The Sunday Podcast: Isaac, Ari, and Kmele let it all out on Jeffrey Epstein, some Jerome Powell stuff and a very good grievance section.

Summary

Podcast Summary: Tangle – The Sunday Podcast: Isaac, Ari, and Kmele Let It All Out on Jeffrey Epstein, Some Jerome Powell Stuff and a Very Good Grievance Section

Release Date: July 20, 2025
Host/Author: Isaac Saul
Episode Duration: Approximately 94 minutes

---

Introduction

The episode kicks off with Isaac Saul introducing the main topics of discussion: the ongoing saga surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, recent developments involving Jerome Powell, and a segment dedicated to airing grievances. The hosts—Isaac Saul, Ari Weitzman (Managing Editor), and Camille Foster (Editor at Large)—set the stage for a deep dive into these pressing political issues.

Section 1: Jeffrey Epstein Files and Political Ramifications

Timestamp: [02:04] – [42:22]

Camille Foster opens the discussion by reflecting on recent political upheavals that resemble a "bizarro world," highlighting varied stances across the political spectrum on the Jeffrey Epstein files. She points out the contrasting narratives where Democrats emphasize the gravity of the Epstein situation, while MAGA figures urge trust in the government and critique President Trump's stance on international matters, such as his comments on Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Key Points:

• Political Polarization: Democrats are intensifying their focus on the Epstein files, viewing it as a significant scandal with potential implications for powerful individuals. Conversely, MAGA supporters are downplaying the issue, urging confidence in governmental institutions.
• Polling Insights: New polling by Tony Fabrizio suggests that Republicans may retain their House majority by supporting facets of Obamacare, indicating strategic political maneuvering amidst scandal.
• Public Perception: The fluctuating focus on Epstein-related issues demonstrates shifting political priorities and the manipulation of narratives to serve party agendas.

Notable Quotes:

• Camille Foster [01:30]: "Coming up, we talk about the Jeffrey Epstein stuff for, honestly, literally nearly an hour, if I'm being totally honest with you. So buckle up for that."
• Guest Speaker 1 [03:18]: "This is the latest insanity. And sometimes we have these moments where it's palpable. But we've been in crazy world, in crazy town for a very long time..."

Discussion Highlights:

• Misconceptions and Myths: The hosts debate the existence of a "client list" allegedly held by Epstein and scrutinize public claims versus verified information. Camille clarifies her stance, distinguishing between proven facts and speculative allegations.
• Accountability: While acknowledging that some individuals, like Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein himself, have faced legal repercussions, the conversation underscores the frustration over the perceived lack of accountability for other powerful figures potentially involved.
• Public Trust and Media Coverage: The trio examines how media narratives are shaped, the role of endorsements or dismissals by public figures like Donald Trump, and the impact on public trust in political institutions.

Notable Quotes:

• Camille Foster [17:10]: "There is an idea that Epstein carried some sort of client list around with him... That is the thing that I'm saying is bs."
• Guest Speaker 1 [05:17]: "There has been no indictment of the way we've discussed the story so much as a very clear illustration of the climate surrounding the story."

Section 2: Recent Epstein-Related Developments and Public Figures

Timestamp: [42:22] – [57:39]

The conversation shifts to recent events linking other public figures to Epstein, including accusations against Steve Bannon. The hosts express skepticism about the authenticity of leaked statements and question the motives behind the silence surrounding certain Epstein-related footage.

Key Points:

• Steve Bannon's Involvement: Reports suggest that Steve Bannon filmed Jeffrey Epstein for 15 hours, but the footage has never been made public. The hosts discuss the peculiar nature of this relationship and the absence of released material.
• Senator Ron Wyden's Actions: Recent Senate efforts to block the release of Epstein’s financial files are scrutinized. Senator Wyden claims the government possesses bank filings indicating suspicious wire transfers by Epstein, yet these have not been disclosed to the public.
• Legal and Political Implications: The firing of Maureen Comey, a prosecutor involved in Epstein cases and daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, is highlighted as a potentially politically motivated move by the Trump administration. This raises concerns about the administration's intentions and the broader implications for justice and transparency.

Notable Quotes:

• Camille Foster [34:58]: "The CEO, Andy Byron, just released a statement saying... I am a Coldplay fan... I am going to take some time to contemplate my future."
• Guest Speaker 1 [53:00]: "Maureen Comey... says, 'It's hard to do your job without fear in this climate.'"

Discussion Highlights:

• Credibility of Sources: The trio debates the authenticity of various statements and media reports, emphasizing the need for verified information.
• Political Bias and Manipulation: Concerns are raised about how political figures might use Epstein-related issues to further their agendas, potentially obscuring truth and justice.
• Impact on Governance: The firing of key figures involved in the Epstein case is seen as a tactic to destabilize investigations and protect higher-profile individuals.

Notable Quotes:

• Camille Foster [51:50]: "You have to imagine that Trump is walking around with a hand like a 2 and 7 off suit... he's saying, 'You should probably fold.'"
• Guest Speaker 2 [46:56]: "It's easy for people to let their minds run wild and think that there's more to the story than there is."

Section 3: Jerome Powell and Federal Reserve Controversies

Timestamp: [59:24] – [76:22]

The hosts transition to discussing Jerome Powell, the current Chair of the Federal Reserve, and the ongoing rumors and political maneuvering surrounding his potential dismissal by President Trump. They analyze the economic implications and historical context of such an unprecedented move.

Key Points:

• Rumors of Dismissal: Reports surfaced that President Trump considered firing Jerome Powell, prompting discussions about the feasibility and ramifications of such an action.
• Economic Impact: The potential firing of Powell could lead to significant economic turbulence, given the Federal Reserve's role in controlling monetary policy and interest rates.
• Political Strategy: The hosts debate whether the Trump administration's interest in Powell is politically motivated, aiming to blame him for any future economic downturns, or if there are legitimate concerns regarding his performance.

Notable Quotes:

• Camille Foster [60:02]: "Is there a fireable offense for someone like him? And do you think Trump is going to try and do this and maybe invent one?"
• Guest Speaker 1 [65:13]: "If you want to disagree with his timing by a month or two, you can do that. But I think it's really tough to make a sober-minded argument to say he's been incompetent and deserves to be fired."

Discussion Highlights:

• Central Bank Independence: Emphasis on the importance of the Federal Reserve's independence and the dangers of politicizing monetary policy.
• Historical Precedents: Comparison to past administrations and the lack of instances where a President has dismissed a Federal Reserve Chair.
• Long-Term Implications: Speculation on how such a move could set dangerous precedents for future economic governance and stability.

Notable Quotes:

• Guest Speaker 1 [73:50]: "Yes, Completely turning on Trump and the MAGA movement, calling him fat, telling him F you."
• Camille Foster [76:22]: "The abolishing of the Fed is a pipe dream, classic libertarian pipe dream."

Section 4: Grievance Section

Timestamp: [77:50] – [86:51]

In the final segment, the hosts open the floor to personal grievances, sharing experiences and frustrations outside the main political topics. This section offers a glimpse into the hosts' personal lives and challenges, fostering a deeper connection with the audience.

Key Points:

• Personal Struggles with Social Media: Camille discusses the harassment faced by public figures like Brigitte Macron, emphasizing the detrimental effects of social media abuse.
• Algorithm Frustrations: Isaac expresses frustration with how search algorithms track personal interests, leading to an overload of targeted advertisements and reminders of personal challenges.
• Mental Health Insights: Guest Speaker 2 shares a personal anecdote about struggling to recall a song, highlighting the mental strain and importance of taking breaks from repetitive tasks.

Notable Quotes:

• Camille Foster [82:17]: "I am aggrieved this week by social media. I don't like being the subject of abuse online..."
• Guest Speaker 2 [78:15]: "You never really know the internal struggles that a person's going through in their own mind."

Discussion Highlights:

• Impact of Online Behavior: The hosts discuss the psychological toll of online harassment and the spread of conspiracy theories, advocating for greater kindness and empathy.
• Innovative Ideas: Isaac shares a business idea inspired by frustrations with ad algorithms, proposing a workout app that incentivizes exercise through financial commitments.
• Community Support: The segment underscores the importance of supporting one another amidst personal and public challenges.

Notable Quotes:

• Guest Speaker 1 [81:53]: "I have been on the receiving end of much smaller mobs than the one that Macron is certainly facing."
• Camille Foster [84:45]: "Candace Owens... told her to stop spreading these vicious, ugly rumors."

Conclusion

The episode concludes with the hosts reflecting on the intense discussions surrounding Epstein and Jerome Powell, expressing a mix of frustration and determination to seek truth and accountability. They emphasize the importance of maintaining integrity and transparency in the face of political manipulation and personal challenges.

Closing Remarks:

• Hope for Transparency: Despite the murky nature of ongoing investigations, the hosts remain hopeful that justice will prevail and that the truth will eventually surface.
• Personal Growth: The grievance section serves as a reminder of the personal battles each host faces, reinforcing the need for resilience and support.
• Call to Action: Listeners are encouraged to stay informed, think critically, and engage in compassionate discourse to navigate the complexities of modern politics.

Notable Quotes:

• Camille Foster [91:55]: "Take it easy. Have a great weekend."
• Camille Foster [84:45]: "Please practice kindness, people, and maybe you won't."

---

Highlights and Takeaways

• Jeffrey Epstein's Legacy: The Epstein scandal continues to reverberate through political circles, highlighting deep-seated issues of power, secrecy, and accountability.
• Jerome Powell Under Scrutiny: The potential dismissal of the Federal Reserve Chair raises serious concerns about the future of economic policy and the preservation of institutional independence.
• Personal and Public Struggles: The hosts candidly share their personal grievances, emphasizing the human aspect behind political discourse and the pervasive impact of social media.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Camille Foster [05:17]: "There is an idea that Epstein carried some sort of client list around with him... That is the thing that I'm saying is bs."
• Guest Speaker 1 [17:10]: "There is much ruin in a nation. And I certainly believe that about the United States."
• Camille Foster [34:58]: "The CEO, Andy Byron, just released a statement saying... I am a Coldplay fan..."
• Guest Speaker 1 [53:00]: "Maureen Comey... says, 'It's hard to do your job without fear in this climate.'"
• Camille Foster [60:02]: "Is there a fireable offense for someone like him?"
• Guest Speaker 2 [46:56]: "It's easy for people to let their minds run wild and think that there's more to the story than there is."
• Camille Foster [82:17]: "I am aggrieved this week by social media."
• Guest Speaker 2 [78:15]: "You never really know the internal struggles that a person's going through in their own mind."

