B (2:37)

I'm proud to be both. I'm very happy to try and be an interlocutor. Is that the right word for what's going on right now? Which is that it looks like there's actually some sort of call to justice

A (2:50)

in the UK okay, let me Ask this. This. This question. So you have the former Prince Andrew who is rocking the. The. The government and rocking the palace. Now, this is a person, and correct me if I'm wrong, who is utterly inconsequential, has no power, has no standing, has no stature, has. Has no influence. He has been for most of his adult life, a joke. He is as unimportant as unimportant can be. And yet he is, because of his bad behavior, suddenly threatening the most significant institutions in some of the most significant institutions in British life. Why?

B (3:45)

Well, I understand that that might be how he appears to you, but actually, Andrew is someone most Brits have grown up with. He was the Queen's favorite son.

A (3:57)

Okay, but this. So this is just to speak over you, just an issue then of sentimentality?

B (4:02)

No, it's not sentimentality. It's about things that are baked into your culture which don't necessarily make sense. The Royal Family doesn't particularly make sense. He's the King's younger brother. He's still eighth in line to the throne, and there are now moves. Yesterday, the Australian Prime Minister came out as part of the Commonwealth and said he would be prepared to sign up to an amendment to remove Andrew from any kind of lineage.

A (4:29)

Seems pretty far.

B (4:30)

It is pretty far. But nevertheless, in British terms, these things are chronicled.

A (4:34)

I'm trying to understand British terms.

B (4:37)

Oh, my God. You're totally talking over me. You're totally. Are you doing it on purpose? Are you talking. Okay, all right, so let's both calm down. I'm going to stop spluttering. But, you know, half a billion people watched Andrew's wedding, which, whenever it was 25 years ago was actually a huge 30 years ago to Fergie was a big deal. And remember, you know, these were the first celebrities. When you're growing up in a culture, the Royal Family is omnipresent. And actually, I think the data shows that most people, over the course of a lifetime, I think it's one in four, will have actually met a member of the Royal Family. Now, the Royal Family is slimming down, but I was doing an informal audit in my head. Almost everybody I know has met one of the royals, and that includes members of my family because they turn up and they open new senior residential care homes. I mean, it's pretty dull being a royal, actually. You end up doing a lot of that, but it's. The Royal Family is oddly baked into British life in a way that's difficult to understand. And the good ones, like Princess Anne and Princess Sophie, Prince Edward's wife who briefly was briefly caught, I think trying to sell access and then learned her lesson, are actually pretty good and go out and genuinely open factories and attend, you know, races and are. Are thought of as working hard and for the most part better than just a regular celeb that turns up and then gets caught in the sex scandal. And then of course they've brought enough sex scandals of their own to remain human and interesting. So we all watched Camilla with Charles, we watched Andrew with Fergie, we watched Fergie with her toe sucking boyfriend. So these people's foibles are also baked into, into public life.

A (6:36)

You're still not answering the question.

B (6:38)

I think I am answering the question.

A (6:40)

Why? I know you think you're answering the question.

B (6:44)

Oh, older white man patronizing younger white woman.

A (6:49)

Yeah, I'm just thinking the, the younger. This is where we're, we're.

B (6:54)

I'm definitely younger.

A (6:55)

Seems our ages are converging, but nevertheless,

B (7:00)

ten years on you.

A (7:02)

So we have a situation in which, in, in which again, Andrew doesn't. In, in terms, in terms of any kind of structural sense of, of power and responsibility. He doesn't. He's outside of that. So. But nevertheless, we are now talking about that.

B (7:22)

Except that he was given a drug. I am talking over you very deliberately and I purposefully interrupted you. But he was given a job organized by his father, said in our most recent podcast almost as a sort of occupational therapy job for him when he came out of the Navy. A non job job. Except that he represented Britain around the world in trade circles.

A (7:46)

Yeah, in a long time ago. He hasn't held that, held that job in a long time. They got rid of him on that. On that some time ago.

B (7:53)

Well, he then morphed into something called Pitcher palace where he invited people in.

A (7:58)

He's just an unserious person. A joke. Again, I'm just trying to understand how you go from recognizing someone as a completely unserious person, a total joke, a fool the butt of British media for decades, and now hold him responsible for taking down destroying the reputation of the royal family. I mean, again, I could care less, but I just find it from, from the objective perspective that the Brits are going crazy about this.

B (8:38)

Yeah, but I think you're applying logic to a situation which isn't particularly logical.

A (8:43)

Logic is good.

B (8:44)

Well, logic is good. It's often frequently the wrong lens through which to understand people because people don't behave logically and other people don't watch other people.

A (8:56)

Except systems. Systems should behave logically. And what we're talking about here is the potential collapse or certainly the shaking of a system. But. Okay, I get it, I get it.

B (9:10)

And the only thing I would say to that is that we all have friends where a lot of energy in the family goes to the people who behave least well, as opposed to the people who are highly functional and apply the systems, as it were.

