Rick Wilson

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey, folks, We're back once again on Lincoln Square, Live
with You today. I am delighted to be joined by
my friend Harry Littman, brilliant legal analysts, a guy you've
seen on MSNBC, a guy you've read across the board,
a man who understands the inner workings of all the
legal processes. And the one I wanted to talk to
about today was is happening right down the street from

(00:25):
me in Tallahassee, Florida, where Todd Blanche is offering a
bribe to join Maxwell to not testify against Donald Trump
or say what she knows. That's at least my non
legal assessment of it. But Harry, thanks for coming on,
And I just wanted to start with that. I mean,
this seems to me to be a story where they
are moving very quickly to tie up loose ends and

(00:46):
join Maxwell in the midst of this burgeoning Epstein scandal.
Seems to be a very very big, untied loose.

Speaker 2 (00:52):
End totally, but an untitled loss end in a political scandal.
So let me just start from a lot law enforcement perspective.
I do know the things you said, or I knew
how it used to work. This ain't how it used
to work. First of all the Deputy Attorney General himself,
but more on this sort of roving political mission, that's

(01:14):
all you can really call it. Now for Trump to
try to presumably push back on, we've had now over
the last few days, Rick what three four attestations that
they're testees and he's the wingman. It's not a crime,
and there doesn't seem to be a file open, So
what the hell is the deputy attorney general who runs

(01:37):
the department and things come to them doing paying a
visit to Zula Maxwell. It just they're not executing the law,
and it just doesn't fit in the job description that
said there's one or two things going on, maybe in
a way we don't know there's some like file open.
By the way, if that had been the case, one
hundred percent forbidden for Bondi to have told Trump he's

(02:03):
in the file. Of course, that's under the rules they've
now laid waste to. But it does seem to me that,
you know, we're talking about how big and ugly can
it go, and not in a criminal way. So really,
Todd blance Trump's old defense attorney, I think is today
down in your neighborhood being this current defense attorney. That

(02:27):
is what what's he even trying? I see it how
it helps Trump's political prospects. Julaane says, Oh no, they
weren't such friends. By the way, can I have a pardon? Now?
Sure that would stink. It might not persuade anyone. But
the one thing it isn't Rick call me a fuddy daddy.
But it's just not what the d o J does.

(02:48):
They're just there you you would send in the old
Washington days, you know, a Lloyd Cutler a Vernon. That
guy's doing a personal errand that ain't how it works,
not the presidency. What you can ask is he trying
to execute as the presidential power has anyone? So this
is all funky and a novelge?

Speaker 1 (03:09):
Yeah, I mean in the old days, in the before times, right,
And maybe I'm right on this, maybe I'm wrong, but
I'd love to hear you. Wouldn't the Office of Legal
Counsel inside the DOJ have said, oh no, Chief, you're
not going down there. I mean, wouldn't there have been
some ethics and legal restrictions and legal advice inside of
DJ to say this is out of your lane. You

(03:31):
can't do this.

Speaker 2 (03:32):
So two points. You wouldn't have needed the Office of
Legal Counsel to do an opinion. First, no deputy would
ask to do it the deputy. The deputy travels to
give keynote addresses. But second, there is someone who does it,
the ethics advisor. Do you remember a couple of fires? Summarily, Oh,
you have to go now why Article two powers excuse me,

(03:52):
but the very person whose job it is to exactly
tell the deputy that's not ethical, that's not legal, that
person has been sacked. So one hundred percent they're now
committed in this roving political mission. It's tied. It's it's
really it's not law that they are doing.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
So, I mean, I hate even asking this question because
I feel my eve and dumb asking this question. But
isn't it illegal for them to offer her a quid
pro quo?

Speaker 2 (04:24):
The answer is yes, and it's illegal for Trump to
do it as well, and all the Supreme Court has
said it's a lot and it totally changes the landscape
that he can't be tried for it. He has immunity.
But if you flat out, uh, makea broh, you do this,
and I'll do that. It is a as I construe it.
And there's a lot of ways where you can exercise

(04:46):
the pardon power broad as it is in a way
that's criminal. What you just said is the easiest. But
of course you know they can be counting, as he's
done several times on the good graces of the Supreme
Court to say, we don't care. It does seem to matter.
By the way, and some of these things that it
be Trump who does the action and not her. But

(05:06):
the short point all of this stuff to me, Rick
has this whole political base and then depending where they're
going with it, legal implications. But if he comes to
her and says, as you would think he would o casually, Lane,
but I'll do it at the end of the administration,
because before then MAGA base will quiet. Here's your deal.

