July 23, 2025 • 26 mins
Donald Trump is under pressure, again, this time over his alleged ties to the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. As the scandal grows, the Speaker of the House has shut down Congress, seemingly to avoid any further questions being raised on the floor.
Trump knew Epstein socially in the 1990s and early 2000s and Epstein’s longtime pilot, Lawrence Visoski, has testified that Trump flew on Epstein's private plane multiple times. Trump has denied ever being on the plane and there is no evidence he was involved in wrongdoing.
But now, even Trump’s usual allies in the alt-right world of podcasts and influencers are turning on him. So what happens when the support base that’s shielded Trump for years starts to crumble?
On today's episode of the Fourcast, David Pakman, host of The David Pakman Show and author of The Echo Machine, joins us to break it all down.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
It's ripping MAGA apart in a waythat nothing else has done.
The left must exploit this for now.
Letting Trump feverishly attemptto cover it up publicly seems to
be doing enough self-inflicted damage.
If Trump feels that throwing outthe chaff, if you like, around
Obama and and other scandals isn't working, he may have to do
(00:21):
something more substantial. You know, he might have to do
something quite outrageous to really make fear start talking
about something else. That's the fear, an uninhibited
Trump with true loyalists. They can do a lot of horrible
things and they are doing a lot of them.
Hello and welcome to the forecast.
Donald Trump is under pressure again, this time over his
(00:43):
alleged ties to the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
As the scandal grows, the Speaker of the House has shut
down Congress, seemingly to avoid any further questions
being raised on the floor. And now even Trump's usual
allies in the alt right world ofpodcasts and influences are
turning on him. So what happens when the support
base that shielded Trump for years starts to crumble?
(01:07):
David Pak Man, host of The DavidPak Man Show and author of The
Echo Machine, joins us to break it all down.
David, thanks for joining us. My pleasure.
Now, when you think about who Trump is worried about, I mean,
obviously everyone who hates Trump is lapping up all the
controversy, but he he's not going to care about them.
(01:27):
Who is he really worried about? Well, I think Trump is
increasingly worried about legacy as he is now in his final
term as president. He's almost 80 years old, but we
don't really know who else he might be worried about.
You know, if there's been 1 theme of the last decade of
Trump being politics, it's that Trump primarily worries about
(01:48):
himself. To a lesser degree, he worries
about his kids. And then it's sort of like
everybody else. So where I think the most
interesting aspect of this is, is that simply having hung out a
little bit with Jeffrey Epstein 30 years ago doesn't necessarily
mean that he is guilty of whatever it is that he's being
(02:11):
accused of or there are fears hemay have been involved in.
But it's the behavior, the deliberate distracting tactics,
the carefully worded requests for pertinent grand jury
testimony to be released rather than just release all the files.
The behavior is such that it doesn't project innocence.
(02:33):
And it's interesting because it's not, as you say, just
people on the political left. Half of Republicans in the
United States believe he's covering something up.
Yes, but the question is what what's he really worried about?
Because you know, there have been so many awful stories about
Trump and his history. He's been accused of sexual
harassment, of sexual assault. He's been caught on tape
(02:56):
admitting how he behaves. And, and none of us bothered the
electorate that much. They still re elected him.
So. So what is this about this
Epstein story that is potentially so much more
damaging? There are two critical
differences. As bad as all of the previous
(03:16):
allegations have been against Donald Trump.
This at least potentially has todo with underage women, girls
we're talking about here. And that is different than the
bulk of what he has been dealingwith over the last decade or so
of his political career. So that's that's number one.
Number two, this is now a concern because it's ripping
(03:39):
MAGA apart in a way that nothingelse has done.
Even, you know, he ran as the anti war president and then we
had what happened in Iran and there was equivocating.
But for the most part, his constituents, his base didn't
really care about the 180. This really seems to be ripping
them apart where even prominent content creators and influencers
(04:02):
who have been on his side are saying, I don't believe this.
We were told the transparency would come from him.
The current FBI director, Cash Patel for years said, if Trump
wins, you're going to get the full truth about Epstein.
The current deputy FBI director,Dan Bongino for years on his
podcast said, if you want to getto the truth about Epstein, the
(04:25):
full truth, you've got to elect Donald Trump.
And then now they, as part of Trump's administration, are
saying it's all the way you weretold about the death of Epstein.
There's no client list. There's no further prosecutions.
There's nothing here. And so this is different because
it's already ripping his base apart, and it has the potential
(04:46):
for even people in his administration to potentially
abandoned him. I think that those two reasons
are why this is different. Yeah.
And, and now that they've they've wrapped up Congress for
the summer early, it seems, because they don't want any
votes on this. What is it they're trying to
avoid? I think they just want to
(05:06):
postpone this and push this intothe fall.
They there's a division among Republicans in terms of are we
sticking by what we said when Joe Biden was president, which
is we need a vote about whether to release this and let's get on
the record as to whether we really do or don't support the
release of the files. This is going so poorly
(05:27):
politically. I think the idea is it's sort of
like a defendant who says if I can push my trial off, I'm
always better off pushing the trial off.
Witnesses forget some witnesses die, paperwork is misplaced,
etcetera. I think it's the same idea.
If they can at least postpone having to determine whether to
vote on the release of these files until late August, early
(05:49):
September, who knows what might be going on.
Then there will be other stories, tariffs, etcetera.
