‘Let Him Hang Himself’

Summary

Podcast Summary: Question Everything

Episode: ‘Let Him Hang Himself’
Host: Brian Reed
Date: December 4, 2025

---

Overview

In this episode of Question Everything, Brian Reed and his guests dissect a single, incendiary email quote from journalist Michael Wolff to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein: “I think you should let him hang himself.” The quote, revealed in a recent congressional email dump, launches a debate about journalistic ethics, complicity, and the blurry boundaries between reporting and abetting a subject—especially when the subject is a public villain. Through frank conversation, Reed brings in a spectrum of journalistic voices, exploring the professional and human lines crossed (or not crossed) when journalists get close to their sources.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Anatomy of a Controversial Quote

[01:34]

• The Email: In 2015, Michael Wolff suggests to Epstein that Trump be allowed to “hang himself” by possibly lying about his relationship with Epstein, thus giving Epstein “valuable PR and political currency.”
• Context: Trump was running for the Republican nomination; Epstein had a prior conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
• Contentious Exchange: Wolff, known for cultivating insider relationships, is seen advising Epstein on a potential PR strategy regarding Trump.

2. Michael Wolff’s Defense

[03:41]

• On his podcast, Wolff claims he did nothing unethical, stating:

  "What I did was sit at a table and put on the tape recorder, and with every intention of telling this story, as I have told numerous other stories."
  — Michael Wolff [03:45]

• He acknowledges “finessing” relationships with sources as part of journalism:

  "You say what they might want to hear. You are finessing ... If you are anything other than an opinion journalist, you have to make a relationship with your subject."
  — Michael Wolff [04:10]

• Wolff believes his actions fell within normal journalistic practices, insisting there was "Nothing that would be of any interest to anyone" in the emails.
  — Michael Wolff [04:49]

3. Isaac Saul: The Ethical Boundary Has Been Crossed

[05:52–09:02]
Isaac Saul, editor of Tangle, sees Wolff’s behavior as manipulative and unethical:

• Maintains relationships are fine, but advising a source on PR, especially one as compromised as Epstein, is unacceptable.
• Saul worries that such advice “thumbs the scales” and could meaningfully change public outcomes:

  "When there’s a candidate running for office and you’re giving somebody advice about how to win a PR battle with them, that feels like a line is being crossed ... there's just something really sticky about that that feels wrong."
  — Isaac Saul [06:00]

4. Susan Zakin: An Uncomfortable But Defensible Line

[09:17–12:54]
Veteran journalist Susan Zakin is troubled but forgiving:

• She finds the episode “not a deal breaker” and sees value in Wolff’s reporting style.

• Acknowledges Wolff skirts the edge:

  “That email, it troubled me, but it was not a deal breaker for me ... he walks right up to the edge, but I don’t feel that he crosses over.”
  — Susan Zakin [10:53]

• Argues for prioritizing information over moralizing, comparing journalism to playwriting:

  "I think journalists should stay away from making moral judgments ... We are the scruffy playwrights—Shakespeare—looking at all these flawed characters and we are also flawed."
  — Susan Zakin [12:54]

5. Tara Palmeri: Professional and Moral Violation

[16:45–19:24]
Tara Palmeri, investigative journalist and podcast host, is unequivocally critical:

• Highlights Wolff’s deeper financial and editorial ties to Epstein, including a failed attempt to buy New York Magazine with Epstein and Harvey Weinstein:

  “I just feel like he was colluding with what should have been a source ... He was trying to help him restore his image. I thought it was really disturbing.”
  — Tara Palmeri [16:45]

• Cites multiple “huge journalistic no-no’s”: giving PR advice, showing a draft profile to Epstein, and contemplating business together.

• Palmeri notes that these actions "really soiled the image of our business," especially among survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

• Demands transparency from Wolff:

  “Show us the tapes, Michael.”
  — Tara Palmeri [19:24]

6. Brian Reed: The Human, Not Just Journalistic, Dimension

[15:16]
Reed reframes the debate beyond codes of conduct:

• Argues the core problem is not just journalistic but human:

  “He is not simply being cordial to get information in that email ... he is giving help to a pedophile, offering him real, potentially valuable advice ... I would not be okay doing that just on a human level.”
  — Brian Reed [15:16]

7. Michael Wolff’s Final Word

[19:48]
Wolff remains unapologetic:

