← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“A punch in the gut to MAGA”
01:29:55
Nicolle Wallace is joined by Perry Stein, Tim Miller, Angelo Carusone, Rich Logis, Lisa Rubin, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Harry Litman, Molly Jong-Fast, Rev. Al Sharpton, and David Folkenflik.
Loading summary
Transcript193 lines
- [00:00]
Nicole Wallace
Now is your time to get into.
- [00:02]
Tim Miller
A new Dr. Horton home by taking.
- [00:04]
Nicole Wallace
Advantage of its national Red Tag sales.
- [00:06]
Tim Miller
Event going on right now through July 20th.
- [00:09]
Nicole Wallace
Stop by any of its participating communities.
- [00:12]
Tim Miller
And find select red tag homes at Incredible Pricing. So whether you're buying your first home.
- [00:17]
Nicole Wallace
Or looking for an upgrade, you don't.
- [00:19]
Tim Miller
Want to miss the red tag sales.
- [00:20]
Angelo Carusone
Event going on right now.
- [00:22]
Tim Miller
Discover the Dr. Horton Difference at drhorton.com.
- [00:25]
Nicole Wallace
Dr. Horton America's Builder and Equal Housing.
- [00:29]
Tim Miller
Opportunity Builder Deadline White House is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average. Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts. Quote now@progressive.com to see if you could.
- [00:45]
Harry Lippman
Save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.
- [00:48]
Tim Miller
National average 12 month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who save with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations hi there everyone. It's four o' clock in the East A bombshell piece of reporting from the Wall Street Journal has Donald Trump spending day 179 of his second presidential term denying to the American people and the world that he wrote a birthday card and illustration to a dead and disgraced sex trafficker. That note, if indeed written by Donald Trump, could add new depth and texture to our understanding of the common interests that may have united Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein during their years long friendship. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Jeffrey Epstein's disgraced associate Ghislaine Maxwell, decided to put together a leather bound book of letters and notes from associates to give to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003. The Wall Street Journal reports that these letters or documents were among those examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein and Maxwell years ago. That's according to people who have reviewed the pages from that report. Quote the letter bearing Trump's name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is body. Like others in the album, it contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to have been hand drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman's breasts and the future president's signature is a squiggly Donald below her waist, mimicking pubic hair. It isn't clear how the letter with Trump's signature was prepared. Inside the outline of the naked woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein. Written in the third person, the card reads voiceover There must be more to life than having everything the note began. Yes, there is. But I won't tell you what it is. Nor will I, since I also know what it is. We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Yes, we do. Come to think of it, enigmas never age. Have you noticed that, Jeffrey? As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you. Donald the pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday. And may every day be another wonderful secret. Let that sink in. Prior to publishing this report, this story, the Wall Street Journal spoke with the President. Trump denied writing the letter or drawing the picture. A denial reads, quote, this is not me. This is a fake thing. It's a fake Wall Street Journal story. He said, I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women. He said, it's not my language. It's not my words. Now, we'll stop here for a second. And just importantly, as an editorial note, point out that Donald Trump does like to draw. The Hill reports that one of his sketches drew nearly $30,000 at an auction in the year 2017. The Justice Department did not respond to the Wall Street Journal, and the FBI also declined to comment to the Wall Street Journal. The White House has made trying to discredit this Wall Street Journal piece of reporting its top priority. Vice President JD Vance posted on X that the story was bull bleep. Donald Trump is now threatening to sue the Wall Street Journal, News Corp. And its owner, Rupert Murdoch. Trump late last night directed the Justice Department to release, quote, all pertinent grand jury testimony in the sex trafficking case against Jeffrey Epstein. Releasing grand jury testimony may do little to quell the crisis Donald Trump faces right now, given the agitation from his base and the bipartisan calls now to release all the files, as well as mounting questions about the Justice Department and FBI's handling of the case. In a letter to the Justice Department, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dick Durbin. FBI agents assigned to review the Epstein files were told to, quote, flag any documents that mentioned Donald Trump. Donald Trump is now facing a story he can't kill, and it's where we start today. Washington Post Justice Department reporter Perry Stein is with us. Also joining us, host of the Bulwark Podcast, MSNBC political analyst Tim Miller is back with us. And the president of Media Matters for America, Angelo Carazone, is here. Tim, you and I have worked on campaigns and work for politicians. I don't even know if this is true in your case, but I've worked for politicians where the campaign is rocked by a piece of reporting for George W. Bush. It was some of the reporting about his time in the Texas Air National Guard. I wasn't on the George W. Bush campaign, but there was also a moment for him where his campaign was rocked by a report about a DUI right before the election in2020. Donald Trump was in some ways rocked by the Access Hollywood tape, but it was a different moment in his political life and it was a different kind of issue. It was something that he, that he survived politically. This is so different in that the journalism is following the outroar from the base, not trying to lead it. The journalism didn't come first. The outroar from his base came first. And I'm really not sure if that's a good or a bad thing. So for journalism, but it makes the political scandal for Trump different.
- [07:01]
Harry Lippman
Yeah, it does. And look what I think about in these sort of situations, Nicole, something that from back in my PR days that it is reminiscent of, right, Is when your candidate steps in, it says something maybe they shouldn't have. We don't need to pile on the Bushes. I could come up with a couple jab examples. We don't need to do it. But what happens is the story gets out of your control, right? Because something that journalists weren't really looking into or had quit looking into or had moved on from there becomes a feeding frenzy around it. And I think this is what has happened with Donald Trump. And so when you hear Trump and his people push back and say, well, I mean, if this was real, this letter was real, Biden would have released it or the Wall Street Journal would have written about it years ago or whatever. That's just kind of not how these things work. Right? And when Donald Trump made this critical mistake, the self own we assume it was Donald Trump, I guess it was Pam Bondi that put her name on it, deciding that they were gonna announce that they were not going to release or look into the Epstein files anymore. The result was this fervor, as you mentioned, from his own base. And then the result from that is a lot of journalists, I think, naturally, looking at this and saying, what? Why, Wait, what is underneath this? Why did they make that announcement? And I think this story, and I presume others to come, are the result of that. And I think that he totally misjudged the fact whether his base actually cared about this story or not. They do. And I think that he totally misjudged his exposure to it from his, you know, in his own words, decade and a half long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And so now you have this, this gross birthday card out where he's talking about sharing beautiful secrets with a guy whose secret was that he was trafficking underage girls.
- [08:53]
Tim Miller
I want to dive back into the actual story because it's one of those stories that you remember for a long time where you were when it flashed because you stop. You stop and you read the whole thing. I read it twice, but just on the miscalculations and how we got here, Tim. The miscalculation or the blind spot? And I did some reporting on this of my own. May have been either not appreciating the depths to which Bongino and Patel were steeped and invested in the Epstein conspiracy theories and the Epstein issues, or sort of, he appeared in the manosphere, but he wasn't of the manosphere. Maybe not appreciating that. This distrust of institutions and these conspiracies that animate the manosphere. It's not that they liked Trump because they liked Trump. They liked Trump to the extent that he was adjacent to the conspiracies and that he seemed like a fellow traveler in helping them get to the bottom of them. They didn't like him for policy positions or his looks.
- [09:56]
Harry Lippman
Yeah, look, I think that's great. And there's a cockiness to Trump. I think there's the, I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue. I think that is part of the blind spot. But another part of the bright spot is to your point, about him not being of this world. He talked about this from time to time, but he didn't care. I mean, obviously he didn't care. He was paddling around with Jeffrey Epstein, to borrow a phrase. Right. I mean, he knows the people that were going to Jeffrey Epstein's island and parties. Like, this was not something that Donald Trump deeply cared. It was a. He used it, you know, to advance his ends. And the people around him really grabbed onto it. And you remember on the campaign trail, they were, for a little while, they're playing that creepy QAnon song, you know, which shows that at least his campaign team recognized that the base did was animated by these. This kind of nexus between conspiracy and reality around elite pedophilia. And so Trump, because that's not hit, right? Like the tariff stuff, the immigration stuff, Trump feels this like, as kind of a outer borough talk radio call in guy, right? Like he at least under kind of at some visceral level understands why people care about immigration. I don't think he really does in this case. He was faking it. And to your point, and I think that while in the Fifth Avenue theory, his main base will eventually come back around to him, they might rally around the flag now and just be like, oh, the media and fake news. All of those other folks in the manosphere that we talk about around this Nicole, they're not, they don't like being played for fools. They're not in the cult. They were with Trump as a matter of convenience. And you're already seeing this. And Shane Gillis, who's a comedian, was on the ESPYs or ESPN last night making fun of him for this. One of those podcasts he went on Flagrant. Those guys put on fake tinfoil hats to make fun of Trump. Rogan did the same. So he's in deep trouble with that crowd.
- [11:45]
Tim Miller
All right, let me dive back into this reporting and this story with all of you. So the Wall Street Journal goes on to report this. The existence of the album and the contents of the birthday letters haven't previously been reported. The album had poems, photos and greetings from business people, academics, Epstein's former girlfriends and childhood pals, according to the documents reviewed by the Journal and people familiar with them. Among those who submitted letters were billionaire Leslie Wexner, attorney Alan Dershowitz. The album also contained a letter from a now deceased Harvard economist who one of Epstein's report cards from Mark Twain Junior High School in Brooklyn, and a note from a former assistant that included an acrostic with Epstein's name. Jeffrey O. Jeffrey, everyone loves you. Fun in the sun, Fun just for fun. Remember, don't forget me soon. Epstein, you rock. You're the best. Perry, I want to ask you just to layer this reporting into your own reporting about the Trump Epstein relationship and how just more evidence of their connections and their closeness will do nothing to tamp down this political crisis for Trump.