I think it's just a calculated play that maybe people people
will forget, maybe people will move on, maybe there will be
some different shiny object. Yeah, and obviously the the key
witness, Ghilane Maxwell, is potentially back in play as
(06:09):
there are talks about calling her before Congress and also for
the Department of Justice to tryand speak to her as well.
Now, Trump has said that he he'snot involved in any of that.
He didn't know about that. And it and it's a strange one
because she hasn't spoken in public before so there's very
little reason to think that she would want to now unless there's
(06:33):
a deal to get her out of that 20year sentence she's serving.
Yeah, I think there is a question of she certainly I
assume sees 2 possible paths here to improving her situation.
She has gone on the record and said prosecutors have not come
to me and said, tell us all, youknow, we now want to see who you
(06:56):
might be able to get us. So she has said she's open to
doing that if there's the possibility of a deal.
But because it's Trump, there's the other side of the coin, so
to speak, which is it's conceivable that she may put
herself in a position to maybe earn a pardon in order to keep
her silence. So this she is in a very
(07:18):
interesting position because there are multiple parties who
might be interested in making deals.
Now, I think you're referring toa video where Trump was asked
something along the lines of Jelaine Maxwell may testify or
whatever, and Trump said the thewhat he did his thing where he
didn't quite hear what I'm not who are you talking about?
I have nothing to do with that. But we know from contemporaneous
(07:41):
reporting that there is significant activity in the
federal government right now to try to prevent that testimony,
or at least to limit the scope or the potential damage that it
might have. Yeah.
I mean, how, how close is this White House to the Department of
Justice? How broken down are the
(08:02):
traditional separation of these powers and and how how important
is that in how this is? Completely broken down.
Completely broken down. I mean, listen, we, we were in
the last 48 to 72 hours told that at an extraordinarily
(08:23):
convenient moment. The director of National
Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, hasstumbled across proof that
former President Obama committedtreason, Treason.
And we were told by the attorneygeneral that it is now time to
release files related to the assassination of Martin Luther
(08:47):
King Junior that his family did not want released.
You know that it's extraordinarily clear that there
is a hand in glove relationship here.
And it's going even further where Donald Trump is now making
posts about late night host Stephen Colbert has been fired
and his show canceled. Trump gleefully saying, I
(09:08):
believe I had a hand in that andactually sort of warning fellow
hosts Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon that that they are next.
And Trump's pushing for it. All of this is yes, it's
authoritarianism, but it's also attempts to distract.
Yes, but, but I mean, can, does that work with his MAGA base,
(09:29):
you know, who have been absolutely obsessed by this
whole idea that he and his supporters stoked of the deep
stays of these conspiracies thatprotect powerful people, that he
was going to come in and drain the swamp, that he didn't drain
the first time round and change everything?
I mean, you know, can they be distracted with these
extraordinary, wild allegations about Obama and God knows who
(09:51):
else? Well, it depends on what you
mean by by they being distractedit.
It has distracted part of the base and it is not distracted
another part of it. I mean, I think we have to look
at really at the polling and as of last week, that's before, you
know, the Obama treason allegations and some of these
other things came out. Adam shifts mortgage fraud.
I don't know if that's another one that you've been following,
(10:12):
but it has succeeded in getting some in the base.
There's an influencer, for example, named Charlie Kirk, who
is completely standing by the president, unquestioning in
every way. On the other hand, there are
other prominent influencers likeformer Fox News host Tucker
Carlson, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly and others who are
(10:33):
saying we are not being distracted by this.
We remember what we were promised.
We have every right to continue demanding the transparency that
that we were, we were promised. So I, I think to your question,
will it trip Trump up in terms of will the MAGA base start
demanding his resignation, for example?
I I, I struggle to believe that it's going to get to that point.
(10:55):
Yes, I mean, and and he's now also trying to say this is all
the hoax and sort of marry it with the Russia, Russia, Russia
hoax, as he calls it again. It's sort of it's how it's how
susceptible are are that bunch of people who are holding out at
the moment to giving up, you know, and saying, OK, let's
(11:18):
let's fall into line because they must see.
You know, I, I wish, as I said indelicately on my program, you
really would have to have an IQ in the single digits to fall for
this stuff. But, but, and I know that, that,
you know, I'm being a little coarse in my language.
There are 10s of millions of Americans who voted for this man
(11:40):
three times in 2016 and 2020 andin 2024.
So when you say to me, could anyone really fall for this?
I I think the evidence is that yes, people could.
Well, I suppose it's not so muchfalling for it that I'm
suggesting. I mean, I'm, I'm not, I'm not
implying you have to have an IQ of seven.
I'm, I'm, I'm suggesting that there are people who support
(12:02):
Trump ultimately, no matter what, and that if they see that
this is starting to damage him, that he is desperate, that he
needs them to fall into line. Does the the cult of Trump and
of Make America Great Again Trump everything for once with
this phrase? Depends who you're talking
about. If you're a big corporate CEO
(12:24):
who just cashed in with a beautiful jackpot because of the
recent tax bill, for example, doyou care whether Trump's being
honest or not about Jeffrey Epstein?
Do you care about whether he went into the locker room at
whatever pageant it was that he owned?
Of course you don't. Of course you don't.
I think the people that care or who are potentially swayable in
(12:49):
terms of the public presence arethe people who are on the record
promising that this is the guy who will get us these documents.