---

Final Thoughts

This episode of Tangle provides a thorough exploration of the lingering Epstein scandal, the precarious position of Jerome Powell, and the personal grievances that tie into broader societal issues. Through candid discussions and insightful analysis, Isaac Saul and his team offer listeners a nuanced perspective on some of the most contentious topics in contemporary politics.

For those interested in independent, non-partisan political discussions and in-depth interviews, subscribing to Tangle and its newsletter at readtangle.com is highly recommended.

Transcript

[Isaac Saul]

If you're an experienced pet owner, you already know that having a pet is 25% belly rubs, 25% yelling drop it. And 50% groaning at the bill from every vet visit. Which is why Lemonade Pet Insurance is tailor made for your pet and can save you up to 90% on vet bills. It can help cover checkups, emergencies, diagnostics, basically all the stuff that makes your bank account nervous. Claims are filed super easily through the Lemonade app and half get settled instantly. Get a'@lemonade.com pet and they'll help cover the vet bill for whatever your pet swallowed after you yelled drop it.

[Ari Weitzman]

Ready to level up your everyday Quince makes premium essentials without the premium price tag. From quality clothing and stylish accessories to travel staples and high end home goods, Quince has it all. And by partnering directly with top artisans and ethical factories, Quince delivers high quality at half the cost of similar brands. Shop elevated essentials without the markup at Quint's. Go to quints.com LevelUp for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com LevelUp avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows home, so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download Today.

[Camille Foster]

Coming up, we talk about the Jeffrey Epstein stuff for, honestly, literally nearly an hour, if I'm being totally honest with you. So buckle up for that. It's good. And then we get into some Jerome Powell stuff and then a very good grievance section. It's a good one.

[John Lowell]

From executive producer Isaac Saul.

[Narrator]

This is Tangle Foreign.

[Camille Foster]

Good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. I am here with Tangle Managing Editor Ari Weitzman and our editor at large, Camille Foster. Gentlemen, I want to start with this. We are in this is like US Politics bizarro world. I'm going to read this little excerpt from Politico, which I love. I think this is from a day ago. Perhaps it's the summer doldrums, perhaps it's Superman leading the box office, but within the last 24 hours, the political universe feels a lot like bizarro World Democrats are sounding positively magified when it comes to the Jeffrey Epstein files. While leading MAGA figures are calling for supporters to trust the government, Donald Trump is talking tough about Vladimir Putin's Russia. Top progressives find themselves on the opposite side of a big House primary in Arizona. And we have new polling from Tony Fabrizio suggesting that the key to Republicans holding onto the House majority may be supporting a facet of Obamacare. US Politics are insane, man. I don't know how we keep up with the moving goalposts.

[Guest Speaker 1]

I want to have that meme of the astronaut, like, who's pointing the gun at you as you turn your back. There always has been.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yes. This is the latest insanity. And sometimes we have these moments where it's palpable. But we've been in crazy world, in crazy town for a very long time, and it continues to play out and surprise us in interesting ways.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Does it kind of remind you of that fact that every 10,000 years or so, the literal poles on the earth will just reverse? North is south and south is north. And it feels like we're kind of in the middle of it. We've been asking that question like, well, looking at the demographic data here, it looks like all these blue counties are higher income, and what does it mean to be the party of the working class? And we're all just sort of stroking our chins about it, and maybe we're just going through the tumult right now, and that's exactly what's happening. We're flipping and we don't know what to do.

[Guest Speaker 1]

You know, it reminds me a little bit of that moment where Donald Trump won the primary back in 2015, I guess. And right up until that moment, I was confident he couldn't possibly win the nomination.

[Guest Speaker 2]

You were the only one confident.

[Guest Speaker 1]

And it was at that moment that he won it. I said to myself, you know what? I'm not gonna do that kind of prognostication anymore because I don't know. I just don't know. And I think embracing that perspective, like, you don't know. You don't actually know how this is gonna break. Having a perspective on a story is one thing. Insisting you know exactly how this is going to work out is another thing entirely. So, yeah, this is. It's interesting times. And while some of the issues are hella severe and very consequential and others are not, though they may seem to be, it is nothing if not interesting.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Man. I know you've got a whole run of show here, Isaac, and I'VE got so many follow up questions that I want to say to Camille, but I don't wanna derail us after three minutes. I think let's go through with the plan.

[Camille Foster]

No, we can derail.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Yeah, I'm gonna derail. Yeah. I was give you the bait. Say like, yeah, shoot me down on that one. I dare you.

[Camille Foster]

What's the point of a good intro without some derailment?

[Guest Speaker 2]

That's how I feel about it. Yeah. So I really wanna hear as a follow up question, what you said, Camille, like, is there a thing though that you feel like you could say, no, that's not going to happen or that's not going to work. What are you confident on right now? And follow up is a terrace.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Hmm. You know what? I don't think this is an American apocalypse. I think America will survive. And interestingly, that might actually be a controversial perspective, depending on who you're talking to. I think half the country at this moment is looking around, imagining what the future looks like and thinking that this administration is going to lead us into the doldrums and this is it. This is the perpetual decline of the country. I think I've long embraced Adam Smith's dictum that there is much ruin in a nation. And I certainly believe that about the United States. We are consequential great. We still have a very dynamic economy. The citizenry is still filled with amazing people who do hard things and who work very hard. The best things about the country aren't our politics, however weird they may get. So I'm still optimistic and bullish on America, which I don't know if that's a hot take, but some days it feels like something that once said aloud. You know, you're gonna get a couple of strange looks, but that's the thing that I'm pretty sure I can depend upon. But everything else is probably up for grabs.

[Camille Foster]

I just wanna throw this out there, sort of, this whole intro, it reminded me of Hiram and Verlan Lewis, who we interviewed on the Tangle podcast. And we did a write up. I think we released a transcript of their interview from a couple years ago. They co published a book. They're actually not related, but they co published a book about the myth of the left and the right and how the left and the right are not fixed polls and how different they are, which I think has always been a really compelling point. And Hiram, I can't actually remember, I get them mixed up. One of them has written in a few times recently, just like urging me to abandon our format of what the left is saying, what the right is saying. Because he's just like, there are two political tribes that you can identify as the left and the right. The reds and the blues for sure. But there is no, like, central pole that their ideology revolves around. And like, in a week like this, it is a really funny thing watching the polls shift, like Ari said. You know, it's like all of a sudden you can't get Democrats to shut up about the Epstein files. It's like Republicans don't want to talk.

[Guest Speaker 1]

About the client list. In fact, not just the files. The client.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah, yeah, dude, I saw. There was an unbelievable. I saw a tweet from a Democratic member of Congress who was playing the guitar. Oh, yeah, it was Representative Hank Johnson.

[Guest Speaker 1]

That's right.

[Camille Foster]

Who, like, wrote his own song about releasing the Epstein files and was just like strumming the guitars. And I was like, what? What is happening? What's going on? Like, this is like that. And that particular genre of, like, Twitter posts is. It's just like a. It's such a classic kind of Matt Gaetz Lauren Boebert move. Like, I'm imagining them posting something like holding one of their automatic weapons or something to say something, cringe about guns.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Celebrate Santa.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's just like this. Democrats are just adopting wholesale this sort of magafied brand and approach to this issue because they recognize that it's advantageous right now in this moment, which is wild to me. But I do want to actually talk about this before. I just. Yeah, I don't want to get too distracted. But the other big thing that's been happening today in the news. Have you guys been following this? The CEO who got caught on the Jumbotron.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yes.

[Camille Foster]

Incredible story.

[Guest Speaker 1]

I.

[Camille Foster]

He's like. I guess this guy's like, I didn't know who he was before this. One of the largest tech companies in the world, astronomer. And he is at a Coldplay concert, I guess, with a woman he works with.

[Guest Speaker 1]

The head of hr.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah, the head of hr. Yeah. And they get put up on like the Kiss cam Jumbotron at Coldplay and both immediately try and hide their face. Do the most guilty looking thing you could possibly do where, like, nobody would have ever noticed if they didn't just completely dodge the camera. Yeah, he just. The CEO, Andy Byron just released a statement saying, let me start by apologizing to my family, my wife, and our wonderful employees. My behavior is inexcusable and the shame I'm receiving is well deserved. I tried to hide my actions, but the truth has finally been revealed. I am a Coldplay fan, and not just of the first two albums. I also like the recent stuff. I'm gonna take some time to contemplate my future. Please respect our family's privacy.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Wait, what is that? What is that? What is that?

[Camille Foster]

That is a real. I believe it is. It's Astronomero. Whatever Twitter account.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Or doesn't that make you wonder? Because the way that they.

[Guest Speaker 1]

But is that science?

[Guest Speaker 2]

Do you think he's paid off by big Coldplay here? Like this is a little bit too perfect of a PR storm. Maybe we're drumming up a little bit of interest for Coldplay, a little bit of interest for my tech company.

[Camille Foster]

Oh, no. There's so many fake statements going around.

[Guest Speaker 1]

That can't be real. That can't be real.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Did you just get suckered by fake news too?

[Camille Foster]

Well, no, I did, but there's. I guess it's becoming a meme. There's a lot of really good stuff and fake accounts popping up. Yeah, unverified tweet. Definitely doesn't seem real.

[Guest Speaker 1]

You have to look for the verified badge, which someone has to pay for. That'll tell you whether or not.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah, exactly.

