Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, consistency is not exactly Donald Trump's thing, and so
Donald Trump has more than one way of expressing how say,
terrified he is. He might fly into obsessive, relentless social
media postings about the thing he's terrified about. Sometimes he'll
do it about the thing he's terrified about, and sometimes not,
(00:24):
sometimes about like anything else, which is kind of what
he's been doing. And the other way Donald Trump communicates
his fear is silence, which is also what he's been doing.
That's how Donald Trump treats the things he's most afraid of,
in my observation, and so, judging by his silence, donald
(00:47):
Trump is living in abject terror tonight of the Epstein files.
Donald Trump spent the day in silence today about the
Epstein Files. The man who loves to have the cameras
aimed at him while he plays with questions from reporters
without ever actually answering them, didn't dare allow reporters to
(01:08):
get anywhere near him. Today at the White House, Donald
Trump said nothing on social media today about the Epstein Files.
Nothing about the person who, for fifteen years Donald Trump
called a terrific guy, while the person Donald Trump thought
was a terrific guy was raping children. The last time
(01:29):
Donald Trump said anything about his now dead friend Jeffrey
Epstein was on Saturday at nine thirteen am, when he
said nothing will be good enough. Donald Trump said, I
have asked the Justice Swartman to release all grand jury
testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to court approval.
With that being said, and even if the court gave
(01:51):
its full and unwaivering approval, nothing will be good enough
for the troublemakers in radical left lunatics making the request.
It will always be more and more and more. One
of those radical left lunatics, I guess is Marjorie Taylor Green.
(02:12):
According to Donald Trump's description, She's always been called a
radical lunatic, but she is a Republican member of Congress
who's always supported Donald Trump and built her short political
career on supporting Donald Trump. Today, Marjorie Taylor Green tweeted,
(02:32):
if you tell the base of people who support you
of deep state treasonous crimes, election interference, blackmail, and rich,
powerful elite evil cabals, then you must take down every
enemy of the people. If not, the base will turn
and there's no going back. Dangling bits of red meat
no longer satisfies. They want the whole steak dinner and
(02:54):
will accept nothing else. Marjorie Taylor Green is making it
very clear would be good enough for her. She wants
the entirety of the Epstein files released, not just the
grand jury transcripts, which would be the least informative part
of the Trump Justice Department's criminal investigative file on Jeffrey Epstein.
(03:18):
While some Trump supporters who were complaining about Donald Trump's
refusal to release the Epstein files last week are now
going quiet, Marjorie Taylor Green hasn't given up yet. She
said this tonight at seven o six pm.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
I believe in transparency, and I believe the American people.
This is a serious issue. I can tell you for
the past gosh, more than a week, the highest volume
of calls into my office have been about Epstein. People
want the information. They don't want things covered up, especially
when it comes to the most well known convicted pet
(04:00):
file in modern day history. It's important to them and
they really want the information out.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
But Donald Trump, says Marjorie Taylor Green is a radical
left lunatic, and everyone, she claims, is calling her Georgia
office all of them radical left lunatics, and that nothing
will be good enough for those Republican radical left lunatics
Doald Trump's silence about Jeffrey Epstein now extends, as it
(04:29):
always does, to his complete silence about Jeffrey Epstein's victims.
One of them was a high school girl who felt
very lucky when she got a job working for Donald
Trump at mar A Lago, and that was the worst
lucky moment she ever had because when she was working
(04:52):
in the spa as an assistant at mar A Lago,
she met Donald Trump's friend Elaine Maxwell, lured her to
Jeffrey Epstein's Florida home, where she was raped by Jeffrey
Epstein and Gilaide Maxwell at the same time, the very
first time that she was there. Donald Trump has never
(05:16):
spoken a word of sympathy for that girl who used
to work for him. Donald Trump has never spoken a
word of sympathy for that girl whose life was ruined
when Jeffrey Epstein's criminal co conspirator recruiter walked into Donald
Trump's spa that day. Julainne Maxwell is serving a twenty
(05:38):
year prison sentence right now for, among other things, recruiting
that girl sex trafficking that girl. Donald Trump has twice
said in interviews after Julianne Maxwell was convicted as Jeffrey
Epstein's co conspirator in sex trafficking, that he wishes her well. Quote,
(06:05):
I just wish her well. Donald Trump has said that
repeatedly about her. Donald Trump can't think of a negative
thing to say about the woman who is in prison
tonight because she lured those girls into Jeffrey Epstein's home,
(06:26):
onto Jeffrey Epstein's plane, to Jeffrey Epstein's island. Elayne Maxwell
did not testify in her own defense at her trial.
She did not speak a word. Elaine Maxwell is appealing
her conviction, as every criminal defendant with money always does,
but very few of those appeals ever succeed. But if
her appeal does not succeed, her only hope of getting
(06:49):
out of prison is a pardon from Donald Trump. And
Donald Trump has abused the pardon power beyond the wildest
dreams of any other present, and certainly beyond the wildest
nightmare of the authors of the constitutional power to pardon,
granted in absolute terms to the president by those framers
(07:10):
of the Constitution who would be horrified to see that
Donald Trump used that power to pardon every single person
who participated in an insurrection at the Capitol on January
sixth to try to overturn the results of a presidential
election for Donald Trump. Julane Maxwell has been absolutely silent
(07:33):
about what she knows about Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. Jeffrey Epstein himself before he killed
himself and before he was in prison. Jeffrey Epstein in
twenty seventeen, in a tape recorded interview, said I was
Donald's closest friend for ten years. Surely Jeffrey Epstein discussed
(07:59):
Donald Trump with his criminal co conspirator, but she has
never said a word about what she knows about Donald Trump.
The Epstein files might have reports from FBI agents who
interviewed other people who might have heard Gilain Maxwell tell
them something about Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. That's the
(08:21):
kind of thing that could be in the Epstein files.
Might not be admissible in court, but it could be
in the investigative files. We know that the only person
in the world who Donald Trump actually feels protective of
is Donald Trump, and so the only person in the
world he would be willing to extend himself to protect
(08:43):
in the Epstein files, would presumably be himself, Donald Trump.
