B (2:52)

We are going inside Trump's head. And we are doing this as an act of political analysis, an analysis that nobody else does. And for that reason, we believe everybody gets most things wrong, that nothing else matters. And then let's emphasize this. Literally nothing else matters except what comes into Trump's head. But by some ridiculously long held opinion, he's had something that he's woken up with, something that the last person he spoke to has told him from whatever sources and by whatever measure and by whatever truthfulness, what happens in the United States, what happens in the world, as we're seeing, happens because it has set off something in his mind. And he goes, yeah, yeah, let's do that. This is it. And the entire administration conforms to this, because all anybody in the White House is interested in is what's in Trump's head. And actually, a lot of things happen because they try to anticipate what's in Trump's head.

C (4:12)

But.

B (4:13)

But this is, as we have pointed out so many times, in which so many people get wrong, a government of

C (4:21)

one, a government of one, a country of one. At the moment, a world of one. And as Trump himself says about himself, he doesn't drink, but he has an alcoholic's personality. Meaning as anybody who knows an alcoholic or has had to deal with an alcoholic over any length of time knows, what you're actually dealing with is extreme unpredictability. So even as you say, his administration is trying to play and anticipate what's going on inside his head, that's a Sisyphean task, because nobody knows, including him, much of the time.

B (4:59)

And also he's been asked, he's been asked on a number of occasions, actually. I have asked him this question, who do you trust? Who do you consult? Who do you take advice from? And then he looks at you, and I can see this now vividly, this kind of expression. And it's an expression of what a strange question to ask me. And then his answer is, me. I only trust myself. I only take advice from myself. I am the person I consult about all major decisions.

C (5:34)

And also he sometimes says that he just goes with his gut, that he has great instincts and we know what's in his gut. It is a lifetime of fast food, of chicken filet, whatever those sandwiches are, of Quarter Pounders, of Big Macs, of Coke, Diet Coke, that he has a button on the Resolute desk, that he presses a story that you broke to bring in more sugar. So we are at the mercy of Trump's gut.

B (6:04)

I would say that the other thing in his gut is just an incredible survival instinct. He does what he needs to do to gain another day. Which brings us to right.

C (6:22)

Has he gained another day? And why now is why now, because there's intelligence of where Khomeini was going to be and that's why they moved, or is there a bigger political reason why now, given what's going on domestically

B (6:38)

in the States, I think that's a mistake to assume that there's a bigger political reason. The reason always has to come back to what's in Trump's head. And I think that there are two things that were in Trump's head. First thing, for a combination of reasons, he found himself with this incredible US Armada ready to attack Iran. So, so he couldn't. What could they do? Go home? Could he throw up his hands and say, oh, yeah, okay, no, no, we're going home? No, he had to do something. Then he made these gestures about a limited attack. And we still don't know if this is actually a massive attack or this is Trump's, this limited attack, because what the other thing in, in his head overriding everything is how do I declare victory? So that is it. I have to, whatever I can do, I got to get out of this thing. I have to be able to declare victory. So I, and, and the premise that he set up here, from a, from a tactical standpoint is problematic, which is, I'm only going to bomb. I'm not going to send in ground troops. It is very hard to effect regime change if you don't do that, if you don't actually go in and hold the Capitol and hold. And hold the television stations and hold the military in their barracks and doing all of that. So if you are only bombing, the question is, how much can you change? And that's not necessarily a question for him, because I don't really think it is. It isn't really a question of how much of what we have to do. These are our goals. The goal is, what is the scenario in which I get to claim victory? Over the years, I began to notice an interesting trend. A lot of guys have told me about how, as they age, they feel slower, more sluggish. But Mars Ben says they're here to help. Designed to help boost your body's natural testosterone levels, Mars men use eight natural, clinically dosed ingredients like zinc, boron and vitamin D. Some men report steadier energy, not like drinking a cup of coffee, but a more consistent boost throughout the day. According to Mars Men, for a limited time, our listeners get 50% off for life, plus free shipping and three free gifts. Mengotomars.com It's a perfect way to get yourself in gear. That's MengotoMars.com for 50% off and three free gifts. checkout after your purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you.

C (10:09)

We should play from his speech, the speech where he announces that he's going to be bombing Iran or we, as America are going to be bombing Iran. We should play the speech where he calls upon the Iranian people to rise up because it's an interesting direct appeal to them. It's the opposite of what, obviously George W. Bush did with their whole idea for regime change and pushing in an American administration. This is about him appealing directly to the Iranians who were protesting last month and who he said help was on the way to. Let's just hear specifically what he said.

D (10:50)

To the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance. For generations, for many years, you have asked for America's help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let's see how you respond. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.