[Guest Speaker 2]

But you never know if Chris Martin paid for that badge though. That's where we're at.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Anyway, I will say this. If either of you is thinking of cheating on your spouse, you should know, just maybe don't go to a 60,000 seat arena to do it like that. Is your first order problem. The fact that you end up on the jumbotron, you know, that's unfortunate for you. Bad luck. But you went to a 60,000 seat arena to hoe up. To hug up. Hoe up. That's not appropriate. Whoa. To hug up.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Head of HR side piece.

[Guest Speaker 1]

That's a bad idea. Just don't do that. If you're going to be a monstrous cheat and destroy your family and break your children's hearts. Bad luck.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Or go to a fuller band.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah, this guy has a personal. He's. His net worth is $1.3 billion and he's publicly. It's unbelievable. I mean, you just have to divide.

[Guest Speaker 1]

That by half now.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah, exactly. Yeah.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Divided by half.

[Camille Foster]

I've seen a couple. There's been some really good jokes about it. One of them was. And there is a New York Times op ed from a couple of days ago that From a Biden advisor. The headline of the op ed is I was one of Biden's border advisors. Here. Here's how to fix our immigration system. Someone tweeted out a screenshot of that headline said, I'm the CEO of Astronomer. Here's how to stay faithful to your wife. She's pretty good. Yeah, it's on point. All right, we should get into the Epstein stuff. So I have a couple of things I actually want to cover despite our divergences here. The first one, before we get into some of the kind of hard news stuff, which there's a lot of really interesting angles to this, is that we got a little bit of critical feedback, not a little bit, a lot of critical feedback about some of our coverage last week. One particular piece of feedback got published in the Sunday thank you, Ari. It is a funny thing. Ari gets to now just like pick out really critical feedback that he wants to amplify to our entire audience. And he put this in the Sunday newsletter, which was me getting flamed by one of our readers on on my take about the Epstein thing. We'll be right back after this quick break.

[Guest Speaker 3]

As many of you can probably tell, our world is changing. AI is coming for our job. We have new tariffs announced every day. Geopolitical changes are killing historical alliances. The market's bouncing up and down like a yo yo. Many of us are hunkering down trying to squirrel away some money and protect our futures. But one of the ways you may have forgotten to do that is through a life insurance policy. You've heard of life insurance, I'm sure, but did you know it's cheaper than you think and the younger you are, the cheaper it is. Like double the price if you wait to buy a decade from now. So I'm looking for my life insurance policy today with selectquote.com selectquote takes the guesswork out of finding the right life insurance policy for you. You'll be covered faster than you think as they work with providers who offer same day coverage. And you're not out of luck if you have pre existing health conditions because Select Quote partners with companies that offer policies for people with conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease. Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today and you can get the right life insurance for you right now for less and save more than [e-mail] tangle save more than 50% on term life [e-mail] tangle today to get started. That's SelectQuote.com tangle.

[Narrator]

Watching your teen struggle with acne is tough.

[Isaac Saul]

You want to help, but where do you start?

[Narrator]

Panoxyl makes it simple with Dermatologist recommended products trusted for over 50 years from powerful face washes to invisible patches. It's real skincare that works and builds confidence too. Support your teen skin journey with Panoxyl. Learn [e-mail] or shop the Panoxyl store on Amazon. Panoxyl the Acne Authority.

[Camille Foster]

So I'm going to read what this reader said and then I want to address it and then I'd be kind of curious. I'm going to state a clarified position on the Epstein stuff and then I'd be curious to hear from you guys because this is now a story Ezra Klein just did a whole podcast about Ezra Klein just did an entire hour long podcast for the New York Times about Jeffrey Epstein and like this story. I mean, it's really remarkable stuff where we are in this moment. This is the piece of criticism that I got from a reader whose name I did not catch, but maybe Ari has. They said you're overly focused on debunking the quote unquote client list, as if that disproves the broader concern. That is not the heart of it. The real issues are no one has been held accountable. We know Epstein trafficked girls to powerful men. Even without a list, victims exist and some could still testify. Yet no prosecutions. Why no charges isn't the same as proving no crimes were committed. Even if there is no list, we know for a fact there are numerous sealed or redacted files. Trying to prove there is no bulleted list when it might be the same core information in multiple PDFs seems to be missing the point. The origin of Epstein's wealth and connections remains unexplained. The he was a math teacher who ended up managing hundreds of millions of dollars and network with very powerful world leaders. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's an unanswered question. Lack of information doesn't disprove suspicion. Calling all skepticism nonsense ignores real gaps that deserve investigation. The 2020 election conspiracy should have been put to bed because there is plenty of public evidence to explain what actually happened here. We have plenty of sealed evidence or information that is simply not public. We simply don't know a lot about what happened. So saying there are many open many saying there are many open questions is not the same. It's just the missing Any theories about them. Okay, there's a few things. First of all, just to clarify, some people have been held accountable. Some of this stuff in this criticism is just not true. I just want to say that plainly there have been people who have been held accountable. Ghislaine Maxwell is one of them. Jeffrey Epstein's one of them. He didn't get the prison sentence or the charges that a lot of people wanted, but he was charged, and he got a sweetheart deal initially and ended up back in prison. But, like, there. There was court cases. The files exist because there's all this testimony and because there have been trials and witness statements and investigations. I mean, that is the whole. That's the thing. This stuff is there because there has been some level of accountability. We don't know the degree to which Epstein trafficked girls to powerful men.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Actually, we don't know that it happened at all.

[Camille Foster]

Actually, we don't know that it happened at all. Yeah, that is like a sort of misnomer. We know that Jeffrey Epstein had a network of really powerful men that he was close with and women. And we know that Epstein worked in all these circles. We also know that Epstein was trafficking girls at his island and, you know, having sex with these mothers, minors, and all this stuff. But the degree to which those two worlds cross is actually very unclear. It has not been made clear by the investigations into him or even some of the really good reporting that we have on this issue. So that's not totally true. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I think it very well could have. But to your point, that is one of the unanswered questions, not like, a fundamental premise that you've thrown out. My criticism of, like, the list existing is just, again, there is this misnomer that Epstein had some lists. And this is not like, I didn't invent this idea. It's something that's being pushed by Donald Trump or was being pushed by Donald Trump, was being pushed by J.D. vance, was being pushed by the Attorney General who said she had the list on her desk. Like, there is an idea that is false, which is that Epstein carried some sort of client list around with him of people whom he was tracking these girls to that the government had possession of that they were not sharing with the public. That is the thing that I'm saying is bs. That is like, you know, a myth. I'm not saying it's a myth that Epstein trafficked women, girls, minors. I'm not saying it's a myth that Epstein had really powerful friends who may have participated in that trafficking. I'm not saying it's a myth that Epstein made a bunch of money in really shady ways that we don't totally understand. That's also true. I'm just saying there are some parts of this story that I think are very misunderstood by the public. So just to state my position plainly, gun to head, what's the truth? I have to bet my life on some version of reality. I think it's probably true that that much of what we'll ever know about Jeffrey Epstein and the trafficking network he had or the girls that he was abusing has already been made public or is in the possession of federal authorities and is not being released. Not to protect the abusers, but to protect the victims. Which is a part of the story that's sort of gotten lost is that there are various kinds of privacy acts and rules and regulations and wishes of victims that are keeping some of these stories private. It is true that Epstein had all these powerful connections. It's also true that, like, every media organization on earth spent some kind of resources investigating this story. It's true that there is so much money to be made for these huge, powerful, connected law firms and lawyers. Like, if there was a world where some random rich celebrity was one of the abusers and tied to Epstein or some random rich politician and there was a case to build against that person that is like a gold mine for very wealthy law firms to pursue, they would pursue it if they had the goods, and that those cases would be happening if they had the goods. And I don't know that Epstein has to be alive for that to happen if, like, the files are as incriminating as everybody claims. So the fact that it hasn't happened to me is actually a signal that maybe a lot of the information that we have or will ever have has been kind of poured over, scoured over and explained or is not been made public because it isn't quite as damning as people think. I think there's a very good chance that Donald Trump's name has popped up in some of these cases. I mean, there are legitimate allegations of him being an abuser that have existed outside the Epstein stuff. So it wouldn't surprise me if his connection to Epstein or a visit he had to Epstein's house or something got caught in this huge dragnet of investigations that has pulled all this stuff in. And maybe that's why he doesn't want this stuff to go public. And he's being so defensive about it. I don't have a fully fleshed out theory there, but I'm not like, I don't think it's absurd to believe that his name would be in there. I don't think it's crazy to think that many other well known politicians or celebrities names would be in there. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they'd be guilty. And that's another good reason to protect this list or the files is because you could release information that says, you know, ex politician. I'm not gonna use anybody's real name cause I don't wanna do the thing. But like ex politician or Y celebrity once visited Jeffrey Epstein at his island or was on his plane or in the flight logs. And that trip was some totally legitimate business interest where they went there to like seek his investment for some company they were starting. And now they're suddenly being viewed as a sexual predator when they actually never committed a crime or went to Epstein's house or whatever else. Like that's a real problem with releasing all this information. People don't really seem to talk about it. So that's kind of my position on the story. Ari, Camille, I'd be happy to cede the floor a little bit to hear from you guys because I'm kind of curious where you land. But I just want to make that clear because I think maybe my take wasn't really well stated, at least based on the feedback like this I got. Maybe I wasn't totally clear in my writing about what my position is, but that is my position.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I think I have a bias that kind of goes in that direction as it is. One of the things that I hold that I don't discuss a ton is this belief that the general claims and trends that we hear about with sex trafficking, especially sex trafficking of, of children, are based on completely made up numbers. That's not real. And this goes back to years and years. It's so easy, and we said this last week, it's so easy to dunk on child molesters and terrorists. Those are the two people you're allowed to just make shit up about and know what pushes back on. But this is one of the consequences of that. When you don't push back on claims and then they run out and have side effects with like the AGs losing her job or whatever ends up happening. But to get really specific here, there's like a couple years ago pulling up an article about this. Now there is a claim online that said 800,000 children go missing every year. And that was widely shared and it's just pretty much made up. It's based off of a claim that 22,000 kids go missing per day, which is incorrect. And also sort of based on missing person reports of children who like, are late for school or with a relative or something, and then they're reported as lost. And it gets rolled up into this stat that's now telephoned out to 800,000 how a million kids are stolen and trafficked every year. And the word trafficked so vague that that can mean different things to different people who are hearing it. So my inclination generally when I hear a story about sex trafficking is to think, I'm assuming that's exaggerated, which is not a popular position to take. I think normally, because you would want to say, obviously it's a monstrous thing and you want to be on the side of the victims, and you always should be in these cases. It's almost hard, like tough to even understand the mind of a person who does that. But at the same time, I do think that it's really easy for us when we hear about it, to let our minds run wild and think that there's more to the story than there is. I think most of the time when it comes to stories like this, there generally isn't. And I don't think that's sexy, but I think that's probably. Probably right.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah. I think that. First, Isaac, I don't think the. What was written in this particular complaint is necessarily an indictment of the way that we've discussed the story so much as a very clear illustration of the climate surrounding the story. The fact that there are very important, and I imagine to the extent this person did not believe, explicitly believe, we know Epstein trafficked girls to powerful men. If he or she was not confident of that, then I don't even know that they would write this email. It seems to me that what is actually going on here is there's just a miasma of insane and half supported and perhaps even potentially true, moderately credible claims that are all circulating at exactly the same speed, at exactly the same cadence, and believed with exactly the same intensity across the political spectrum across America. That's kind of where we are with this story. And I think a lot of people have perhaps lost the ability to. To actually gauge, with the appropriate level of rigor, like, what's true and what isn't here. And it's unfortunate. It's also not surprising, hardly the first time we've seen it. And interestingly, I think dovetailing on what you were just unpacking. Ari trafficked is a very interesting word. And it has this almost kind of magical, hypnotic quality to it.

