Will Saletan (1:46)

Yeah. I mean, so Mike Johnson's trying to kind of keep. Keep the heat off Trump here in terms of his relation to Epstein. And he makes this remark that I think, at least in the Republican Party, was among the leaders. Was. Had never been heard before this idea that Trump cooperated with the FBI or was an informant against Epstein. But what's funny here is that this kind of harkens back to this really popular QAnon and sort of broader, like Trump grassroots rationalization of why we have these videos of Trump hanging out with Epstein, all this, why they were such close buddies at one point, and they say, well, maybe he was an FBI agent or an agent of Q or what have you going inside the Epstein organization to take it down. Take down the pedophile ring from the inside. Hmm.

Sarah Longwell (2:30)

Is there any evidence to support this claim?

Will Saletan (2:33)

There's zero evidence.

Sarah Longwell (2:35)

Interesting. Interesting. You don't say, well, tell me more about the zero evidence. Like, where did this come from? What is he doing?

Will Saletan (2:42)

Yeah, I mean, so for years, this idea has been, you know, either Trump was cozying up to Epstein to take him down. You know, when people look at other Epstein Trump ties, like promoting Alex Acosta, the prosecutor who gave Epstein the sweetheart deal, making him the Labor Secretary in the first administration, you might say, why did he do that? And QAnon people would say, well, maybe he just wanted to bring attention. He wanted to elevate Alex Acosta's profile. So then people would start looking into this sweetheart deal. And so, I mean, there's really no reality to it, but I think it's interesting to see it jump from sort of the Q and on fever swamps to. To now Mike Johnson in a gaggle, just saying, you know, I don't know, maybe he was an FBI informant.

Sarah Longwell (3:19)

So is that the context? He wasn't saying he is like, he was an FBI informant. He was just saying. And this is good distinction because honestly, me, like, as a Twitter scroller, even somebody kind of paying attention to the Epstein stuff, it's not that he said he was for sure. He's just speculating that these are things that could be.

Will Saletan (3:36)

I will say, I mean, he says he was an FBI informant. He's. He's very assertive about it. And the idea that he doesn't say, oh, it was in the 80s, or was it when Epstein got busted in 2018? I mean, when Trump was already president or 2019. I mean, it's. It's really bizarre. And Thomas Massie on the Sunday shows today pointed out there's another issue here, which is that Trump has been saying this is all a hoax. So, you know, was he an FBI informant infiltrating a real pedophile ring? Was it all a hoax? And in which case, you know, what role would he have been an informant in? I mean, there's some obvious contradictions here.

Sarah Longwell (4:11)

Right. But that also assumes that Trump is using the term hoax with its actual meaning, as opposed to hoax as in something I just don't want to talk about as Donald Trump, which seems to be how he uses hoax in terms of Epstein, because I don't think he denies that Epstein was A pedophile, although maybe he does. I mean, we have seen almost nothing from Donald Trump, certainly nothing condemning Epstein. The only thing we've seen is him wishing Ghislaine Maxwell well upon her conviction and then obviously giving her this sweetheart deal, which I want to get to the Rokhan of the Sunday shows. Just because there was something that was a bit of breaking news to me, which is that they said he was on with, with Massie and they said they have the 218 votes to get the DOJ to release the Epstein files. And it was weird because I watched the clip and it was Ro Khanna sort of said, oh, well, we have the votes. And then he kind of like moved on to something else. And I was like, wait, hold on, do you have the votes? Are we going to get this discharge? And he says by the end of September. Does that sound right to you? Do they have them?

Will Saletan (5:14)

I mean, that's definitely news if they do. I mean, last week we saw the press conference with the Epstein victims and Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna and there's basically, they were short two Republican votes. They have Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace, I believe. And so they.

Sarah Longwell (5:30)

That's four.