“I have no regrets at all. I would do it exactly the same. This is the way it is done.”
— Michael Wolff [19:48]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Isaac Saul:
  “It just seems like a really slimy way to maintain a relationship with a source.” [00:17]

• Susan Zakin:
  "I can't believe it, but I agreed with him. Oh no. Send me to journalism jail.” [09:17]

• Tara Palmeri:
  “Giving a sex offender public relations advice who's also your source is a huge no-no.” [00:30]

• Michael Wolff:
  “I have no regrets at all. I would do it exactly the same. This is the way it is done.” [19:48]

• Brian Reed:
  “Forget the professional ethics of it all ... He is giving help to a pedophile, offering him real, potentially valuable advice.” [15:16]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:00]–[01:34]: Introduction and setup of the quote and context
• [03:41]–[05:00]: Michael Wolff’s response on his podcast
• [05:52]–[09:02]: Isaac Saul’s ethics-focused criticism
• [09:17]–[12:54]: Susan Zakin’s more nuanced, information-first defense
• [16:45]–[19:24]: Tara Palmeri’s categorical condemnation
• [15:16]: Brian Reed’s personal, human perspective
• [19:48]: Wolff’s final, unapologetic statement

---

Conclusion

“Let Him Hang Himself” grapples with the messiest questions of journalism: When does relationship-building slide into complicity? Can the pursuit of the story ever excuse offering counsel to a criminal source? The heated debate among Reed’s guests reflects not just divided professional norms but also deeper questions of morality and personal responsibility in reporting. Ultimately, the episode offers no easy answers, but provides a raw, layered portrait of journalism’s uncomfortable proximity to power and wrongdoing.

Transcript

[Brian Reed]

Trying a little something new today, something we're calling Anatomy of a Quote. We take one line from the news that stopped us in our tracks and get reporters to weigh in on it this week. Did a journalist get too cozy with his subject, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein?

[Isaac Saul]

To me, it just seems like a really slimy way to maintain a relationship with a source.

[Susan Zakin]

I can't believe it, but I agreed with him. Oh no. Send me to journalism jail.

[Tara Palmeri]

Giving a sex offender public relations advice who's also your source is a huge no no.

[Brian Reed]

From placement theory and kcrw, I'm Brian Reed. This is Question Everything. Stick around.

So I've mentioned this before, but we're going to be trying some new ways of working with sponsors here at Question Everything. And you're going to hear more from this one in the future. It's our new sponsor, Plaude, and the Plaude Note Pro Plod, that's with a P as in pancake. It's a little credit card sized gadget. I have it right here. You snap it on your phone and it can record your meetings or interviews. Really useful for journalists as well as text, images, things you've highlighted and uses AI to make sense of it for you. They've sold over a million already and I'm told over 300,000 managers use plaud every day. Just search P, L A U D on Google or Amazon.

Our quote this week comes from that recent dump of Jeffrey Epstein emails. The email we're zooming in on is from 2015 where a writer many of you may have heard of named Michael Wolf wrote to Jeffrey Epstein, quote, I think you should let him hang himself. The him in that sentence being Donald Trump.

Michael Wolff is a longtime media columnist and book author who's built a career by cultivating unusually close relationships with the powerful people he covers and getting unique access to their worlds, including with Donald Trump. He's written four books about Trump and had pretty exclusive access to the White House in the president's first term. In the recent dump of Epstein emails from Congress, Wolf emerges as a major figure. Lots of communication with Epstein over the years. In this message in question. It's 2015. Trump is running from the Republican nomination. There's a debate coming up and Michael Wolff emails Jeffrey Epstein that he's heard CNN is going to be asking Trump about his relationship with the sex offender. At this point, Epstein had been convicted for soliciting prostitution with a minor. Epstein writes Wolf back, if we were able to craft an answer for him for Donald Trump, what do you think it should be. And then Wolf starts advising Epstein on a strategy. I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn't been on the plane, that's a reference to Epstein's private plane, known as the Lolita Express, or to the House, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you. At the time, Wolf had been working Epstein as a source for a possible book. Wolf says he's recorded about 100 hours of interviews with Epstein, interviews that still haven't fully seen the light of day. Six years after Epstein's death, no book has been published. Wolf is now co host of the Daily Beast podcast called Inside Trump's Head with Joanna Coles. When the emails were released just the other week, Joanna Coles asked Wolf about this exchange with Jeffrey Epstein.