(05:28):
The short answer is illegal. And but but in a
way that would not be enforceable. He could make it happen,
but all of it would word leak out. Would MAGA
stand for it? You know, this whole scandal is different,
not because he's behaved worse or differently, but because you
have his home base all up in arms because of

(05:49):
the way it funnels into some very for them, you know,
essential tenets of what what the world is?

Speaker 1 (05:58):
I mean, I was doing some show prep on this
last night, and I was reading some stuff about the case.
This was not a case with a lot of deep questions.
They had her on a lot of the charges in
which she has now been in prison. This was dead
to rights. She was involved and shaped a child trafficking
ring and a sex trafficking ring on Jeffrey Epstein's behalf.

(06:22):
She was a conscious actor in this entire criminal enterprise.
This case was not like, oh well, wow, there's a
lot of conflicting evidence here. It was pretty open and shut.
Right talked to us about.

Speaker 2 (06:35):
Yeah, And that gives rise to a few important points.
First of all, that's right she if you look at
the indictment, and this matters because of the total phony
Bologne gambit they're playing to say, oh, let's uncover the
grand jury materials from that case. They had nothing to
do with any customers or pals or homies or wingman.

Speaker 1 (06:57):
The travelers.

Speaker 2 (06:59):
They said that Epstein and Julane and others on his
team basically, and Juliane has a huge role. Right, She
finds the underage girl, she grooms them.

Speaker 1 (07:10):
They you know, they have to go and get more
new biles.

Speaker 2 (07:14):
Yeah, it was. It was not a case that she
had much chance of winning. So you're exactly right, and
they had her basically dead to rights. But you know
what they didn't have. It was a case that had
nothing to do with any of Epstein's pals or fellow travelers,
whatever you want to call them. Even the sex and

(07:35):
the indictment, it's all with Epstein. So when the reason
that it's under coel by Marine Comy has since been
fired is in case they want to try Maxwell again.
These were charges they developed in twenty nineteen. We're talking
about the review that occurred in two thousand and six
of some three hundred gigabytes in the in the FBI system.

(07:58):
That's like a million and a half pages. Oh it's
not only that. It is this a small slice of everything.
It's a completely the Van Diagram, doesn't it's.

Speaker 1 (08:07):
A lot of cakes. It's not just a slice.

Speaker 2 (08:10):
I mean, they're hope and maybe they'll be because they
don't have any business. It's all politics, right, why would
they be able to open up the grand jury record?
But the bigger point is it's just not what MAGA
and now America are looking to find.

Speaker 1 (08:25):
Out, so they as you, as you mentioned just now,
they did fire Maureen Komi, who was a prosecutor on
both the Diddy case and the Maxwell case and the
Epstein case. It, I mean, Okham's razor, as I like
to always say, is sharp and true. It strikes me
as unusual they would fire that particular prosecutor just as

(08:49):
they're doing the rollout of saying the Epstein materials are done.
It's over, it's dead. Don't talk about it anymore. It's
all in the review mirror, Shut up in color. What's
your what's your take on on both the timing of
that firing and the intentionality behind it, because again it
one more time, it's like tweaks that like conspiracy nugget

(09:12):
in my in my brain where it's like, this is
not a coincidence, and it's not just because he has
animates towards Jim Comy right.

Speaker 2 (09:20):
Right, there could be a nice little addition to right too.
You know, I'm going with more than unlikely, it's it's inconceivable.
There Obviously this was part of a setup, and they
have been looking thrashing, really looking around pretty desperately. Whom
can we either blame or divert attention from and anybody's

(09:44):
good any port in the storm Obama he's the one
who really did it, or all the Democrats, and they've
trotted out different people kmy who, by the way, her
her letter when she walked out and told that the
people to keep the faith was beautiful. But yes, this
is just many different ways that I think anyone with

(10:06):
any sort of sophistication wouldn't buy for half a second.
So in some ways they're gambling any way they can
on just pulling it over the eyes of Maga and
moving on. You know, you also saw him, do you know,
upbraide them and say enough of this and try you know,
he's really trying every strategy but firing her and by

(10:27):
the way, firing any career prosecutor that just basically does
not happen unless they're hands in the till. And so
all of it is unusual. All of it's for political reasons.
What's the political reason for Komi? Pretty damn easy to discern.

