Krystal and Emily discuss SCOTUS greenlights Trump Ed Department attacks, Charlie Kirk says trust Trump on Epstein, Megyn Kelly dismantles Ben Shapiro, Republicans block Epstein file release, Cuomo launches doomed Zohran challenge.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of this show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Good morning, everybody, Welcome Breaking Points. Emily tishinskieker to see
you this morning.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Thanks for having me here.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Yeah, of course, so a bunch of stuff to get into.
We had some breaking news yesterday evening. We had to
add insco to saying that Trump can move ahead with
his plans to dismantle the Department of Education.
Speaker 5 (00:48):
So we will quickly break.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Down the news there before getting into memo apparently went
out Emily to Maga of basically move on from Jeffrey Epstein.
We're done talking about this and some creators at least
are getting the message. Charlie Kirk, I saw Danesh Jesus,
some Congressman Mike Lawler as well, so kind of interesting there.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Yeah, there's a We have some interesting clips.
Speaker 6 (01:07):
The Charlie Kirk clip I think is particularlys kidding well
worth diving into yes.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
In addition, interesting debate between Megan Kelly and Ben Shapiro
on whether there's any there there about some of the
various theories surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. So that's an interesting one
as well. Megan Kelly really in her element when she's
diving into these kind of legal debates, so that's a
fun one to watch. We have Rokhana joining. He had
introduced an amendment to compel the release of the Jeffrey
(01:35):
Epstein files, and lo and behold, Republicans voted it down
in committee. So Congresson Kana is going to join us
to talk about that. Also going to ask him a
couple of questions about ZORONMM Donnie and what he means
for the future of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
So that should be great.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
We've got Trump threatening additional tariffs on Russia. At this point,
he is just sort of fully embraced the Neo Khon
and Biden administration Ukraine policy. I think it's fair to
say we're also taking a look at a number of
things coming out of Israel, including bb Nan Yah who's
saying that the eighth front in the war is quote
unquote disinformation. So that's an interesting comment to dive into.
(02:11):
And I'm going to interview a guy named Joshua Aaron.
He is a tech entrepreneur and he developed an app
called ice Block, which allows people sort of like ways
where users input like where the traffic is it, except
it's for tracking ice so that people can have heads
up of where ice is and where these raids are
going on. So pretty interested he's in talking to him.
(02:32):
He's kind of come under fire emily also directly from
the Trump administration, so I want to get his reaction
all that.
Speaker 6 (02:38):
Yeah, absolutely big show. I'm excited to watch that interview.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Yes, indeed, And to those of you who are premium subscribers,
thank you so much. If you want to become a
premium subscriber Breakingpoints dot Com, you get the full show, uncut,
no ads, in your inbox every day early as possible.
We also have that full Friday show available for you
and the Premium AMA among other benefits as well. So
thank you so much for your support. And like I said,
(03:03):
if you want to become a premiumsbscriber Breakingpoints dot com.
All right, let's go ahead and get to this Scotis decision.
This is quite a significant one, I would say, and
it came down along partisan lines.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
So the Supreme Court I'm reading here from CNN on Monday,
said President Trump may proceed with his plan to carry
out mass layoffs at the Department of Educational latest win
for the White House at the Conservative High Court. In
an unsigned order, the justices lifted for now a lower
court ruling that had indefinitely paused Trump's plan. The Supreme
(03:35):
Court's decision puts that ruling on hold while the legal
challenges play out. Within two hours, the Department of Education
sent notices to employees indicating it is immediately resuming its
plans to shrink the department. So emily from a legal perspective,
you know, you had a block an injunction on the
mass firings at the Department of Education. Of course, this
(03:55):
president consistent with a lot of sort of conservative ideological direction,
including Project twenty twenty five. So he wants to completely
dismantle a little Apartment of Education and was going about
it by firing thousands upon thousands of employees. A court
stepped in and said, hey, this is a congressionally mandated agency,
like you can't just take it apart willy nilly yourself
(04:17):
without going through Congress, And so there was this indefinite
pause in place. The Supreme Court is not actually ruling
on the merits of that, at least not yet. What
they're saying is that the firings can proceed while this
all plays out. But of course the impact of that
is effectively that the Trump administration gets to get their way,
because once you pull these agencies apart, it's not like
(04:37):
you can just put Humpty Dumpty back together again. If
then even at the end of the day the Supreme
Court says, oh, no, actually, we were wrong.
Speaker 5 (04:43):
You can't do this.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Not that there's any guarantee that they would rule in
that direction anyway.
Speaker 6 (04:48):
And what a lot of people actually that are pressuring
the Trump administration to go further and further on the
right look at this and say okay, so somebody else
can step in, say a Republican doesn't win and president
in twenty twenty eight. Unless you keep going further and further,
somebody else is going to be able to step in
and just rebuild, to your point, Crystal, the Department of Education,
(05:09):
and it'll be like the Trump administration basically never happened.
So now he's going to get pressure to go even
further and to keep going and try to get so Basically,
what I'm saying is I wouldn't be surprised at all
if the Court has to decide whether it's the Education
Department or something else in the next term, whether or
(05:29):
not the Trump administration can without codifying this through Congress,
without going back through Congress, can de facto disassemble these
congressionally what's the right word for it, these congressionally approved
or these congressionally mandated departments without actually going through Congress.
(05:49):
Just by firing and education was happening at peak Doge
on the political level. There's another interesting point about all
of this. It is all of this was happening when
the swirl of Doge was being defended bitterly by Elon
and the Trump administration. Everyone was all excited about it.
And now that the dusts has settled. They're in the
(06:12):
different political climate, so they're going to keep going because
they're getting so much pressure on it, but it may
play differently with the public at this point.
Speaker 7 (06:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Well, there's a few things to say about that. I mean,
first of all, it's worth noting the Supreme Court, although
they have taken some high profile decisions that have cut
against the Trump administration, specifically in the case of kil
Mar Brego Garcia, there have also been quite a lot
of decisions like this that have gone in their favor,
that have specifically lifted injunctions in these orders where they
don't even I mean, this has a profound impact on
(06:43):
the country, and yet they don't even bother to like
write up their reasoning for why they're going in this direction,
which I think is kind of astonishing in and of itself.
But in terms of this conservative ideological project, the Supreme
Court has by and large overwhelmingly backed up the Trump
administration and done, you know, basically what they were put
there to do ultimately, So I think that's worth knowing.
(07:05):
The other thing to say about the Department of Education,
which you know, handles if there's discrimination in a school
system or the like, backstopping civil rights handles, all of
the like aid and loan disbursement and all of that.
There's also you know, additional funding that goes to goes
to low income schools, schools that have kids that have disabilities,
(07:26):
like there's you know, those are some of the significant things.
They also do a lot of research into education and
best practices, et cetera. The Trump administration has at the
same time that they are gutting the Department of Education
and saying they want to send it basically all back
to the States, they are also in a certain sense
aggressively using the Department of Education to go after their
(07:46):
ideological adversaries. So the you know anti Semitism jihad which
is being used to undercut any number of really you know,
high profile sort of elite universities that comes down of
the Department of Education, or the attack on Harvard's accreditation,
things of that nature, that all comes out of this
Department of Education. So on the one hand, they are
(08:06):
really hobbling their ability to perform basic functions and the
traditional functions of that agency. On the other hand, they
are aggressively using it for their own sort of ideological
weaponization in their own ends.
Speaker 6 (08:20):
Ran and I interviewed the chief author of the Project
twenty twenty five chapter on the Department of Education, and
from the outside perspective, they had a systematic process for
disassembling the Department of Education. Basically that involves off ramping
a lot of its core functions, whether it's loans to
(08:40):
Treasury or sort of legal issues and those questions to
the Department of Justice. And so can the Trump administration.
And this is a really significant question for people like
me who believe that a lot of these functions of
the Education Department would be better at Treasury and Department
of Justice and sending so much power back to the states.
(09:02):
The Trump administration two point and Sager mentioned this on
Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Show last week.
Speaker 6 (09:08):
They are using Title seven and Title nine in similar
ways to the Obama administration as a sort of fundamental
concept in the Biden administration, meaning they're using it as
leverage to extract concessions from these different schools. So these
are federal bureaucrats essentially threatening Harvard or Columbia whatever with
(09:31):
Title seven violations, Title nine violations, and with that goes
all of your federal funding. At least that's the threat
that these administrations have made from here in d C,
which are something that conservatives don't typically agree with, and
so yeah, that's they're using that significant. They're significantly using
those powers right now to threaten and pressure higher education.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
And in theory, at least those powers would.
Speaker 6 (09:58):
Go to the departm and of Justice and you wouldn't
have a massive I guess, you know, bureaucracy in the
Education Department, which again Crystal they.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Like those powers right now.
Speaker 7 (10:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Well, and I mean, I think we've also had the
example of Texas and the way that you know, these
cuts can have real costs. I'm not saying lives will
be lost here, but I'm saying that you can't just
slash and burn agencies. This is an incredibly incompetent administration.
So the idea that they're going to be able to
like effectively and efficiently pick up the pieces and distribute
(10:35):
them to other agencies and everything is going to proceed
a pace, I.
Speaker 5 (10:39):
Think it's pretty far fetched.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
So you know, I think we'll be waiting to see
what the potential fallout is here, because yes, most education
funding comes from states and localities, but there is a
significant chunk that does come from the federal government. Pel
grants are obviously administered from the federal government. There's some
key you know, for students who are who have disabilities,
who have any sort of what they call an IEP,
(11:01):
that all flows through the funding for that all flows
through the federal government. So there are some significant things
here that people will definitely miss if they're gone.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
Last I was just going to say, Crystal, last thought.
Speaker 6 (11:13):
If there is anywhere that this administration is able to
kind of like land the plane and execute the long
standing conservative blueprint to get rid of a department, it's
with this one because it's such a again, it's long standing,
it's such as this has been something that's been developed
(11:33):
over the course of decades. If they can't do this one,
they probably can't do anything.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
So that's something something to keep an eye on.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Well, I just hope that future president AOC is watching
and is going to take the same had advice. That's
what I'm hoping, So learn a little bit from this
dem cross. Just go out and do it and then
ask questions later, force the courts to come in after
you and block you, because apparently they're not going to
do that. Let's go ahead and get to this latest
with regard to MAGA. You mentioned Charlie Kirk, so he
(12:05):
got a phone call he could put actually at a
two up on the screen. He apparently got a phone
call from Trump, who called him to express his support
for Bondy after being shown a clip of Charlie Kirk
seemingly supporting Dan Boncino over Bondi at the Turning Point
USA conference. So effectively, the memo went out to Kirk
to stand down, and I think that's say memo has
(12:26):
gone out to many other MAGA influencers, the result of
that being this clip of Charlie Kirk saying, you know what,
for now, I'm just going to move on from this.
Speaker 5 (12:34):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8 (12:35):
Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being.
I'm going to trust my friends the administration. I'm going
to trust my friends in the government to do what
needs to be done, solve it balls in their hands.
I've said plenty this last weekend.
Speaker 5 (12:48):
Trust Trump, Emily.
Speaker 6 (12:50):
That's really something he posted on X after that to say, listen,
you know, it's not that we don't care anymore. It's
just that it's like we have to at some point
trust who's there and that is such a weird can
you imagine I'm serious in all this. I know he
is like genuinely friends with people in the administration, and
(13:12):
I do think he gets credit for letting Talker and
others go to his conference over the weekend and say basically,
whatever the heck they wanted to on this, And you know,
that's great, But can you imagine being like, I'm just
going to trust people who we've given enormous power to,
Like that is such a bizarre Again, I get that
(13:33):
he's friends with a lot of these guys, but the
idea that we just handed these people mass surveillance powers,
confidential information and they've done nothing to earn the trust
except for like flip flop, and now we just have
to sort of let go and.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Like, god, yeah, yeah, no, that's right, and we're going
to watch Megan Kelly and Ben Shapiro in a little bit.
But he did a sort of more sophisticated version of
the same thing of like, listen, I was open to
various theories, but when that met came out and Jade
Vance and Dan Bongeno and Cash Battal and Donald Trump
and Pam Bondi and all these people that I trust
said there's no there there.
Speaker 5 (14:08):
I think there's no there there, So I'm moving on.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Danesh Dissezi, we don't have an element for that because
I just saw this last night, but I wanted to
read his quote because he said something similar. He said
that it's time to move on from Epstein quote.
Speaker 5 (14:21):
They have closed the case. And here's his reasoning.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
He says, if we're so obsessed with Epstein, that we're
jumping up and down about Epstein and we're claiming to
walk out on MAGA. First of all, Trump's not up
for election again, But who are you going to vote for?
The Democrats? He concluded, part of being on a political
team is maintaining a certain amount of maturity, recognizing you
can't win them all, Recognizing there are some things that
are important to you that are less important to the
guy you put in charge, who's trying to focus on
(14:44):
things right in front of him, and so having a
sense of perspective, having a sense of balance, having a
sense of maturity, I think is more important even than
getting to the bottom of what really happened with Jeffrey Epstein.
So Emily, we need to just stop being so immature
about these things.
Speaker 6 (14:59):
That's I mean, incredibly bizarre part of being on a
political team.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
What that's exactly, I mean, that's.
Speaker 6 (15:08):
Actually the if you reversed that and had a Democrat
posting that about Biden in the Epstein case, the Clinton's
in the Epstein case. It's so obviously insane, Like you
could just it's so obviously insane, and I get it.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
By the way, it's.
Speaker 6 (15:25):
Kind of frustrating because the Trump administration has created a
spectacle of this, a complete mess of this, when there
actually are kitchen table questions that matter more to the
average person than the Epstein case. Now they can walk
in chew gum at the same time, they can care
about both things. But it's a kind of ridiculous that
we're out here litigating all of this again because the
(15:48):
Trump administration promise transparency, came in and said no, but
to let up on it because you're MAGA and you're
on the team and you trust them. They have done nothing,
nothing to suggest that they are operating on the up
and up on this, and so the only way that
you could get to that point is if you have
like really good friends who you trust, who are calling
(16:10):
you and being like, listen, this is all good.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
We're going to take care of it for now.
Speaker 6 (16:16):
Just calm down, which is that they're not going to
take care of it.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
They're they're not.
Speaker 6 (16:22):
They're getting a little bit smarter, Crystal, I will say
about how they're going to a posture on it. I
had so I had Benny Johnson on After Party last night,
and Benny said, this was his quote, everything has changed
over the last forty eight hours or so that the
Trump administration. He had Laura Trump on his show earlier
in the day, saying basically like, yeah, I think he's
(16:43):
I think he's heard, and I think you're going to
see more, and Benny says he's been told. Benny is
not let up on it. He said he's been told
that there is more coming.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
So they're.