A (9:29)

Yeah, I get that. But if the assumption is that the Royal House, that the palace is an institution worth preserving, and maybe it's not that it has a specific function within British society, but now you're saying no, no, we have to question that because a remote member of the family who has no responsibility, function, no real place except the sentimental one in this institution behaved badly, so now we should bring it down. Okay. I mean, I don't, you know, maybe

B (10:09)

I don't think anybody's saying we should bring the monarchy down. I think what the monarchy itself is saying is we're pushing him to the side. The law must take its course, which is what the King wrote in a very brief and fairly.

A (10:21)

I know this place. Still, this is obvious. Obviously, this, all of this, this attention. The attention must come from. There must be stakes here. And the stakes are the monarchy, the future of the monarchy, the integrity of the monarchy, and ultimately its stature in British society. But, I mean, we don't have to go any further. I get that what you're saying is that the Brits are, have, have a, have a unique view of this, but from the outside view, it's like, huh, now. But I want to go on from there. I want to go to now, now to Peter Mandelson and ask about that, because it would seem to me.

B (11:15)

Can I just throw in one thing, though, about, about Prince Andrew, which is really interesting, is that this is a man who's had police protection officers all his life and according to many people, has treated them very badly. Anytime they try to, you know, apply security rules, he would get frustrated, he would call them out. And so there is a sense, I think here in which the fact they arrested him on his 66th birthday, there's a sense in which they've had enough. And he's.

A (11:45)

Yeah, he seems like a ghastly. He seems like a ghastly person. I'm just saying that, that, that because he has no, no official role, no, no particular power, no nothing. He's essentially not, you know, other than the fact that he wastes taxpayers dollars. He's an irrelevancy anyway, that's all. I mean, it's the irrelevant nature of Prince Andrew, against the enormous focus of attention that he has become in the last, in the last many weeks that I find confusing. But let me go on to Peter Mandelson, because I also have, have. I'm, I'm having trouble understanding that situation. It would seem to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that the labor government.

B (12:38)

I've never met someone who wants to be less corrected than Michael Wolf.

A (12:42)

The labor government. The labor government came to power at a very unique moment. The most important relationship of the United Kingdom is with the United States. It pivots on all manner of British life. And Donald Trump was president. So a very dicey moment. As we know. Donald Trump, Trump, as the president can pull the, pull the, the rug out from, from under you at any moment. So they send, so they think about this. And maybe they didn't think about this, but it would seem to me that they might well have said, how are we going to deal with this, this sleazeball, this crazy man, this sleazeball who is the President of the United States? Why don't we. This would seem to me incredibly smart. Send our sleaze ball to deal with their sleaze ball. And let's remember that Mandelson seemed to be quite successful in his role as the British ambassador to the United States. And I would say successful probably because he was. He and Trump are going to be in some sympathy with each other, not to mention the fact that he kind of had a little leverage over Trump because he had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I'm just throwing out this scenario here as, as the, as a kind of real politic, which I think people are overlooking.

B (14:37)

Well, except that, of course, Peter Mandelson had played down his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and said it really wasn't a thing and said that he hadn't been friendly with him for a long time. The emails reveal that to be untrue. I mean, when he got the job. Absolutely.

A (14:51)

But I'm saying this was an advantage. He would say he would be with Donald Trump and Donald Trump would know that he had a relationship with, with, with Jeffrey Epstein. And, and then Epstein might have told

B (15:03)

him about Donald Trump.

A (15:04)

Exactly. Exactly.

B (15:06)

Well, actually, that's very plausible. I very much doubt that that was part of why they sent him. And it's unclear to me. And I don't think there's a single woman listening to this podcast or watching this podcast who would think that this would have happened to a woman. That here is a man who twice got fired from cabinet positions, miraculously got another third Cabinet position, which it turns out from the emails it looks like allegedly he abused by giving Jeffrey Epstein all sorts of insider information. And we can come on to that in a moment, went off to Europe and then got the best diplomatic job. That is from a British perspective, mind blown that he got this. So there are all sorts of questions which are going to emerge over the, the next few weeks about why did Peter Mandelson get the job? Why was Keir Starmer so determined to give Peter Mandelson the job against what appears to be advice. I understand what you're proposing. I'm just going to finish my sentence here. Does Peter Mandelson have something on Keir Starmer which meant he was the only choice? There was no, they didn't have to change the ambassador, Karen Pierce, who was actually very popular and in fact, Trump had dealt with Karen Pierce, liked Karen Pierce. So there was no real reason to change the ambassador. And ness, perhaps, as you suggest, the advantage Peter Mandelson brought was he was friendly with Jeffrey Epstein, but that's the very thing that has ended up bringing him down.