- [12:58]
Perry Stein
Definitely. I mean, we already have right in the public view photos with the two of them. Right. We know they socialized. Trump had once said he's a great guy. And then as all of this stuff came to light about Jeffrey Epstein and intertwined with Trump's political career, he really distanced himself. And we don't know what could be right. And this is what's so complicated about just saying release all the files for Trump because his name, we know he's visited there, his name could be on a flight log, it could be on one of the visits that went there. But that also criminal files of a thing, of a case this big are huge. And being in that file doesn't necessarily suggest criminality or that you're guilty or committed or accused of a crime. And so, you know, if that is the real risk, would the public, if Trump is in it or whatever happens, and we know their friends, so it's possible, and there is no criminality or no accusations, could the public sort of handle that or understand or digest that nuance? So, I mean, I think between that relationship, between what could be in a file like this, that really is what is interyou know, is fueling this fear on the Trump administration.
- [14:17]
Tim Miller
And on that point, let me read Laura Loomer's analysis on these lines. This is from Politico. Right wing activist Laura Loomer warned that Donald Trump's handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein threatens to, quote, consume his presidency. In an interview Wednesday, a dramatic rebuke from a presidential confidant that illustrates the growing rupture in the MAGA coalition. She likened it to the intense media interest in ties between Trump's first White House campaign in Russia, saying, I don't want it to consume his presidency. But then this is important, obviously, this is not a complete hoax, given the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell is currently serving 20 years in prison in Florida for her crimes and activities with Jeffrey Epstein, who we know is a convicted sexual predator. This is why I said, and I'll reiterate it again, the best thing that the President can do is appoint a special counsel to handle the Epstein files investigation. This feels significant, Angelo, in that the base is done with Bondi. The base is done with Bondi. They want a special prosecutor because they view Bondi and her binder debacle as a breach of some sort. And I don't, I don't totally, you know, you, we're way down the rabbit hole. I've got my headlamp on and I'm trying to excavate who believes they're on the side of the truth. But in terms of where the heat is around this political scandal, there is now a heat ring around Bondi as well, who was accused by Megyn Kelly days ago of being part of what Megyn Kelly hypothesized was a Trump directed cover up.
- [15:52]
Molly Jong-Fast
Yeah, I think that. And, you know, I think understanding why it is they're targeting Bondi and what they hope to get out of this is also key to sort of getting a sense of why it's at where it's at right now and where it's going to go. Because, you know, part of it is that, you know, at least Trump's base, they're not mad or upset because they think He's a pedophile. They all knew he had some interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. The videos, the pictures of them together, that's not new information for them. They're not appalled by that on its face. They're not appalled by that association. What is driving their and what initiated what is driving their anger is that they hate the deep state. And they think the deep state has been out to get Donald Trump from day one. And anything that either is that they can view as protecting the deep state or capitulating to the deep state or covering up for the deep state or just not being aggressive enough for the deep against the deep state is an obstacle that needs to go. So that is one big factor. So Pam Bondi, in a way, has that going against her. They see her now as somebody that is running cover for the deep state, too. You know, she did that meeting at the beginning of the year where she brought these influencers not to the doj, but to the White House to give them binders about Epstein to make good on one of Trump's promises out of the gate. So she became a face of Trump's sort of half, you know, have followed through with promise. And I think they hope they would swept the sweep that under the rug. That should be the first tell that they knew going into this that that was a commitment that they made to a part of their media ecosystem and they were trying to just check off that box and get it out of the way. But unfortunately for Bondi, she did become the face. So that's the second thing. And then the third is. And it gets back to your point with Loomer. You know, you have. And you say this sometimes, and I love it because it's true, you have tarantulas in a bowl and there is no single center of gravity in the larger MAGA media. You have these individual people that helped get Trump elected, that contributed to that. We've seen these people wax and wane, whether it be Bannon or Musk or others. They all come in and out. And Loomer has been out against Bondi because, remember, there have been a whole bunch of people have been who have been fired over the past few months that, you know, because of things that Bloomer has put out there or pushed on. And her point is, Tam Bondi is not doing enough to protect the president. And so therefore. And look, all these people, I found all these deep staters that she didn't root out fast enough. So, you know, she's been a driver as others like Megyn Kelly, they're doing it to advance themselves, but they're also doing it because they don't think that Pam Bondi has demonstrated enough bloodlust. And that's the scary thing here. And that's the center of why they're calling for special counsel. You know, Trump, obviously there's a lot of resistance that broadly in this space because of how those things get out of control. But at its core, if you just take away the term special counsel, what they're calling for is immediate extra judicial revenge against any and all entities that are part of the deep state, perceived to be part of the deep state associated with the deep state. They're asking for an even wider dragnet and cleanse when they ask for a special counsel. And they just don't think that Pam Bondi has been a vigorous enough hammer of justice. And those are the three factors that are sort of colliding around this Epstein stuff. And then you layer in all the conspiracies and kinetic energy and the Bongino and the Cash Patel of it all. That's it. That is why she's so much the fix of this, because they see her as a principal obstacle to getting, you know, to enacting their bloodlust and also helping Trump further smash the deep state.
- [19:11]
Tim Miller
I mean, Tim, can I ask some dumb questions of you, my friend? I feel like you might tolerate them the best. I accept all that everyone has stipulated. And I am, I am trying to understand the base as it is, not as it should be. If we all, you know, were held to the same gravitational pulls. But does anyone think that Pam Bondi is doing anything that, I mean, Pam Bondi has done nothing that hasn't been directed by Donald Trump. So why wouldn't Donald Trump, who is an adjudicated sexual abuser of E. Jean Carroll, a jury found him liable for sexual abuse. The base doesn't care who's credibly accused by, I think 19 women of sexual misconduct. Base doesn't care. They elect him twice. He's a convicted felon. Why wouldn't Donald Trump just dump it all out there, posted himself on True Social.
- [20:06]
Harry Lippman
Yeah, I wish I had a more satisfying question than the answer to that question, that this is just an article of faith with Trump. It's like a religious type thing, you know, I mean, I apologize as a cradle Catholic to the Catholics for comparing Donald Trump to the Catholic Church. Still a lot of differences in quality there. But it's reminiscent of during the pre sexual abuse scandal, faithful Catholics in the pews found it hard to be like it's the Pope's fault or it's the cardinal's fault that I really like and that I know and I trust that person. It must have been these one off bad actors. They must have been giving bad advice. It's that the MAGA base is an article of faith with Trump, that he is good in spite of all of the evidence. Like this last letter to Jeffrey Epstein is just a tiny little cherry on top of just a lifetime of bad behavior on behalf of Trump and they don't care. So Bondi is like this easy scapegoat for them in that case. And to me, I think that that's maybe an unsatisfying answer, but I understand it.
- [21:13]
Tim Miller
Well, I'm glad you understand it. No one is going anywhere. Also ahead for us, it has been a week of anger and disappointment expressed very publicly from Donald Trump's own voters of his handling of the scandal of the Epstein case on a scale rarely have ever seen before. We'll talk about what comes next for the MAGA movement. Plus, both Democrats and Republicans agree it is time to release the Epstein files. How Donald Trump found himself on the other side of an emerging bipartisan coalition around radical transparency when it comes to the Epstein files. And later in the broadcast, questions are swirling about the cancellation of the iconic and beloved establishment Late show with Stephen Colbert just days after the host criticized a deal the show's parent company struck with the Trump administration. We'll bring you all those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Hey everybody, Ted Danson here to tell you about my podcast with my longtime friend and sometimes co host Woody Harrelson. It's called where everybody knows your name and we're back for another season. I'm so excited to be joined this season by friends like John Mulaney, David.
- [22:32]
Harry Lippman
Spade, Sarah Silverman, Ed Helms, and many more.
- [22:35]
Tim Miller
You don't want to miss it. Listen to Where EVERYBODY knows your name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson. Sometimes wherever you get your podcasts.
- [22:45]
Lisa Rubin
Cash Flow Crunch On Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $100,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment. Get funded quickly, confidently. Apply today@ondeck.com funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by On Deck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amount subject to lender approval.
- [23:15]
Tim Miller
Coverage varies by plan.
- [23:16]
Nicole Wallace
View contracts and exclusions@endurancewarranty.com if your car is out of warranty, one major repair.
- [23:20]
Tim Miller
Bill could wipe you out.
- [23:21]
Angelo Carusone
Just ask.
- [23:22]
Tim Miller
Ludicrous car breakdowns can wreck your wallet. Without Endurance, a worn out timing belt could cost you $1700. A busted transmission, that's $4000 easy. An engine meltdown, $7000. But if you've got Endurance, you could never pay out of pocket for a car repair again.
- [23:38]
Angelo Carusone
With Endurance, your car's most expensive parts are covered.
- [23:41]
Tim Miller
Plus you pick the mechanic you trust to do the work. With Endurance, your rate stays the same no matter how many claims you file.
- [23:48]
Nicole Wallace
If your car is under 20 years old, endurance has you covered with unlimited miles. Plus Your plan includes 24. 7Roadside Assistance Assistance anywhere in the country.