Donald Trump's place in the Epstein files might be completely innocent,
as possible. It might simply include press clippings that FBI
agents probably have in their files of Donald Trump praising
Jeffrey Epstein the Epstein files. Surely somewhere there has a
(09:08):
copy of the two thousand and two New York Magazine
profile of Jeffrey Epstein, in which Donald Trump says, I've
known jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot
of fun to be with. It has even said that
he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and
many of them are on the younger side, no doubt
about it. Jeffrey enjoys his social life. That's the kind
(09:28):
of thing that appears in FBI investigative files. Donald Trump's
public dating history does not include underage girls, but truly,
weirdly and perversely, in two thousand and six, the year
Jeffrey Epstein was first charged with sex trafficking, Dald Trump
said something very very strange when he was asked on
(09:53):
Hard Stearn's radio show about the ages of.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Women do you think you could now be banging twenty
four year olds?
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Oh? Absolutely, would you?
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Would you do it?
Speaker 4 (10:06):
I have no problem?
Speaker 5 (10:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Do you have any age limit or would you? Right? No, No,
I have no age. I mean I have an agent.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
I don't want to be like with you know, twelve
year old.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Donald Trump was sixty years old. Sixty years old, no
problem with twenty four year olds. He was sixty years
old when you just heard him say he would not
want to be involved with a twelve year old. And
(10:39):
of course, Donald Trump is the only president of the
United States in history who has publicly discussed anything like that.
One count in Donald Trump's lawsuit new lawsuit against the
Wall Street Journal claims specific defamation because the Wall Street
Journal are article described Donald Trump as being a friend
(11:02):
of Jeffrey Epstein. The article also described a birthday letter
that bears Donald Trump's name to Jeffrey Epstein on Jeffrey
Epstein's fiftieth birthday, and the lawsuit that Donald Trump filed
the very next day, which he is very unlikely to
ever pursue beyond just that filing because it would force
him to testify under oath about Jeffrey Epstein, that lawsuit
(11:27):
of Donald Trump's claims that it is defamatory to say
that Donald Trump was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein's. That's
what that lawsuit said. On Friday, and the very next day, Saturday,
the New York Times published a massive article under the
(11:48):
headline inside the long friendship between Trump and Epstein. That's
how absurd the Donald Trump lawsuit is against the Wall
Street Journal. Donald Trump is not suing the New York
Times for saying he had a long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein,
(12:09):
and the Trump lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal says
it's defamatory to say that he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein.
That Marry Times headline proves to you how absurd the
Trump lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal is. And the
Trump lawsuit will go nowhere because Donald Trump will not
dare to pursue that lawsuit. Donald Trump will not force
(12:33):
himself to go under oath testifying about his friendship with
Jeffrey Epstein, because that's what the Donald Trump lawsuit would
force Donald Trump to do. Rupert Murdoch, who Donald Trump
is suing, can force Donald Trump to give a videotape
deposition under oath with unlimited questioning about Donald Trump and
(12:56):
Jeffrey Epstein, and that's never going to happen. The Trump
lawsuit was a one day stunt, one day stunt just
to try to trick the news media and tricked a
lot of the news media and trick Donald Trump's followers
into thinking that Donald Trump was actually taking some kind
of action against the Wall Street Journal. Senator Dick Durbin,
(13:18):
the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee with jurisdiction
over the Justice Department, sent the letter to the Justice
Department saying, according to information my office received, you pressured
the FBI to put approximately one thousand personnel and its
Information Management Division, including the Record Information Dissemination Section, which
handles all requests submitted by the public under the Freemotion
(13:42):
Act and Privacy Act, on twenty four hour ships to
review approximately one hundred thousand Epstein related records in order
to produce more documents that could be that could then
be released on an arbitrary short deadline. This effort, which
reportedly took place from March fourteenth through the end of March,
(14:03):
was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field
Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify
statutorily protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or
properly handle Foyer requests. My office was told that these
personnel were instructed to flag any records in which President
(14:29):
Trump was mentioned. The letter asks Attorney General Pambondi several questions,
including have you personally reviewed all files in DOJ's possession
related to Jeffrey Epstein and who made the decision to
assign hundreds of New York Field Office personnel to this
March review of Epstein related records. Joining us now is
(14:54):
Democratic Courtnisman Daniel Goldman of New York. He's a member
of the House Judiciary Committee, and Carstvan Goldman. As a
a former federal prosecutor, You've worked with FBI, You've seen,
you know what these investigative files look like. First of all,
give us your reaction to hundreds of FBI officers in
the New York Field Office being assigned to these documents
(15:18):
to study these documents.
Speaker 5 (15:22):
It's absolutely crazy, Lawrence. It's crazy to assign so many on,
as Senator Durbin said, such an arbitrary deadline that was
really driven by the Magabase that was upset that Pam
Bondi's first dispatch of the Epstein files was so underwhelming
and mostly public information. And in light of that pressure,
(15:46):
she and FBI Director Cash Pattel essentially took most of
the New York Field Office to look for reactions in
the Epstein files. Now keep in mind, this is the
New York Field Office that does terror in cases, that
does violent gangs cases, that does corruption, that does all
sorts of fraud, securities, fraud. The list goes on. I
(16:09):
worked with them for ten years. All of these agents
were pulled away from keeping the public safe just to
look through these Epstein files Flagg Donald Trump's name and
somehow Someway Lawrence and I wonder how that arbitrary deadline
that they were racing towards because of pressure to release
(16:31):
the Epstein files came and went. And now all of
a sudden, there's nothing of interest to anyone, Huh.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
I wonder how that happened.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
So what is the state of play in the House
of Representatives tonight? It appears that there's the possibility that
Mike Johnson might just close up the House for the
rest of the summer just to avoid a vote on
the Epstein files.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
That's right.
Speaker 5 (16:58):
Last week Republicans on the Rules Committee voiced a lot
of displeasure that they continue to have to vote on
amendments to release the Epstein files. The Democrats, we are
just simply asking for transparency. Donald Trump said this was
the most transparent administration in history. We have heard over
and over all of these reasons why they need to
(17:22):
release the Epstein files, and then Donald Trump does a
point eighty, clearly a cover up.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
So we just want to see what's.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
In there, and we continue to introduce amendments to force
the Republicans to release them. But the Republicans don't want
to have to vote against that because they've been advocating
for it for so long, So they have just abandoned
their job in the Rules Committee. And without a rule,
we cannot vote on any bills on the floor. So
(17:49):
it very well may be that we go home later
this week without voting on anything because Republicans refuse to
release the Epstein files.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
And as a former federal press you know there's plenty
of instances in which, in fact, most where you wouldn't
want to release any of the investigative file anything that
was not used in public proceedings you wouldn't want to release.