A (16:38)

No, but I'm also suggesting that the very nature of Peter Mandelson as a sleazeball and has been a well known sleazeball for many years and how do you deal with another sleazeball? And I'm saying this is an anomalous moment in politics and in diplomacy because the question is, and it's a question asked by the British government and governments all over the world, how do you deal with Donald Trump? And I'm just looking at this, thinking about a kind of counter narrative here. One answer is that you send in your, your biggest, your designated sleaze ball and that would be Peter Mandelson.

B (17:26)

Well, game recognizes game, right? Which is what we also said about when Donald Trump met Soran Ramdani and they had that kind of love fest behind the Resolute desk.

A (17:37)

That's not what I said. I said he had gone off his, he had had a, had a, a senior moment there and he, for Mandani, was his enemy.

B (17:49)

True. I said game recognizes game and that's why they got on so well. Well, it's certainly possible. And I was thinking about Susie Wiles's comment to Chris Whipple that Donald Trump has an alcoholic's personality, despite the fact he doesn't drink, I. E. He's completely unpredictable.

A (18:04)

And just let me say that that is Donald Trump's characterization of Donald Trump as having, as him having an alcoholic's personality, which Susie Wiles merely repeated and

B (18:16)

anyway, well, and very wise of Susie Wiles to use Donald Trump's own words to describe him. And it caused a free song because everybody thought she was being disloyal to him, but in fact she was simply reflecting the Trump back to himself. But my only point about this is having known Peter Mandelson for in excess of 30 years now, I would say he also has that unpredictability. And I have been shouted at by Peter Mandelson and I have been poked at in the chest by, by Peter Mandelson's index finger and screamed at for things that I have written. And I've also been invited to parties with him. He's also come to dinner at my house and been a charming, very funny, erudite guest. And he's completely unpredictable to deal with, certainly if you're a journalist. So that might also be another reason why they would get on, that they would recognize that in each other, although clearly he would have much less scope to be unpredictable in terms of tariffs and trade agreements and things. And I think that like Donald Trump, Peter Mandelson, who is gay and is 72 and much of that gay life was hidden certainly in public for his first few years, likes secrets, he understands secrets. Jeffrey Epstein liked secrets. And that entire world was shrouded in secret behavior. And you had leverage on other people. And you may well be right that they both shared a friendship with Trump in common. But I think the secrets and the acknowledging the secrets is also an important part here.

A (19:59)

I completely agree.

B (20:00)

Can I just say, my last interaction with Peter Mandelson was that I was just thinking about this, was that the White House Correspondents dinner last April in Washington. And traditionally the British Embassy and the ambassador always holds a good party on the Friday night before the White House Correspondent's Dinner. And it's always a very bibulous affair. And weirdly, last year, everybody at the party was walking around saying, oh my goodness, they've really cut back on the alcohol and the snacks. It felt much, a much more cost conscious event than people were used to. And we wrote a small note to that effect. And immediately the equivalent of Stephen Cheung from the British Embassy called me and shrieked at me for daring to write this. And that was the last, that was the last correspondence I had with Mandelson before he was resigned his position last October. And of course, when people said, well, why? He said, well, there are more embarrassing emails to come and indeed there have

A (21:11)

been, but will we get an invitation to this British party at.

B (21:16)

Well, I very much hope so, yes. And interestingly, his aide, the guy that was deputized to shout at me said, you will never be invited back to the embassy again. And in fact, subsequently, I've been invited to all sorts of events. What, ball, watching parties.

A (21:34)

Who was that guy?

B (21:36)

I think his name was Ed.

A (21:39)

Ed.

B (21:40)

I think his name was Ed. In fact, I know his name was Ed. And Ed shouted at me and just said, this was outrageous. And it was. It was a grotesque abuse of their hospitality when I was merely pointing out that it used to be a steeple on the party landscape of the weekend, and it had been quickly diminished. In fact, there was one terrible incident that happened at the party where Barbara Walters fell down a fairly treacherous set of stone stairs. And it was very clear that an ambulance was being called and she was not to be moved. She looked like she'd completely been knocked out cold. But it was at the time that people were leaving. I'm assuming she was leaving, too, and had. Had just fallen, tripped on the steps, and she was literally out cold. And at the time, the member of staff from the British Embassy, who was put to sort of steer people around, Barbara just kept saying, please stand. Please step over. Barbara, there's nothing to see here. Just step over. Please step over. It was just a surreal moment. The great Barbara Walters spread eagled on. On a stone stare at the British Embassy.

A (22:58)

Well, it is what we all have to look forward to.

B (23:03)

Yeah, absolutely. But I did want to read a couple of the emails, which I think are sort of significant, because you have made the point in your substack today that Donald Trump may yet be saved by the fact that he never put anything in writing, that even from a very early age, he was conscious of never incriminating himself in emails. And it is extraordinary when you see what people wrote in emails to Jeffrey Epstein and you think, did none of these people have security? You know, did none of these people go on those endless courses that we all go on, which teach you to say nothing in email?