Will Saletan (5:31)

Yes, exactly. And so they need two votes. And increasingly we've seen, I think the administration's efforts to suggest that, you know, that this is a Democratic hoax or what have you are bearing fruit. You know, there were a lot more co sponsors of this bill on the, on the Republican side initially and now they've kind of drifted off. I think we're seeing a lot more right wing media figures who are attacking the victims or saying, you know, wait a minute, maybe this is all a hoax. And so if they've got two people, two more, I mean, you know, good for them. I think we'll just have to see who it is. And if that's true.

Sarah Longwell (5:59)

Well, the thing that he said today was not that they had two more Republican votes, which is actually how I read it first too. He went on something about how there's two Democratic vacancies and that they're going to get those votes and they're going to come in by the end of September. And so it was a little bit odd to me too, in the sense that I thought like, oh, wow, did they find two more Republicans? And it actually sounded like there are some vacancies that they think they can fill by the end of September on the Democrat side, which will bring them the two additional votes that they need. And so I guess if that's the case, though, what happens? What? Because I've always been like, okay, well, let's say they get to 218, then what does Mike Johnson shut down Congress like he did last time when it looked like they were going to vote on a discharge petition? Is that what he'll do?

Will Saletan (6:48)

I mean, I think that's very possible. I mean, we saw, as you said, I mean, he shut down the House early basically to avoid this and to let the White House work their pressure. I mean, we've seen that the White House is saying that, you know, this is a hostile act to be supporting Massie and Ro Khanna here. And, you know, I mean, they're probably hoping that, you know, as they get closer to the midterms, Republicans will get distracted and they can pressure them. I mean, who knows what kind of packs they could, they could were up. And like I said, I mean, I think the energy on the right, there's still a lot of like in right wing media, a lot of like, oh, these Democrats are gonna be so mad when we get the Epstein files. But then they won't talk about this discharge petition. And we can see people like James Comer, the Republican leading the House Oversight Committee, they're throwing out these kind of like these distractions or these kind of quas efforts to say, well, we released all these public files and really it's case closed now.

Sarah Longwell (7:36)

You know, I'm glad you used the word distractions because there was a piece today that I saw, maybe it was earlier than today, I'm not sure when it was published was in the Atlantic by Mark Leibovich, who I like very much and who I know and has been on the pods. And it was an interesting piece. It quoted Bill, quoted my friend Dan Pfeiffer. But it was about the idea that Democrats now are too fixated on Epstein and are saying that anything that Trump does is a distraction from Epstein and that this is a bad idea. Pfeiffer was sort of quoted saying this is a stupid thing to do because ultimately, you know, if Trump is invading cities, like that is a thing to take seriously on its own. You can't just say they're all a distraction from Epstein. And it's funny, this word distraction, because also in the beginning of the Epstein conversation, Democrats were saying, well, Epstein's just a distraction from talking about the real kitchen table issues. And so this is like interesting game theory constantly going on about what's a distraction and what's a real issue. And I got to say, I take, I don't, I guess not umbrage, but I do not agree with the premise of the piece that Leibovich wrote. And even, like, Bill was quoted in it, so. And Bill, I can't remember what Bill's quote was exactly, but it was something to the effect of, you know, these aren't distractions. These are real things that are happening. And of course that's true. Like, objectively, I went down and marched yesterday in the very hot heat about the occupation of D.C. with what appeared to be half the city. I couldn't believe how big this protest was marching to the White House. Incredibly peaceful, actually. Like, sort of people were in a pretty good mood, but everybody wanted to get the ICE agents out and the National Guard out. The thesis of this piece was that we should stop talking about these things as though they are a distraction. Just because I don't. I think they are objectively dangerous. And not like, that doesn't mean that Trump isn't trying to be distracting from the Epstein files. Like, I'm not, for some reason, at the Bulwark. I am typically one of the most careful one. Or I don't look for, you know, goblins behind every door. But I do think that Donald Trump's communications stature, like, the way that he postures all the times to say, if I'm having a conversation I don't like, how do I get the conversation to a place I do like? And I don't put it past him for one second to be like, what I would rather be talking about is the crime in Chicago and saber rattling about sending the National Guard in there, because I want to talk about crime instead of my crimes with Epstein or whatever. But do you think I'm crazy? Like, I'm interested to know. I've been thinking about this idea of Epstein as a distraction. Like, are Democrats too fixated on it? As somebody like me too fixated on how much Donald Trump doesn't want to. Doesn't want to talk about this. So pressing on it is ill advised, or is it the right thing to do? Just, like, what's your impression of it?