Speaker 6 (16:55):
My point is, yeah, I don't think we're getting anything
significant out of Yeah. My point is that I think
that they realize they now have to at least keep
acting like they're taking the case seriously rather than being
like it's done in dust in case clothes.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
I have to tell you, I watched the to the
point of like, oh, this isn't that important, Like everyone
just move on. I watched the Epstein Netflix docs last night,
just to refresh my memory. And first of all, what
was done to those then girls now women, I mean
Virginia Guffrey killed herself like she was tormented. They all
(17:32):
had their lives tormented, and they were completely abandoned by
the justice system, and you know, all the way up
into the point of Epstein quote unquote killing himself, which
I just don't believe, I just don't believe, sorry, in prison,
so that they never really had their day in court.
Now they did get to go, and they actually were
(17:53):
really grateful to that judge for they got to go
and they got to speak and have their day to
be heard and be listened to, and you know that
was really important to them. But that you had this
spider web, I mean this part we know, I mean
we know one hundred percent this pyramid scheme of molestation
of young girls, and it was covered up at every
(18:17):
single level. That's not a thing that you can as
a society just say like, well that was in the past,
let's just let that go. But obviously more significant than
that is all of the implications of the many powerful
people that were in this circle and the very strong
possibility that he was an intel asset very likely for
(18:37):
mis not so I just I'm sorry, Like, I don't
buy that this is not an important issue, that this
is something we should just Oh, that was the past,
he's dead now.
Speaker 5 (18:47):
Who cares.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
No, it actually matters that we get to the bottom
of what happened here. And then you also have a
question of just like basic public trust. And this goes
back to you know, the jfk assassination and the cover
up there and how that really was sort of the
beginning of the public discuss and disenchantment with their own government.
And if you have that here too, I mean this
(19:10):
it has profound implications for society. I'm not saying it's
the only thing that matters, But to your point, does
that mean like you can't walk into bubblegum At the
same time, it's the only thing you can focus on. No,
but people deserve a lot more than what they've gotten
from the Trump administration, what they've gotten, what they've gotten
from anyone. But there were explicit promises that were made here.
There were promises that were made to help secure this
(19:32):
election bid. There were careers that were made by Cash
Battel and Dan Bongino, who you know, were happy to
like get Rich doing podcasts floating these theories, and then
now that they're in there, just oh, we put on
a memo. It's over case closed. Everybody needs to move on.
So trus Yeah, So no, I don't think it's mature
to pretend that none of this happened and put it
in the past and just move on, because the societal
(19:56):
implications to me are extraordinary. They are quite significant, they
are quite great.
Speaker 6 (20:00):
Well, and it cannot possibly be said enough that the
timing of all of this happened the day before Netsi
Nahu came to the White House, right, and then a
couple of days before and Israelly official was quoted anonymously
in the New York Times saying their intelligence suggests not
(20:20):
all of the enriched uranium was destroyed in the.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
Twelve Day War.
Speaker 6 (20:25):
So why do I say that I have no idea
definitively whether or not there's a connection. But it is
a strong reminder that our foreign policy may currently be
influenced by all of this, because, for example, if you
are coming out and your Donald Trump and your cash
(20:45):
battel or Pambondi or whomever, and you are relying on
Massad Saga reported during the Twelve Day War that our
intelligence about Iranian nuclear capabilities was coming from Israel. If
you are relying on that intelligence, you think you're relying
on that and that's absolutely necessary to have a window
(21:08):
into a potential other hostile nuclear power. You come in,
you want to spill all of the secrets, and someone's like, no,
you can't do that.
Speaker 4 (21:19):
We will no longer know what.
Speaker 6 (21:20):
Is happening in Iran because we have been relying on
the Masad operation, the Masad surveillance for years and years.
Then hey, that's how you get from point A to
point B in my opinion, and what happens with that
crystal is influence over our foreign policy continues from this
(21:42):
disgusting and ugly scandal.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Well, and just to put it really bluntly, if the
President of the United States is a pedophile and Massad
has that information and is using it to control him
and our foreign policy, you know, I think it's pretty
important that we know that.
Speaker 5 (21:58):
I think that's a.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Rather important piece of information and thing to get the
bottom of. Just me personally throwing that out there. Others
disagree though. Here is Republican Representative Mike Lawler. This is
one of these guys that's like held up as a moderate,
you know, but just like votes along with the party
on absolutely everything in any case.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
Except for salt.
Speaker 6 (22:17):
He absolutely would not vote unless he got that salt
deduction up.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Well, and that was a bipartisan concern from members in
that region in particular. But in any case, he says
the same thing. Who cares. Let's move on, Let's listen.
Speaker 4 (22:29):
Listen.
Speaker 9 (22:30):
I'm probably not the person to ask, because I don't
speak in conspiracy theory, but at the end of the day,
there's a lot bigger issues facing this country than Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
The guy is dead and buried. Let's move on.
Speaker 9 (22:43):
Okay, if somebody committed a crime, if somebody affiliated with
Jeffrey Epstein committed a crime, they should be prosecuted. In
the absence of that. Frankly, this seems like a colossal
waste of time and effort and frankly, a lot of nonsense.
There are a lot of issues facing this country right now.
(23:06):
A dead pedophile ain't one of them.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
And I think, look, I mean, it technically is a
conspiracy theory because you're talking about an actual conspiracy, but
that's also just an attempt to delegitimize all of this
and sort of put it in the bucket of QAnon,
which is preposterous. I mean, mainstream reporters to go read
Julie K. Brown, Go read what is out there. Go
read what our own government has said about Jeffrey Epstein
(23:29):
and the files that they were able to procure from
his various residences and the you know, the tapes and
the photos that they pulled from his mansion in the
Upper east Side. You know, go talk to people who
are saying, like, Okay, well, how did he even make
his money?
Speaker 7 (23:44):
Right?
Speaker 5 (23:45):
This is this is not looney tubes.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
There are legitimate, like documented, unanswered questions about how all
of this went down. And so it's really frustrating to
me when people just try to put this in the
QAnon bucket. It like it's all just like preposterous tinfoil
had stuff. To stop gaslighting us, like, stop pretending like
this wasn't a real thing that really happened.
Speaker 6 (24:09):
That's exactly what they're Yeah, and again we know if
this were a bi An administration, people like Mike Lawler
would not be saying what they're saying. And if you
trust the Trump administration so much, then go look at
what the Trump administration said until they got the keys. No,
it would be one thing if they had come out
(24:30):
and dismissed all of this, said case clothes with mountains
of evidence suggesting why everything they have produced so far
has been absurd. And I know we're going to get
into this because Ben Shapiro, Megan Kelly got into this.
But like the evidence that they have produced to tell us,
there is no there there that Epstein just truly did
(24:51):
kill himself, which may actually be true. I don't particularly
believe it, but that could be true. It's not mutually
exclusive with the idea that he was involved in a
blackmail scheme or was intelligence. But they put forth the
video that Wired scrape the metadata of and was like, this.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Is not the raw footage. And they then said, well
we can't.
Speaker 6 (25:10):
Also, we have all of this stuff, but we can't
release it because it would be retraumatizing victims, and it
would be putting like pedophile stuff onto the internet, like
child pornography onto the internet.
Speaker 4 (25:23):
None of that is convincing whatsoever.
Speaker 6 (25:26):
And so all you have to do is listen to
what they said before they were implicated in the being
the people who could actually release this information, Mike Lawler,
and you should listen to those versions of these same people,
because I think they made some great points.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
Yeah, true, put a four up on the screen. I mean,
apparently Fox News got the memo as well. As of noon,
there were zero Epstein mentions. However, Joe Biden and the
autopen scandal quote unquote had a forty six mentions, so
you know, really focused on the on they're now with
that one. And then just as a reminder of all
(26:03):
of the weirdness, and we went through yesterday a bunch
of the Trump connections with Jeffrey Epstein, which are substantial,
just as a reminder of the weirdness with which he
has always approached this case and the fact that you
know what, he would get asked, Oh, you're going to
release the JFK files. You're going to release the RFK files,
like you're going to release the UFO files. Yes, yes, yes,
(26:24):
you're going to release the Epstein files.
Speaker 5 (26:26):
Yes, well maybe not.
Speaker 2 (26:27):
Actually no, I don't think I will release those. He
always got squarely on that one. But he also was
really weird when remember, you know, during the first Trump administrations,
when Epstein's killed and then there were questions about Epstein
killed himself.
Speaker 5 (26:41):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
And then there are questions about whether or not Ghlaine
Maxwell will be found guilty. Apparently we now have, you know,
indications Trump thought about partnering her as well. And when
he got asked about her trial and what he wanted
to see happen, he said he wishes her well.
Speaker 5 (26:56):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 10 (26:56):
To that, mister Preston the other day, a report asked
you about Glaine Max. You said, quote, I just wish
her well. Frankly, I've met her numerous times over the years,
especially since I lived in Palm Beach, but I wish
her well.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
Whatever it is, Miss prestt.
Speaker 10 (27:10):
Glen Maxwell has been arrested on allegations of child sex trafficking.
Why would you wish such a person?
Speaker 11 (27:16):
Well, I don't know that, but I do know that
she has.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
She's been arrested for that.
Speaker 11 (27:20):
Friend or boyfriend Epstein was either killed or committed suicide
in jail. She's now in jail. Yeah, I wish you well.
I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people
well good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty.
Speaker 7 (27:33):
I mean, you do you know this?
Speaker 10 (27:34):
Oh, so you're saying you hope she doesn't die in jail.
Is that what you mean by wish her well?
Speaker 11 (27:37):
Her boyfriend died in jail and people are still trying
to figure out how did it happen?
Speaker 7 (27:41):
Was it suicide?
Speaker 11 (27:42):
Was he killed? And I do wish you well. I'm
not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking
bad for anybody. And they took that and I mean, she's
a child, such a big deal. But all it is
is her boyfriend died. He died in jail. Was he killed?
Was it suicide? I do I wish it well?
Speaker 5 (28:01):
What a bizarre answer, Emily is so.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
I mean, it's so strange that he I mean, it's not.
Speaker 7 (28:11):
So.
Speaker 6 (28:11):
I'm curious what you make of this because like in
the sense it's not strange at all, right, Like it
makes complete sense. But just from the perspective of, like,
why would you be so transparently wishy washy on the
alleged child sex predators, as Jonathan Swann put it there
when you know that there are these like voluminous connections,
(28:34):
as he even pointed out there listen, like whether or
not he's directly implicating any of this, there's a significant
question of whether he was trying to signal to Gallaine
Maxwell not to talk. And now that The Daily Mail
has a source, I don't know if you said this story.
Chrisley probably did. Yeah, The Daily Mail is saying that
(28:56):
Gallainne Maxwell is ready to reveal the truth about Jeffrey
Epstein and is ready to speak so enormous screen of
salt Daily Mail anonymous source.
Speaker 4 (29:05):
But I mean that could be pretty interesting, Crystal.
Speaker 5 (29:09):
Yeah, well let's hear it.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
I mean, listen, she's obviously a convicted chrimime and this
is a disgusting, horrific person who deserves to spend the
rest of her life in prison, There's no doubt about it.
But she also would certainly be in a position to know,
and I have a feeling that she feels pretty bitter
that she's the only one who went to prison for this,
you know, sex trafficking ring.
Speaker 5 (29:27):
Again, she deserves it.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
She should be there, but there are others who likely should.
Speaker 5 (29:32):
Be there as well.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
Let's go ahead and get to this Meghan Kelly Ben
Shapiro debate, which I watched all of and I thought
was pretty interesting. You know, Meghan didn't take like a
hard position of like I definitely think that he was
killed or I definitely think that there are other powerful
people who are implicator or whatever. She was more in
the like, I really don't think we know exactly what
went on here, And Shapiro was in the camp of like, Nope,
(29:56):
nothing to see.
Speaker 5 (29:57):
Here, let's move on.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to this first piece,
which to me was just extraordinary because Ben says this
thing of basically like, yeah, I was open to it,
but once we got that memo, then I was like, oh,
I guess there's I guess there's nothing to see here.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
Let's cut and take a listen to that.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
The government admits this.
Speaker 12 (30:13):
The FBI established that Epstein used paid employees to repeatedly
find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in
concert with others to obtain minor girls not only for
his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification
of others. So I don't know exactly what that means, Ben,
but I know that's our government admitting in court that
(30:36):
Jeffrey Epstein use worked in concert with other others to
obtain minor girls not only for himself, but also for
the sexual gratification of others who who are the others
who who specifically, I mean that hasn't been answered. You've
heard names.
Speaker 13 (30:51):
I mean, answer is Glenn Maxwell, right, who's in prison
right now for having engaged in the sexual abuse of children.
Speaker 7 (30:57):
Right.
Speaker 13 (30:57):
And one of the other people that you just mentioned
is one of the others, right, Nadia whatever her name is.
So you know that that is sort of the big
open question that everyone was asking, was, Okay, who's that?
Like Stephen Hawking, right, because he was one of the
names who was mentioneder Elan Derschwitz was one of the
names of who Barack or let Schwsner, right, like all
these were were and and again here's my thing. I
was open to every single one of these theories until
(31:18):
the DOJ n FBI put out a memo saying, we
have looked at all the evidence and here's what we
have come to.
Speaker 7 (31:23):
Right.
Speaker 12 (31:23):
Then you're persuaded by that memo without without more, I mean, like,
I wasn't persuaded.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
No, I'm not, I'm not. I'm not I'm not persuaded
by a memo.
Speaker 13 (31:29):
What I'm persuaded by is the fact that I have
not seen evidence that they have seen, and so I'm
not prepared to call Dan Bongino, Cash Betel, President Trump, JD.
Speaker 12 (31:36):
Vans and there are two page memos, there's no credible evidence,
no credible evidence. Well, somebody's made a judgment call there
and there's all You could drive a truck through that exception.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
What do you think of that?
Speaker 4 (31:47):
M Well, it's exactly what we were just talking about.
Speaker 6 (31:49):
That if the Trump administration, let's let's say, even the
two of us and people who have covered the story
seriously and skeptically for years, if the Trump administration came
out and produced evidence beyond trust us and a not
raw piece of video that they told us was raw
and said, listen, we really did look into it, and
(32:11):
we're going to show our work here and give you
reason to believe us other than again, literally just trust us.