A (23:43)

I have never been in one of those courses, but let me. I think that there's a, There's a broader look at these, at these files, which, which we should think about, which is that I think much of what we thought would be in these files and much of the way we thought they would be organized as a. As a police investigation. This is the proposition. This is the, The. The testimony that we have, that we have gotten. This is the path that we see through this evidence toward these legal issues. It hasn't been there, or at least it's so fragmented and so chaotic that we haven't found that instead what everyone has focused on is the emails. And that has been to Donald Trump's really incredible advantage. Because Donald Trump doesn't use email, has never used email, and he hasn't used email. In, in, in a way, using email like this suggests the kind of level of, well, of your own naivete or innocence. But, and in the case of Donald Trump, you know, who has been a grifter for so long, he has long known not to put things in email, not to use email. There's a, there's a line, a Trump line, which is, goes some let's, you know, I'm not schmuck enough to leave a record. And within the White House, he often lectures people, don't put it in email because he has that understanding. And just in my own experience, you know, I don't speak on the telephone any, anymore. Who speaks on the telephone? You communicate through email or text or, or, or chat any more efficient ways. Except that there is, there are this group of people who continue to call me on the telephone. And these are not my old relatives. These are people, business people who I deal with. And I've often wondered why, why are they calling me? And then I realize, ah, they're smart. They're not. They're trying not to leave a record. And that's Donald Trump's. Much of Donald Trump's life. So all of these other people are getting hung and they are distracting from the question of Donald Trump's position in Jeffrey Epstein's life, Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Everybody else, we're distracted. We've just spent how many minutes on Andrew and Mandelson? And we can go on the long list of people, but not Donald Trump because he doesn't use email.

B (26:46)

Well. And also it's a result, I think he's not using email, of having been involved in hundreds of lawsuits where almost the first question is, do you have any emails? I mean, I can't tell you the life of.

A (27:01)

The life of, of a man. Of a perfidious man.

B (27:05)

Right. The life of a perfidious man. Jeffrey Epstein, on the other hand, as you yourself have experienced, was a man who was, who gave great email.

A (27:17)

Yeah. No. And you would, you would ask why, why, why didn't Donald Trump tell Jeffrey Epstein don't use email?

B (27:27)

Yeah. Or maybe he did and Jeffrey Epstein decided not to listen. I'm sure he conducted much of his life on the phone and off of email. But what is shocking is, is just the Sort of dump of email and the unguardedness with which people wrote to him. I mean, Peter Attia, who's finally been a contributor to CBS News, with a sort of, you know, depressingly juvenile conversation about whether or not pussy, which now is a word that has come back into usage and I hate to use, but, you know, whether or not it's gluten free and whether or not it's got carbs and it's just, gah. It's so depressing to be witness to these conversations. But from a point of view of Andrew and Peter Mandelson, what does seem interesting is that misconduct in public life, which is what they both appear to possibly be on the verge of being charged with, is traditionally a very difficult thing to prove, except that it appears there are lots of emails which point to them giving. And certainly Peter Mandelson giving Jeffrey Epstein information that was, in effect, insider information, tradable information. If you are the business Minister of one country slipping information to another. And in particular in one instance where he's advising someone at JP Morgan to threaten the Treasury Secretary in Britain, you know, just sort of, why is he doing that? As British Business Minister? It's against Britain's own interests.

A (29:08)

Now, they have not yet been. They've been arrested, but not charged.

B (29:13)

They haven't been charged.

A (29:14)

How does it. Do you know how that works, this arrest? That's not exactly how we do it.

B (29:21)

Well, they were arrested and they were taken in for questioning. And there was something to me so fascinating about what does that imply?

A (29:30)

Does that imply that they will inevitably be charged?

B (29:34)

No, it doesn't imply that they will inevitably. But it's not good to have the police show up at your door with a body cam. Never is, especially on his 66th birthday. But there was something particularly fascinating about watching Peter Mandelson, who really has been this colossus.

A (29:50)

He looks terrible for 66.

B (29:52)

Well, he's put on a lot of weight since he left the. Since he left Washington. He was looking very svelte at the last party I saw him at in Washington and he's put on quite a belly. And as he said, he.

A (30:07)

No, no, 66. Andrew is 66. Mandelson is 72.

B (30:11)

72. Sorry, sorry, you're quite right.

A (30:15)

Mandelson seems to me looked pretty good. No, I thought Mandelson and Andrew, who looks just terrible.