They are now in a position wherethey risk losing credibility
with their audience. And that's starting to happen to
a degree. And then I do think that there
is some broader, if we zoom out a little and think about the
midterm elections of 2026 or whomight be the Republican
(13:12):
candidate in 2028. There is definitely a contingent
that might look around in October of next year, a month
before voting and say, here's what Republicans promised me,
here's what I got, which is no transparency on Epstein tax
reform. That really doesn't help me.
It helps the rich in corporations.
I'm not really buying it. I'm going to look for something
(13:34):
different. And how big that contingent is
is really a question mark. But I do think it will it will
be there. Now, how do you think the
Democrats are playing it? Because obviously they're,
they're the ones, you know, who had said there's nothing in
this, he committed suicide. There's no great conspiracy and
and now sort of enjoying this deep discomfort that Trump is
(13:57):
going through. Well, listen, Democratic elected
officials, it's a mixed bag in terms of how they are handling
it. Might myself as a non member of
the Democratic Party, but certainly a progressive content
creator, I believe that the leftmust exploit this.
And the reason that this has to be exploited is that for nearly
(14:19):
a decade, hypocrisy hasn't really mattered to the
electorate of Donald Trump. He said he would build a wall
with Mexico that Mexico would pay for, and it didn't happen,
but they excused it. And he said he was against
regulating businesses and the government being too involved.
But then all of a sudden, he wanted to force Facebook and
(14:39):
Twitter to publish COVID disinformation, just to pick
some examples. And pointing out this double
standard, pointing out this hypocrisy didn't really do
anything. It didn't really sway voters.
We finally seem to have found something that really is swaying
a part of his base to say, I waspromised a, and I'm getting the
opposite of a, I'm getting the opposite of what I was promised.
(15:02):
So I think that the left should exploit it.
As far as elected Democrats, it's sort of a mixed bag, but
some of the ones I've spoken to do recognize that it is worthy
of exploitation. Now, I think there's one other
issue worth addressing that you mentioned, which is Democrats
all along were saying there's nothing here.
We need a little more nuance on that.
(15:25):
What I understand the left broadly to have been arguing is
that there clearly is a client list for Epstein and we don't
know the full scope of who's on that list.
That is a question of revealing something that it's true and we
just need the information on thedeath of Jeffrey Epstein being
suicide or some kind of murder. That specific area is where the
(15:50):
left, I believe, was saying we don't have evidence that it was
anything other than a suicide atthis point in time.
And so I think it's important todistinguish in in what sense it
was being said that there's nothing here.
The Client List, which was not public, is something that all
along I've heard Democrats say that should be released.
Right, even though it's quite likely that I mean The Client
(16:12):
List as it's called, which may just be a list of people who
went to Epstein's parties and and island will almost certainly
include high profile Democrats. It is extraordinarily likely
that this is a non partisan list, and one of the things
about these sort of financier influence peddler types is that
(16:36):
they very often are willing to help whoever will help advance
their interests and are willing to be helped by whoever will be
able to advance their interests.So I have no doubt that it would
be extraordinarily unsurprising for this to be a bipartisan
client list. Doesn't it possibly fall into
(16:56):
the the big trap though, which is that this goes after Trump
personally for his personal behavior.
And, you know, the the lesson ofthe last ten years or so is that
Trump supporters on the whole, you know, don't really care
about the criticism of Trump's character.
(17:16):
In fact, they rather like it. And the thing that really has
purchase on the American voting population is the economy and
how they feel and how the countries doing.
And if Democrats get caught up in another round of go after
Trump personally on something which may which may or may not
ever be conclusively proven, they will just fall into the
(17:39):
same old trap. Yeah, I mean, This is why I I
think what Democrats benefit from right now is that Democrats
per SE don't really have to do much of anything.
Right now. It's Republicans who are
fighting with each other about whether to hold a vote to
release the documents. It's Trump and the DOJ and the
(17:59):
FBI sort of working together to try to calculate and limit and
prepare for the impact of this. So I, I think your analysis is a
good one. This circumstances of this
situation are a little bit different in that it is less
about what Democrats should should be doing or, or have done
in the past successfully or unsuccessfully.
And the other difference is whatwe talked about a few minutes
(18:21):
ago, which is we are seeing a different amount of purchase or
traction among the MAGA base. We have never seen that before.
It didn't happen with the when you're rich, they let you do
whatever infamous Access Hollywood tape before Trump was
first elected. It didn't happen with the I'm
the anti war president, but hereI am bombing Iran.
We just didn't see this level ofdivision within the Republican
(18:43):
Party in MAGA on any previous issue.
And This is why even historians like Heather Cox Richardson, who
I interviewed last week, are saying we should not understate
the potential longer term impactof this Epstein thing.
And for now, letting Trump feverishly attempt to cover it
up publicly seems to be doing enough self-inflicted damage.
I suppose the other potential outcome of this, though, is that
(19:07):
if if Trump feels that throwing out the chaff, if you like,
around Obama and and other scandals isn't working, he may
have to do something more substantial to take people's
minds off things. And and that's again, takes us
into potentially new territory for, you know, this, you know,
(19:29):
government that is pushing all the boundaries of democracy.
You know, he might have to do something quite outrageous to
really make people start talkingabout something else.
