Trump Lets Slip What's Got Under His Skin: Wolff

Summary

---

The Daily Beast Podcast – March 18, 2026

Episode: "Trump Lets Slip What's Got Under His Skin: Wolff"
Host: Joanna Coles
Guest: Michael Wolff

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Joanna Coles and Michael Wolff dive deep into the latest twists around the Jeffrey Epstein files, focusing on the ongoing ripple effects for high-profile individuals, including Donald Trump, Tom Pritzker, and Steve Bannon. The conversation explores Trump's apparent obsession with Wolff, how public scrutiny is enveloping anyone associated with Epstein, the troubling nature of mass data releases, and what all this means for political power players. The episode also briefly touches on Trump’s climate agenda, the internal jockeying among GOP hopefuls, and the rising Democratic stars for 2026.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Epstein Files Fallout: Guilt by Association

• Tom Pritzker’s Downfall:

  • Joanna and Michael discuss Tom Pritzker, former Hyatt chairman, forced to resign due to his appearance in Epstein-related emails.
  • Michael recounts meeting Pritzker at a play viewing arranged by Epstein at Lincoln Center, emphasizing Pritzker's only apparent crime: socializing with Epstein.
  • Wolff notes, “There is certainly no suggestion that Tom Pritzker was involved with Jeffrey Epstein's dark sexual compartment... Just the only suggestion is that he had a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.” (09:45)

• The Salem Witch Trials Effect:

  • Joanna points out the escalating guilt-by-association: “There’s an element of Salem witch trials about this. Now that anybody that's ever been involved with Jeffrey Epstein has to step back.” (05:36)
  • Wolff highlights The New York Times’ editorial stance: “Anyone who has shaken hands with Mr. Epstein in recent decades should be scrutinized.” (05:48)

• Collateral Damage & Due Process:

  • Joanna notes, “...the collateral damage on people is remarkable. I mean, Kathy Rummler's private life... all over the front page of the Wall Street Journal, none of which really pertains to the Epstein case.” (29:15)
  • Wolff argues that this is a violation of due process: “Due process says you have information related to a specific investigation or crime... but does not have a right to know about the information that has no relevance.” (29:35)

2. Trump’s Reaction & Obsession with Wolff

• Trump’s Public Rage:

  • Joanna recounts a dinner where news broke that Trump was raging against Wolff on Air Force One, with Trump’s new defense being that journalists (specifically Wolff) and Epstein are conspiring against him. (10:16, 10:40)
  • Michael confirms, “This lawsuit is a problem for them... They screwed up to get themselves in a position where I could pursue them.” (13:02)
  • Wolff reflects, “He is right. He's picked up on that... When he singles that out, he is saying, yeah, you could have. That could have been harmful to me.” (11:35)

• Inside Trump’s Psychology:

  • Wolff contends Trump has a true antenna for what might harm him, implying the threat from the Epstein files—and Wolff himself—is real in Trump’s mind.
  • “I am under his skin with this Melania lawsuit.” (12:50)

3. The Bannon-Epstein Connection

• Origins of the Relationship:

  • Wolff reveals he introduced Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein in 2017, after Bannon left the White House. (14:47, 17:03)
  • Their immediate bond: “They immediately bonded over their hatred for Donald Trump.” (17:10)
  • Memorable moment: Bannon’s first words to Epstein were, “‘You were the only person I was afraid of during the 2016 campaign.’” (14:34)

• Bannon-Epstein-Trump Triangle:

  • They often met or called each other, sharing stories and analyses of Trump: “They felt like much of the country felt: How did this possibly happen?” (19:14)
  • Wolff hints their insider knowledge was “comic, tragic... a kind of entertainment for them.” (19:10)

• Media Critique:

  • Wolff critiques recent NYT reporting: “Their coverage of the Bannon-Epstein relationship was... zero reporting, actually.” (15:15)
  • Also, “Going through these emails and just extracting snippets... is not reporting. They don't know the context, the meaning, they know nothing.” (28:42)

4. Epstein’s Life, Death, and Conspiracy Theories

• Suicide or Murder?
  • Joanna notes, “The more you read about the Epstein files... the more you think it’s possible he didn’t die by suicide.” (22:27)
  • Wolff is agnostic but skeptical: “I can’t see the circumstances in which he died the way they say he would have had to have died. And yet I can’t see... all the people... would keep quiet about what they knew.” (23:01)

5. Release of the Epstein Files: An Unprecedented ‘Rosetta Stone’

• Unvetted Information and Antidemocratic Consequences:
  • Wolff raises concerns about the bulk release of the files: “We ought to remember... information has never been released in this way... Throwing it out has never happened before. So we don’t know the effect of that.” (24:43)
  • He warns that it has “as much collateral damage as anything the Trump administration has done.” (24:43)

6. Impact on Trump and Others

• Epstein Files Help Trump?