That's all we've gotten so far. And so to say
I take their word for it. The conspiracy theory that
is years and years in the making, where you have
all of this public reporting. As I was listening to it,
I was just like frustrated that from like a rational perspective,
(32:35):
there's so much evidence in the category that there's a
lot more to see than what the Trump administration is
telling us, which is why even non conspiratorial people are
onto the quote unquote conspiracy bandwagon in this case because
there's mountains of public evidence reporting that there's much This
goes much much deeper, and so from a rational perspective,
(32:58):
it doesn't make sense to dismiss the case because you.
Speaker 4 (33:00):
Trust the word of people in power.
Speaker 6 (33:03):
It's just it's weird, and I think it's It sounds
like someone trying to get to the conclusion that nothing happened.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Yeah, yeah, and I mean very interesting that the same
people who are the most vociferously pro Israel and banging
the drums the most for war with iron and all
of these sorts of things also tend to be the
ones in the hardcore there's nothing to see with regard
to Epstein Camp also notable. Let's go ahead and take
(33:31):
a listen to this next part, because this is potentially newsworthy.
Meghan claims she actually has sources in the administration who say, no,
this is this is a lie, this isn't what happened whatsoever.
Speaker 5 (33:41):
Let's go ahead and take a listen.
Speaker 13 (33:43):
I have the names of the people who are making
the claim that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself and that the
most gross you know, and sort of extreme of the
conspiracy theories or theories just don't even call them conpiracy theories.
The most sort of you know, extreme version of the
theory is not true. I have names of the people
who are claim that. Okay, they are all in the administration,
And this is my point. If other people want to
(34:04):
make those claims that are counter to that, then they
should provide evidence or at least put their names on
it so we can question them about that as well,
because otherwise we're just in the realm of pure speculation,
and frankly, I just don't find that useful.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
I would love more useful information.
Speaker 13 (34:15):
This is why I'm angry at Pam BONDI I think
there should be all the useful information possible. But the
same thing holds true for people who are making claims
on the other side. Otherwise, I can claim that he
was working for a cadre of space aliens who are
blackmailing high profile Americans in order to protect from a
future invasion, and there's just about as much evidence for
that as many of the claims that are being made
on the other side.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
All right, well, let's talk about that is made requires evidence.
Speaker 13 (34:35):
Any claim it's being made requires actual evidence, and at
the very least, in the absence of evidence, the incredible
names of the people that I can either trust or
not trust, ranging from again the President of the United
States and vice presidents to the head of the FBI,
the AG and the deputy head of the FBI.
Speaker 12 (34:50):
Well, I think it's very hard to say those people
need to come out and put their names on these
claims when they're working for an administration this one and
the one before that want that to come out. You're
asking something the world countermand the.
Speaker 1 (35:03):
People they work for. How am I supposed to falsify
their claims? Now we're working in the realm of the younger.
Speaker 12 (35:07):
But you're look, Ben, you can't come to me and say,
everybody I know says he killed himself and then I
respond saying, I actually have my own sources who say
he didn't.
Speaker 5 (35:16):
And then you say, well.
Speaker 12 (35:17):
Your sources are not not valid because they won't put
their names on it. Okay, go down the lists, and
then we'll talk about why they might be saying that.
Speaker 13 (35:25):
My sources are the President of the United States, the
Vice President of the United States, Cash matell, the head
of the FBI, Dan Bongingo, the deputy head of the
FBI and Pambondi, the attorney General. And those aren't just
my sources, they're everybody's sources because they publicly came out
and side this.
Speaker 12 (35:37):
Okay, Trump hasn't specifically weighed in on that specific aspect
of it. We've all seen the limited things that Trump
has said and tweeted on this, and Jade Vance was
calling for transparency and suggesting otherwise prior to taking office.
He hasn't commented on this so far.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
So he's not somebody.
Speaker 12 (35:50):
You've got cash, You've got Dan, and you've got Pam,
and we've already discussed that memo in full detail. I'm
talking about people behind the scenes who prior to this,
to Trump taking office. I'm not going to get too specific,
but trust me, I have high level sources who have
said they don't believe any of that any of that,
so and I'm not going to out them for purposes
(36:10):
of convincing you.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
But you're telling me name them. I know I'm not
going to.
Speaker 5 (36:13):
I don't have authorization.
Speaker 12 (36:14):
And then you say, well, I dismiss all of that
because you.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
Won't name them.
Speaker 13 (36:17):
Hold on, Megan, I'm not saying you should name them.
I'm saying they should name themselves because otherwise they are
being complicit in one of the greatest cover ups in
the history.
Speaker 5 (36:24):
It's easy for you to say that, it's very easy.
Speaker 12 (36:28):
Why because you'll have your job and you'll have your millions.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
Would no matter what they mean, give me a break.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
So Emily he's saying, there, oh, well, if if people
think differently, then they should come forward, as if that's
a casual and easy thing to do, and you know,
wouldn't have any potential personal consequences for them onsoever.
Speaker 4 (36:47):
And we all agree with that. By the way, yes,
of course, come forward.
Speaker 6 (36:50):
But again it's not the rationalist perspective to say because
people won't put their name on it, it doesn't it
sort of undermines their credit.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
It's like, if you.
Speaker 6 (37:02):
Go deep into this story, I mean, people have died,
by the way, people who may have had things to say,
have died under suspicious circumstances. Beyond just Jeffrey Epstein, there
are a lot of and I don't know that those
add up to a conspiracy theory, but they're worth thinking about.
And it's obviously true that when the stakes of something
are so high, when you have the former Labor Secretary
(37:26):
saying and then not denying. They also talked about this
not denying really that he said Epstein belonged to intelligence.
He was told that Epstein belonged to intelligence and to
give that plea deal that Epstein got back in two
thousand and seven. We have that over and over again
over the series of years. Then, I mean, there's nothing
again rational about saying okay, because these people won't come forward,
(37:51):
then we have to just go on the evidence that
people in the government are telling us to trust that.
I find out the thing strange and to me it
does seem like someone trying to get from point A
to point B.
Speaker 4 (38:04):
They want to justify the end.
Speaker 6 (38:06):
And maybe for Ben it's partially because he's deeply frustrated
with the like weird little alt right mouth breathers who
are using this for purposes of like rank antisemitism.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
Maybe, and that's an explanation.
Speaker 6 (38:22):
So why someone would stretch from point A to point
B by just deferring to the president who himself.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
Is implicated at all of this.
Speaker 6 (38:31):
I mean Pam Bondi, who was State A G of
Florida when charges further investigations and chargers could have potentially happened.
Speaker 4 (38:38):
As Juli K.
Speaker 6 (38:39):
Brown has pointed out, it's not a it is not
in any way a persuasive defense.
Speaker 5 (38:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
Well, and just your point about the many questions. And
some other people who also died under questionable circumstances. Jean
Luke Brunel was a pedophile and criminal and was a
close associate of Jeffrey Epstein, who allegedly sent Epstein multi
underage girls I think twelve year old girls for his
birthday to sexually abuse. Allegedly, he also killed himself in prison.
(39:11):
And oh, interesting, the cameras were off there too, huh,
and it was not also recorded, So you know, you've
got that, You've got all of the questionable circumstances surrounding
Epstein's death. Oh, those cameras happened, me up. Oh the
prison guards happened to be asleep.
Speaker 7 (39:27):
Oh you know.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
The official autopsy says, oh, it was it was a
hanging in it was a suicide. But when his brother
had this further investigated, they said, I've never seen a
suicide that would be consistent with the particular fractions of
these bones in the neck. So yeah, to just pretend
like none of that is real, Like it's all just
a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 5 (39:47):
It's grotesque.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
And you know, the last thing I'll say here, Soger
tweeted this out yesterday, and I think this also bears mentioning.
Here are the list, he says, of Israeli prime ministers
linked to Epstein. Number one, Shimon for As introduced Ahood
Barrock to Epstein number two. Ahod Olmert named as an
Epstein associate by USBI number three. Ah Hood Brock connections
(40:08):
too vast. To paraphrase, he's the one who really had
the deepest Epstein connections from Israel and net Yahoo met
with JP Morgan after apparent Epstein intro. So there's just
you know, we're just supposed to dismiss all of that.
That's just a conspiracy that there could be any there
there that's worthy of further investigation. And the most suspicious
(40:30):
thing from pan BONDI I thought is when she got
asked about the potential Intel connections, she played dumb like, oh,
I haven't really looked into that.
Speaker 5 (40:39):
As if as if she had no idea.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
That anyone had speculated that, or there were any potential
ties there or whatever. I didn't really think about that,
didn't really look into that.
Speaker 5 (40:47):
Okay, girl, didn't.
Speaker 7 (40:48):
She say it?
Speaker 4 (40:49):
She was like, I'll have to get back to you.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
I have to get back to you. Why don't you
please get back to us, pan Bondy get back.
Speaker 4 (40:55):
We're still waiting on that.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Incredible All right, let's go ahead and move on to
Congressman Rocanna, who introduced this amendment to try to force transparency.
Unfortunately was voted down yesterday, but want to get all
the details on that. So we are fortunate to be
joined this morning by Congressman Rocanna, who, as I just mentioned,
we can put B two up on the screen here, guys,
(41:18):
had introduced an amendment to the Genius Act that would
require both the preservation of all Epstein records, would also
require the Attorney General to release all Epstein records within
thirty days.
Speaker 5 (41:28):
And Congressman I know we.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Have a not positive update on the status of that amendment.
So first of all, thank you for joining us in.
Second of all, if you could just bring us up
to speed here.
Speaker 14 (41:38):
Sure, I introduced a pretty simple amendment. It would demand
the full release of the Epstein calls. The Rules Committee
voted on it last night. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated
all four Democrats voted for it. Ralph Norman and Republican
to his credit, voted for it, but seven Republicans voted
(41:58):
against it. And they're basically choosing to protect rich and
powerful men over the assaulted, abused, and abandoned young women.
Speaker 7 (42:11):
And it's really appalling.
Speaker 6 (42:13):
Did they try to negotiate anything with you and maybe
say all right that thirty days, let's make it sixty days,
or were they just basically, other than Ralph Norman flat
nose on it. On the amendment, there were flat nose.
Speaker 14 (42:25):
I mean they made the argument that, oh, it's not
Germane to the Genius Act. But if you look at
the Genius Act, actually it has such broad findings about
the Internet that it is Germane because a lot of
these crimes took place over the Internet. So they could
have that's just an excuse. They could have easily voted
part or they could have offered their own amendment, or
(42:47):
they could have said, roh, we'll bring yours for some
similar amendment for a vote on the House floor. But look,
the reality is, and everyone knows this in this town,
that these are people donors to politicians.
Speaker 7 (43:02):
These are people who play.
Speaker 14 (43:03):
Golf with the elite in Washington, and these are foreign
leaders that we do not want to embarrass. These are
people connected to our or other intelligence agencies that we
do not want to take on. So there is a
protection here going on and rich and powerful men.
Speaker 2 (43:22):
Congressman, one of the things that has been theorized based
on a number of connections here is a potential link
between Jeffrey Epstein and Masad. Is that something that you
think is a possibility. What is your view there?
Speaker 14 (43:35):
Well, look, no one knows, because that's exactly why we
need the files released. I mean, the reality is if frankly,
if you're the Massagna, would be calling to the release
of these files unless you have something to hide, why
not if you really believe that there is a conspiracy
therein this is not true, then release the files, release
the interview memos, release the evidence.
Speaker 7 (43:57):
Now I understand people say, well, the policy.
Speaker 14 (44:01):
Is that you shouldn't release things unless you charge someone,
And there's a lot of validity to having that policy.
You don't want government just destroying people's lives if they're
innocent by having a media campaign. But in this case,
given that the President of the United States campaigned on
the release, given that the Attorney General said that there
is a client list. Given all of the allegations of
(44:23):
agencies involved and foreign governments involved, the president should say
as a national security matter, as a manner of public interest,
I'm making an exception and releasing all the files.
Speaker 7 (44:35):
For sunlight on this.
Speaker 6 (44:37):
If Democrats retake the House of Representatives in the midterms,
are there avenues that you can or plan to pursue
in order to get further transparency from the federal government
on this?
Speaker 14 (44:51):
Absolutly, I'm going to pursue it now. I'm not going
to rest I'm going to pursue it in our oversight
committee to see if we can get the the files
through the oversight Committee. I think we need to have
votes in committees, if not on the House floor, and
you see with Ralph Norman there will be some Republicans
willing to join us. And certainly if we take back
(45:12):
the House, we should be subpoenaing these files, subpoenaing Pam Bondi,
subpoenaing anyone involved. But the Democrats now should be pushing
for the release of these files. And people say, well,
why didn't you push earlier during Trump one or Biden?
The reality is You didn't have an attorney general look
at the evidence to say there is a client list.
(45:34):
You didn't have a president of the United States say
we're going to release it, and so there is now
a public outcrime. Regardless of how you felt about it
in the past while the process was going on. Now
we should have a clear consensus that this should be released,
whether under Trump or a Democrat, it just should come out.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
There are obvious connections between Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein,
who was on the plane I think twenty six seven
time something like that. There was a worker on the
island who said that he saw former President Clinton on
that island. President Clinton has denied any wrongdoing there. There
are also obvious connections between Jeffrey Epstein and the current president,
(46:12):
including Epstein says that they were busties for over a decade.
Trump himself, you know, has this infamous quote about how
close they are and how much Jeffrey Epstein loves beautiful
women and particularly those on the younger side. He himself
was on the plane some seven times, et cetera. Are
Democrats Are your Democratic colleagues on board with full transparency here?
(46:36):
Do you feel like there's sort of unanimity in the caucus,
or do you have some people who are a little
more uncomfortable about what potentially could be revealed, or just
feel like, you know what, this isn't the fight to pick,
This isn't the thing to focus on right now.
Speaker 14 (46:49):
I think initially they were saying this isn't the fight
to take and they thought, oh, this is you know,
engaging in conspiracy theories.
Speaker 7 (46:57):
But the reality is it's conspiratorial.
Speaker 14 (47:01):
There are rich and powerful men who, like I said, abused, assaulted,
and abandoned young girls, and the public has a right
to make to know that there's no impunity for them.
And now I think there is a greater consensus that
the Democrats need to be on the side of a
full release. The Rules Committee wouldn't have taken up my
(47:21):
amendment if leadership and Jim McGovern didn't show leadership. So
at this point, the Democrats are in full release. But
what I think is important is we don't just make
this a one or two day effort that we are
capable of relentlessly driving for the release of these files.
Speaker 2 (47:40):
Let's go ahead and move on to the New York
City mayor's race, which has proved to be extraordinary. Zorn
Mumdani coming from out of nowhere to defeat Cuomo in
the Democratic primary quite overwhelming. I think it was ultimately
like a twelve point margin, wasn't even really close. He
was able to clear after the first round that Zoron
would be successful. He did something that you know, leftists
(48:04):
have always sort of hoped they would be able to
pull off, which he's truly changed the electorate. You know,
the Surgeon youth voting was really extraordinary. But Andrew Cuomo,
even though he was defeated in the Democratic primary, has
now officially announced that he is going to continue into
the general election. He posted a rather interesting launch video yesterday.