Yeah, that's the fear. And this has been a Trump
strategy for a long time. If you study 20th century
authoritarians, one of the things you learn is that the
more pressure there is on them, the more they are willing to
(19:52):
sort of push the boundaries. And Trump's floated a lot of
different things. He's floated shutting down media
outlets adversarial to him or getting specific journalists or
late night hosts fired. He's floated suspending habeas
corpus. He's floated ignoring legal
court orders. And so I think it is a
completely a realistic fear because of Trump's personality
(20:13):
and and his. Sort of desperate, wish to be
like the strong men that he so admires.
And that is an extraordinarily realistic possibility.
Just on the media, I mean, what do you make of the the two very
different responses from these two different media giants?
You have paramount on one side who seem to have sort of caved
in to a large degree and have ended up settling with the
(20:38):
president over his allegations of of how they edited a a pre
election interview. And yet you have Murdoch and the
Wall Street Journal who are standing fast and are saying,
OK, we'll see you in court. What, what does that tell us
about the the media establishment and its appetite
for ultimately taking Trump on? Well, I, I do think in order to
(21:02):
know what ultimately will be news corporations handling of
the Wall Street Journal lawsuit,we do need to wait a little bit.
It's very common that in, in thefirst days of these things you
hear will see you in court and that once more lawyers get
involved and sort of lay out thepossible outcomes.
Sometimes the more sort of presumably risk averse path of a
(21:24):
settlement becomes a little bit more appealing.
But let's kind of think about itas we've heard it so far.
You know, the the Paramount story is an interesting one
because 60 Minutes did not agreewith settling and CBS did not
agree with settling. It was really a decision made at
the absolute top. And it was a decision that was
influenced significantly by the very authoritarianism of Donald
(21:45):
Trump. Paramount is currently in talks
for a merger with Skydance. And it was made very clear
implicitly and explicitly by this administration that if this
becomes an ugly fight down to the very end, the administration
may prevent that merger from taking place.
And so I don't say that to say, oh, it made a lot of sense for
(22:05):
Paramount to settle. But it sort of gives you a
picture of how the authoritarianism and the man who
said I don't want government involved in business is willing
to get very much involved when he has a personal stake in it or
a personal outcome that affects his ego.
On the other hand, with the WallStreet Journal, my instinct is,
(22:26):
and I am not a supporter of Fox News, nor of Rupert Murdoch's or
of News Corporation. My instinct is that the story at
the core of this, which is that Trump sent a Christmas card to
Jeffrey Epstein, They really must be extraordinarily
confident that they have strong sources and that they have
vetted it to the full ability and that it's true.
(22:49):
And my guess would be that if itcomes to the point at which they
aren't going to settle, at some point Trump would need to sit
for a deposition. I cannot imagine any
circumstance in which Donald Trump does that.
And I would expect at that pointthat the lawsuit will be
dropped. I mean, ultimately, do you, do
you think this is an administration that's going to
(23:10):
plan or is it starting to come come apart a bit?
Whose plan, I guess, is the question.
I mean, listen, I'll kind of give you a couple.
There's a few interesting thingsto say about that.
I'm often asked, is this as bad as I expected it to be?
And it's sort of more or less is.
I mean, we we knew that an uninhibited Trump who in his
(23:32):
first term at least, made a sortof shadow boxing game of
installing some mildly competentpeople.
You know, I wasn't a fan of of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of
State, right? If you say to me, do you want an
oil man as Secretary of State, Iwould say no.
But Tillerson at least had some instincts that still were
responsive to the sort of norms of what that office is supposed
(23:54):
to represent. You know, in this second term,
you've got people like Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, Pam Bondi
and others. And that is exactly what I
expected, an uninhibited Trump with true loyalists.
They can do a lot of horrible things and they are doing a lot
of them. So, so to my view, it's going to
plan and that it's just as bad as as I expected in terms of is
(24:15):
it going to plan for the people who supported Trump.
I don't believe that it is. I mean, you know, we the tariff
story was he's going to dump these tariffs.
Everyone will be afraid and comecrawling to him and say, please,
Sir, make us a deal. That's not happening.
He was going to be the anti war president.
He's already been embroiled in in this bombing of Iran and in
(24:37):
in just about every way. It's not really going to the
plan that he laid out. Deportation would be the other
one. By selling the lie that there
are significantly more undocumented immigrants in the
United States than than there are, they set this target as
inhumane as it is a target of deporting 3000 people a day.
(24:57):
It turns out there really aren'tthat many people to deport.
And now they're sweeping up workers.
They're sweeping up employees ofdifferent kinds.
And so that's also not going to plan.
So by by Trump's promises, I would say it is not going to
plan. Right.
OK. So.
So what does that mean for the Democrats in terms of their pre
election planning for the midterms?
(25:19):
Sadly, I, I don't know that it means that much.
And so I'll kind of just be candid in this.
Over the last two months, I've interviewed probably 15
Democratic elected officials. That includes governors,
senators, members of the House of Representatives.
And I don't, I can't tell you with confidence right now that
(25:40):
there's a coherent and cohesive way to argue in next year's
midterms that, OK, Trump's doingall of these terrible things,
but here's why you should reallyvote for Democrats.
I'm just not really seeing that right now.
And I've been up front with the senators, members of the House
and and governors that I've spoken to about that.
And so there's a sort of to be determined aspect to that.