Do you have any concerns about the precedent that could
be set here with a release or is the presidential
(18:19):
involvement something that makes it unique?
Speaker 5 (18:25):
Lawrence, I have so many concerns about the Department of Justice.
I will say the precedent about releasing investigative files is
not high on the list. The precedent of investigating political
enemies would go much higher. As just one example. But
the reason why you don't ordinarily release investigative files is
(18:47):
that there often include uncharged co conspirators and who don't
have an opportunity to defend themselves if they were not indicted.
In this particular case, there was no interest in the
Epstein files from anyone other than the Maga Wright, Cash Fattel,
Dan Bongino leading the way with all these conspiracy theories
(19:11):
that Donald Trump himself revd up the idea that the
Department of Justice was hiding some elite cabal, as Marjorie
Taylor Green says, of the wealthy and connected who were
involved with Jeffrey Epstein. So they brought this on themselves
to release them. And now those wealthy elites who are
(19:34):
trying to be protected by the Department of Justice, and
the Trump administration appears to be Donald Trump himself, so
now he has given direct orders it appears to Pambondi
not to release the critical files. And let's be clear,
grand jury testimony is almost certainly going to be irrelevant
(19:55):
to other people involved, including potentially Donald Trump. You would
find that information in a lot of the other investigative files,
not in the grand jury testimony that relates to Jeffrey
Epstein and Gilayne Maxwell.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Carson, Danian Goldman. Thank you very much for starting off
our coverage tonight.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
Thanks alln and.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Coming up more of the breaking news on what's happening
right now in the House representatives on the Epstein files
with the congressman who is leading the demand there for
a House vote on the issue, Carsman Rocanna joins us next.
(20:36):
Republican speakers of the House tend to wrap themselves and
an indignant self righteousness that was invented by the first
Republican speaker of most Americans lifetimes, Newt Gingridge. The current
Republican Speaker, Mike Johnson, has taken indignant self righteousness to
another level, divine self righteousness. Who Speaker of the House
(21:01):
has ever wrapped himself in more publicly professed religiosity than
Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who wants you to know that
he and his high school son entered into a sanctified
contract to, according to Rolling Stone, monitor each other's porn intake.
Speaker 6 (21:28):
It scans you obviously opt into it, but it scans
all the activity on your phone or your devices, your laptop, tablet.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
What have you.
Speaker 6 (21:35):
We do all of it, and then it sends a
report to your accountability partner. So my accountability partner right
now is Jack, my son, right and so he's seventeen.
So he and I get a report of all the
things that are on our phones or all of our
devices once a week. If anything objectionable comes up, your
accountability partner gets an immediate notice. I'm proud to tell
(21:56):
you my son. He's got a clean slate.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
For Jack. Now, I don't want to make too much
of this, and I offer no interpretation of this, but
I did notice as that statement kept going, which I've
edited there. But I did notice that Mike Johnson did
not say that he also has a clean slate. Now
(22:20):
I'm sure he meant to say that, But it's interesting
that he didn't. But at least he made it absolutely clear.
Couldn't be more clear that his seventeen year old son
at the time wasn't seeing any porn online at all.
And you would think that a parent so obsessed with
(22:44):
the possibility of his seventeen year old son seeing even
a second of porn would care more about the seventeen
year olds and much younger victims of a man Donald
Trump called a terrific guy, Jeffrey Epstein. Those high school
(23:05):
girls were subjected to something much worse than the stuff
that Mike Johnson's son might be able to find online.
But Mike Johnson did not have a word of sympathy
for those child victims of Jeffrey Epstein today when he
literally ran away from a question about what our next
(23:26):
guest is trying to do on the House floor to
force a vote by the House of Representatives calling for
the Justice Department to release the Epstein files.
Speaker 6 (23:38):
Discharge traditions are never a good idea in the House.
It is a party of them. It is a tool
of the minority party, not majority.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
The majority party has stated.
Speaker 6 (23:47):
Its position and it is mine, and it is the
presidents that we want maximum disclosure. So the rest of
it is a political game that Democrats are playing, and
I hope Republicans will enjoin.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Amm Joining us now is Democratic Cartsman Rocana, California. He's
a member of the Oversight Committee. Carston Karrent, welcome back.
This is our second discussion over your attempt to move
this discharge petition. What's your reaction to what you just
heard the speaker say? Not about the discharge petition, not
about the online shorter stuff.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Look, this is not partisan. There are eleven Republicans who
want a full release of the files, not just Thomas Massey,
who is more of a maverick. You have Lauren Bobert,
you have Marjorie Taylor Green, you have Tim Burchett, you
have Nancy Mayce. All of them are demanding it. Look, Floydnce,
we know that Trump's populism was always a house of cards,
(24:40):
and frankly, for you and me, it's been much sturdier
than people think. I thought it would have fallen down
years ago. But the blocking of the Epstein file literally
maybe the slip card that brings this whole house down.
And that is because he's betraying such a fundamental promise
he made to his base. He said he wasn't going
to protect rich, powerful men who abused and assaulted young girls.
(25:04):
And his base is furious. They want these files released.
