B (2:29)

He gave me a gift.

C (2:30)

Yes.

B (2:30)

Of a voice. So, yeah, that's my story. A one and absolutely done. That's pretty explicit.

C (2:39)

Yeah, pretty. And he's like, he says he gave me a gift. Yes, a void. And so yeah, that's my story. A one and absolutely two done. It turns out that he under counted how many times by like several multiples because he seems to have had a lot of contact, friendly contact, business related contact with Jeffrey Epstein in the subsequent years. So just to read through some of the high points or some of the highlights that have come out through this.

B (3:12)

I would call them high points. I would call points, I don't know.

C (3:16)

Flashpoints, some kind of point. Lutnick planned a family trip to Epstein's island in 2012. That seems like it's pretty cozy. In 2013, a venture capital executive asked Epstein for his opinion of Lutnick. And Epstein in his characteristically clipped responses, said, my neighbor Smart. Also in 2013, both men signed on to some sort of ill fated investment and I think an ad firm, private company. In fact, if you look at the Epstein files, you can see their signatures are on back to back pages that they both invested in this company. And I think there were only like nine shareholders. Epstein donated 50,000 in 2017 to an event honoring Mr. Lutnick sponsored by the UJA Federation of New York, which is a charity supporting Jewish causes. And in their last known correspondence in 2018, Howard Lutnick emailed Epstein's assistant about the proposed new construction near their homes. So to recap, Lutnick said didn't have any contact with him socially for business or even philanthropy. And all three of those things have shown up in the files released thus far. So. So yeah, at the very least, like, look, we don't know from any of this that there were any crimes committed. And I'm not suggesting that, you know, know any allegations of specific crimes have even been made, but at the very least we know that he lied.

B (4:45)

Yeah, I mean, the charitable thing, the charitable interpretation of this is, and this is what they're saying as well, you know, that business venture, that was sort of a Canter Fitzgerald thing. Lnick just has to sign this. It's perfunctory. Part of the business side. He really wasn't involved. Fine, whatever. But they were living next to each other. They clearly knew each other. They planned a family trip together. There was money exchanged, the $50,000 check. I mean, this is not like a one off. And certainly the, the 2005 interview that he did with the Post, or, sorry, the interview he did with the Post about cutting off relations in 2005 is bullshit. It's just bullshit. And all those things that you listed happened after Epstein was in some legal drama and hot water. So what's fascinating me about this is that in, in a lot of other times and certainly other societies, this would be, you know, cause for real pressure to resign, if not preemptive resignation. The minister, the government minister, top official, would say, you know, I become a distraction. I got caught, you know, like, I'm going to resign. And they would do it. Strategically, frankly, they would do it because if you're the, in this case, the Trump administration, you want to show that you're taking this stuff seriously, you need to sort of have, for better or worse, a human sacrifice. In this case, you would say, Howard Lutnick, you got caught.

C (6:03)

Especially given the fact that Trump himself appears tens of thousands of times.

B (6:08)

Oh, yeah.

C (6:09)

In these way.

B (6:09)

More than Lutnick.

C (6:10)

Yeah, yeah. And so it would be a very easy thing for the administration to do, to say, look, just to prove that we take this stuff seriously and that there's a difference between whatever kinds of engagements the President may have had with Epstein and more incriminating or more nefarious seeming engagements. Like we're going to say, cut this guy loose, throw him under the bus, and we'll show that we, you know, we care about the victims in this room. I don't know, they're like, there could have been a way to do this and it may yet happen to be clear the fact that Lutnick's name was not blacked out in these files, whereas some other friends, you know, other people, I don't want to say, other johns or whatever, we don't know. We don't know. We don't know what they did. But there, there are other people who certainly had, like, slimy seeming interactions with Epstein that were blacked out. So the question is, why did they leave him in? I don't know if it was deliberate or not.

B (7:13)

But the other question is, why aren't they doing what you and I think would be sort of a normal course of business to do, which is cut Lutnik off.

C (7:20)

Yeah.

B (7:21)

And I have a couple theories. One is, well, first is they have no pressure to do it from their own party. So we'll play a clip of Tom Massie, who was behind the bill to produce these files. He's been one of the only Republicans who's been calling and pushing for the release. He is, like, quite literally the only Republican who has called for Lutnick to resign. He said this on cnn. Inside Politics. Trump's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that he and his wife decided around 2005 to cut ties with Jeffrey Epstein. But the latest release shows that there was some correspondence after that, even after Epstein pleaded guilty to sex crimes in 2008. What questions do you have about Lutnick's ties to Epstein and should he come before Congress and testify?

D (8:08)

No, he should just resign. I mean, there are three people in Great Britain that have resigned in politics. The ambassador from Great Britain to the United States, the prince lost his title for less than what we've seen Howard Lutnick lie about. Look, Howard Lutnick clearly went to the island. If we believe what's in these files, he was in business with Jeffrey Epstein. And this was many years after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted, lightly sentenced, but was convicted for sexual crimes. So he's got a lot to answer for, but really, he should make life easier on the President, frankly, and just resign. If this were Great Britain, he'd already be gone.