(26:03):
Can Democrats learn from the mistakes of 2024 and find some
credible and coherent argument for why voters should vote for
them? And remember, the US is a
country where, especially in midterms, often half of the
electorate does not vote. And so motivating people to say,
forget about who I'm going to vote for, I'm going to vote
(26:24):
rather than staying home, even that is something that there's
an uphill battle on right now. David Pak, man, we'll leave it
there. Thank you very much indeed.
That's it for this episode of THE FORECAST.
Until next time, bye. Bye.
It's ripping MAGA apart in a waythat nothing else has done.
The left must exploit this for now.
Letting Trump feverishly attemptto cover it up publicly seems to
be doing enough self-inflicted damage.
If Trump feels that throwing outthe chaff, if you like, around
Obama and and other scandals isn't working, he may have to do
(00:21):
something more substantial. You know, he might have to do
something quite outrageous to really make fear start talking
about something else. That's the fear, an uninhibited
Trump with true loyalists. They can do a lot of horrible
things and they are doing a lot of them.
Hello and welcome to the forecast.
Donald Trump is under pressure again, this time over his
(00:43):
alleged ties to the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
As the scandal grows, the Speaker of the House has shut
down Congress, seemingly to avoid any further questions
being raised on the floor. And now even Trump's usual
allies in the alt right world ofpodcasts and influences are
turning on him. So what happens when the support
base that shielded Trump for years starts to crumble?
(01:07):
David Pak Man, host of The DavidPak Man Show and author of The
Echo Machine, joins us to break it all down.
David, thanks for joining us. My pleasure.
Now, when you think about who Trump is worried about, I mean,
obviously everyone who hates Trump is lapping up all the
controversy, but he he's not going to care about them.
(01:27):
Who is he really worried about? Well, I think Trump is
increasingly worried about legacy as he is now in his final
term as president. He's almost 80 years old, but we
don't really know who else he might be worried about.
You know, if there's been 1 theme of the last decade of
Trump being politics, it's that Trump primarily worries about
(01:48):
himself. To a lesser degree, he worries
about his kids. And then it's sort of like
everybody else. So where I think the most
interesting aspect of this is, is that simply having hung out a
little bit with Jeffrey Epstein 30 years ago doesn't necessarily
mean that he is guilty of whatever it is that he's being
(02:11):
accused of or there are fears hemay have been involved in.
But it's the behavior, the deliberate distracting tactics,
the carefully worded requests for pertinent grand jury
testimony to be released rather than just release all the files.
The behavior is such that it doesn't project innocence.
(02:33):
And it's interesting because it's not, as you say, just
people on the political left. Half of Republicans in the
United States believe he's covering something up.
Yes, but the question is what what's he really worried about?
Because you know, there have been so many awful stories about
Trump and his history. He's been accused of sexual
harassment, of sexual assault. He's been caught on tape
(02:56):
admitting how he behaves. And, and none of us bothered the
electorate that much. They still re elected him.
So. So what is this about this
Epstein story that is potentially so much more
damaging? There are two critical
differences. As bad as all of the previous
(03:16):
allegations have been against Donald Trump.
This at least potentially has todo with underage women, girls
we're talking about here. And that is different than the
bulk of what he has been dealingwith over the last decade or so
of his political career. So that's that's number one.
Number two, this is now a concern because it's ripping
(03:39):
MAGA apart in a way that nothingelse has done.
Even, you know, he ran as the anti war president and then we
had what happened in Iran and there was equivocating.
But for the most part, his constituents, his base didn't
really care about the 180. This really seems to be ripping
them apart where even prominent content creators and influencers
(04:02):
who have been on his side are saying, I don't believe this.
We were told the transparency would come from him.
The current FBI director, Cash Patel for years said, if Trump
wins, you're going to get the full truth about Epstein.
The current deputy FBI director,Dan Bongino for years on his
podcast said, if you want to getto the truth about Epstein, the
(04:25):
full truth, you've got to elect Donald Trump.
And then now they, as part of Trump's administration, are
saying it's all the way you weretold about the death of Epstein.
There's no client list. There's no further prosecutions.
There's nothing here. And so this is different because
it's already ripping his base apart, and it has the potential
(04:46):
for even people in his administration to potentially
abandoned him. I think that those two reasons
are why this is different. Yeah.
And, and now that they've they've wrapped up Congress for
the summer early, it seems, because they don't want any
votes on this. What is it they're trying to
avoid? I think they just want to
(05:06):
postpone this and push this intothe fall.
They there's a division among Republicans in terms of are we
sticking by what we said when Joe Biden was president, which
is we need a vote about whether to release this and let's get on
the record as to whether we really do or don't support the
release of the files. This is going so poorly
(05:27):
politically. I think the idea is it's sort of
like a defendant who says if I can push my trial off, I'm
always better off pushing the trial off.
Witnesses forget some witnesses die, paperwork is misplaced,
etcetera. I think it's the same idea.
If they can at least postpone having to determine whether to
vote on the release of these files until late August, early
(05:49):
September, who knows what might be going on.
Then there will be other stories, tariffs, etcetera.
I think it's just a calculated play that maybe people people
will forget, maybe people will move on, maybe there will be
some different shiny object. Yeah, and obviously the the key
witness, Ghilane Maxwell, is potentially back in play as
(06:09):
there are talks about calling her before Congress and also for
the Department of Justice to tryand speak to her as well.
Now, Trump has said that he he'snot involved in any of that.