He's not releasing them. And the Speaker knows this is
a huge, huge problem beyond Epstein. It's a problem for
their claim of being a polity of populism.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Let's listen to Marjorie Tayler Green tonight about the discharge petition.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
The Speaker said he doesn't like discharge petitions. He also
said it's the tool of the minority. What do you
make of those comments, Well, I think discharge petitions are
actually important. I think that every single district in the
country votes for their representative and whether they're in the
majority or the minority. And that's the purpose of a
discharge petition is if two hundred and eighteen members of
(25:46):
Congress sign it, it's that takes a combination of Republicans
and Democrats, right, and then that allows something to come
to the floor for a bent.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
So Thomas Massey is saying tonight that if the House
closes up for the summer without this vote, it's just
going to get worse. In September, what is the state
of play in this breaking news situation right now tonight
on your discharge petition.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
Well, more and more Republicans are joining the call for
a discharge petition, but the Speaker is not willing to
have a vote. You know, let's just speak plainly. Because
we use all these complex words discharge petitions sometimes I
think Congress is sort of a priesthood which uses obscure
and arcane language to confuse the American people. Here's the
bottom line. There is the majority of the Congress that
(26:32):
has the votes to release the Epstein files. We have
a majority of the votes, and the problem is that
we're not having a vote. And that's the dirty secret
in Washington. It's not how you vote, it's that most
of these things never come up for a vote. And
all a discharge petition is saying is that the majority,
if they sign something, will demand and be able to
get a vote on something that we know is going
(26:53):
to pass. And the reality is that Mike Johnson is
trying to recess the Congress because there's this arcane rule
that the bill has to be there for seven days
before you can actually get all the signatures, and it's
been there for about four days, so he wants to
adjourn us so that we can wait till after Labor
Day to get the signatures and have this vote. It's
the worst kind of gamesmanship, but the American people are
(27:16):
going to see through it.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Carston Rocona, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
I'm coming up today. Another lawyer for Donald Trump's Justice
Department disgraced himself in a federal court, this time while
arguing Donald Trump's case against Harvard University, which the federal
judge hearing the case today called mind boggling. That is
to say, the Trump argument mind boggling. Harvard law professor
(27:42):
Lawrence Tribe will join us next. Mind boggling. That's what
a federal judge in Boston called Donald Trump's case against
Harvard University today. The judge also said the consequences of
that in terms of constitutional law are staggering. The Trump
(28:04):
Justice Apartment could find exactly one lawyer who was willing
to enter the courtroom today to defend Donald Trump's attacks
on Harvard University. At issue today was Donald Trump's blocking
research funds to all branches of the university. The Trump
Justice Department lawyer whose turn it was to disgrace himself
today on behalf of Donald Trump. His name Michael Velchik.
(28:26):
He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.
He represented Donald Trump's position to the court in what
is clearly a lie, saying the government is pro Jewish
students at Harvard, the government is pro Jewish faculty at Harvard.
(28:47):
Harvard's attorney said that Donald Trump quote fails to explain
how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer,
support veterans, and improve national security addresses anti Semitism. Peter McDonough,
representing the American Consul on Education, which filed a brief
supporting Harvard, told Judge Allison Burrows. I don't think it
(29:10):
is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional
protections that they value are in court. Freedom of speech
is on trial, due process is on trial. And it
sounds like Donald Trump is sure that he lost in
court today. Donald Trump said, quote, the Harvard case was
just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed judge. She
(29:33):
is a total disaster, which I say even before hearing
her ruling. When she rules against us, we will immediately
appeal and win. Joining us now is Professor Lawrence Tribe,
who has taught constitutional law at Harvard Law School for
five decades. Professor Tribe, this is an unusual way to
form the question tonight, But do you agree with Donald
(29:54):
Trump that he is going to lose this case?
Speaker 4 (29:59):
Well, rather than predicting whether he will win or lose,
and you know that I think Trump is going to lose.
I want to make a comment about today's argument because
mister Velshik, representing Donald Trump, supposedly representing the United States.
But I think it's fair to say representing Donald Trump
(30:23):
was a Harvard graduate. But so was the lawyer on
the other side, and he did a brilliant job. His
name is Stephen Lahotski, and I remember him well twenty
five years ago. He was my student and my research assistant.
And why did he learn constitutional law? He got the
(30:43):
highest grade in the course, an A plus, and he
went on to clerk for Justice antonin Scalia. It's not
an ideological matter one way or the other. It's a
universally agreed principle that private institutes, especially colleges and universities,
(31:04):
cannot be dictated to by the government, and there is
a powerful precedent. It's one that I taught mister Latsky
and others back in the day, and it's about Dartmouth College.
Daniel Webster argued on behalf of Dartmouth College when the
(31:26):
Governor of New Hampshire was persuaded in eighteen fifteen to
take the college over, to make it into a public institution,
to dictate how it would govern itself, whom it would hire,
how it would select students. When that happened, Daniel Webster
argued in the Supreme Court before Chief Justice John Marshall
(31:52):
and won a classic victory in eighteen nineteen. One of
the memorable lines it's in his argument, and it's hard
to forget it was it is, Sir, as I have said,
a small college, and yet there are those who love it.
(32:13):
Now Harvard is not so small. But the principle at
stake in the case that Harvard has brought against the
Trump administration is huge. It is the principle that educational
institutions are not the handmaiden of the government. They have autonomy.
(32:39):
They decide what they will teach and how they will
teach it. Of course, they have to comply with the
laws against discrimination, although the enforcement of those laws under
this administration is going to be awfully difficult, since they've
essentially destroyed the Department of Education that enforcement largely resides.
(33:03):
Of course, Harvard and other institutions like it have to
obey the law and obey the conditions of the grants
they receive, but suddenly yanking those grants, including grants for
cancer research, grants for legal research, grants for national security programs,
(33:26):
yanking them on some completely made up claim that Harvard
is not trying to deal with any Semitism on its campus.
It is trying could try harder, and people like me,
I'm Jewish, I push it to try harder. Judge Burrows,
who is Jewish, she wants it to try harder. But
(33:49):
she raises the genuine question, what does anti Semitism have
to do with pulling the money for cancer research?
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Good answer, Professor, we have to squeeze in a commercial
break here, We're gonna come right back. We'll be right
back Harvard Law. Professor Lawrence Tribe is back with us,
and Professor Tribe, the attorney representing Donald Trump in this case,
basically claim to be representing you. He said, the government
(34:23):
is pro Jewish faculty at Harvard. What was your reaction
to that?
Speaker 4 (34:30):
My reaction was, I've rarely heard a more ignorant, preposterous comment.
The faculty is not pro or anti members of any religion,
certainly not pro Christian, pro Muslim, anti Christian, and I'm Muslim.
(34:51):
The faculty is pro truth. Our motto is a serious one.
It's very toss We're trying to of them the deepest truths, historical, mathematical,
scientific people like Stephen Lhotsky coming to Harvard to learn,
not to sort of affirm one religion or another. And
(35:14):
of course, the problem of bigotry on every American campus
is a problem that we are trying hard to fight.
But for the government's lawyer to talk about faculty being
pro Jewish or pro any other religion just shows that
he hasn't a clue what this is all about. Around
(35:40):
the world, try to shut down institutions that try to
discover truth because they thrive on lies. That's what we're
all about.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Professor Lawrence Tribe, thank you once again for joining us.