Speaker 1 (10:43):
Yeah, it is not a deep mystery that will never
be penetrated.

Speaker 2 (10:47):
These these guys are not are not subtle in they're political.

Speaker 1 (10:51):
You know, to use the old Watergate quote from Markop.
These were not smart guys and things got out of hand.

Speaker 2 (10:56):
Yeah, mistake for me.

Speaker 1 (10:58):
And yeah, in that big disc tracshapalooza we're having right now,
the White House is throwing everything they can at the wall.
Every single day. It's all like, you know, everything. So
yesterday they tried again by wheeling Tulci Gabbard out to
sort of try to kick off a revisionist history of

(11:19):
the Russia's involvement in the twenty sixteen election and to
create a massive conspiracy out of whole cloth that included Brennan, Obama, Komy,
the Clinton's my dog catcher down the street, I mean,
everybody who could conceivably be related to the story. And
they're talking about charging them with treason, talking about charging

(11:42):
them with felony crimes in this thing. Walk us through
the absurdities of this, of this particular case. I mean,
when DOJ gets the bit in its teeth on orders
from the White House, which they follow these days and
not independently behave, I wonder how much how much intimidation
they're trying to accomplish, or if this is just going

(12:04):
to be a two day story and it's going to
blow up and then disappear like a like a fart
and a hurricane.

Speaker 2 (12:09):
How much time you got, I mean, the absurdity of
the trees and peace. Now, of course this is a
corrupt DJ and they've already brought charges yep that have
no basis against political figures in fact in New Jersey
among other places, so that we know they're capable of it.
So that becomes kind of a political question you can initiate.

(12:31):
I mean, it's dishonest to do it. You're not allowed
to do it unless you really have the goods. You're
probably a conviction. But to my mind, if it's a
two day story, it's the Obama parts a two day story.
They're looking for some story to quell the store. But okay,
let's just indulge it for a moment, and treason is

(12:52):
aid and comfort to an enemy you're at war with
under the constitution.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
Has the death penalty involved?

Speaker 2 (12:59):
What you know? The it doesn't remotely begin to hunt.
But I also think, you know, Obama kind of came
in like the add on in the room with a
in me a frigg and break that would basically be
the add to the country. So it's a non starter.
I think Rick not because a corrupt DJ couldn't try

(13:21):
to do it. They're doing it against other anyone they
see in including trying to harm in different ways as
part of the old Guard. But it's just it ain't
going anywhere. The big thing here, though, is all the
plays from the playbook they're pulling out have had some
success in the past when all they had to worry

(13:42):
about was, you know, keeping the base in line, whereas
you know, yeah, they lives were up in arms and
you can't do this and they can't do it. But
this is a whole different thing because it is their
home team. So it comes down to the question anybody
gonna buy that? And we do know we've I've seen
some pretty prominent figures in manga world, you know, ban

(14:05):
and we're even in Congress, you know, who are skittish,
to say the least over manga's discontent and what it's
clamoring for all these things though, I mean again, and
I come back to my sort of first point he
headed submission, which is they are not doing law. They're

(14:26):
doing free roving politics that they have no business to do.
But that raises the political question, will this dows the
temperature or make MAGA just forget it. And the evidence
of the last few days and I would defer to you,
but the evidence of the last few days is nfw.
They found something they care about more than Trump and

(14:46):
until you get to the bottom of the pile, they're
not going to be happy. And one final point is
this is what's made the defamation lawsuit so stupid on
his part because you find the pile thereof is that letter.
We know anyone with any sophistication and Washington knows the letters,
Rail knows d OJ looked at it. So rather than

(15:07):
saying something like it was stupid, I know him, then
we cut. But you know that's a juvenile note put
at all, and in the lawsuit anyway on the line,
and he's gonna be humiliated now with what political effect
because you know there's no crime, et cetera. Well, will
MAGA is their hope? Now MAGA kind of forgets about it.

