How I Know Trump's at His Most Dangerous: Wolff

Summary

Inside Trump’s Head – “How I Know Trump's at His Most Dangerous: Wolff”

Podcast: Inside Trump’s Head
Hosts: Michael Wolff & Joanna Coles (The Daily Beast)
Release Date: May 29, 2026

---

Overview

This episode delves into Donald Trump’s current mindset and the internal dynamics of his administration, revealing why Trump is at his “most dangerous” when he claims not to care. Wolff and Coles use fresh political events, historic parallels (notably with Stalin), and recent scandals to explore Trump’s psyche—his audacity when cornered, the risks to U.S. democracy, and the behavior of those in his orbit. Notable themes include Trump’s volatile reaction to setbacks, the atmosphere of his inner circle, the ongoing E. Jean Carroll saga, and shifting dynamics in Texas politics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump’s “I Don’t Care” Phase: Hubris, Danger, and Defiance

• Wolff posits that Trump’s repeated refrain of “I don’t care”—about the midterms, the economy, etc.—signals his most perilous and reactive state.
  • Quote: “He recognizes that his back is to the wall…When he's in this mood, he is at his most dangerous and most audacious.” (Michael, 00:00)
  • This posture is less aloofness than cover for rage, fear, and frenetic plotting: “The I don't care, I'm above it all guy is really down in the mud thinking of some slur or libel to save himself or some new enemy to elevate and attack and some emergency to declare.” (Michael, 00:08)
• Coles draws a theatrical parallel: “We're in the King Lear phase—running around the heath. He's forgotten that he is, in fact, beholden to voters.” (Joanna, 10:50)
• Wolff translates “I don’t care” as “fuck you”—an act of contempt when Trump is pressured by accountability. (Michael, 11:00)

2. Historical Parallels—Stalin, Sycophancy, and Authoritarian Circles

• Wolff draws explicit parallels between Trump’s cabinet and Stalin’s circle, noting the desperation of those around the leader to avoid his wrath or secure his favor.
  • “I’ve just finished reading the Simon Sebag Montefiore biography of Stalin…blown away by the clear comparisons between Trump and the circle of fools and dummies around him and the circle around Stalin…” (Michael, 02:38)
• Joanna notes the performative sycophancy in Trump’s cabinet, filmed and public, recalling scenes from “The Death of Stalin” (the film) and the psychological dynamics of fear and flattery.
  • Suggests discussion of “relevant books”—possible podcast book club. (Joanna, 04:06, 05:50)

3. Cabinet Purges and Psychodrama

• Recent departures—especially of women from Trump’s cabinet—change the internal climate.
  • “It's very different sitting in a room when people have started to be fired.” (Joanna, 05:54)
  • Speculation about who among the men will be next—bets are on Kash Patel, with Michael adding, “It is really not that easy to find total, complete, abject lackeys. Most people have at least a smidgen of pride. Kash Patel excluded from that, of course.” (Michael, 06:32)
• Cabinet as a “reality show”: The structure is less about governing, more about drama, showmanship, and managing personal loyalties.

4. Paxton’s Texas Win—Why Support “Bad Guys” Over Safe Bets?

• Trump’s endorsement of Ken Paxton for Texas Senate, a candidate indicted, impeached, and mired in scandal, over John Cornyn, a “safer,” mainstream Republican.
  • Wolff: “Why would he do this? The Paxton thing means that the Texas Senate seat is imperiled in a way that it would not have been if John Cornyn had been the nominee.” (14:11)
  • “Ken Paxton…is reprehensible in every way. Actually, that is a calling card.” — Trump is drawn to the drama, the “reality show” value, above all. (Michael, 16:10)
• Coles: “Well, he's the P.T. Barnum of Texas, right?” (Joanna, 18:20)
• Trump circles see Paxton as uniquely loyal and willing to “do what’s needed”
• This dynamic highlights how Trump values loyalty and spectacle over prudence.

5. E. Jean Carroll, Retaliation, and Use of State Power

• Discussion of the DOJ opening a criminal investigation against E. Jean Carroll, following civil victories against Trump [sexual assault and defamation cases].
  • “She is back in the news not on her own volition…Trump…has taken the United States Justice Department…made it his own, and now ordered it to go after this woman who has won these two judgments against him.” (Michael, 25:53)
  • Both hosts see this as retribution, a “chilling” use of state power to intimidate critics: “If you displease Donald Trump, his Justice Department…will come after you.” (Michael, 30:56)
• Carroll’s only “offense” is her testimony regarding outside funding—DOJ claims perjury over LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman funding her suit. (Joanna, 29:27)
• Joanna highly recommends the new E. Jean Carroll documentary, adding human dimension and additional context. (Joanna, 24:13, 30:21)

6. Iran, The Strait of Hormuz & Trump’s Foreign Policy Paralysis

• Critical bottleneck remains unresolved: “Every time he tells us it's resolved, it’s not resolved, it's not resolved. I mean, there’s a continuing crisis here which he seems to be ignoring.” (Joanna, 32:50)
• Wolff observes that Trump cannot distract or escape this ‘forever war’ situation in the Middle East. (Michael, 32:57)
• Iran’s tactics have left Trump boxed in, revealing gaps in his approach to diplomacy and foreign crises.