[Guest Speaker 2]

It has a taken vibe. That's what you imagine.

[Guest Speaker 1]

I think people hear it or they read it or they say it aloud, and suddenly an Uber ride turns into a mission impossible operation. And that, I think, is a great deal of what has happened with the Epstein story. If we actually look at what the underlying legislation has to say or the legal code has to say about what trafficking is, it doesn't describe a Jason Bourne operation. You're soliciting sex, you're paying for someone's ride to one place or another. And this technical term, this term of art, perhaps even has again, just kind of taken on these properties of its own and animates imaginations, and suddenly everything turns into comet pizza. One can traffic only for themselves by picking up a prostitute on the street and driving them back to their home. That's trafficking. And one could do that dozens or hundreds of times simply for themselves. You know, there are a great many other issues here in this story. Very powerful man, highly connected as Isaac was laying out, exceptionally wealthy in a strange kind of nebulous industry, who's got this interesting island and who has a determination to spend time with powerful, glamorous, important, smart people. And that is inherently interesting. And I think that particular constellation of issues is gonna create a circumstance like this in a number of occasions. And the Trump administration, unfortunately finds themselves on the wrong end of this particular situation because they just didn't manage it properly. But we've spoken about that at length.

[Camille Foster]

Can I stand? I mean, you gotta fan the conspiratorial flames a little bit.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I was about to, but it's your real house.

[Camille Foster]

All right, well, first of all, like to just play, I guess, play the other side here.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Sure.

[Camille Foster]

Ron Wyden. Senator Ron Wyden. By the way, this happened just today, I think maybe even the last couple hours as we record this. On Thursday afternoon, the U.S. senate voted to block the release of the Epstein files with a motion by Senator Gallego. Unsurprising. Again, it's not even totally clear to me what files they are talking about. But Senator Ron Wyden, who has worked the Epstein case for several years, said that the government is sitting on secret bank filings showing some $1.5 billion in suspicious wire transfers by Epstein involving some of the most powerful people in the world. And it looks like a New York Times article. Sagar and Jenny is screenshotting on on Twitter, noting that in particular, filings by four big banks flagged more than $1.5 billion in transactions, including thousands of wire transfers for the purchase and sale of artwork for rich friends, fees paid to Mr. Epstein by wealthy individuals, and payments to numerous women. The senator's office found the filings came after Mr. Epstein was arrested in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges and Ron Wyden gave a speech on the Senate Floor today about these over 4,000 wire transfers. This is the kind of thing where it's like, again, it's all the same problems. The other stuff I just described, where some of this is probably innocuous rich guy stuff, buying artwork or whatever, but I don't blame people for wanting something like this to be released. You know, I don't like. The curiosity is very understandable to me. I personally. Isaac, Saul. If I could vote up down, like, somebody gives me those files or they don't, I obviously would take them. I'd be very curious to scour those and see whose names popped up and how much money was being moved around and for what. But it is interesting. Again, like, I didn't even know. I follow this stuff quite closely. I didn't even know Ron Wyden was somebody who was working on this case or doing some kind of oversight into the federal investigation or whatever. And now he's just, like, giving a speech about it on the Senate floor. I mean, Democrats are leaning in. This is they. There's sort of blood in the water on the MAGA base here, and they are really not being shy about it. So, I don't know, like, something like that, you know, does that tickle your interest at all, or are you just like. I don't. I couldn't give a shit less.

[Guest Speaker 1]

I mean, maybe. Yeah.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Like, I kind of always believed, like, there's. We were just saying earlier, before Camille, that there isn't really any proof of trafficking. I guess the farthest.

[Guest Speaker 1]

I guess, again, trafficking.

[Camille Foster]

Trafficking.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Right. There's some wide term and I'm just overusing it again. But.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Yeah, but I guess what. I mean, there is, like, hooking up.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Coordination with other people. Yeah.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Yeah.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Essentially being. Being a pimp. Like, it's not. That's. It's not clear that happened.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Sure. I. Yes. But also, that's. That's where I think, like, I do believe that it did, and I don't. I'm looking at the same evidence you are. So I'm not saying that I know something different. I'm just saying I can believe it. I can believe it pretty easily. And I think the.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Is belief the right word or you can imagine it? Which is it? I'm curious.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I mean, I think I would say that I believe it.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Okay.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I'm not saying I know it. I think there's always a leap of faith that's required to use the term belief because you don't have all the evidence. So you have to make that leap to draw a conclusion, and then Operate on it. And I'm not saying that this is something that I'm going to be hard and fast in. I'm very open to changing my opinion on it. And clearly it's not something I'm really trenchant on anyway. But if you were to tell me, do you believe that Epstein pimped out people? I'd say, yeah, more likely than not, I believe that. And I think the thing that people are probably upset about is, to Isaac's point, the totemic nature of it, of rich guy who's well connected. The point is that it's untraceable. The point is that you're buying art and you can be giving it to friends or making payments through financier channels that seem innocuous, maybe, and you have connections, so they'll never be brought out. Like, it just feels unjust because if it weren't somebody who was well connected, it would be coming out. So I think whether or not there's fire there, I think the fact that, like, that amount of smoke would suffocate the rest of us is what is frustrating.

[Camille Foster]

I got another one for you. This one's. This one's maybe more interesting and more tangible. Steve Bannon. Have you guys read about Steve Bannon's Epstein connection?

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah.

[Camille Foster]

He shot this doc with him. Well, he says it wasn't.

[Guest Speaker 1]

There's a lot of footage. Yeah.

[Camille Foster]

Film 15 hours with him. There's this whole. Just like this Business Insider article from 2024 headlined, Steve Bannon filmed Jeffrey Epstein for 15 hours. His quote unquote documentary has never surfaced. He published this. Bannon did publish a trailer basically, for it, but it was never released. It's been three, I guess, four years now. And Bannon had this close relationship with him that's been totally memory hold. The footage is completely under wraps. Nobody's ever seen it. A lot of people who sort of witnessed some of the filming of the, you know, this footage said that the two seemed pretty cozy, like they were friends around each other. And now Bannon's on his, like, War Room or Real America Voice podcast or whatever it is, talking about how turbulence is coming. We're nowhere near through it. People should keep pressing to demand action. They want the documents to surface. Special counsels need to be appointed. He's, like, doing this. I'm turning on Trump for this thing. And he's got 15 hours of Epstein footage that has never seen the light of day for reasons we don't know or understand at all. That seems kind of weird to me. No, I Don't know what's up with that. Could he release the footage? I'd like to see that.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Doesn't it kind of remind you of that Tim Robinson sketch? The hot dog? We're all trying to find the guy who did this.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, it's. Again, I don't want to, like, fall into this conspiratorial trap all of a sudden, because this stuff is. You know, there's all these little things popping up on the board, and we can tie the strings around them and put them all together, but, like, there's just some genuinely weird behavior happening. Like. And I mean that on the. Like, you know, Hank Johnson doing the guitar riff for the Epstein files to be released all the way to Steve Bannon pretending like we need government transparency and a special counsel while he sits on 15 hours of Epstein footage. It's really weird. It's all very strange. And I mean that. I mean weird in, like, the pejorative sense that Camille always uses that word. Like, you guys are behaving weirdly. Please stop. Just like.