  • Joanna asks, “Is it possible the release of the Epstein files turns out to be good for Trump?” (34:32)
  • Wolff responds, “Yeah, I think already it has... It has certainly taken the focus off of him and put the focus on so many other people and fractured the focus. Who do we focus on?” (34:46)

• Trump’s Survival Playbook:

  • Wolff draws parallels to Trump’s “grab them by the pussy” scandal: “The way he got by that... he survived that by blaming it on Clinton, which he’s doing again.” (36:17)

7. Transition to Climate Politics

• Trump’s Deregulation on Climate:
  • Wolff: “What the Trump administration has done is basically say, we don’t want that power and we're giving it back. They have dismantled the entire system for regulating... climate change.” (30:48)
  • Joanna asks about political consequences: “You feel that this is going to impact his voters in the red state just as much as anybody in the blue states.” (33:51)
  • Wolff agrees, highlighting how Trump frames the main threat as Democrats, not climate apocalypse. (34:32)

8. 2026 Political Landscape: Rubio, J.D. Vance, and AOC

• Marco Rubio’s Rise:

  • Rubio shines at Munich Security Conference; compared favorably to J.D. Vance (“Now Marco Rubio is sort of saying, ‘Come on, guys, you’ve got to save your own Western civilization.’”) (37:59)
  • Wolff: “This is clearly a Marco Rubio moment... the one person in this administration who has some professional experience in the job at hand.” (38:32)
  • Rubio’s internal anguish: “He’s always looking anguished in photographs... Marco Rubio looking for his soul or whatever.” (41:01)

• Classic Trump Divide-and-Conquer:

  • Wolff: “Let me have two guys who will kill each other... and leaving who standing? Donald Trump.” (41:01)

• AOC’s Path:

  • AOC reportedly in Munich: “She’s obviously running for president, clearly running for president... a person outside of all the conventions of running for president.” (41:56)
  • Discussion on Democratic Party’s identity crisis—establishment versus disruptors. (42:30)

• Midterms & Democratic Bench:

  • Joanna mentions rising Dems: Mark Kelly, Seth Moulton, James Talarico, Jasmine Crockett.
  • Obama’s recent activity noted. (43:56–44:52)

9. Q&A Highlights: Melania, Lawsuit, and Limericks

• Listener Questions:

  • Melania’s residency and government support, positing the comedic, "Can your black-rimmed hat be used as a weapon like Oddjob in Goldfinger?" (45:09)
  • Wolff clarifies the focus of lawsuits concerns the actual nature of relations between Epstein, Trump, and Melania. (46:45)

• Limerick Moment:

  • Community-produced limericks add levity; ex:
    • “There once was a crowd in first class / whose secrets were buried in brass...” (47:10)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On guilt by association (Epstein):

  • “Anyone who has shaken hands with Mr. Epstein in recent decades should be scrutinized.” (NYT, referenced by Wolff, 05:48)
  • “There is an element of Salem witch trials about this.” – Joanna Coles (05:36)

• On Trump’s antenna for threat:

  • “When he singles that out, he is saying, yeah... That could have been harmful to me.” – Michael Wolff (11:35)

• On Bannon–Epstein Partnership:

  • “They immediately bonded over their hatred for Donald Trump.” – Michael Wolff (17:10)

• On the unprecedented nature of the Epstein files’ release:

  • “The idea of law enforcement... just throwing it out has never happened before. We don’t know the effect of that.” – Michael Wolff (24:43)

• On Marco Rubio’s moment:

  • “He is actually the one person in this administration who has some professional experience in the job at hand.” – Michael Wolff (38:32)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Trump’s Rage at Wolff and Supper Story: 10:16 – 11:35
• Guilt by Association / Witch Trials: 05:36 – 09:45
• Bannon Meets Epstein: 14:34 – 17:10
• Epstein Files Release & Collateral Damage: 24:43 – 30:00
• Climate Regulation Rollback: 30:48 – 34:32
• Epstein Files Help Trump?: 34:32 – 36:17
• Rubio, JD Vance, and GOP Dynamics: 37:59 – 41:18
• AOC’s Prospects and the Democratic Bench: 41:56 – 44:52
• Community Limericks and Listener Q&A: 47:10 – 48:15

---

Episode Tone and Takeaway

The tone is witty, unsparing, and conversational—with dark humor supporting incisive critique. Wolff and Coles are skeptical of the media’s herd mentality, scornful of opportunistic reporting, and precise about the psychological maneuvering at the upper echelons of power.

For listeners:
This episode unpacks how the Epstein files have become a blunt instrument for guilt by association, why Trump is fixated on Wolff, how the media’s handling of scandal is flawed, and what shifting political alliances might mean for 2026. The blend of insider anecdotes, media criticism, and dark comedy offers both clarity and intrigue in a chaotic news cycle.

---

Transcript

[A]

This episode is brought to you by Nespresso Introducing Vertuo up, the latest in a long line of innovation from Nespresso. It's innovation you can touch, sense and taste in every single cup.

[B]

With a three second start, easy open.

[A]

Lever and dedicated brew over ice button, it's even easier to enjoy your coffee your way. Sip for yourself. Shop Vertuo up [e-mail] it's tax season and at Lifelock.

[B]

We know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points Lifelock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.

[A]

We had supper last night and you came in and as we were eating, the President was raging against you on Air Force One.

[B]

Me and the President.

[A]

His line now about the Epstein files appears to be he's exonerated and you are the cause of all of his problems, you sleazebag. Journalist Michael Wolff and Jeffrey Epstein were conspiring to bring him down. That that's what he takes from the Epstein files. Michael. Joanna, we are back in the studio.

[B]

Thank goodness.

[A]

And I have my little walker tucked in the corner. Thank you everybody who's told me about your hip replacements.

[B]

Let's not display the walker.