7. Inside Trump’s Nightly Phone Chains

• Reports from insiders suggest Trump oscillates between bravado (“problem is solved”) and threats of destruction (“we can obliterate them at any time”).
  • “He is screwed. And he hasn't found a way not only to get out of this, but he hasn't found a way to mask this, and he hasn't found a way to distract from this.” (Michael, 32:57)

8. Book Club, The Epstein Series, and Power

• Proposals for a recurring “Inside Trump’s Head” curriculum: relevant books (e.g., Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Stalin, Jill Biden’s memoir—though Michael vetoes its inclusion—see 39:39), documentaries, and Wolff’s serialized Epstein pieces.
• Joanna quizzes Michael about his relationship as an observer and visitor to Epstein’s world:
  • “Do you have regrets about your friendship with him?”
    Michael: “…I was there because I thought this was an extraordinary story…I never felt that was the main story…On his relationship to power and to powerful people…” (Michael, 49:14–50:08)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Trump’s Danger Signal:
  • “When he's in this mood, he is at his most dangerous and most audacious.” (Michael, 00:00)
• Stalin/Trump Parallel:
  • “I was blown away by the clear comparisons between Trump and the circle of fools and dummies around him and the circle around Stalin…” (Michael, 02:38)
• Cabinet Drama:
  • Joanna: “It's very different sitting in a room when people have started to be fired.” (05:54)
  • Michael: “It is really not that easy to find total, complete, abject lackeys. Most people have at least a smidgen of pride. Kash Patel excluded from that, of course.” (06:32)
• King Lear Analogy:
  • Joanna: “We're in the King Lear phase—running around the heath.” (10:50)
• Retaliatory DOJ:
  • “If you displease Donald Trump, his Justice Department…will come after you.” (Michael, 30:56)
• On Epstein’s House:
  • Michael: “…you would show up at Epstein's house and you wouldn't know why you got the invitation…” (44:00)
• Limericks from Listeners:
  • Joanna (reading):
    “There once was a grifter called Trump
    who sat sound asleep on his rump…” (52:41)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:00–01:00] – Trump’s “I don’t care” posture: the most dangerous phase
• [02:38–04:06] – Parallels with Stalin’s inner circle
• [05:50–07:03] – Cabinet purges; who’s next?
• [10:19–12:47] – Trump says he “doesn’t care about the midterms”
• [13:22–21:21] – Texas politics: Paxton v. Cornyn; Trump’s impact
• [22:32–31:36] – E. Jean Carroll, new DOJ probe; uses of power
• [32:57–37:59] – Strait of Hormuz, Iran, and Trump’s foreign policy stalemate
• [39:39–41:33] – Jill Biden’s book, debate aftermath
• [42:25–51:11] – Michael’s Epstein series, interactions with elite power
• [52:41] – Listener limericks and wry engagement with the community
• [53:05–55:27] – Book club, recommendations, show wrap

---

Resource & Homework List (As Per Hosts)

• Books:
  • Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore
  • [Proposed then vetoed] Jill Biden’s memoir
• Films:
  • The Death of Stalin (dir. Armando Iannucci)
  • In the Loop (dir. Armando Iannucci)
  • E. Jean (new documentary on E. Jean Carroll)
• Reading:
  • Michael Wolff’s Epstein series on Substack

---

Tone & Takeaways

The conversation is candid, acerbic, deeply informed, and often darkly humorous, with Wolff providing blunt psychoanalytical takes on Trump and Coles countering with journalistic skepticism and occasional irreverence. The core message: Trump’s defiant bravado masks deep anxiety and volatility, making him especially unpredictable—and dangerous—when he claims not to care. Their analysis is a warning, delivered with wit and authority, that character—Trump’s, and that of those around him—remains America’s most important, and perilous, story.

Transcript

[Michael]

He recognizes that his back is to the wall, that he's in a corner that he can't get out of. When he's in this mood, he is at his most dangerous and most audacious. So the I don't care, I'm above it all guy is really down in the mud thinking of some slur or libel to save himself or some new enemy to elevate an attack and some emergency to declare. I mean, he is. I mean, this is, this could be a very messy moment or an ugly Trump moment at this point that he's going to blame us for demanding that he care.

[Joanna]

Michael.

[Michael]

Joanna, so let me just say top of the hour here that I was out last night at dinner with the whole family and somebody came, a member of the public came and sat at the table to say how much he liked the podcast. Well, actually, he didn't say how much he liked the podcast. He said when he wakes up in the middle of the night, he puts us on and it puts him back to sleep. But I think that was a compliment.

[Joanna]

No, I don't think that was a compliment. I think it was someone being very passive aggressive. Was this person British? They might have been British, because that is the sort of thing that people say.

[Michael]

No, no. It was said with great good cheer that we were part of his life.

[Joanna]

Well, that's nice. That's very nice to know. Well, and I realized we don't solicit enough feedback from people from our viewers and listeners, and we're always up for feedback. Not only do we want you to join the Beast membership, subscribe. Please hit the subscription button. We are independent media and we really appreciate your support, but we also really appreciate your comments and your thoughts and suggestions. And actually, we had an enormous response to the question of whether or not Donald Trump is going to survive his presidency. Most people, I think, felt they weren't going to survive his presidency. So there was a lot of nevermind him. But it was very good to, and certainly for me to get back into the comments and, and realize this is a real community of people who, like us, wake up in the morning, have our cappuccinos, stare out of the window, it's a beautiful day, and can't quite believe that at the same time, America seems to be being dismantled.

[Michael]

Well, I want to go. You know, I've been reading and this is sort of coincidental, but maybe it wasn't coincidental that I've just, I've just finished reading the Simon Sebag Montefiore biography of Stalin and I was Kind of blown away by the clear comparisons between Trump and the circle of fools and dummies around him and the circle around Stalin, Birya, Molotov, Khrushchev, Malenkov, these guys who spent all of their time just trying to curry favor with Stalin so that he didn't kill them, and then hopefully that they could replace him, which then goes into, have you seen the Armando Iannucci death of Stalin?