C (11:48)

Thoughts?

B (11:49)

Oh, the problem here is the pronoun, you, who is you? I mean, you know, Iran is a. Is a country. It's a deeply. It's a deeply factional situation. So what is he saying? Is he saying. Well, he's not saying anything is the point. But what is the result of what he's saying? The result is, I don't know, chaos, anarchy, a civil war. A situation even more precarious and unpredictable than the current situation. So. So we don't know. So this is back to this black hole thing. We don't know what our goals, the goals of the United States are. We don't know what the goals, the personal goals of Donald Trump are. We don't know what the goals of the Iranian people are. I don't know. It's.

C (12:48)

Well, we know enough that there are a lot of Iranian people who are protesting against a really dominant, violent, unpleasant regime. We know that Iran has been a problem in the Middle east for some time. We know that it's been a headache for America for many years. I thought that there's another part in the speech which we should refer to, where he basically gives a potted history of Iran. It's almost as if he's giving it to himself as much as to anybody else. But reminding people of the American hostages, which is such a boomer moment. It's probably perhaps the moment most seared on boomers memories in terms of foreign policy. Jimmy Carter tried to release them, absolute disaster. Reagan swings into power and immediately they're released. And I wonder if that's at the back of Donald Trump's head too.

B (13:41)

Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I doubt. Yes. There's always a mishmash of factual, semi factual and historical references that he doesn't quite understand and that he has skimmed over.

C (13:57)

I'm sure someone's given him a deep briefing document and he's just kind of. Enough with that.

B (14:03)

Yes. And I think that I've mentioned before, I just recently read this extraordinary book, King of Kings, about the Iranian revolution. But I am sure that Donald Trump did not read that book. But we could be called, everyone else should, because it really sets the stage for understanding that Iran has been probably the single most pivotal field of contention, foreign contention, from the last several generations.

C (14:40)

Right. And a problem for all American people.

B (14:42)

Everything comes, comes out of that. And that we have gotten this wrong so many times and it's such in the end, an incredibly complicated situation of which Donald Trump is not going to want to deal with, does not want to deal with, is not going to deal with. And the thesis being that we will use this overwhelming, what may be this overwhelming example of shock and awe to destabilize the situation and then claim victory.

C (15:21)

Well, as we're talking, Iranian television is now saying that Khomeini is alive, as far as I know, and he's likely to give a speech.

B (15:35)

Well, yes, I guess that would indicate that if he gives.

C (15:39)

Unless it was prerecorded. Unless it was prerecorded. Just to mess with people. So really the fog of war truth is we have no idea what's going on.

B (15:48)

And the thing is, you know, again, and I was, we spoke about this the other day when someone in the meeting last week in the Situation Room is that Trump kept repeating that he wanted to do what we did in Venezuela. And so far, I think we're on script for that. And then let's see then we're going to see in the next number of hours, days, how far off script we go. And we can go really grievously off script.

C (16:30)

We can. And also, I mean, as you say, the normal metrics for success on something like this really don't apply because it's about what does Donald Trump want out of this and will he get it, and how does he get if he doesn't?

B (16:46)

And again, what he wants out of this is never like other people, other presidents set somewhat, at least in some sense, particular goals out of this. But the goal of I just want a victory is. An entirely other way of looking at foreign policy in a foreign policy agenda.

C (17:16)

Right. And he hasn't had a victory. Trying to resolve what we said on Thursday is actually one of the biggest issues globally, Ukraine and Russia. He said he was going to resolve it. He hasn't resolved it. In fact, there was a story that you and I talked about earlier in the Spectator about UK intelligence and Western Europe intelligence, intercepting calls of Russian intelligence, including lots of people close to Putin laughing at how Putin has been playing Donald Trump.

B (17:51)

Well, I think it's complete bullshit. And if it comes out of the British press, it's probably made up. So.

C (18:02)

Because I don't think truth about it.

B (18:04)

I mean, why do you think it

C (18:06)

has the ring of truth about it? It's certainly true that every time they have.

B (18:09)

I mean, this has done nothing. I mean, Putin, I mean, I know that that line of reasoning of that, that, that Trump is a lapdog to Putin, but it actually hasn't played out. I mean, Ukraine, he hasn't resolved Ukraine. That's definitely true, but that is still an incredible problem for, for, and probably to some degree unreported for Russia, that they are running out of manpower. The economy is really finally teetering on the verge over Ukraine. They're not making the progress that they make in their war, and they're making, yes, somewhat progress, but it is so incremental at such a cost. I mean, we're talking about in Ukraine, what, I don't know, 1.2, 1.4 million casualties at this, at this point. This is an unmitigated disaster for Vladimir Putin. And I think it very well could be, could result in the end of the guy. So I'm not sure that.