What I learned about Daniel Webster tonight alone is more
than worth it. Thank you very much for joining us.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
Thanks Lawrence, Harvard Law.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Professor Lawrence Tribe gets Tonight's last word
Well, consistency is not exactly Donald Trump's thing, and so
Donald Trump has more than one way of expressing how say,
terrified he is. He might fly into obsessive, relentless social
media postings about the thing he's terrified about. Sometimes he'll
do it about the thing he's terrified about, and sometimes not,
(00:24):
sometimes about like anything else, which is kind of what
he's been doing. And the other way Donald Trump communicates
his fear is silence, which is also what he's been doing.
That's how Donald Trump treats the things he's most afraid of,
in my observation, and so, judging by his silence, donald
(00:47):
Trump is living in abject terror tonight of the Epstein files.
Donald Trump spent the day in silence today about the
Epstein Files. The man who loves to have the cameras
aimed at him while he plays with questions from reporters
without ever actually answering them, didn't dare allow reporters to
(01:08):
get anywhere near him. Today at the White House, Donald
Trump said nothing on social media today about the Epstein Files.
Nothing about the person who, for fifteen years Donald Trump
called a terrific guy, while the person Donald Trump thought
was a terrific guy was raping children. The last time
(01:29):
Donald Trump said anything about his now dead friend Jeffrey
Epstein was on Saturday at nine thirteen am, when he
said nothing will be good enough. Donald Trump said, I
have asked the Justice Swartman to release all grand jury
testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to court approval.
With that being said, and even if the court gave
(01:51):
its full and unwaivering approval, nothing will be good enough
for the troublemakers in radical left lunatics making the request.
It will always be more and more and more. One
of those radical left lunatics, I guess is Marjorie Taylor Green.
(02:12):
According to Donald Trump's description, She's always been called a
radical lunatic, but she is a Republican member of Congress
who's always supported Donald Trump and built her short political
career on supporting Donald Trump. Today, Marjorie Taylor Green tweeted,
(02:32):
if you tell the base of people who support you
of deep state treasonous crimes, election interference, blackmail, and rich,
powerful elite evil cabals, then you must take down every
enemy of the people. If not, the base will turn
and there's no going back. Dangling bits of red meat
no longer satisfies. They want the whole steak dinner and
(02:54):
will accept nothing else. Marjorie Taylor Green is making it
very clear would be good enough for her. She wants
the entirety of the Epstein files released, not just the
grand jury transcripts, which would be the least informative part
of the Trump Justice Department's criminal investigative file on Jeffrey Epstein.
(03:18):
While some Trump supporters who were complaining about Donald Trump's
refusal to release the Epstein files last week are now
going quiet, Marjorie Taylor Green hasn't given up yet. She
said this tonight at seven o six pm.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
I believe in transparency, and I believe the American people.
This is a serious issue. I can tell you for
the past gosh, more than a week, the highest volume
of calls into my office have been about Epstein. People
want the information. They don't want things covered up, especially
when it comes to the most well known convicted pet
(04:00):
file in modern day history. It's important to them and
they really want the information out.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
But Donald Trump, says Marjorie Taylor Green is a radical
left lunatic, and everyone, she claims, is calling her Georgia
office all of them radical left lunatics, and that nothing
will be good enough for those Republican radical left lunatics
Doald Trump's silence about Jeffrey Epstein now extends, as it
(04:29):
always does, to his complete silence about Jeffrey Epstein's victims.
One of them was a high school girl who felt
very lucky when she got a job working for Donald
Trump at mar A Lago, and that was the worst
lucky moment she ever had because when she was working
(04:52):
in the spa as an assistant at mar A Lago,
she met Donald Trump's friend Elaine Maxwell, lured her to
Jeffrey Epstein's Florida home, where she was raped by Jeffrey
Epstein and Gilaide Maxwell at the same time, the very
first time that she was there. Donald Trump has never
(05:16):
spoken a word of sympathy for that girl who used
to work for him. Donald Trump has never spoken a
word of sympathy for that girl whose life was ruined
when Jeffrey Epstein's criminal co conspirator recruiter walked into Donald
Trump's spa that day. Julainne Maxwell is serving a twenty
(05:38):
year prison sentence right now for, among other things, recruiting
that girl sex trafficking that girl. Donald Trump has twice
said in interviews after Julianne Maxwell was convicted as Jeffrey
Epstein's co conspirator in sex trafficking, that he wishes her well. Quote,
(06:05):
I just wish her well. Donald Trump has said that
repeatedly about her. Donald Trump can't think of a negative
thing to say about the woman who is in prison
tonight because she lured those girls into Jeffrey Epstein's home,
(06:26):
onto Jeffrey Epstein's plane, to Jeffrey Epstein's island. Elayne Maxwell
did not testify in her own defense at her trial.
She did not speak a word. Elaine Maxwell is appealing
her conviction, as every criminal defendant with money always does,
but very few of those appeals ever succeed. But if
her appeal does not succeed, her only hope of getting
(06:49):
out of prison is a pardon from Donald Trump. And
Donald Trump has abused the pardon power beyond the wildest
dreams of any other present, and certainly beyond the wildest
nightmare of the authors of the constitutional power to pardon,
granted in absolute terms to the president by those framers
(07:10):
of the Constitution who would be horrified to see that
Donald Trump used that power to pardon every single person
who participated in an insurrection at the Capitol on January
sixth to try to overturn the results of a presidential
election for Donald Trump. Julane Maxwell has been absolutely silent
(07:33):
about what she knows about Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. Jeffrey Epstein himself before he killed
himself and before he was in prison. Jeffrey Epstein in
twenty seventeen, in a tape recorded interview, said I was
Donald's closest friend for ten years. Surely Jeffrey Epstein discussed
(07:59):
Donald Trump with his criminal co conspirator, but she has
never said a word about what she knows about Donald Trump.
The Epstein files might have reports from FBI agents who
interviewed other people who might have heard Gilain Maxwell tell
them something about Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. That's the
(08:21):
kind of thing that could be in the Epstein files.
Might not be admissible in court, but it could be
in the investigative files. We know that the only person
in the world who Donald Trump actually feels protective of
is Donald Trump, and so the only person in the
world he would be willing to extend himself to protect
(08:43):
in the Epstein files, would presumably be himself, Donald Trump.
