not been obtained, that the Iranians still possess it. Right. The uranium. Yes. And even worse, if they possess it in a chaotic leadership situation. So that's number one. And we don't seem to have, we don't seem to be moving in anybody's estimate.

toward a plan for how to extract that material. And any plan to extract that material may well end up in keeping us in Iran that much longer. So that's a problem. Then there's the problem of the regime itself. So we leave, you know, and then there's the other thing within the White House of everybody not knowing, I mean, literally we could, everybody could wait. up tomorrow, wake up to a post in which Donald Trump announces that we have withdrawn from Iran and the region and declared victory.

But what does that mean in terms of the regime still being in place? Does that bleed over into September and October? So everybody is beginning to say to try to find the political formula in which, you know, Donald Trump and MAGA and this whole enterprise can be saved and beginning to worry that there is not such a formula. Well, and let's assume that actually most people, most voters aren't actually that interested in Iran. Most of them can't find it on a map. What they are interested in, as we know, the key word around the election is affordability. This is going to drive prices up. And it

doesn't matter if we, if Donald Trump declares victory tomorrow or three months time. I don't really think that that's true. Well, I definitely think it's true in terms of the energy crisis impacting prices, right? Food is going to go up. Transport's going up. The gas prices are going up and they are going to see. We already see prices going up. Gas has gone up by a dollar already.

The idea that Americans don't care about Iran, I think, is, I think is probably faulty on a on a on a on a larger basis but on a specific basis in terms of republican turnout if there is that that's I mean just look at this as a turnout thing if the if there's a sense of ambivalence in the maga base that's going to going to profoundly affect turnout turnout is going to be the key in terms of of of any chance and there probably is not no chance at this point of holding the house. But it also may well affect the Senate. And if the Senate goes, then Donald Trump goes.

So the war itself, beyond the energy, which is the energy crisis and the energy costs, which is obviously directly related to the war, but even beyond that, that sense that he has betrayed his movement is, I think, real and going to bite him in the ass. He has betrayed his movement. Yeah, it's a great perspective on it. So what are we also hearing about one of the other issues, the ballroom, the ballroom? You know, well, one of the things, I mean, that kept coming up when I've had these discussions because in a kind of confounding sense, people within this,

within the White House circles say that he is as much as the war is top of mind, the ballroom is top of his mind. That somehow the ballroom has become this thing for him. It represents, it represents his presidency, his accomplishment, his dominance, and his vision to the extent that this man has vision. I think it's most clearly expressed in his, his own mind in what he can build. And it's always that. So it's under constant discussion, the ballroom, the ballroom, the ballroom, the ballroom. And they wield out this, the architect who we've been making fun of.

Shalom Baranas. Yes, you know, we should provide his contacts and emails again. It's info at sbaramas.com. And at any rate, and so he was wheeled out for an interview in which he says basically, you know, I can handle controversy and, et cetera, et cetera. But this was, they apparently wheeled him out and got him to go on the record on this because they were, they were afraid that he was getting squidgy on it, that he might actually also walk away from this. So that would be the second architect that's walked. walked away. Right. So a public interview, they feel, kind of commits him here. Do you think that one of the reasons that Donald Trump is interested in focusing so much on the

ballroom is because even though he thinks he knows everything, we know, in fact, he doesn't know very much, and that this is the one area that he feels some genuine agency in? No, no, no, I think it's, I think it's true. Building things is a, you know, one of the things, perhaps the only thing that he's ever kind of, kind of successfully accomplished. You know, although living in New York with these Trump buildings, you would hardly say that that's success. He sees himself as a builder. He sees himself, he sees the physical world as someplace that he's actually very comfortable in. real estate building. And curiously, you know, this is, you know, a lot of rich guys. In my experience, a lot of rich guys, what are they most comfortable talking about? Real estate and real estate

and what you build on it and the nature and the control they have over the physical world. Interesting. Well, of course, we know that he's also overseeing plans. for the Trump Kennedy Center. And in the plans that they're showing, his own name appears much bigger than it has done hitherto. Do you remember how it was suddenly, it suddenly appeared on there and it was in a slightly different font? Well, his plans, as we know, he's closing it down.