- [23:57]
Tim Miller
So who's gonna pay for your next breakdown? You or Endurance?
- [24:01]
Nicole Wallace
Choose the name. Ludacris Trusts Endurance. Right now, get $300 off any plan, plus a year of elite benefits, a $2,000 value free, all backed by a 30 day money back guarantee. Get your free quote@endurancewarranty.com that's endurancewarranty.com.
- [24:18]
Tim Miller
We'Re back with Perry Stein, Tim Miller, and Angelo Caracon. I could spend the whole two hours trying to understand the fault lines and the fissures and the, and the cracks. But I want to stay of where this story is going because Trump has ordered his Justice Department, his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, who makes it clear in this next part of the story that she directly reports to him for all of her conduct on this story, in this reporting in the New York Times, quote, president Trump were ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcript she wrote quickly reversing course at his command. But it was not clear that she would succeed because the secrecy of grand jury transcripts is highly protected. Trump's request came hours after the Wall Street Journal reported on a 50th birthday greeting. It said Mr. Trump sent Mr. Epstein in 2003, including a sexually suggestive drawing, an expression of friendship, and a reference to secrets they shared. Perry, tell me where this story is heading in terms of the courts and the actual grand jury testimony.
- [25:25]
Perry Stein
Yeah, so this could be a long fight. It's not that Trump says that the grand jury stuff is released and then all of a sudden is released. What happens is a judge has to decide. So Pam Bondi, as she said, she's going to ask the court to do it. But then there's A lot of reasons why a court may say we're not releasing the grand jury testimony. I mean, the reason why these are secret grand jury testimony, right, is because you want to encourage people to go to a grand jury and say, you're not in trouble, your boss isn't going to find out you're here, or anyone you may be intimidated is not going to find out you're here and we're not. Your name's not going to be, you know, mucked up because you. Someone saw you in a grand jury. So there's a lot of reason. And I talked to an FBI agent the other day about just how I should be thinking about this and what these harms in the relationship and this playing between, you know, Bondi and the FBI and this all playing out so publicly. Why does this matter? And they were saying that it really, the FBI, the FBI relies on people to trust them to propel their investigations. And so, you know, these are all the factors that the judge may consider when deciding whether to release them, not to mention victim privacy. You're dealing with a lot of underage, you know, children here who may have been abused. So there's a lot of fights ahead of it. And I mean, to your point earlier, something that I'm thinking about, right, The Trump administration, and this is a very valid legal theory that many people agree with, wanted the f. Wanted the FBI, DOJ to be closer to the White House, to not have the traditional separations. And what you're seeing play out now is some of the, the rep. You know, the consequences of that decision, good and bad.
- [27:13]
Tim Miller
What is the defensible legal. I mean, isn't it a post Watergate norm to have an independent? And wouldn't it benefit Donald Trump right now if it was an independent FBI and doj?
- [27:25]
Perry Stein
Well, I mean, that's the interesting thing. This is kind of what they wanted. It doesn't, you know, Pam Bondi does not have a cover when the president says that anymore. Right. I mean, she has shown that they are very closely tied. I covered the first couple weeks of their presidency, something that I've never done in the history of covering the Justice Department. I covered a speech that President Donald Trump gave at the Justice Department. So they very much want these things close together, the law enforcement agency. And as a result, Trump is having trouble separating himself from what's going on in the actions of his attorney general and the FBI. And it's becoming consequential for the first time, Bongino's position as a political position never before it has always been an internal FBI person that runs the day to day operations and now it's, now it's a political person. So we're seeing kind of the, this is what they wanted. This was how they planned this out. And everyone now for better rewards kind of has to own this mess.
- [28:28]
Tim Miller
Has Bongino returned to work?
- [28:32]
Perry Stein
I have heard that he has, yes. I don't know what that relationship looks like. I don't know what he's doing, what meetings he is going and what he's not. But yes, my understanding is he reported to work on Monday.
- [28:47]
Tim Miller
It was a, it's been one week since news broke Angelo, that he had not gone to work. I think that we also learned that maybe from Laura Loomer, who's become a pivotal figure almost in the kind of role that Steve Bannon was in when he left the first Trump term, but continued to stay closely connected from the outside. What is your sense of where this is heading in terms of that power center shifting to Laura Limmer?
- [29:20]
Molly Jong-Fast
Yeah, I mean, look, it's, she's gonna, she's gonna, her presence is gonna increase. She's gonna, you know, she's gonna continue to have to shape the contours of the administration, especially on some of these big things. And she's been playing that role, you know, on and off for a while now. And each time her influence gets slightly larger and she gets more connected to parts of the right wing echo chamber that then either sou parrot her. It's very weird for Megyn Kelly, for example, this time around to be sounding and echoing things that Laura Loomer had been saying, even though they're obviously both on the right. Megyn Kelly usually doesn't sound like Laura Loomer. And yet for the last couple of weeks she has. And that's an example of the type of influence that somebody like Bloomer has when people are parroting that. So I don't think that goes away. I think, in fact, I think her, her attacks get sharper and more focused on individuals as she continues to try to use that as a vehicle to driving out people, people. And in terms of the larger dynamics, a few things happened here that I think are worth noting. And it gets to this question. J.D. vance, the Vice president, part of his role does seem to be to be the guy online helping, you know, not be an assignment editor of sorts, but to help indicate what things are talking about and to combat or defend the administration or advocate for the administration's policies or politics. He wasn't doing that for the past Two weeks. If you look at his Twitter account, he wasn't talking about Epstein. He wasn't doing the thing that he normally does that created a bit of a vacuum. And what I found really notable about the last 24 hours is that he's been back engaged again. He's been the one helping really focus the fire on the Wall Street Journal and trying to deflect or draw attention away from, you know, what is the core issue here of the transparency. But how that relates to the question is that it seems like for a moment, when he didn't fill his role, other people then had an inflation of their roles, and Laura Loomer was one of the beneficiaries of that. Charlie Kirk's role was relatively static. Steve Bannon still has the clearest narrative and worldview, and I think that his function as a lighthouse isn't going to change. But as somebody who's operating and in that lighthouse for a couple hours a day, that's the role that Laura Loomer is going to play going forward. And what that means for all of us is that it gets worse for all of us, because she will consistently, she will push the boundaries so far, and she doesn't care if she doesn't get 80% or 60% of what she wants. Her entire theory of change appears to be to move the center, to move the Overton window further and further and further to the right. And that is the real effect of Laura Loomer being a part of all of this and her ability to step in in these moments, to fill the voids left by people that, like J.D. vance, that had not been filling their normal functions.
- [31:54]
Tim Miller
Well, I would say that J.D. vance got replaced in this story by Elon Musk, who used his platform, which helped make J.D. vance to accuse Donald Trump of being in the Epstein file. I mean, this story burst into. And there's a laughable spin to blame the media. The media is simply chasing Elon Musk's tweet and Laura Loomer and the right wing's rantings about releasing the files. So.
- [32:23]
Molly Jong-Fast
Yeah, she's starting a bunch of fires.
- [32:26]
Tim Miller
Yeah, right, right. I think if we're like an Austin with a lot of competition, they're almost out of matches. Perry Stein, thank you for your reporting and for being here to help us sift through these threads. Tim and Angela, stick around for the hour after the break for us. Quote, he's trying to gaslight us the ultimate betrayal. Donald Trump's supporters are for real angry. We'll show you next. I feel really betrayed, and I feel really, really angry. We have a president who tells us.
- [33:05]
Angelo Carusone
To move on from Epstein because it doesn't matter.
- [33:07]
Harry Lippman
Are you guys still talking about this?
- [33:09]
Tim Miller
Seriously?
- [33:10]
Molly Jong-Fast
And yet he still talks about the.
- [33:12]
Tim Miller
And yet he still talks about the 2020 election fraud.
- [33:15]
Chris Van Hollen
This is the ultimate betrayal.
- [33:17]
Tim Miller
Carl, how does Trump survive when half of them says, you know what, bud? You're like every other president. These Epstein files, we were told that.
- [33:25]
Chris Van Hollen
There was going to be release, there was this client list, it was going to be released.
- [33:30]
Tim Miller
And the fact that it's suddenly gone.
- [33:32]
Rich Logis
Away and he's trying to gaslight us is like a punch in the gut to maga.
- [33:38]
Tim Miller
The ultimate betrayal. A quote, punch in the gut to maga. Donald Trump has never been this far from home, never this far away from the safe harbor of his typically loyal and faithful base. But that is where he is right now. And that is what happens when members of your administration promote a conspiracy theory for years and years and years, and then you put them in your cabinet and they turn on your followers and tell them they're stupid, tell them that they believe in a hoax. Now, that bombshell Wall Street Journal reporting affirms what the base believes. And Donald Trump's vow to sue the Wall Street Journal. And Rupert Murdoch will test Trump's ability to really play jiu jitsu with his voters and rally his base behind an attack on the media outlet that's largely following the theories of his base. Joining our coverage is the founder of Leaving maga, former Florida co chair of Republicans for Harris, Rich Logis. Tim and Angelo are with us as well. Rich, it's a pleasure to get to talk to you. Just take me inside your sort of theory of where we are now and where we're heading.