B (30:20)

Well, Andrew has always looked terrible. He always looks portly. But I thought Mandelson looked pretty bad too. And he certainly looked much more svelte when I saw him last time. I thought he put on a belly. But as he said, he didn't know anything about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes because Peter Mandelson is gay. And so we know he hasn't been eating pussy because it's carb free. We know that from Peter Attia. So who knows what he's been doing? Perhaps he's been comfort eating since he's gone back to England. But there was something particularly interesting, I thought about him being picked up by a male cop and two women, they all had their body cams on and being driven away, being sort of perp walked into the back of a Ford Focus. And I would warrant this is the first time that Peter Mandelson has been in such a humble car for a long time. Normally the image, the imagery of him is leaving his fabulous property in Regent's park and driving out with the power symbol of a Range Rover and being slipped in the back of a Ford Focus, which is a very pretty, basic car, seemed very symbolic handicap for me,

A (31:31)

the fate of the labor government. And just for the American audience, Peter Mandelson is a Labor politician, that is. So he is part of the current ruling party, significant member of it.

B (31:49)

Yeah. But more importantly, he's been astride. I mean, he was the reason, or one of the reasons why Tony Blair got into government, which was an astonishing ride. They won three elections in a row, unheard of for Labour. And he was the man that turned the corner for Labour from being a party that supported the working class and became the party of the middle aspiring class and the media class, actually, perhaps more than anything.

A (32:21)

So what happens now to the Labour Party?

B (32:24)

So what's happened is this has split the Labour Party too. So there's the harder left in the Labour Party who are outraged that Mandelson got the job in the first place. So they're now sort of turning on Keir Starmer, who's the sort of technocratic Prime Minister and who people had higher hopes for than he's turned out to demonstrate. I think a lot will hang on the correspondence between various people advising Keir Starmer as to why Mandelson shouldn't have the job. And two people have already lost their jobs over this. Morgan McSweeney, who was Keir Starmer's chief of staff, and Tim Allen, who is his head of press, they've both gone over this and Morgan McSweeney used to work for Peter Mandelson. It's very difficult to handicap it because we don't know what's in the emails and whether or not Actually, Keir Starmer knew much more about Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeff. Well, we do have seen that.

A (33:37)

He says we do know what's in the emails. We just.

B (33:39)

No, no, no, no. These are emails. There's a whole back and forth set of emails to Keir Starmer, some advising him not to send Mandelson, some advising him that Mandelson was fine. His relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was in the rearview. In the rearview mirror.

A (33:57)

These are emails from and are waiting from advisors.

B (34:00)

From advisors. Well, they're now, I mean, they're in the, I should think, number 10 Downing street system and they're now being surfaced and next week the first of them will be surfaced. Now, if Mandelson gets charged, those emails may not come out because they may turn out to be evidence. But it looks like the correspondence and whether or not Keir Starmer decided to ignore official advisors advice and send Mandelson anyway, I think the future of his prime ministership will hinge on that.

A (34:36)

Let's move to a country which is actually probably more important now to the immediate fate of the world than the UK which is Iran, which we're on the verge of doing something. We don't know.

B (34:55)

Are we? Where are we?

A (34:56)

Well, good, Good question. I mean, I, you know, I think, I think Trump is in that position of, of truly would. His preference would be he has to do something, but he wants to do nothing. Although, you know, I think at the State of the Union address, which is tonight and so that will air just as we are airing.

B (35:19)

Yes. And I, I would advise people, if you need a break from the State of the Union and you can't bear to listen to Donald Trump anymore, I feel your pain. And Michael and I will pop up at 9 o' clock on YouTube. You can watch us instead.

A (35:32)

But you know, I think if I were, if I were Donald Trump and I've spent a lot of, a lot of the last 10 years thinking if I were Donald Trump and right now

B (35:43)

you're inside his head.

A (35:45)

Yes. I would announce at the State of the Union that we are at that, that we were, that we are. What would be the tense at that moment in the process of attacking Iran

B (35:59)

that would, you would use, that would

A (36:01)

be the, that would be the Trumpian, the ultimate Trumpian move.

B (36:07)

So you would use the State of the Union address as a press conference in effect for, oh, we've gone into Iran or we're doing something in Iran.

A (36:15)

Yes, exactly. Now, now this is, I mean, I mean there are many complicated factors, factors here beginning with he doesn't want to do this but he has gotten himself in this situation where he probably has to do this or has to do something. Now there, there is by the way they are meeting on Thursday to have their next final or at least next up negotiating session over with the Iranians. But in Trump fashion I would, if I were Trump I would attack before that. So he's thinking, he's thinking everybody is, is waiting for that now. He'll surprise them.

B (36:59)

Well he's, he's also said that he is the decider, he will make the decision. But then he's also dragged his son in law into it and said that, that Jared will be the chief advisor to Steve Witkoff.

A (37:11)

Now I have a dolphin view. I got a little report there was a Situation room meeting the, the, the other day and everybody gathered to assess what to do in Iran. And it's kind of interesting because they've already done, I mean they've moved the, the, the bulk of US armaments are now in the, in, in the region. So were they now to all, all turn around it would be a, as, as Trump, Trump goes around saying I, I, I can't look weak, I have to look strong. So they've got the Gerald, they've got

B (37:52)

the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier there and actually this will be, I read in the journal I think this will be the longest mission it's ever had and the military staff aboard it, they've been at Sea almost 11 months now, are getting antsy. They've had enough. Some of them want to come home. But it's an interesting idea that you take on some form of military action against a country with a crew that's been at Sea for 11 months and want to get home.

