PREVIEW: The Friday Edition. - I'm leaking Tangle's internal communications.

Summary

---

Tangle Podcast Detailed Summary

Episode: PREVIEW: The Friday Edition. - I'm leaking Tangle's internal communications
Host: Isaac Saul
Date: January 16, 2026

---

Brief Overview

This episode offers a rare, behind-the-scenes look at Tangle's internal editorial debates, transparency, and process before publication. Host Isaac Saul and his editorial team “leak” their internal Slack communications, reenacting forthright staff discussions about sensitive content decisions, challenges in maintaining impartiality, and reader trust. The episode showcases Tangle's commitment to open dialogue and aims to model civil, honest debate for its audience.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why “Leak” Internal Staff Debate? (04:00 – 06:42)

• Isaac Saul introduces the idea by reflecting on the value of pre-publication discussions:

  "One of my favorite things about Tangle is the process that happens before a publication. The one that our readers and listeners never get to see or experience." (04:13)

• He details how the rich, honest internal back-and-forth not only strengthens the newsletter, but could also help rebuild media trust if made more public.
• The motivation: Show unfiltered staff debate, demonstrate internal checks on bias, and model the healthy discourse Tangle believes the US needs.
• Isaac’s Decision: Without prior staff permission, Isaac begins gathering and pasting notable Slack debates for this episode, confiding he’d “ask for permission after the fact” to preserve authenticity.

---

2. The Four Leaked Conversations (05:30 – 06:42)

Isaac briefly outlines the four key discussions/leaks:

1. Internal debate over a hardline “take” on the DOJ investigation into Jerome Powell and if it crossed a Rubicon against Trump.
2. Reactions to Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead’s opinion on Supreme Court oral arguments over state bans involving trans women in women’s sports.
3. An argument about whether to re-categorize the Washington Post editorial board from left to right, responding to reader feedback.
4. The team's reactions to Isaac’s handling of the Minneapolis ICE shooting story.

Note: Only the first debate is given in the podcast preview; the rest are for members only.

---

3. Team Introductions (06:21 – 06:42)

• The panel for this episode includes:

  • Isaac Saul, Host & Editor
  • Ari Weitzman, Managing Editor
  • Will Kaback, Senior Editor
  • Lindsey Knuth, Associate Editor
  • Audrey Moorhead, Associate Editor

  “This is Managing Editor Ari Weitzman. This is what my voice sounds like. This is Senior Editor Will Kaback. And here's my voice. I'm Associate Editor Lindsey Knuth. And I'm Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead.” (06:21–06:29)

---

4. The Jerome Powell/Trump Rubicon Debate (06:42 – 13:44)

Summary of Incident

• News broke that the DOJ was prosecuting Jerome Powell.
• Isaac’s "Take": Staunchly critical, calling the prosecution “obviously partisan,” refusing to consider alternative interpretations or criticism of Powell. He also shared Powell’s statement in full.

Key Staff Exchange

• Ari Weitzman (07:17):

  “I struggled editing the take today. I wanted to find some pushback... If anything, my edits intensify the language of your position. This feels... like a line in the sand moment for you, possibly for Tangle... to the point where I might even suggest pulling ripcord and dedicating a Friday edition to saying something like, ‘Trump has crossed the Rubicon’...”

• Isaac Saul (07:50):

  "Yeah, it's just like, come on, I'm not even trafficking in the well, let see stuff at this point, and I think it's disingenuous too."

• Ari Weitzman (07:59):

  • Notes the unusual breadth of conservative and right-wing editorial boards condemning the prosecution, while even hard-right outlets (Federalist, Hot Air, PJ Media) avoid covering it—suggesting extraordinary consensus.

• Audrey Moorhead (08:19):

  “The tone of this piece feels different even from past criticisms of Trump. I basically agree with the take... Nevertheless, the tone bothers me and I could see it losing a lot of conservative readers.”

  • Favors a mailbag approach for reader concerns, but acknowledges merit in addressing the "Rubicon" idea directly.

• Isaac Saul (08:48):

  "Yeah, I don't really feel like we need to write some Crossing of the Rubicon piece... I'm happy to answer mailbag questions about it, but I’d rather just let the take stand on its own."

• Ari Weitzman (09:06):

  "I felt like the moment on our Suspension of the Rules podcast when you said you don't think you've ever forgiven Trump for January 6th was informative for me at least, and I think for listeners too. ...we still have a good deal of Trump friendly and traditional conservative readers and we should speak to them."