Speaker 5 (48:23):
Let's go ahead and take a look at that.
Speaker 15 (48:25):
Hello, I'm Andrew Cuomo, and unless you've been living under
a rock, you probably know that the Democratic primary did
not go the way I had hoped. The fight to
save our city isn't over. Only thirteen percent of New
Yorkers voted in the June primary. The general election is
in November, and I am in it to win it.
(48:46):
My opponent, mister Mandani, offers slick slogans but no real
solutions for.
Speaker 7 (48:51):
The next few months.
Speaker 15 (48:53):
It's my responsibility to earn your vote.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
So Connerson, I'll give you a moment to catch your
brass after the force of that charismatic presentation. But my
question for you was, hey, what happened to vote blue?
No matter who this guy won the Democratic primary? Why
is it so hard not only for Andrew Cuomo we
all know is a complete egomaniac to get on board,
but so many Democrats are, you know, twiddling their thumbs
(49:18):
and refusing to endorse Zoran even after the Democratic voter said, hey,
this is our guy.
Speaker 14 (49:24):
Well, thats why the Democratic establishment is so out of
touch with the grassroots of our party. Zoran won because
he ran a brilliant campaign. He talked about the high rents,
he talked about high grocery prices, he talked about the
high costs and transportation, all the things that we didn't
emphasize nearly enough in twenty twenty four. He talked about
the moral stakes of the bombing in Gaza and the
(49:49):
killing of women and children there and how he was
opposed to that, and he didn't back away from that,
and he inspired a lot of people because of his campaign,
and so the obvious reaction should have been okay, he won,
Let's get behind him, let's endorse them. Yet we still
have Democratic leaders who have not endorsed him. He's obviously
(50:09):
going to win for mayor. I mean, the billionaires trying
to stop him are not going to succeed. And it's
just embarrassing that you have this old guard clinging on,
trying to cling on to power. You know, Napoleon once
said it's worse than a clime. It's a blunder. And
(50:29):
that's how I feel about the old guard. It's not
their amorlity, it's their stupidity about politics that is sort
of staggering.
Speaker 6 (50:38):
And what's it been like in the House Democratic Caucus
over the last few weeks as people have digested mom
Donnie's surprise win. I mean, there's something interesting just about
Andrew Cuomo getting in the race, meaning he thinks he
will have endorsements and donors and all of that. So, Congressman,
what's your sense of where your fellow Democrats as you
(50:59):
speak with them, are people trying to learn from Zoron anymore?
Speaker 4 (51:04):
They have?
Speaker 6 (51:04):
They just landed on dismissing it and getting behind Cuomo.
Speaker 4 (51:08):
What's going on?
Speaker 14 (51:10):
Yes, the you know, some are learning, it's the progressive
caucus that are that are learning uh and the the
the We're actually meeting him tomorrow morning at the DNC
Breakfast Club. But you know, it's the same divide in
this party. Those of us who want to move the
(51:32):
party in a different direction. We're against these overseas wars,
including the war in Iran where I led the War
Paris Solution with Thomas Massey, against funding that who's bombing
in Gaza, who are for taxing wealth, who are for
having rent caps and stopping Wall Street from buying single
(51:52):
family homes.
Speaker 7 (51:53):
Here is that progressive movement.
Speaker 14 (51:54):
And of course they'd say, look, let's learn from what
Mamdani did in terms of social media, in terms of issues.
And then there's the camp that says, no, no, no,
this is too far. We don't this is what's wrong
with the Democratic Party. And that's you know, the Democrats
just have to be open to having this fight within
our party. I mean, yes, we have to come together
(52:15):
on things like.
Speaker 7 (52:15):
The Epstein file. But there's a divine in the party
and the question is are we going to.
Speaker 14 (52:19):
Go in a progressive direction or are we going to
go with more of the same.
Speaker 7 (52:23):
Yeah, and I think that should be fought out and Congressman.
Speaker 2 (52:26):
You know, in my opinion and in the opinion of
New Yorkers, in courting the pulling and opinion of Americans,
the things he has proposed, his specific policy proposals are
not radical at all. I mean, five grocery stores, what now,
this is the Soviet Union?
Speaker 11 (52:41):
You know?
Speaker 5 (52:41):
Affordable childcare, oh.
Speaker 2 (52:42):
My god, crazy, like the rest of the developed world
being able to afford housing, like a rent freeze for
already rent stabilized apartments.
Speaker 5 (52:50):
I mean, none of this is really crazy.
Speaker 2 (52:52):
And so it seems to me that the two things
that moderates really object to it is number one, just
the label socialist, which you know. To me, I'm like, okay,
well you don't like the label, but let's deal with
what his What specific policies do you actually think are
so extreme that you can't even exist in the same
party with him? As Dean Phillips said, But to me,
the real divide is over Israel.
Speaker 5 (53:14):
And you had Hakeem Jeffries.
Speaker 2 (53:16):
Let's put this up on the screen. This would be five.
He's talking to punch bowl. He still has not backed zoron,
which I think is extraordinary from a democratic leader. And
obviously he represents New York and he said this thing
that really infuriated me because.
Speaker 5 (53:31):
It's just dishonest.
Speaker 2 (53:32):
So Punchbul says, Mam Donnie's past use of the phrase
globalized into fado will be quote part of our discussion,
according to Jeffries. And the reason this is dishonest is
because mom Donnie never has used that. There's no evidence
he even ever.
Speaker 5 (53:46):
Used that phrase, but he was asked about.
Speaker 2 (53:49):
It and gave his you know, understanding of what it
means and why, you know, why it lands different in
different contexts, et cetera. And yet there's been so many
sort of smears and lies of him, I mean directly
as well amophobic attacks, like from Senator Kirsten Jillibrand that
a sort of mythology has grown up that he is
out there using this particular phrase, and you know, is
(54:10):
apparently part of what's keeping Hakim Jeffries from getting behind
him and outright endorsing the Democratic nominee chosen by the voters.
Speaker 14 (54:17):
Well, every Democratic leader should endorse Mamdani. Mamdani has clearly
said that he does not believe that globalize the entifada
should be used as a phrase, and that he is
going to make the safety of Jewish Americans a very,
very high priority, just like he's going to make the
safety of Muslim Americans and Indo Americans and Christian Americans
a high priority. Brad Lander, a Jewish American, endorsed him.
(54:42):
I am no doubt that Zorn is going to work
with the Jewish American community to hear concerns about anti Semitism,
and he understands anti Semitism violence has increased, So I
think we need to have the facts now, you know,
there may be a difference. I don't believe that people
should be using the word globalized in Tapada, and I'm
(55:04):
condemned it. And if people in the party want to
say that they can and still support Mamdani, I don't
understand why there is this.
Speaker 7 (55:14):
Hesitancy to support him.
Speaker 14 (55:15):
When he's going to be the mayor, when he's connecting
with a lot of people, and by the way, he's
had the votes of a lot of Jewish Americans.
Speaker 2 (55:21):
How much do you think that Israel is going to
be a central dividing line in the party because you
have an extraordinary distance between the base of the party
and how they feel about Israel and our policy vis
of the Israel at this point, and Democratic leadership is
evidenced by Chuck Schumer, Hakim Jeffries, etc. And it seems
to me like this sort of schism just cannot persist.
Speaker 14 (55:43):
Well, I think it goes to the sense of do
we believe in human rights? Do we believe in the
politics that is free of any special special interests? And
I think there are a few key places which are
huge divides. You support US government funding going to net
Nyahu in the offensive war in Gaza. Of course, I
(56:05):
was one of forty or fifty members of Congress who
vot didn't know on that.
Speaker 7 (56:09):
There are a lot of people today who if asked in.
Speaker 14 (56:11):
The Democratic Party would still defend their vote or say
they would have supported that funding.
Speaker 7 (56:16):
That is a huge moral line, much like the Iraq War.
Speaker 14 (56:20):
Do you believe that the United States should recognize Palestinian
self determination in the Palestinian State? There are many Democrats
who will not believe support that, even you know, I
don't believe Hamas should be part of the Palestinian state,
but I think we should recognize a non Amas Palestinian state.
And so those are two the lines that do you
(56:40):
believe in unroped and the funding of Unrock there. So
I think it is a moral issue similar to the
Iraq War, and there are a couple fault lines which
make it clear which side someone is on.
Speaker 2 (56:54):
Thomerson, finally, I have to ask you about this appearance
you did with Congressman Ran Fine, newly elected Republican. Well,
let's take a look at the ending of your appearance,
and I think part of why people objected to it
so much that we can get into some of his statements.
I'll get your respond Let's go ahead and take a look.
Speaker 16 (57:13):
Well, first of all, let me just say I am
one of those people who's extraordinarily proud of being American.
One of the reasons I'm proud is you can have
a democrat of Hindu faith standing side by side with
a Republican of Jewish faith having a civil conversation on
your show, and we need more of that in this
country to bring this country together.
Speaker 2 (57:32):
So a noble sentiment. But of course you're talking about
Randy Fine, and we can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 5 (57:36):
Shortly thereafter, he said.
Speaker 2 (57:38):
To ilhan Omar, I'm sure it's difficult to see us
welcome the killer of so many of your fellow Muslim terrorists,
So calling a member of Congress that you know you
serve with and he serves with a Muslim terrorist. But
to your point about the bad timing, it's not like
this was the first thing that he had said. In
a May twenty twenty five interview. He said, it starts
with recognizing we have a quote Muslim problem. It starts
(58:00):
with recognizing that violent Islam is not the exception. He
had already called Rashida to leave and zoron Pumdani Muslim terrorists.
He had called for the nuking of Gaza, He celebrated
the murder of a Turkish American activist in.
Speaker 5 (58:15):
The West Bank.
Speaker 2 (58:16):
I could go on, but I guess did you know
about these things?
Speaker 5 (58:20):
What were your thoughts going into this interview?
Speaker 8 (58:24):
Now?
Speaker 7 (58:24):
Chris Womo will call me on. As you know, I
go on old media. It's one of the dangers of
doing it.
Speaker 14 (58:28):
He said, can you debate a Republican member of Congress
on the Medicaid cuts? I said, I'm happy to. I
got there. Randy Fine was there. He's been in Congress
for a whole of four months. I had no idea
candidly who he was. And so Chris Cuomo does this
whole spiel about how people aren't proud of being Americans
and Democrats in particular in polling aren't proud of being Americans,
(58:51):
And I say, well, look, I'm really proud of being American.
And the fact that you have a hymn the American
Jewish American Democrat Republican on the show debating is proved
bet And then we have a total conversation where I
thought I got the best of him on the Medicaid
cut and no one pays attention to that, and of
course they have the club, but his statements are bigoted.
I've said that, and then afterwards I people my phone
(59:14):
blew up and people started sending me all the things
he said. Yeah, and of course I condemned them, but
you know, they're four hundred and thirty five members of Congress.
Speaker 7 (59:21):
This guy's been around for four months.
Speaker 14 (59:23):
And when you go on a lot of these shows
and you big people, I don't vet their entire record.
Speaker 5 (59:29):
Yeah, I got you, do you think you know?
Speaker 2 (59:31):
One of the things that really bothers me is that
Rashida's leave was censured by the Congress for saying from
the River to the Sea. There's a whole flop over
something you know, she had said about investigations into Palestinian
activists in Michigan, where she was smeared as an anti Semite,
even though there's zero evidence that she is an anti Semite.
And then here's this guy who has said the most
(59:52):
disgusting things you can imagine, I mean literally calling for
nuking Gaza and starving villions and saying there are no
innocent palace in civilians, smearing multiple of his colleagues at
this point as quote unquote Muslim terrorists, and it's just
like barely a blip. I mean, I'm not necessarily blaming
(01:00:13):
you for not knowing that he had said all of
these things, because it gets no coverage in the news media,
Like there's very little outrage when he says these disgraceful, bigoted,
genocidal things. And yet anytime there's even a question, like
Zoran saying, responding to a question about globalized Nantifada, this
is like a major news cycle. So I would appreciate
(01:00:35):
you speaking to that kind of disparity too. And the
reaction between these various sentiments.
Speaker 14 (01:00:40):
Well, I think it's changing. I think it's changing because
of independent media. I think it's changing because of social media.
Trust mean, MiPhone blew up after that interview, so people
are paying attention.
Speaker 7 (01:00:50):
But you're right, there's an asymmetry.
Speaker 14 (01:00:53):
And if you're a woman of color as Rashida talib
Is or Elen omar Is and you're speaking out Palestinian rights,
and especially if you're a Muslim faith, there's no doubt
that you face a far greater scrutiny, a.
Speaker 7 (01:01:08):
Far greater uh condemnation.
Speaker 14 (01:01:12):
Uh then uh then if you're speaking out in support
of of of.
Speaker 7 (01:01:19):
Of Israel or net and Yahoo. Now I am not
I was not for the censoring of Rashida to Leave.
Speaker 14 (01:01:24):
Obviously, I don't think that we should be playing this
game of censoring comments of members of Congress on either side,
because we should condemn them.
Speaker 7 (01:01:34):
They should be awfully condemned.
Speaker 14 (01:01:35):
But you know, I'm a pretty big on free speech,
and I fear that the line can get blurry and
and and and if.
Speaker 5 (01:01:42):
You start rorist Muslim, and I.
Speaker 14 (01:01:46):
Obviously think it's worse than what Rashida to Leave did.
And so I guess if you're going to censor Rashida,
we can, we should censor him. But my point is,
you know, at some point We've got to recognize that.
Speaker 7 (01:01:57):
That that Democrats been fit.
Speaker 14 (01:02:00):
From free speech, because really the speech that often gets
censored is a speech of people speaking up for Palestinian
human rights or questioning the establishment. And the tragedy is
and the appalling part was the centering of Rashida Tale.
But certainly there should be more outrage at what Fine
has done and declared, demand for him to retract and apologize,
(01:02:23):
and it should get more attention.
Speaker 4 (01:02:25):
Yeah, from Speaker Johnson.
Speaker 6 (01:02:27):
That's another from other Republicans and from Speaker Johnson too,
who have to my knowledge not said much at all
about Randy fun.
Speaker 2 (01:02:35):
Yeah, exactly right, all right, Harnson, We know you have
a heart out always appreciate your time and your willingness
to engage with us.
Speaker 5 (01:02:41):
It's great to see you.