[A]

It's not displayed, it's tucked away. And by this time next week, I will be done with the walker.

[B]

I'll be onto the although we will soon all be with walker. So we should. We should maybe practice.

[A]

The only reason I've got a walker is because soon I'll be able to run like a gazelle.

[B]

Okay, we're going to run together.

[A]

We're never going to run together. I still don't believe that you run. Anyway, thank you very much for your lovely comments about getting well and also all the people out there that have had hip replacements and your various ideas for therapies and when you're on a cane and all that. I really appreciate it. It's actually very nice to hear from people. All right, and what color is this, pray? Is this a latte?

[B]

Yes. And this is chocolate.

[A]

Okay, so chocolate latte this morning. Okay. February. We're longing for spring. It's a bit gloomy today, but never mind. We're here in Person. Life is good. Although not for Tom Pritzker. Another person. Every single day someone has fallen because of their relationship with your old friend Jeffrey Epstein.

[B]

No, it's extraordinary. It is a. A fast spreading disease.

[A]

Yeah. The scion of the. And I think he was chairman of the Hyatt hotel group and he's had to resign because it's all too much. And his emails have come out and Michael, did you ever meet Tom Pritzker with Jeffrey Epstein?

[B]

I did. Pray to hell Jeffrey Epstein. And this is other people who have fallen. Jeffrey Epstein had a special viewing of the play Oslo.

[A]

Oh yeah. Because he was involved with the people that were out of the. Well, he knew.

[B]

He knew the negotiations. The central protagonists in Oslo are Norwegian diplomats, a man by the name of Tierj Larsen and his wife, whose name I should know because I know her. But you know, two enormously capable people and two people who have made a profound contribution to world peace. I think.

[A]

Can we just say they were the Wyckoff and Jared of their day.

[B]

Well, they were not. I think the important point is the Witkoff and Jared of their day. They were legitimate diplomats who, who made a profound contribution to the world.

[A]

Right, to the Middle east peace process, to be specific.

[B]

Yes. And to other things. I mean, these were lifelong career diplomats. And actually the play Oslo, which is kind of terrific, makes this very clear the kinds of things that they did and the kinds of things that they were involved in and this profound contribution that they, that they made.

[A]

And it was on at the Lincoln Center. It opened at the Lincoln Center.

[B]

Yes. And Epstein was a friend of theirs. So he had this special, not screening, staging, viewing, whatever at his home.

[A]

Do you mean at the Lincoln Center?

[B]

No, at Lincoln Center, Yeah. I mean he sort of bought out one evening at Lincoln center and then invited a lot of people, including Tom Pritzker, which is where I met Tom Pritzker and I think one other time I met him at Jeffrey's house.

[A]

Did you ever meet Deepak there?

[B]

I did meet Deepak Chopra, yes. I think we've talked. Haven't we talked about this? Well, let me see. Let's do it again. Because that was Deepak Chopra described when Jared and Ivanka came to one of his, whatever he does, workshops, I think.

[A]

Spiritual workshops for which you're guaranteed spiritual awakening.

[B]

Yes. And they sat in the front row. He was very flat fixed on that and they were very attentive to him.

[A]

Yeah, you did tell me that. But okay, so you met Tom Pritzker. Well, he's the next one. There's an element of Salem witch trials about this. Now that anybody that's ever been involved with Jeffrey Epstein has to step back.

[B]

Yeah. No, no, no. And I pulled. There's this line which has haunted me for some time. And this is something that the New York Times wrote in just after. In the months after Epstein died. The New York Times. An editorial in the New York Times, they said anyone who has shaken hands with Mr. Epstein in recent decades should be scrutinized. And I thought, well, certainly since. Well, actually, I haven't shaken hands with. With Epstein because Epstein did not shake hands. So this is.

[A]

What did he do? Did he do the elbow thing?

[B]

Yes, he was a germaphobe.

[A]

I've always found that elbow thing. Unlike rfk, who isn't scared of germs because, as he said, he used to snort coke off a toilet seat. I know I said that on Saturday, but it's such an extraordinary detail about him. Here's an uncomfortable truth. Your home address, phone number and personal details are almost certainly online right now being bought and sold by data brokers you've probably never heard of. Stop companies from fleecing your data now with Incogni, Incogni automatically hunts down your personal info and removes it from hundreds of data brokers. They can't profit off you if they can't find you. What I love is how dogged Incogni is continuously scrubbing your info from people's search sites, online directories and giant databases housing your precious details. And if your personal info pops up somewhere new, you can flag it and a real privacy expert takes care of it in a flash. Let's stop the endless spam calls, scrub your data now and give yourself some peace of mind. Act now to get an exclusive 60% off with an annual Incogni plan, just go to incogni.com beast or click the link in the episode description box.

[B]

Epstein was very much a germaphobe and often said that a pandemic was coming before the pandemic.

[A]

Odd that he was a germaphobe given how many people strange girls he had sex with that he didn't know and that there were seemed to be endless doctors on hand to help the girls who'd picked up STIs.

[B]

I don't know what to say to this. I find because one of the things if you told me that Epstein did not actually have penetrative sex, I would not be surprised. I mean, his fetish, which is we should demands significantly more explanation, which I wish someone would do, was about these massages I mean, that's what the whole thing was. It was a constant thing. And I don't understand this. I don't understand why anyone would have this.