C (19:15)

Well, people have been saying that for the last two years about Putin. He's been saying that for the last few years.

B (19:20)

But this is a war of attrition, takes a very long time, and then it's really about who can stand it the longest. And so between the Ukrainians and the Russians, I don't know, it continues on. I mean, Trump has While he has threatened the Ukrainians and this, that, the other things, Zelensky in the Oval Office, we are still basically delivering the weaponry and the support to Ukraine for them to continue to push on in this war. I mean, if, if the Russians are laughing at Trump over this, and there are many things to laugh at Trump about, I would say that they are out of touch with reality about what they themselves are facing.

C (20:10)

All right, so how does the Iranian bombing play with the MAGA base?

B (20:20)

Well, I think it doesn't play well. I think everybody, they're all going to be skeptical about that. I think Trump gets a relative pass. If he gets out of there very quickly, declares victory. If this gets bogged down, if American lives start to be lost, it'll be a catastrophe.

C (20:46)

I mean, you heard him in his speech say it's possible there might be a loss of American lives.

B (20:52)

I did. But that's different from there actually being American lives lost. So we'll see what, you know, and I think probably he's somewhat worried. You know, I mean, we know what some of what the generals have said, that this could be a very, very complicated situation and it could put lots of American lives at risk. He's obviously betting, let's do it like we did in Venezuela, you know, you can get out, you know, and he has this idea now we can bomb, bomb them. And that, that is, you know, that's an old right wing idea that bombs can solve everything. Bomb them back into the Stone Age. And I'm sure that that is, you know, that's, that's what he's hoping for right now, that 10 days from now we're out of there and he's claiming victory. No boots on the ground. We just have left a lot of smoldering ruins and then wiped our hands of the problem.

C (22:07)

And we've obliterated the nuclear sites that we thought we obliterated last. So double obliteration.

B (22:16)

Yes, but I mean, but this could, it could be a catastrophe for him

C (22:22)

or it could be a victory. I mean, as you're always saying, he has feral instincts for seizing

B (22:31)

victory. It could be the claim of a victory. I don't think it can be a victory unless we, we, we went in and occupied the country, which we're clearly

C (22:42)

not going to do. All right, so Pete Hegseth, learning from perhaps his boss's all or nothing attitude to deal making, sent a Memo Friday at 5 o' clock saying that's it, we're stopping using anthropic AI which the military and the national security forces have been using for the last year. I think it was the first AI company to really help with national security. Anthropic's CEO said that they felt that the military wanted to use them for reasons that didn't feel good to them.

B (23:23)

Actually back up because they were really negotiating this out. And there were basically two issues that the company had, two kind of, kind of beyond which we can't go points, which is the use of the, of this AI software to spy on Americans.

C (23:47)

Right.

B (23:47)

Mass observation, number one, and number two, the use of this software in autonomous weaponry, in other words, weaponry that was not supervised by a human being. So that was there. We can't cross that line. Now. That's an interesting. This then became this interesting kind of dispute because actually that's what the law says. The law says you can't use AI to spy on Americans. You can't spy. There's a body of law about spying on Americans which would, which would be, which would preclude the use of AI for that. And also that's. The law relates to weaponry, too. You have to have a human interface there. So it was unclear what the fight was about, except that, I mean, the culture.

C (24:57)

Was it a fight about cultures, about the insistence that AI companies control how their product is used?

B (25:05)

Well, yes, theoretically, but. But to what point? And I think the point you sort of have to read into, into this, that, yes, that's what the law says, but the Trump administration doesn't always follow the law.

C (25:20)

Well, the Trump administration is the law. I mean, remember that giant thing they've just unfurled outside the doj, Right.

B (25:27)

So that was so, so, so the, the, the anthropic position was, yeah, we're willing to function within the law. Now, curiously, then the hegseth said, no, the only restrictions on this software have to be the restrictions that already exist in the law. But those restrictions already did exist in the law. So this was incredibly hard to understand exactly what the stakes are and exactly what each side actually wanted. Now, I mean, I think you have to then ask this broader question, and it's obviously a very pressing question, is who's in charge of this AI stuff? Not on a corporate level and not on a, not necessarily. Not on a Defense Department level. But what are the political choices that we have made about this? What is the social agreement in terms of AI? And so we're suddenly left in this situation in which this is being fought out by, frankly, two bad actors. Who would you want to determine the future of the future, really? The Trump administration or Silicon Valley. These are both people we, I think, in a, in a there that we have no reason to trust. And I don't think anybody does trust them.