A (38:27)

There is so this a report I got from someone close, close in about this meeting in the Situation Room. It was described as a very typical Trump meeting. He asked for analysis and then, and then didn't listen. He asked for solutions and then was irritated that, that, that, that there no one could provide a clear path and then asked for demanded assurances of success and got and, and, and got mad at the, at the generals and the experts who flatly couldn't give him those assurances.

B (39:19)

Didn't General Kane actually say this could be, this could not, didn't actually say this is, this may not happen, this may not be a good thing?

A (39:32)

Yeah, I mean well he said it was going to be complicated. I mean, I mean he, so General Kane, who Trump likes because he has the nickname Raisin Cain and, and Trump constantly pronounces that Raisin Cain says, well, Raisin Cain apparently outlined that this was a, you know, this was a very difficult tact and strategic. There were very, very problematic tactical and strategic issues here. Now, Trump said, translated that into saying, basically, we can do it, everything is going to go, go great, will be a success. And then General Kane corrected him. Now, I don't know if there has been a response from Trump, but it was a pretty stark correction.

B (40:22)

And he corrected him in the room.

A (40:25)

No, I think he corrected him in subsequently, subsequent statements. He has said, that's really not what I said. I did not say this was a easy peasy. Quite the opposite. So, but that would, that would comport with this description of Trump in the meaning. Because he doesn't listen. The analysis, the analysis is, is outlines all of the immense difficulties there. And, and Trump spent, spent a lot of time saying, saying he wanted to do what, what we did in Venezuela. And everybody is like, well, you know, this situation is nothing like Venezuela. And then Trump has been going around saying to people within, within the, you know, within the White White House. I mean, he's been kind of a, kind of understanding that he's, that this is a, that this might not be easy. And he's been saying it has, it's been going, it's all been going so well, what's happened? And then repeating I gotta be, I have to look strong, not weak. And then saying, saying to people, you know, don't let them fuck me over, which is, who's the they, them? You know, Trump is always, it's always problematic in these reports about Trump and pronouns who, who actually he's. Is he referring to. But I think it's the Iranians in this situation, the mullahs, as he's always in the mullahs.

B (42:03)

So he's been presented with lots of information which suggests that this will be at best a complicated maneuver. He wants a solution like Venezue was an incredible military operation where they just went in, extracted the leader, brought him to America to stand trial. It seems unfathomable they would be able to do that with the ayatollah.

A (42:27)

Yeah, no, I mean, I mean, I don't think that that's even a possibility that anybody is considering here. And Trump rather is considering, I mean, it would. To read this. It's. What's the least I can do to not look weak and to have some headlines that I did what I took forceful action. And I think my gut is that they're searching for that. And that is the thing that they will do, which will mean, by the way, that we'll be back in the same position X number of months from now as we are from the last time that Trump took a particularly surgical approach to this.

B (43:16)

Well, and I think by stressing that Jared and Steve Witkoff are really his advisors to this, he will also have someone to blame if it all goes horribly wrong.

A (43:27)

Well, actually, that's curious because I don't think he would blame them. And we go. And that goes into this other thing. We can talk about the Kash Patel situation, because this is one of the unexpected and kind of confounding aspects of this Trump administration is that no one gets blamed for anything.

B (43:53)

Well, Kash Patel quaffing beer in the locker room with the gold medal winning American men's ice hockey team in Italy. Of all, why is Cash Patel in Italy anyway? And of course, they issued a statement saying he was there to talk to the Italian security services. Quite why he needs to do that, I do not know, was one of the more remarkable things to come out over the weekend, especially as we're now in the fourth week of Nancy Guthrie, a terrible story that we've talked about before being missing. Why isn't he out there solving crimes? No, he's not, as we said on Saturday, busy talking to Dan Bongino or he's busy flying a government plane to Italy where he gets to hang out in the locker room with a load of athletes when he should be solving crimes.

A (44:42)

So not only was this a bad look, it's the kind of things that government officials do. And then they get called on the carpet and then they're hidden. They're either fired or hidden someplace for a while. But from the locker room, he speaks to Trump.

B (45:01)

Yep. Yeah, well, and he speaks to them because he claims credit for getting them to come to the State of the Union, which we'll see tonight. He's like, I did it. I got them. I fucking got them. I mean, it's just.

A (45:12)

But again, that, that interesting aspect of this administration that all of these, these dumbass jokers never get, never get called on the carpet, never get blamed. But there is an interesting thing that's happening and maybe someone is getting blamed, or at least the internal numbers are so clear that they've got to do something, which is RFK Jr so they are very, very clearly pulling back on the overt anti vax position of RFK's Health and Human Services Department. And, and when you say pulling back,

B (46:03)

what do you mean?