[A]

Well, I think they were massages with, in theory, happy endings. Right. I mean, wasn't his thing that he had to have three clothes a day, according to Milan.

[B]

Again, there's the penetrating, the penetrative issue. We're not clear on that. Anyway, anyway, let's get back to the handshake.

[A]

Okay, so the point is he didn't. The point is he was a germaphobe.

[B]

Like, the point is that this was.

[A]

These gross men are germaphobes. It's so ironic.

[B]

The point is that this is set up. The New York Times foreshadows this, that almost anyone. That this is guilt by association.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And this is a classic thing. I mean, this could not be more classic. You know, what was Tom Pritzkertom. Pritzker's association? Is there any suggestion that Tom Pritzker was involved with Jeffrey Epstein's dark sexual. That compartment of his life? No, there is certainly no suggestion of that. Just the only suggestion is that he had a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

[A]

All right, so we had supper last night with a group of friends. You were in town, you left the Hamptons behind, and you came in and as we were eating, if I may say so, a rather good lasagna, the president was raging against you on Air Force One.

[B]

Me and the President, Yeah.

[A]

I mean, you know, Heshis line now about the Epstein files appears to be he's exonerated and you sleep are the.

[B]

Cause of all of his problems.

[A]

You sleazeback. Journalists Michael Wolff and Jeffrey Epstein were conspiring to bring him down. That's what he takes from the Epstein files. Right.

[B]

And this is not altogether untrue, by the way. I mean, it is certainly untrue that he's been exonerated. He's always exonerated.

[A]

Right. Nobody's been exonerated. More a great exoneration. Terrific exoneration.

[B]

But it certainly was a piece of my relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was trying to get him to use what he knew to. To actually sound, at the very least, a warning against Donald Trump.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So, yes. So he is. Right. He's picked up on that. He's kind of focused in on that. And when he focuses in on things that Isactually he has an antenna for what is true. In other words, so he's. When he singles that out, he is saying, yeah, you could have. That could have been harmful to me.

[A]

Right. Well, I still think he thinks the Epstein files might be harmful to him.

[B]

And let's go into. Because I want to do the Steve Bannon thing, because Steve Bannon has been an Epstein person of the day.

[A]

But before we do, I would just like to remark that I thought it was strange that the reporters on Air Force One, given the news last week with your own legal case, that Melania doesn't in fact, live at the White House. She lives at Trump Tower. I thought it was OD that instead of asking them, where does Melania live? They asked instead, you know, did you give Melania flowers for Valentine's Day? And weirdly, he didn't even say yes to that. He said, oh, it's complicated. What's complicated about it? He couldn't just say no because we don't live together. And why did no one say, is it true that Melania lives in Trump Tower? Instead? He looks sort of sheepish and weird and backed away.

[B]

Yeah. No. And. Well, and that's the other thing. Why my name comes up. I am under his skin when I. With this Melania lawsuit.

[A]

Well, we're inside his house and you're under his skin.

[B]

I mean, this lawsuit is a problem for them. I mean, they screwed up to get themselves in a position where I could pursue them. They're not pursuing me. I'm pursuing them. And that this could ultimately end up with depositions taken certainly from their friends and quite possibly, inevitably, actually, if it goes that far with. With them. So this is a. That's a screw up. The lawsuit. Getting themselves in this position is a screw up with my name on it.

[A]

But if I were a journalist on Air Force One and I had the opportunity to talk to Trump, I would be talking to him about this journalist. If you're out there and you're looking for things to ask about.

[B]

Well, yeah, but you know the problem.

[A]

Solania is interested.

[B]

Yeah. You know the problem. If you ask those kinds of questions, you won't be on the plane anymore.

[A]

I'm sure that he will open the door mid flight and kick them off anyway.

[B]

But I want to get back to this Bannon thing, and I want to connect it to this idea that he thinks that I was plotting with Epstein against him because one of the people who Epstein. The other person Epstein was plotting with against Trump was with Bannon. But also, let me recollect that that moment when Jeffrey Epstein met Steve Bannon, Steve Bannon's first words were to Jeffrey Epstein were, I know what they were.

[A]

Yeah. You were the only person I was afraid of during the 2016 campaign.

[B]

Bingo.

[A]

Yeah. See, I have been listening. Yeah. And you introduced Steve Bannon to Jeffrey Epstein.

[B]

Yeah. So the New York Times yesterday did their. Their Bannon Epstein takedown. There's one a day now. So all they're able to do is just, you know, write stories with snippets from these. From these emails, and they managed. Their coverage of the Bannon Epstein relationship was. I mean, it seemed like zero reporting, actually.

[A]

Well, I thought the coverage was exactly the same as the chapter you had written in your book, Too Famous five years ago.

[B]

Yes. Okay, so five years ago. Written everything you could want to know about the Epstein Bannon relationship five years ago. So why now? And the other thing is that they missed a kind of a salient fact, which is that I was the person who introduced Epstein and Bannon, which is interesting because the New York Times takes any excuse to give me a poke, and they miss that one because nobody is doing any reporting.

[A]

Well, it was a very interesting chapter in your book when it came out, which was an anthology of pieces about sort of famous men, basically. But what was interesting about it was you have Steve. You have the recordings of Steve Bannon trying to help Jeffrey Epstein prepare for a possible interview on 60 Minutes, and Bannon is putting him through his paces. And actually, we've seen some of this now throughout the life.