[Guest Speaker 2]

And I can see, like, he's almost bleeding. Camille's been biting his tongue for so long. He's got so much to say right now. I can feel it.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah, that Epstein trailer is very weird. The Bannon Epstein trailer. He does kind of crack a joke. And it seems like a joke. Cause Epstein smiles when he says it. Or at least the camera cuts to. Or the shot, anyways. It cuts to a shot. While Bannon is asking this question and suggesting, rather provocatively, something along the lines of, is that why you kind of did all these horrible things with all of these young women, because you believe, like, kind of females are the future or something like that? And Epstein is smiling in response to this. He doesn't seem offended or taken aback. Like, they do seem like friends. And there feels. Seems like there's a bit of friendly ball busting going on. So I don't know that we'll ever see this footage. I'm not sure that it'll ever see the light of day. I don't know what Bannon has. Bannon is nothing if not savvy about trying to meet the moment and stoke kind of panic and concern, even in ways that are anathema to Donald Trump. I think we all remember when Bannon was prominently going after Elon Musk, when he was very close to Donald Trump and was kind of campaigning for him and leading cabinet meetings, for all intents and purposes. So it's a strange situation, to be sure. But look, someone had asked me because I shared something on Twitter, or X I suppose, as it's called now about the case. And someone responded saying, camille, do you think it's appropriate or is it all kind of conspiracy theorizing to ask questions about things that we don't yet have evidence for? And in your everyday life, and perhaps even as a person in the media, to ask questions about things, to propose things that are potentially kind of bleak. Sure, you can do that. You can ask those questions. I just think what's important is that you're not getting too far away from what the actual evidence can sustain and that you're always in a position to be able to say, I haven't seen any evidence to support it yet. I don't know that this is true. And kind of qualifying things appropriately. And unfortunately, what most people are doing is kind of backfilling their uncertainty with anything, any piece of seeming evidence from the, as I referred to earlier, this kind of miasma of uncertainty and craziness and again, sometimes potentially viable theories about what may be going on here. And I think the important thing is you should never disregard Occam's razor or Hamlin's razor. Like, we know that generally speaking, people are animated more or at least more likely to be operating in ignorance than they are kind of maliciously and similarly like the simplest explanation given the actual available evidence is probably the likeliest explanation. And unfortunately, with a universe of possibilities, and that's what you get when you get outside of the realm of what we actually have evidence to support. People are selecting what seems to me the most improbable possible explanation, that there is a vast global multinational conspiracy that is bipartisan in nature and implicates all of the most powerful people in America and involves thousands of young women. Again, when I put it in that way, this beggar's belief, it's not one conspiracy that you're signing up for. It's a plethora of different conspiracies. That there was a mission impossible operation to get into a particular prison and murder him, that he had this compromising information on pretty much everyone, that he was working for some of the most important intelligence agencies in the world while also being prosecuted for, I think very, very clearly, self evidently true things like picking up prostitutes and hooking up with them. And also that his money was a result of just kind of stealing and shaking people down. And yet he didn't try to shake people down while he was in prison or in the moments before he knew he was going to go to prison. It Appears that that never really happened. And the only shakedown operation that we have sort of publicly available information about is him asking Bill Gates for something and Bill Gates ignoring him. And those emails were publicly disclosed. So, you know, it's not the most inspiring thing in the world to think he's just a bad guy who did bad things with perhaps lots and lots of girls. But that might be the truest thing about this circumstance.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I'm nodding along. I hear that, too. You said my name, so that's my cue. Yeah. Or you want something?

[Camille Foster]

No, no, I said. All right. I was about to say, are you ready? Are you ready for a quick palate cleanser?

[Guest Speaker 2]

Yeah, why not? I'm going to read all the time. It sounds like my name.

[Camille Foster]

I'm going to read a quote warning. It's got expletives in it, so if you have children listening or turn off the volume. Curse words.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah.

[Camille Foster]

You might want to skip ahead 30 seconds. I'm going to read a quote. You tell me who you think it's from. This is to Trump. Fuck you. You suck. You're fat. You're a joke. You're stupid. You're not funny. This entire thing has been a scam. We're going to look back at the MAGA movement as the biggest scam in history. The libs were right. We will see Trump as a scam artist, end quote.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Alex Jones.

[Camille Foster]

No, but very close.

[Guest Speaker 1]

I can't guess. Tell me.

[Camille Foster]

Nick Fuentes.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Oh, well, that makes sense.

[Camille Foster]

Tried and true. Fuentes. Yeah. Outer ring of the bullseye. Completely turning on Trump and the MAGA movement, calling him fat, telling him F you. And it's all, yeah, I, I cannot believe this is the thing. But, you know, I don't want to say I'm enjoying it, but I do think there are elements of this that are like, it's cathartic to watch the kind of conspiratorial, the most conspiratorial minded people on the Internet eat each other alive because they're all just deploying the tactics they've deployed against people like me against each other. And it's just like this circling firing squad of like, anybody who is not, you know, not aligning with Trump is now being accused of being fake maga and they were opposer and they were in it for the Griff the whole time. Anyone backing Trump up is like, oh, you're actually probably on the Epstein, listen. Just like these bold, ridiculous public proclamations. Yeah, it's really, it's great. I remember in the wake of the 2020 election when I was debunking a bunch of claims about election fraud, there were just these massive accounts like senior editors at Breitbart tweeting about how I was receiving money from Democratic, you know, donors or something to produce the content I was producing. I mean, like, it was so infuriating and like a genuinely horrible experience. And now they're just all doing it to each other. And yeah, it's a little hard not to laugh a little bit, but this is the reap what you sow dog caught the car moment, I think in the kind of like American super conspiratorial right wing politics.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I just want to say very briefly that while I agree and I think that the easiest thing to explain here, that doesn't create a universe where if you are following Donald Trump, you're anti maga and whatever else, you have to sort of circle around to make it all make sense. It's just that child molestation's a political football or a hot potato and you want to be the team that's not holding the hot potato. And if you're not, then you want to point it out and that's just like the easiest thing to use to explain it. That makes all the sense in the world to me and I on that page with you guys, I'm still holding this doubt in my mind to a smaller conspiracy that I do think that, like, it's not going to involve everybody. But isn't it so easy to imagine and now I'm co opting your language here, Camille. It's easy to imagine that a person who's been shady, well connected and had dangerous proclivities for years and liked to socialize with people would probably involve one or two in a way that he profited from. Like, it's almost difficult to imagine that didn't happen a couple times. That's kind of all that I'm saying. And I think that in order to uncover that stone, it's going to have so much bycatch involved, both on the side of victims as well as people who just happen to be in the same area, that it's really, really easy to imagine people saying like, we should probably keep that door shut. I think that's pretty defensible too, to think.

[Guest Speaker 1]

But if you have a despicable fetish of a criminal nature and you also are the sort of person who cares greatly about public perception of you to the point where you want to be seen and photographed with the most high profile people in the most high profile places, do you a Keep it to yourself, maybe share it with your most trusted partner who can help you recruit people and maintain this interest? Or do you photograph it, create video evidence of it and in a paper trail, and threaten people over email and in various other ways, and try to involve some of the most prominent and powerful people in the world in your scheme? Do you do that? Even the effort to try and entrap someone? Hey, you know, little girls, the moment you ask that question, you could become one of the most notorious people in the world. I actually find it harder to believe personally, that someone who was as sophisticated as Epstein was, and you had to be somewhat sophisticated to move in all these circles and to con people out of their money, as it seems he did. Would you open up yourself to potentially getting caught by telling other people about this? And I don't know, I mean, you'd have to be a bit crazy. And maybe he was crazy in exactly that way, but also it seems to me that it's very possible that he wasn't. So, again, it's quite hard. I think the thing that most sticks in my craw here, and it's kind of crystallized for me in the past couple of hours actually, is that weirdo libertarian inclined person that I am, I care a great deal about transparency, and I want the government to be maximally transparent about all of the things. But I also care about abuses of power. And one way a government can abuse its power is by publishing or promoting the possibility, the appearance of wrongdoing on someone's part without ever having to convict them. In this particular case, if they were to publish documents that even without explicitly implying that, generally kind of leave open the possibility that you might be a party to utterly disgusting things, the most heinous kind of depravity. Maybe this is something that we should be careful about with respect to the disclosures, and that seems eminently reasonable to me. What happened here, however, is that the Trump administration is just not particularly good at things, and as a result, they've screwed the pooch, or they're trying to conceal, again, global conspiracy, which I mentioned a little bit earlier. Again, I leave open the possibility that I am wrong and everyone else is right, and this is the most disgusting, deplorable thing that's ever happened in the history of American crime. But I have to. I think extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and that's the one thing we don't have here, that extraordinary evidence.

[Guest Speaker 2]

You're invoking all the right razors. I like them, too. I got them in my bag. The occam's razor, the Hanlon's razor, the Hitchens razor. It's all true.

[Guest Speaker 1]

A mountain of cliches. Yes, you're right.

[Guest Speaker 2]

That's upon which we build our empire here. But the thing where I just get so stuck is like, it does feel like it's a. It's. It shouldn't have to be a one or the other thing. It shouldn't have to be the Trump administration's been caught doing government bad, or there's a giant global conspiracy. It could be more closer to the Trump administration was caught, like, trying to play both sides of a political storm and the chickens have come home to roost. And at the same time, like, there I. That there could be one or two or three actual conspirators here that we aren't ever going to get to because we'd have to uncover too much. I think there's still so much room for that to be the case. And like you said earlier, what makes more sense, does it make more sense for you to be open with that or trust one very trusted person? And I just think when you compare this to this is going to be really, really crude. So apologies for this being inartful, but we're. When you compare this to one other case that's kind of similar that I can think of from the last 15 years, like the Jerry Sandusky of it all, where this is a person who is on his own, who sort of ingratiated himself in plain sight like did philanthropy, was very public facing, was visible, was trusted in ways that a person of those proclivities can only dream of. That model that I have in my mind is of a single person. And when I think any time that there's a person who opens the door to somebody to work with them, I have a hard time myself feeling like it stops it, too, you know?

[Guest Speaker 1]

Mm, sure, that's fair. Fair. I don't think you're too far out over your skis there. I mean, again, like, to open, to leave yourself open to that possibility seems reasonable. And I have to think that the criminal investigators who worked on this case were open to that possibility as well. But as Isaac said very early on here, like, there have been so many people who've been involved in this, not just the criminal prosecutors, but various lawyers who've prosecuted civil cases, who've won massive, massive judgments against huge financial institutions. This has just been. Of all of the places where one might get caught, like, this is a place where you maybe get caught, and maybe this is the Monica Lewinsky Razor. To the extent the power.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Stop coming up with more razors, we got plenty.

[Guest Speaker 1]

To the extent the President is doing something really bad in his office, are you going to find out about it very quickly? I don't know exactly how to make that fit in this particular context, but I think you kind of find out, you know, the Watergate don't do crimes in glass houses.

[Camille Foster]

You find out, speaking of people involved in this case and the lawyers and prosecutors, whatever, Maureen Comey was fired.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yes.