(15:30):
Seems like an idle hope to me. I'm not a mogot.
We were monitoring bothered, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (15:36):
Yeah, a couple of different tracking metrics that are sort
of back in the envelope, but they kind of work.
This morning we ran the twenty four hour Google Trends
Analytics on Gabbard and Epstein. Gabbard way down here in
the noise, Epstein still way up here, Twitter Analytics, same story.
It is. It is they have the bit in their

(15:57):
teeth about this, and they are not letting it go easily.
And and and I think you're right. In the past,
all these greatest hits were strung out over the first
Trump administration, the campaigns, et cetera, in different times, and
they worked a lot of the time. But now he's
dumped out almost every single tool in the greatest Hits

(16:18):
toolbox in the last two weeks and nothing is working.
I mean again, I think I think you're right. If
if he arrested Obama, the world would be on fire.
It would he would, he would not like the outcome.
The world would lose its damn mind. What do you
think the chances are of him going for somebody lower
down the food chain a Brennan, a Clapper, or somebody

(16:39):
like that.

Speaker 2 (16:40):
Yeah, So look, you know what we have learned is
over the last few days, it seems to me, Rick
is any port in a storm. Initiating this kind of
thing requires, you know, there comes a point where you
have to put up or shut up in front of
a court. That didn't stop him from tailing Komi that
was ridiculous, stopped him. So you know, will I think it?

(17:02):
The The answer is it'll be based on a political calculation.
By the way, you would know this as well. Who's
advising him politically back in Trump one point zero? Maybe
there were adults, boss, Can I just tell you? But
it does seem this is judicial selection elsewhere that he's
decided he's going to do whatever the hell he wants.

(17:23):
Oh yeah, that makes this prediction game nih Onto impossible.
But what what what matters? I think that the political
side of things is what if anything will play Kate
Maga and I just haven't haven't seen it? Yes, and
then this goes on and on and on.

Speaker 1 (17:44):
He's lost so many of his major supporters in that
Maga influencer space. Yeah, Candice Owens, THEO Vaughn, Alex Jones,
Tucker Carlson and Stuart Yeah Road yeah. January sixth, Pirate guy, yes,
none of the none of these people and the probablys guy, uh,

(18:05):
Terry you all these people that are saying this, like Donald,
this isn't good enough, This isn't good enough. I I
I just don't think that even though, and in a
way it's sad because the the outrage of what d
o J is doing, the unethical nature of what they're doing,
I cannot believe there are not would would not be
people disbarred from the from from there. They have their

(18:27):
law license taken away in a just and and and
correct and.

Speaker 2 (18:30):
They're losing all respect. But they've they've all, you know,
they've they've they've lost it already. But yeah, I mean,
in that sense, it's precarious for them what they're what
they're doing, but they don't care. But it does seem
to me the dynamic now, this is the Washington scandal dynamic.
You know, the conventional wisdom get everything out and get

(18:51):
it out early, because this is happening. We now have
auxiliary stories. Trup Wall Street Journal already has, but he
isn't quick, saying, I don't know if you notice. Just
this morning, it turns out that there's another copy of
this uh.

Speaker 1 (19:06):
And that the family executor has another copy of the book, right,
and another copy of the signed letter.

Speaker 2 (19:11):
And you have people coming out, victims saying, you know,
this is what he did to me thirty years ago.
He's made it salient again by taking them on on
this notion of everything's fake, and you know everything isn't fake.
They've but he's been able to force that down the
throats of the left before, and the right's been perfectly

(19:34):
fine to have him do that. They're not perfectly fine anymore, right.

Speaker 1 (19:38):
Right, Melissa just notes that they have just confirmed Emil Bove,
which is another guy who is just a hit man,
just a personal attorney for Trump now as us just
a unbelievable by the way, that.

Speaker 2 (19:53):
Guy an outlaw, you know, someone who just juststall over
the Department of Justice.

Speaker 1 (19:59):
By the way, he is only forty four years old.

Speaker 2 (20:01):
Yeah, he and he and he goes immediately this what
I was talking about before, he didn't no more federal society.
Who does Trump want? He goes immediately to the top
of the Supreme.

Speaker 1 (20:11):
Personal is personal retainers, his personal you know, loyalists and both.
Is only forty four years old. And I swear to god,
that guy that is a that's what, as my grandma
would say, sin makes you old. That guy looks like
he's seventy. Yeah, I mean he also looks like what
he also looks like somebody who, like many a hobo.
That's the last thing they see is the trunk of

(20:31):
the car closes on.

Speaker 2 (20:33):
He does you know I shouldn't. I have a little
bit of this myself. But those circles under the eyes
and stuff, Yeah, I don't know how a robe is
going to set those off. But you know, we joke
a little, but really what he's done is so flagrantly discalf.
He said, ignore what courts do. Now he's on Well,
how do you think his colleagues on the third Circuit

(20:54):
are going to feel about being on pain?