[B]

Some of this has come out.

[A]

Yeah, I watched some of it on. On Instagram and TikTok. So it's out there. But it is a really interesting insight into the two of them.

[B]

Yeah, no, and I think it was. It was a kind of fascinating relationship, and it was a relationship that I kind of watched unfold. And it goes. I mean, they. It was. I mean, first thing it was. I mean, Bannon is now like everybody, you know. No, no, no. I didn't really know him. No, no, I wasn't really friends.

[A]

Just. Just place Bannon for us at this point. So this was 2017, right?

[B]

2000, the fall of 2017.

[A]

So Bannon had been cast out by Donald Trump at this point.

[B]

Yes, he had been cast out in August. He was, you know, I mean, he was considering his future, obviously looking to meet people who might help finance that future, but also kind of having a good time. I mean, I knew Bannon well at this point and had seen him, if not every day, very often through the first term, through that, from January through to August. And the. Working in the White House for him had become intolerable. Burden. I mean, working with Trump, who he hated, working with Jared and everything was. So by the time he was pushed out of the White House, exiled from the White House, you could just see the weight come off his shoulder. So he was in a great. He was in a very good place. Not I've been banished, but, like, I've been saved. And so I introduced them to Epstein, and they immediately bonded over their hatred for Donald Trump. I mean, they both had had this deep experience with him. And to this day, I think both Epstein and Trump, certainly, in my rather substantial experience, are the two people who are most insightful about Donald Trump.

[A]

I mean, Bannon and Epstein are the people who are most insightful.

[B]

And they would get together constantly, and the overwhelming part of their conversation was about Donald Trump, about trying to explain this, about trying to understand how this guy could have come to power, how this happened, and then anecdote after anecdote after anecdote about what a moron he is.

[A]

Do you think they were jealous of Trump?

[B]

Yeah, of course. I mean, I think they each felt that they were smarter than Trump because they both were smarter than Trump, and they each felt that he had played them in some way. And whatever Trump was, whatever Trump had become, it was partly because of them. So all of those kinds of things were operative. But I think the overriding thing was they felt like much of the country felt, how did this happen? How did this happen, possibly have happened? And then. And they went on, because they knew him so well, to see this quite in comic terms or comic, tragic terms. So this became a kind of entertainment for them to go over this again and again and again and again. But the point is they really bonded. They really became incredibly good friends on the phone all the time or in person all of the time.

[A]

Did Donald Trump know this? Did he know that the two people that he had at one point been close with were now bonded together? Because I would imagine that might make him paranoid.

[B]

Yes. And I imagine that he did know this, and it probably did make him paranoid. Yeah. In the book, I mean, there is a kind of thing, and this is an unanswered question, how aware was Donald Trump of this Epstein relationship closing in on him? You know, there is the view of a number of people that when Epstein started to talk to me about Trump and started. And I started to publish this, you know, and I went back and forth with Epstein and he said, yeah, I mean, I remember very specifically. Yes. And he thought about it. Tell that story about the breakup of the relationship and his. Epstein's belief that it was Trump that.

[A]

Chopped him to the Palm Beach Police.

[B]

Yes, exactly. And then when that book came out, and then it was really three weeks later that he wasthat Epstein was arrested. And I don't know this, none of us know this, but there is certainly conjecture among a circle of people that that was, that there was a direct cause and effect there.

[A]

And that the Southern District of New York arrested Epstein because they wanted information on Trump.

[B]

Well, that's the other side of this. So there are two operative theories. That he was arrested at Trump's behest because he had information onbecause Trump wanted to shut him up, or he was arrested independently on the behalf of the Southern District, looking to squeeze him for information about Trump.

[A]

It's almost impossible nowand this came out of the dinner we were talking about last night, but I'm sure a lot of people have had these conversations where the more you read about the Epstein files and the more you read them, the more you think it is possible he didn't die by suicide. I mean, I'm always a cock up theory, not a conspiracy theorist, but on this one, it reaches so deep, it's such a bizarre story that you think, gosh, maybe he was actually killed in jail. I mean, it's just, well, and I.

[B]

Don'T, I mean, you know my feeling about this, that I can't see the circumstances in which he died the way they say he would have had to have died. And yet I can't see the circumstances in which, in which all the people who would have had some knowledge of this, the Assistant U.S. attorneys, the FBI agents, all of the people surrounding that moment of the most significant prisoner in the United States at that moment, would know nothing or would keep quiet about what they knew. So I remain agnostic on this question.

[A]

Well, it's, I mean, it's just a remarkable, it's a remarkable story, all right, but it is.

[B]

And I think in more and more, as we come back to this, I mean, every day this goes on, it becomes a story the likes of which we've never seen since, I don't know, the Kennedy assassination. I mean, it becomes that kind of thing and that kind of, kind of Rosetta Stone. If only we could interpret this, we would know everything instead of, as we interpret it, we seem to know less and less.

[A]

Right. And also it's impossible to know where to start. First of all, the search function is not reliable. So you can put someone's name in and it comes up with 200 references. You can put them in the next day, and it comes with 700 references. So it's not well organized, but it's very difficult to know where to begin, even going through it. And every day I wake up and I'm more confused by it anyway.