Will Saletan (10:38)

No, I think you're right. I mean, I think we can keep kind of two things in our heads at the same time. And, you know, I. Or maybe not.

Sarah Longwell (10:45)

No, no. I mean, one would hope. One would think.

Will Saletan (10:48)

But. But, I mean, I don't think it's an accident that a lot of this, the occupation of dc, all this stuff really. And I think I'm probably forgetting three or four other storylines the administration has advanced that, that. That all really kicked off when The Epstein stuff was at its direst point so far for Trump. And, yeah, I mean, these are also things that were already on the Trump agenda, I think. I mean, he, it's not like it's out of character for him to want big immigration sweeps in D.C. things like that. But I do think, you know, if we're looking at the whole picture, I think the Epstein distraction is part of that. And, you know, also, like, politically, I don't think it's bad for. I mean, look, I don't think Democrats should focus everything they have on Epstein, but this is a, this is a salient issue for a lot of independent voters, and I think it's one that also depresses Republicans. And so I, I don't think it's a bad idea for Democrats to be like, by the way, remember when Trump weirdly covered up that pedophile ring? I mean, that is really weird. I mean, we can get so obsessed with the news of the day. But then I think about it, I'm like, that was really weird when they suddenly changed course on that.

Sarah Longwell (11:45)

It is so weird, Will. It is so weird. This is the thing I cannot get over. I was so. I C Span on Friday. I was on C Span in the morning, and we were just talking Epstein. And so I'm taking callers and the Republicans were all like, why didn't Joe Biden release these when he was president? And I was like, you know, I hear that dodge from folks. And also somebody called in to say, well, Epstein killed himself when Joe Biden was president and whatever. And I had to be like, guys, Epstein died in, like, August of 2019. Like, Donald Trump was firmly still president when Epstein was killed. And the extent to which Donald Trump seems to not want to. To talk about Epstein is wild. I mean, and the way he has called, he's called the influencers. Like, he called clearly Charlie Kirk and these other guys and backed them off of this conversation. I don't know why Joe Biden didn't release these files. What I do know is that Joe Biden didn't run on his entire cabinet, didn't run on releasing the files. And in fact, we were in the middle of COVID And so I just think he had other priorities and his voters had other priorities. But Donald Trump's voters, Epstein was a priority. And I'll tell you, in doing the focus groups with the. I've got these swingier voters. We've been talking to people who voted for Biden in 20 and then Trump in 2024. And I heard a Phrase that I hear almost never in a focus group in recent weeks, which was, I regret voting for Donald Trump because he's not being transparent about Epstein. You never hear. I mean, there's two things people are complaining about. There are two things. It is costs and it is Epstein. These are the two number. These are the number one things that come up. What people are disappointed about Trump. The rest of them tend to be like, excesses. Like, I wanted him to get criminals out of the country, but I don't. Like, you know, what he's doing with all these deportations. Or I want crime to go down, but, like, going into the cities is too much. Like, they're on the margins, the excesses, but the straightforward ones are costs of things not going down like he promised, and not being transparent about the Epstein files. So chastising Democrats for focusing on this issue, especially because it is the strangest thing I've ever heard. Like, if you talk about it for five seconds, you go, this doesn't make any sense. Like, if you told me he was an informant, I guess I'd be like, well, that's an explanation. But of course, he's just. He's just shooting from the hip. He has no evidence he's an informant.