He didn't know about that. And it and it's a strange one
because she hasn't spoken in public before so there's very
little reason to think that she would want to now unless there's
(06:33):
a deal to get her out of that 20year sentence she's serving.
Yeah, I think there is a question of she certainly I
assume sees 2 possible paths here to improving her situation.
She has gone on the record and said prosecutors have not come
to me and said, tell us all, youknow, we now want to see who you
(06:56):
might be able to get us. So she has said she's open to
doing that if there's the possibility of a deal.
But because it's Trump, there's the other side of the coin, so
to speak, which is it's conceivable that she may put
herself in a position to maybe earn a pardon in order to keep
her silence. So this she is in a very
(07:18):
interesting position because there are multiple parties who
might be interested in making deals.
Now, I think you're referring toa video where Trump was asked
something along the lines of Jelaine Maxwell may testify or
whatever, and Trump said the thewhat he did his thing where he
didn't quite hear what I'm not who are you talking about?
I have nothing to do with that. But we know from contemporaneous
(07:41):
reporting that there is significant activity in the
federal government right now to try to prevent that testimony,
or at least to limit the scope or the potential damage that it
might have. Yeah.
I mean, how, how close is this White House to the Department of
Justice? How broken down are the
(08:02):
traditional separation of these powers and and how how important
is that in how this is? Completely broken down.
Completely broken down. I mean, listen, we, we were in
the last 48 to 72 hours told that at an extraordinarily
(08:23):
convenient moment. The director of National
Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, hasstumbled across proof that
former President Obama committedtreason, Treason.
And we were told by the attorneygeneral that it is now time to
release files related to the assassination of Martin Luther
(08:47):
King Junior that his family did not want released.
You know that it's extraordinarily clear that there
is a hand in glove relationship here.
And it's going even further where Donald Trump is now making
posts about late night host Stephen Colbert has been fired
and his show canceled. Trump gleefully saying, I
(09:08):
believe I had a hand in that andactually sort of warning fellow
hosts Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon that that they are next.
And Trump's pushing for it. All of this is yes, it's
authoritarianism, but it's also attempts to distract.
Yes, but, but I mean, can, does that work with his MAGA base,
(09:29):
you know, who have been absolutely obsessed by this
whole idea that he and his supporters stoked of the deep
stays of these conspiracies thatprotect powerful people, that he
was going to come in and drain the swamp, that he didn't drain
the first time round and change everything?
I mean, you know, can they be distracted with these
extraordinary, wild allegations about Obama and God knows who
(09:51):
else? Well, it depends on what you
mean by by they being distractedit.
It has distracted part of the base and it is not distracted
another part of it. I mean, I think we have to look
at really at the polling and as of last week, that's before, you
know, the Obama treason allegations and some of these
other things came out. Adam shifts mortgage fraud.
I don't know if that's another one that you've been following,
(10:12):
but it has succeeded in getting some in the base.
There's an influencer, for example, named Charlie Kirk, who
is completely standing by the president, unquestioning in
every way. On the other hand, there are
other prominent influencers likeformer Fox News host Tucker
Carlson, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly and others who are
(10:33):
saying we are not being distracted by this.
We remember what we were promised.
We have every right to continue demanding the transparency that
that we were, we were promised. So I, I think to your question,
will it trip Trump up in terms of will the MAGA base start
demanding his resignation, for example?
I I, I struggle to believe that it's going to get to that point.
(10:55):
Yes, I mean, and and he's now also trying to say this is all
the hoax and sort of marry it with the Russia, Russia, Russia
hoax, as he calls it again. It's sort of it's how it's how
susceptible are are that bunch of people who are holding out at
the moment to giving up, you know, and saying, OK, let's
(11:18):
let's fall into line because they must see.
You know, I, I wish, as I said indelicately on my program, you
really would have to have an IQ in the single digits to fall for
this stuff. But, but, and I know that, that,
you know, I'm being a little coarse in my language.
There are 10s of millions of Americans who voted for this man
(11:40):
three times in 2016 and 2020 andin 2024.
So when you say to me, could anyone really fall for this?
I I think the evidence is that yes, people could.
Well, I suppose it's not so muchfalling for it that I'm
suggesting. I mean, I'm, I'm not, I'm not
implying you have to have an IQ of seven.
I'm, I'm, I'm suggesting that there are people who support
(12:02):
Trump ultimately, no matter what, and that if they see that
this is starting to damage him, that he is desperate, that he
needs them to fall into line. Does the the cult of Trump and
of Make America Great Again Trump everything for once with
this phrase? Depends who you're talking
about. If you're a big corporate CEO
(12:24):
who just cashed in with a beautiful jackpot because of the
recent tax bill, for example, doyou care whether Trump's being
honest or not about Jeffrey Epstein?
Do you care about whether he went into the locker room at
whatever pageant it was that he owned?
Of course you don't. Of course you don't.
I think the people that care or who are potentially swayable in
(12:49):
terms of the public presence arethe people who are on the record
promising that this is the guy who will get us these documents.
They are now in a position wherethey risk losing credibility
with their audience. And that's starting to happen to
a degree. And then I do think that there
is some broader, if we zoom out a little and think about the
midterm elections of 2026 or whomight be the Republican
(13:12):
candidate in 2028. There is definitely a contingent
that might look around in October of next year, a month
before voting and say, here's what Republicans promised me,
here's what I got, which is no transparency on Epstein tax
reform. That really doesn't help me.