[Joanna]

Yeah, of course. Stalin, of course. Although, annoyingly, I can't remember it. And people keep saying to me, you must watch it again, because it's suddenly so much more vital, especially when we have.

[Michael]

No, it actually is. I mean, very much. You know, we do this thing, Trump and Hitler, I mean, which is seems basic and seems cliched, but that's not it. It is literally Trump and Stalin.

[Joanna]

Well, it's Trump and Stalin and Trump and Hitler, I think, because there are definitely comparisons about the Big Lie and some of the things in Mein Kampf. Right. But side note, Simon Sebag Montefiore, who's now One of the UK's top preeminent historians, and the Stalin book, which, truthfully, I haven't read, although I'm now inspired to, and perhaps we should start an inside Trump's Head book club where we get. In fact, we should solicit. Do people like the idea of this? Should we be doing a book club where we suggest books that are relevant? I haven't read Sebag's book, but in a happy note, he was my very first intern when I was at the Spectator magazine, and I made him put up blinds. I had this very erudite young history student, and the only task I had for him in his first week was to put up some blinds, which he did in a very haphazard way, and they didn't keep out the light. Anyway, I like the idea of at least watching the Last Days of Stalin, which I must do again, because I think the first time I watched it, I didn't appreciate the significance of it. And then, of course, you see the sycophant sitting around Trump in the Cabinet meetings, which, of course, he films, and you're just shocked by it. And I wonder if now four women have left, if it's changed the vibe in the room, because for the longest time, no one was fired. They all sat there wondering who the first person was. But now four people have gone. Although, in theory, Tulsi resigned, but the other three were fired. The women.

[Michael]

Yeah, I don't think we have to bow to that pretense.

[Joanna]

Okay. Tulsi Was also fired then, according to Michael. But it's very different sitting in a room when people have started to be fired.

[Michael]

Who do we think is. Have we made book yet on. On the first man to go?

[Joanna]

Well, Cash Patel seems vulnerable.

[Michael]

Yeah, it. It just has to be Cash. Although, you know, I mean, he needs someone to run the FBI. Who is his total lackey.

[Joanna]

I'm sure there are lots of people he could find to do that. What about Howard Lutnick? Howard Lutnick has kept a low profile.

[Michael]

That is not true. It is really not that easy to find total, complete, abject lackeys. People. You know, most people have at least a smidgen of pride. Kash Patel excluded from that, of course.

[Joanna]

Well, who else would there be? What about Howard Lutnick, who at the beginning was. Was everywhere, but seems to have taken a lower profile?

[Michael]

They all should be fired. I mean, RFK obviously should be fired.

[Joanna]

Totally. He should be fired. What was that weird snake behav. That was insane.

[Michael]

Oh, yeah. What was that?

[Joanna]

And then he puts it out. I mean, it's not like. Because I was like, who took this video? And then I realized, oh, he posted it himself. Man with snake. Bare chested wrestling. I mean, absurd.

[Michael]

Yeah, well, that is. I mean, that. Is that always that thing that has that RFK, you know, with the Falcons, you know, Mr. Outdoorsman. But I don't exactly understand where that fits into. Does. Does that align with the anti vax thing? Maybe. Maybe it does. I. It seems so odd. You know, one of the things that the Kennedys. All the Kennedys, when they were. When they were growing up and when they had their. All their various problems, were always sent away to someone in the wilderness.

[Joanna]

Right.

[Michael]

I mean, that was the thing. They didn't, you know, get rid of the. You know, this person cannot be seen in public. Send to the wilderness.

[Joanna]

Well, he got sent to the wilderness after his father's death. Right?

[Michael]

He got sent to the wilderness after his father. Yeah. And then at several points, you know, because of the addiction, the. This. That he was always being sent off into the wilderness for good reason.

[Joanna]

Well, and maybe he'll be sent off into the political wilderness or at least to build his own support base as he runs for 20, 28.

[Michael]

Yeah, I don't think that's going to be the wilderness. I think we're going to have to deal with this guy for some time to come.

[Joanna]

Well, he's so obviously enjoying himself, isn't he? And we haven't checked in with his podcast yet. The Daily Beast is brought to you by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Here's something that should be on your radar. As America approaches its 250th anniversary, there's a growing effort to redefine what this country stands for, and it involves blurring the line between church and state. But historically, that line was intentional. This country began as a rebellion against monarchy and divine rule, and the founders replaced that with a secular constitution. No religious test, no state religion, a government accountable to the people. That's part of what made the system work. The Freedom Religion foundation is working to protect the First Amendment because it protects you. As we look ahead, the question isn't just what we celebrate, it's what we defend. Visit FFRF US Beast or text BEAST to 511-511. To join or learn more, go to FFRF US BEAST or text BEAST to 511511. Future of American Freedom is still being written. Text BEAST to 5 11. 511 today. Text fees may apply. I feel like we should get to the clanger that Trump dropped in the Cabinet meeting,

[Michael]

and that was that. He doesn't care about the midterms.

[Joanna]

I don't care about the midterms. I think we actually have the clip,

[Michael]

but they were going to outweigh me. You know, we'll outweigh him. He's got the midterms. I don't care about the midterms. Look what happened last night. That was the prelude to the midterms, you know, and let's remember that. This is on the heels of saying he didn't care about the economy. So we're in the I don't care phase of his presidency.

[Joanna]

We're in the. We really are in the King Lear phase. Running around the heath. He's forgotten that he is, in fact, beholden to voters.

[Michael]

Well, I think this has actually a very specific meaning. It's I don't care has to do with his anger and contempt, when he's held to account, when the rules of gravity apply to him, when actions have consequences that he can't fix. So really, I don't care is saying basically, fuck you.