[Camille Foster]

Which, you know, again, so it just so interesting to see the way this moment is sort of shifting stuff. The New York Times covers this story. Maureen Comey is the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, Manhattan prosecutor, Southern District of New York. She gets fired, which there's. I mean, something pretty alarming happening there, absent the story we're talking about. But the New York Times headlines the story. A Manhattan prosecutor who handled Epstein cases is fired. Like, the New York Times is framing this not as the FBI's daughter, all the other huge cases she's worked on, but like, she's the Jeffrey Epstein person, and that's the lead abruptly fired by the Trump administration. This is really bizarre for a few reasons. One, it's very unusual. They, like, cited Article 2 of the Constitution. There's some sort of, like, weird flex happening here. Maureen Comey responded to her firing with a statement where she said, you know, this was unexpected me, unexpected me in my last day in the office. And she basically said that it's hard to do your job without fear in this climate, if a career prosecutor can be fired without reason, and fear is going to seep into the decision of those who remain kind of throwing up a red flag. I mean, this is the work of Pam Bondi, basically, but it is. There's something here. This is throwing, first of all, if you're the Trump administration, just insane move, given the position you're in, to fire the person who worked on the Epstein stuff, when there's all this suspicion about you floating around already, you're just like, oh, here's a gallon of gasoline. Let me dump that on the fire. And two, they did it without sort like they didn't come out and say were firing her because she mishandled the Epstein case or something. Like, they didn't, they didn't try to frame it as some sort of act. They just, like, did it, didn't really explain it. Very bizarre. And then there's just all this other, you know, it's just another latest, like, weird executive overreach, abuse of power from Trump, where they're just firing like big name prosecutors without really explaining why or without cause, which I don't love. Not a great development. So, yeah, all of a sudden it's just, it seems as if they are both trying to bury the story and keep it in the headlines all at the same time. It's a very, very odd thing.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah. Look, the thing that most surprised me about this is actually that she managed to survive this long. Maybe you don't fire her during the first administration because you still had all those gatekeepers around who were trying to enforce the norms. But early January you get sworn into office, I guess mid to late January, when you get sworn into office in 2025, I'm surprised the firing didn't happen then. It is amazing that she survived until July given the way that this particular administration has operated. You're right, it is weird. Very, very weird to fire her during, in the midst of this particular scandal for the administration. It hardly seems to make sense for them from a narrative standpoint. However, if you had something to hide, do you fire this person and turn them into an enemy who is definitely going to go to the press and start talking again? If there were some horrible thing about Donald Trump in those files, is it possible that we would know about it already? Does it even seem likely that we would know about it already? And I think the answer to that question is undeniably yes. That actually seems pretty probable, despite prohibitions against leaking. So, yeah, it is disturbing when high profile people are being fired for what here actually seems like nakedly political reasons. And again, here I'm speculating, I don't know, but it feels like this is probably political. I mean, her dad now I believe, is also being targeted for investigation by the Justice Department, by, again, Donald Trump's Justice Department, precisely for doing things disfavorable to Donald Trump. And maybe some of those things were wrong and maybe it's appropriate for him to be investigated. But it is impossible to escape the sense that these things are politically motivated. And I think that's the bit of it that's actually most disconcerting for me.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I think you kind of nailed it. Just, you have to imagine that Trump is going like that. He does have something small to hide with this Epstein connection. If this weren't a political firing in some way and it didn't benefit him in some way, that's hard to make the pieces fit. And it feels like, and I'm speculating as well, but just like reading Trump in the way that he usually works the press one gets the impression that he's walking around with a hand like a 2 and 7 off suit and he's saying you should probably fold. I've got kids. You should probably fold. And we know you're weak on this man. We know that you're afraid of your name and implications going to be released if the Epstein files come out more. And it feels like if you just work from that premise, everything kind of makes sense. But if you don't it then we are flailing a little bit more. So that's probably what's happening.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah, I think so. We'll be right back after this quick break.

[Narrator]

Trying to plan a trip and already need a vacation from it. EF Ultimate Break makes group travel easy and affordable for anyone 18 to 35. Everything's handled from accommodation to daily breakfasts to an expert. Tour director will show you the local secrets. Go island hopping in Greece, eat your way through Tokyo or take your pick from over 120 trips perfectly planned for your kind of adventure and with flexible interest free payments. You can book now and pay over time. Just head to Efub Co Travel, fill out your info and get $100 off your first trip.

[Isaac Saul]

Whenever I need to send roses that are guaranteed to make someone's day, the only place I trust is 1-800-flowers.com with 1-800-flowers. My friends and family always receive stunning, high quality bouquets that they absolutely love. Right now, when you buy a dozen multicolored roses, 1-800-flowers will double your bouquet to two dozen roses. To claim this special double roses offer, go to 1-800-flowers.com acast that's 1-800flowers.com acasta.

[Camille Foster]

All right, we've done almost a full hour on Jeffrey Epstein. It is July 17, 2025. What a world we're living in. Just quick little breaking news. Gut check. Is this a story or not a story? Donald Trump, diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency following leg swelling President Trump, examined for swelling in his legs, has been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, the White House announced Thursday. Trump underwent a comprehensive examination, including diagnostic vascular studies at the White House Medical Unit, the Hill reporting that he had swelling in his lower legs and bruising on his hands. And this is like a condition that's quite common. About 150,000 people diagnosed with it every year where valves don't really pump the blood back to your heart so it allows it to pool. Can cause certain things like blood clots and stuff. Probably not a story. My inclination though. A reminder. Donald Trump now the oldest president or will be the oldest president we've ever had by the time his term ends. Because I believe he'll be 83 at the end of his term, surpassing President Biden. Just like a weird thing that we have to think about that.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I guess he's had that leg thing for a while. Right? I mean, we haven't had a diagnosis, but he, he's like if you watch him walk, it's in change directions and turn like it does seem like he's favors one leg. Like it feels like that's been true for a bit. So this doesn't seem too surprising.

[Camille Foster]

I'm seeing a lot of pictures, screenshots of pictures of his swollen legs on the Internet right now. So. Yeah, great.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I'm happy for you.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Did you say, Isaac, that this is also Dr. Isaac, did you say that this shows up as bruising as well?

[Camille Foster]

Is that the Hill was reporting that he had bruising in his hand?

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah, from this back in February with the Macron meeting, there were these pictures of it that started circulating like what on earth is going on with Donald Trump's hand? And you could tell in the photos, these big, I mean, they blew it up. What kind of camera are you using? But that it was kind of covered with makeup. Like it looked like they tried to conceal it. So maybe that's what's going on there as well. Yeah. I don't know if it's a huge news story, but certainly the president's age is an issue and it would be weird if this administration of all administrations were to suggest otherwise considering what has happened the previous administration and their critique of it. But at the same time, hypocrisy is not beyond scope of things.

[Guest Speaker 2]

You're seeing 2.0 then with this age.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Issue, then I don't think it will be quite so controversial. But yeah.

[Camille Foster]

All right. Before we really close up shop here, we should probably hit at least one other topic. I think maybe the next biggest story in the news right now is the potential firing, for lack of a better term, because, yes, we're not totally sure how they'll do it. Of Jerome Powell, the current Fed chair. We had a really classic like one two punch of stories this week where Trump had a closed door session with House Republicans, asked them if he should fire Jerome Powell, received positive feedback and pushes that he should, then circulated and shared a draft of him announcing or informing Powell that he was fired, told the House Republicans that he was going to do it. The story immediately leaked to Fox News, which broke the story and reported on it. And then three hours later, Trump comes out and says, I'm not firing him. It's very unlikely we wouldn't do that. It's all just total noise, and it's hard to kind of suss out what's real and what's not. We talked about this a little bit this week, but, you know, to me, there's no real argument for firing him, both because it would be a massive breach of precedent. And in order to do that, it feels like some sort of, I guess, line needs to be crossed that I don't think Powell has come remotely close to crossing. I mean, by all accounts, he's at worst a average Fed chair, and by many accounts a phenomenal one who has sort of managed to navigate and usher us into this soft landing from inflation that was supposed to be impossible to pull off. Though it really does seem like we're there now. Yeah. I'm curious what you guys think. I guess I'd put the question, like, is there a fireable offense for someone like him? And do you think Trump is going to try and do this and maybe invent one? I guess if he doesn't have the real thing.

[Guest Speaker 1]

I mean, they've taken a run at trying to invent a pretense. The President and many of his supporters were openly talking about this renovation project and testimony from Powell that they insist is a horrible lie. And I think the President was quoted as saying something along the lines of he was very concerned about the profligate spending at the Federal Reserve on this renovation project, that they were building a palace for themselves that didn't go anyplace, and it was clear that they hoped it would. I believe SCOTUS has already weighed in on this in a decision back in, like, 20 in May, or actually. Well, I know Powell's term ends in May of 2026, but I believe in, perhaps even in May of this year, SCOTUS weighed in and said in one of their decisions that the Fed chair was not someone that the President could just dismiss easily. So they needed to find this pretense. And I just. I mean, one would have to come up at this point. Could they do it? I suppose they could try. They've tried all manner of things recently, but this actually seems like something that they probably wouldn't do, given that they only have to wait a year. And if, in fact, inflation does start to spike, it would be helpful for the President to have someone he can blame as opposed to install someone who is completely compliant to him in the way that he would prefer and is doing the things at his direction. So there's a sense in which even though they don't like him and they prefer him out and the president seems to have forgotten that he actually appointed him, that he gets to stay until he's ready to go.