• Audrey Moorhead (09:50):

  "A large amount of our newsletter readers don't listen to Suspension of the Rules... your feelings as expressed in the newsletter are going to feel more out of left field for them. I think you should address those people."

• Isaac Saul (10:02):

  • Seems surprised by the perception of his take as a "Rubicon moment," reiterates that it's aligned with mainstream conservative opinion on the issue, and feels self-evident to him.

• Audrey Moorhead (10:15):

  "As far as Tangle goes, the harshness of your tone here, with no buttresses or moderate qualifiers... is crossing a Rubicon."

• Ari Weitzman (10:27):

  "That explicit rejection of the moderation you would have struck in like March is what I'm realizing stood out to me."

• Audrey Moorhead (10:36):

  • Notes the staff’s typical practice of offering “peacemaking gestures” to dissenters may be absent in this instance.

• Ari Weitzman (10:57):

  • Cites the only real defense found online: "So what if targeting Jerome Powell is politically motivated?" (Townhall, Kurt Schlichter).
  • Argues a true Rubicon would be crossed when Tangle only presents anti-Trump takes where significant debate remains possible.

• Audrey Moorhead (11:33):

  "Today feels like a Rubicon for me, because... even in moments where it doesn't make sense, Isaac is willing to add in those reasonable discussions about problems with Powell's tenure... That always reads to me as a peacemaking gesture. ...I also think today's take will be more grading for conservative readers..."

• Ari Weitzman (12:07):

  • Suggests perhaps it's the administration's “ramping up” of political prosecutions and “open lying” that may justify the shift in Tangle’s tone.

• Audrey Moorhead (12:35):

  • Suggests explicitly laying out the bipartisan condemnation in the take to soften it for right-leaning readers.

• Ari Weitzman (13:30):

  “I think that’d be powerful. ...we can do more... about why this is different to you and we can even lengthen it if we wanted to.”

• Isaac Saul (13:44):

  “All right, I added something.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Isaac Saul: "I'm curious what you all think, if you found this exercise helpful and any reactions or comments you might have. So if you have thoughts or feelings, don't forget, you can always send them to Will... he's the best person to complain to." (05:54)
• Ari Weitzman: "This feels... like a line in the sand moment for you, possibly for Tangle..." (07:17)
• Audrey Moorhead: “The tone bothers me and I could see it losing a lot of conservative readers.” (08:19)
• Isaac Saul: “I'm happy to answer mailbag questions about it, but I’d rather just let the take stand on its own.” (08:48)
• Ari Weitzman: "That explicit rejection of the moderation you would have struck in like March is what I'm realizing stood out to me." (10:27)

---

Important Timestamps

• 04:13 – 06:07: Isaac articulates his motivation for "leaking" internal communications.
• 06:21 – 06:42: Editorial team introduces themselves.
• 06:42 – 13:44: Full team debate over the Jerome Powell take and whether it crosses a line on impartiality and Trump coverage.
• 13:54 – 14:00: Preview ends and announcements for paid-only continuation.

---

Tone and Style

The entire conversation is candid, reflective, and rigorous, maintaining Tangle’s signature blend of earnestness and humility. The tone oscillates between self-critical, inquisitive, and at times gently confrontational, reflecting a newsroom culture that values transparency and debate without rancor.

---

Closing Notes

This preview features only the first of four leaked conversations, ending mid-episode. To hear the other debates—on Supreme Court cases, editorial board classification, and the Minneapolis ICE shooting—listeners are prompted to subscribe. The episode delivers a unique, authentic insight into how journalistic objectivity, tone management, and audience perception are actively negotiated at Tangle.

---

Transcript

[Isaac Saul]

Amazon Pharmacy presents painful thoughts 20 more minutes to kill in the pharmacy before my prescription is ready. Maybe I'll grab some deeply discounted out of season Halloween candy. I never had a chocolate pumpkin with raisins before. Those were raisins, right? Next time use Amazon Pharmacy. We deliver. And no, those were not raisins. Amazon Pharmacy Healthcare just got less painful. Stand clear of the closing doors please. Stuck on your commute again. Bad wifi, no signal, nothing to do. Time to make your ride a lot.

[Audrey Moorhead]

More fun with Royal Kingdom. It's a puzzle game that's relaxing, challenging and works perfectly offline with no ads and amazing graphics. Every level feels fresh and satisfying. Each round only takes a few minutes, ideal for a daily commute or wherever you have a little bit of time. So download Royal Kingdom now on Google Play or App Store.

[Isaac Saul]

Why choose a Sleep number Smart Bed.

[Audrey Moorhead]

Can I make my site softer?

