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.