He fired Rick Rennell, who was running it, and he's closing it for two years. But in the design plans for it to reopen into, two years, his own name will be much bigger than it was before. Yeah, no. I mean, the naming aspect of this, he profoundly believes in. That's what he believes. If you asked Donald Trump, if you pinned him down and said, what was the method by which you achieved your success? I think he would. And several conversations I've had with him, he's seemed to go. I mean, I never asked him like this because you can't ask him things in any

conversation. But he seems to have, if you could, I think the answer would be because he has, from the beginning of his career, put his name on everything. And that's the thing. That's his part of his success. He became a brand. The brand is important. The name is important. He turned himself into something of value because of the name. So again and again, and I think, I think we're seeing this. So it puts his name on the White House, puts his name on, on any, any surface he can possibly put it on. So do you think that any of the criticism of him simply following behind B.B. Netanyahu's lap dog is getting through? Does it annoy him? Does he pay any heed? Well, I think it's, yeah, as I said, I think we've discussed before, what gets through and what actually he finds annoying is, again, not like, not of the nature of what you and I would find, find annoying.

But I think the BB thing is more complicated, too, because it's coming from his base. and it is, and we are, the base is turning Israel into an issue that he doesn't know how to deal with. It is becoming, I would say, one of the central issues of the MAGA world. And it is the fissure, and we've talked about this before, it is the major fissure that I think is developing within the Republican Party. I mean, it is the issue that could break the Trump thing wide open. Now, that's presuming that the Democrats don't also find themselves embroiled in this issue, which they may well be. Okay. So we're also learning that Trump told the cabinet, told people around him that the deportations, the mass deportations,

orchestrated by Stephen Miller, as we know, as we have discussed, have gone too far. We saw Mark Wayne Mullen this week going through his Senate confirmation hearings, which began hilariously with a row with Rand Paul. Is that a lesson that we actually think that they have learned, that the Republicans need to lay off, that ice needs to start. retreating and certainly retreating from democratic cities because this has been a home goal for the Republicans. Yeah, I don't, I mean, they've learned this lesson before.

I mean, they learned this lesson in the first administration. You know, the first administration began with all kinds of draconian immigration policies, you know, separating children from their parents. I mean, it was, you know, as bad. a situation as bad a look then as it is now. And they did retreat from that. So, but then they came back again on this. So again, this is a theme that they are not within a MAGA theme that they are not going to get away from. I mean, it MAGA is profoundly profoundly anti-immigration, anti-brown, anti-black, anti-

you know, this is a white Christian nation in the MAGA, the foundational MAGA view. And all of the numbers are inexorably pointing to the fact that this is, that this white Christian nation is in profound transition.

So how do we stop that? And the way we stop, first thing, I think it can't be stopped. It's just obviously a whole living in a fantasy world. But if you are going to follow that logic, the how to stop it logic, it's, you know, we have to aggressively, aggressively deport these people, get rid of these people. And we're going to do that because many people in the country say, yes, they are for stricter,

more stringent immigration policies. The problem is they are not for what we see, you know, to be for a certain policy, but to be against, against cruelty, two things can be true at the same time. And that's what these guys are being, are being hung on. Stephen Miller isn't going away. The mega desire here to cleanse the country, ethnically cleanse the country, isn't going away. So Donald Trump, from his point of view, which is, you know, as with all things, you get to the point, the Donald Trump point of view is, I don't give a shit. And, and, and so, so clearly, are everyone telling him this, even Melania telling him, I mean, Melania, of course, Hello.

Hello. I don't like, we must calm down with ice. No more ice. No more masked men bursting into homes. You know, and then he said, yeah, you know, it's a wave in a way. Yeah, I don't give a shit. Yeah, this is too much. But then, you know, he deals this is within the administration proper.