[Joanna]

Well, it's also said, I mean, it reminded me of a sort of, you know, an actor who discovers that they're the only person in the cast who hasn't been nominated for an Oscar, and they're like, well, I don't want an Oscar anyway. They're stupid. Or a child who's not been invited to a party. He has to care about the midterms. And all the people around him care about the midterms?

[Michael]

No, I think when that, basically he is saying that it does, he desperately cares and that he recognizes that his back is to the wall, that he's in a corner that he can't get out of. And also we should note that in that when he's in this mood, he is at his most dangerous and most audacious. So the I don't care, I'm above it all guy is really down in the mud thinking of some slur or libel to save himself or some new enemy to elevate an attack, some preposterous lie to propound and spread and some emergency to declare. I mean, he, I mean, this is, this could be a very messy moment or an ugly Trump moment at this point that he's going to blame us for demanding that he care.

[Joanna]

And do you think that that means he's going to mess with the elections again? I mean, he seemed very excited. You heard him clearly.

[Michael]

He wants to mess with the election is to what extent that's possible. And to some extent it is possible, we certainly know. But it also depends upon how far down he is. In other words, at some level, it doesn't matter. He can't do anything. He's just gonna be overwhelmed, which I think, I mean, certainly if we went to the polls today, he would be overwhelmed.

[Joanna]

Well, he was referring to Ken Paxton there when we, when we recorded Tuesday's inside Trump head. It was the day of the election in Texas and we didn't know. We assumed Paxton would probably win, but he won significantly among the primary voters, the Republican primary voters in Texas. And John Cornyn, hitherto a sort of reasonably decent, although very right wing senator cast into the, cast into the wilderness.

[Michael]

And there are a couple of questions about, I mean, the most interesting question to me there in the most telling question about what's inside Trump's head is why would he do this? Why would. Because the Paxton thing means that the seat, the Texas Senate seat, is imperiled in a way that it would not have been if John Cornyn had been the nominee.

[Joanna]

Right.

[Michael]

Or they certainly would have been on significantly safer grounds. So instead they have a candidate who's been indicted, who's been impeached, who's in the middle of an ugly divorce, whose wife is accusing him of, whose wife is also a Texas politician, is accusing him of,

[Joanna]

I think, biblical transgressions.

[Michael]

Exactly. In. So there is nothing to recommend this.

[Joanna]

Well, except that he's oddly like Trump. I mean, the only thing to recommend, obviously why Trump has maxed him is because he's obviously like Trump. He's been impeached. He's been accused of all sorts of corruption. He's about to get divorced. So they have a lot in common.

[Michael]

But, well, he's also throughout. And this goes back to the first term, he has been incredibly reliable to them. They always said within the. If they needed something done, and Paxton was the Attorney general then. And they were always looking for attorney generals to file lawsuits, and then they would always go to Paxton, play the Paxton card, while at the same time, everyone in the Trump circle acknowledged that Paxton was really a bad guy.

[Joanna]

Well, and the John Cornyn Republicans in Texas spent a fortune trying to keep him out of the race and all sorts of ads. I mean, this is a man who had his own party taking out ads against him, saying how bad he was, and he still managed to win. And as you say, it puts Texas in play. So why is Trump making the Senate vulnerable like this?

[Michael]

Exactly. So why is he. And I think you can look at this in two ways. This is. This is more Trump. I don't care. More Trump. Fuck you. More Trump hubris. Which it all is, of course. But at the same time, it is Trump thinking, I know better. And I see this more clearly than all conventional politicians. I see that Ken Paxton, who is reprehensible in every way, actually, that is a calling card. John Cronin is. What's his cornet?

[Joanna]

Yeah. John Cornyn.

[Michael]

I can't even remember his name. He's so bland.

[Joanna]

He's like John Thune light.

[Michael]

So you go for. I mean, this is. You know, during the. The 2024 campaign, again and again, the people around Trump would say, God, he's got to come back to the economy. He's got to go to the basic issues. He's got to stop going after Kamala and making this personal. And he never did that. And he kept saying, that's wrong. You always have to make it personal.

[Joanna]

Well, do you remember when he said that? When had Kamala become black? I mean, it seemed unfathomable. There isn't a political advisor in the world who would recommend doing that. And yet all it did was create attention and drama and excitement around him. And oddly, it didn't work for Kamala.

[Michael]

No. So go and just go back to where we always come back to the reality show programming. On your real show. You certainly don't want John Cornyn. You want Paxton. You certainly want Paxton. This is, you know.

[Joanna]

Well, he's the P.T. barnum of Texas. Right? Yeah.

[Michael]

Well, you know. Well, the, you know, the Jersey Housewives of, of Texas or whatever. I mean, he is a great reality show participant.

[Joanna]

It's just remarkable. It's just remarkable. So, and John Cornyn, instead of, I mean, there's a fascinating picture of him standing there conceding with his wife. And you can see the wife is just devastated on his behalf and bewildered by how this has happened. And then John Cornyn says that he's always voted for Republicans and he will vote for Paxton. And you're like, wrong move, John Cornyn. Wrong move.

[Michael]

Well,

[Joanna]

he should have gone off and joined Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie, who are in Costa Rica on holiday.

[Michael]

But it is the kind of thing, I mean, in, in, in politics, if, if you go against your party in an overt way like that, you're pretty much out of business.

[Joanna]

Well, he's out of business anyway, John.

[Michael]

Well, I don't know if he's out of business. I mean, if, if you're, I mean, these politicians think, you know, this is, you know, win, lose, who knows what's going to happen if Paxton loses, which is very possible, then there's other Republican careers that are going to try to take down. I mean, Texas, yes, Texas could become a blue state or a very bluish purple state, but it probably won't, actually. So the problem for if Paxton loses, it will be because of Paxton.