Speaker 7 (01:02:42):
Thank you, thanks for having me.
Speaker 5 (01:02:43):
Yeah, a pleasure
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of this show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Good morning, everybody, Welcome Breaking Points. Emily tishinskieker to see
you this morning.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Thanks for having me here.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Yeah, of course, so a bunch of stuff to get into.
We had some breaking news yesterday evening. We had to
add insco to saying that Trump can move ahead with
his plans to dismantle the Department of Education.
Speaker 5 (00:48):
So we will quickly break.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Down the news there before getting into memo apparently went
out Emily to Maga of basically move on from Jeffrey Epstein.
We're done talking about this and some creators at least
are getting the message. Charlie Kirk, I saw Danesh Jesus,
some Congressman Mike Lawler as well, so kind of interesting there.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Yeah, there's a We have some interesting clips.
Speaker 6 (01:07):
The Charlie Kirk clip I think is particularlys kidding well
worth diving into yes.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
In addition, interesting debate between Megan Kelly and Ben Shapiro
on whether there's any there there about some of the
various theories surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. So that's an interesting one
as well. Megan Kelly really in her element when she's
diving into these kind of legal debates, so that's a
fun one to watch. We have Rokhana joining. He had
introduced an amendment to compel the release of the Jeffrey
(01:35):
Epstein files, and lo and behold, Republicans voted it down
in committee. So Congresson Kana is going to join us
to talk about that. Also going to ask him a
couple of questions about ZORONMM Donnie and what he means
for the future of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
So that should be great.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
We've got Trump threatening additional tariffs on Russia. At this point,
he is just sort of fully embraced the Neo Khon
and Biden administration Ukraine policy. I think it's fair to
say we're also taking a look at a number of
things coming out of Israel, including bb Nan Yah who's
saying that the eighth front in the war is quote
unquote disinformation. So that's an interesting comment to dive into.
(02:11):
And I'm going to interview a guy named Joshua Aaron.
He is a tech entrepreneur and he developed an app
called ice Block, which allows people sort of like ways
where users input like where the traffic is it, except
it's for tracking ice so that people can have heads
up of where ice is and where these raids are
going on. So pretty interested he's in talking to him.
(02:32):
He's kind of come under fire emily also directly from
the Trump administration, so I want to get his reaction
all that.
Speaker 6 (02:38):
Yeah, absolutely big show. I'm excited to watch that interview.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Yes, indeed, And to those of you who are premium subscribers,
thank you so much. If you want to become a
premium subscriber Breakingpoints dot Com, you get the full show, uncut,
no ads, in your inbox every day early as possible.
We also have that full Friday show available for you
and the Premium AMA among other benefits as well. So
thank you so much for your support. And like I said,
(03:03):
if you want to become a premiumsbscriber Breakingpoints dot com.
All right, let's go ahead and get to this Scotis decision.
This is quite a significant one, I would say, and
it came down along partisan lines.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
So the Supreme Court I'm reading here from CNN on Monday,
said President Trump may proceed with his plan to carry
out mass layoffs at the Department of Educational latest win
for the White House at the Conservative High Court. In
an unsigned order, the justices lifted for now a lower
court ruling that had indefinitely paused Trump's plan. The Supreme
(03:35):
Court's decision puts that ruling on hold while the legal
challenges play out. Within two hours, the Department of Education
sent notices to employees indicating it is immediately resuming its
plans to shrink the department. So emily from a legal perspective,
you know, you had a block an injunction on the
mass firings at the Department of Education. Of course, this
(03:55):
president consistent with a lot of sort of conservative ideological direction,
including Project twenty twenty five. So he wants to completely
dismantle a little Apartment of Education and was going about
it by firing thousands upon thousands of employees. A court
stepped in and said, hey, this is a congressionally mandated agency,
like you can't just take it apart willy nilly yourself
(04:17):
without going through Congress, And so there was this indefinite
pause in place. The Supreme Court is not actually ruling
on the merits of that, at least not yet. What
they're saying is that the firings can proceed while this
all plays out. But of course the impact of that
is effectively that the Trump administration gets to get their way,
because once you pull these agencies apart, it's not like
(04:37):
you can just put Humpty Dumpty back together again. If
then even at the end of the day the Supreme
Court says, oh, no, actually, we were wrong.
Speaker 5 (04:43):
You can't do this.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Not that there's any guarantee that they would rule in
that direction anyway.
Speaker 6 (04:48):
And what a lot of people actually that are pressuring
the Trump administration to go further and further on the
right look at this and say okay, so somebody else
can step in, say a Republican doesn't win and president
in twenty twenty eight. Unless you keep going further and further,
somebody else is going to be able to step in
and just rebuild, to your point, Crystal, the Department of Education,
(05:09):
and it'll be like the Trump administration basically never happened.
So now he's going to get pressure to go even
further and to keep going and try to get so Basically,
what I'm saying is I wouldn't be surprised at all
if the Court has to decide whether it's the Education
Department or something else in the next term, whether or
(05:29):
not the Trump administration can without codifying this through Congress,
without going back through Congress, can de facto disassemble these
congressionally what's the right word for it, these congressionally approved
or these congressionally mandated departments without actually going through Congress.
(05:49):
Just by firing and education was happening at peak Doge
on the political level. There's another interesting point about all
of this. It is all of this was happening when
the swirl of Doge was being defended bitterly by Elon
and the Trump administration. Everyone was all excited about it.
And now that the dusts has settled. They're in the
(06:12):
different political climate, so they're going to keep going because
they're getting so much pressure on it, but it may
play differently with the public at this point.
Speaker 7 (06:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Well, there's a few things to say about that. I mean,
first of all, it's worth noting the Supreme Court, although
they have taken some high profile decisions that have cut
against the Trump administration, specifically in the case of kil
Mar Brego Garcia, there have also been quite a lot
of decisions like this that have gone in their favor,
that have specifically lifted injunctions in these orders where they
don't even I mean, this has a profound impact on
(06:43):
the country, and yet they don't even bother to like
write up their reasoning for why they're going in this direction,
which I think is kind of astonishing in and of itself.
But in terms of this conservative ideological project, the Supreme
Court has by and large overwhelmingly backed up the Trump
administration and done, you know, basically what they were put
there to do ultimately, So I think that's worth knowing.
(07:05):
The other thing to say about the Department of Education,
which you know, handles if there's discrimination in a school
system or the like, backstopping civil rights handles, all of
the like aid and loan disbursement and all of that.
There's also you know, additional funding that goes to goes
to low income schools, schools that have kids that have disabilities,
(07:26):
like there's you know, those are some of the significant things.
They also do a lot of research into education and
best practices, et cetera. The Trump administration has at the
same time that they are gutting the Department of Education
and saying they want to send it basically all back
to the States, they are also in a certain sense
aggressively using the Department of Education to go after their
(07:46):
ideological adversaries. So the you know anti Semitism jihad which
is being used to undercut any number of really you know,
high profile sort of elite universities that comes down of
the Department of Education, or the attack on Harvard's accreditation,
things of that nature, that all comes out of this
Department of Education. So on the one hand, they are
(08:06):
really hobbling their ability to perform basic functions and the
traditional functions of that agency. On the other hand, they
are aggressively using it for their own sort of ideological
weaponization in their own ends.
Speaker 6 (08:20):
Ran and I interviewed the chief author of the Project
twenty twenty five chapter on the Department of Education, and
from the outside perspective, they had a systematic process for
disassembling the Department of Education. Basically that involves off ramping
a lot of its core functions, whether it's loans to
(08:40):
Treasury or sort of legal issues and those questions to
the Department of Justice. And so can the Trump administration.
And this is a really significant question for people like
me who believe that a lot of these functions of
the Education Department would be better at Treasury and Department
of Justice and sending so much power back to the states.
(09:02):
The Trump administration two point and Sager mentioned this on
Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Show last week.
Speaker 6 (09:08):
They are using Title seven and Title nine in similar
ways to the Obama administration as a sort of fundamental
concept in the Biden administration, meaning they're using it as
leverage to extract concessions from these different schools. So these
are federal bureaucrats essentially threatening Harvard or Columbia whatever with
(09:31):
Title seven violations, Title nine violations, and with that goes
all of your federal funding. At least that's the threat
that these administrations have made from here in d C,
which are something that conservatives don't typically agree with, and
so yeah, that's they're using that significant. They're significantly using
those powers right now to threaten and pressure higher education.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
And in theory, at least those powers would.
Speaker 6 (09:58):
Go to the departm and of Justice and you wouldn't
have a massive I guess, you know, bureaucracy in the
Education Department, which again Crystal they.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Like those powers right now.
Speaker 7 (10:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Well, and I mean, I think we've also had the
example of Texas and the way that you know, these
cuts can have real costs. I'm not saying lives will
be lost here, but I'm saying that you can't just
slash and burn agencies. This is an incredibly incompetent administration.
So the idea that they're going to be able to
like effectively and efficiently pick up the pieces and distribute
(10:35):
them to other agencies and everything is going to proceed
a pace, I.
Speaker 5 (10:39):
Think it's pretty far fetched.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
So you know, I think we'll be waiting to see
what the potential fallout is here, because yes, most education
funding comes from states and localities, but there is a
significant chunk that does come from the federal government. Pel
grants are obviously administered from the federal government. There's some
key you know, for students who are who have disabilities,
who have any sort of what they call an IEP,
(11:01):
that all flows through the funding for that all flows
through the federal government. So there are some significant things
here that people will definitely miss if they're gone.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
Last I was just going to say, Crystal, last thought.
Speaker 6 (11:13):
If there is anywhere that this administration is able to
kind of like land the plane and execute the long
standing conservative blueprint to get rid of a department, it's
with this one because it's such a again, it's long standing,
it's such as this has been something that's been developed
(11:33):
over the course of decades. If they can't do this one,
they probably can't do anything.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
So that's something something to keep an eye on.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Well, I just hope that future president AOC is watching
and is going to take the same had advice. That's
what I'm hoping, So learn a little bit from this
dem cross. Just go out and do it and then
ask questions later, force the courts to come in after
you and block you, because apparently they're not going to
do that. Let's go ahead and get to this latest
with regard to MAGA. You mentioned Charlie Kirk, so he
(12:05):
got a phone call he could put actually at a
two up on the screen. He apparently got a phone
call from Trump, who called him to express his support
for Bondy after being shown a clip of Charlie Kirk
seemingly supporting Dan Boncino over Bondi at the Turning Point
USA conference. So effectively, the memo went out to Kirk
to stand down, and I think that's say memo has
(12:26):
gone out to many other MAGA influencers, the result of
that being this clip of Charlie Kirk saying, you know what,
for now, I'm just going to move on from this.
Speaker 5 (12:34):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8 (12:35):
Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being.
I'm going to trust my friends the administration. I'm going
to trust my friends in the government to do what
needs to be done, solve it balls in their hands.
I've said plenty this last weekend.
Speaker 5 (12:48):
Trust Trump, Emily.
Speaker 6 (12:50):
That's really something he posted on X after that to say, listen,
you know, it's not that we don't care anymore. It's
just that it's like we have to at some point
trust who's there and that is such a weird can
you imagine I'm serious in all this. I know he
is like genuinely friends with people in the administration, and
(13:12):
I do think he gets credit for letting Talker and
others go to his conference over the weekend and say basically,
whatever the heck they wanted to on this, And you know,
that's great, But can you imagine being like, I'm just
going to trust people who we've given enormous power to,
Like that is such a bizarre Again, I get that
(13:33):
he's friends with a lot of these guys, but the
idea that we just handed these people mass surveillance powers,
confidential information and they've done nothing to earn the trust
except for like flip flop, and now we just have
to sort of let go and.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Like, god, yeah, yeah, no, that's right, and we're going
to watch Megan Kelly and Ben Shapiro in a little bit.
But he did a sort of more sophisticated version of
the same thing of like, listen, I was open to
various theories, but when that met came out and Jade
Vance and Dan Bongeno and Cash Battal and Donald Trump
and Pam Bondi and all these people that I trust
said there's no there there.
Speaker 5 (14:08):
I think there's no there there, So I'm moving on.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Danesh Dissezi, we don't have an element for that because
I just saw this last night, but I wanted to
read his quote because he said something similar. He said
that it's time to move on from Epstein quote.
Speaker 5 (14:21):
They have closed the case. And here's his reasoning.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
He says, if we're so obsessed with Epstein, that we're
jumping up and down about Epstein and we're claiming to
walk out on MAGA. First of all, Trump's not up
for election again, But who are you going to vote for?
The Democrats? He concluded, part of being on a political
team is maintaining a certain amount of maturity, recognizing you
can't win them all, Recognizing there are some things that
are important to you that are less important to the
guy you put in charge, who's trying to focus on
(14:44):
things right in front of him, and so having a
sense of perspective, having a sense of balance, having a
sense of maturity, I think is more important even than
getting to the bottom of what really happened with Jeffrey Epstein.
So Emily, we need to just stop being so immature
about these things.
Speaker 6 (14:59):
That's I mean, incredibly bizarre part of being on a
political team.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
What that's exactly, I mean, that's.
Speaker 6 (15:08):
Actually the if you reversed that and had a Democrat
posting that about Biden in the Epstein case, the Clinton's
in the Epstein case. It's so obviously insane, Like you
could just it's so obviously insane, and I get it.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
By the way, it's.
Speaker 6 (15:25):
Kind of frustrating because the Trump administration has created a
spectacle of this, a complete mess of this, when there
actually are kitchen table questions that matter more to the
average person than the Epstein case. Now they can walk
in chew gum at the same time, they can care
about both things. But it's a kind of ridiculous that
we're out here litigating all of this again because the
(15:48):
Trump administration promise transparency, came in and said no, but
to let up on it because you're MAGA and you're
on the team and you trust them. They have done nothing,
nothing to suggest that they are operating on the up
and up on this, and so the only way that
you could get to that point is if you have
like really good friends who you trust, who are calling
(16:10):
you and being like, listen, this is all good.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
We're going to take care of it for now.
Speaker 6 (16:16):
Just calm down, which is that they're not going to
take care of it.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
They're they're not.
Speaker 6 (16:22):
They're getting a little bit smarter, Crystal, I will say
about how they're going to a posture on it. I
had so I had Benny Johnson on After Party last night,
and Benny said, this was his quote, everything has changed
over the last forty eight hours or so that the
Trump administration. He had Laura Trump on his show earlier
in the day, saying basically like, yeah, I think he's
(16:43):
I think he's heard, and I think you're going to
see more, and Benny says he's been told. Benny is
not let up on it. He said he's been told
that there is more coming.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
So they're.