It helps the rich in corporations.
I'm not really buying it. I'm going to look for something
(13:34):
different. And how big that contingent is
is really a question mark. But I do think it will it will
be there. Now, how do you think the
Democrats are playing it? Because obviously they're,
they're the ones, you know, who had said there's nothing in
this, he committed suicide. There's no great conspiracy and
and now sort of enjoying this deep discomfort that Trump is
(13:57):
going through. Well, listen, Democratic elected
officials, it's a mixed bag in terms of how they are handling
it. Might myself as a non member of
the Democratic Party, but certainly a progressive content
creator, I believe that the leftmust exploit this.
And the reason that this has to be exploited is that for nearly
(14:19):
a decade, hypocrisy hasn't really mattered to the
electorate of Donald Trump. He said he would build a wall
with Mexico that Mexico would pay for, and it didn't happen,
but they excused it. And he said he was against
regulating businesses and the government being too involved.
But then all of a sudden, he wanted to force Facebook and
(14:39):
Twitter to publish COVID disinformation, just to pick
some examples. And pointing out this double
standard, pointing out this hypocrisy didn't really do
anything. It didn't really sway voters.
We finally seem to have found something that really is swaying
a part of his base to say, I waspromised a, and I'm getting the
opposite of a, I'm getting the opposite of what I was promised.
(15:02):
So I think that the left should exploit it.
As far as elected Democrats, it's sort of a mixed bag, but
some of the ones I've spoken to do recognize that it is worthy
of exploitation. Now, I think there's one other
issue worth addressing that you mentioned, which is Democrats
all along were saying there's nothing here.
We need a little more nuance on that.
(15:25):
What I understand the left broadly to have been arguing is
that there clearly is a client list for Epstein and we don't
know the full scope of who's on that list.
That is a question of revealing something that it's true and we
just need the information on thedeath of Jeffrey Epstein being
suicide or some kind of murder. That specific area is where the
(15:50):
left, I believe, was saying we don't have evidence that it was
anything other than a suicide atthis point in time.
And so I think it's important todistinguish in in what sense it
was being said that there's nothing here.
The Client List, which was not public, is something that all
along I've heard Democrats say that should be released.
Right, even though it's quite likely that I mean The Client
(16:12):
List as it's called, which may just be a list of people who
went to Epstein's parties and and island will almost certainly
include high profile Democrats. It is extraordinarily likely
that this is a non partisan list, and one of the things
about these sort of financier influence peddler types is that
(16:36):
they very often are willing to help whoever will help advance
their interests and are willing to be helped by whoever will be
able to advance their interests.So I have no doubt that it would
be extraordinarily unsurprising for this to be a bipartisan
client list. Doesn't it possibly fall into
(16:56):
the the big trap though, which is that this goes after Trump
personally for his personal behavior.
And, you know, the the lesson ofthe last ten years or so is that
Trump supporters on the whole, you know, don't really care
about the criticism of Trump's character.
(17:16):
In fact, they rather like it. And the thing that really has
purchase on the American voting population is the economy and
how they feel and how the countries doing.
And if Democrats get caught up in another round of go after
Trump personally on something which may which may or may not
ever be conclusively proven, they will just fall into the
(17:39):
same old trap. Yeah, I mean, This is why I I
think what Democrats benefit from right now is that Democrats
per SE don't really have to do much of anything.
Right now. It's Republicans who are
fighting with each other about whether to hold a vote to
release the documents. It's Trump and the DOJ and the
(17:59):
FBI sort of working together to try to calculate and limit and
prepare for the impact of this. So I, I think your analysis is a
good one. This circumstances of this
situation are a little bit different in that it is less
about what Democrats should should be doing or, or have done
in the past successfully or unsuccessfully.
And the other difference is whatwe talked about a few minutes
(18:21):
ago, which is we are seeing a different amount of purchase or
traction among the MAGA base. We have never seen that before.
It didn't happen with the when you're rich, they let you do
whatever infamous Access Hollywood tape before Trump was
first elected. It didn't happen with the I'm
the anti war president, but hereI am bombing Iran.
We just didn't see this level ofdivision within the Republican
(18:43):
Party in MAGA on any previous issue.
And This is why even historians like Heather Cox Richardson, who
I interviewed last week, are saying we should not understate
the potential longer term impactof this Epstein thing.
And for now, letting Trump feverishly attempt to cover it
up publicly seems to be doing enough self-inflicted damage.
I suppose the other potential outcome of this, though, is that
(19:07):
if if Trump feels that throwing out the chaff, if you like,
around Obama and and other scandals isn't working, he may
have to do something more substantial to take people's
minds off things. And and that's again, takes us
into potentially new territory for, you know, this, you know,
(19:29):
government that is pushing all the boundaries of democracy.
You know, he might have to do something quite outrageous to
really make people start talkingabout something else.
Yeah, that's the fear. And this has been a Trump
strategy for a long time. If you study 20th century
authoritarians, one of the things you learn is that the
more pressure there is on them, the more they are willing to
(19:52):
sort of push the boundaries. And Trump's floated a lot of
different things. He's floated shutting down media
outlets adversarial to him or getting specific journalists or
late night hosts fired. He's floated suspending habeas
corpus. He's floated ignoring legal
court orders. And so I think it is a
completely a realistic fear because of Trump's personality
(20:13):
and and his. Sort of desperate, wish to be
like the strong men that he so admires.