- [34:50]
Rich Logis
Well, thank you, Nicole. It's a great honor to be with you and the esteemed panel and those. For those who are meeting me, I want to apologize for my work on the 2016 and 2020 Trump campaigns. I don't think that there has ever been a time, more so than right now, in which more MAGA Americans are questioning their support for Donald Trump. And I think that there is a burgeoning cognitive dissonance pervasive across maga, and begotten from that dissonance are confusion and doubts. And so for any of those who are in MAGA who are going to see this, and you're wondering if this is in fact the movement that you thought you were supporting, I want you to know that I am with you because I know what you're Going through. It's why we founded our organization, Weaving maga. We are a community and a destination for people who leave and tell their stories, for those who have doubts and for those who are. Who are related and have close friends who are still in the thrall of maga. And I want to ask those of our allies, our friends and family to consider respectfully asking their friends and family if this could be a bridge too far for them, and ask them that if Donald Trump is lying about the Epstein file here, what else is it that he might be lying about? For many months upon months upon months, we heard from the President, the Vice President, MAGA influence influencers, that there was an Epstein list and that there was more to know about his sex trafficking. Now we, now we hear that that's not the case. So they were either lying then or they're lying right now. I said at the DNC convention last year that Donald Trump's toxic superpower is lying and his lies exploit and manipulate his supporters. They exploited and manipulated myself, and MAGA has traumatized every square inch of this country. But there's an opportunity, Nicole and I believe that that opportunity is one where we could see potentially a mass Weaving MAGA movement. The MAGA fever, albeit slowly, is breaking. And I think that the President knows that.
- [37:21]
Tim Miller
Rich, so much to say. First of all, thank you. I'm sure this is not what you imagined doing, but in time, I think will prove to be incredibly important. Will you tell your story of what led you to the point of leaving maga? What was your last straw?
- [37:45]
Rich Logis
Sure. I wish that it had taken me fewer than seven years of my time in maga. It took me an entire year of very restless nights in solitude, just my thoughts and I to eventually leave. There were a variety of reasons, and to paraphrase Hemingway, my epiphany happened gradually and then suddenly, all at once. There was Trump's mismanagement of COVID There was January 6th. There were the stolen election lies. My doubts and confusion really accelerated in my odyssey after my governor, Ron DeSantis, began platforming anti vaxxers at his pressers. And the final straw for me, even though Donald Trump was not present at the time, was May 24, 2022, which was the Uvalde, Texas school shooting. I knew exactly what the Republican response would be. I knew what Donald Trump's response would be. And it was quietly, or it was rather shortly thereafter, Uvalde, that I quietly left maga. But, Nicole, there was something at the time that was really gnawing at me. That I needed to go public. I had always been unapologetically public in my support for Trump, and I felt that I needed to reciprocate that and I needed to publicly renounce MAGA. And so it was on August 30th of 2022, which I call my leaving Magaversary. And thankfully, we've got another one coming up. When I wrote a mea culpa, and in that apology, I said that I was sorry for my support, that I made a mistake, and that I wanted to apologize to anyone I may have hurt with my deeds and rhetoric. And the God's honest truth is that I actually never thought that anyone would care. But it turned out that people did care. And I felt it incumbent upon myself to tell my story to those who wanted to hear it. Because I and the other leaving MAGA leaders who. Who work with me, we are living proof that it is possible to change. And I would ask those who are watching this and across the country that we offer grace to those who are willing to change and. And will genuinely seek contrition and penitence. And that was really where leaving MAGA came from. I would encourage those who are watching to visit our website@leavingmaga.org, get in touch with us, and read all of the stories and the testimonials of our intrepid leaders who went through a variety of odysseys ranging from familial trauma to alcoholism to Christian nationalism. We are living proof that it is possible, in fact, to change. And I know that if we were able to do it, others who are in MAGA right now who are having doubts, they can do it as well.
- [40:37]
Tim Miller
What did you love about Maga when you were in it? What was it?
- [40:41]
Rich Logis
You know, MAGA was exhilarating. It was exciting, it was novel, it was new, it was community. And I. I will respectfully push back a little bit on calling MAGA a cult, because I think that it is best understood as a community. And in that community, I had a second family. And I think that referring to those who are in MAGA as cultists, what happens is it pushes them further into Maga, and we want to extract people out of maga, especially those right now who are questioning their beliefs. Two of the reasons it was so hard for me to leave, number one, I had that second family, who, as much as I'm embarrassed to admit this, Nicole often took precedence over my own blood family. And the other reason was that it wasn't just one or two beliefs, but it was years of accumulated Beliefs that I had to painfully but liberatingly conclude were false. And MAGA is buttressed by lies and mythologies and conspiracies. And eventually any movement or organization in which there is this dissemination of these conspiracies that we have seen recently, there is going to be a cannibal, cannibalization of itself. And Attorney General Bondi is realizing and discovering a tenant of maga, which is that if you are not fully with maga, you are against us. That is the way we used to view those, whether they were Democrats or anti Trump Republicans. If you were not 100% with us, you were against us. Do I understand why some would say that MAGA is a cult? I do get it. Do I Do I think that there were some cult like aspects to it? Yes, I know I can attest to it. I lived it. But I would encourage people to more so look at MAGA as a community rather than a cult.
- [42:38]
Tim Miller
I want to ask you to stick around and I want to pull Tim and Angelo into this really important conversation on the other side of a short break. We'll be right back. We're back with Rich Logis, Tim Miller and Angelo Caracson. Rich, you're going to have to come back for a much longer conversation, but I want to give my friend Tim Miller a chance to react.
- [42:59]
Harry Lippman
Well, I appreciate the Rich came on and is telling his story and talking about this. I may be a little less optimistic than him about the fever breaking over Epstein. I hope to be wrong. I think that there are a significant number of people in the megabase that are in Rich's shoes, excuse me, who had been told this story for 10 years, that Donald Trump was going to take on the elite cabal and as Angela mentioned, mentioned the deep state and that there were a lot of bad people there and pedophiles and are now finding out that he's not going to. I think that there are going to be some people that are disappointed and mad about it. I think there are going to be other people that come back around to Trump. I think his bigger vulnerability is the new people to the coalition. As we've mentioned before, the folks that were kind of in this contrarian RFK Maha manosphere world, a lot of them, these younger men are naturally skeptical and I think this is gonna be a shorthand for them in the future when they think about the ways that Trump let them down, that Trump's a regular politician, the way that Trump sucks, basically, just to use their common language. And they'll be like this is the example. Every time you gotta come up with him. It's like Epstein. He said he was different. He said he was gonna go after the bad guys. He wasn't. He's just another politician. He's just another liar. He's just another fake. And I think that is his vulnerability as much or more than with the core MAGA base.
- [44:19]
Tim Miller
I'm just taking one more break and I'll get Angela. I'll give Angelo the last word on the other side. We're back with Rich, Tim and Angelo. Angelo, in a normal political coalition, it is someone's job to reach back out to Rich personally and try to bring him back into the coalition. Because says this is as I, you know, I describe it, tarantulas in a bowl. There's no one with that job. But who's. Whose problem is it that the coalition is. Is fraying?
- [44:50]
Molly Jong-Fast
At best, it's Trump's problem because part of what this, you know, the coalition, you know, obviously has political benefits, but the way that, when what they're doing right now is that they're actually transforming culture and shaping culture and politics is downstream from culture, the way they see it. So, so how that ties in here is that Trump's narrative dominance, his ability to cut across all of these different information ecosystems, the wellness community, the Make America Healthy Again community, the conspiracists, the contrarians, as Tim pointed out, sort of these new broadcast people, his ability to take all of these different segments of the media ecosystem and connect a through line through them. And in that case, that through line was him and the story that he was telling, and then he could direct that and why that matters. The. So what of that is it didn't just mean that he could sort of drive the conversation day to day, but that could then be operationalized politically. And this is one of the growing trends of the current Trump administration, is that all this legislation comes out, Republicans all talk about how much they hate the bill, and then they go and vote for it anyway because they are making a hedge that Trump is going to be able to continue to be at the center of that narrative and be able to take that, that attention and convert it into some kind of political power, either to benefit them or to hurt them. And so they're hedging, they're looking to the future. So he has the most to lose here, is that as that coalition starts to fray, I agree with him. A lot of these diehards are not going to all of a sudden become anti Trump. But a lot of the different parts of the ecosystem will either splinter off entirely like some of the newcomers, or they'll each pick up their new thing. I mean a segment of them, of them, of the segment. The MAGA media right now is more focused on what Barack Obama did in 2016 based off of a new letter that Tulsi Gabbard released today, than they are anything else. And you can't have narrative dominance in that environment. So that to me is the real loser here and the real tell.
- [46:42]
Tim Miller
Well, and the most prolific sort of members of the manosphere have moved on to new conspiracies that have nothing to to do with any figures in American politics, pyramids and whatnot. So they can also opt back out. You know, they're not traditional political players. Rich, I would love to keep this conversation going. Incredibly enlightening and really much appreciated. Thank you so much for being here. Rich, Tim and Angelo, thank you. Happy Friday. Happy weekend. There's breaking news on that note, though. When we come back, we'll tell you about it. Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against Rich, Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal over their Epstein Report. We'll bring you more on that after a quick break.
- [47:23]
Nicole Wallace
Hi there, it's Andy Richter, and I'm.
- [47:25]
Tim Miller
Here to tell you about my podcast.
- [47:27]
Nicole Wallace
The three Questions with Andy Richter. Each week I invite friends, comedians, actors and musicians to discuss these three questions. Where do you come from, where are you going, and what have you learned?