A (46:05)

Well, they are removing people from from. They are removing people at the, the, the, the most, the, the most forefront anti vaxxers are being removed from their positions.

B (46:19)

Oh, that's interesting.

A (46:20)

Or at least, or at least some of them are. And I understand that now from inside the White House that they are seeing, that they are seeing internal polling on the vax issue. That's overwhelming. It's devastating. You know, the one thing, the one thing apparently, that most Americans have in common is that they, that they don't want vaccinations taken away. They don't want to vaccinate their children. They don't want it to be more difficult. They don't want to be in a position where they have to struggle to get vaccinated. And they also, I think, have an understanding that if, if some people don't get vaccinated, that imperils other people.

B (47:06)

Well, and instead, what we're getting from the Minister for Health is videos of himself pedaling to nowhere on a stationary bicycle in a sauna with no shirt on. What is he doing? One cannot stress how unserious the people are that Trump has surrounded himself with Kash Patel quaffing beer and grabbing again, a Trumpian move, grabbing one of the gold medals and putting it round his own neck as if he's any part of this incredible win. And it was an incredible win. I watched the match and I loved it, and it was a fantastic extra goal. I'm only saying this because I'm pretty sure you didn't. It was an amazing, you know, it went to extra time. They got the extra goal. Nobody expected that. The Canadians have played better throughout the game.

A (47:59)

I don't even know what game we're talking about.

B (48:01)

We're talking about the men's ice hockey match at the Olympics against the Canadians. It was an unbelievable game. And then, actually, Trump. Trump released, I will grudgingly admit, a very funny video of him appearing to hit in the winning goal. Also, of course, inevitably, there's a swipe against the women's team. So Trump invites the men's team to the State of the Union, which Kash Patel is taking credit for organizing. And then Trump says, well, you know, I'll have to invite the women, too. Well, happily, the women seized the day and issued a statement saying, much as they would love to attend the State of the Union, in fact, they all had other things to do then listen to Donald Trump talk for hours on end.

A (48:43)

But let's just go back to this, to the, to rfk, hhs and the whole, the whole vaccine initiative that is the anti vaccine initiative, which has also confused me because, you know, I mean, Trump is a, is a, you know, is a Vax guy. He has, matter of fact, he, he deserves the credit for the, for the, for the fast development of the, of.

B (49:13)

Of the COVID vaccine, the one achievement, Operation warp speed, the one achievement of his first term, which he then walked away from.

A (49:21)

So, and, and the, and the issue is this other. Inside Trump's head. It's that what does he think? How does he think about. About. About something about this particular policy? It is whatever my enemies are, are against, I am for. And so this is not really about healthcare policy. This is not Trump's view of science. This is Trump's view of liberals. What is he against here? Not science. He is against liberals who are for science.

B (50:01)

So. Interesting. So does that mean that we may continue to have access to vaccines, that they've realized that?

A (50:10)

Well, I think it's just, you know,

B (50:13)

this is a bad policy. Like, who's making the decision here?

A (50:16)

Yeah, I'm sure. I mean, he's saying these, these, these, these particular numbers. I mean, these particular numbers are really devastating. At the same time, you know, there is this, this, this important and core group of his supporters who are devoutly, it is almost as a religious question, anti Vax. He can't afford to lose those. But the numbers are so overwhelming that he realizes this is going to have a, a big midterm impact.

B (50:53)

And this is Trump saying this or this is. I mean, what does RFK think about this? RFK Jr.

A (50:59)

I think he's a, he's just a pawn in all of this. I think Trump likes RFK because his name is Kennedy and because he's out there servicing the MAGA base. But does he take him all that seriously? No, I mean, Trump doesn't take anyone all that seriously, but I think specifically RFK Jr. He doesn't. It's not a big deal. And he may also begin to think that RFK Jr. Is a MAGA player and he doesn't really want anyone else to be a serious MAGA player.

B (51:44)

So he may be a MAGA player or he may be a liability.

A (51:48)

Well, I think those two things can be true at the same time.

B (51:52)

But if you're a MAGA player, does that mean that he's a potential rival to Trump?

A (52:00)

He's a potential. Yes, he's a potential rival to Trump. He's a potential rival to other MAGA players. I mean, Trump just wants a measure of control here. I mean, so anything that Trump does at any point it's always part of the message is to show that he is in control. So one of the reasons none of these jokers ever gets blamed for anything is because that's a way for Trump to say, I'm in control. I'm the guy who, I'm not going to blame someone because you, the media, you, the liberals want me to, to, to blame somebody. So always, always that in everything that he, that he does, that has to be part of the message. I am doing what I want to do. I'm not forced into doing anything. Right.

B (52:51)

And I will do what you least expect me to do. I mean, again, that element of surprise, of being unpredictable, the alcoholic's personality, that there's no, to use your word, there's no logic here.

