← Bulwark Takes
Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:00]
Tim Miller
Hey everybody. Tim Miller from the Bulwark. I just got off a weekend stint with Alex Witt on MSNBC and we're discussing a lot of the swirling controversy around Epstein as well as the firing of Maureen Comey, which we've talked about here a couple of times, I find to just be utterly outrageous in the extreme and a total betrayal of. I just, I don't understand how, how the QAnon type voters, the MAGA voters who claim to care about the prosecution of sex criminals could see the firing over the prosecutor who oversaw the arrest of sex criminals is anything but an utter betrayal. And, and the administration revealing that they don't actually care at all about this. Something we all know. But you know, I'll talk a little bit about some. I haven't gotten into that much, which is this notion that of getting Ghislaine Maxwell to testify in Congress. And I've been rewatching the Epstein documentary over the weekend and I do think this is likely not going to happen during the Republican Congress and should not be the core of the Democrats campaign next fall. But I think that if the Democrats take back the House, they should do everything in their power to get Ghislaine Maxwell to testify. There is just so much more underneath the surface of this story that could at minimum implicate pedos and sex criminals and possibly more than that, shed some light over Donald Trump's relationship with the couple. So stick around for that Alex Witt on the weekend show and me chatting it all up. We'll be back here tomorrow for the Monday Board podcast with Bill Kristol. We'll have a lot more all week, so we'll be seeing you soon. Subscribe to the feed.
- [01:59]
Alex Witt
Kim, I first want to ask about that suggestion from Alan Dershowitz to give Ghislaine Maxwell so called use immunity and then have her testify to Congress. Well, just in this last hour, Joyce Vance told me that Congress could, could just subpoena her. They don't need a use immunity reason for doing so. Do you see any scenario where Ghislaine Maxwell testifies to Congress and could that lay all questions to rest?
- [02:24]
Tim Miller
Well, I don't know if anything could lay all questions to rest at this point, but it certainly would be useful to have Ghislaine Maxwell testify to Congress. It's hard for me to get inside her head at this point and obviously she's serving time. What would be the value for her? What could be offered to her? Maybe that's what Dershowitz is saying though. Any immunity suggestions for Dershowitz offers a pretty bad flashback to the original Epstein arrest way back in 2006. 7, 8. Where he was given immunity and his, and Maxwell was given immunity at the time from, from further prosecution when he got that sweetheart deal. So, you know, look, I don't, I don't know what she would want to do. I think certainly, you know, if you're the, if you're the Democrats looking ahead to the midterms, thinking that subpoena and Ghislaine Maxwell would make a lot of sense for them next year, depending on what happens in the meantime. And I think that that is all going to continue to. I don't think any of this is.
- [03:18]
Alex Witt
Going to go away, Alexi. I mean, envision this. I mean, a hearing like this with Ghislaine Maxwell testifying could potentially be a bigger spectacle anyway than the January 6th hearing. So what's your reaction to that prospect?
- [03:33]
Alexi McCammon
I mean, it's all such a spectacle, and it's one of Trump's own making at this point. I mean, it's crazy that the issue at hand, of course, is so gross and abhorrent. It's about child sex trafficking and people who have been involved in that. And yet here we are trying to just get basic facts because victims and others want to hold these folks to account. I think you're making a great point that if, if Ghislaine were to testify, she could answer a lot of questions and she would have probably no reason to lie at this point. Obviously, I don't know her and don't know, but I would imagine she would be willing to share information, and that's what people are so desperate for at this point in time. It's just more information so that we can move on. And it's not even just information about Jeffrey Epstein and how he died or whatever. It's about the larger problem here that folks have been facing for years and decades of being abused by powerful men and women with no regard for accountability.
- [04:34]
Alex Witt
So Trump has moved pretty quickly, Tim, to file that $10 billion lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal after the report about the alleged Epstein letter, which Trump denies. WR NBC News has not seen a copy, but now it threatens to put his relationship with Epstein under greater scrutiny with this lawsuit. Is this a gamble on his part?