Will Saletan (14:09)

Well, we know. I mean, in terms of the informant thing, you know, I mean, we know Donald Trump is such a famously selfless guy, you know, that he would risk it all for the country and save young women. But, I mean, I mean, like, you're right. I mean, I think it's an awkward issue for Democrats because Democrats want to be focusing on policy things. I think they feel that this kind of smacks of conspiratorialism, and they think, you know, they want to be on to big things like government occupations of cities, things like this. But, you know, the reality is, I think voters care a lot about it. And again, you know, like, we've been talking about, I think we care a lot. I mean, just. Just as people. I mean, I think it's. We do try to do this a lot at the Bulwark, I think, but sometimes you kind of just have to get in touch with these big Trump issues that we almost seem passe or like, oh, yeah, this is the world we live in, and just say, this is crazy, you know, and kind of get in touch with that outrage. And I think Democrats would be well served to do that.

Sarah Longwell (14:56)

Yeah, I think pushing for answers from this and, you know, I think you. What I thought you were going to say is that. And maybe this is what you meant we often end up in sort of the political implications of things. Like, that's what we're working over because we're politicos like that. But this Epstein thing has a deeply corrupt moral issue at its base. Like, I was so glad to see the survivors testify this week and to be out there saying, like, we're real people here who, like, terrible things happened in our lives and we deserve answers. We deserve justice. We don't think Ghislaine Maxwell should get to go to Club Fed and be treated like the Martha Stewart of the prison system. And even this alone, forget all the other. Like, you could forget all the other things Trump is doing and just look at this issue and say how he is behaving and what he is doing is flagrantly immoral, even if he's not involved. Just calling it a hoax, diminishing the pain of these survivors and these victims giving Ghislaine Maxwell special treatment. Like, these are horrible things he's doing on their face, and we should know why he's doing them. Not to mention all the members of his cabinet who, while they were cabinet members, said we needed answers on this, said they had the answers, and then we're clearly lying about it. So, like, it's bananas. And I don't see why we should all be like, well, this is a distraction from, you know, invading D.C. like, let's walk and chew gum here, guys, because this seems like a big deal to me. Certainly bigger than Hunter Biden's laptop.

Will Saletan (16:36)

Yeah, I mean, I think Democrats should look at this and say, at the point where Mike Johnson is saying Trump is an FBI informant, I mean, I think that's a sign of desperation.

Sarah Longwell (16:45)

I agree, Will. Glad you're our Epstein expert, of course. All right, guys, thanks. Thanks for watching One of our takes here. Go subscribe. Subscribe to the channel. Helps us out a lot. We're trying to get to 2 million fast. Come on, go do it. If you haven't hit that button, go do it. Subscribe to Bulwark Plus. Thanks for watching. We'll talk to you soon.

AM PM Commercial Voice (17:04)

Power up fall projects with EGO at Lowe's. Every tool delivers power beyond belief. So whether it's leaves, limbs, or lawn cleanup, count on EGO to deliver the power, performance, and innovation you need. And now for a limited time, save up to $60 on select blowers, chainsaws, and pole saws. Shop Ego today at Lowe's. Offers valid through 10:1, while supplies last selection varies by location.

Sarah Longwell (17:32)

What do you think makes the perfect snack?

AM PM Commercial Voice (17:34)

Hmm. It's gotta be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient.

Sarah Longwell (17:38)

Could you be more specific when it's cravenient?

AM PM Commercial Voice (17:40)

Okay, like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter available right down the street at a.m. p.m. Or a savory breakfast sandwich I can grab in just a second at a.m. pM.

Sarah Longwell (17:49)

I'm seeing a pattern here.

AM PM Commercial Voice (17:50)

Well yeah, we're talking about what I.

Sarah Longwell (17:51)

Crave, which is anything from AM pm.

AM PM Commercial Voice (17:53)

What more could you want? Stop by AM PM where the snacks and drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. That's cravenience am, PM too much good stuff.