This is one of its engines. Yeah, I think that people didn't like those images of, of, people roaring through the Rio Grande and the border, and they bought Donald Trump's promise that they were only going to get rid of criminals and these Venezuelan gangs. And actually people are extremely concerned by the videos they see of masked men scooping up people. And, you know, millennials describe themselves now, I think, as four different races. you know, they're half, or their quarter Filipino,

quarter Italian, quarter Mexican, quarter American. So I think this is something that, I don't know, I think it worked during the election and it's now terrible for him. And I'm always mindful of how you say that Donald Trump has the seeds of his own destruction in him and they are just as big as his ability to win. It's his ability to lose. But one of the things that we are now going to see, and this is going to be related to more and more things,

things is it's all through the prism of the November elections. Yeah, the mid-tenths. Yeah, for sure. And those are the formulas that people in the White House are looking at, at how much time do we have? How much time do we have to reverse perceptions? How much time do we have to create new perceptions? or is it or is it too late? And in many instances on many issues, it is too late. So can we compensate in other ways? And that's part of the Save America Act. And very well, it probably is true.

And there probably is some, and there is some level of acceptance within the White House and around the president, that that is really the only thing that would make a enough of a difference to give them at least some possibility of staying in the game. But without that, more and more, it's like, Jesus, we are going to get so wiped out. Well, that's interesting that they're sort of dug in now, understanding that. And, you know, Trump is saying that he's not going to support any other legislation if they can't pass the Save America Act. And it feels as dramatic as the big, beautiful bill was.

But it seems clear they are not going to get the 60 votes in the Senate that they need to pass the bill. It's clear that John Thune has no interest in passing the bill. They don't want to get rid of the filibuster and just do it with a majority. So Trump is not going to get his way on this. Yeah, no. I mean, I think that's, I mean, that's another weird thing. that he doesn't appreciate that this is lost, that this is not a, this is not going to save him.

They're not going to get there. John Thune, your boyfriend, is not Trump's friend and really has never been Trump's friend. Right. Right. He should run. Why isn't he running? Why isn't he putting his hat in the ring? All right.

So what I want to know, Michael, is more about your Epstein series, which you are running. on Substack? Which will start, number one on Monday. So what I'm going to do is tell... Well, you wrote a sort of... You wrote a sort of announcement column about it. Yes, yes. Yes, in introduction.

Come join me. But it's going to start on Monday, and it really is going to be the story. I'm going to tell the story episodically in a in a Dickens, a 19th, century Dickens fashion. Oh my goodness, with a cliffhanger at the end of every episode. With a cliffhanger, I hope, yes. With once a week, I will tell the story of what I saw in my relationship with Jeffrey Epstein from the first to the last. And part of the context here is this story, the Epstein story, is anomalously being told. by people who don't know it.

And the people who do know it, who saw it firsthand, aren't contributing to the telling of this story because any public identification with firsthand public identification, they get hoisted more. They've already been hoisted, but they will be hoisted again and again. So that you have this story, one of the main stories of our time, being. told by people who are outside of it and not being told by people who are part of it. So I'm going to try to tell this story based only on what I saw. So this is, it's not speculation, it's not picking up from somebody else's speculative reporting.

It's not trying to parse emails without context. It's not all of the limitations of the story as it is now being told. I will put aside and just report it from what was in front of my eyes. So, for example, if you're reporting on a dinner that you've had at Jeffrey Epstein's, are you going to give us the names of the people who are around the table? Yeah, probably. What does probably mean? Well, I haven't written it yet.

So it's, you know, I mean, I haven't even begun those considerations. But isn't it only of value if you can tell us who else was there? Well, I don't fucking care about value on this. I'm trying to tell what I saw the tell the story as I saw what I know and to make sense of it. I'm not trying to pin this on anyone. I'm not trying to offer reveals. I'm trying to approach this as a writer would. This is the story.