[Joanna]

Right.

[Michael]

So therefore, you know, never say never.

[Joanna]

Well, and he's up against an interesting Democrat in James Talarico, who's a seminarian and a sort of calm, youngish man. He's 40ish. We interviewed him on the Daily Beast podcast. He seemed highly articulate, understands the weight on his shoulders to see if he can pull off Texas. Formerly a state senator in Texas, and he beat Jasmine Crockett to the Senate seat. So it'll be a meeting of two incredibly different politicians. James Talarico versus Ken Paxton. And it's unclear who will win. I think it's unclear. And also it's going to suck up an enormous amount of money. I think 100 million was put into the race this time around between Paxton and Cornyn. So it will be a huge resource suck. Although Trump has never failed to raise money, and I think James Tallarico raised just under a million dollars in the first two hours after Paxton was found victorious.

[Michael]

Yeah. And just to set the context, in the last, how many elections now, has there always been this discussion of Texas turning purple or blue and the Senate going to a Democrat and it never happens.

[Joanna]

Let's just note that, yep, Texans like Crazy people.

[Michael]

But that's also, and I think the to be noted is the amount by which Paxton won. So that does say something about, about, about, certainly about Texas, but it also says something about, about the Trump vote in the United States.

[Joanna]

Right.

[Michael]

And still remains so strongly with him.

[Joanna]

Well, the passion of the Republican primary voter. Right. It doesn't necessarily say more about Texas at this point. Well, we don't know what it says about tax Texas. We just, well, we're gonna, we're gonna see, right? We're gonna find out. So the other thing that happened yesterday, Eugene Carroll is back in the news.

[Michael]

Stunning, actually. I mean, let's. And she is back in the news. Not on her own volition. She is back on the news because the Justice Department has opened a, an investigation into her criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll. And you will remember E. Jean Carroll accused Donald Trump of attacking her sexually attacking her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in New York on 57th Street, 7th street and, and 5th Avenue, maybe 56th street and just adjacent to Trump Tower, in fact. And she, she then, she had, has had, had two lawsuits against Donald Trump. The first was a, a lawsuit for, I have to actually remember which, which are the, which are the, well, first, the first, the first lawsuit was the, was, was the, the sexual assault lawsuit.

[Joanna]

Right.

[Michael]

And that was, and she got 5 million $. That's that award. The jury awarded her $5 million. And the second lawsuit was the libel lawsuit because Trump said, said he didn't and then he said all kinds of terrible things about her and then continued to libel her. And in that lawsuit, I believe the award was $87 million.

[Joanna]

I think $83 million. Yes. And also is a perfect example of when he doubled down. So he was found guilty of sexual abuse of abusing her in the changing room in Bergdorf Goodman, having run into her in the revolving door. And you think of the kind of, of moments in your life that hinge on an inopportune meeting with someone. So he was coming out, she was going into Bergdorf Goodman. He goes, oh, you're the advice lady. Because she had a column called Ask E. Jean in Elle magazine. She'd been an advice columnist for a long time in New York, and she'd had an advice. She, in fact, on television, and he spins round, they start talking, they go up to the lingerie floor, and then he basically pushes her into the changing room. And I can't help thinking this is going to be incredibly good publicity for her for the documentary E. Jean, which has just come out and which is spectacularly good. I recommend everybody go and see it. It's had difficulties getting distributor, but it's a really excellent documentary in which she's such an eccentric, interesting character. And one of the most tragic things about this is that she's really never had a relationship or sex again, she says, since this attack in the changing room by Donald Trump.

[Michael]

So, but let's understand what's at issue here, what's at stake, really. So we've had two juries, civil juries, that have decided in her favor. Trump, who runs effectively, runs the United States Justice Department. Not effectively. I mean, he has taken the United States Justice Department, which has always had some independence within the executive branch, made it his own, and now ordered it to go after this woman who has won these two judgments against him, him. So she has used the, the justice system, the court system as it is, as it, as it's supposed to be used. She has been won two victories there. Trump, who has lost two cases there, those two cases, has, has now is now in effect superseding that and raising the ante by saying this woman who has pursued him ought to be prosecuted on a criminal basis for pursuing him in two cases which she has won.

[Joanna]

So the other thing I'm curious about here is that Todd Blanche, who of course was Trump's personal lawyer in the E. Jean Carroll case, which I know you sat through, has recused himself from this. So I'm wondering if that is the move, a bit like when Jeff Sessions recused himself as Attorney General over Russia, whether or not this is the move that loses Todd Blanche the actual AG job.

[Michael]

Yeah, I suppose it could be. I mean, it sounds to be. But I mean, the other thing it does, I mean, Todd Blanche has been so abject, so willing to do anything that is necessary to gain Trump's trust and to gain the promotion that he wants into the permanent position of Attorney general, that it seems hard to believe that at this point he would have discovered some spine. So I rather think that they've gamed this out. And as we talked about last time, the person at the center of this, at the center of all of Trump's legal moves is this guy, Boris Epstein. And Boris Epstein is also Todd Blanche's kind of rabbi, basically within the Trump structure. And Boris was very key in both of the I Jean cases. So my sense would be that they've figured this out, that moving Todd Blanche over to the side is just a kind of a fig leaf thing, and they are again, just going to use the willingness of the Justice Department. The fact that the Justice Department is holy at the act will act at the behest of Donald Trump as another way to curry favor with Donald Trump.

