Loading summary
Transcript23 lines
- [00:01]
Lemonada Media Host
48 million people in the United States are adolescents between the ages of 14 and 24. They're working, parenting, leading, sometimes all at once.
- [00:12]
Podcast Advertiser/Promoter
I'm balancing work and being a mom at the same time, and I'm still on track to graduate with my Bachelor's next year.
- [00:20]
Lemonada Media Host
So what do today's young people need to truly thrive? Tune in to good Things from Lemonada Media to hear the six part Thrive
- [00:28]
Podcast Advertiser/Promoter
series A Better Help Ad hold on one second. I just need to. What if you had a room where no one interrupts, no notifications, no expectations, just space to talk with? BetterHelp therapy happens in a space that's yours. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy.
- [01:00]
Lemonada Media Host
This is a Monday.com ad, the same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one the
- [01:10]
Podcast Advertiser/Promoter
same Monday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free.
- [01:21]
Lemonada Media Host
From Executive Producer Isaac Saul this
- [01:27]
Isaac Saul
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. And welcome to the Tango podcast. A place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host Isaac Saul, and on today's episode I am answering your feedback and criticism. Last week I published an exhaustive 6,000 word essay on the self dealing and potential corruption of President Donald Trump's second administration. I shared clips of the article on X. I read it down here on the podcast. It blew up, went viral. The initial feedback from readers within and outside the tangled community overwhelmingly asked us to drop the paywall on the piece. So after a few hours we did. Since then we've been inundated with comments, criticism and questions. I've done some interviews about the piece. Usually when an article like this takes off, I write a follow up piece addressing those criticisms and questions. I often do this by quoting specific readers and then responding directly to what they said in a Q and A format. I do this because I think being in dialogue with my audience is an important part of gaining their trust and an important exercise for me to stay humble and intellectually honest. So that's what I'm doing today. Of course, as is typical, the responses came from across the political spectrum. To give just one illustrative example, a reader named Mary Ellen wrote in to say that I've skewered Biden's son over and over and used this article to pour more venom into that story. She also expressed her frustration that I was only slightly less biased than the rest of the major media who report on Trump corruption on page three or not at all on TV simultaneously, a reader named John said, I'm one of the readers who stopped reading about halfway through. I just couldn't stand Isaac's obvious distaste, if not revulsion, of President Trump. It's obvious in all of his my Take comments. I think he's doing a disservice to the multiple employees of all those watchdogs he's trying to hang. Not one of them can speak up, even off the record. By the way, I can't stand Trump, but I'd like to see some verified facts, not some wannabe editor alleging such. This is the environment we live in now, and I'm trying to navigate it as honestly as I can. You write a piece like this and one side says where the hell have you been? While the other side thinks you're a hack editor making baseless allegations. Alternatively, some readers actually wrote in questioning the facts that provide the basis of the piece of One Tangle reader told me her friend had used ChatGPT to quote, unquote, fact check me and found that there are multiple claims in the article that are either unverified, misleading, or likely false as written. In one telling example, chatgpt said there is no confirmed Iran war being negotiated by Jared Kushner and that Kushner is a private citizen with no record of being involved in negotiating the war's end, despite the fact there obviously is an Iran war and Kushner is a chief negotiator in ending that war. ChatGPT also claimed there is no widely confirmed reporting from the New York Times about Syrian billionaires lobbying Trump for sanctions relief, despite that very New York Times article obviously existing. What explains the enormous discrepancy here? It turns out the critic was copying and pasting the text of my piece into ChatGPT without the linked primary sources. Once they sent ChatGPT the actual article, it conceded that the facts of the piece were accurate, apologized for getting it wrong, and suggested only that I was injecting strong language that included my own feelings and guilty as charged. On the Suspension of the Rules podcast this week, I talked more about this ChatGPT fact check story, the other things ChatGPT got wrong, and the frightening new reality where people regularly export their critical thinking to artificial intelligence even as they prompt the LLM in ways that produce inaccurate results. This is a new playing field where someone thinks I'm lying because an AI chatbot tells them things that are absolutely untrue. We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [05:45]
Lemonada Media Host
Have you looked at your utility bill recently and thought, how is it this high? You're not the only one.