And that is an extraordinarily realistic possibility.
Just on the media, I mean, what do you make of the the two very
different responses from these two different media giants?
You have paramount on one side who seem to have sort of caved
in to a large degree and have ended up settling with the
(20:38):
president over his allegations of of how they edited a a pre
election interview. And yet you have Murdoch and the
Wall Street Journal who are standing fast and are saying,
OK, we'll see you in court. What, what does that tell us
about the the media establishment and its appetite
for ultimately taking Trump on? Well, I, I do think in order to
(21:02):
know what ultimately will be news corporations handling of
the Wall Street Journal lawsuit,we do need to wait a little bit.
It's very common that in, in thefirst days of these things you
hear will see you in court and that once more lawyers get
involved and sort of lay out thepossible outcomes.
Sometimes the more sort of presumably risk averse path of a
(21:24):
settlement becomes a little bit more appealing.
But let's kind of think about itas we've heard it so far.
You know, the the Paramount story is an interesting one
because 60 Minutes did not agreewith settling and CBS did not
agree with settling. It was really a decision made at
the absolute top. And it was a decision that was
influenced significantly by the very authoritarianism of Donald
(21:45):
Trump. Paramount is currently in talks
for a merger with Skydance. And it was made very clear
implicitly and explicitly by this administration that if this
becomes an ugly fight down to the very end, the administration
may prevent that merger from taking place.
And so I don't say that to say, oh, it made a lot of sense for
(22:05):
Paramount to settle. But it sort of gives you a
picture of how the authoritarianism and the man who
said I don't want government involved in business is willing
to get very much involved when he has a personal stake in it or
a personal outcome that affects his ego.
On the other hand, with the WallStreet Journal, my instinct is,
(22:26):
and I am not a supporter of Fox News, nor of Rupert Murdoch's or
of News Corporation. My instinct is that the story at
the core of this, which is that Trump sent a Christmas card to
Jeffrey Epstein, They really must be extraordinarily
confident that they have strong sources and that they have
vetted it to the full ability and that it's true.
(22:49):
And my guess would be that if itcomes to the point at which they
aren't going to settle, at some point Trump would need to sit
for a deposition. I cannot imagine any
circumstance in which Donald Trump does that.
And I would expect at that pointthat the lawsuit will be
dropped. I mean, ultimately, do you, do
you think this is an administration that's going to
(23:10):
plan or is it starting to come come apart a bit?
Whose plan, I guess, is the question.
I mean, listen, I'll kind of give you a couple.
There's a few interesting thingsto say about that.
I'm often asked, is this as bad as I expected it to be?
And it's sort of more or less is.
I mean, we we knew that an uninhibited Trump who in his
(23:32):
first term at least, made a sortof shadow boxing game of
installing some mildly competentpeople.
You know, I wasn't a fan of of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of
State, right? If you say to me, do you want an
oil man as Secretary of State, Iwould say no.
But Tillerson at least had some instincts that still were
responsive to the sort of norms of what that office is supposed
(23:54):
to represent. You know, in this second term,
you've got people like Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, Pam Bondi
and others. And that is exactly what I
expected, an uninhibited Trump with true loyalists.
They can do a lot of horrible things and they are doing a lot
of them. So, so to my view, it's going to
plan and that it's just as bad as as I expected in terms of is
(24:15):
it going to plan for the people who supported Trump.
I don't believe that it is. I mean, you know, we the tariff
story was he's going to dump these tariffs.
Everyone will be afraid and comecrawling to him and say, please,
Sir, make us a deal. That's not happening.
He was going to be the anti war president.
He's already been embroiled in in this bombing of Iran and in
(24:37):
in just about every way. It's not really going to the
plan that he laid out. Deportation would be the other
one. By selling the lie that there
are significantly more undocumented immigrants in the
United States than than there are, they set this target as
inhumane as it is a target of deporting 3000 people a day.
(24:57):
It turns out there really aren'tthat many people to deport.
And now they're sweeping up workers.
They're sweeping up employees ofdifferent kinds.
And so that's also not going to plan.
So by by Trump's promises, I would say it is not going to
plan. Right.
OK. So.
So what does that mean for the Democrats in terms of their pre
election planning for the midterms?
(25:19):
Sadly, I, I don't know that it means that much.
And so I'll kind of just be candid in this.
Over the last two months, I've interviewed probably 15
Democratic elected officials. That includes governors,
senators, members of the House of Representatives.
And I don't, I can't tell you with confidence right now that
(25:40):
there's a coherent and cohesive way to argue in next year's
midterms that, OK, Trump's doingall of these terrible things,
but here's why you should reallyvote for Democrats.
I'm just not really seeing that right now.
And I've been up front with the senators, members of the House
and and governors that I've spoken to about that.
And so there's a sort of to be determined aspect to that.
(26:03):
Can Democrats learn from the mistakes of 2024 and find some
credible and coherent argument for why voters should vote for
them? And remember, the US is a
country where, especially in midterms, often half of the
electorate does not vote. And so motivating people to say,
forget about who I'm going to vote for, I'm going to vote
(26:24):
rather than staying home, even that is something that there's
an uphill battle on right now. David Pak, man, we'll leave it
there. Thank you very much indeed.
That's it for this episode of THE FORECAST.
Until next time, bye. Bye.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.