[Guest Speaker 2]

So listening to that, I think you made a couple points that I hadn't really deeply considered, which may be embarrassing because they're good points and I feel like I should have thought of them first. But good job. Yeah, maybe they would benefit from having him in the seat so that they can blame him. It seems like it would be a risk to put somebody in who is just going to lower interest rates because then are you going to disagree with the guy that you appointed to do the thing you want? I mean, that makes a ton of sense. And the second thing is that, yeah, like it is just a year they can wait. And if Trump replaces the Fed chair now with the express goal of cut interest rates because I want to, because it's good press, it's good for the, it'll make the economy run hot and all other good stuff that you would want to oversee as commander in chief or commander in chief of the economy, as it were. It probably is better politics to not the only concern though, Camille, is that self restraint for the thing that Trump wants now hasn't always been his strong suit. Sure, it seems like he's generally followed the strategy of push for all the things I want all the time and then maybe I don't get some of them, but I'll keep pushing, I'll keep pushing and then I'll get a lot of the things that I want. And maybe this is just one of the things that that kind of strategy allows you to do is to push but do it falsely and then have somebody to blame. Maybe that's just like a good political play from Trump. Like for sure, this is a Fed chair who has just objectively, by the metrics done at least a competent job in this position. Just judging by our recovery from the pandemic, it's hard to say that there's anything way out of bounds that Jerome Powell has done. If you want to disagree with his timing by a month or two, you can do that. But I think it's really tough for anybody to make a sober minded argument to say he's been incompetent and deserves to be fired. Maybe it's just better for the President to just leave him in there and yell at him. But my question then to you would be, does it make sense in a year to replace him. Then if you have him there to yell at, would it be better if he cuts rates to say, no, he's coming to his senses, seems like he's doing the right thing now we'll keep him there rather than replace somebody. That will then be an albatross around your neck if something goes wrong.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah, I don't know. And it's interesting, I mean, as we've said throughout the administration and Trump in particular tend to be pretty impulsive. The kind of multidimensional thinking that I'm ascribing to them potentially with respect to. Yeah, we'll wait. Because it's good to blame him really. Not actually the way that they generally do things. I mean, I suppose there was that immigration bill that they helped to kill while out of office because they wanted this as an issue to run on. But that's an easier thing to imagine. That's a meaning than. Yeah, than. Ah, we'll wait and see. So, yeah, you might be right. You might be right. But again, at the moment it seems like they're a bit stymied. They definitely want him gone. They've definitely pulled back on the stick a bit. Their first ham fisted attempt to try to hang something around him hasn't really worked. But that doesn't mean they won't try again. Maybe they'll try to get him the way they have several other people on some sort of mortgage fraud allegations.

[Camille Foster]

So we'll see. I think the really wild thing or the thing that I'm like most concerned about would be the firing and then hiring of a Howard Lutnick one, two punch where it becomes very clear immediately that Donald Trump is about to control the Federal Reserve.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah, total control of the economy.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah, yeah. And we had, we had a really good article that we shared in Tangle, though I wasn't crazy about a couple lines and maybe the headline like I think it was if you want 35%. I can't remember exactly what it was. It was something like totally insane, like if you want the economy to collapse, fire the Fed chair or something. But the writer made a really good argument about what we've seen in some other countries with regards to the sort of central bank being corrupted by political appointees and it's not great. Unsurprisingly, things typically don't go very well after that happens. And there are some real world examples of this, like in Turkey where there's this thing that has happened pretty consistently where people effectively watch as some executive leader or president, prime minister, whatever it is, tries to just pull the levers of the economy independent of any kind of rational economic analysis from somebody overseeing a central bank, and things spin out of control pretty quickly. And it is wild to think or imagine what Trump would do with that kind of power, where he could tariff, he could print money, he could raise and lower interest rates. I mean, we would be living in, like, an unbelievable ordeal of uncertainty and total craziness. And so I'm less defensive of Jerome Powell is like, this guy did his job well and he deserves to be. We change the fed chair every 10 years, no matter what anyway, he won't be there forever. They're gonna replace him. I'm totally fine with all of that. It's more like if Trump fires him, he would only go through that political maelstrom to get his guy in who will do his true bidding. And that's the part that I find really deeply frightening and feels like it would have really big implications for the economy.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah, yeah, yep. Would you say Ron, Ron Paul was right? They should have ended. End the Fed?

[Camille Foster]

Is there a good case for that? Do you have the libertarian case for that? I thought, I actually thought about including some kind of perspective like that in my. Like, is the central bank and the Fed just all, like, is. Are we just, like, trying to make a bad system work? Well, maybe.

[Guest Speaker 1]

I mean, look, I'm not going to make an argument for the gold standard right now. I mean, if you force me to, I might, but I won't. But at a minimum, it seems reasonable to suggest that the government, even with the trappings of independence that currently exist around the Federal Reserve that are obviously imperiled, because not everyone is going to respect norms, as we are observing right now, that allowing the federal government to control fiscal policy and the money supply gives you a single point of failure in a really important sense and politicizes the money supply in ways that are probably not helpful to the economy. Does it give you more control?

[Camille Foster]

Sure.

[Guest Speaker 1]

But that control may or may not be a good thing. Federal Reserves have made profound errors that have caused problems in the past. And if you the kind of libertarian, and this is kind of an Austrian economics, but not narrowly insight, if their perspective is correct, prices are a signal and the money supply is all about the kind of value of the dollar. And that signal is really, really important not just to the US Economy, but to the global economy. It changes everything. Interest rates are a signal. They give us some indication of what is the kind of cost of saving relative to investing. And if those signals are being distorted, that could wreak havoc on the economy. And it does give you less ability to do some of the things that governments do when they are concerned about depressions or recessions or generally just kind of inflation. But taking away some of that control might actually limit the number of times some of those bad outcomes come about and might allow for the kind of economy to rebalance itself more naturally. And it's possible that there are fewer hazards associated with that. So people are going to have differences of perspective here. But one thing that I think we shouldn't have a difference of perspective on is it's probably a bad idea for one person to be in control of all of those things. And at a minimum, perhaps between now and next year, maybe the Trump administration will be in a sufficiently dire position that even some of the diehard supporters are willing to say, you know what, Mr. President, that's not really the outcome that we want here. We actually want to ensure the independence of the Federal Reserve, because that's important and vital for there to be a division of power. But I'm not quite sure that I have any confidence that that'll come about. And I also don't suspect we're actually going to abolish the Fed. That would require a great deal of change, even though we are in bizarro politics world. And maybe Democrats will come around and Ron Paul will be the patron saint of the party by this time next year. Stranger things.

[Camille Foster]

I agree. The abolishing of the Fed is a pipe dream, classic libertarian pipe dream. You guys are all just high as kites thinking stuff's going to happen, it's not going to happen.

[Guest Speaker 1]

But the, I'm not sure I've ever, I've ever cheered for that outcome.

[Camille Foster]

Fair enough.

[Guest Speaker 1]

I'm not sure.

[Camille Foster]

I, I, I think I put the firing power odds at like 10 to 1 right now. I think it's fairly unlikely, but I wouldn't rule it out. I think Trump knows that there are enough people around him who know that doing it would cause such a great deal of economic turbulence that it's like the juice isn't worth the squeeze. And I think it's another year until he gets to appoint somebody. It's like Powell's near the end of his term. It's definitely happening during Trump's term. So, you know, I don't think that's like, yeah, his term ends in May of 2026. So, you know, I don't think that's like something that Donald Trump needs to blow everything up for 8 less fewer months of having Jerome Powell as the Fed chair wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to me. All right, fellas, we've been at it for about an hour and a half now, so I think it's time to get into some of our closing stuff here, which of course, most importantly includes complaining about all the injustices that have happened to us this week, even though we aren't the Fed chair or there is a really bad joke there, but I'm not going to make it.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Use your way.

[Camille Foster]

All right, John, play the grievance music and then we'll get into it.

[Narrator]

The airing of grievances.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Between you and me, I. I think your country is placing a lot of importance on shoe removal.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I'll go first, I think. You cool with that or you want to pull the. No, I got a Camille. What do you want to do?

[Guest Speaker 1]

No, you go.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I want to open up and say. You never really know the internal struggles that a person's going through in their own mind. For the past four weeks, up until last week, I'd been trying to remember a song that I could barely recall. And it is a very, very frustrating feeling. It's the mental equivalent of having a pebble in your shoe. It's like always there. Can't quite get it. I just had one line in my head that I couldn't remember the words to. I could kind of get the sense of the lyrics, but the lyrics were wrong. So I'd search for it and I couldn't get anything. And it was like about a month of that, like three weeks, close to a month of just having one line kind of popping up in my head, feeling like I was getting a little bit going a little bit crazier. And I was trying to. This is something my mom has called Planned Happenstance. I was trying to listen to music in the genre that I thought this song would be in on Spotify, hoping that its recommended songs would sort of return it to me like a message in a bottle. And after what I guess in retrospect is not a lot of time of that approach, it did come back to me. So I was finally able to scratch that itch. The song did appear in Spotify and I'd like sort of over scratched the itch and the scab came off. So I'd listen to the song for like a day and then another day when I'm writing something too, I tend to just listen to one song on repeat just cause you kind of go insane when you're writing something big. Like when I, as you may or may not know, Camille.

[Guest Speaker 1]

That sounds pretty insane. Yeah.

[Guest Speaker 2]

When I was in college, I had a playlist that I called that I think was titled like essay writing. And it was the song Grounds For Divorce by Wolf Parade three times. And I just listened to the whole thing on repeat. And that's a song that you feel really insane when you listen to this song that I finally was able to learn and now is stuck in my head and now I can't get it out, but I at least have. The whole thing is called Living Room New York and it is by the artist Laura Stevenson. It's a very good folk song and I wish her the best. But I really want a little bit of. I need some space. I need some space from this song a little bit. Which is ironic because I think it's about missing somebody in a long distance relationship. But I need some space from Living Room New York. It's a great song, but it's been killing me, killing me inside Mental for the past month. And now you all get to know.

[Camille Foster]

I'll be sure not to look that song up.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I asked John to put it in the episode. Give us an outro maybe.

[Guest Speaker 1]

There's so many good things there. Yeah. Planned happenstance. Great phrase. Love that. Hadn't encountered it before. I appreciate the writing advice. Listen to the same song over and over again until you're done. And you opened with something that made me think of this Milton quote that comes to mind every once in a while. The mind is its own place and can make, and in itself can make a heaven of hell and a hell of heaven, which I don't know how it fits, but I like it.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Yeah, it fits for sure.

[Guest Speaker 1]

I do have my own weird playlist. And it's a playlist just titled Beef. And it is a bunch of different rapids, like rap beef songs. And when I'm angry about something, I will just listen to this playlist. And it is just. I mean, it's the sequencing of the songs that's important too. Like it's the Biggie, Tupac and the Meek Mills Drake.