- [05:52]
Podcast Advertiser/Promoter
Something that we would hear often was I couldn't pay my power bill. I'm no longer turning on my ac.
- [06:00]
Lemonada Media Host
Rising energy costs can feel inevitable, but voters have more power than they think. Listen to good things from Lemonada Media to hear how communities are fighting back for energy affordability.
- [06:14]
Quo Advertiser
Running a business means juggling a lot of moving parts, and when your communication tools can't keep up, things start to slip. Missed calls, slow replies, scattered conversations. They're not just frustrating, they're lost opportunities and revenue left on the table. That's where Quo comes in. Spelled Q U O. Quo is the number one rated business phone system on G2, trusted by over 90,000 businesses. One shared business number for calls and texts so every conversation stays visible or organized and accountable. It works from an app or computer. You can keep your existing number, add teammates and sync your CRM, letting you scale without adding complexity. And with built in AI Quo logs, calls, summarizes conversations and flags next steps even after hours Stop missing customers. Stop leaving revenue on the table. Try Quo Free and get 20% off your first six months at quo.comtech. that's quo.comtech quo no missed calls, no missed customers.
- [07:33]
Isaac Saul
Now onto some more specific feedback. One of the most common responses we got, and one I should have thought to preempt, was about the Obamas. Many, many readers and listeners said something along the lines of Obama came into office with X amount of dollars and left with many more. Yet you ignore that story. This feedback was maybe best articulated by a reader named Kelly who commented, from community organizer making $35,000 at most to state and US Senator Obama entered the White House with $1.3 million. Where did that come from? He left the White House with close to $40 million. By no means does this condone Trump corruption, but what has been newly corrupted that wasn't already? So I think the big difference here is that we understand pretty clearly how President Obama accumulated his wealth. Obama released his tax returns throughout his career, so the way he accumulated his estimated net worth of $70 million is documented. And you can find those tax returns and follow the paper trail. The vast majority of his wealth came from publishing books and speaking Tories. He netted just under $5 million in royalties from his first two books by the first year of his presidency. Then, as his second term expired, he and Michelle got a $65 million deal for two additional books one from each. After that, Obama signed a TV deal with Netflix worth a reported $50 million. He also gets paid as much as $400,000 for a single speaking engagement. I really don't know what to say except that the Obama's opportunism is self evidently very different from Trump's. The closest comparison is that Obama's Netflix deal was negotiated by Ted Sarandos, an Obama donor whose wife got an ambassadorship in the Bahamas. But crucially, that appointment actually preceded the Netflix deal by roughly a decade. What's more, it's actually another example of a scandalous behavior Trump has engaged in to an even higher degree. In my entire 6,000 word piece, I didn't even get into the Trump donors receiving ambassadorships because there was so much other stuff going on and I'll talk about that more in a minute. Also, Obama got his TV deal after he was in office, not during. On top of that, the Trump family isn't just getting money through TV deals while he's president. See Melania and Amazon. He is using the presidency to become wealthier. He is regulating businesses that make him money. We're taking investments from foreign leaders while striking arms deals with them. We're launching Trump themed cryptocurrencies whose values evaporate for investors while he makes a profit. Further, because Trump does not release his tax returns and is not transparent about his finances, we are left putting two and two together through investigative journalism and leaks. Conversely, the way the Obamas accrued their wealth is well documented. We know how they made their money and when you can think those deals were too cushy or his speaking fee is outlandish and even that such a fee opens doors to palm greasing. But the fact remains that these income streams were not nearly as directly linked to his decisions as president in the way that Trump's have been. Separately, quite a few readers wrote in about this sentence. By the time Trump ran for office in 2016, under the drain the swamp mantra of rooting out corruption by other politicians, he excoriated the Clintons for taking money from Saudi Arabia and other Middle east monarchies. That money, which Trump criticized her for accepting, was going to the Clinton