Speaker 1 (20:57):
I mean this to me, I mean and I I
saw one of the lead guys in the CELU this
weekend when I was up at a trip to Fire Island,
and we were talking about that about like you've got
now people who who institutionally just say we're going to
defy the courts. Yeah, inside the DOJ And now there's

(21:19):
going to be a guy on the bench he's going
to say, I'm going to defy any other legal precedent.
I'm going to always side with Trump. I'm gonna always
do what he wants. I'm gonna always side with him.
I just I feel like the judiciary is about has
lost so much of its gloss as that independent defender
of rights and the constitution and of liberties, and is

(21:42):
becoming viewed as a partisan outlet.

Speaker 2 (21:46):
Yeah, and let me just add to it, Rick, and
you know, going out of the box. In the first
few months, the district courts of this country did a
lot and they heard things, saw things, findings. But I
had said before, including to you, you know, don't just
think about who appointed which, think about in this way
dist record versus courts of appeals versus the Supreme Court.

(22:07):
And so what's really happened is they've been very very
much sort of pith in their ability to do stuff.
They're still hanging in there, but the Supreme Court has
arrogated now this to itself, so they can only do
sort of little bite sized things.

Speaker 1 (22:23):
The marginal the marginal things.

Speaker 2 (22:25):
Yeah, I do want to say something interesting happening to us.
In the Ninth Circuit, we stated the birthplace citizenship nationwide injunction,
saying in Supreme Court terms, that's the only way when
you complete relief to states, because otherwise there'd be no
way of sort of doing it. So that's the fight. Oh,
I understand, that's the fight that's brewing. But basically the

(22:47):
are the confidence and and sanguinity we had for the
The court system as a whole has really taken a
serious hit because the Supreme Court has has purposefully reconfincs
figured the power structure there and they are so much
more likely to decide with Trump. So yeah, it's not
it's that that are the final bulwark there the people.

(23:11):
Uh now, Harry very battered.

Speaker 1 (23:15):
So a joyl of a tailor asked, Harry, can we
get rid of bou ever? Get rid of bo No?
I mean if we catch him with his hand in
the till. But I think that's pretty I mean it's
a lifetime appointment.

Speaker 2 (23:26):
Yeah, well that's how you get rid of and through impeachment.
It's happened seven times. It's pretty well established. You got
to have your hand in the tail. It's not for
even crazy opinions that you disagree with. And uh yeah,
the short answer is, you know, constitution says lifetime. He
doesn't care what the constitution says generally, but he gets
the benefit of it. He's like he's with us for life.

Speaker 1 (23:48):
Yeah, we are never We are never getting rid of
that one, which is you know, once again, for all
the folks that voted for Donald Trump thinking it was funny.

Speaker 2 (23:57):
And if you want a real good joke, start getting
used to uh putting in your cocktail conversation Justice Emilov.

Speaker 1 (24:05):
Oh, yes, that that may atlantic about. There's a plan, folks,
to elevate a meal bow to the Supreme Court, that
this is the fast track to get him in position
for that and and don't but don't worry. Susan Collins
and Lisa Murkowski are deeply concerned. They're very very concerned.
They're worried. They're so there. Their pearls are clutched so

(24:26):
very tightly. At the end.

Speaker 2 (24:29):
It's times burned seven time shine, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (24:31):
Something like that. All right, my friend, Well, Harry, thank
you for coming on today.

Speaker 2 (24:35):
My friend Rick, I'm so glad to be with you
today because here's my bottom line. It's a legal ship
going on. It's all anomalous and funky, but really this
is like political How far will it spread? And when,
if ever will MAGA be placated? And I look as
so many people do, to the Rick Wilson for answers there,
So thank you, thank you for having.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
Me, Thank you, my friend. All right, well, folks, listen,
you can join us tonight on the break Down at
seven pm East Coast time. You can also catch me
on a four thy s eighty two different podcasts every week.
I am on the Enemy's List, I am on the
Lincoln Project podcast, I am on the Elephant in the
Room podcast, and on Mondays with my friend Molly Dung Fast,
i am on Fast Politics. Absolutely great to have everybody

(25:17):
here today. Thank you again, Harry my friend.

Speaker 2 (25:19):
We'll see again soon, see us soon. Bye bye.