[Isaac Saul]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler? Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side. Your sleep number setting J.D. power ranks sleep number number one in customer satisfaction with mattresses purchased in store and online. And now the more you buy, the more you save on beds, bases and more. Plus get free premium delivery on any bed with base Lim. For J.D. power 2025 award information, visit J.D. power.com awards check it out at a Sleep member store today.

[Audrey Moorhead]

From executive producer isaac saul, this is tangle.

[Isaac Saul]

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle Podcast. The place where 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 I'm joined by four colleagues today. 1, 2, 3, 4 colleagues. Today we have a very special Friday edition. I think maybe just to set the table here, I'll talk a little bit about how this came to be. One of my favorite things about Tangle is the process that happens before a publication. The one that our readers and listeners never get to see or experience. And I've been thinking a lot about this in recent months. How much debate and dialogue and discussion goes into everything that we publish. How much I learn from the conversations that we have pre publication. How desperately our country needs more of what I think our staff models every day. I also think a lot about how trust in the media is at an all time low and all the innovative ways organizations like ours could try to win that trust back then. A few days ago during a discussion in our Team Slack channel, I fired off a message about a discussion we were having I said interesting discussion. I wish we had a podcast running. Maybe we published the transcript of this Slack. I'm half kidding. And after sending the message, I couldn't really shake the thought. Maybe we should publish a transcript of that conversation. Maybe actually showing what happens behind the scenes would interest our audience, model civil debate, and help build trust in our brand. In other words, good content, good citizenship, good business. That's a win, win, win. So, deciding I'd ask for permission after the fact, I did something a little bit invasive. I started copying and pasting some Slack messages into a Google Doc. I pulled four exchanges out from the past few weeks that I thought would be interesting for our readers to see, and then I told my staff I was going to quote, unquote, leak them. The first is a conversation about whether my take on the investigation into Jerome Powell crossed some kind of Rubicon of Trump criticism, and whether I should address that explicitly with our audience. The second is our team's initial reaction to Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead's take on the oral arguments from the Supreme Court cases about state bans on trans women and women's sports. The third is a debate about whether we should officially move the Washington Post editorial board from left to right so something readers have written in to ask about. And the fourth is the initial conversation about my take on the Minneapolis Ice shooting. Each of these transcripts that we released today in a newsletter reflect the conversations almost exactly as they happened today. We're going to reference those transcripts as a group and read from them right here on the podcast. We're basically going to reenact a Slack conversation. We had an audio form so all of you can actually hear how these conversations take place behind the scenes. In a few cases, we've omitted interruptions or asides. For instance, sometimes during a debate or discussion, someone will chime in with a message like sorry to interrupt, but here's an idea for the subject line of an email. I've left those out. Finally, I should say these conversations do not capture nearly all the debate and discussion that we have during newsletter production. Indeed, the bulk of our staff's back and forth happens inside the Google Document, where we edit every day's issue as a team. And that process involves a few more editors who aren't in our Slack channel. We'll also have in person conversations among the editors working side by side in our office, direct messages between individual editors, and occasional calls to discuss more nuanced concerns. Still, as I think you're about to hear, this is an authentic look into how we discuss and debate the minutiae of our content every day. We're about to read some very honest, forthright conversations, exchanges that were so forthright, we even considered taking them out of the podcast. And many things I sincerely doubt other media outlets would ever make public. I'm curious what you all think, if you found this exercise helpful and any reactions or comments you might have. So if you have thoughts or feelings, don't forget, you can always send them to Will W I l [e-mail] he's the best person to complain to. Still, as you're going to hear, this is an authentic look into how we discuss and debate the minutiae of our content every day. These are honest, forthright conversations, some exchanges that were so forthright we even considered taking them out, and many things I sincerely doubt other media outlets would ever make public. Today you're gonna hear from our editors who participated in this conversation. So I think we should probably start by introducing ourselves. Ari, why don't you go first?

[Ari Weitzman]

This is Managing Editor Ari Weitzman. This is what my voice sounds like. This is Senior Editor Will Kaback. And here's my voice.

[Audrey Moorhead]

I'm Associate Editor Lindsey Knuth. And I'm Associate Editor Audrey Moorh.

[Isaac Saul]

We're gonna start with the story that broke that the DOJ was prosecuting Jerome Powell. After that news broke, I staked out a pretty hardline position in my take, which I think has aged well, for whatever it's worth. One, I stated plainly that this was an obviously partisan prosecution and did not entertain alternative theories. And two, I refused to engage with criticisms of Powell, arguing that they were irrelevant to this story. And third, I shared Powell's statement in full as part of my take. This is the conversation that ensued after I shared the take with our team.