[Joanna]

Well, and I think the argument that they're making is that E. Jean is guilty of perjury because in 2022, she said that she hadn't received any outside funding for her case. And she's certainly not seen any money yet. I mean, in both the 5 million judgment and the 83 million judgment found against Trump. And I believe the money is in escrow. She has yet to see a single cent of that. But it then transpired that Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn, had in fact been funding her defense. She has the extremely able Robbie Kaplan as her lawyer. But I think that's the DOJ's point of contention.

[Michael]

Yeah. Well, did she say that? It doesn't seem like that would be relevant. Did she say that under oath?

[Joanna]

Well, I think it was in her testimony. I think when she was asked if someone funded her, my understanding is it was in her testimony. So that's what they're going after her for. But again, I really recommend the documentary. It's excellent and it puts all this in a much bigger context of Eugene's life. And it's really fascinating. And it's had terrible difficulties getting distributors, but it's finally out in theaters and strongly recommended.

[Michael]

And see this in the broader context, that he will go after anyone. If you displease Donald Trump, his Justice Department, there is a very good chance, depending upon how much you displease him, that he will come after you. And he has the resources, obviously, and the power obviously, to do that. He's got an entire department to make your life miserable. And there's a couple of things here. He is not going to win a case against Eugene Caro. It's not going to happen. But he is going to make her life miserable as he has in the past.

[Joanna]

Well, and I can't believe that Melania is enjoying this. I mean, she must be furious over this entire Jean Carroll story. And. Well, who knows? Who knows? She's unknowable as you make the point. So, Michael, can we go back to that moment in the Cabinet meeting where he's talking about, I don't care about the midterms because in the run up to that, he was talking about the Iranians and how their strategy is they think they can wait him out because it took two years to do the Iran deal with President Obama. And of course, Trump is trying to resolve this as quickly as he can, almost giving them an loi like you do with a property contract. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz, which was open and traffic, you know, ships were flowing in and out without any impediment before this war. 1500 tankers are now sitting idling in the Strait of Hormuz and it's still not resolved. And every time he tells us it's resolved, it's not resolved, it's not resolved. I mean, there's a continuing crisis here which he seems to be ignoring.

[Michael]

You know, I think he's trying to ignore this. I think he's at the point and I think that's the challenge. Now, how do you create a situation in which you can sort of say, pay no attention to this? But he hasn't found that yet. I mean, in very real ways, he hasn't found that. And remember, this is not just perception. This is, this is the price at the pump. So I think that he's stuck. I think this is one of the things, this is festering inside his head. He is screwed. And he hasn't found a way not only to get out of this, but he hasn't found a way to mask this, and he hasn't found a way to distract from this. He thought he had a way the other day when they were going to do a deal. And the Iranians have screwed him on this. I mean, they have done what they always do and they seem to enjoy doing is putting something on the table, giving the impression that they're close to a settlement, and then they up the ante. And so Trump is being trolled by the Iranians and he's being, and he's being sucked into the thing that he, one of the leading things that he represented himself against, which is forever wars in the Middle East.

[Joanna]

Right. He then added to his conditions that he expects all the Arab countries, which aren't yet part of the Abraham Accord, to sign up. And there was a little nib in the Times, which actually one of our viewers sent us saying the leaders, especially those of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan, who don't have formal diplomatic relations with Israel, were surprised by Trump's request. There was silence on the line and Trump joked and asked if they were still there.

[Michael]

Well, there's a couple of interesting things about this. Don't they use Zoom?

[Joanna]

Well, apparently not. Maybe you can't secure a line with Zoom. Maybe they still have old fashioned telephone lines.

[Michael]

Well, yeah, yeah, but nevertheless, they, they, I'm sure there's, there's video conferencing of all Kinds that they have in place and secure. But I, but anyway, leave, leave that to the side. The, the other thing about this kind of thing, and this is, this is very emblematic of Trump conversations of saying stuff that is just like, where did that come from? Out of what context does that come? How has the plot so dramatically changed at this moment in time, leaving people with their mouths open?

[Joanna]

So, Michael, when you're talking to people who are on the phone chain with Trump, and as we know, he's lying there at night and in the early morning and in the middle of the night, night calling people, what are they saying that he's saying right now? Is he saying this war thing, it's got to end, it was a mistake, or is he, how is he expressing himself to them?

[Michael]

You know, it is like this problem is solved. Everybody is over. Is blowing this way out of proportion. This is under control. And then he actually goes back and then says, and if it's not, we're going to obliterate this, them. So it's always back to that thing. We began with the obliteration. We are obliterating them. Well, we didn't obliterate them very clearly, but he'll return to that. We can obliterate them at any time. It is as though he is in control. So does he believe he is in control? That's the interesting thing.

[Joanna]

And meanwhile, Iran is using the Strait of Hormuz like David used his catapult against the Goliath, Goliath of the US who once again has assumed that because we have an enormous military that will be the dominant factor. And in fact, it's not. And we're all stuck by this.

[Michael]

I mean, I think everybody. But perhaps Donald Trump understands that at this point that this is, that the military has, I mean, they've pretty much, you know, what is it at 13,000 targets they have done their best to obliterate and they haven't. So therefore, what do you do next? And actually that's the question. Donald Trump has no idea what you do next.

[Joanna]

Right. So you go after an 82 year old woman, Eugene Carroll, and you support Ken Paxton, and you say you don't care about the midterms because you're somehow bigger than the midterms. But in fact, he's not bigger than the midterms.