- [47:38]
Tim Miller
New episodes are out every Tuesday with.
- [47:40]
Nicole Wallace
Guests like Julie Bowe and Ted Danson.
- [47:43]
Tim Miller
And Tig Notaro, Will Arnett, Phoebe Bridgers and more.
- [47:46]
Nicole Wallace
You can also tune in for my weekly Andy Richter Call in Show episodes, where me and a special guest invite.
- [47:52]
Tim Miller
Callers to weigh in on topics like.
- [47:54]
Nicole Wallace
Dating, disasters, bad teachers, and lots more.
- [47:58]
Tim Miller
Listen to the three Questions with Andy.
- [47:59]
Nicole Wallace
Richter wherever you get your podcasts.
- [48:05]
Tim Miller
Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips, or manage payroll? OnDeck's small business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $100,000.
- [48:15]
Harry Lippman
Exactly when your business needs it.
- [48:17]
Tim Miller
With flexible draws, transparent pricing and full control over repayment, you can tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. Apply today@ondeck.com and funds could be available.
- [48:27]
Nicole Wallace
As soon as tomorrow.
- [48:28]
Tim Miller
Depending on certain loan attributes, your business.
- [48:30]
Nicole Wallace
Loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank.
- [48:32]
Tim Miller
Ondeck does not land in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. Coverage varies by plan.
- [48:36]
Nicole Wallace
View contracts and exclusions@endurancewarranty.com if your car is out of warranty, one major repair.
- [48:40]
Tim Miller
Bill could wipe you out. Just ask ludicrous Car breakdowns can wreck your wallet. Without Endurance, a worn out timing belt could cost you $1,700. A busted transmission, that's 4,000 easy. And engine meltdown 7,000. But if you've got Endurance, you could never pay out of pocket for a car repair again.
- [48:58]
Angelo Carusone
With Endurance, your car's most expensive parts.
- [49:01]
Tim Miller
Are cover plus you pick the mechanic you trust to do the work. With Endurance, your rate stays the same no matter how many claims you file.
- [49:09]
Nicole Wallace
If your car is under 20 years old, Endurance has you covered with unlimited miles plus your plan includes 24. 7 roadside assistance anywhere in the country.
- [49:17]
Tim Miller
So who's going to pay for your next breakdown? You or Endurance?
- [49:21]
Nicole Wallace
Choose the name. Ludacris trusts Endurance. Right now get $300 off any plan plus a year off elite benefits. A $2,000 value free. All backed by a 30 day money back guarantee. Get your free quote@endurancewarranty.com that's endurance warranty.com and the President knows that if there's a vote tonight, this body overwhelmingly would vote for the release of the of the files.
- [49:50]
Tim Miller
30 seconds additional 30 seconds.
- [49:52]
Rich Logis
I need 10 seconds.
- [49:53]
Nicole Wallace
This question is whose side are you on today? The Democrats are on the side of the people. The Democrats are on the side of the children. There are 10 Republicans who are on the side of the people and the children. But the entire Democratic Party is on that side. And the Republicans have chosen to protect the rich and powerful men who have abused our children.
- [50:16]
Tim Miller
It's wrong.
- [50:17]
Nicole Wallace
And that's the clear difference tonight.
- [50:21]
Tim Miller
Hi there, everyone. It's five o' clock in the east. As we speak, it is winding its way through the US Capitol, a whisper on the wind, gusting its way through the windows of Congress and the offices of the White House alike. Top of mind, tip of tongue. It's a single existential question, one without a concrete answer, at least for now. Before we share it with you, however, consider the climate, the environment in which the question is being asked. First, the news. Just in the last few minutes, Donald Trump has filed a libel lawsuit against Dow Jones, News Corp. Rupert Murdoch and two Wall Street Journal reporters. We'll have more on that in a minute. But in the meantime, for those of us who've turned on the television or picked up a paper or looked online at any point in the last 15 years may have observed that it seems the only thing the polar sides of our political spectrum can agree on is that they can't agree on much of anything anymore. And it's partly for that reason that this week has been so Stark. So stunning, so consequential politically, watching the patchwork assembly of a political coalition made up of people who have rarely, if ever, aligned themselves along the same axis. You just heard from Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who's working with Republican Congressman Thomas Massie on getting full transparency in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Politico reports this, quote, they're hardly alone in that a number of Republicans are on board with releasing all the files. And it's not just libertarian types like Massey or deep red district conservatives like Tim Burchette, but also frontline swing seat members like freshman Tom Barrett. The sheer political pressure being applied by such a diverse political alliance likely contributed to what Donald Trump announced late yesterday that he is directing the Department of Justice to release grand jury testimony related to the Epstein proceedings. But as Congressman Dan Goldman, a former prosecutor, asked, quote, what about the videos, photographs, and other recordings? What about FBI 302s? Those are witness interviews. What about texts and emails? That is where the evidence about Trump and others will be. And on the topic of known unknowns, Senator Dick Durbin today sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi asking why FBI agents who were tasked with reviewing investigative files having to do with Epstein earlier this year were asked to, quote, flag any documents mentioning Donald Trump. Congress last night, meanwhile, put forward a resolution that the Associated Press makes clear carries no legal weight, but nodded to the growing demand for greater transparency. The House resolution, which could potentially be voted on next week, will do practically nothing to force the Justice Department to release more records in the case. Still, it showed how backlash from the Republican base is putting pressure on the Trump administration and roiling GOP lawmakers. Which brings us back to our first question, simultaneously simple and complicated, sweeping the nation's capital. That is, will any of it be enough? Will releasing grand jury testimony and a toothless resolution be satisfying? Will it be a full meal for those intent or fervently invested in getting answers, Democrats and Trump supporters alike? Or are these political scraps intended to satisfy a news cycle but never fully deliver? We begin the hour with that question and the libel lawsuit just filed by Donald Trump. For news on that, let's bring in MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. This feels like the shiny object for Trump to try to seize back the narrative. Oh, I'm suing for libel. We know he sues a lot when he knows he has no chance of prevailing, but is there any evidence that it isn't that.
- [54:11]
Lisa Rubin
I'm sorry. Is there any evidence that it is. Nicole, I couldn't hear you.
- [54:15]
Tim Miller
That it isn't his shiny object to grab back the narrative control over this story that is so completely out of his control right now?
- [54:24]
Lisa Rubin
No, certainly not. And I will tell you, we don't have the complaint in hand yet. The docket for the federal court in the Southern District of Florida, that's Miami, shows that Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against several defendants. And the nature of that lawsuit, according to the docket, is assault, libel or slander. That's the category that you can pick from, like an electrical electronic dropdown menu. We can expect that this is a defamation lawsuit. What I think is interesting here is who is among the defendants, because in addition to suing dow Jones & Co. As an agent of the Wall Street Journal and News Corp. As the parent company, he is suing, obviously both of the reporters who are bylined on that report. And then there is a fifth defendant, a Keith Rupert Murdoch. And that is, I think, the epitome of the shiny object that Donald Trump is, is using to distract from his political misfortunes right now.
- [55:12]
Tim Miller
Nicole, what is the precedent for Rupert Murdoch and Dow Jones Corp. And the Wall Street Journal of freelancing are running with a story about Donald Trump or anyone without having it solid?
- [55:30]
Lisa Rubin
None that I'm aware of. And particularly if you look at the reporting from the other night with a lawyer's eye, as I did, that piece of reporting was so particularly carefully worded, as if a legal department had scoured every last punctuation mark and word in it. This is not something that the Wall Street Journal took on lightly. They also say throughout the reporting that these are documents that were in the possession of the Department of Justice. And it is likely that the Wall Street Journal has more than they have revealed in its initial reporting, including potentially copies of the documents in question and or proof that the Department of Justice had it in its possession as part of the Epstein investigation. Nicole will continue to look at the docket to see when the complaint itself becomes publicly available. For now, what we know, however, is that on a Friday afternoon when Trump is besieged by bad news related to Jeffrey Epstein, he has gone on the offensive to file a lawsuit against Dow Jones, News Corp. Rupert Murdoch and two of his reporters claiming that he was defamed by their reporting the other evening.
- [56:39]
Tim Miller
Just quickly, how would you defend yourself? I mean, what would Donald Trump have to prove? I mean, if this proceeds to discovery, what would the Wall Street Journal have access to in trying to defend themselves?
- [56:52]
Lisa Rubin
Well, the Wall Street Journal could obviously depose people. They could get third party discovery. But in all likelihood, and this is again My belief, not based on any reporting, the Wall Street Journal already likely has evidence in its possession that this document is real and or was received by the Department of Justice as part of its 2019 investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Whether or not that document then resurfaced as part of the recent re review that, that re review that Senator Durbin talked about in his letters today to Attorney General Bondi and others is unclear. But if I'm the Wall Street Journal, truth is a defense. If this document in fact, was in the possession of the Justice Department, if others can authenticate it, either through their testimony or through documentary evidence that was contemporary at the time, I'm going to rely on that as the Wall Street Journal, because truth is always a defense and a defamation action.
- [57:51]
Tim Miller
Nicole, would Pam Bondi have a copy of the book that was put together for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday?
