Michael Wolff

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
You have to have a certain kind of finesse and
patience to be able to hold two contradictory truths in
your head at the same time, which is to say
that Jeffrey Epstein was a monster, but he had important
things to say.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Would you do it all the same again, do you
have any regrets about this?

Speaker 1 (00:20):
I have no regrets at all. I would do it
exactly the same. This is the way it is done.
And once once more, I am the only one who
has been shouting from the rooftops that the central issue
here is Donald Trump's relationship to this monster, Michael Joanna.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
This Epstein, Epstein, Epstein's story will not go away. It's
just drenching everything. The entire country feels like it's come
to as down still.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
Well, and I just just let me say Russian to say, finally, finally, finally, finally.
I mean, this is a story that has been ready
to go on the front burner for months and months
and months, if not, if not years. It is a
story that I have been pressing again and again and again.

(01:22):
In fact, you and I the first before the election
together the Daily Beast and I released tape of Jeffrey
Epstein very explicitly talking about his relationship with Donald Trump.

(01:43):
What did we get out of that? But you know,
we got a lot of a lot of internet action
out of that, the broader media crickets. So so again,
just let me say, finally it is here.

Speaker 3 (01:57):
This is it.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, as I have said over
and over and over again, are the same person.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
And finally, and you've been at the center of this,
and I want to come onto lots of the comments
that we got our last podcast. We talked about your
methodology and the amount of time that you had spent
with Epstein, your friendship with Epstein.

Speaker 1 (02:23):
Well, I wouldn't say my friendship with with Epstein. I
mean I was certainly acquainted with Epstein. We had a relationship.
He was not He was not my friend like you
are my friend.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
Okay, well that's a relief.

Speaker 2 (02:39):
But I want to come onto it because you've been
at the center of an enormous amount of criticism from
traditional media, from legacy media, from people saying that you
just spent too much time with him, you got.

Speaker 3 (02:50):
Too close to him. We'll come back to that later.

Speaker 1 (02:52):
And again, let me because this is obviously extremely frustrating
to hear from people who did not get this. Now,
and I've been here before, over and over again. When
I went into the White House in the first Trump
administration came out with a book that described what was
going on there. I got the same thing. Who was

(03:14):
was I too close? Was I this?

Speaker 2 (03:16):
That?

Speaker 1 (03:16):
The other thing from people who did not get the story.
So let's be very clear about about this. The traditional
media particularly has uh, you know, has abdicated their responsibility
on this story or decided that Epstein was too as

(03:38):
people said to me, ick to do this story again
and again and again. So I, you know, I'm like,
you know, Jesus Christ, you know, please do some work,
get out of the office.

Speaker 3 (03:53):
Well, it is the right word.

Speaker 2 (03:54):
And I can't help thinking, what on earth is it
like for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein to have to
sit through this thing yet again, to listen to a
president saying this is a democratic.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
Host But that's irrelevant, Michael.

Speaker 2 (04:07):
It's not irrelevant for the victims to hear the president
say this is a democratic hoax.

Speaker 3 (04:11):
That's not irrelevant. That was my point.

Speaker 2 (04:15):
That was my point, that you wake up every morning
and listen to this stuff.

Speaker 1 (04:19):
Yes, but in terms of understanding the president, pinning this
on the president, holding the president accountable. This has to
be discussed and should be discussed. And you know, I suppose,
I suppose the victims have to relive this. That's unpleasant,
although I would think at the same time they would

(04:41):
also say, as I am saying, finally.

Speaker 2 (04:45):
Finally, So, as you have frequently pointed out, Donald Trump
is never silent. He is always talking. He's always talking
to somebody. Since the Epstein emails have been released, he
has gone uncharacter hetteristically silent. What is going on in
his head a place we have spent so much time

(05:06):
and it's getting darker and darker, is how is he
thinking about how he rides this out?

Speaker 3 (05:13):
I mean, we.

Speaker 2 (05:13):
Heard Lauren Bobat being put under pressure. She was taken
into the situation room, a congress person taken into the
situation room and clearly told that they didn't want her
to vote with Thomas Massey and Nancy Mace and Marjorie
Taylor Green and Rocanna and all the Democrats to release
the Epstein files. He said, it's a democratic hoax. He

(05:34):
and the first Lady scurried away yesterday deliberately taking no
questions what is going on in his head over this
whole Epstein situation.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
She has been enormously, enormously frustrating to him for a
very long time. The fact that this is now all
coming home to roost, I think is I think is
completely freaking him out. This is this is he he
doesn't where at a moment in time, He doesn't know

(06:06):
what to do. He's misplayed this every step of the way.
He is I think he has no strategy. I think
he has no point of view. I think he feels
cornered on this right now.