[B]

No, well, at some point, and I don't think this can be done now, but someone will put this all together, remember? And the other thing that's happened there, I mean, we have this now, this collection of information which is unvetted, which we don't know where it comes from. I mean, it's random. And that will be a separate question about the effect of releasing this information in this way. And we ought to remember that information has never been released in this way. I mean, the idea of law enforcement agencies and the government investigative arms of the government taking all of the information that they have about something and, and just throwing it out has never happened before. So we don't know the effect of that. And, you know, in the future we may look back at this and say, this is as doing. This is as illiberal as anything the Trump administration has done. And this was of course, forced upon the Trump administration. But the other thing is that we don't have the people who are directly involved with this. People. Tom Pritzker, Kathy Rummler, Joel Klein, I just saw was pulled into this the other day. Naomi Campbell. Right, Naomi Campbell, all of these people. Nobody who actually was a part of this has spoken. They don't speak.

[A]

Well, everybody's advising them not to. There was a wonderful.

[B]

Except me, by the way. I am speaking.

[A]

Okay, well, you are speaking. Yes. There was a wonderful line in the piece about Joel Klein, who was the former head of education for New York City and is spending some time with Epstein, it sounds like, for a company that he's doing post his leading the education job. But Epstein says to him, I want to have some friends tonight. Can you think of some people to invite who aren't too ponderous? And Joel says, I fear most people are too ponderous. I thought, what a good line. What a great line. Yeah. It's impossible to know where to begin. But also, isn't it? I mean, your point about illiberal. Well, maybe illiberal is the word, but anti Democratic about the fact that all these statements and things have just been thrown out there. When you give information to the FBI, you don't expect it to be made public, you know.

[B]

No, I mean, I think illiberal. Well, we can. Whatever, whatever the word. Yeah, yeah. No, this is. And this goes back to that New York Times thing. Anyone who has shaken his hand deserves.

[A]

To be scrutinized obviously not.

[B]

What. Oh, and I can add what the New York Times. What these people at the New York Times don't know is that Epstein credited one of the contributors to his rise was the publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Salzberger. Arthur Ochs Salzberger. So now the grandfather of the current publisher, because Epstein, when he was a teacher at the Dalton School School, one of his students was the daughter of the then publisher of the New York Times. And the then publisher of the New York Times met Epstein and then tried to encourage him to. To break out of teaching, to leave teaching. Was offered a job at the New York Times.

[A]

Epstein was offered a job at the New York Times.

[B]

I mean, that's what. According to Epstein. Yes, but again, the New York Times reporters don't know this because they're terrible reporters. They're not reporting. I just want to make this point again, that they are not reporting that the idea of going through these emails and just extracting snippets from these emails is not reporting. They don't know the context, they don't know the meaning, they don't know the. They know nothing.

[A]

But I guess my point, and maybe this is what you mean by the illiberal point, is just the collateral damage on people is remarkable. I mean.

[B]

Yes, no, no.

[A]

You know, Kathy Rummler's private life. Absolutely everywhere. All over the front page of the Wall Street Journal. None of which really pertains to the Epstein case.

[B]

None of it. Yes, no. And even when, I mean, in just due processi mean, this is a kind of violation of due process. Due process says you have information related to a specific investigation or crime. Well, yes, okay. The public has the right to know about that, but does not have a right to know about the information. That has no relevance.

[A]

Right, okay, yeah, I agree, I agree. And that's where it gets very Salem witch trials, the whole thing. Whereas we are trying to get to the bottom of an industrial sized sex trafficking ring. Should we talk about climate change?

[B]

Please.

[A]

It's too much, Epstein. Although it is a remarkable story and it's continuing to grow and obviously we'll continue to map who's the next person.

[B]

It's continuing to grow, but no one is continuing. No one understanding is really telling it.

[A]

Yeah, there's less understanding of what it is. And by the time we come back on Thursday, someone else will have lost their job, I think we can guarantee. All right, so climate change, it's not happening anymore. We're all going back to coal fired plants, we call that.

[B]

No, I mean, this is. And let's get inside Trump's head on this, because, I mean, what he has done is he has given up power. So the federal government, over the course of a generation, has amassed a variety of. Of tools, accrued power with which it can regulate climate issues, which it can oversee and begin to, you know, and that relates to automobiles, it relates to water. Yes, everything. I mean, they have a kind of a broad or they have amassed an amount of authority here. So whether you use it or not, you get to use it as you see fit to use it, as you are advised to use it. You can decide to use less of it. It's just an authority that the federal government has come to have. Because obviously, there is reason to believe, even if you might want to disagree, there is reason to believe that this isthat. This isthat. This is a threat that the government should be aware of and might well be need to be in a position to act on. Okay? All of this is very, very reasonable. What the Trump administration has done is basically say, we don't want that power and we're giving it back. So they have dismantled the entire system for regulating, for having any involvement in the regulation of climate change. So why would they have done that? This is not as simple as saying, well, we disagree with the science here. I mean, this is like we're going away. Whatever power we have here, we. We are giving it back. We want to hear nothing. We are washing our hands of this matter. Why would you do that? And I think that the answer is not a policy point of view. It's not about climate change. It is about Donald Trump. I am against anything that the people I am against are for. So this is the kind of thing. And this is dividing this. This. I mean, it goes further. It's dividing this line in the sand. Those are what liberals, Democrats, blue state people are for. We are against anything that they are for. By the simple act of them being for it, we are against it. That is so. It is not only that we're in a time of polarized politics, but this is taking it a step further. This is us against them.