- [04:57]
Tim Miller
Is. Look, I think that the gamble that Trump is making, and, you know, he's not subtle about these sort of things, you don't really have to read between the lines, is that he can cow Rupert Murdoch in the way that he has other media outlets. He mentioned in the Truth Social post about this lawsuit, the lawsuit against George Stephanopoulos and ABC and the lawsuit against 60 Minutes in CBS, which both settled. And so I think that is the gamble that he is making on the other side of this. To your point, you know, discovery is not going to be good for Donald Trump related to Jeffrey Epstein. And there's they had a very extensive friendship. You know, any time this stuff comes up there, these old tabloid articles from the, from New York and London during the 90s when Trump was a private figure, about how he had spent time with Maxwell and Epstein. So there obviously is more information out there. Allegedly this alleged letter, birthday letter was in the 2006 DOJ filing. So I think that is a risk. But if you're Trump, that's kind of a tomorrow risk. And I think you figure that you can kick the can and that this and all this would take a lot of time.
- [06:02]
Alex Witt
But let me ask you, though, Tim. I mean, certainly Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal are very aware of the history that you've just chronicled, the recent history of Donald Trump getting money, extracting money from media corporations. The Wall Street Journal says we stand behind all this reporting. You'd think they wouldn't take a risk at encouraging the wrath and a $10 billion lawsuit from Donald Trump unless they were pretty darn sure they had what they needed to hold up in court.
- [06:30]
Tim Miller
I would say, certainly. And I think there's some just sort of anecdotal evidence of this. I mean, there was kind of rumors that this Wall Street Journal story was going to was coming for days before it actually did in media circles. There's some reporting on this by Oliver Garcia and others. And to me, that signals that, look, they were working on this. They were ensuring that their sourcing was solid. They had a team of lawyers looking at it. I mean, they got threatened by, according to Darcy, the president, but at least to the White House. So absolutely. I don't think that there's any reason to believe that the Wall Street Journal was reckless in this reporting. And so I think that they're probably on pretty solid ground.
- [07:08]
Alex Witt
Alexia, I want to go back to what you were saying earlier about the victims here, because they are beginning to speak up about Epstein. They're expressing sadness, trauma as well. There's one woman who wanted to be in the Victoria's Secret catalog giving NBC News details of how Epstein attacked her. And there's another woman saying that she spoke out in the past about Epstein, but now fears retribution from the Trump administration. How messy might this get for Trump and these victims?
- [07:36]
Alexi McCammon
Yeah, I mean, I'm just so glad that you guys did this story and are giving the victims the space to share how they're feeling and share the very real realities of trauma and how it has these really kind of impacts throughout your life, no matter when this situation happened. And that's what's so sad, reading the stories that these women have been dealing with the repercussions of Jeffrey Epstein and those close to them, to him for over two decades in some cases. And I think it's really sad when you hear from them, but again, it is very important to hear from them because it normalizes just how real all of this is. And also it puts the spotlight on those who were impacted rather than the cowards and the perpetrators and the people who are doing their damnedest to cover up for people involved in abusing women and girls underage. It's certain to extend the story, too. And that's something that we know Trump and others who are trying to keep this out of the press are going to loathe. But again, they should have to face the words from those who were impacted first and foremost.
- [08:45]
Alex Witt
And it's like those victims are getting victimized all over again by having to go through this. Now, Tim, as far as Mag is concerned, it's not giving up on getting access to the details from the Epstein files. Here's some of that.
- [09:00]
Unknown Speaker 1
Where are my fellow weaklings at? Because that's what Trump called us yesterday. Right. He also, during a press conference, said that we were stupid for still caring about the Epstein files. So I think now we're arriving at the important question here, which is who is Trump protecting?
- [09:16]
Unknown Speaker 2
The administration and their handling of this.
- [09:19]
Unknown Speaker 1
Which is why everyone's talking about it.