Donald Trump's place in the Epstein files might be completely innocent,
as possible. It might simply include press clippings that FBI
agents probably have in their files of Donald Trump praising
Jeffrey Epstein the Epstein files. Surely somewhere there has a
(09:08):
copy of the two thousand and two New York Magazine
profile of Jeffrey Epstein, in which Donald Trump says, I've
known jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot
of fun to be with. It has even said that
he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and
many of them are on the younger side, no doubt
about it. Jeffrey enjoys his social life. That's the kind
(09:28):
of thing that appears in FBI investigative files. Donald Trump's
public dating history does not include underage girls, but truly,
weirdly and perversely, in two thousand and six, the year
Jeffrey Epstein was first charged with sex trafficking, Dald Trump
said something very very strange when he was asked on
(09:53):
Hard Stearn's radio show about the ages of.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Women do you think you could now be banging twenty
four year olds?
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Oh? Absolutely, would you?
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Would you do it?
Speaker 4 (10:06):
I have no problem?
Speaker 5 (10:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Do you have any age limit or would you? Right? No, No,
I have no age. I mean I have an agent.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
I don't want to be like with you know, twelve
year old.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Donald Trump was sixty years old. Sixty years old, no
problem with twenty four year olds. He was sixty years
old when you just heard him say he would not
want to be involved with a twelve year old. And
(10:39):
of course, Donald Trump is the only president of the
United States in history who has publicly discussed anything like that.
One count in Donald Trump's lawsuit new lawsuit against the
Wall Street Journal claims specific defamation because the Wall Street
Journal are article described Donald Trump as being a friend
(11:02):
of Jeffrey Epstein. The article also described a birthday letter
that bears Donald Trump's name to Jeffrey Epstein on Jeffrey
Epstein's fiftieth birthday, and the lawsuit that Donald Trump filed
the very next day, which he is very unlikely to
ever pursue beyond just that filing because it would force
him to testify under oath about Jeffrey Epstein, that lawsuit
(11:27):
of Donald Trump's claims that it is defamatory to say
that Donald Trump was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein's. That's
what that lawsuit said. On Friday, and the very next day, Saturday,
the New York Times published a massive article under the
(11:48):
headline inside the long friendship between Trump and Epstein. That's
how absurd the Donald Trump lawsuit is against the Wall
Street Journal. Donald Trump is not suing the New York
Times for saying he had a long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein,
(12:09):
and the Trump lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal says
it's defamatory to say that he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein.
That Marry Times headline proves to you how absurd the
Trump lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal is. And the
Trump lawsuit will go nowhere because Donald Trump will not
dare to pursue that lawsuit. Donald Trump will not force
(12:33):
himself to go under oath testifying about his friendship with
Jeffrey Epstein, because that's what the Donald Trump lawsuit would
force Donald Trump to do. Rupert Murdoch, who Donald Trump
is suing, can force Donald Trump to give a videotape
deposition under oath with unlimited questioning about Donald Trump and
(12:56):
Jeffrey Epstein, and that's never going to happen. The Trump
lawsuit was a one day stunt, one day stunt just
to try to trick the news media and tricked a
lot of the news media and trick Donald Trump's followers
into thinking that Donald Trump was actually taking some kind
of action against the Wall Street Journal. Senator Dick Durbin,
(13:18):
the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee with jurisdiction
over the Justice Department, sent the letter to the Justice
Department saying, according to information my office received, you pressured
the FBI to put approximately one thousand personnel and its
Information Management Division, including the Record Information Dissemination Section, which
handles all requests submitted by the public under the Freemotion
(13:42):
Act and Privacy Act, on twenty four hour ships to
review approximately one hundred thousand Epstein related records in order
to produce more documents that could be that could then
be released on an arbitrary short deadline. This effort, which
reportedly took place from March fourteenth through the end of March,
(14:03):
was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field
Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify
statutorily protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or
properly handle Foyer requests. My office was told that these
personnel were instructed to flag any records in which President
(14:29):
Trump was mentioned. The letter asks Attorney General Pambondi several questions,
including have you personally reviewed all files in DOJ's possession
related to Jeffrey Epstein and who made the decision to
assign hundreds of New York Field Office personnel to this
March review of Epstein related records. Joining us now is
(14:54):
Democratic Courtnisman Daniel Goldman of New York. He's a member
of the House Judiciary Committee, and Carstvan Goldman. As a
a former federal prosecutor, You've worked with FBI, You've seen,
you know what these investigative files look like. First of all,
give us your reaction to hundreds of FBI officers in
the New York Field Office being assigned to these documents
(15:18):
to study these documents.
Speaker 5 (15:22):
It's absolutely crazy, Lawrence. It's crazy to assign so many on,
as Senator Durbin said, such an arbitrary deadline that was
really driven by the Magabase that was upset that Pam
Bondi's first dispatch of the Epstein files was so underwhelming
and mostly public information. And in light of that pressure,
(15:46):
she and FBI Director Cash Pattel essentially took most of
the New York Field Office to look for reactions in
the Epstein files. Now keep in mind, this is the
New York Field Office that does terror in cases, that
does violent gangs cases, that does corruption, that does all
sorts of fraud, securities, fraud. The list goes on. I
(16:09):
worked with them for ten years. All of these agents
were pulled away from keeping the public safe just to
look through these Epstein files Flagg Donald Trump's name and
somehow Someway Lawrence and I wonder how that arbitrary deadline
that they were racing towards because of pressure to release
(16:31):
the Epstein files came and went. And now all of
a sudden, there's nothing of interest to anyone, Huh.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
I wonder how that happened.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
So what is the state of play in the House
of Representatives tonight? It appears that there's the possibility that
Mike Johnson might just close up the House for the
rest of the summer just to avoid a vote on
the Epstein files.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
That's right.
Speaker 5 (16:58):
Last week Republicans on the Rules Committee voiced a lot
of displeasure that they continue to have to vote on
amendments to release the Epstein files. The Democrats, we are
just simply asking for transparency. Donald Trump said this was
the most transparent administration in history. We have heard over
and over all of these reasons why they need to
(17:22):
release the Epstein files, and then Donald Trump does a
point eighty, clearly a cover up.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
So we just want to see what's.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
In there, and we continue to introduce amendments to force
the Republicans to release them. But the Republicans don't want
to have to vote against that because they've been advocating
for it for so long, So they have just abandoned
their job in the Rules Committee. And without a rule,
we cannot vote on any bills on the floor. So
(17:49):
it very well may be that we go home later
this week without voting on anything because Republicans refuse to
release the Epstein files.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
And as a former federal press you know there's plenty
of instances in which, in fact, most where you wouldn't
want to release any of the investigative file anything that
was not used in public proceedings you wouldn't want to release.