[Tara Palmeri]

Is there a point where you are abetting the criminal?

[Michael Wolff]

Absolutely not. You know, I mean, I don't even want to go. Want to go there. I mean, what I did was sit at a table and put on the tape recorder, and with every intention of telling this story, as I have told numerous other stories.

[Tara Palmeri]

But there are people listening to this that would say, well, wait a minute. You did more than just put your tape recorder on. Actually, you were giving him media advice.

[Zach St. Louis]

You entertained.

[Michael Wolff]

Enter into a relationship with, with, with people, you say what they might want to hear. You are finessing. You are finessing a relationship. If you are anything other than an opinion journalist, most journalists seem to be these. These days, you have to make a relationship with your subject. You know, that's.

And giving media advice. I'm not giving him legal advice or adv crimes. You know, in fact, when I reviewed these emails some time ago, because I thought, well, these will probably come out.

I thought, well, okay, this is just, you know, the usual kind of. There's, there's nothing, Nothing that would be of any interest to anyone here.

[Brian Reed]

That assessment from Michael Wolf I find surprising. I mean, ever read the Journalist and the Murderer, one of the most famous books about our field? And it's about this conundrum, this question that's captured in these emails. How close can a reporter get with his or her source before it crosses an ethical line? And how honest should a reporter be with their source about their intentions? Another way of putting that. Is a journalist ever allowed to be dishonest with a source in order to get the story? We saw that a bunch of reporters weighed in publicly on this email between Wolf and Epstein after it came out the other week. And so our producer, Zach St. Louis, called several of them up, each with a different take on it. We're going to start with Isaac Saul, founder and editor of the newsletter Tangle, which we've covered on our show. Here's our producer, Zach talking to Isaac.

[Zach St. Louis]

When you see that email that starts with, you know, we should let him hang himself, and he gives PR advice like, what's going through your head when you read that?

[Isaac Saul]

I mean, to me, it just seems like a really slimy way to maintain a relationship with a source. I think, like, from a journalism ethics standpoint, it's okay to build a kind of even friendship with somebody who you are, quote, unquote, working in order to, you know, stay well informed on whatever their industry or political circle is or whatever else. But when there's a candidate running for office and you're giving somebody advice about how to win a PR battle with them, that feels like a line is being crossed. And I think with Epstein in particular, it's like, you know, at this point, you've been already convicted of at least one sex crime. So we. We sort of had an idea of who he was, and I think it just reflects really, really poorly on Michael Wolf. There's just something really sticky about that that feels wrong, and I think he knows that.

[Zach St. Louis]

Could you imagine any circumstance where you were close with a source and you offered them some kind of advice like this on how to deal with the media? Is there any scenario where you could see that happening?

[Isaac Saul]

Maybe I could see a world where if I got really close to a member of Congress and they were embroiled in some controversy and they reached out to me and said, you know, so and so reporter has, like, asked me for an interview. Do you think I should take it? Or something like that? I could see saying something like, you know, I don't feel comfortable advising you on how to navigate this situation, but I don't think talking to the press is like, your best bet right now. Something like that would be sort of like, squishy in the middle. But I. I still wouldn't feel great about that. What I'm seeing in those emails is him actively advising in a way that is going to change how this story or whatever he thought was going to happen. And that's what feels really, really gross to me. It's sort of thumbing the scales. Let's say Donald Trump actually gets asked on CNN those questions about Epstein, and something that Michael Wolff does behind the scenes, like, meaningfully impacts how that interview goes or what the public understands about their relationship or Whatever. Like, that's a really, really big deal. I mean, this feels like not that big of a deal because the advice he was giving Epstein never really came into play. But there's like an alternate universe here where Michael Wolf's sources were right. CNN asked those questions, and we get some sort of public record about, you know, Trump answering tough questions about his relationship with Epstein. And Michael Wolff has sort of changed the path of how that plays out by trying to advise the sexual predator guy in the background.

[Brian Reed]

Susan Zakin has a very different take from Isaac Saul. She's a veteran journalist whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Vogue, and Salon. On her substack, she. She wrote a piece defending Michael Wolfe's behavior. In the email, here's Susan talking to our producer, Zach.

[Susan Zakin]

I can't believe it, but I agreed with him. Oh, no, send me to journalism jail.

But, you know, it. Just talk to me. That email, you know, it troubled me, but it was not a deal breaker for me. It did not invalidate any other reporting that Wolf has been in a position to do.