- [09:21]
Unknown Speaker 3
You're like, shut up. Don't talk about it. You have put the gun in your mouth and ours collectively. Stop it. Stop it.
- [09:34]
Alex Witt
They're pretty clearly letting him know that he's not driving the narrative on this. How much worst him can the MAGA pressure get?
- [09:43]
Tim Miller
Well, I guess, depends what you mean by worse. I think that at some level, Trump is going to make a bet that his core supporters are going to come back around and that they'll get distracted and move on from something else. This is why he's posting on social media today about the Washington football team's name. Right. He's, like, looking for anything to get those folks to talk about the problem that he. And he's probably right about that. As far as his core supporters, the problem that he has is there are two groups, one that you just showed a couple of those from the Alex Jones and Candace Owens, who are really outside of the Republican Party infrastructure. They thrive on kind of conspiracy theories and contrarianism and anti establishment talk. They're not going to stop talking about this. And then you have that other group of people who are never really Republicans in the first place, the Joe Rogans of the world who've been covering the story for a decade and care about it. They're not going to stop and just because Donald Trump tells them to. So I think that is the issue for him. He can get the Republican Party in line, but these media outlets have different incentives and they're driven by a what they believe, but also what their viewers and listeners believe. And they're not going to just shut up about this because Donald Trump wants them to.
- [10:50]
Alex Witt
Is there an impact though, if this continues, Tim, for Donald Trump? I mean, he's not running again, politically speaking?
- [10:58]
Tim Miller
Well, that's a good question. He benefits a lot from this notion that he can do anything and that the base will still be with him. Right. And so sure, maybe he's not running again. But look, and he's gotten all the Republicans in the House and the Senate to vote for every piece of legislation, even some very unpopular once over the past month or two. A lot of that is based on the fact that like you don't want the worst thing for you is to get on the wrong side of Trump because then the base gets mad at you. If he loses that aura, that, that kind of invincibility power with the base, I do think that has political ramifications for him. It doesn't mean that like the end is near or whatever, but I do think that it could impact his control over, over the party.
- [11:39]
Alex Witt
Alexi, ABC News reports that the FBI evidence includes 40 computers and devices, storage drives, CDs, recording dev devices, photographs, travel logs, employee lists and massage tables. What is MAGA hoping to find in this trove of data? And do you have a sense whether any of this will see the light of day?
- [12:03]
Alexi McCammon
Yeah, I mean what they want is to know who was involved and in what way, for how long, who has known what, who has gone to what lengths to cover it up, who has been rewarded in the process of abusing young girls, who has been worshiped, who has been promoted. I think there's a lot of questions that people want answered and when people say they want the so called client list, I think that's just shorthand for all of those pieces of data and evidence that you just pointed to from that article and then some. It's not just sort of gossip or interest in who's on the supposed list. It's wanting to know these elite circles and groups of people with wealth and power and how they're using it in the nastiest ways. I think it's also crucial because people want to know if the folks they've been supporting are part of this and if they are, that's something that they want to know sooner rather than later.
- [13:00]
Alex Witt
Okay, Alexi and Tim, stay with me because I want to talk about President Trump's retribution and how we saw new signs of this this week with a familiar name. When we're back in 90 seconds.
- [13:15]
Alexi McCammon
Leo, he's there when we wake up, he's there when we leave. He's there whenever we come back home from school. He's just there. Always mess it up. Do your face. Ever since we introduced him to the farmer's dog, his quality of life has been forever changed. He prefers real human grade food. It's like real food. It is. He's a happy dog now.
- [13:40]
Alex Witt
He's a happy, happy dog. He's a happy, happy, happy dog.
- [13:52]
Unknown Speaker 3
Oh, well, I can feel. Oh, the feeling of somebody that could breeze out water, something to guide me. Sam Foreign.