Do you have any concerns about the precedent that could
be set here with a release or is the presidential
(18:19):
involvement something that makes it unique?
Speaker 5 (18:25):
Lawrence, I have so many concerns about the Department of Justice.
I will say the precedent about releasing investigative files is
not high on the list. The precedent of investigating political
enemies would go much higher. As just one example. But
the reason why you don't ordinarily release investigative files is
(18:47):
that there often include uncharged co conspirators and who don't
have an opportunity to defend themselves if they were not indicted.
In this particular case, there was no interest in the
Epstein files from anyone other than the Maga Wright, Cash Fattel,
Dan Bongino leading the way with all these conspiracy theories
(19:11):
that Donald Trump himself revd up the idea that the
Department of Justice was hiding some elite cabal, as Marjorie
Taylor Green says, of the wealthy and connected who were
involved with Jeffrey Epstein. So they brought this on themselves
to release them. And now those wealthy elites who are
(19:34):
trying to be protected by the Department of Justice, and
the Trump administration appears to be Donald Trump himself, so
now he has given direct orders it appears to Pambondi
not to release the critical files. And let's be clear,
grand jury testimony is almost certainly going to be irrelevant
(19:55):
to other people involved, including potentially Donald Trump. You would
find that information in a lot of the other investigative files,
not in the grand jury testimony that relates to Jeffrey
Epstein and Gilayne Maxwell.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Carson, Danian Goldman. Thank you very much for starting off
our coverage tonight.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
Thanks alln and.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Coming up more of the breaking news on what's happening
right now in the House representatives on the Epstein files
with the congressman who is leading the demand there for
a House vote on the issue, Carsman Rocanna joins us next.
(20:36):
Republican speakers of the House tend to wrap themselves and
an indignant self righteousness that was invented by the first
Republican speaker of most Americans lifetimes, Newt Gingridge. The current
Republican Speaker, Mike Johnson, has taken indignant self righteousness to
another level, divine self righteousness. Who Speaker of the House
(21:01):
has ever wrapped himself in more publicly professed religiosity than
Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who wants you to know that
he and his high school son entered into a sanctified
contract to, according to Rolling Stone, monitor each other's porn intake.
Speaker 6 (21:28):
It scans you obviously opt into it, but it scans
all the activity on your phone or your devices, your laptop, tablet.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
What have you.
Speaker 6 (21:35):
We do all of it, and then it sends a
report to your accountability partner. So my accountability partner right
now is Jack, my son, right and so he's seventeen.
So he and I get a report of all the
things that are on our phones or all of our
devices once a week. If anything objectionable comes up, your
accountability partner gets an immediate notice. I'm proud to tell
(21:56):
you my son. He's got a clean slate.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
For Jack. Now, I don't want to make too much
of this, and I offer no interpretation of this, but
I did notice as that statement kept going, which I've
edited there. But I did notice that Mike Johnson did
not say that he also has a clean slate. Now
(22:20):
I'm sure he meant to say that, But it's interesting
that he didn't. But at least he made it absolutely clear.
Couldn't be more clear that his seventeen year old son
at the time wasn't seeing any porn online at all.
And you would think that a parent so obsessed with
(22:44):
the possibility of his seventeen year old son seeing even
a second of porn would care more about the seventeen
year olds and much younger victims of a man Donald
Trump called a terrific guy, Jeffrey Epstein. Those high school
(23:05):
girls were subjected to something much worse than the stuff
that Mike Johnson's son might be able to find online.
But Mike Johnson did not have a word of sympathy
for those child victims of Jeffrey Epstein today when he
literally ran away from a question about what our next
(23:26):
guest is trying to do on the House floor to
force a vote by the House of Representatives calling for
the Justice Department to release the Epstein files.
Speaker 6 (23:38):
Discharge traditions are never a good idea in the House.
It is a party of them. It is a tool
of the minority party, not majority.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
The majority party has stated.
Speaker 6 (23:47):
Its position and it is mine, and it is the
presidents that we want maximum disclosure. So the rest of
it is a political game that Democrats are playing, and
I hope Republicans will enjoin.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Amm Joining us now is Democratic Cartsman Rocana, California. He's
a member of the Oversight Committee. Carston Karrent, welcome back.
This is our second discussion over your attempt to move
this discharge petition. What's your reaction to what you just
heard the speaker say? Not about the discharge petition, not
about the online shorter stuff.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Look, this is not partisan. There are eleven Republicans who
want a full release of the files, not just Thomas Massey,
who is more of a maverick. You have Lauren Bobert,
you have Marjorie Taylor Green, you have Tim Burchett, you
have Nancy Mayce. All of them are demanding it. Look, Floydnce,
we know that Trump's populism was always a house of cards,
(24:40):
and frankly, for you and me, it's been much sturdier
than people think. I thought it would have fallen down
years ago. But the blocking of the Epstein file literally
maybe the slip card that brings this whole house down.
And that is because he's betraying such a fundamental promise
he made to his base. He said he wasn't going
to protect rich, powerful men who abused and assaulted young girls.
(25:04):
And his base is furious. They want these files released.