A (53:05)

Yes. And so let's see if that would be curious if he announced an attack on Iran tonight.

B (53:13)

Yes, it would. It would. Well, we'll be watching, of course, because we'll be talking about it on Thursday.

A (53:20)

I can't think of anyone ever who has gotten a boost from, from giving the.

B (53:27)

It's the death.

A (53:29)

The opposition response to the State of the Union.

B (53:33)

Yeah. Do you remember Katie Britt?

A (53:34)

I do. Her whole. Yeah. Her career collapsed on that.

B (53:38)

Her career collapsed. She was in her kitchen. And then Scarlett Johansson imitated her cruelly and brilliantly on Saturday Night Live. And that was basically the end of Katie Britt.

A (53:49)

Yeah. No, she was a big. They used to talk about her as a, as a, as a very possible VP pick. Nope.

B (53:56)

I tell you what we haven't done, which we promised listeners and viewers that we would, which is to find out. And I will try and set the Daily Beast newsroom on this to find out how much the banners that Trump has unfurled of himself over government buildings, how much they cost and whose idea it was. You were going to ask someone in the White House if this came from Stephen Miller, if this was Trump's idea, but it would be very difficult to talk about.

A (54:21)

I haven't found the, the answer to that.

B (54:24)

We got lots of comments saying, why aren't people out there with paintballs? I'm sure they will be.

A (54:28)

I, I think because you would go to jail, but more power to you.

B (54:33)

Well, we'll end up seeing if either

A (54:35)

Prince Don Lemon might be out there with a paintball.

B (54:39)

Don Lemon might be out there with a paintball. Who else is going to go to jail?

A (54:43)

Scary question.

B (54:44)

So we've got some new poetry entries. Garf Reed, you've got some competitors, and there are a rather good one here from Tom From Melbourne. The once was a girl called Melania, for whom getting ahead was a mania. She grew up in a dump, then she married a Trump. I wish she'd moved to Albania. I think that's very good. There's another one he did too, which is also quite, quite fun. An orange man once had great flair for sticking his name everywhere, on banners and balls, on arches and halls. But the bigger they are. Well, beware.

A (55:21)

Fantastic. Thank you all.

B (55:25)

And we've got more questions for Melania, which I thought we would ask on Thursday.

A (55:30)

Great. Let's do it.

B (55:31)

Okay. And then I just have to remind people that, like you, I am starting a substack. Easy for people to go to. You just go to Beast Pub Scream, and you will see a little icon of myself as the Scream. And the first screams are coming, so stay tuned.

A (55:52)

Mine is called Howl and yours is called Primal Scream. I'm a little bit Kentja. Have been a little more original.

B (56:01)

No, I. I thought to myself, I. I find the Scream and the fact that it's owned by Leon Black or he owns one of the Screams. I think there were four of them. There's such a strange justice to the fact that Leon Black, who. Who's been, you know, whose pub, whose private life has been laid bare for. For everybody to see, comes down in the morning, and despite the fact that he launched Apollo, one of the most successful private equity companies, and despite the fact he amassed, you know, what is apparently a fantastic private art collection, he comes down and above his fireplace in his drawing room is the Scream. That's what inspired me. Ah, slightly oblique inspiration.

A (56:51)

Okay.

B (56:52)

And the. The Scream, incidentally, is the only painting to have inspired not one, but two emojis. So I was slightly inspired by the fact it's my most used emoji.

A (57:03)

You've never sent me an emoji.

B (57:05)

Is that true? Well, that's because we usually talk. I think that's because we usually talk on the phone. You say, who talks on the phone? We talk on the phone. In fact, I never email you.

A (57:14)

No, but you text me all the time.

B (57:20)

You also text me back. I would like to point out. All right, off we go. We'll be back on Thursday. I can't wait to watch State of the Union and all the human drama with the Supreme Court, which we talked about obsessively on Saturday.

A (57:35)

If something happens in the State of the Union, like war, maybe we should do a live one tomorrow morning. Perhaps we will.

B (57:44)

Perhaps we will. All right, Michael Wolf will be back on Joanna Coles. We'll be back on Thursday. And if you have been, thank you for joining us. Don't forget to leave us a comment on YouTube. Please subscribe to the Daily Beast. You can join a B Beast tier membership of the Daily Beast on YouTube if you like, which is kind of fun. You get extra content. You get to have dinner with Michael every week, and that's live.

A (58:14)

You get all kinds of merchandise. Hats.

B (58:17)

We need to do merchandise. We cheat. Sweater. Yep, we're working on it. We're not there yet, but we're working on it. So the good news is we have so many Beebeast tier members now, there are too many names to read out. And we really appreciate your support. Thanks to our production team. Daniel Kevin Rogerino Ryan Murray Rachel Passer Heather Passaro Neil Rosenhaus.