[Ari Weitzman]

I struggled editing the take today. I wanted to find some pushback to the tone you took, but I don't have any. If anything, my edits intensify the language of your position. I really love this take. This feels actually like a line in the sand moment for you, possibly for tangle with covering Trump to the point where I might even suggest pulling ripcord and dedicating a Friday edition to saying something like, trump has crossed the Rubicon, or just answering mailbag questions from readers concerned about the impartiality of our coverage as the Trump criticism crescendos.

[Isaac Saul]

Yeah, it's just like, come on, I'm not even trafficking in the well, let see stuff at this point, and I think it's disingenuous, too.

[Ari Weitzman]

Yeah, I mean, every conservative editorial board has come out against this. The New York Post, Washington examiner, and then the ones that you'd expect to like National Review and the Wall Street Journal and then the Federalist, Hot Air, PJ Media, et cetera. They've published almost nothing about it, even news articles, which to me is always telling.

[Audrey Moorhead]

I agree with that assessment. The tone of this piece feels different even from past criticisms of Trump. I'm not sure how I feel about it overall. I basically agree with the take, and I don't think the take should be edited down to become more milquetoast and less honest. Nevertheless, the tone bothers me and I could see it losing a lot of conservative readers. Of the two approaches you suggested, Ari, I'd favor a reader mailbag version, though. I also think we could run a Crossing the Rubicon piece and then a mailbag in response.

[Isaac Saul]

Yeah, I don't really feel like we need to write some Crossing of the Rubicon piece, which we already kind of did with the yes, things are Pretty Bad piece I wrote. I'm happy to answer mailbag questions about it, but I'd rather just let the take stand on its own. I feel like drawing more attention to it is unhelpful in almost every way.

[Ari Weitzman]

On point two, I agree. I don't want to suggest another piece that just emphasizes today's take on point 1. Honestly, it seems like things have gotten worse since we published that piece though, and the posture you're taking in Tangle is more oppositional to Trump at root. I felt like the moment on our Suspension of the Rules podcast when you said you don't think you've ever forgiven Trump for January 6th was informative for me at least, and I think for listeners too. And I think something that gives you a chance to talk about this stance would be helpful if today's survey results from the one from January 12th when we surveyed readers on the Don Row Doctrine. If there are any indication, we still have a good deal of Trump friendly and traditional conservative readers and we should speak to them.

[Audrey Moorhead]

I agree with that. I also think that a large amount of our newsletter readers don't listen to Suspension of the Rules and as such your feelings as expressed in the newsletter are going to feel more out of left field for them. I think you should address those people.

[Isaac Saul]

I guess today's take didn't feel Rubicon y to me, which is interesting. Just feel like it's obvious and a lot of concerns conservative writers are stating it plainly. Maybe that's the point. In terms of my perspective, I Think.

[Audrey Moorhead]

As far as Tangle goes, the harshness of your tone here, with no buttresses or moderate qualifiers and even with an explicit rejection of moderating qualifiers is crossing a Rubicon.

[Ari Weitzman]

Yeah, thanks, Audrey. I think that explicit rejection of the moderation you would have struck in like March is what I'm realizing stood out to me.

[Audrey Moorhead]

I feel like we've been beating the drum, calling out political prosecutions on both sides, and this one seems particularly egregious given its effect on the economy and the targeting of a clearly reliable figure. The take didn't overly read as a broader castigation of Trump, and I'm curious whether our conservative readers would support these charges. I see Pro Fed independence as pretty.

[Ari Weitzman]

Nonpartisan, and to that point this is just about the only defense of the investigation that I could find online. And I think the headline speaks for itself. And then I shared a screenshot of an article on Town hall from the writer Kurt Schlichter, and the headline is so what if targeting Jerome Powell is politically motivated? And then I continued to me, a Rubicon moment would be a take like this on an issue where there is substantive disagreement and debate between the sides. And Isaac just solely advocates for the Trump critical view because he feels that Trump has moved beyond the pale.

[Audrey Moorhead]

Today feels like a Rubicon for me, because I think the defining feature of Tangle has long been that even in moments where it doesn't make sense, Isaac is willing to add in those reasonable discussions about problems with Powell's tenure, and that always reads to me as a peacemaking gesture to people who disagree, and then he'll explain why they're irrelevant. I also think today's take will be more grading for conservative readers, presented alongside the reader queue about Renee Goodstaff, which is another situation where I feel like Isaac is usually more moderate, but is today being much more overt about his moral outrage over the situation.