He's not releasing them. And the Speaker knows this is
a huge, huge problem beyond Epstein. It's a problem for
their claim of being a polity of populism.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Let's listen to Marjorie Tayler Green tonight about the discharge petition.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
The Speaker said he doesn't like discharge petitions. He also
said it's the tool of the minority. What do you
make of those comments, Well, I think discharge petitions are
actually important. I think that every single district in the
country votes for their representative and whether they're in the
majority or the minority. And that's the purpose of a
discharge petition is if two hundred and eighteen members of
(25:46):
Congress sign it, it's that takes a combination of Republicans
and Democrats, right, and then that allows something to come
to the floor for a bent.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
So Thomas Massey is saying tonight that if the House
closes up for the summer without this vote, it's just
going to get worse. In September, what is the state
of play in this breaking news situation right now tonight
on your discharge petition.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
Well, more and more Republicans are joining the call for
a discharge petition, but the Speaker is not willing to
have a vote. You know, let's just speak plainly. Because
we use all these complex words discharge petitions sometimes I
think Congress is sort of a priesthood which uses obscure
and arcane language to confuse the American people. Here's the
bottom line. There is the majority of the Congress that
(26:32):
has the votes to release the Epstein files. We have
a majority of the votes, and the problem is that
we're not having a vote. And that's the dirty secret
in Washington. It's not how you vote, it's that most
of these things never come up for a vote. And
all a discharge petition is saying is that the majority,
if they sign something, will demand and be able to
get a vote on something that we know is going
(26:53):
to pass. And the reality is that Mike Johnson is
trying to recess the Congress because there's this arcane rule
that the bill has to be there for seven days
before you can actually get all the signatures, and it's
been there for about four days, so he wants to
adjourn us so that we can wait till after Labor
Day to get the signatures and have this vote. It's
the worst kind of gamesmanship, but the American people are
(27:16):
going to see through it.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Carston Rocona, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
I'm coming up today. Another lawyer for Donald Trump's Justice
Department disgraced himself in a federal court, this time while
arguing Donald Trump's case against Harvard University, which the federal
judge hearing the case today called mind boggling. That is
to say, the Trump argument mind boggling. Harvard law professor
(27:42):
Lawrence Tribe will join us next. Mind boggling. That's what
a federal judge in Boston called Donald Trump's case against
Harvard University today. The judge also said the consequences of
that in terms of constitutional law are staggering. The Trump
(28:04):
Justice Apartment could find exactly one lawyer who was willing
to enter the courtroom today to defend Donald Trump's attacks
on Harvard University. At issue today was Donald Trump's blocking
research funds to all branches of the university. The Trump
Justice Department lawyer whose turn it was to disgrace himself
today on behalf of Donald Trump. His name Michael Velchik.
(28:26):
He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.
He represented Donald Trump's position to the court in what
is clearly a lie, saying the government is pro Jewish
students at Harvard, the government is pro Jewish faculty at Harvard.
(28:47):
Harvard's attorney said that Donald Trump quote fails to explain
how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer,
support veterans, and improve national security addresses anti Semitism. Peter McDonough,
representing the American Consul on Education, which filed a brief
supporting Harvard, told Judge Allison Burrows. I don't think it
(29:10):
is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional
protections that they value are in court. Freedom of speech
is on trial, due process is on trial. And it
sounds like Donald Trump is sure that he lost in
court today. Donald Trump said, quote, the Harvard case was
just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed judge. She
(29:33):
is a total disaster, which I say even before hearing
her ruling. When she rules against us, we will immediately
appeal and win. Joining us now is Professor Lawrence Tribe,
who has taught constitutional law at Harvard Law School for
five decades. Professor Tribe, this is an unusual way to
form the question tonight, But do you agree with Donald
(29:54):
Trump that he is going to lose this case?
Speaker 4 (29:59):
Well, rather than predicting whether he will win or lose,
and you know that I think Trump is going to lose.
I want to make a comment about today's argument because
mister Velshik, representing Donald Trump, supposedly representing the United States.
But I think it's fair to say representing Donald Trump
(30:23):
was a Harvard graduate. But so was the lawyer on
the other side, and he did a brilliant job. His
name is Stephen Lahotski, and I remember him well twenty
five years ago. He was my student and my research assistant.
And why did he learn constitutional law? He got the
(30:43):
highest grade in the course, an A plus, and he
went on to clerk for Justice antonin Scalia. It's not
an ideological matter one way or the other. It's a
universally agreed principle that private institutes, especially colleges and universities,
(31:04):
cannot be dictated to by the government, and there is
a powerful precedent. It's one that I taught mister Latsky
and others back in the day, and it's about Dartmouth College.
Daniel Webster argued on behalf of Dartmouth College when the
(31:26):
Governor of New Hampshire was persuaded in eighteen fifteen to
take the college over, to make it into a public institution,
to dictate how it would govern itself, whom it would hire,
how it would select students. When that happened, Daniel Webster
argued in the Supreme Court before Chief Justice John Marshall
(31:52):
and won a classic victory in eighteen nineteen. One of
the memorable lines it's in his argument, and it's hard
to forget it was it is, Sir, as I have said,
a small college, and yet there are those who love it.
(32:13):
Now Harvard is not so small. But the principle at
stake in the case that Harvard has brought against the
Trump administration is huge. It is the principle that educational
institutions are not the handmaiden of the government. They have autonomy.
(32:39):
They decide what they will teach and how they will
teach it. Of course, they have to comply with the
laws against discrimination, although the enforcement of those laws under
this administration is going to be awfully difficult, since they've
essentially destroyed the Department of Education that enforcement largely resides.
(33:03):
Of course, Harvard and other institutions like it have to
obey the law and obey the conditions of the grants
they receive, but suddenly yanking those grants, including grants for
cancer research, grants for legal research, grants for national security programs,
(33:26):
yanking them on some completely made up claim that Harvard
is not trying to deal with any Semitism on its campus.
It is trying could try harder, and people like me,
I'm Jewish, I push it to try harder. Judge Burrows,
who is Jewish, she wants it to try harder. But
(33:49):
she raises the genuine question, what does anti Semitism have
to do with pulling the money for cancer research?
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Good answer, Professor, we have to squeeze in a commercial
break here, We're gonna come right back. We'll be right
back Harvard Law. Professor Lawrence Tribe is back with us,
and Professor Tribe, the attorney representing Donald Trump in this case,
basically claim to be representing you. He said, the government
(34:23):
is pro Jewish faculty at Harvard. What was your reaction
to that?
Speaker 4 (34:30):
My reaction was, I've rarely heard a more ignorant, preposterous comment.
The faculty is not pro or anti members of any religion,
certainly not pro Christian, pro Muslim, anti Christian, and I'm Muslim.
(34:51):
The faculty is pro truth. Our motto is a serious one.
It's very toss We're trying to of them the deepest truths, historical, mathematical,
scientific people like Stephen Lhotsky coming to Harvard to learn,
not to sort of affirm one religion or another. And
(35:14):
of course, the problem of bigotry on every American campus
is a problem that we are trying hard to fight.
But for the government's lawyer to talk about faculty being
pro Jewish or pro any other religion just shows that
he hasn't a clue what this is all about. Around
(35:40):
the world, try to shut down institutions that try to
discover truth because they thrive on lies. That's what we're
all about.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Professor Lawrence Tribe, thank you once again for joining us.
What I learned about Daniel Webster tonight alone is more
than worth it. Thank you very much for joining us.
Speaker 4 (36:00):
Thanks Lawrence, Harvard Law.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Professor Lawrence Tribe gets Tonight's last word
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.