Speaker 6 (16:55):
My point is, yeah, I don't think we're getting anything
significant out of Yeah. My point is that I think
that they realize they now have to at least keep
acting like they're taking the case seriously rather than being
like it's done in dust in case clothes.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
I have to tell you, I watched the to the
point of like, oh, this isn't that important, Like everyone
just move on. I watched the Epstein Netflix docs last night,
just to refresh my memory. And first of all, what
was done to those then girls now women, I mean
Virginia Guffrey killed herself like she was tormented. They all
(17:32):
had their lives tormented, and they were completely abandoned by
the justice system, and you know, all the way up
into the point of Epstein quote unquote killing himself, which
I just don't believe, I just don't believe, sorry, in prison,
so that they never really had their day in court.
Now they did get to go, and they actually were
(17:53):
really grateful to that judge for they got to go
and they got to speak and have their day to
be heard and be listened to, and you know that
was really important to them. But that you had this
spider web, I mean this part we know, I mean
we know one hundred percent this pyramid scheme of molestation
of young girls, and it was covered up at every
(18:17):
single level. That's not a thing that you can as
a society just say like, well that was in the past,
let's just let that go. But obviously more significant than
that is all of the implications of the many powerful
people that were in this circle and the very strong
possibility that he was an intel asset very likely for
(18:37):
mis not so I just I'm sorry, Like, I don't
buy that this is not an important issue, that this
is something we should just Oh, that was the past,
he's dead now.
Speaker 5 (18:47):
Who cares.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
No, it actually matters that we get to the bottom
of what happened here. And then you also have a
question of just like basic public trust. And this goes
back to you know, the jfk assassination and the cover
up there and how that really was sort of the
beginning of the public discuss and disenchantment with their own government.
And if you have that here too, I mean this
(19:10):
it has profound implications for society. I'm not saying it's
the only thing that matters, But to your point, does
that mean like you can't walk into bubblegum At the
same time, it's the only thing you can focus on. No,
but people deserve a lot more than what they've gotten
from the Trump administration, what they've gotten, what they've gotten
from anyone. But there were explicit promises that were made here.
There were promises that were made to help secure this
(19:32):
election bid. There were careers that were made by Cash
Battel and Dan Bongino, who you know, were happy to
like get Rich doing podcasts floating these theories, and then
now that they're in there, just oh, we put on
a memo. It's over case closed. Everybody needs to move on.
So trus Yeah, So no, I don't think it's mature
to pretend that none of this happened and put it
in the past and just move on, because the societal
(19:56):
implications to me are extraordinary. They are quite significant, they
are quite great.
Speaker 6 (20:00):
Well, and it cannot possibly be said enough that the
timing of all of this happened the day before Netsi
Nahu came to the White House, right, and then a
couple of days before and Israelly official was quoted anonymously
in the New York Times saying their intelligence suggests not
(20:20):
all of the enriched uranium was destroyed in the.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
Twelve Day War.
Speaker 6 (20:25):
So why do I say that I have no idea
definitively whether or not there's a connection. But it is
a strong reminder that our foreign policy may currently be
influenced by all of this, because, for example, if you
are coming out and your Donald Trump and your cash
(20:45):
battel or Pambondi or whomever, and you are relying on
Massad Saga reported during the Twelve Day War that our
intelligence about Iranian nuclear capabilities was coming from Israel. If
you are relying on that intelligence, you think you're relying
on that and that's absolutely necessary to have a window
(21:08):
into a potential other hostile nuclear power. You come in,
you want to spill all of the secrets, and someone's like, no,
you can't do that.
Speaker 4 (21:19):
We will no longer know what.
Speaker 6 (21:20):
Is happening in Iran because we have been relying on
the Masad operation, the Masad surveillance for years and years.
Then hey, that's how you get from point A to
point B in my opinion, and what happens with that
crystal is influence over our foreign policy continues from this
(21:42):
disgusting and ugly scandal.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Well, and just to put it really bluntly, if the
President of the United States is a pedophile and Massad
has that information and is using it to control him
and our foreign policy, you know, I think it's pretty
important that we know that.
Speaker 5 (21:58):
I think that's a.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Rather important piece of information and thing to get the
bottom of. Just me personally throwing that out there. Others
disagree though. Here is Republican Representative Mike Lawler. This is
one of these guys that's like held up as a moderate,
you know, but just like votes along with the party
on absolutely everything in any case.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
Except for salt.
Speaker 6 (22:17):
He absolutely would not vote unless he got that salt
deduction up.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Well, and that was a bipartisan concern from members in
that region in particular. But in any case, he says
the same thing. Who cares. Let's move on, Let's listen.
Speaker 4 (22:29):
Listen.
Speaker 9 (22:30):
I'm probably not the person to ask, because I don't
speak in conspiracy theory, but at the end of the day,
there's a lot bigger issues facing this country than Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
The guy is dead and buried. Let's move on.
Speaker 9 (22:43):
Okay, if somebody committed a crime, if somebody affiliated with
Jeffrey Epstein committed a crime, they should be prosecuted. In
the absence of that. Frankly, this seems like a colossal
waste of time and effort and frankly, a lot of nonsense.
There are a lot of issues facing this country right now.
(23:06):
A dead pedophile ain't one of them.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
And I think, look, I mean, it technically is a
conspiracy theory because you're talking about an actual conspiracy, but
that's also just an attempt to delegitimize all of this
and sort of put it in the bucket of QAnon,
which is preposterous. I mean, mainstream reporters to go read
Julie K. Brown, Go read what is out there. Go
read what our own government has said about Jeffrey Epstein
(23:29):
and the files that they were able to procure from
his various residences and the you know, the tapes and
the photos that they pulled from his mansion in the
Upper east Side. You know, go talk to people who
are saying, like, Okay, well, how did he even make
his money?
Speaker 7 (23:44):
Right?
Speaker 5 (23:45):
This is this is not looney tubes.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
There are legitimate, like documented, unanswered questions about how all
of this went down. And so it's really frustrating to
me when people just try to put this in the
QAnon bucket. It like it's all just like preposterous tinfoil
had stuff. To stop gaslighting us, like, stop pretending like
this wasn't a real thing that really happened.
Speaker 6 (24:09):
That's exactly what they're Yeah, and again we know if
this were a bi An administration, people like Mike Lawler
would not be saying what they're saying. And if you
trust the Trump administration so much, then go look at
what the Trump administration said until they got the keys. No,
it would be one thing if they had come out
(24:30):
and dismissed all of this, said case clothes with mountains
of evidence suggesting why everything they have produced so far
has been absurd. And I know we're going to get
into this because Ben Shapiro, Megan Kelly got into this.
But like the evidence that they have produced to tell us,
there is no there there that Epstein just truly did
(24:51):
kill himself, which may actually be true. I don't particularly
believe it, but that could be true. It's not mutually
exclusive with the idea that he was involved in a
blackmail scheme or was intelligence. But they put forth the
video that Wired scrape the metadata of and was like, this.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Is not the raw footage. And they then said, well
we can't.
Speaker 6 (25:10):
Also, we have all of this stuff, but we can't
release it because it would be retraumatizing victims, and it
would be putting like pedophile stuff onto the internet, like
child pornography onto the internet.
Speaker 4 (25:23):
None of that is convincing whatsoever.
Speaker 6 (25:26):
And so all you have to do is listen to
what they said before they were implicated in the being
the people who could actually release this information, Mike Lawler,
and you should listen to those versions of these same people,
because I think they made some great points.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
Yeah, true, put a four up on the screen. I mean,
apparently Fox News got the memo as well. As of noon,
there were zero Epstein mentions. However, Joe Biden and the
autopen scandal quote unquote had a forty six mentions, so
you know, really focused on the on they're now with
that one. And then just as a reminder of all
(26:03):
of the weirdness, and we went through yesterday a bunch
of the Trump connections with Jeffrey Epstein, which are substantial,
just as a reminder of the weirdness with which he
has always approached this case and the fact that you
know what, he would get asked, Oh, you're going to
release the JFK files. You're going to release the RFK files,
like you're going to release the UFO files. Yes, yes, yes,
(26:24):
you're going to release the Epstein files.
Speaker 5 (26:26):
Yes, well maybe not.
Speaker 2 (26:27):
Actually no, I don't think I will release those. He
always got squarely on that one. But he also was
really weird when remember, you know, during the first Trump administrations,
when Epstein's killed and then there were questions about Epstein
killed himself.
Speaker 5 (26:41):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
And then there are questions about whether or not Ghlaine
Maxwell will be found guilty. Apparently we now have, you know,
indications Trump thought about partnering her as well. And when
he got asked about her trial and what he wanted
to see happen, he said he wishes her well.
Speaker 5 (26:56):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 10 (26:56):
To that, mister Preston the other day, a report asked
you about Glaine Max. You said, quote, I just wish
her well. Frankly, I've met her numerous times over the years,
especially since I lived in Palm Beach, but I wish
her well.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
Whatever it is, Miss prestt.
Speaker 10 (27:10):
Glen Maxwell has been arrested on allegations of child sex trafficking.
Why would you wish such a person?
Speaker 11 (27:16):
Well, I don't know that, but I do know that
she has.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
She's been arrested for that.
Speaker 11 (27:20):
Friend or boyfriend Epstein was either killed or committed suicide
in jail. She's now in jail. Yeah, I wish you well.
I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people
well good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty.
Speaker 7 (27:33):
I mean, you do you know this?
Speaker 10 (27:34):
Oh, so you're saying you hope she doesn't die in jail.
Is that what you mean by wish her well?
Speaker 11 (27:37):
Her boyfriend died in jail and people are still trying
to figure out how did it happen?
Speaker 7 (27:41):
Was it suicide?
Speaker 11 (27:42):
Was he killed? And I do wish you well. I'm
not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking
bad for anybody. And they took that and I mean, she's
a child, such a big deal. But all it is
is her boyfriend died. He died in jail. Was he killed?
Was it suicide? I do I wish it well?
Speaker 5 (28:01):
What a bizarre answer, Emily is so.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
I mean, it's so strange that he I mean, it's not.
Speaker 7 (28:11):
So.
Speaker 6 (28:11):
I'm curious what you make of this because like in
the sense it's not strange at all, right, Like it
makes complete sense. But just from the perspective of, like,
why would you be so transparently wishy washy on the
alleged child sex predators, as Jonathan Swann put it there
when you know that there are these like voluminous connections,
(28:34):
as he even pointed out there listen, like whether or
not he's directly implicating any of this, there's a significant
question of whether he was trying to signal to Gallaine
Maxwell not to talk. And now that The Daily Mail
has a source, I don't know if you said this story.
Chrisley probably did. Yeah, The Daily Mail is saying that
(28:56):
Gallainne Maxwell is ready to reveal the truth about Jeffrey
Epstein and is ready to speak so enormous screen of
salt Daily Mail anonymous source.
Speaker 4 (29:05):
But I mean that could be pretty interesting, Crystal.
Speaker 5 (29:09):
Yeah, well let's hear it.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
I mean, listen, she's obviously a convicted chrimime and this
is a disgusting, horrific person who deserves to spend the
rest of her life in prison, There's no doubt about it.
But she also would certainly be in a position to know,
and I have a feeling that she feels pretty bitter
that she's the only one who went to prison for this,
you know, sex trafficking ring.
Speaker 5 (29:27):
Again, she deserves it.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
She should be there, but there are others who likely should.
Speaker 5 (29:32):
Be there as well.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
Let's go ahead and get to this Meghan Kelly Ben
Shapiro debate, which I watched all of and I thought
was pretty interesting. You know, Meghan didn't take like a
hard position of like I definitely think that he was
killed or I definitely think that there are other powerful
people who are implicator or whatever. She was more in
the like, I really don't think we know exactly what
went on here, And Shapiro was in the camp of like, Nope,
(29:56):
nothing to see.
Speaker 5 (29:57):
Here, let's move on.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to this first piece,
which to me was just extraordinary because Ben says this
thing of basically like, yeah, I was open to it,
but once we got that memo, then I was like, oh,
I guess there's I guess there's nothing to see here.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
Let's cut and take a listen to that.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
The government admits this.
Speaker 12 (30:13):
The FBI established that Epstein used paid employees to repeatedly
find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in
concert with others to obtain minor girls not only for
his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification
of others. So I don't know exactly what that means, Ben,
but I know that's our government admitting in court that
(30:36):
Jeffrey Epstein use worked in concert with other others to
obtain minor girls not only for himself, but also for
the sexual gratification of others who who are the others
who who specifically, I mean that hasn't been answered. You've
heard names.
Speaker 13 (30:51):
I mean, answer is Glenn Maxwell, right, who's in prison
right now for having engaged in the sexual abuse of children.
Speaker 7 (30:57):
Right.
Speaker 13 (30:57):
And one of the other people that you just mentioned
is one of the others, right, Nadia whatever her name is.
So you know that that is sort of the big
open question that everyone was asking, was, Okay, who's that?
Like Stephen Hawking, right, because he was one of the
names who was mentioneder Elan Derschwitz was one of the
names of who Barack or let Schwsner, right, like all
these were were and and again here's my thing. I
was open to every single one of these theories until
(31:18):
the DOJ n FBI put out a memo saying, we
have looked at all the evidence and here's what we
have come to.
Speaker 7 (31:23):
Right.
Speaker 12 (31:23):
Then you're persuaded by that memo without without more, I mean, like,
I wasn't persuaded.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
No, I'm not, I'm not. I'm not I'm not persuaded
by a memo.
Speaker 13 (31:29):
What I'm persuaded by is the fact that I have
not seen evidence that they have seen, and so I'm
not prepared to call Dan Bongino, Cash Betel, President Trump, JD.
Speaker 12 (31:36):
Vans and there are two page memos, there's no credible evidence,
no credible evidence. Well, somebody's made a judgment call there
and there's all You could drive a truck through that exception.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
What do you think of that?
Speaker 4 (31:47):
M Well, it's exactly what we were just talking about.
Speaker 6 (31:49):
That if the Trump administration, let's let's say, even the
two of us and people who have covered the story
seriously and skeptically for years, if the Trump administration came
out and produced evidence beyond trust us and a not
raw piece of video that they told us was raw
and said, listen, we really did look into it, and
(32:11):
we're going to show our work here and give you
reason to believe us other than again, literally just trust us.
That's all we've gotten so far. And so to say
I take their word for it. The conspiracy theory that
is years and years in the making, where you have
all of this public reporting. As I was listening to it,
I was just like frustrated that from like a rational perspective,
(32:35):
there's so much evidence in the category that there's a
lot more to see than what the Trump administration is
telling us, which is why even non conspiratorial people are
onto the quote unquote conspiracy bandwagon in this case because
there's mountains of public evidence reporting that there's much This
goes much much deeper, and so from a rational perspective,
(32:58):
it doesn't make sense to dismiss the case because you.