[Michael]

Well, of course not. And that's, I mean, I think by saying that he recognizes that. But I don't care about the midterms. Well, that's what it means. I care about the midterms. And it's closing in on me and I have to find a solution. So that becomes this interesting thing. What does he do? And let's look at that in the context that he could do anything because he is volatile, unpredictable, paranoid, angry and

[Joanna]

constrained by no one. He's not constrained by Congress. He's not constrained by any of the people sitting around clapping him at the cabinet table. Which brings us back to Stalin. Which brings us back to your idea of the book club. Should we include Jill Biden's book, which comes out at the beginning of June, in which she says that during the catastrophic debate which kicked off all this between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, she thought Joe Biden was having a stroke. His performance was so bad, she'd never seen him like that. She thought her husband was having a stroke. Which, which beggars the question, why didn't you run onto the stage and call for medics?

[Michael]

Yeah. But for your initial question, should we include Jill Biden's book? No, she's not in our book club.

[Joanna]

How did I know you were going to say that?

[Michael]

You know what the book is going to be? It's going to be one of those, you know, post, post political books of which is. Which are. I never understand why actually people would read these. Why, why does anyone read Kamala Harris's book? I mean, these are books that are not written, not written by them. They're just a kind of, I mean, the worst kind of book. And yet people buy them.

[Joanna]

I'm perplexed by that, but quite interesting to try and understand Jill Biden's point of view because apparently there's lots in the book and I haven't read it yet. And I am actually sort of eager to read a couple of chapters in it, which is that she was one of his biggest supporters to encourage him to keep running. It was her and Hunter, as we read at the time, who are encouraging them to keep going instead of hold an open convention and have people step forward to replace him.

[Michael]

Well, yeah, and that's what she's saying, by the way, in this, he seemed to have be having a stroke. In other words, she's identifying the debate as in a wholly anomalous moment that otherwise he's sentient and on top of things and, and in charge. And this just moment, inexplicable moment of caught in the headlights, stage fright or stroke or whatever is separate from what she maintains is the real Joe Biden.

[Joanna]

Right. It was just a blip on the landscape. All right, well, Dr. Jill, where it feels like we're not going to be inaugurating our book club with your book, but I am curious to read that chapter. I don't know if you're going to make a book, write a book about your relationship with Epstein. I noticed that we're on episode 10 or chapter 10 or installment 10 of your substack series about Jeffrey Epstein. Which brings us to a Bill Gates moment which I thought you might like to tell people about. Well, I have to say I found this almost Dickensian dropping of chapters once a week pretty riveting actually. I do find your whole relationship with Epstein interesting.

[Michael]

Yeah, no, it's kind of interesting way to write this. And maybe it will at the end be a book. It is certainly being written in that sequential form that, that I suppose at the end, if I get to the end will be a book length manuscript, whether or not it will be a book. But there was a moment and I'm just trying to describe in this installment what it is like to go to Epstein's house. And I would get these invitations and this is circa, you know, he's been out of jail for a few years. So this is in the 2011, 2012, 2013 area. And I would get these invitations, sort of an invitation. They would come every, you know, four or five weeks. You'd get this kind of chirpy email from his assistant, you know, can you have lunch with Jeffrey on such and such a day or can you have tea with Jeffrey? And you would never know why. Why am I being invited? What's the purpose of this? You know, I've been around Manhattan for a long time. You get an invitation from someone who you don't necessarily know that well. And there's a purpose, there's an agenda, People are busy. But well.

[Joanna]

And you were an influential media columnist first at New York magazine and then at Vanity Fair, right?

[Michael]

Well, possibly. But even then you would say, can you come? Let's talk about such and such. Somebody wants to pitch you on something, one of those things. But you would show up at Epstein's house and you wouldn't know why you got the invitation. And it would be entirely unclear what is the agenda? Never airy. And then you would show up with other people there, other people of some consequence. And I talk about, in this installment about showing up and I'm having lunch with Bill Richardson, then the governor of New Mexico and a very senior Democratic political figure. Why? And he's looking at me like, why am I having lunch with this guy? And what's the thing? And you're Trying to put the pieces together, and it's never clear. And then on another occasion, I showed up. So I get to the house on 71st street and these big doors open. There's the houseman, Jojo, has to struggle to get this door open. And I come in and then I see Epstein. And you go up, there's the entrance. And then you go up a couple of stairs and he's standing at the top of the stairs with this other guy. A very familiar looking face, but I can't place it because there's no context here. And I'm immediately thinking, I went to high school with him. I must have. I really think that's. But then Epstein says, oh, Bill, you know Michael. And then I get it. I think, oh, my God, that's Bill Gates. And then in the context of Epstein's house, Bill Gates says, oh, of course I know Michael now. He doesn't know me from Adam.

[Joanna]

Well, he may have known your writing, I don't, but.

[Michael]

And then he's very familiar. You know, he's on his way out and he sort of touches my shoulder, you know, like we're old friends. And that's always the feeling inside of Epstein's house. That was very club like, you know, if you're here, we must know, you know, then we're. We're the same. We're equal. We acknowledge some level of being familiar with each other. But anyway, when Bill Gates left, I go back and sit down to talk with Epstein or have a chat, or they offer you things to eat all the time. And then he spins out this kind of wild whole tale. Although as I spins it out, I'm thinking, well, maybe this is real about a plan with the Gates foundation to repay. There's all that he says. There's trillions of dollars in unbanked money in the world. Trillions. Far more money than the US in the US US Yearly budget. And so the plan is to repatriate this money in a forgiveness program which would essentially you, whatever criminal you are, get to bank 10% of your money if you turn over 90% of it. I mean, so we're talking drug money and arms money and God knows what we're talking.

[Joanna]

So illegal gained money.

[Michael]

Yes. So this money then would. Would form the largest philanthropic fund ever imagined. A philanthropic fund larger than, well, than the budget of the United States by a factor of. By several factors. So an amount of money that would transform the human experience. So this is what you're talking. This is. Is what you're suddenly listening to. And then you think, is this real? Because it sounds like, is this just entertainment? But anyway, that's it. And then your time is up and somebody else comes and the subject changes, or you leave and you think and you exit 71st street and you found yourself saying, what was that about?