B (8:48)

All right, so there you have. You got Massey, the other people now on the Democratic side, I've said, like, you know, Adam Schiff today called on Lutnick to resign, but there's not much pressure at all whatsoever. Conversely, you have a lot of Republicans who are willing to just sort of let him skate. So let's listen to James Comer, who's head of the Oversight Committee. He was asked today, this is Monday, if he would haul Lutnick in to testify because they're having all these other people testify, including Bill Clinton. Here's what Colmer said. Mr. Chairman, does the committee have any plans to subpoena Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick given the revelations? We're going to try to get these five nailed down.

D (9:25)

We've got a lot of very important people we're trying to bring in to answer questions.

B (9:30)

We don't want to do anything to jeopardize the five that we have on the book. So we'll.

D (9:35)

We'll see what happens here, and we'll.

B (9:37)

We'll move forward. All right, so there's very little pressure for him to do it on the public. But the other reason, and this is what I want you to noodle on is, is if you give up Lutnick, it obviously raises the question for the administration, well, you have to cut ties with Elon Musk. Right. Or you can't be talking with Steve Bannon. Right. Or, you know, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Had some interactions with Epstein. Why are his. Okay. And Howard Lutnicks were not. And it's become this thing where if you get rid of one person, if you try to push one person out, even if it's for lying or anything else, it raises natural follow up questions about why not this other person.

C (10:14)

Yeah, fair. Again, you could say we're drawing the line at the fact that he lied, right? That he lied to the President. He misrepresented. Like the only true transgression that Donald Trump recognizes is a betrayal of Donald Trump. So they could cast it that way, but they don't care. Like I think they don't care. And to your point that in a normal administration they might say something like, this is a distraction, this whole administration is a series of distractions from more upsetting and incriminating distractions. Right. It's like everything is a distraction from everything else. The Epstein files are a distraction from what's happening in Minnesota. You know, Are you one of the.

B (10:56)

People who thinks these are all deliberate distractions?

C (10:59)

No, no. I just mean that Steve Bannon said, flood the zone with shit. I'm saying in that sense, we're flooded. We're dead. Like we're drowned already. And beyond that, the idea that something could be bad simply because it is a distraction from everything else that the Trump administration is doing is just. It's not a thing. Right?

B (11:24)

Right. What work takes is sponsored by Upwork. Scaling a business takes the right expertise at the right time. Upwork helps growing teams quickly bring in specialized freelancers so you can move faster and take the business to the next level. And believe me, I know how much of a hassle it can be to find the right candidate. Upwork is a one stop platform to find, hire and pay expert freelancers across web and software development, data and analytics, marketing, business operations and much, much more. Upwork helps grow your business by giving you fast access to specialized talent across 125 and more categories. So you can fill skill gaps, launch projects faster and scale support up or down without committing to full time headcount. You can browse profiles, review past work and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. With Business plus, you can access the top 1% of talent on Upwork. And with AI powered shortlisting, you'll get matched to the right freelancer in under six hours. No endless searching required. Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's U-P-W-O-R k.com upwork.com in other administrations.

C (12:44)

They Might say we want to keep the public focused on our message of X, of how we're bringing health care to people, how we're cutting taxes or whatever it. Whatever is the thing that is actually there, their most important priorities here. There is really no priority that they want to draw attention to. It's just a whole bunch of shit all over the place. And some of it is shit that their base loves, some of it is shit that their base doesn't like. But the idea that it would be problematic or even a fireable offense to have done something that distracts that is embarrassing in some way. I think it just. It doesn't exist in quite the same way.

B (13:29)

No, no, I think you're right about that. I'm a little bit worried about how often you just said the word shit. I'm sure the YouTube filters will catch that one. No, it's. All right, fine. You put together. So just to give people sense, we're not making this stuff up in normal administrations. In other governments except for ours, people would suffer professional consequences for this. So Catherine, because she's very good at her homework, went through and found examples of this happening in real time in other countries. I can't pronounce any of these people's names, so I'm going to leave it to Catherine to summarize just how sweeping the damage has been across different governments.

C (14:06)

So just as an example, the Prime Minister of the uk, Keir Starmer, his job is at risk right now and he's not even implicated in any of this directly. The issue is that there were other people whom he has appointed or theoretically covered for, or what have you, who did have contact. So Morgan McSweeney, who's the chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, resigned under pressure on Sunday after days of political upheaval over his role in the appointment of a different guy, Peter Mandelson, who was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein, who was the ambassador to the United States.

B (14:43)

Again, this could bring down the British government.