[Ari Weitzman]

That's a good perspective. Thanks for that. I think I'm getting a sense that the answer to the implied question of what's changed is the admin is openly doing political prosecution and openly lying about what its mass quasi police force is doing and is ramping up both those things. And maybe that's what's scratching at me as something to get into explicitly and can explain the stance to conservative readers.

[Audrey Moorhead]

Yeah, maybe. But as someone who does know that that's the underlying impetus for the change in attitude that's slowly occurring in Isaac's takes, it doesn't exactly alleviate the way that the tone grates with me, I do want to make one suggestion though, which is to Will's point about bipartisan condemnation of this. Could we explicate that bipartisan condemnation in the take right now we mention Republicans who are against the move, but that paragraph is still broadly critical of congressional GOP spinelessness regarding Trump. But I think pointing out that even conservative commentators are condemning this move will be a relevant point that might soften the take to more right leaning readers. I can make a suggestion in the draft. I think it could go in the very paragraph where Isaac says there's no need to include the discussion about Powell. Yeah, I like that suggestion, Audrey. I think it could go in a few different places, but it works where you put it.

[Isaac Saul]

I like Audrey's suggestion too. We could even add what Will said, that some places just straight up ignored it.

[Ari Weitzman]

Yeah, I think that'd be powerful. And for what it's worth, I think we can do more of this section about why this is different to you and we can even lengthen it if we wanted to. Not by a ton, but we are currently under our word count limit.

[Isaac Saul]

All right, I added something.

[Ari Weitzman]

Looks great. Some more edits for Madre and me here.

[Isaac Saul]

All right, that was the conversation that took place after my team saw a draft of my take on Jerome Powell. The next thing that we're going to talk about is what happened when Audrey shared her take on the Supreme Court's ruling on banning trans athletes from women's sports. A quick heads up. This is a members only podcast, so to finish the show, going to have to subscribe and become a podcast member in order to get the whole thing. 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 readtangle.com and sign up for a newsletter subscription. Or you can sign up for a podcast subscription or 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'.

[Ari Weitzman]

All. Peace.

[Isaac Saul]

Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul and our executive producer is John Law. Today's episode was edited and engineered by John Law. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, with Senior Editor Will K. Back and Associate Editors Audrey Moorhead Bailey Saul, Lindsay Knuth and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75 and John Law. And to learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our [e-mail].

[Audrey Moorhead]

Foreign.

[Isaac Saul]

Hey, it's Raj and Noah.

[Audrey Moorhead]

And we're back with a new season of Am I Doing It Wrong? The show that explores the all too human anxieties we have about trying to get our lives right.

[Isaac Saul]

Because we're still doing a lot of stuff wrong.

[Audrey Moorhead]

But who isn't? That's why each week we're talking about the topics that we could all use a little helping hit with. Whether it's making new friends as an adult, managing our emotions, or even dreaming.

[Isaac Saul]

We'Ll be talking to experts in their fields who are definitely doing things right so the rest of us can be a bit wiser and a lot better equipped to handle whatever life throws at us.

[Audrey Moorhead]

Subscribe now and listen to new episodes of Am I Doing It Wrong? Dropping every Thursday starting January 1st, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Isaac Saul]

And for the first time ever, we're going to have full video episodes on YouTube. Because as long as there are things to get wrong, we're going to be right here to help you do them better. Blood donation is now more Inclusive More people are able to donate blood with the American Red Cross through FDA guidelines that eliminate eligibility questions based on sexual orientation. The Red Cross celebrates this historic change and welcomes those who may be newly eligible to donate blood. There's a place for everyone in the mission of the Red Cross. The Red Cross is committed to achieving an inclusive blood donation process that treats all potential donors with equality and respect while maintaining the safety of the blood supply. Join us and help save lives. To learn more and make your appointment to donate blood, visit redcrossblood.org LGBTQ that's redcrossblood.org LGBTQ the youth mental health crisis is growing and social media is a major driver. Kids are spending up to nine hours.

[Audrey Moorhead]

A day on screens, often unsupervised, and studies show a direct link to anxiety.

[Isaac Saul]

Depression and even suicidal thoughts. That's where GAB comes in.

[Audrey Moorhead]

GAB offers safe phones and watches with no Internet or social media, just the right tech at the right from smart watches for young kids to advanced parent managed phones for teens, GAB keeps kids connected safely. Visit gab.com getgab and use code getgab for a special offer.

[Isaac Saul]

That's G-A-B-B.com getgab Gab Tech in steps. Independence for them, peace of mind for parents.