- [58:00]
Lisa Rubin
If you're asking me if Pam Bondi personally has it, I have no knowledge, obviously, of what Pam Bondi has in her possession or what she asked for in connection with that re review that the Department of Justice was supposedly undertaking to try and release more of the evidence Epstein files. Is it possible that she had access to it? Yes. Do we know whether or not she had access to it or in fact reviewed it, has it in her custody, possession or control? We don't. But somewhere in the Department of Justice, this document resides. And Pam Bondi, as the Attorney General of the Department of Justice, is someone who could have asked for that document if she knew it to exist. Certainly dumb. Donald Trump and his White House knew this reporting was coming. They knew it no later than Tuesday evening, according to the reporting itself, which talked about an interview between the authors of the report and Donald Trump on Tuesday evening. So, again, Pam Bondi could have asked for that document if it wasn't already in her possession at that point, to make a determination if it existed and if it existed, whether it was not, whether or not it was offline. My guess is that based on what we've heard from the White House so far, there is so much more to this story, Nicole, than we saw in the Wall Street Journal reporting and more to the story that will come out if this complaint survives a motion to dismiss and goes on to the discovery phase of litigation.
- [59:26]
Tim Miller
Lisa Rubin, thank you for your reporting on this story.
- [59:28]
Lisa Rubin
Thank you.
- [59:29]
Tim Miller
Joining our coverage is Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Senator, so much to talk about before this shiny object thrown into the mix. Your reaction on where we are in the wake of the Wall Street Journal reporting. And Donald Trump's. I think this is his third move since the story broke. First he ordered grand jury testimony release, then he sued Murdoch, then he sued the reporters. Where do you think we are in this story?
- [60:00]
Chris Van Hollen
Well, Nicole, I think we're at the place where the more we learn with every report, the more important it is that the Trump administration and Attorney General Bondi come clean and just release all of the files. I think this lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and others is a distraction. I think it's really important that Attorney General Bondi now release everything. The grand jury preceding transcripts are not enough. You just reported on all the other evidence that's out there in the form of videotapes, FBI notes, and other things. So when the President says, oh, we'll do the grand jury testimony, that, of course, just raises questions about all the other material that they're not planning to release. And, of course, Senator Durbin's disclosure today that he has received reports, reports that Attorney General Bondi ordered FBI agents to look through all the files for references to Donald Trump again, just means that we need all of the information in order to address legitimate public questions and public concern.
- [61:09]
Tim Miller
Do you support a special counsel being appointed to look at all this material?
- [61:15]
Chris Van Hollen
I support whatever's necessary to get to the bottom of this. And the fastest way to do that, of course, would be for the Attorney General to make all this information available, which is why I offered the amendment last week in the Senate Appropriations Committee along with Senator Durbin. And we had a unanimous vote, bipartisan. Every single senator on the Senate Appropriations Committee directed Attorney General Bondi to make all this information available to answer the questions we posed for a report. And that's why Senator Durbin and I just wrote to her yesterday saying there's no reason to wait until the bill that we adopted in the Appropriations Committee winds its way through the entire process. Provide the information. Now. We asked for it. Within 30 days.
- [62:03]
Tim Miller
In six months, have you seen a single instance where Pam Bondi has done anything other than exactly what Donald Trump wants her to do?
- [62:13]
Chris Van Hollen
Not one. Not one. And, in fact, this Justice Department is a total rubber stamp for Donald Trump. He says jump, they say, how high? Which means, as she's already indicated, they will ask the, you know, the courts to release the grand jury testimony. But that's not going to satisfy the American people across the political spectrum, because now the Trump administration has made everybody wonder what it is they're trying to hide. And whenever they say they're going to release a little bit. You remember Pam Bondi in the binders, the folders she promised more after that. And the more they evade these answers, the more people understandably, legitimately believe there's a lot more that they're hiding.
- [63:08]
Tim Miller
Is it weird or what is it like to be more aligned with what the MAGA base wants than the Republicans who have done everything the MAGA base has craved and wanted for nine years?
- [63:26]
Chris Van Hollen
Well, you're absolutely right. It is a sort of moment of political dissonance. Although, again, I will say that we had a unanimous vote in the Appropriations Committee last year for total disclosure of all these files. But it is a crazy world when Donald Trump tries to claim that the Epstein file case was something cooked up by Democrats. I mean, the cross Cole, you and I have lived through the past couple years. I just don't think he's going to get away with it fully. He will with some parts of the MAGA base, but others are going, give me a break. And of course, Republican members of Congress are facing still a big part of the MAGA base that believed what, you know, Pam Bondi said before, that they were going to release the files and now do want to hold them to it. And so it is a very strange political moment.
- [64:25]
Tim Miller
What is your theory of why Trumpand I hate to ask you to get in his head, but Trump was elected a second time as a convicted felon who had plotted the January 6th insurrection that had as its mission statement, quote, hang my. What do you think he's afraid of in the Epstein files?
- [64:48]
Chris Van Hollen
Oh, I think he is afraid of what we will find, including information dealing with him directly and personally, as you were just discussing. It's very likely that this letter the Wall Street Journal uncovered is part of the FBI files along with many other materials. I mean, Pam Bondi apparently instructed at least 100, if not more agents to go through all the computer systems looking for any tag of Donald Trump. So it's very possible that there's a lot more material out there. And that's exactly what Donald Trump is afraid of, that the whole sort of issue and questions that he and Pam Bondi raised during the past campaigns and on Fox News and other places are now going to come around full circle to bite him. That's what he's afraid of. I see no other reason. There's no other reason, Nicole, that he would be so dug in all of a sudden on this. He doesn't care about anybody else except himself.
- [65:58]
Tim Miller
Right, right. The idea that he's protecting other powerful people, he just care about any other powerful people, only himself. What is your degree of interest in talking to or calling Elon Musk, who seemed to know something about how prominent Trump is in the files when he tweeted in the midst of their sort of fallout, Donald Trump is in the Epstein files and he knows it.
- [66:26]
Chris Van Hollen
Well, I think Elon Musk should provide information that he has available. He should make it publicly available. I think he and anybody else who has this kind of information should come forward in the public interest. So, look, I think this is a moment where the call for transparency and accountability is real, it's legitimate, and that there's a reason Donald Trump is running from it, and that's because there's information he's afraid will be disclosed.
- [67:02]
Tim Miller
Senator Chris Van Hollen, if you learn anything, please come back. Thank you for spending time with us today. We're grateful.
- [67:09]
Chris Van Hollen
Will do. Thanks, Nicole.
- [67:11]
Tim Miller
We're going to sneak in a short break on the other side. We'll bring our panel into this discussion. Also ahead for us, what we're learning about the surprise cancellation of the beloved and iconic Late show with Stephen Cole Bear. Donald Trump is celebrating that stunning development and no wonder. It's long been a part of the Autocrats playbook to target the comedians. We'll have that conversation later in the hour then. White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Joining our conversation in progress, former deputy assistant attorney General and former U.S. attorney Harry Lippman's here. Also joining us, host of the Fast Politics podcast and Vanity Fair special correspondent, our friend Molly. John Fast is back and the host of Politics Nation right here on msnbc, the president of the National Action Network, the Reverend Al Sharpton, is here. Quickly, though, MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin is back. Lisa, I just made the point with the senator that since the Wall Street Journal story broke, Trump has been frenetic and frantic. Another move in terms of what he's ordered DOJ to do and a filing now with just one signature on it. Explain.
- [68:26]
Lisa Rubin
Well, Nicole, as we await the publication online of his defamation lawsuit against Dow Jones and News Corp, who own the Wall Street Journal, we have now seen a new filing in the Southern District of New York where Jeffrey Epstein was indicted. That filing was made by one person alone, Todd Blanch, the deputy attorney general who has moved for the unsealing of the grand jury transcripts. In that case, contrary to some of their public statements, they are not seeking just certain grand jury transcripts. They are seeking all of them, albeit with appropriate redactions, they say, for any information that would identify Epstein's victims. And I want to explain to you or read to you rather from their four page motion about why they say the release of these grand jury transcripts is justified. At the end, Mr. Blanche writes, Public officials, lawmakers, pundits and ordinary citizens remain deeply interested and concerned about the Epstein matter. Indeed, other jurists have released grand jury transcripts after concluding that Epstein's case qualifies as a matter of public concern. And there he is referring to grand jury transcripts from a Florida prosecution relating to Jeffrey Epstein. He says, after all, Jeffrey Epstein is, quote, the most infamous pedophile in American history, end quote. Again quoting to that Florida state court order revealing grand jury transcripts from a Florida state investigation. The facts surrounding Epstein's case tell the tale of national disgrace. The grand jury records are thus critical pieces of an important moment in our nation's history. The time for the public to guess what they contain should end. And then he says, the privacy interests on the other side, and those are things that people like me, Paul Butler and other lawyers, former lawyers on our network have been talking about throughout the day, predicting that according to would not grant this motion. He says the privacy interests at stake on the other side of the balance are substantially diminished due to Epstein's death. Of course, as noted above, the Department of Justice will work with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to redact all victim identifying information prior to any release. And let me just flag for you and our viewers, Nicole, one other thing. Not only is Todd Blanche the only signature on this, but it is a clear exceedingly rare, particularly in the Southern District of New York, to see main justice make a filing. That happens usually only when somebody at the Southern District themselves doesn't want to make a filing. I have seen that happen on a handful of occasions, all involving litigation where Donald Trump is an actor in those proceedings over the last several years. One instance that I can think about, for example, is Amy filing the motion to dismiss the Eric Adams indictment. Why? Because no one in the Southern District wanted to do that. They all thought it was a righteous case. And here again you see this motion being filed by Pam Bondi, signed by Todd Blanche and yet nobody else. Asking Judge Richard Berman, who is the SDNY judge who oversaw the Epstein indictment, to release all grand jury transcripts with a pro appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of Epstein's victims.