This is what I saw. This is, I hope that I can provide some context and some meaning and make sense of it. I guess what I'm asking is, are you going to be protecting other people by not using their names if they were also having dinner? Because I'm mindful of the fact that you raise all the time, the fact that the New York Times has said anyone who shook Jeffrey Epstein. hand should be scrutinized. And then you pointed out he doesn't, he didn't shake hands. I might. I don't know. And I have, I'm just actually finishing up the first, the first installment. And that's about the first time I met, I met Epstein and on a plane ride that a lot of other people were on. And yeah, I mention everybody's names. I don't think it's, I don't think it's

particularly damaging to anyone or shouldn't be. Everybody was on the plane, as I was on the plane by pure happenstance. And give us a clue. I don't think I know how you first met Jeffrey Epstein. Well, you'll have to, you just have to wait until Monday. Do I have to pay for substact? So I have to pay for your substack to find out. In fact, I have been paying for your substack.

It's very good value. Yes, I think. But I think a lot of people will be pleased about this, Because when I run into people who know that we do this podcast, they are always asking me about your experiences with Epstein. No, no, I think it's very interesting. I think it's a totally compelling story. It runs for a rather long time. And I think you see lots of themes in the time we live in.

So that's what was. I'll try to capture that. and make some sense out of this. Did you keep contemporaneous diaries? Are you a journal keeper? I am. I am. Well, I can't wait to read the first installment.

So if you want to get Michael's substack, it's called Howl. I also have a substack. This week, I have just written about our fascination with professors and their affairs, with students and how it's come back into popular culture, but actually it also impacted a democratic candidate running for Congress in Illinois who, 22 years after he took out a student when he was a graduate student and he took out an undergraduate, she wrote a substack post drawing attention to this fact and saying they'd had some dates. And nothing untoward had happened, but she wanted to let people know that now she was a professor.

she understood the power dynamic in a 26-year-old taking out a 20-year-old. So an intriguing, an intriguing... And what was your conclusion about this? Well, you will have to read my substack to find out. Touche, my friend. Tushé, you'll have to read the substack to find out. But we are living in odd times. I can't even remember people I was going out with 22 years.

years ago. Well, 22 years ago, to be fair, I was married, but 32 years ago certainly can't remember anybody I dated. It's all, it's, who remembers their 20s? Who remembers any of their college time? I can remember everybody I've dated, because I married them all. Okay. Well, you've had two marriages, so you dated two people. Yes. It's very, yes. Interesting. Well, I urge people to, to sample both of us on. substack. My substack's called primal scream. All right. So I think that's enough for today. That's quite a lot. The ballroom, the war, the competitive Christianity, Michael's tantalizing insight into his Epstein Diaries. What are you calling it? Are you giving it a special name?

That hadn't crossed my mind, but maybe I should. I think the Epstein Diaries might be a good title. Says it like it is. I want all the details. I want all the details. I found your chapter in your book too famous about Epstein where Ayrid Barak turns up and asks with his greedy little fingers for some caviar and a boiled egg, I think. I found it just, well, it's a rare insight into a peculiar world. Thank you.

So we will be back next week. We've already asked people to support. subscribe to the podcast. Leave us your comments on this week. We may be out of the war. We may have declared victory by the time we're back on Tuesday. It's, you know, one of the people in the White House, as I was talking about this, said, as though with a shrug, he said, you know, well, it's kind of an extemporaneous war. Which is what you said from the beginning. It was just, he was ad-libbing his way through. But someone has to look after the strait of all moves. Well, it's a, yes, but maybe not. Maybe you can't. And maybe that the lasting effect of this war will be that the Iranians realize that's their actual power.

What is their leverage in the world? It's not the building of a nuclear device. It's that they can strangle the straight of Hormuz. Right. 20% of the world's energy. All right. Well, Michael, we'll be back on Tuesday. Fantastic. So the good news is we have so many Bee Beast tier members now.

There are too many names to read out. And we really appreciate your support. Thanks to our production team, Devin Rodgerino, Ryan Murray, Rachel Passe, Heather Pesaro, Neil Rosenhaus.