- [14:49]
Unknown Speaker 2
That the president has dragged his heels so much and DOJ sort of unexpectedly said this case was closed. There is going to be focus for the remainder of Donald Trump's presidency on anything in those files that relates to him. And there are going to be, Alex, three big questions that the Congress and the public are going to want to know. What did Donald Trump know and when did he know it? What did Pam Bondi know and when did she know it? And what did Cash Patel know and when did he know it?
- [15:18]
Alex Witt
That is some new reaction to the unrelenting Epstein saga from former Trump administration official Miles Taylor, who's still speaking out even after Trump singled him out for investigation in an exclusive memo. Alexi McCammon and Tim Miller are back with me. So, Alexi, another apparent angle to this Epstein story is the firing a few days ago of Epstein prosecutor Maureen Comey, who happens to be former FBI Director James Comey's daughter. She got no reason for the firing and urged her colleagues to stand up to abuses of power in her parting memo. Does the timing seem odd and can this be viewed as a sort of retribution?
- [15:55]
Alexi McCammon
Yeah, I mean, the timing screams guilt, guilty by association. It screams we don't want this woman around because of what she knows and how it could potentially harm me. I mean, it's just bizarre. And it's also bizarre when you're considering how President Trump so desperately wants to keep this story under wraps. And it's like he's doing everything possible to make sure that it stays in the conversation and that he's giving us these little threads to pull and to further explore. I mean, you wouldn't make a move like this right now. And it really calls into question also, of course, the independence of the DoJ writ large, especially as Pam Bondi is saying, there's nothing to see here. Let's move on, as Trump is apparently purging people who are not considered to be sufficiently loyal to him or safe to keep around.
- [16:45]
Alex Witt
So, same kind of question to you, Tim. I'm curious what you make of Maureen Comey being fired, the timing of it as well as the aspects of retribution.
- [16:55]
Tim Miller
Yeah, obviously it seems like retribution. The fact that this is either related to her last name being Comey or the fact that she was the prosecutor on Epstein or in Maxwell's cases or maybe both. What exactly was impetus for it? I'm sure we'll find out in reporting in the coming weeks. I would say this about it, though. I think what it reveals to me is just kind of stepping aside from the meta political commentary about is if you take MAGA world at face value, right, that they want. That they want pedophiles and elite and elites to be prosecuted, right? Like the people that committed sexual crimes against minors. They care about prosecuting them. And that is a big problem. Then the firing of Maureen Comey should be more outrageous even than the lack of release of the Epstein files. And this is a person, this a woman who specialized in prosecuting sex crimes. She prosecuted the very elites that the Maga and the QAnon world says that they want to be taken down. She prosecuted Epstein, Maxwell, Diddy. For the Trump White House to shed somebody with that specialized expertise and that record of successfully holding people to account is just really shameful and I think betrays that they have no actual interest in prosecuting the perpetrators of these types of crimes.
- [18:18]
Alex Witt
Can I ask you, Tim, something else seems a little outrageous. That is Laura Loomer. She is not elected. She seems to have incredible influence within the White House. Her role in all of this is what. What is she getting out of this? And why does she have the ear of the president and multiple people within the White House in the administration?
- [18:40]
Tim Miller
I think she has the ear of Trump because Trump wants anybody that he sees as willing to be loyal to him and fight for him. And that's what he wants. This is why he picks people for the Cabinet who he thinks does a good, who he thinks do a good job on Fox. Right. Like he wants people that are going to be out in public fighting on his behalf. He sees that Laura Loomer does that. Whether there's anything more to that, I don't know. But at minimum, that is, I think, why he or she has his ear. And look, I think that you've seen it over and over again. I think that she's seen a way for her to wield power is not by actually doing things, but by burning stuff down, by taking out people that she sees as disloyal within the administration. I also think Trump is very susceptible to that. He feels like in the first term he had a lot of disloyal people around. So if there's going to be somebody out there doing the dirty work, letting them know who the whatever, never Trumpers are inside the White House, he's going to listen to them. So that is, I think, where her power emanates from.