Speaker 3 (06:19):
You think he feels cornered.

Speaker 1 (06:20):
My sense of the people in the White House is
that they are kind of frantic. I mean, they don't
know what is true. So remember, the people in the
White House are dealing with with a situation in which
in which they understand the political perils of this. He
is telling them nothing. I don't you know nothing, nothing,

(06:45):
you know barely knew. The guy still on that, he's
still taking that narrative.

Speaker 3 (06:51):
Which is what he always does, right, denial, right.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
And the people in the in in the White House
genuinely don't know what happened between Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump.
From the late eighties through to the early two thousands.
They don't know because that has been whitewashed out of

(07:15):
the Donald Trump political narrative.

Speaker 2 (07:18):
So, Michael, who has been set aside? Do you think
at the White House to go through all these emails
and so they have a team of people going through them,
is cash Betel going through them? Who is looking at
this stuff?

Speaker 1 (07:30):
I mean theoretically, but my in my experience, when you
think that the government in the United States, and the
and the and the White House itself are have have
unlimited resources to marshall, in reality, it's all chicken with

(07:52):
their heads cut off. They they don't know, they don't
know whose responsibility it is. Also, people don't want to
take the responsibility because you put yourself in the line
of fire, you're gonna get blamed. So I don't know
what's I don't know if they have, if they have
finally put a process in place. I suspect that they don't.

(08:16):
I remember other crises in the White House, in Trump's
White House in which everything, rather than coming together to
deal with it, everything in fact fell apart, and that
the first time around that led to the Mueller investigation.
So I think it's perfectly likely that nobody is doing anything.

Speaker 3 (08:41):
So let me ask you something.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
Because we've been going through them obviously, like every other
journalistic enterprise, we've been going through them. I wanted to
ask you about one of them, which is sent to
you from Jeffrey Epstein at the end of January in
twenty nineteen. And it's got a redacted name which we
now know because the Republicans have released her name, that

(09:05):
it's Virginia Duffrey. And he goes, I think Virginia Dufrey
Mara Largo. Trump said he asked me to resign, never
a member ever. Of course he knew about the girls
as he asked Gillen to stop. Now, I think most
people have read that and assumed that he was asking

(09:28):
Gillen to stop hiring girls from the spa at Mara Largo.
But you think he had actually a different meaning.

Speaker 1 (09:37):
Well, you know, it just occurred to me yesterday and
and it actually I was doing a podcast with Sidney Bloomenthal.
In the middle of the podcast, I thought, oh my god, yes,
I know what was going on here. What was going
on here is it was a moment in time Gallaine

(09:59):
Maxwell had sued Virginia. I think her name was then
Roberts for defamation, then Virginia Roberts Giuffrey then countersuit, and
this had gone on for quite a number of years,
and it had finally come down to both of them

(10:23):
having to testify, to give depositions, so both of them
would be under oath and being asked about what had
happened there. Now in fact, in fact, the suit was
settled at that point, so there was no public testimony
about this. But I would believe that that is the reference.

(10:45):
It comes at exactly exactly the right point there. And
clearly Donald Trump would not have wanted Gallaine Maxwell to
testify about well anything. And again the suit was closed,

(11:07):
they closed it down, they settled that suit.

Speaker 2 (11:09):
Okay, So I want to ask you about another email
that was sent from Jeffrey Epstein to Gilen Maxwell. And
this email has received quite a lot of attention. It says,
I want you to really this is from Epstein to Gillen.
I want you to realize that the dog that hasn't
barked is Trump. Again, name redacted, but the Republicans gave

(11:29):
the name that it was Virginia Jeffrey. So Virginia Jeffrey
spent hours at my house with him. He has never
once been mentioned police chief, etc. I'm seventy five percent there.

Speaker 1 (11:42):
Well, just let me let me note that there is
a famous Sherlock Holmes story called the Dog that Didn't Bark?

Speaker 3 (11:49):
Well, do you want to? But what is the analogy
he's making there?

Speaker 1 (11:52):
Well, I think that that that may be that there
is similar I mean, I mean, Jeffrey Epstein wasn't the
greatest reader of all time.