[Zach St. Louis]

So when you first, you know, when these first got published and you first saw that, what was your first reaction?

[Susan Zakin]

Well, it's not your job to help the guy think it through. I was taken aback for sure. But I could imagine at the same time, this is not making excuses for this horrible journalistic sin, but I could imagine in an ongoing conversation with a source that you have spent a lot of time with who is clearly dealing with issues related to his legal problems and his public profile, I can imagine sort of thinking out loud like that, but it's not his job. I mean, would I game out scenarios with a source that I had spent hundreds and hundreds of hours if my mind was just going, you know, I mean, Michael Wolf was the media columnist. I mean, I can imagine that happening.

[Zach St. Louis]

The quote in there that kind of stood out to me is when Epstein says, if we were able to craft.

[Susan Zakin]

An answer for him, yeah, that's not good. That's not good, dude.

That's not good. But I get the very strong feeling he does know what the rules of journalism are, and he walks right up to the edge. But I don't feel that he crosses over. I mean, Michael Wolff is a fantastic writer, and we need better writers. I think that the lack of imagination on the part of journalists can get in the way and the lack of psychological insight, and that's really where Michael Wolff has the edge. But I think he's a valuable part of the ecosystem. You know, I got some blowback on this piece. I did compare Woolf to Woodward and Bernstein. Oh, no. It's like sacrilege. Maybe I shouldn't admit this, but Bob Woodward's books, they're so boring. I'd much rather read Michael Wolf. The point was that the information from Epstein was so important to the country and not just about whatever Trump was doing sexually, but about his character. And the fact that wolf has 100 hours of tape with Epstein and no one's publishing him, it's. To me, it's insane. But, you know, this is the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that's out there. Bring it out. Daylight is the disinfectant. Somebody publish Wolf. Bring it all out. And to waste our time attacking each other as journalists, I mean, I don't see the reason for it. I'm an information junkie. I'm a journalist. I'm a hunter, not a farmer. I want every bit of information that I can get.

[Zach St. Louis]

Even if it means ingratiating yourself to a pedophile? Known pedophile, yes.

[Susan Zakin]

I think journalists should stay away from making moral judgments and pontificating about morality. I think our job is to tell the story. We are the scruffy playwright Shakespeare, where we are looking at all these flawed characters and we are also flawed, some of us more than others. And we're looking at how these tragic heroes or villains, how it all comes together to possibly destroy our country.

[Brian Reed]

We'll be back after a quick break.

So I've been sharing the different ways we've been using the Plaude AI device here at Question Everything. And one way is story planning. So I know the goal of this is to come out with like a production plan for the first episode. The Plod is this sleek little Twix candy bar sized thing. I just clicked it on while my editor, producer and I were brainstorming. I think in order to get there, it would at least help me to talk through editorially what we've gotten and then how we think it lays out in multiple episodes.

[Zach St. Louis]

Okay, great.

[Brian Reed]

I'm plotting this. By the way, we really do use plot as a verb around here. Now, in this meeting, we were planning an upcoming Section 230 episode, or possibly two. I'd done a bunch of reporting and interviews, taken a trip to dc. My team and I talked it all out.

[Zach St. Louis]

Mary Ann has some great quotes around that.

[Brian Reed]

And we worked through different theories of how the structure could go. The best way to lay out some of these complicated topics here would be.

[Isaac Saul]

Your vinyl episode that you put in.

[Brian Reed]

At the end of it all I clicked the plot off, went into the app. I have a whole raw transcript of the conversation. But then I was able to ask it, what's the structure? We finally landed out. Lay it out really clearly for me in bullet points with action items for my producer and me in seconds. It did it. The AI is really good. We're making these episodes now. They'll be out soon. You should try plodding something yourself. Go to Plaud, that's P as in poppy seed, P, L, A, U, D, Plaud. And use the code question if you end up getting one.