C (27:02)

Well, and clearly both of them are looking to make enormous gobs of money from this too. I mean, I read a figure that $50 billion of venture capital has gone into the American military and providing AI and also

B (27:23)

hinges on what, on what happens to, to AI. But, and then it's this interest. I mean, there's this whole drama that has played out, of course, with the, with the tech people bonding. I mean, the tech people who used to hate the Trump people then bonded with the Trump people precisely because they could. They can. So that they could influence the regulations which would, or influence the Trump administration to impose a lack of regulation on

C (27:53)

the movement of aid. Right. David Sack sitting at the top of it. And of course, the irony of Emile Michael, who's within the Trump Organization and was frantically tweeting out anti anthropic tweets saying that Dario Amodai, who's the CEO and co founder of Anthropic, was behaving like a tech God. And of course, that's exactly what Emile Michael was accused of when he was

B (28:20)

at Uber with Travis do my, my Emile Michaels story. So I, I go, I have an Emile Michaels story.

C (28:30)

I think everybody has an Emil Michaels story.

B (28:32)

Mine has actually been dramatized. So, okay, so I went to a dinner for Uber and I think this was in 2015, and I was invited, just because I was a journalist, to go to one of these.

C (28:52)

Yeah, they have these off the record, sort of interesting dinners. I've been to a couple.

B (28:56)

Yeah, they're not necessarily too interesting, but

C (28:59)

the ones I've been to have been fun, but I've had different leadership, so

B (29:03)

we have different standards also in terms

C (29:05)

of very possibly in terms of fun.

B (29:08)

And this actually turned out for many people to be, to be, I don't know, fun, but fireworks. And, But I brought another journalist to this dinner, Ben Smith, who was then actually running BuzzFeed News. He's gone on to several significantly greater positions since then. And he was, in fact, sitting down at one end of the table and I was sitting down at the other end of the table, but he was sitting with Michaels. And I saw him. I mean, I saw their heads together. I thought, oh, God, you know, these guys are not going to be stupid enough to, to engage with Ben. Yes. And. But they did.

C (29:53)

He's a very shrewd journalist.

B (29:55)

They did. And what Emil Michaels, who was drunk at the time, started to go on about journalists. I mean, this is a dinner for journalists. And he started to go on about the. About journalists, how much he hated them and how much he wanted to investigate them and how much he wanted to mount a counteroffensive against journalists, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, which Ben then promptly reported. And I think. And Michael's lost his job over that. And then we were all.

C (30:31)

I don't think that's why Michael lost his job. Michael lost his job over all the accusations of toxic masculinity at Uber, which started with an accusation by Uber employees that they'd taken him to a karaoke bar in Seoul.

B (30:46)

This did not help Emile Michaels career in the tech business. And in fact, then we were all. We were. The Uber series. I can't remember the name of it. It was pretty good, though. We were all then scripted and played by actors in it. And I was played by an actor who was significantly fatter than I am.

C (31:14)

Oh, that's so annoying. That couldn't be more irritating to be represented by someone who's bigger than you. Yes, Absolutely unacceptable.

B (31:22)

No. And actually, Ben is fatter than I was, and he got a thin actor anyway.

C (31:28)

Super annoying.

B (31:29)

But Emil Michaels. So that's another interesting thing that it would. That it kind of seems like a lot of failed Silicon Valley guys have washed up in the Trump administration. This is where Silicon Valley guys go to die.

C (31:47)

Yeah. And I think it's probably fair to say that Emil, who's an incredibly smart operator and was very successful at Uber until he wasn't and until the culture was completely out of control, but nevertheless, he was a very successful operator. And look how incredibly important Uber is to our lives. I should point out they actually sponsor an event that the beast says. But that's not why I'm saying this. I mean, it's just become an incredible utility. But the culture that he and Travis oversaw was so toxic that in the end, the staff ended up rejecting the founders and they both left.

B (32:28)

No. And they actually had. The Uber culture was a kind of a prequel to the Trump culture in lots of ways.

C (32:38)

Yeah, absolutely, bro. Culture, no boundaries, toxic masculinity, and all sorts of accusations of sexual assault. Not, I'm saying by Emil or by Travis, but by drivers that they then hid. And in fact, it was one of. I mean, it was a junior employee who posted a blog, having tried to raise all sorts of concerns within the company structure and with the company hr, and they ignored her. Susan Fowler, who went on to bring the founders of the company down.

B (33:09)

All of this Whole tech culture obviously is germane to so many things now and influences so much, including the Trump administration. But also. So the, the, the other subplot in this anthropic dispute has been that that Sam Altman, who's the CEO of OpenAI, came in. Well, first he announced his solidarity with anthropic and then, and then went around and made a deal with the Defense Department. So this is all, we have all of this going. There are bad actors everywhere in this.