Speaker 3 (12:00):
Say the least, but well he would say he was
a mask.

Speaker 1 (12:03):
I right. I think he's saying that that was a
telling thing that that at that point, at that point
there there had been a lot of Virginia. Then Roberts
had begun to accuse a variety.

Speaker 3 (12:17):
Of of of people.

Speaker 1 (12:18):
There had been a daily mail story in which she
had come. I mean, I think that that was the
first story, the first her first expose of the experience
that she had that she had had with Jeffrey Epstein.
So the fact that she wasn't that and with this

(12:40):
email was sending two thousand.

Speaker 2 (12:42):
And eleven eleven, and Gilen writes back, I have been
thinking about that, which would somewhat undercut what she said
to Todd Blanche when he went down to visit her
in the Tallahassee jail.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
I think that that it is like clean that Virginia
Geufrey Roberts Geuffrey would have known what was going on
at in Jeffrey Epstein's house during that period, and she
would have seen Donald Trump there on many many occasions.

Speaker 2 (13:18):
So what about the Republican's point that she never mentions
him in her book Nobody's Girl.

Speaker 1 (13:23):
Well, you know, I think that the interesting thing about
that book, Remember, Virginia Roberts Gruffrey is dead.

Speaker 2 (13:29):
Well, she she died by suicide, I mean, a tragic life.

Speaker 1 (13:33):
Yes, right right, But anyway, she wasn't there. She wasn't
there too. It's hard to hold a dead person accountable
for a book that was published after her death, that.

Speaker 3 (13:49):
It was written while she was alive.

Speaker 1 (13:51):
Yeah, but but we all we all know the process
of of of books, and and the change is that
that might have occurred. We already know that there were
change is a complicated thing. What she might have said
to about her husband, what she wanted to change, or
or the the the her co author, Amy Wallace or

(14:17):
ghost writer decided to change. I don't know. I have
no idea what happened there. But but there is also
a publisher in this in this case, and a publisher,
we know that everyone is afraid of Donald Trump's sueing.
We also know that there are other people in this
book who she has been very careful about. You know,

(14:39):
she refers to a prime minister. Many people have assumed
who that prime minister is, but she doesn't say so.
I don't know. I have no idea here. I'm just
trying to provide a context for why Donald Trump's name
might not be mentioned.

Speaker 2 (14:55):
Okay, so let's pull back to the wider picture. You're saying,
he's anaking, he's kind of freaked out about this, he
has no strategy to deal with it. I noticed yesterday
jd Vance, who'd been accused and we wrote about this
and the Beast had been accused of saying nothing, then
cropped up and did an interview with Hannity during which

(15:17):
he did not mention the word Epstein once.

Speaker 3 (15:20):
So what do you think is going on?

Speaker 2 (15:23):
There? Is this a moment for JD vans a jd
Vance and Marco Rubio thinking he may be fallible This guy.

Speaker 1 (15:30):
I don't understand the question. Jd Vance may be fallible
or Donald Trump may be fallible.

Speaker 2 (15:36):
No our JD Vance and Marco Rubio as the pretenders
to the throne, sitting there thinking I'm not going to
say anything here because let him get on with it.

Speaker 1 (15:45):
Well, you know, I think in the first in the
first days, they're only X number of hours. What do
we have at, you know, forty eight hours slightly more
than forty eight hours on this and there is probably
no strategy there. I'm I'm sure that there will be
shortly be a strategy, but but this has caught everybody

(16:07):
off guard. Also, I think that there's a lot of
internescing Republican by play here. I mean, the Republicans have
been the ones who have now released most of these emails.

Speaker 3 (16:22):
So who is at who is at fault?

Speaker 1 (16:25):
And as for as for jd Vance, you know, I
think he's he's looking at his own situation. I don't
I'm not necessarily thinking that that he thinks Donald Trump
is vulnerable. But we have the you know, we have
the right wing of the party who is who is
you know, has put up a steady drum beat for

(16:49):
for Epstein material and and I mean they they are
voting with the Democrats to release have voted with the
Democrats to release these files. That puts Vance in a
very awkward position.

Speaker 2 (17:05):
Well, I was going to ask you about that, because
for people who aren't following MAGA on the MAGA various
fault lines that are going on. Now, where is MAGA
on the release of all these.

Speaker 1 (17:17):
Mega is ferociously in favor of releasing these all of
this material transparency, come clean. Yes, the contradiction there is
that this may hang Trump, and I think that's been
confusing to a lot of people on.