[Camille Foster]

I would like access to that playlist. Send me that. I'd like to give that a listen.

[Guest Speaker 1]

No problem, sir. I suppose there is one that doesn't fit. It's what's Beef by the Notorious B.I.G. which is a very. You need a combo breaker, heinous song. But I mean, it's just. It's a good Beef song. It's a good Beef song. That's kind of blood meridian vibes. I suppose I should give Grievance.

[Camille Foster]

Don't Call it a complaint. Don't minimize it.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah, my grievance. My grievance. I am aggrieved this week by social media. I don't like being the subject of abuse online, and I was reading a story about Brigitte Macron, a woman who I've never met and suspect I never will meet. But there was a story recently about how she is, like, heartbroken and miffed by all of the conspiracy theories about her actually being a man. It may be hard for people to appreciate who've never been part of a kind of viral public shaming or whatever you want to call it, or at least the media panic of some sort of. But when you find yourself to be the figure of contempt for whom thousands of strangers you've never met before are, like, uniquely animated, they're coming after you, they're sending nasty messages. Sometimes they're in your DMs. A couple of them find ways to send you emails at addresses that are completely undisconnected from anything else you do. They're leaving weird comments under photos of your kids on Instagram. Like, it's awful and it really, really sucks. And I suppose this week I'm just a little annoyed by that dynamic, having endured a little bit of it this week. But the Brigitte Macron story, when I saw it, just made me think, God, you know, fine, you're a public person, you're prominent, and your husband at least, is quite powerful. But damn it, I wish there was just a little bit more kindness, a little bit less of an inclination to promulgate horrible stories, even if you believe they're true, at least. Candace Owens, like, for a moment, imagine that you might be wrong and maybe this is injurious to someone else who has done you no harm. So, I don't know, just practice kindness, people, and maybe you won't. I haven't used my beef playlist in a while, let me just put it that way. I try to be in more positive spaces until I'm encouraged to do this.

[Camille Foster]

Candace Owens is like primary.

[Guest Speaker 2]

What's the mob commentary for.

[Guest Speaker 1]

For the Brigitte Macron thing. She is probably the leading global proponent of this.

[Camille Foster]

Owens claimed that Donald Trump called her, like two weeks ago and told her to cut it out because it was like, taking a toll on Brigitte Macron.

[Guest Speaker 1]

I know too much about this. It wasn't Donald Trump, but someone in.

[Camille Foster]

The administration, she alleges.

[Guest Speaker 1]

She didn't say who it was, but someone high ran when Macron was in town that he was going to sign a deal to end the Ukraine conflict, but wouldn't do it until they got Candace Owens to promise to stop spreading these vicious, ugly rumors. And they are totally. And ugly. Like, it's horrific.

[Camille Foster]

But I mean, no, she won't stop. And it's like, it's.

[Guest Speaker 1]

And also that's.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Well, like.

[Camille Foster]

I mean, what would be really remarkable is if Macron was able to take it to court and win some kind of libel case. Like, I know she's suing, she's doing. She's taking some legal action in European courts where she could sort of, if she were to prove her gender, sex, origin, whatever, and then like, simultaneously kill the conspiracy theories and get paid for all the damages and strife that she had to live through, I would support that. Because you like Camille, or like you, Camille, I have been on the receiving end of much smaller mobs than the one that Macron is certainly facing with some of the high profile, like, conspiracy theorists, for lack of a better term, the influencers, we could say, who are like, drumming up this nonsense about her. Yeah, I mean, I, at some point it would like, break me and I would just like get nude on an Instagram live or something and be like, this is my body in full, take it or leave it people. That would be like. That also feels kind of like the.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah, that is what.

[Camille Foster]

That's like the French thing to do. I feel like maybe she should just lean into the free.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Huh.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Are you alleging that she's not really. Now, there's nothing.

[Camille Foster]

It's just such a pro sex culture.

[Guest Speaker 1]

You know, Nothing that could resolve these issues. There's nothing that could resolve these issues in the mind of the conspiracy theorists. They would see some wrinkles and say, see, there they are. Those are the stitch marks right there.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah, it's like the joke about the conspiracy theorist going to the pearly gates or whatever and asking God, who really killed jfk? He says, Lee Harvey Oswald. He says, wow, this thing really goes all the way up to the top, huh? Yeah, yeah. It's impossible to satiate them. All right, well, my grievance for this week is not social media, but it is the algorithm. It is. And so it's interesting, Camille. I guess it's like almost a sister issue to the one that you raised. But it made me think of this because we were doing a pitch meeting at Tangle. We're talking about some stories we're going to cover, and one of the things that came up was like, what the government knows about you. And another one that came up was about the sort of online health space Subscription health space sort of supplanting some of the more traditional ways that people get care. And I said in the pitch meeting this thing about how like a couple years ago when I started losing my hairline, I like googled one time something about like hair loss medication or like, you know, like shampoo that could stop your receding hairline. And for years since now, I have just been getting absolutely hammered with ads on every platform. I go on about hair loss, with hair loss stuff on websites, on, you know, social media, whatever. And so this just happened to me again this last week because I'm trying to cut, I put on a lot of weight, like lifting. And then I sort of had the baby. And I don't know if you guys know this, when you have a kid you start to eat like shit and you lose a bunch of sleep and you don't go to the gym as much. So like all this awesome bulk that I turned on just quickly turned into like raw body weight. And so now, yeah, now I'm back getting back in routine, I'm like going to the gym again, I'm starting working out again and I'm trying to lose weight. And so I made the like absolute rookie mistake of just looking up like top rated weight loss apps because I was curious if there was like a tracking app, you know, something to put in my food, track my calculator, calories, whatever. And now I am just getting bombarded on every platform I go on, on every website I go on with just like weight loss stuff. This prompted a few things in me. One, fury, anger, disappointment in myself for being so dumb to not do this like in Google incognito or in Brave browser or something. So I feel like a fool and idiot because I've trapped myself again. I also came up with an incredible business idea which I shared with the Tangle team and nobody talked about how brilliant it was, even though it was so smart. Which is create an app, a workout app where when you sign up for the app, you put in a certain amount of money, maybe like $100, $500, something significant to people. And then in order to earn your money back, you have to work out and log your workout by tracking it on one of the health devices like an oura ring or an app or something. And if you don't get the money back, then the business, the app gets to keep the money you've deposited as like your subscription fee. This is brilliant, gamifying workouts and so many people are going to fail. You're going to make a Ton of money. And a lot of people are going to be really motivated because they want their money back and they'll work out and lose weight. It's the seedling of an idea. But if there's an investor out there who wants to put some money into it, hit me up. Anyway, I'm just like, I can't believe that I'm back now in the slops, and I can't. I go on a website that has programmatic ads and it's like weight loss stuff and hair loss stuff, and I'm just reminded that I'm fat and going bald if I spend any time on the Internet. So that's my grievance for the week and I can't wait to be out of it. I should Google some other really big industries to maybe drown. Maybe I'll try and fake out the algorithm and look up some other stuff. I'm open to ideas.

[Guest Speaker 2]

I kind of feel you. I know what it's like to post something brilliant on the team Slack and have people not respond to it. It's tough. That's what I heard. That's what I heard was the main grievance here. I think, reading between the lines, I think I was pretty pleased with the way that I was able to play that keyboard. Keyboard thing that. Well shared in our. Slack got no. No traction on it. So I'm with you. Sometimes you just have to take the.

[Camille Foster]

People don't give a.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Wait, wait a minute. I'm picking up something.

[Camille Foster]

Yeah, yeah, we have a Slack. We've been trying to get Camille to log into it for the last three.

[Guest Speaker 2]

Months, but, yeah, we've been messaging him a lot.

[Camille Foster]

All right, fellas, it's time to get out of here. Appreciate the time. This was a good one. I'm. I'm glad we got all the Epstein stuff off our chest. Maybe we won't have to talk about it again. Probably not, though. Shocking.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Yeah, probably not. Take it easy. Have a great weekend.

[Camille Foster]

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 Editor Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead Bailey, Saul, Lindsey Knuth and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our [e-mail].

[Narrator]

Did you know Tide has been upgraded to provide an even better clean in cold water? Tide is specifically designed to fight any stain you throw at it, even in cold butter. Yep. Chocolate ice cream. Sure thing. Barbecue sauce. Tide's got you covered. You don't need to use warm water. Additionally, Tide pods let you confidently fight tough stains with new coldzyme technology. Just remember, if it's gotta be clean, it's gotta be Tide.

[Camille Foster]

Wait, what is that sound?

[Guest Speaker 2]

What are you chewing on?

[Guest Speaker 1]

My socks?

[Camille Foster]

The furniture.

[Guest Speaker 1]

Not my new sneakers again.

[Isaac Saul]

Dogs love to chew, but not everything they chew is good for them. That's why Earth Animal created no hide chews. The safe, natural alternative to rawhide or whatever else they shouldn't be chewing. Made with simple, sustainable ingredients and flavors, dogs love their irresistible irresistibly good for them and your peace of mind. Celebrate our 10th birthday with 25 off. Use code CHEW25earthanimal.com Always supervise chewing subject to availability terms and conditions apply. See earthanimal.com for details.

[John Lowell]

This is Paige, the co host of Giggly Squad. I use Uber Eats for everything and I feel like people forget that you can truly order anything, especially living in New York City.

[Camille Foster]

It's.

[John Lowell]

It's why I love it. You can get Chinese food at any time of night, but it's not just for food. I order from CVS all the time. I'm always ordering from the grocery store. If a friend stops over, I have to order champagne. I also have this thing that whenever I travel, if I'm ever in a hotel room, I never feel like I'm missing something because I'll just Uber Eats it. The amount of times I've had to Uber eats hair items like hairspray, deodorant, you name it, I've ordered it. On Uber Eats. You can get grocery alcohol everyday essentials in addition to restaurants and food you love. So in other words, get almost anything with Ubereats. Order now for alcohol. You must be legal drinking age. Please enjoy responsibly. Product availability varies by region. See app for details.