C (33:50)

Well, and also it's interesting, to what extent can you, as a company, and I think this is where the culture comes in, tell the government and in particularly the Pentagon how you can use their software? I mean, obviously you want to stay within the grounds of the law, but you know, what if a fashion company sells the uniforms to the military and then says, well, you've got to wear them with the cuffs up and you've got.

B (34:17)

Yeah, but that's, but that's ridiculous, Joanna. And that's not the, not the case.

C (34:22)

Just bringing in a fashion analogy, it

B (34:25)

doesn't really mean anything to this. So in this situation, and, and it is relevant, you're making software for that that has, that has uses across the spectrum of contemporary life. And you don't know. And if you're the software designer, you have some agency here. If somebody came to you and said, design this, but it might be used to spy on Americans, well, then you might have say, no, I'm not going to do this.

C (34:54)

Well, and Google have been through this, right? Google went through exactly the same thing. Their staff complained.

B (35:00)

And you do, and you should have the right to say what your software can and cannot do. I have the right to sell myself, not sell my software to the government, which is effectively what Anthropic is doing, doing right now. I mean, it's another situation than you, if you do, we're selling it to the government and we're going to go into a deal. You know, all software licenses are complicated documents. And, and they're always, always saying what you can and cannot do with it. So in, and when a private company enters into an agreement with the government, there are those same negotiations take place. And you know, if it works for you as a private company, the agreement, that's fine. But if it doesn't, or if in this case it appears that the government is then trying to, trying to change that agreement, well, yeah, then you can go home. Why not? It's your, it's your software.

C (36:03)

Right. And this is not a battle they have in China. In China, the companies Just give it over and the government does what it wants. It's a fascinating discussion about whether or not if you sell your software to the us, to the Pentagon, they should be allowed to decide what they do with it. I mean, within the bounds of the law, obviously.

B (36:21)

Obviously. And this is part of a much broader discussion about the constraints that should be placed on artificial intelligence. I mean, a discussion which we seem, by the way, rather incapable of having in any kind of, kind of structured way.

C (36:38)

Well, anybody's incapable of having it at the moment because it's so complicated. And also there's the battle to beat China, which seems to overhang and justify any overreach by AI. Meanwhile, every day we all receive texts from people saying, oh my God, have you tried this? It's changed my life. You must use this. It's changed my life. Blah, blah, blah.

B (37:00)

The other aspect of this is that, is that Anthropic is put in a position to having to negotiate with Pete Hegseth. And I think it goes to this another problem within the Trump administration of no one trusts them, no one should trust them. You don't know. And totally their incompetence. So it's probably very difficult. Difficult to have a reasonable negotiation with them.

C (37:32)

Yeah, I'm sure Pete Hegseth, having run to veterans organizations extremely badly, is not the person you want to discuss. And presumably a lot of the lawyers that would have helped him in the Pentagon.

B (37:46)

LifeLock, how can I help? The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.

E (37:50)

One in four tax paying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud.

A (37:54)

What do I do?

E (37:55)

My refund though. I'm freaking out.

B (37:56)

Don't worry, I can fix this.

E (37:58)

LifeLock fixes identity theft, guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

C (38:03)

I'm so relieved.

B (38:04)

No problem. I'll be with you every step of the way.

E (38:07)

One in four was a fraud paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply.

C (38:15)

Have have left.

B (38:19)

But then Sam Altman comes in and makes a.

C (38:21)

Makes the deal. Yes, makes the deal for OpenAI.

B (38:27)

So let's touch on what I think is an extraordinary issue now becoming that it may become the central issue of our time, which is the Trump administration's efforts to sort of their acknowledgment that they can't win on a, on a political basis. So that they're now trying to win. This would be the midterms by altering the fundamental terms of how elections are run. Obviously, obviously in their favor. And, you know, and this is basically to take over, to take over elections which are been run by states in the past by the Constitution, gives the states that power to run and oversee their own elections. But it's in, and I've been following this and listening to this, and it's as though they don't have a political strategy, but they do now have what you might call in the, and epistemological strategy, which is this, this interesting thing that they're saying. The, the, the argument is, is, well, don't you think that, that, that anyone, that only American citizens should be able to vote? And of course, the answer to that is, well, yeah, yeah, because, because that's the law, of course. But then the practice becomes, well, why can't everyone then show proof of citizenship when they do show up to vote? Which suddenly means that first thing, it's not so evident how you show proof of citizenship. Actually, a relatively small percentage of people in America, or a kind of surprisingly small percentage, have passports which would be the definitive proof of, of citizenship. So that practice, and let's remember that no one has said that this is a serious or any sort of problem in elections to date, that non citizens are showing up to vote. But then you create a situation in which it's very hard to prove citizenship. So you create a situation in which is fundamentally chaotic and fundamentally then offers the federal government infinitely more opportunities to interfere in the election process. That is, in a way that would be in favor to the Trump administration.