[A]

But again, you feel that this is going to impact his voters in the red state just as much as anybody in the blue states.

[B]

Totally. Yeah. No, on a lifestyle, scientific, on every basis, except. So what is the benefit? The benefit is we. And then he, you know, he draws this broad we as the, you know, in red states, and we MAGA people and we Republicans are. What is our. What is our. The largest issue facing us? Not a Climate apocalypse. But Democrats.

[A]

Right. Okay. I want to go back to the Epstein because I have one question. Is it possible that the release of the Epstein files turns out to be good for Trump?

[B]

Yeah, I think already. Already it has. I mean, it has certainly taken the focus off of. Off of him and put the focus on so many other people and fractured the focus. Who do we focus on? You know, we don't know. The head of the Nobel Prize Committee, Naomi Campbell Quintellin, the Clintons, and. Whereas Donald Trump just becomes a kind of bit player. And he's done this once before when? In 2016, the fall of 2016, when the Grab them by the pussy tape came out. The way he got by that, the way he survived that. When no one, nobody thought he would survive this. When the, you know, when the head of the RNC came to New York, Reince Priebus at the time, and said, you have to withdraw, basically, you have to withdraw from this race. We're not going to spend our money on you. And how did he survive that? He survived that by blaming it on Clinton, which he's doing it again. And Steve Bannon had this spectacularly evil idea of, at the debate, bringing the women in that debate. No, it was not the first debate. It was actually one of the penultimate debates, I think. Penultimate debates. Filling the front rows with all of the women who had the Clinton accusers. Yes.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

So again, we're just doing. Trump always does what he has done.

[A]

Before for Donald Trump. Yeah. All right.

[B]

So, Mark, and again, all of these people, who was the person who had the closest and the longest relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And most of these people. Most of these people who are now being tagged. It's an interesting thing because there's a kind of line. Did you know him. Did you know him after he was convicted and after. And that seems to be a bad story.

[A]

Right? The watershed. Yeah, that's the line in the red line.

[B]

Yes. But in fact, all of the bad stuff happened before this, you know, in relatively. I mean, my own feeling is that after this happened, after he was. He wasafter he was sent to jail, after he was investigated, the idea of underage girls, he became scrupulous about that.

[A]

I thought he carried on while he was in jail because he got. After six months, he was allowed work.

[B]

Release with women, not with underage women. I mean, I think. And, I mean, this is again, just my impression, but. And certainly in 2019, when he was charged by the federal government, that was for acts that had occurred before he went to jail.

[A]

Okay. All right, so Marco Rubio seems to be rising again, though he had a successful speech at the Munich Conference. Remember last year, J.D. vance went in and slapped the Europeans around. And now Marco Rubio is sort of saying, come on, guys, you've got to save your own Western civilization. We love you. We came from you. You need to step up and preserve what's great about Western culture.

[B]

And then see, if Marco Rubio rises, that means J.D. vance is.

[A]

Is falling.

[B]

Is falling, yes. So thisi mean, this is clearly a Marco Rubio moment. And against all of these, against the gang that couldn't shoot straight that comprises this administration, he invariably looks good because he is actually the one person in this administration who has some professional experience in the job at hand.

[A]

Right. And he speaks more fluently. I mean, Pete Hegseth doesn't seem to be allowed off the teleprompter. His speech is terrible, but he doesn't seem to go off the teleprompter. Whereas Marco Rubio seems capable and intelligent.

[B]

As Marco has been doing this. He's run for statewide office two times. I think now he's in his. Was in his second term, third term as a senator, as the Florida senator. He's. Well.

[A]

And he ran for president, too.

[B]

Ran for president. Has a significant. Has had a significant position on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Yeah, he's a pro, the one pro in the administration right now. So the interesting thing, and you can almost see him, it's a kind of fascinating process in which he is trying to adapt to. His background is entirely as a classic Republican, pro international involvement, somewhat neocon kind of guy. And now he has had to adapt those. That position, which is contrary to the Trump administration's position, to the Trump administration. And he does this, you know, I mean, it's not unimpressive. It's completely amoral to a horrifying degree. But he is clearly trying to survive this to at some point, I would suspect, turn his. What he stays up at night thinking is, I'm going to get through this.

[A]

And I'm. And when is the moment? When's the moment?

[B]

Yeah, I'm going to.

[A]

I'm going to pull it back to the middle or I'm going to finish.

[B]

Off these guys who I hate.

[A]

Right. And also you feel that he's trying to signal with his face. He's always looking anguished in photographs. He's looking off in the middle distance. And everybody's like, Marco. You know, the caption is always Marco Rubio looking for his soul or whatever. But you do sense that There is something more there than there is with now.

[B]

The question is, when does Trump get onto this?

[A]

Right. And when does J.D. well, J.D. must be onto it and trying to. So he lies awake at night thinking, how do I get rid of Rubio? Right.

[B]

Yeah. No, and this is also a classic Trump thing. Let me push him against each other.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Let me have two guys who will kill each other.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And leaving who standing? Donald Trump.

[A]

Yeah, Me. All right, so what about aoc? Because AOC was also in Munich, which I don't think technically she needed to be. I think she was elected to represent the people of the Bronx and Queens, and yet there she was in Munich.