Foundation, a philanthropic fund run by the Clintons. Many people countered that the Clinton foundation was actually just the front for the Clintons to get rich by leveraging their fame. One representative comment came from Getawaygirl who said, you state without qualification that the Clinton foundation was a philanthropic organization. When it is well established, it was simply a funnel to get what was then huge amounts of money to the Clinton family and associates, noting the Clintons are now personally worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Where do you think that came from? Okay, I'm going to start with just a confession, something many Tango readers and listeners may not know, and I hope this act of transparency will earn me some Trust here. In 2016, I was blogging about the Democratic primary for the Huffington Post. I penned a piece titled I Despise Hillary Clinton and It has Nothing to Do with Her Gender. In it, I wrote about how my generation shared the feelings I had at the time, overwhelmingly politically independent, directionally liberal, and exhausted by establishment Democrats like Clinton. As a 24 year old political writer living in Pennsylvania, I was fully tapped into the populist movement that Trump and Bernie Sanders stepped into, which is why so much of his campaign appealed to me in 2016 and how I knew he was going to win. I was and am anti war and I knew Hillary was a hawk. I loathe the state of the country. As I wrote in that initial piece, our friends are in college debt, they're opioid addicts, they're in jail or they're unable to afford a house. End quote. They're and while Clinton speaks to solving issues like addiction, she takes more money from big Pharma than any candidate in this race. I criticize her pro war language and enthusiasm for killing more people we have no business killing and argued that she didn't give two shits about the poverty in our country. That piece I wrote got some traction, but it was a piece I penned later for a now defunct website that I helped start called A that went absolutely viral. In it, I apologized to Clinton for the arrogant, fiery nature of my initial writing and I tried to criticize her in more fair and reasonable terms while conceding that she was a qualified candidate who presented a positive vision for the country. Clinton eventually wrote me a letter thanking me for elevating our political discourse, an act of grace that showed me I could make a point without being an asshole and still change some people's minds. Which is all just to say I have a very complicated relationship with Hillary Clinton, but that history should show I'm not afraid of criticizing the Clintons directly and in print. Having said that, I do not think it is an established fact that the Clinton foundation is simply a funnel to get what was then huge amounts of money to the Clinton family. The idea that the Clintons have pocketed charitable donations is not new and is still an unproven claim. If you have evidence to present about this claim through one of the many journalistic or legal investigations into it. I'm happy to see it, and I will concede I was wrong publicly right here in Tangle. But as far as I know, the Clinton foundation has been examined by many independent charity watchdogs and always receive strong ratings. One of the most well known and reputable organizations to dig into it is Charity Watch, whose executive director we interviewed earlier this year on the Tango podcast. Charity Watch currently gives the Clinton foundation an A minus rating, and in 2015, when these allegations were most common, found that a relatively high 89% of its funding went directly to charity as opposed to overhead costs. Interestingly, that number has come down to 78% when I checked it for this piece. Comparatively, the National Breast Cancer foundation receives a B rating with 72% of its funding going directly to charity. That's not a dig, just an example of how other organizations doing good work receive comparable or lower ratings than the Clinton Foundation. Like Obama's deals, this organization's activity is not particularly opaque. The Clinton foundation is a public charity. Republicans spent years investigating it. People donate, those donations are filed through tax returns. The Clintons have to show evidence of how they spent it, and so on. What is a legitimate allegation and one where I think there was a real story was was the pay to play stuff. This story here is that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, donors to the foundation may have gotten favorable access or policy treatment from the US government. The foundation was accused of wrongdoing in 2015, but multiple investigations through 2019 weren't able to uncover evidence of illegal activity. It did uncover some oddities, like Raj Fernando, who donated $250,000 to