Since that email between Michael Wolff and Jeffrey Epstein came out, I've been tuning into the debate over it on X and TikTok and in some mainstream publications. And the thing that bothers me about it, I think is exactly this. The fact that it's become a conversation about quote unquote, capitalized journalistic ethics. When really just strip the journalism out of this situation for a second and think of yourself as Michael Wolff, just as a person. He is not simply being cordial to get information in that email. At least he is giving help to a pedophile, offering him real, potentially valuable advice. Letting Epstein refer to the two of them together as a weird. I would not be okay doing that just on a human level. That's the thing that troubles me about this email. Forget the professional ethics of it all. And obviously I'm not the only one. Last up, we have Tara Palmeri. She's the writer of the Red Letter on Substack and host of the Tara Palmeri Podcast. She reported two investigative podcasts on Jeffrey Epstein and we had her on our recent Wine Shop episode with reporters who have covered Epstein for decades. Check that out if you haven't already. Search for the Epstein files in your Question Everything feed. Tara spent a lot of time with and covering Jeffrey Epstein's survivors, including Virginia Giuffre, one of the most well known survivors of Epstein's. She died by suicide earlier this year. Tara also spoke to our producer Zach St. Louis and shared a very strong opinion.

[Tara Palmeri]

I just feel like he was colluding with what should have been a source, you know, a person that he was writing about. He was giving him tactical advice, he was giving him image advice, PR advice. He was trying to help him restore his image. And so I thought it was really disturbing. And then when you think about the fact that Michael Wolf put together a group of investors which included Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein to buy New York magazine, I mean, that is pretty incredible. And I was flabbergasted when I read about that, that it was, you know, something he was planning to do back in 2003. And I thought to myself, imagine if Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein owned New York magazine, a very influential magazine in New York, if the voices of the women ever would have been heard. You know, I mean, there's something to be said about owning the press. And also just shows you how Epstein really wanted to dominate every area of life from finance to academia to science to tech to media.

[Zach St. Louis]

This plan to buy New York magazine, have you tried to verify it in other ways? I'm just curious about like how likely that seemed to be to happen and how serious they were about it.

[Tara Palmeri]

Well, the deal was done and then New York Mag's owners at the time backed out. It was widely reported at the time, but the New York Times brought it back to earth in Shawn Makrish's latest piece. And I thought I should dig into it a little further. And that's what I found when I was speaking to a source that was involved that Michael was tasked with bringing in a group of investors. Pretty incredible. Clearly Michael Wolf had spent a lot of time with him. He wrote a piece about Epstein and he even showed him the piece in advance, which you're not supposed to do of profile.

[Zach St. Louis]

I know that you're, you know, obviously you're somebody that's in touch with a lot of Epstein's victims, survivors, and I'm wondering if any of them have brought up this Michael Wolf stuff with you.

[Tara Palmeri]

Oh, yeah. It's disturbing to them. The going into business with a source is a huge journalistic. No, no. The showing a source, what you're going to write about them in advance, a draft copy is a huge journalistic. No, no. And then on top of that, giving a sex offender public relations advice who's also your source is a huge. No, no. I mean all of it. I don't. They're all in their own ways, just. They really solid the image of our business for sure. I've never done anything like that with any of my sources.

[Zach St. Louis]

So yeah, I was going to ask you that. Is there any world in which you could ever imagine doing anything like this?

[Tara Palmeri]

Definitely not. It just makes me wonder why he hasn't published his tapes yet with Epstein. He claims nobody wants them, but everybody's self publishing now. He could self publish. Show us the tapes, Michael.

[Brian Reed]

We wrote Michael Wolf to see if he wanted to weigh in for this episode, but we didn't hear back. He did have one more thing to say on his podcast though, about the email.

[Michael Wolff]

I have no regrets at all. I would do it exactly the same. This is the way it is done.

[Brian Reed]

Today's show was Produced by Zach St. Louis and edited by our Managing Editor, Kevin Sullivan.

Last week you may have heard our special episode where Representative Jake Auchincloss encouraged you all to call the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and urge him to put Section 230 reform on the agenda for a hearing that happened just this Tuesday. I know a lot of you did call an email I heard from you on various places platforms. Unfortunately it did not work this time. But don't be dispirited. I was really excited to hear how engaged everybody got and I think we just have to keep pushing on this. You can watch my full interview with Representative Auchin Kloss over on [e-mail] subscribe Our executive producers are me and Robin Simeon. The Question Everything team includes producer Sophie Kazis, contributing editors Neil Drumming and Jen Kinney, and associate producer Kevin Shepard and Emma Grillo. This episode was fact checked by Annika Robbins, mixing and sound design by Brendan Baker. Our music is by Matt McGinley. Our partners at KCRW include Arnie Seiple, Tejal Algemera, Natalie Hill and Jennifer Farrow. A gentle reminder to Please rate and review Question Everything. Share it with a friend and we will see you.