Speaker 3 (17:36):
The right.

Speaker 1 (17:36):
And the right wing press has been pretty I mean,
in the last forty eight hours has has been not
necessarily quiet on this, but their focus has been on
trying to find a way to say that this does
not incriminate Donald Trump at the same time to know

(18:01):
everything about Jeffrey Epstein. So that's going to become increasingly
problematic for them.

Speaker 2 (18:06):
I would assume, Okay, I want to come on to
you in a minute, but I want to ask you
if you're inside Gilen Maxwell's head right now. She's been
moved to a jail. We've talked about this before. She's
getting preferential treatment, she's getting private workout classes, she's got
a puppy, She's getting a food delivered to her cell.
She's in a camp that normally someone who'd been been

(18:29):
sentenced for twenty years for sex trafficking would not be in.

Speaker 3 (18:32):
What is she thinking right now.

Speaker 1 (18:34):
Well, she's worried. She thought she had this figured out.
I would assume she meets with Todd Blanche, she has
then moved to a dramatically upgraded prison with and I
think we understand that she was now filing the papers
for a commutation or a pardon, or going through those motions.

(19:00):
But I think it's reasonable to assume that that deal
has already been struck, specifically or softly, and so she
was in a good place. Now she probably is thinking
she is losing her good place, and I suspect that's true.
I don't know how Donald Trump pardons Gallaine Maxwell, although

(19:24):
Donald I might have said that about many of Donald
Trump's pardons, so who knows. But nevertheless, what does she
do if if they start to renege? And what has
she got?

Speaker 2 (19:38):
I mean, you have talked about this repeatedly, that it
was you think coming from the m Maxwell family when
their birthday letter that Donald Trump drew and the strange
poem he wrote for Jeffrey Epstein were suddenly released in
the pages of the Wall Street Journal. So do you
think if her family think, well, she may not now
get a part and we have more infant to put out.

Speaker 1 (20:00):
Of course, I mean, you know, I think that they have.
I mean, this is a complicated thing now to thread
this needle. She has now exonerated Donald Trump. I never
saw him at anytime. I did see him. He was
a figure of enormous rectitude, and on top of that,

(20:21):
he's a great guy. Whatever she said in that deposition,
which was that was.

Speaker 2 (20:25):
Based, I think she said congratulations on being elected to president.

Speaker 1 (20:30):
So she cannot now come out and say, in fact,
he's a big slime ball. So but what can happen
is that there can be more leaks and the White
House will understand that those leaks come from the Maxwell side,
and that the way they will have to stem.

Speaker 3 (20:51):
Those leaks.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
Put the stopper there is to go through with their deal.
I would say, that's how that will work.

Speaker 2 (21:00):
Okay, So let's get back to you. We did a
podcast on Thursday where we got thousands of comments and
we talked about your methodology. I would say the comments
we got were split roughly around fifty percent saying you've
got to do what you've got to do, twenty five

(21:21):
percent being horrified at how you got so close to
Epstein and we're advising Epstein.

Speaker 3 (21:27):
Well, let's address that again. Can I add one more thing?

Speaker 2 (21:30):
And then the other thing is you've absolutely been central
to a lot of the media. So we have The
New York Times saying Michael Wolfe, chronicler of Elite, provided
Epstein with advice on Trump's The Guardian blurredlines how Michael
wolf aspired to be part of elite circles he wrote about.

Speaker 1 (21:47):
And again, you know, I have heard this always throughout
my career, and that is partly because I'm the person
who has managed to get close to some very difficult stories.
You know, journalism is more often than not outsiders looking

(22:08):
at insiders. I have managed to get in with the insiders,
and I have returned again and again accounts that no
one else has has has been able to get. Is that,
you know, that doesn't mean that the way I do
this is precludes other people the New York Times particular approach,

(22:35):
or any journalists particular approach. But I have repeatedly managed
to offer a different window into major stories than other
people without without me doing it the way I do it,
we would we would be absent key parts of key
information about key stories. And let me say, the other

(22:59):
other point, which I've also tried over the years to
make again and again and again, is that is that
there are journalists, and journalists do their job. I am
a writer, and my job, the way I see my
job is to get inside a situation and to be
able to write, to show, to show people and let

(23:22):
people into an experience that they would not otherwise have.
And this is not new. I'm not I'm not I'm
not I'm not the the only journalist who has done this.
I mean I may sometimes feel I am the only
remaining journalists that that has done this. But again and again,

(23:43):
you know, whether it's whether it's Tom Wolfe, whether it's
Truman Capodi, you know whether it's Hunter Thompson. You know
there is there are writers who seek to be as
close to the experience as possible. And if that means
and let me say, because I think it's important that

(24:04):
you have to have a certain kind of finesse and
patience and to be able to hold two contradictory truths
in your head at the same time, which is to
say that Jeffrey Epstein was a monster, but he had
important things to say.