C (14:45)

Yes, it could bring down the British government. You have the. So, yeah, so the UK ambassador was ousted. You have a Slovakian national security advisor to the Prime Minister. I will not.

B (14:56)

No, no. Who can you. What's the name? Carrie? Can you at least try?

C (15:00)

I do not want to insult our Slovakian listeners, but it looks kind of like. I don't know, I'm. I'm sure somebody's going to correct us in the comments. But anyway, you know, he had to resign over Epstein links. You have an investigation in Norway. The former pm over alleged Epstein links And then you have other kinds of investigations, I think, happening in Poland and maybe Turkey, if I'm remembering correctly, where they're trying to make sure that there were no girls or women trafficked.

B (15:35)

Didn't the Dalai Lama have to put out a tweet over the weekend? Or is that a fake tweet? I saw the Dalai Lama. I did not have anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein.

C (15:43)

Anyway, there have been other figures in the United States who are not governmental figures who have had to pay some professional consequences. So like Brad Karp, who was the chair of Paul Weiss, a big white shoe law firm here in the United States. He had to step down. I mean, Paul Weiss has had some other problems independent of this, but those revelations clearly did not help him. The NFL said it would investigate Epstein's relationship with the. With the Giants owner Steve Tisch, who had exchanged sometimes crude emails with Epstein about mandates.

B (16:18)

Very crude.

C (16:19)

Very crude.

B (16:20)

Yeah.

C (16:21)

So, yeah. So there are some other figures who have been shamed and may have lost some position of authority or status, but curiously not within the US Government. It's happening in other governments and in private firms.

B (16:34)

And also, like Brad Karp is one notable case. But like it also is, it also is true that he's one of very few business leaders at this point who's suffered consequences. Like Kathy Rummler, for instance, who is top lawyer at Goldman Sachs. This has been an incredibly humiliating series of exposures around her relationship with Epstein. And as far as I'm aware, Goldman has not released her from her responsibilities. I guess the long and short of it is that we live in increasingly in sort of like a consequence free society where, you know, to your point, it's just like you kind of. At least our political leadership has calculated that if you just sort of stay put and survive the scandal or just try to, you know, ride out the scandal, you probably will survive it.

C (17:22)

Well, that was, that was the lesson that I think Donald Trump learned from Roy Cohn. Right. That 100% could have written it out if in fact he had just dug in his heels and said, no, I'm not going anywhere.

B (17:35)

Yeah.

C (17:36)

And that. That's what Donald Trump does. That's what everybody around him does.

B (17:40)

Access Hollywood tape is a great example of this. Everyone's saying, you gotta go, you gotta go. And he said, fuck. And he was right.

C (17:47)

And the news cycle will move on. So. Well, this is why I think it's important for Democrats to really pull on the Lutnik thread, because Donald Trump can't be shamed. Right. He's never Going to back down on this or anything else. I don't know that Lutnick necessarily will voluntarily. But he may become a big enough problem for the administration if in fact you have more investigations, you have. You find out that there's more to it than just that he lied.

B (18:18)

Yeah, but that's why the comer. The comer quote that we played up top is significant. There's no pressure points on these guys. Right. If it was a Democratic controlled House and they wanted to just like throw them up there, haul them up there, maybe you could see these moments mattering. But like if you have a compliant Congress who's just not going to press the matter, I don't really see where it goes.

C (18:36)

I think they keep beating the drum and at some point it may break through that it's not just Trump who was palling around with Epstein. It was, you know, the Epstein class administration. Right. That like multiple members of this administration thought it was cool to hang out with Epstein, to do business with Epstein, to engage philanthropically with Epstein in some respect. And it's not just a one off. It starts to look a lot more like what it is. Which was basically a cabal of these elites who thought that they were bulletproof, who thought that they can do things with impunity. And I just think it reinforces what I see as a relatively correct narrative that is true of this administration not just in terms of its members willingness to engage with Jeffrey Epstein, but in lots of other respects acting with impunity and disregard for more vulnerable people.

B (19:36)

Well, we'll see. Thank you for doing this. I appreciate how much you dove into the world leaders around the globe and how much you said the word both records today. No, I loved it. Thank you so much. It's great. Don't apologize for it. Everyone should subscribe honestly to her newsletter receipts. It's awesome. It's so good. Every, every, every edition is a banger. And if you're not subscribed to Bull Work taste, subscribe to that. Before we go, two announcements. We have a couple live shows coming up. You got to get your tickets. Minneapolis, we sold out the first night. We had to do a second night. So come join us on the 18th in Minneapolis. It's going to be awesome. Hopefully we have some cool people there. I'm trying to get. It's at the Patangas Theater in Minneapolis and then we're going down to Texas. We got March 18th in Dallas, March 19th in Austin. Take a look for tickets there, see if you can grab them. If you're in Texas. We'd love to see you folks. Appreciate all you guys do for us. Appreciate your support, subscribe. Talk to you later.