C (41:12)

Right. And we saw him in particular laying this out and presenting the Democrats as cheating, as having cheated at the election. He kept using the word cheating. I interviewed Governor Maura Healey, the governor of Massachusetts, last year, last week, and I urge people to watch it if you want to see a sane, technocratic, get things done Democrat. She really laid out the case, but she said how nervous a lot of Democratic governors are and they're having to take action and lay out plans for if the National Guard, for example, is sent in to start patrolling polling stations. And they're all beginning to think that the Democratic governors are getting together to think about how do we counter this, because this is very seriously a threat. And as you say, Trump himself is very conscious he's unlikely to win the midterms. That might mean impeachment for him, it might mean worse for him. It's possible they could lose the Senate. So the only thing that he has at this point is the ability to sow distrust and concern around the validity of the elections. And we saw Tulsi Gabbard go down to in Fulton county in Georgia and pull out all sorts of remnants and votes from the 2020 election that he lost, obviously, to Joe Biden. And, you know, Trump called the FBI workers who were there doing that raid, again, just something that breaks all norms, that the president would call FBI agents and encourage them in the work they're doing.

B (42:50)

Now, if the midterms are existential for Trump, and they, and they will, maybe. What does a survivalist do? And the answer is he does anything that he has to do to survive.

C (43:07)

Well, and he may be facing the prospect of jail, too, as he keeps saying. And you brilliantly titled your last book about Trump, all or nothing. And just to take it back to Epstein again, this extraordinary friendship between two men, one of whom ends up swinging his legs from the chair behind the Resolute desk in the White House, and the other ends up dead in a jail in Manhattan. And that sort of spectrum of possibility I'm sure haunts Trump in as much as anything.

B (43:43)

I think we could call that existential.

C (43:45)

So to what extent do you think he's paying attention to the Epstein files at the moment? I mean, it is the story that won't go away. So he's been very good at changing the subjects. Remember two weeks ago we were talking about Minnesota. Minnesota is just completely off the record.

B (44:02)

Yeah. I think probably less than we would think. You know, he's, I mean, first thing, I think he's pretty good at compartmentalizing these things and pretty good at understanding that this turns the page on that. So right now, among the other things, I mean, I'm not sure that he really wanted to find himself in a war with Iran. And I think that was a set of dominoes that he might walk back if he could. But the advantage of that is, of course, that is. That is the headline now, and he is at the center of it. So, again, the thing about the war thing, which I think freaks the MAGA people out, is that it turns out that he likes the posturing of this. I mean, he likes the fact that war gives him a platform. Nobody talks about anything else. It is one of those things what can change the subject. I mean, the ultimate. It is one, of course, the Wag the dog scenario. You go to war, it's war. And who is at the center of war? Donald Trump, the man waging the war,

C (45:22)

who last week was launching his Board of Peace, and half the people that he invited to subscribe. Large subscription fee, as we know, he started off with a billion dollars entry fee. For his Board of Peace, that's going to be the most influential board of peace ever and the biggest global. The biggest global, most important, just rivaling everything, of course. He invites a rum bunch of world leaders to join him in D.C. and then promptly starts a war less than a week later, starts a war as if he's become bored of the Board of Peace.

B (46:00)

Well, this, of course, this will become what's happening in Iran will become making peace there. I've made peace.

C (46:07)

And so he solved another war. There will be 10. It'll be 10 wars. But you couldn't help feeling for the heads of the Middle Eastern countries who'd come, and I'm sure have paid handsomely to join or be early founding members of the Board of Peace, that their countries are now receiving incoming from Iran. So the other.

B (46:27)

Let's do another victory.

C (46:29)

Here's Okay, I knew what you were going to say. I knew you were coming to this,

B (46:32)

because this is victory. So Trump's enemy, his enemy since, since he began his political career, has been perhaps his central enemy, in a way, has been cnn. And now, so two days ago, three days ago Thursday, I think CNN will be taken over by a company that basically exists because of Trump's support, which is to say that Skydance, which took over Paramount, and Skydance is controlled by the Ellison family, Trump supporters, they were able to take over Paramount partly with Trump's support. And now they are taking over Warner Brothers Discovery, which includes CNN in a

C (47:28)

remarkable deal, we should add for David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Bros. Who wrote an extensive, extensive profile about last year, but who took miraculously the stock up from $7 to $31 just playing this deal out. And we know that Netflix looked like they'd locked in the deal. Ted Sarandos was very excited. He'd gone to the White House. It looked like it was a done deal. And then Paramount launched a hostile takeover and then this week upped their offer, which, which really meant that Netflix walked away.