Speaker 2 (24:23):
You said earlier that you mentioned the word ick. Would
you do it all the same again? Do you have
any regrets about this?

Speaker 1 (24:31):
I have no regrets at all. I would do it
exactly the same. This is the way it is done.
And once once more, I am the only one who
has been shouting from the rooftops that the central issue
here is Donald Trump's relationship to this monster.

Speaker 2 (24:54):
Do you think there's a silver bullet in these emails
in the Epstein files?

Speaker 3 (24:58):
Well, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (24:59):
I mean, you know, the nature of silver bullets is
usually when we think that there is one, but it
is usually the uh, the uh, the accretion of many
lead bullets.

Speaker 2 (25:14):
Well, it's always good to work with a colleague who
likens himself to Tom Wolfe or Hunter S. Thompson or
Truman Capoti.

Speaker 1 (25:21):
But even that, Joanna, that's that's that's annoying, because you're
being dismissive there and and condescending.

Speaker 3 (25:33):
And no, I'm not trying to do that.

Speaker 1 (25:36):
I have returned again and again and again. Books that
have are are of a of of at a level
and at an insight that frankly, no other journalist is
delivering at this point.

Speaker 2 (25:50):
So how do you think this progresses over the next
couple of weeks for Trump? And do you think that
the do you think Rocanna and Thomas Massey do you
think that their vote will get passed by the Senate
so we actually finally get the release of the Epstein files.

Speaker 1 (26:10):
I don't know. I mean, I think that there is
the I think this is one of the things that
the White House is working on now. They do not
want that to happen, so it may not. And certainly
the Trump the basic Trump strategy is always delayed, delayed, delay,

(26:31):
and push this out because other things will happen, other
events will supersede this one, and that's certainly what they
are counting on now. The thing about the Epstein story
is that other events do supersede it, but it comes
back again and again. Does he have the power to

(26:53):
create an event that would wipe this off the front page?
He certainly does. Will he do that? Well, he will
certainly try so. I don't I don't know how this
plays out in the short term. I would suspect, however,
that it will not go away that at every opportunity

(27:15):
it will come back.

Speaker 2 (27:16):
Okay, So I want to ask you one point that
a lot of people made on our comments. And we
got nearly ten thousand comments, so I haven't read all
of them, and I won't pretend to, and I've responded
to as many.

Speaker 3 (27:29):
As I had energy to.

Speaker 2 (27:31):
But I was very impressed by how engaged people were
and how interested they were in your process. I think
one of the lines that people are interested to get
your response to is this sense that he was a pedophile.
What even is it like hanging out with someone who
has been accused of such egregious things, who spent time

(27:53):
in jail for such egregious things? And is there a
sort of is there a kind of criminal that actually
you're hanging out with that just that there is a
line there? Actually, I mean you mentioned the word ick.

Speaker 1 (28:06):
I don't know if there's a line there, and and
I don't understand what line you're talking about, and and
and I would assume that if you got the opportunity,
you would have been there too, as would most other journalists,
because you're seeing something that that we otherwise don't see. Now,

(28:29):
as for this, and as for what it felt like
you know, it was always a kind of a kind
of you know, balance between how creepy is this and
how significant is this? How informative is this? I mean,
as I said I said before, hold two contradictory thoughts
in your mind. At the same time. He is a monster,

(28:51):
he has important things to say, and so you're juggling
that at uh at at all occasions. You know, you're
inside a story. You're to some degree inside a crime story.
And that's where where you know, in cold Blood becomes
an interesting, interesting context in which in which to in

(29:15):
which to see this. That's what I mean. There are
other people there at Epstein's table who are trying to
get money from him, who are in business relationships with them,
who want a whatever leg up he can give them,
who want maybe who want girls. I don't know. But
but let's draw a distinction. I was there to see

(29:38):
this story and to write this story.

Speaker 2 (29:40):
Okay, I don't I don't want to over egg this,
but but you raised a really interesting point that you're inside.

Speaker 3 (29:49):
A criminal story.