the Clinton foundation and then was appointed to the International Security Advisory Board. The Associated Press also did some great reporting about the significant number of Clinton's private meetings as Secretary of State being with foundation donors. Now, to bring all of this to the present, let me just say I didn't even have room in my 6,000 word piece to mention that Trump has repeatedly given campaign donors even more high ranking positions than Clinton offered. Fernando By April of 2025, President Trump's ambassador nominees collectively had donated nearly $60 million, him or other Republican candidates in the two years leading up to their nominations. That's three times that of Biden's nominees. Warren Stevens donated roughly $6 million to Trump's 2016 campaign and about 4 million more to his 2024 campaign, then became Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Charles Kushner Jared Kushner's dad, a felon who Trump pardoned. And one of the biggest donors to Trump's super PAC in 2023 was appointed ambassador to France, which has had some genuinely negative consequences. I didn't mention any of this because donors being rewarded with these kinds of posts is a long standing scummy bipartisan practice. Yet like other pay to play schemes, Trump has taken it to an entirely new level. This is the point. Accusations against Hillary Clinton are only partially and narrowly true. She spent years being investigated for them and as a result her political career was destroyed. Yet what Trump is doing is far more egregious at a much larger scale, and nobody seems to care. There are no investigations, no political damage, nothing. That is why I wrote the piece the way that I did. One reader named Craig accused me of suffering greatly from tds and then offered several counterpoints he thought were not addressed in my article. Now I'm going to try to reply to each one of his points, which I put in bold in today's newsletter.
- [17:50]
John Law
Hey everybody, this is John, Executive Producer for Tangle. We hope you enjoyed this preview of our latest episode. If you are not currently a newsletter subscriber or a premium podcast subscriber and you are enjoying this content and would like to finish it, you can go to retangle.com and sign up for a newsletter subscription. Or you can sign up for a podcast subscription or a bundled subscription which gets you both the podcast and the newsletter and unlocks the rest of this episode as well as ad free daily podcasts, more Friday editions, Sunday editions, bonus content, interviews, and so much more. Most importantly, we just want to say thank you so much for your support. We're working hard to bring you much more content and more offerings, so stay tuned. I will join you again for the daily podcast. For the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day y'.
- [18:41]
Podcast Advertiser/Promoter
All.
- [18:45]
John Law
Peace.
- [18:47]
Isaac Saul
Our Executive Editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our Executive Producer is John Lowell. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, with Senior Editor Will K. Back and Associate Editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsey Knuth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at Membership. ACAST Powers the World's Best Podcasts Here's a show that we recommend.
- [19:36]
Podcast Advertiser/Promoter
What if you laughed all through your commute? Or if you heard the funniest story while at the gym? Well, now you can I'm Jameela Jamil and guests on my new podcast, Wrong Turns share their most mortifying and hilarious disaster stories. I'm talking people like Mae Martin, Bob the Drag Queen, Katherine Ryan, Jake Johnson, Margaret Cho, Simon Pegg, Penn Badgley, and so many more. So listen wherever you get your podcast Wrong Turns Where Dignity Goes to Die
- [20:06]
Isaac Saul
ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere acast.com marketers.
- [20:14]
Podcast Advertiser/Promoter
You know that feeling when your creative clicks, when that social post sends engagement through the roof, when your outside of the box campaign hits ROI positive. When a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers. It's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored omnichannel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities. Get the feels@contentful.com 48 million people in
- [20:43]
Lemonada Media Host
the United States are adolescents between the ages of 14 and 24. They're working, parenting, leading, sometimes all at once.
- [20:53]
Podcast Advertiser/Promoter
I'm balancing work and being a mom at the same time, and I'm still on track to graduate with my bachelor's next year.
- [21:00]
Lemonada Media Host
So what do today's young people need to truly thrive? Tune in to good things from Lemonada Media to hear the six part Thrive series.