B (48:04)

Now, let me look at this in a slightly different way. David Zaslav, yes, comes out as the true winner in this deal. But I think that there's a way, and you look at it, that the only way you win in the media business is to get out of it, is to sell out of it. And so, and so we're looking at, so Netflix lost this deal. But I think there is a way to, very logical way to see that, that Netflix, and especially they, by forcing this, a higher and higher price for Paramount to pay has led Paramount to The slaughterhouse.

C (48:52)

I mean, there's such a theory that they're actually thrilled about this because this means Paramount is going to spend the next few years paying down an enormous amount of debt for this deal and trying to incorporate the cultures.

B (49:05)

If you look at every one of these media deals, and I used to be in the business of looking at these media deals, these major media conglomerations, they're all a failure. Everybody goes down the drain. Everybody. Or the only hope is in the David Zaslav case is that you can fob it off on.

C (49:30)

Exactly. It's like pass the parcel. Literally pass the parcel.

B (49:34)

You remember when somebody dumber did you

C (49:35)

sold Time Warner to AT&T to John Stankey and yeah, it's just like, get rid of this thing. An amazing, amazing thing.

B (49:42)

And it's always a series of getting rid of this. I mean, and every deal has resulted in a catastrophe. I mean, Disney is now. Is now continues to be in a significantly weaker position because they bought Rupert Murdoch's company. And we continue, I mean, in Viacom, which was a disaster until the Ellisons came along and bought it down the road one after another. That's. There just is no. There is no good outcome of this. And the Ellisons may be the last men standing. There is no one to sell to. They've created a situation in which the buck stops with them. I don't know how they get out of this.

C (50:37)

So much speculation about what happens with Siena. And assuming the deal goes through, and we should point out the California AG has said, not so fast, this may not go through. And they're supposed to be looking at it, though it's unclear actually what the California AG can really do here. But assuming the deal goes ahead, does this mean, do you think, the merging of CBS News and cnn, does it mean the spinoff of cnn? Mark Thompson, the current CEO of cnn, issued a very British statement. He is British, former CEO of the New York Times and the BBC. The director general of the BBC issued a very British statement saying keep calm and car everybody at cnn. We've got such a newsy environment at the moment. Let's just do what we do best. Keep working, stay focused. But that means.

B (51:27)

Yeah, that means he's a goner. And he. He gets a huge payout too.

C (51:31)

He gets a huge payout. So he.

B (51:33)

I'm sure that he can't wait until that door closes behind him.

C (51:37)

Well, and you can't help feeling for Anderson Cooper, who was, you know, who got a brief moment of glory when he left 60 Minutes saying he wasn't going to stay only to realize four days later that in fact Paramount was going to buy CNN.

B (51:57)

Yeah, I guess Anderson Cooper is headed for YouTube.

C (52:02)

They're probably all headed for YouTube, right? Where else? And here we find ourselves on YouTube. And we love it. We love it. We love our comments, we love our viewers. We love the directability to talk to the audience. I highly recommend.

B (52:17)

I would certainly rather be here than in any media organization.

C (52:24)

Well, I like to think the Daily News is, is a media organization and we're, we're benefiting from both. But, but what happens? Does Barry Weiss, the now notorious, perhaps that's the best word to, to use for her at the moment, head of CBS News, where she's had a very bumpy start since David Ellison bought her startup the Free Press. Does she stay in charge of CNN do you think? Or do you think they bring in a much more seasoned operator?

B (52:53)

Yeah, I'm sure they, well, they've probably.

E (52:56)

What if you could use your home to build more home? It's possible with a SOFI home Equity loan. A home equity loan allows you to leverage your home's equity at a typically lower rate than a personal loan with low fixed monthly payments and all without increasing your mortgage rate. Whether it's a new bathroom, updated kitchen deck or more. Your home could help grow itself. View Your rate@sofi.com HomeUpgrade Today Mortgages originated by SoFi bank and a member FDIC NMLS number 696891. Terms and conditions apply. Equal housing lender Blee

B (53:28)

thought some about this, but not too much about this. I mean they just got this company the other day, right.

C (53:35)

But they've been planning on doing this for some time. They must have some kind of strategy.

B (53:39)

Well, you know, Jesus, I would never assume these people have strategies. I, I don't and I, and I don't know. And they, they probably, they. I, I mean there's a lot of different questions here. I mean there's a question of do you merge these organizations? Do you keep them separate? You know, I mean there's different things the broadcast, broadcast news, broadcast culture versus cable news, cable culture versus the whole business model of these two different things which are quite different in themselves. And then always the question of these entertainment guys is do they really want to be in the news business? And the answer, I can answer that question. They don't really want to be in the news business.