Speaker 2 (29:52):
Is there a point where you are abetting the criminal?

Speaker 1 (29:56):
Absolutely not, you know, I I am doing I mean
literally nothing to I mean, I don't even want to
want to go there. I mean what I did was
sit at a table and put on the tape recorder
and with every intention of telling this story as I
have told numerous other stories.

Speaker 3 (30:16):
But there are people listening to this that would say.

Speaker 1 (30:19):
There is no crime, There is no there is no
crime going on there. Remember, I mean, he is he
has been convicted of a crime. He has gone he
has gone to prison. That is theoretically something that is
that is that has been accounted for by the American

(30:39):
justice system. Now he is now he is well for me,
he had become a source, an enormously insightful source about
his friend Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (30:54):
I guess people listening to this would say, well, wait
a minute, you did more than just put your tape
recorder on actually with giving him me to advice.

Speaker 1 (31:01):
And you're into a relationship with with with people you
say what they might want to hear. You are finessing.
You are finessing a relationship.

Speaker 3 (31:11):
If you are.

Speaker 1 (31:12):
Anything other than an opinion journalist, most journalists seem to
be these these days. You have to make a relationship
with your subject, you know. That's and giving media advice.
I'm not giving him legal advice or advice about his

(31:34):
about his crimes. I'm, uh, you know, offering some some
kind of you know, I I don't even know what media.
You know, it's it seems like you know. In fact,
when I reviewed these emails some time ago, because I
thought this will probably come out, I thought, well, okay,

(31:56):
this is just you know, the usual kind of and
there's there's nothing that would be of any interest to
anyone here.

Speaker 2 (32:03):
Well, it turns out that everything about the Epstein story
is of enormous interest to everybody, and of course not
least the White House. It's just so unusual to see
Trump refusing to answer questions. It's normally the thing he
most enjoys doing, and he must be figuring out how
on earth to deal with this. So let's come back

(32:26):
on Tuesday with what you're hearing from inside the White House.
But right now he's panicking, he's freaking out. There's no strategy,
and as you've always said, Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, this story
just will not go away. It's astonishing to think he's
been on his Asia trip. He's been bombing boats in Venezuela.

(32:47):
There's been so much going on. There might be a
war now going on in Nigeria. He appears to be
doing everything he can to distract from this story, and
it will not let up, and his own congress people
won't let it up. I mean, I think it's extraordinary
that Lauren Bobert was taken into the situation room and

(33:09):
put under pressure. And I think the three women who've
clearly gone against you know, what Mike Johnson wants them
to do, are actually pretty brave on this one. I
mean it's hard, you know, I don't particularly want to
give credit to Marjorie Taylor Green, but she's stood with
the victims on this. She stood, you know, clasping Rocanna

(33:30):
on this. It's really something which has managed to unite people,
and it's certainly going to give room for Trump's enemies. Well,
let's come back on Tuesday and tell us what more
you know from inside the White.

Speaker 3 (33:45):
House could be a new world.

Speaker 2 (33:47):
By then, have a great weekend and switch off your phone. Well,
there's clearly more to come on this Epstein's story. It's
just such a depressing story. The idea of this so
called powerful man with a network of a thousand girls
and his female accomplice sitting in a prison camp in Texas.

(34:10):
The whole thing is sickening. If you have been, thank
you for joining us. Don't forget to subscribe to this podcast.
We are independent media and we have been talking about
this story for a long time. It suddenly hit the
headlines with an enormous wave of interest and energy.

Speaker 3 (34:30):
Please leave us your comments.

Speaker 2 (34:32):
I know some of you felt I was much harder
on Michael than I should have been on our podcast,
which we released on Thursday, and some of you felt
that I wasn't hard enough, So keep the comments going.
It's a very interesting conversation to have. I'm sure our
first lady isn't having a great time over these Epstein

(34:53):
emails either, But as she would have us, say, be beast,
and thank you to O be Beast. Tier of members
Herbie Andrew Meller, Fulvia, Orlando laz Conde, Sandra Clark, Bonzo,
val Love, Francisco Bocock DC. Someone wrote in pointing out

(35:14):
that Michael had said Bob Cock and in fact it's
Bocock DC, so I'm pronouncing it correctly. Karen White, Heidi Riley,
Connie Rutherford, Sharon Shipley and Andrea Hodel. And thank you,
of course to our production team, Devon Rogerino, Anavon Urson
and Jesse Millwood