[B]

Yeah. I think it's fascinating. She's obviously running for president, clearly running for president. She's obviously a person outside of the. All of the conventions of running for president. And what we know now is that the person outside all of the conventions for running for whatever office you're running for has a kind of. A kind of remarkable advantage.

[A]

Well, not always. I mean, let's not forget Abigail Spanberger in Virginia. Let's not forget Mikey Sherril in New Jersey. I mean, she's a more interesting politician because she says things.

[B]

Well, that's. I mean, that's going. And that is clearly going to be the Democrats dilemma. You know, are we a middle of the road party? Are we a disruptive party?

[A]

Yeah, well, she's.

[B]

And nobody knows because nobody knows what works in that. Clearly both work, But you can only choose one.

[A]

So if she. Who would her vice be if she were going to run part of her vice? Is she going to have an older white guy?

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

Is she going to have Bernie?

[B]

Let's not go there.

[A]

Okay?

[B]

That's too far.

[A]

But it is interesting. She may not seem to.

[B]

She's only 36 years old, so she's going to. I mean, I'm sure she is playing this. This is as much a. I mean, you know, she doesn't know what to do yet.

[A]

Right. And it'll. Everybody's going to run for the Democratic Party. Right. Mark Kelly is making more noise. He won his case against Pete Hegseth. Gavin Newsom obviously making noise. I like Seth Moulton from Massachusetts. I also like James Tallarico, but I also like Jasmine Crockett. So.

[B]

Well, I mean, so what happens. This is. We're just foreshadowing what will come in. To begin to clarify, as soon as the midterms are done.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Day after the midterms, we're off to the races. We better Put our boots on. Yeah, yeah.

[A]

But we'd better be paying attention to the people who are going to win the midterms, too. The Talarico, Jasmine Crockett. The primary in Texas is interesting. I think it's March 3rd, so that's.

[B]

Two weeks, I think.

[A]

Yeah. So we need to keep an eye on that because that's going to be. Both of them have got a lot of support. Obama was talking up James Talarico. It's very interesting. All right, so who. James Talarico, do you mean? Obama? Obama, yeah. Who?

[B]

Jesus.

[A]

Well, he's been out and about a bit. A bit more.

[B]

Yeah. Well, he's, you know, but since you.

[A]

Poked at him and said he wasn't doing anything. All right, we have lots of questions for Melania. JV Saints wants to know, is Melania receiving funds from the US Government? What state does she claim? That might be interesting for you to.

[B]

Look into two different. Is she receiving funds from the US Government? Of course, she's. She's supported in all kinds of ways by the executive branch. But what state? I don't understand that part of the question.

[A]

Well, I think what state is she? Does she have to be in a state to qualify for funds? Okay, here's another question. I like this question. This is from BoatNut57. Question to ask Melania in the deposition. Can your black rimmed hat be used as a weapon like the bowler in Goldfinger that oddjob uses to decapitate a statue? I thought that was a good question. I think it's a facetious question. I don't think you have to ask it, but it's funny. All right, here's a question from Eternal Diplomat. When is your husband scheduled to meet with the Epstein survivors?

[B]

Wait a minute. When is your husband. I have to figure out whose husband.

[A]

Melania's husband.

[B]

And I will just say that I was on the street yesterday and someone came up to me and began talking about. About Melania issues and then referred to something my wife had said. Meaning I suddenly realized you. So Joanna and I are not married.

[A]

We are not married and we're never going to be married. But we are. We're YouTube spouses. Right. We're podcast spouses. All right, another question for Melania. Is she the reason Trump and Epstein fell out? And that's from Judy Herring 156. Good question, Judy.

[B]

Well, I mean, at the, at the center of this lawsuit and of this whole of her threats against me, of the suit we've filed against her, is what is the nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump and Melania Trump. Yes.

[A]

Do you want to read Garfield's limerick? And then I've got another limerick from a new person.

[B]

This is the first time I'm seeing this, so I'm reading it fresh. There once was a crowd in first class whose secrets were buried in brass. As files disappeared and the truth engineered, they governed by gaslight and sass.

[A]

Not bad, not bad. Garfried. I've got another one for us. And this is from someone called Andrea Brunet or brunes. There's nothing Ms. Coles abhors more than a podcast whose leitmotifs bore. Thus she seeks new suggestions for Melania questions as Donald finds Woolf at the door. Pretty good.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Pretty. Pretty good. As some what's his face would say Cobra enthusiasm. I did watch a whole series of those episodes the other day and I realized that you are the equivalent of him. You are the podcast Larry David. I was gonna say marry David then. Don't know why I said that. You are the podcast Larry David.

[B]

I, I'm. I disagree.

[A]

Okay. You would do in character. You would do. All right. If you have been. Thank you for joining us. Don't forget to subscribe to the Daily Beast. Please leave us a comment on our YouTube channel and what else, Anything else I need to remind people of?

[B]

I. I don't know. It seems open ended.

[A]

Well, I think many things we should remind. If you're also confused about what the hell is going on Reading Daily. We are really trying to lay it out.

[B]

Stand up, be a stand up guy, you know. At any rate.

[A]

So the good news is we have so many Beast Tier members now there are too many names to read out. And we really appreciate your support. Thanks to our production team. Devon Rogerino, Ryan Murray, Rachel Passer, Heather Passaro, Neil Rosenhaus.