Speaker 4 (33:00):
Trust the word of people in power.
Speaker 6 (33:03):
It's just it's weird, and I think it's It sounds
like someone trying to get to the conclusion that nothing happened.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Yeah, yeah, and I mean very interesting that the same
people who are the most vociferously pro Israel and banging
the drums the most for war with iron and all
of these sorts of things also tend to be the
ones in the hardcore there's nothing to see with regard
to Epstein Camp also notable. Let's go ahead and take
(33:31):
a listen to this next part, because this is potentially newsworthy.
Meghan claims she actually has sources in the administration who say, no,
this is this is a lie, this isn't what happened whatsoever.
Speaker 5 (33:41):
Let's go ahead and take a listen.
Speaker 13 (33:43):
I have the names of the people who are making
the claim that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself and that the
most gross you know, and sort of extreme of the
conspiracy theories or theories just don't even call them conpiracy theories.
The most sort of you know, extreme version of the
theory is not true. I have names of the people
who are claim that. Okay, they are all in the administration,
And this is my point. If other people want to
(34:04):
make those claims that are counter to that, then they
should provide evidence or at least put their names on
it so we can question them about that as well,
because otherwise we're just in the realm of pure speculation,
and frankly, I just don't find that useful.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
I would love more useful information.
Speaker 13 (34:15):
This is why I'm angry at Pam BONDI I think
there should be all the useful information possible. But the
same thing holds true for people who are making claims
on the other side. Otherwise, I can claim that he
was working for a cadre of space aliens who are
blackmailing high profile Americans in order to protect from a
future invasion, and there's just about as much evidence for
that as many of the claims that are being made
on the other side.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
All right, well, let's talk about that is made requires evidence.
Speaker 13 (34:35):
Any claim it's being made requires actual evidence, and at
the very least, in the absence of evidence, the incredible
names of the people that I can either trust or
not trust, ranging from again the President of the United
States and vice presidents to the head of the FBI,
the AG and the deputy head of the FBI.
Speaker 12 (34:50):
Well, I think it's very hard to say those people
need to come out and put their names on these
claims when they're working for an administration this one and
the one before that want that to come out. You're
asking something the world countermand the.
Speaker 1 (35:03):
People they work for. How am I supposed to falsify
their claims? Now we're working in the realm of the younger.
Speaker 12 (35:07):
But you're look, Ben, you can't come to me and say,
everybody I know says he killed himself and then I
respond saying, I actually have my own sources who say
he didn't.
Speaker 5 (35:16):
And then you say, well.
Speaker 12 (35:17):
Your sources are not not valid because they won't put
their names on it. Okay, go down the lists, and
then we'll talk about why they might be saying that.
Speaker 13 (35:25):
My sources are the President of the United States, the
Vice President of the United States, Cash matell, the head
of the FBI, Dan Bongingo, the deputy head of the
FBI and Pambondi, the attorney General. And those aren't just
my sources, they're everybody's sources because they publicly came out
and side this.
Speaker 12 (35:37):
Okay, Trump hasn't specifically weighed in on that specific aspect
of it. We've all seen the limited things that Trump
has said and tweeted on this, and Jade Vance was
calling for transparency and suggesting otherwise prior to taking office.
He hasn't commented on this so far.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
So he's not somebody.
Speaker 12 (35:50):
You've got cash, You've got Dan, and you've got Pam,
and we've already discussed that memo in full detail. I'm
talking about people behind the scenes who prior to this,
to Trump taking office. I'm not going to get too specific,
but trust me, I have high level sources who have
said they don't believe any of that any of that,
so and I'm not going to out them for purposes
(36:10):
of convincing you.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
But you're telling me name them. I know I'm not
going to.
Speaker 5 (36:13):
I don't have authorization.
Speaker 12 (36:14):
And then you say, well, I dismiss all of that
because you.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
Won't name them.
Speaker 13 (36:17):
Hold on, Megan, I'm not saying you should name them.
I'm saying they should name themselves because otherwise they are
being complicit in one of the greatest cover ups in
the history.
Speaker 5 (36:24):
It's easy for you to say that, it's very easy.
Speaker 12 (36:28):
Why because you'll have your job and you'll have your millions.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
Would no matter what they mean, give me a break.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
So Emily he's saying, there, oh, well, if if people
think differently, then they should come forward, as if that's
a casual and easy thing to do, and you know,
wouldn't have any potential personal consequences for them onsoever.
Speaker 4 (36:47):
And we all agree with that. By the way, yes,
of course, come forward.
Speaker 6 (36:50):
But again it's not the rationalist perspective to say because
people won't put their name on it, it doesn't it
sort of undermines their credit.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
It's like, if you.
Speaker 6 (37:02):
Go deep into this story, I mean, people have died,
by the way, people who may have had things to say,
have died under suspicious circumstances. Beyond just Jeffrey Epstein, there
are a lot of and I don't know that those
add up to a conspiracy theory, but they're worth thinking about.
And it's obviously true that when the stakes of something
are so high, when you have the former Labor Secretary
(37:26):
saying and then not denying. They also talked about this
not denying really that he said Epstein belonged to intelligence.
He was told that Epstein belonged to intelligence and to
give that plea deal that Epstein got back in two
thousand and seven. We have that over and over again
over the series of years. Then, I mean, there's nothing
again rational about saying okay, because these people won't come forward,
(37:51):
then we have to just go on the evidence that
people in the government are telling us to trust that.
I find out the thing strange and to me it
does seem like someone trying to get from point A
to point B.
Speaker 4 (38:04):
They want to justify the end.
Speaker 6 (38:06):
And maybe for Ben it's partially because he's deeply frustrated
with the like weird little alt right mouth breathers who
are using this for purposes of like rank antisemitism.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
Maybe, and that's an explanation.
Speaker 6 (38:22):
So why someone would stretch from point A to point
B by just deferring to the president who himself.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
Is implicated at all of this.
Speaker 6 (38:31):
I mean Pam Bondi, who was State A G of
Florida when charges further investigations and chargers could have potentially happened.
Speaker 4 (38:38):
As Juli K.
Speaker 6 (38:39):
Brown has pointed out, it's not a it is not
in any way a persuasive defense.
Speaker 5 (38:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
Well, and just your point about the many questions. And
some other people who also died under questionable circumstances. Jean
Luke Brunel was a pedophile and criminal and was a
close associate of Jeffrey Epstein, who allegedly sent Epstein multi
underage girls I think twelve year old girls for his
birthday to sexually abuse. Allegedly, he also killed himself in prison.
(39:11):
And oh, interesting, the cameras were off there too, huh,
and it was not also recorded, So you know, you've
got that, You've got all of the questionable circumstances surrounding
Epstein's death. Oh, those cameras happened, me up. Oh the
prison guards happened to be asleep.
Speaker 7 (39:27):
Oh you know.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
The official autopsy says, oh, it was it was a
hanging in it was a suicide. But when his brother
had this further investigated, they said, I've never seen a
suicide that would be consistent with the particular fractions of
these bones in the neck. So yeah, to just pretend
like none of that is real, Like it's all just
a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 5 (39:47):
It's grotesque.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
And you know, the last thing I'll say here, Soger
tweeted this out yesterday, and I think this also bears mentioning.
Here are the list, he says, of Israeli prime ministers
linked to Epstein. Number one, Shimon for As introduced Ahood
Barrock to Epstein number two. Ahod Olmert named as an
Epstein associate by USBI number three. Ah Hood Brock connections
(40:08):
too vast. To paraphrase, he's the one who really had
the deepest Epstein connections from Israel and net Yahoo met
with JP Morgan after apparent Epstein intro. So there's just
you know, we're just supposed to dismiss all of that.
That's just a conspiracy that there could be any there
there that's worthy of further investigation. And the most suspicious
(40:30):
thing from pan BONDI I thought is when she got
asked about the potential Intel connections, she played dumb like, oh,
I haven't really looked into that.
Speaker 5 (40:39):
As if as if she had no idea.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
That anyone had speculated that, or there were any potential
ties there or whatever. I didn't really think about that,
didn't really look into that.
Speaker 5 (40:47):
Okay, girl, didn't.
Speaker 7 (40:48):
She say it?
Speaker 4 (40:49):
She was like, I'll have to get back to you.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
I have to get back to you. Why don't you
please get back to us, pan Bondy get back.
Speaker 4 (40:55):
We're still waiting on that.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Incredible All right, let's go ahead and move on to
Congressman Rocanna, who introduced this amendment to try to force transparency.
Unfortunately was voted down yesterday, but want to get all
the details on that. So we are fortunate to be
joined this morning by Congressman Rocanna, who, as I just mentioned,
we can put B two up on the screen here, guys,
(41:18):
had introduced an amendment to the Genius Act that would
require both the preservation of all Epstein records, would also
require the Attorney General to release all Epstein records within
thirty days.
Speaker 5 (41:28):
And Congressman I know we.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Have a not positive update on the status of that amendment.
So first of all, thank you for joining us in.
Second of all, if you could just bring us up
to speed here.
Speaker 14 (41:38):
Sure, I introduced a pretty simple amendment. It would demand
the full release of the Epstein calls. The Rules Committee
voted on it last night. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated
all four Democrats voted for it. Ralph Norman and Republican
to his credit, voted for it, but seven Republicans voted
(41:58):
against it. And they're basically choosing to protect rich and
powerful men over the assaulted, abused, and abandoned young women.
Speaker 7 (42:11):
And it's really appalling.
Speaker 6 (42:13):
Did they try to negotiate anything with you and maybe
say all right that thirty days, let's make it sixty days,
or were they just basically, other than Ralph Norman flat
nose on it. On the amendment, there were flat nose.
Speaker 14 (42:25):
I mean they made the argument that, oh, it's not
Germane to the Genius Act. But if you look at
the Genius Act, actually it has such broad findings about
the Internet that it is Germane because a lot of
these crimes took place over the Internet. So they could
have that's just an excuse. They could have easily voted
part or they could have offered their own amendment, or
(42:47):
they could have said, roh, we'll bring yours for some
similar amendment for a vote on the House floor. But look,
the reality is, and everyone knows this in this town,
that these are people donors to politicians.
Speaker 7 (43:02):
These are people who play.
Speaker 14 (43:03):
Golf with the elite in Washington, and these are foreign
leaders that we do not want to embarrass. These are
people connected to our or other intelligence agencies that we
do not want to take on. So there is a
protection here going on and rich and powerful men.
Speaker 2 (43:22):
Congressman, one of the things that has been theorized based
on a number of connections here is a potential link
between Jeffrey Epstein and Masad. Is that something that you
think is a possibility. What is your view there?
Speaker 14 (43:35):
Well, look, no one knows, because that's exactly why we
need the files released. I mean, the reality is if frankly,
if you're the Massagna, would be calling to the release
of these files unless you have something to hide, why
not if you really believe that there is a conspiracy
therein this is not true, then release the files, release
the interview memos, release the evidence.
Speaker 7 (43:57):
Now I understand people say, well, the policy.
Speaker 14 (44:01):
Is that you shouldn't release things unless you charge someone,
And there's a lot of validity to having that policy.
You don't want government just destroying people's lives if they're
innocent by having a media campaign. But in this case,
given that the President of the United States campaigned on
the release, given that the Attorney General said that there
is a client list. Given all of the allegations of
(44:23):
agencies involved and foreign governments involved, the president should say
as a national security matter, as a manner of public interest,
I'm making an exception and releasing all the files.
Speaker 7 (44:35):
For sunlight on this.
Speaker 6 (44:37):
If Democrats retake the House of Representatives in the midterms,
are there avenues that you can or plan to pursue
in order to get further transparency from the federal government
on this?
Speaker 14 (44:51):
Absolutly, I'm going to pursue it now. I'm not going
to rest I'm going to pursue it in our oversight
committee to see if we can get the the files
through the oversight Committee. I think we need to have
votes in committees, if not on the House floor, and
you see with Ralph Norman there will be some Republicans
willing to join us. And certainly if we take back
(45:12):
the House, we should be subpoenaing these files, subpoenaing Pam Bondi,
subpoenaing anyone involved. But the Democrats now should be pushing
for the release of these files. And people say, well,
why didn't you push earlier during Trump one or Biden?
The reality is You didn't have an attorney general look
at the evidence to say there is a client list.
(45:34):
You didn't have a president of the United States say
we're going to release it, and so there is now
a public outcrime. Regardless of how you felt about it
in the past while the process was going on. Now
we should have a clear consensus that this should be released,
whether under Trump or a Democrat, it just should come out.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
There are obvious connections between Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein,
who was on the plane I think twenty six seven
time something like that. There was a worker on the
island who said that he saw former President Clinton on
that island. President Clinton has denied any wrongdoing there. There
are also obvious connections between Jeffrey Epstein and the current president,
(46:12):
including Epstein says that they were busties for over a decade.
Trump himself, you know, has this infamous quote about how
close they are and how much Jeffrey Epstein loves beautiful
women and particularly those on the younger side. He himself
was on the plane some seven times, et cetera. Are
Democrats Are your Democratic colleagues on board with full transparency here?
(46:36):
Do you feel like there's sort of unanimity in the caucus,
or do you have some people who are a little
more uncomfortable about what potentially could be revealed, or just
feel like, you know what, this isn't the fight to pick,
This isn't the thing to focus on right now.
Speaker 14 (46:49):
I think initially they were saying this isn't the fight
to take and they thought, oh, this is you know,
engaging in conspiracy theories.
Speaker 7 (46:57):
But the reality is it's conspiratorial.
Speaker 14 (47:01):
There are rich and powerful men who, like I said, abused, assaulted,
and abandoned young girls, and the public has a right
to make to know that there's no impunity for them.
And now I think there is a greater consensus that
the Democrats need to be on the side of a
full release. The Rules Committee wouldn't have taken up my
(47:21):
amendment if leadership and Jim McGovern didn't show leadership. So
at this point, the Democrats are in full release. But
what I think is important is we don't just make
this a one or two day effort that we are
capable of relentlessly driving for the release of these files.
Speaker 2 (47:40):
Let's go ahead and move on to the New York
City mayor's race, which has proved to be extraordinary. Zorn
Mumdani coming from out of nowhere to defeat Cuomo in
the Democratic primary quite overwhelming. I think it was ultimately
like a twelve point margin, wasn't even really close. He
was able to clear after the first round that Zoron
would be successful. He did something that you know, leftists
(48:04):
have always sort of hoped they would be able to
pull off, which he's truly changed the electorate. You know,
the Surgeon youth voting was really extraordinary. But Andrew Cuomo,
even though he was defeated in the Democratic primary, has
now officially announced that he is going to continue into
the general election. He posted a rather interesting launch video yesterday.