[Joanna]

When you look back on it, knowing what you know now, I mean, Bill Gates has talked a lot about how he regrets his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, perhaps because it's been exposed and it appears to have led to the breakdown of his marriage. Or at least his ex wife has talked about her regrets with his friendship of Jeffrey Epstein and her recommendation he stopped seeing Epstein and his. His decision not to do that. Do you have regrets about your friendship with him?

[Michael]

First thing, I'm not sure that I was friends with him. I was there because I thought this was an extraordinary story. And I still think it's an extraordinary story. And obviously it is an extraordinary story because it's one of the central stories of our time. I just recognized this well before most other people and had this front row seat at what was a, you know, a character that was not only hard to explain, but a character that was. That you could sense had a much, much greater impact than was. Than was. Than might be visible at that time.

[Joanna]

But when you say you knew it was a story, you didn't mean that you knew he had an industrial level of. Or an industrial level network of schoolgirls coming in and out of the house.

[Michael]

No, and I'm not even sure that that was. I've always thought that was. I mean, obviously crimes were committed and that has had a serious impact on. On many people. But I never felt that was the main story. That was the most impactful story. On his relationship to power and to powerful people and to what he was. The way he was threading him. The way he was threading the needle of modern power, modern connections, how we live at a certain level of influence and achievement in New York, certainly, or in America itself.

[Joanna]

Well, it's a very interesting series. You and I will never agree on the Epstein story, I think, and I do believe in a lot of the victim's testimony about it. And I. I'm fascinated and sort of horrified that it could go on like that on East 71st Street. And also just the sort of, you know, the Prince Andrew of it all, the Fergie of it all, the Bill Gates of it all. But I recommend your series on Substack. It's a fascinating view into, as you say, New York power. And you had a front row seat to it. Finally, Michael Garfried is back. He's resurfaced. Garfried, you took a break. We've got a limerick from him which I'm going to read at Walter Reed. While he blustered and bled, the secessionists measured his head with Melania's writ and Judge Magga's fit. They crowned Usha's webshow instead. And then we've got another one from T A K T. That's his or her shouldn't be sexist address. There once was a grifter called Trump who sat sound asleep on his rump. He nodded and snoozed through all the meetings Sons booze and slipped off his perch. Splat. Kerplunk.

[Michael]

I'm not sure how you respond to a limerick. I think you have to.

[Joanna]

I think. Come on, Splatka. Plunk is pretty good.

[Michael]

You don't. You don't laugh.

[Joanna]

Maybe you sort of laugh. You. You kind of smile, you chuckle, you chuckle, you chuckle.

[Michael]

Consider. Consider me chuckle.

[Joanna]

All right, you don't guffaw. You smile wryly, I think is the appropriate response.

[Michael]

Well, I think you could laugh about and we could come back to the. The. The Death of Stalin, which is hilarious. I mean, and that's the film by Armando Iannucci, who just as a background is the man who created Veep.

[Joanna]

And my favorite film, or certainly in my top five films, in the Loop about it's really about British and American relationships. And there's an absolutely marvelous scene where it's a junior aide in America turns to the British foreign secretary and says they want the table in a horseshoe loop and people want still and sparkling water. And the poor British foreign secretary scuttles off to do exactly what the junior aide has asked him to do. It's a wonderful film. If people haven't seen in the Loop. Highly recommend it. I keep it on my iPad when I'm flying. It always makes me laugh. Brilliant depictions by Peter Capaldi. All right, Michael, I will see you on Saturday. Referring people to your Epstein series once more on maybe we should be giving people homework to do, books to read, movies to watch, substacks to read. Maybe we haven't.

[Michael]

We only have one book so far.

[Joanna]

Okay. The Starling.

[Michael]

It's the Simon Seabeg Montefiore. And I should know the title of this. A biography of Stalin.

[Joanna]

Yeah, it's just Stalin, isn't it? A biography. I mean, hugely acclaimed, lots of prizes, and I will endeavor to read it. We can recommend the film the Death of Stalin. And I can recommend the E Jean Carroll film, which is really good and out in movies. This this week and your substack series.

[Michael]

Fantastic.

[Joanna]

That's quite a lot. Maybe we have a curriculum for Inside Trump's head. Maybe it becomes an online course. Maybe it's like Trump University. Maybe we do like Barry Weiss is apparently doing at the Free Press. Excursions, educational excursions. Maybe we do that. Okay. We're going to ask people for ideas, actual excursions.

[Michael]

We go on a trip with Bari Weiss.

[Joanna]

Well, that would be riveting and we should certainly apply to do that. An excursion with Barry Weiss round the offices of 60 Minutes. Undeniable.

[Michael]

A summer treatment which prompts the issue of the 60 minutes of her firing. The 60 Minutes Sharon Alfonso Correspondent who took issue with her, confronted her about her censorship of a piece of reporting that the Trump administration did not want aired.

[Joanna]

Right. And Bari Weiss said that it wasn't complete, that she wanted spokespeople from. I think, in fact she wanted Stephen Miller from the Trump administration. They didn't come through. Her efforts to book them didn't come through. And it aired in Canada anyway.

[Michael]

And then it eventually aired here with Trump people speaking.

[Joanna]

Yeah, they were bolted on at the end.

[Michael]

Yes, yes. Which brings up Stephen Miller and the new campaign against green cards. But let's do that for, let's save that for Saturday. But it's a major topic. The team. Ryan, Rachel, we have a new member of the team, John, Heather, Neal, how can we forget? Neil, thank you as always.

[Joanna]

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.