- [71:44]
Tim Miller
Harry, let me, let me bring you in on this, Lisa. Stick around. Harry, does it make it more or less strange that Maureen Comey, who brought the Epstein case, was fired 48 hours ago.
- [71:56]
Angelo Carusone
The whole thing is beyond strange and I guess it makes it less in the sense that they're trying now to, as they did in the Adams case, a, to push her out, out of the way. But look, this is a complete smokescreen and for two reasons. Lisa talked about a case in Florida that's under Florida state law that has a matter of public concern. Federal law contains no such exception. Rule 6 is very clear about what provisions can justify the release of grand jury material. And quelling a political firestorm just ain't one of them. More importantly, and, and the big point that makes this such a diversionary tactic, what they were proving and why this, these grand jury materials were assembled were charges against Ghislaine, Maxwell and Epstein. And if you read the indictments there, they talk about Epstein, they talk about his associates, they talk about the underage girls. Basically, there's nothing about any customers. All the applicable law required is there be one commercial sex act. So they can absolutely uncover everything, which by the way is right now undercover for appropriate prosecutorial reasons because they may need to retry her and it will have nothing to do with the victims in, excuse me, with any of the customers in this case, nothing to do with Donald Trump. That is all back as part of the motherlode in main justice. So this is a absolute red herring and Trump knows it is.
- [73:27]
Tim Miller
So just explain that to me. What is it, Main justice and where is where Would you imagine the evidence that the Wall Street Journal reports on today? This book, this leather bound book of pervy letters sent from Epstein's closest friends, reportedly including Donald Trump. Where is that pile of evidence? And what, and to your point that this is diversionary in nature, what is in the grand jury testimony that Blanche signed a letter asking to be released?
- [74:03]
Angelo Carusone
So perfectly put pervy letters. Let's start with your second question, Nicole. What's in there? The materials you need to prove the case against Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein, had he gone to trial. And it doesn't have to do with any of the sort of glad handers and old men hanging around in Epstein's kind of carnival. Where does it exist? Well, we know from the Wall Street Journal reporting that it is within the Department of Justice, within the bureau. Why they collected it and what it consists of is unclear. But I think Trump has really violated the rule of holes here because he could have said something like, you know, I stopped, we had a falling out in 2004, I don't like the guy, etc. But he has staked his whole Credibility now on saying this notebook is a fake. And, you know, they've described it in meticulous detail. No chance they don't have it buttoned down. We have his signature. So that, I think, is what's so significant. Where is the notebook? And I think it's pretty clear. The Journal report courts, it's within the Department of Justice, probably in a safe or a skiff in the, in the FBI building across the street.
- [75:18]
Tim Miller
Molly, talk fast. Let me pull you in on this. What is your sense of how tightly knit up these actions are between Trump, Bondi, Patel and Bongino? I mean, no one can really say that they've heard much from Bongino since Laura Loomer posted on social media that he had sicked out last Friday. He's reportedly, according to the Washington Post, he's reportedly back at work today. But he's the person. He and Kash Patel have maximum credibility and we haven't heard from. They've been very quiet this week. What is your sense of where all these players stand right now?
- [76:02]
Molly Jong-Fast
Well, this is an impossible situation. And what's been so interesting about it, I think, is that Donald Trump, who has always been in lockstep with his base, is now all of a sudden unable to control the narrative. And why I think this scandal has been so important is because it actually has permeated the base. So many of the scandals that we sit here and talk about on television matter only to a certain group of people. Now, that group of people tends to be people for whom the rule of law really matter. But this is something that really has permeated the base. So much so that when Patel and Bonjino talked about it online, they, you saw just a significant amount of pushback. So I do think they're really trying to figure out a way to provide the appearance of some form of transparency. I mean, that seems to be the way in which this could be, you know, is try. Is the way in which we see, you know, machinations around. So I do think that this is. I just think it's a very hard situation. This is something the polling on it is gonzo. Most people in the world want answers.
- [77:14]
Tim Miller
Well, I mean, Rev, if you could jump in, I mean, you knew Donald Trump in the period that Donald Trump knew Jeffrey Epstein. Donald Trump seems to be trying to. To lie about too many things at once. And that seems to be the tipping point. We're at one, his base is fully animated by and tolerates all the other stuff because they wanted things like the Epstein files released. But Donald Trump has now told so many lies, I wonder if he's at a tipping point in terms of his credibility even with his most fervent supporters. He's told many lies and he's off balance because he's used to saying whatever he wants to say and it not be questioned by his base. And I think that in his being off balance, he's becoming reckless because to file the lawsuit, somebody needs to remind him that if they go through with a lawsuit, he will be deposed. And that's the last thing he wants, is to be deposed under oath. So I really think Donald Trump is for the first time off balance because his base is not where he stands as his foundation. And he knows better than any of us what he is trying to hide. He knows good and well if they get the grand jury minutes, they will know what the grand jury knew. That does not mean that that was all to know, including whether there was a list or whether people engaged in certain activities that did not have to to go in front of a grand jury. All right, no one's going anywhere. We have to sneak in a very short break on this day of wild and pervy breaking news. But we'll all be right back. I hope that you will vote with us when I again offer a simple.
- [78:59]
Chris Van Hollen
Amendment to release the files.
- [79:01]
Tim Miller
Because either one of two things is true. Either one of two things is true.
- [79:06]
Chris Van Hollen
Either there's nothing here and Trump made.
- [79:09]
Tim Miller
All this up and conned you guys into believing it. In that case, why would you vote.
- [79:14]
Nicole Wallace
Against releasing files that don't exist, or.
- [79:17]
Tim Miller
There are files and you guys want to keep them hidden because you're afraid what's in them. There are exceptions to protect the victims of these crimes. And by the way, our language has been out. No, there are not.
- [79:29]
Rich Logis
There are not.
- [79:30]
Tim Miller
In the Massey kind of build. There are. That is not what you offered.
- [79:33]
Chris Van Hollen
That is not what you offered.
- [79:34]
Nicole Wallace
You said all the files.
- [79:35]
Chris Van Hollen
And we have a responsibility to protect the victims.
- [79:38]
Molly Jong-Fast
Mr. And we know where you are.
- [79:39]
Rich Logis
We know where you are, Mr. H.
- [79:41]
Tim Miller
The party of child victims.
- [79:43]
Angelo Carusone
That's why you open the border.
- [79:44]
Rich Logis
That's why you open the border.
- [79:45]
Chris Van Hollen
How many children got raped coming across.
- [79:47]
Rich Logis
That border because of what the Democratic Party did?
- [79:49]
Chris Van Hollen
Who voted to cover up the facts?
- [79:54]
Tim Miller
We are back with Harry, Molly, the Rev, Al and Lisa. Molly, let me come back to you on the politics of all this because I think that's, I think in the mayhem, you see a little clue at where they're going, which is nowhere fast. They're caught in their own doublespeak and the answer is always a noun of urban and I guess immigration if you're a House Republican. But the, the legislative action and the investigative journalism are following their voters. They're following the Republican voters. And so unlike the appointment of a special counsel to investigate ties to Russia from Trump's campaign in 2016, that followed investigative journalism largely in the Washington Post and the New York Times, the investigative journalism in this case is following an absolute bleep storm in the MAGA circle of political influence. The journalism is coming after it, and the bipartisan legislation is following the journalism that's following the MAGA outrage. What is your sense of where things stand politically right now?
- [81:07]
Molly Jong-Fast
Yeah, I mean, that's a really good point. It is wild. You do not see a sort of Mobius strip like this often. It's kind of extraordinary. I would also add Rupert, this is something that pits Rupert Murdoch against Donald Trump, right? This is not some liberal paper. There is very, very good reporting at.
- [81:31]
Tim Miller
The Wall Street Journal.
- [81:32]
Molly Jong-Fast
Everyone on the left and right can agree that the reporting is excellent there. And you knew that this was coming and it was. I mean, there's just no world in which the Wall Street Journal did not run with this story if it wasn't vetted to the hilt and that. And so we find ourselves in the situation where we have Rupert Murdoch, who is, you know, who is a longtime ally and confidant and friend really of Donald Trump, publishing this. And I think that it cannot be understated that this was because in some way, and you know, that this was the, what people really wanted and this information that they felt they were entitled to.
- [82:15]
Tim Miller
Harry, let me bring you in on the next step in terms of Rupert Murdoch's defense of his paper, the Wall Street Journal. What happens next?
- [82:26]
Angelo Carusone
It's very straightforward and you can't see any wisdom in Trump's actually having brought suit. One, it extends things again and again, another news cycle with every filing. But two, it gives almost hydraulic force to what I think is going to happen anyway, which is the release of the materials. As Lisa says, truth is a defense. So what it will absolutely bring to bear is everything that's in that story. And I totally agree with Molly, and I'll just add, this is the news side of the Wall Street Journal, not the op ed side. There's just not the slightest chance they didn't button this up and, and rebutton it and put suspenders on it before they, they and went and combed it for every word. So any battle here is going to be distinctly to his disadvantage because again, what's happened is he's made it all about is this thing fake? The time has to come in a case like this if it continues where it's proven that it's not fake. That's why how the Wall Street Journal defends itself there other, other things he could have done. But now he's doubled and redoubled down on that point. So in that sense, it both extends the story and makes it inevitable that the, the final bombshell will come. That's exactly what he hasn't been saying. I think that bombshell's coming anyway, but that the lawsuit makes it far more likely. And the short answer, your question is they'll say this is true. Look, and we have the goods here. We, we, we have reporters and so we win. And they do.