Speaker 5 (48:23):
Let's go ahead and take a look at that.
Speaker 15 (48:25):
Hello, I'm Andrew Cuomo, and unless you've been living under
a rock, you probably know that the Democratic primary did
not go the way I had hoped. The fight to
save our city isn't over. Only thirteen percent of New
Yorkers voted in the June primary. The general election is
in November, and I am in it to win it.
(48:46):
My opponent, mister Mandani, offers slick slogans but no real
solutions for.
Speaker 7 (48:51):
The next few months.
Speaker 15 (48:53):
It's my responsibility to earn your vote.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
So Connerson, I'll give you a moment to catch your
brass after the force of that charismatic presentation. But my
question for you was, hey, what happened to vote blue?
No matter who this guy won the Democratic primary? Why
is it so hard not only for Andrew Cuomo we
all know is a complete egomaniac to get on board,
but so many Democrats are, you know, twiddling their thumbs
(49:18):
and refusing to endorse Zoran even after the Democratic voter said, hey,
this is our guy.
Speaker 14 (49:24):
Well, thats why the Democratic establishment is so out of
touch with the grassroots of our party. Zoran won because
he ran a brilliant campaign. He talked about the high rents,
he talked about high grocery prices, he talked about the
high costs and transportation, all the things that we didn't
emphasize nearly enough in twenty twenty four. He talked about
the moral stakes of the bombing in Gaza and the
(49:49):
killing of women and children there and how he was
opposed to that, and he didn't back away from that,
and he inspired a lot of people because of his campaign,
and so the obvious reaction should have been okay, he won,
Let's get behind him, let's endorse them. Yet we still
have Democratic leaders who have not endorsed him. He's obviously
(50:09):
going to win for mayor. I mean, the billionaires trying
to stop him are not going to succeed. And it's
just embarrassing that you have this old guard clinging on,
trying to cling on to power. You know, Napoleon once
said it's worse than a clime. It's a blunder. And
(50:29):
that's how I feel about the old guard. It's not
their amorlity, it's their stupidity about politics that is sort
of staggering.
Speaker 6 (50:38):
And what's it been like in the House Democratic Caucus
over the last few weeks as people have digested mom
Donnie's surprise win. I mean, there's something interesting just about
Andrew Cuomo getting in the race, meaning he thinks he
will have endorsements and donors and all of that. So, Congressman,
what's your sense of where your fellow Democrats as you
(50:59):
speak with them, are people trying to learn from Zoron anymore?
Speaker 4 (51:04):
They have?
Speaker 6 (51:04):
They just landed on dismissing it and getting behind Cuomo.
Speaker 4 (51:08):
What's going on?
Speaker 14 (51:10):
Yes, the you know, some are learning, it's the progressive
caucus that are that are learning uh and the the
the We're actually meeting him tomorrow morning at the DNC
Breakfast Club. But you know, it's the same divide in
this party. Those of us who want to move the
(51:32):
party in a different direction. We're against these overseas wars,
including the war in Iran where I led the War
Paris Solution with Thomas Massey, against funding that who's bombing
in Gaza, who are for taxing wealth, who are for
having rent caps and stopping Wall Street from buying single
(51:52):
family homes.
Speaker 7 (51:53):
Here is that progressive movement.
Speaker 14 (51:54):
And of course they'd say, look, let's learn from what
Mamdani did in terms of social media, in terms of issues.
And then there's the camp that says, no, no, no,
this is too far. We don't this is what's wrong
with the Democratic Party. And that's you know, the Democrats
just have to be open to having this fight within
our party. I mean, yes, we have to come together
(52:15):
on things like.
Speaker 7 (52:15):
The Epstein file. But there's a divine in the party
and the question is are we going to.
Speaker 14 (52:19):
Go in a progressive direction or are we going to
go with more of the same.
Speaker 7 (52:23):
Yeah, and I think that should be fought out and Congressman.
Speaker 2 (52:26):
You know, in my opinion and in the opinion of
New Yorkers, in courting the pulling and opinion of Americans,
the things he has proposed, his specific policy proposals are
not radical at all. I mean, five grocery stores, what now,
this is the Soviet Union?
Speaker 11 (52:41):
You know?
Speaker 5 (52:41):
Affordable childcare, oh.
Speaker 2 (52:42):
My god, crazy, like the rest of the developed world
being able to afford housing, like a rent freeze for
already rent stabilized apartments.
Speaker 5 (52:50):
I mean, none of this is really crazy.
Speaker 2 (52:52):
And so it seems to me that the two things
that moderates really object to it is number one, just
the label socialist, which you know. To me, I'm like, okay,
well you don't like the label, but let's deal with
what his What specific policies do you actually think are
so extreme that you can't even exist in the same
party with him? As Dean Phillips said, But to me,
the real divide is over Israel.
Speaker 5 (53:14):
And you had Hakeem Jeffries.
Speaker 2 (53:16):
Let's put this up on the screen. This would be five.
He's talking to punch bowl. He still has not backed zoron,
which I think is extraordinary from a democratic leader. And
obviously he represents New York and he said this thing
that really infuriated me because.
Speaker 5 (53:31):
It's just dishonest.
Speaker 2 (53:32):
So Punchbul says, Mam Donnie's past use of the phrase
globalized into fado will be quote part of our discussion,
according to Jeffries. And the reason this is dishonest is
because mom Donnie never has used that. There's no evidence
he even ever.
Speaker 5 (53:46):
Used that phrase, but he was asked about.
Speaker 2 (53:49):
It and gave his you know, understanding of what it
means and why, you know, why it lands different in
different contexts, et cetera. And yet there's been so many
sort of smears and lies of him, I mean directly
as well amophobic attacks, like from Senator Kirsten Jillibrand that
a sort of mythology has grown up that he is
out there using this particular phrase, and you know, is
(54:10):
apparently part of what's keeping Hakim Jeffries from getting behind
him and outright endorsing the Democratic nominee chosen by the voters.
Speaker 14 (54:17):
Well, every Democratic leader should endorse Mamdani. Mamdani has clearly
said that he does not believe that globalize the entifada
should be used as a phrase, and that he is
going to make the safety of Jewish Americans a very,
very high priority, just like he's going to make the
safety of Muslim Americans and Indo Americans and Christian Americans
a high priority. Brad Lander, a Jewish American, endorsed him.
(54:42):
I am no doubt that Zorn is going to work
with the Jewish American community to hear concerns about anti Semitism,
and he understands anti Semitism violence has increased, So I
think we need to have the facts now, you know,
there may be a difference. I don't believe that people
should be using the word globalized in Tapada, and I'm
(55:04):
condemned it. And if people in the party want to
say that they can and still support Mamdani, I don't
understand why there is this.
Speaker 7 (55:14):
Hesitancy to support him.
Speaker 14 (55:15):
When he's going to be the mayor, when he's connecting
with a lot of people, and by the way, he's
had the votes of a lot of Jewish Americans.
Speaker 2 (55:21):
How much do you think that Israel is going to
be a central dividing line in the party because you
have an extraordinary distance between the base of the party
and how they feel about Israel and our policy vis
of the Israel at this point, and Democratic leadership is
evidenced by Chuck Schumer, Hakim Jeffries, etc. And it seems
to me like this sort of schism just cannot persist.
Speaker 14 (55:43):
Well, I think it goes to the sense of do
we believe in human rights? Do we believe in the
politics that is free of any special special interests? And
I think there are a few key places which are
huge divides. You support US government funding going to net
Nyahu in the offensive war in Gaza. Of course, I
(56:05):
was one of forty or fifty members of Congress who
vot didn't know on that.
Speaker 7 (56:09):
There are a lot of people today who if asked in.
Speaker 14 (56:11):
The Democratic Party would still defend their vote or say
they would have supported that funding.
Speaker 7 (56:16):
That is a huge moral line, much like the Iraq War.
Speaker 14 (56:20):
Do you believe that the United States should recognize Palestinian
self determination in the Palestinian State? There are many Democrats
who will not believe support that, even you know, I
don't believe Hamas should be part of the Palestinian state,
but I think we should recognize a non Amas Palestinian state.
And so those are two the lines that do you
(56:40):
believe in unroped and the funding of Unrock there. So
I think it is a moral issue similar to the
Iraq War, and there are a couple fault lines which
make it clear which side someone is on.
Speaker 2 (56:54):
Thomerson, finally, I have to ask you about this appearance
you did with Congressman Ran Fine, newly elected Republican. Well,
let's take a look at the ending of your appearance,
and I think part of why people objected to it
so much that we can get into some of his statements.
I'll get your respond Let's go ahead and take a look.
Speaker 16 (57:13):
Well, first of all, let me just say I am
one of those people who's extraordinarily proud of being American.
One of the reasons I'm proud is you can have
a democrat of Hindu faith standing side by side with
a Republican of Jewish faith having a civil conversation on
your show, and we need more of that in this
country to bring this country together.
Speaker 2 (57:32):
So a noble sentiment. But of course you're talking about
Randy Fine, and we can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 5 (57:36):
Shortly thereafter, he said.
Speaker 2 (57:38):
To ilhan Omar, I'm sure it's difficult to see us
welcome the killer of so many of your fellow Muslim terrorists,
So calling a member of Congress that you know you
serve with and he serves with a Muslim terrorist. But
to your point about the bad timing, it's not like
this was the first thing that he had said. In
a May twenty twenty five interview. He said, it starts
with recognizing we have a quote Muslim problem. It starts
(58:00):
with recognizing that violent Islam is not the exception. He
had already called Rashida to leave and zoron Pumdani Muslim terrorists.
He had called for the nuking of Gaza, He celebrated
the murder of a Turkish American activist in.
Speaker 5 (58:15):
The West Bank.
Speaker 2 (58:16):
I could go on, but I guess did you know
about these things?
Speaker 5 (58:20):
What were your thoughts going into this interview?
Speaker 8 (58:24):
Now?
Speaker 7 (58:24):
Chris Womo will call me on. As you know, I
go on old media. It's one of the dangers of
doing it.
Speaker 14 (58:28):
He said, can you debate a Republican member of Congress
on the Medicaid cuts? I said, I'm happy to. I
got there. Randy Fine was there. He's been in Congress
for a whole of four months. I had no idea
candidly who he was. And so Chris Cuomo does this
whole spiel about how people aren't proud of being Americans
and Democrats in particular in polling aren't proud of being Americans,
(58:51):
And I say, well, look, I'm really proud of being American.
And the fact that you have a hymn the American
Jewish American Democrat Republican on the show debating is proved
bet And then we have a total conversation where I
thought I got the best of him on the Medicaid
cut and no one pays attention to that, and of
course they have the club, but his statements are bigoted.
I've said that, and then afterwards I people my phone
(59:14):
blew up and people started sending me all the things
he said. Yeah, and of course I condemned them, but
you know, they're four hundred and thirty five members of Congress.
Speaker 7 (59:21):
This guy's been around for four months.
Speaker 14 (59:23):
And when you go on a lot of these shows
and you big people, I don't vet their entire record.
Speaker 5 (59:29):
Yeah, I got you, do you think you know?
Speaker 2 (59:31):
One of the things that really bothers me is that
Rashida's leave was censured by the Congress for saying from
the River to the Sea. There's a whole flop over
something you know, she had said about investigations into Palestinian
activists in Michigan, where she was smeared as an anti Semite,
even though there's zero evidence that she is an anti Semite.
And then here's this guy who has said the most
(59:52):
disgusting things you can imagine, I mean literally calling for
nuking Gaza and starving villions and saying there are no
innocent palace in civilians, smearing multiple of his colleagues at
this point as quote unquote Muslim terrorists, and it's just
like barely a blip. I mean, I'm not necessarily blaming
(01:00:13):
you for not knowing that he had said all of
these things, because it gets no coverage in the news media,
Like there's very little outrage when he says these disgraceful, bigoted,
genocidal things. And yet anytime there's even a question, like
Zoran saying, responding to a question about globalized Nantifada, this
is like a major news cycle. So I would appreciate
(01:00:35):
you speaking to that kind of disparity too. And the
reaction between these various sentiments.
Speaker 14 (01:00:40):
Well, I think it's changing. I think it's changing because
of independent media. I think it's changing because of social media.
Trust mean, MiPhone blew up after that interview, so people
are paying attention.
Speaker 7 (01:00:50):
But you're right, there's an asymmetry.
Speaker 14 (01:00:53):
And if you're a woman of color as Rashida talib
Is or Elen omar Is and you're speaking out Palestinian rights,
and especially if you're a Muslim faith, there's no doubt
that you face a far greater scrutiny, a.
Speaker 7 (01:01:08):
Far greater uh condemnation.
Speaker 14 (01:01:12):
Uh then uh then if you're speaking out in support
of of of.
Speaker 7 (01:01:19):
Of Israel or net and Yahoo. Now I am not
I was not for the censoring of Rashida to Leave.
Speaker 14 (01:01:24):
Obviously, I don't think that we should be playing this
game of censoring comments of members of Congress on either side,
because we should condemn them.
Speaker 7 (01:01:34):
They should be awfully condemned.
Speaker 14 (01:01:35):
But you know, I'm a pretty big on free speech,
and I fear that the line can get blurry and
and and and if.
Speaker 5 (01:01:42):
You start rorist Muslim, and I.
Speaker 14 (01:01:46):
Obviously think it's worse than what Rashida to Leave did.
And so I guess if you're going to censor Rashida,
we can, we should censor him. But my point is,
you know, at some point We've got to recognize that.
Speaker 7 (01:01:57):
That that Democrats been fit.
Speaker 14 (01:02:00):
From free speech, because really the speech that often gets
censored is a speech of people speaking up for Palestinian
human rights or questioning the establishment. And the tragedy is
and the appalling part was the centering of Rashida Tale.
But certainly there should be more outrage at what Fine
has done and declared, demand for him to retract and apologize,
(01:02:23):
and it should get more attention.
Speaker 4 (01:02:25):
Yeah, from Speaker Johnson.
Speaker 6 (01:02:27):
That's another from other Republicans and from Speaker Johnson too,
who have to my knowledge not said much at all
about Randy fun.
Speaker 2 (01:02:35):
Yeah, exactly right, all right, Harnson, We know you have
a heart out always appreciate your time and your willingness
to engage with us.
Speaker 5 (01:02:41):
It's great to see you.
Speaker 7 (01:02:42):
Thank you, thanks for having me.
Speaker 5 (01:02:43):
Yeah, a pleasure
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.