C (54:30)

Well, they may have looked at Fox News and thought FOX News is making money, has been a very successful business. Why has no One taken Fox News on why are the broadcast networks and CNN perceived to be liberal news and why isn't there a rival to Fox News?

B (54:49)

Yeah, but even that has business. I mean, huge business problems in implementing that. I mean, I mean CNN gets its position on cable networks because it's the opposite of Fox. If it became Fox, then cable networks who pay the bills. I mean, all of the money basically comes from the cable, from cable companies who are and their subscribers. Then the cable companies say hey to two conservative stations. Which one do we want? Fox or, or cnn? I mean, these are major business problems. And then layer on top of that that it's the cable. It's the cable business which is collapsing as we speak and has for some time. I mean, that's the business that the Ellisons have gotten themselves into. I mean, just one, that's actually just one. One of the problematic parts of an incredibly problematic business. At virtually every turn there is across there there that the spect businesses that they have very few optimistic notes.

C (56:01)

Well, I think all we can say is come on in, Anderson. The water's warm at YouTube. There's going to be a lot of people leaving CNN, I fear. Well, Michael, Joanna, we've covered a lot of ground

B (56:19)

and always more to go.

C (56:21)

And always more to go. So we'll be back on Tuesday, God willing. And until then, everybody please leave us a comment on what you think of all the different things we've talked about. Iran, what's going on inside Trump's head there. Anthropic. Should companies be allowed to specify how the government uses their product? And Warner Brothers. What are you going to be watching? That's going to be a big, big series of auctions, a huge bundle there. I'm not sure I need any of it apart from abh.

D (56:55)

No.

B (56:56)

Well, you don't. And most a good part of the audience has long ago decided that.

C (57:01)

Right. Michael, before we go, I want your advice. I am following in your footsteps and launching a sub stack next week. It's going to be called Primal Scream, which I think we mentioned on our last podcast.

B (57:18)

But I want you following in my footsteps. That you've merely replaced the word scream for what? Howl, which is what mine is called.

C (57:28)

But you know what I like doing what I feel my gesture of the moment is, is to just go like this and become the Scream.

B (57:35)

I'm gonna continue to carp on this. I think you should change your name.

C (57:39)

I'm totally not changing it. Primal Scream, it's a very good name. It's named after a rock band And I like the visual when I was looking at the different visuals of things.

B (57:48)

Considering that I am your partner in this and then doesn't. You don't think people are going to say, gee, she just stole that from him.

C (57:56)

They may do, they may think that. But then I'm going to be writing about slightly different things to the things you're writing about or I'm going to be writing about, obviously all the reasons we need to scream. But I'm going to be throwing in some more culture stuff and I want to talk about, you know, beauty and what it's like being a slightly older woman in this culture. I use the word slightly under advisement. Well, what advice? How often should I be writing? Do you, do you read your comments? Do you answer your comments?

B (58:26)

I do, I do, I do. I mean, comments on Substack are somewhat more manageable because only you're paid subscribers get to make a comment. Now I'm not sure actually that's true. That may be a choice that you, that you, that you make. But in my case, only the paid subscribers get to comment.

C (58:49)

And what sort of comments do they leave?

B (58:53)

They leave, you know, intelligent comments. They're engaged with the, with, with the material. They, they're, they're, they're smart, they're worthy of engagement.

C (59:06)

They're worthy of engagement. Good. As are our comments on YouTube. And I always feel a sense of enormous frustration that I can only ever answer a very limited number because so many people have so many really valuable thoughts and good ideas and different takes on things and it's impossible to answer as many as we have. But I love the conversations. And actually when we drop the podcast and it goes live for the first time, there's a very lively, spirited conversation about people who are used to being there and are waiting for it. And then there is a different, slightly more reflective nature of comment with people who leave them in the YouTube comments in the non live comments. And I just want to remind people that the address is Beast Pub Scream. So Beast Pub Scream.

B (59:59)

See you on substack.

C (60:00)

See you on Substack, Michael. So the good news is we have so many Bee 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 Carvana is so easy.

E (60:21)

Just a click and we've got ourselves a car.

B (60:23)

See so many cars.

C (60:25)

That's a clicktastic inventory.

B (60:27)

And check out the financing options, payments to fit our budget. I mean that's Clickonomics 101 delivery to

C (60:34)

our door Just a hop, skip and

B (60:36)

a click away and bought no better

C (60:39)

feeling than when everything just clicks Buy your car today on Carvana. Delivery fees may apply.