- [84:03]
Tim Miller
Harry Lippman, Lisa Rubin, thank you so much for being here and talking us through all these late breaking developments. Molly and the Rev stick around when we come back inside. CBS cancellation of the iconic Late show with Stephen Colbert. And my questions are swirling today over the role Donald Trump might have played in the surprise decision and announcement that story's next.
- [84:29]
Nicole Wallace
Well, I want to let you know something that I found out just last night. Next year will be our last season. The network will be ending the Late show in May.
- [84:39]
Chris Van Hollen
And.
- [84:48]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, I share your feelings. It's not just the end of our show, but it's the end of the Late show on cbs. I'm not being replaced. This is all just going away.
- [84:59]
Tim Miller
The shocking and very sad announcement from Stephen Colbert last night that CBS is canceling the Late show after 33 years. I've had the privilege of appearing on Colbert's program twice and there is no one more generous or knowledgeable or astute or in sync with his massive audience when it comes to the things that actually make America great, truth, courage, humanity, democracy and yes, comedy. He is a bright light and a beacon of truth telling. According to the network, the decision to end the franchise, a late night institution hosted for 22 seasons by David Letterman and the last 11 by Colbert, was, quote, purely financial and, quote, not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount. But it does come after Paramount, CBS's parent company, agreed to pay Donald Trump $16 million to settle his lawsuit, largely viewed as frivolous. Over edits to an October 60 Minutes interview with then presidential candidate Kamala Harris and only three days after Colbert criticized that settlement as a, quote, big fat bribe in the midst of an $8 billion pending merger for Paramount, which needs approval from the Trump administration. Watch.
- [86:19]
Nicole Wallace
As someone who has always been a proud employee of this network, I am offended and I don't know if anything will ever repair my trust in this company. But just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help. Unlike the payoffs from ABC and Twitter, Paramount settlement did not include an apology.
- [86:38]
Tim Miller
Instead.
- [86:38]
Chris Van Hollen
That's good.
- [86:39]
Nicole Wallace
Instead, the corporation released a statement where they said, you may take our money.
- [86:43]
Chris Van Hollen
But you will never take our dignity. You may, however, purchase our dignity for.
- [86:48]
Nicole Wallace
The low, low price of $16 million.
- [86:50]
Tim Miller
We need the cash now.
- [86:52]
Nicole Wallace
I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles. It's Big Fat Brian.
- [87:02]
Tim Miller
Joining our coverage, NPR media correspondent David Folkenflake. Molly and the Rev are still here. David1 were you surprised and to your thoughts?
- [87:13]
Nicole Wallace
Well, yet again we have that famous Jeopardy. Category of shocking but not surprising. It's one of these things that really is a signal moment. It is impossible to disaggregate it from the announcement just days earlier year of the settlement, which was itself for a lawsuit that all the law professors and media lawyers and executives I've spoken to over the months about has said was perhaps one of the most frivolous things they have ever read and scrutinized. You know, it is true that Late Night is struggling. Colbert at the top of the heap in ratings and, you know, is clearly, what can you say? He's just a class figure and extremely funny, whether or not you agree with his politics, just quite a brilliant presence. And he really made that show come alive. You know, hard to inherit a show from somebody who created and somebody so distinctive as David Letterman. But he found his voice when he said, you know what, it's okay for me to acknowledge my take on the politics of the moment in the Trump years, you know, in particular. And that worked for him. It, you know, may have alienated conservative audiences that, you know, for, for a broadcast network, but nonetheless, it really made sense for him. And I think he brought a lot of insight, wisdom and at times, empathy to issues on the public sphere and in the personal scale as well. But that said, it fits in with a series of sequential actions that have been taken to kind of clear the decks so that Shari Redstone, the controlling owner of CBS parent company Paramount Global, can, can sell it to Skydance, a studio that's ultimately controlled by a multibillionaire who's one of the president's supporters.
- [88:54]
Tim Miller
What is likely to be learned about how how much Getting rid of this show or ending Colbert's program. Will we ever find out if that was something either hinted or promised or part of the deal to get the merger approved?
- [89:15]
Nicole Wallace
Well, I will say that one of the parties in this who has the most interest to be circumspect about it is the one who speaks out loud the most, and that's the President himself. Right. So cbs, parent cbs, had actually fought this vigorously in court with lawyers making muscular legal arguments, reading through them, and I think it was the Northern District of Texas and, and seeing what they had to say. And at the same time, their parent company was desperately trying to settle this. Right. And they said, listen, we didn't, as you pointed out, we didn't do an apology. We, we gave $16 million to what, Grease the skids, essentially, to clear the decks is what's really happening here. Everybody understands that. Trump went out there at a point in which Paramount is saying there's nothing else to this, and said, you know, I'm going to get an equivalent amount, essentially potentially something like 15 to 18 million dollars worth of public service announcements, because we're going to get them on the conservative side to do in advocacy of issues or standpoints that I think are important. And it was suggested it might be against anti Semitism, in favor of the military, other things, but, you know, with a cast that he could embrace, and that in some ways is consistent with his own agenda. Paramount disclaimed any knowledge of this guy. Lance has been silent about it, but Trump wanted this to be out and known. And it's almost as though they've identified another sphere that nobody really thought about, as this is politicized public service announcements. That's part of the liberal media too. And I think what the lesson, if you're asking for a larger theme to do, is even though you have these major corporations with tons of money behind them that fund major corporately owned news organization organizations, in a time like this, many of them will bend to power too. And that is, you know, a signal question of our age. Will institutions that provide knowledge to the public through which they can absorb their world and make decisions for themselves as citizens, will they retain their independence or will they bend to power? We all have to make accommodations in life and institutions do too. But this is more than an accommodation. And so the question is, was this done simply to cut losses, as CBS's parent company is suggesting? And CBS is suggesting, it's hard to look at it in this sphere. Clearly, the message is not simply that they want to, they want to cut costs, but that they're conveying to an audience that's very important to them. The regulators who work for President Trump. They are seeking whatever they can do to strike and forge a peace.
- [91:44]
Tim Miller
Your, your parent company also in the news this week, and it's not unrelated, right. As the media bends and appeases Donald Trump, people more and more dependent on journalists like yourself tell me what this week has been like for you.
- [92:04]
Nicole Wallace
Well, look, I am here. I am proudly employed by npr. They pay my salary, but I'm not here to speak the corporate line that they give me to their credit, the independence to report on this issue affecting our own finances so that we try to live our values even in a moment of crisis and redefinition. It's an intense moment to see members of the national legislature get up on, on the floor of the Senate, the floor of the House, and denounce the institution that you work for. That however human it is, however flawed it is, you know, hundreds of people who work hard, hard to get the news to people around the world and around the clock and across this great nation. That said, you know, we're trying to keep our heads down and do the reporting and remind people why it is we do what we do. And there is a legitimate policy debate about whether or not, forgive me, calls coming in even as we talk as to whether or not, you know, government subsidies should, should be offered to public broadcasting. And the answer has to be decided with the public and the people who represent them. But I will say that, you know, from what we hear from audiences, there are times people are frustrated with us. That's totally legitimate. But there's also a lot of support out there for the kinds of journalism that is mission driven and perhaps not defined by corporate or commercial owners.
- [93:27]
Tim Miller
Will count me. He's a forever fan. David Folkenfeld, thank you for being part of our conversation. Molly, Jong Fast and the Rev. Al Sharpton, thank you for spending the hour with us. When we come back, an early look at the newest episode of the Best People podcast. We'll have that after a very short break. Don't go anywhere. That's the thing that Reagan had that Atticus Finch had.
- [93:57]
Rich Logis
They had respect for things that were bigger than them.
- [94:00]
Tim Miller
They respected the rule of law.
- [94:03]
Rich Logis
Jim Comey, that was sacred to him. Atticus Finch, the rule of law, the right thing to do versus the wrong thing to do. These guys were moral giants, you know, Atticus in particular.
- [94:23]
Tim Miller
And.
- [94:28]
Chris Van Hollen
Now.
- [94:31]
Tim Miller
There is nothing bigger than.
- [94:33]
Chris Van Hollen
Trump looking in the mirror.
- [94:37]
Tim Miller
He is one of my favorite human beings. And this week, Golden Globe winning actor Jeff Daniels is my guest on the newest episode of the Best People podcast he has. He also happens to be a fantastic musician, a Michigander, and deeply, deeply wise about where our country is right now in this moment. Just scan the QR code on your screen and subscribe to MSNBC Premium if you want to listen right now ad free and then let me know what you think after you listen. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes for another week of shows. We are so grateful.
- [95:11]
Chris Van Hollen
Hey everybody, it's Rob Lowe here.
- [95:14]
Nicole Wallace
If you haven't heard, I have a.
- [95:16]
Chris Van Hollen
Podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe.
- [95:20]
Nicole Wallace
And basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J.
- [95:38]
Chris Van Hollen
Fox.
- [95:39]
Nicole Wallace
There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe please and listen wherever you get your podcasts.