“Factual discrepancies”

Summary

Podcast Summary: “Factual Discrepancies” – Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace

Podcast Information

• Title: Deadline: White House
• Host: Nicolle Wallace, MSNBC
• Description: Drawing on years of experience as communications chief for President George W. Bush and senior advisor for the McCain-Palin campaign, Nicolle Wallace provides political insight and clarity on where the decision-makers stand on complex issues. Join her for analysis and discussion with key newsmakers every weekday.
• Episode: “Factual Discrepancies”
• Release Date: July 30, 2025

---

1. Introduction In the July 30, 2025 episode of “Deadline: White House,” host Nicolle Wallace delves into the growing controversies surrounding former President Donald Trump's statements and actions related to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The episode also explores broader themes of political strategy, rule of law, economic policies, and voting rights, featuring insights from journalists, legal experts, and political analysts.

---

2. Donald Trump’s Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein The episode opens with discussions about Donald Trump's recent remarks linking his fallout with Jeffrey Epstein to Epstein’s alleged abductions of women from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. This assertion has sparked widespread skepticism and debate over the accuracy and timeline of events.

• Julie K. Brown, investigative reporter for the Miami Herald, highlights inconsistencies in Trump’s narrative: “The falling out between Epstein and Trump happened after Virginia Giuffre or others were stolen by Epstein from Trump doesn’t really add up” [01:44].

• Ankush Khardori, Politico magazine senior writer, analyzes the evolving nature of Trump’s public statements: “The nature of Trump's social relationship with Epstein has never been clear, really. And it's really only gotten murkier...” [04:46].

Trump's attempts to clarify his distancing from Epstein fall short, leaving both supporters and critics puzzled and concerned about the veracity of his claims.

---

3. Missing Minute in Epstein’s Jail Cell Tapes A significant portion of the episode investigates the so-called "missing minute" from the surveillance footage of Jeffrey Epstein’s jail cell on the night of his death. This gap has fueled numerous conspiracy theories questioning Epstein’s death and the involvement of high-profile individuals.

• Julie K. Brown elaborates on the complexities: “The Justice Department and the FBI are reviewing the situation surrounding the report that the so called missing minute from the surveillance video on the night Jeffrey Epstein died in 2019 does exist...” [24:23].

• Angelo Carusone, President of Media Matters for America, discusses the public's reaction: “They picked up on something very real and very intense, which is that people were hurt, children were hurt...” [16:35].

Legal experts clarify that the "missing minute" pertains to cameras outside Epstein’s wing, which were not functioning properly, thereby not directly capturing his cell’s activity.

• Christy Greenberg, former criminal division deputy chief, explains: “The camera that was recording that night, it was not in the wing where Epstein cell was... the video isn't of where Epstein was...” [28:11].

This revelation underscores the technical limitations rather than any intentional cover-up, though skepticism remains among conspiracy theorists.

---

4. Impact on the Rule of Law and Political Implications The episode explores how Trump’s actions, particularly his attempts to influence legal proceedings and appointments, undermine the American rule of law. Panelists express deep concern over the politicization of judicial appointments and the erosion of institutional integrity.

• Julie K. Brown emphasizes the significance of recent judicial confirmations: “Bobby's confirmation is a signal of where Donald Trump wants to take the rule of law in our country... it is a direction where the rule of law doesn't apply to Donald Trump or his allies” [50:41].

• Mark Elias, founder of Democracy Docket, critiques the Republican Party's loss of dignity: “The Republican Party and its elected officials have lost all sense of dignity and self-respect... Emil Bovey is not a Federalist Society candidate. Emil Bovey is just the personal lawyer and henchman for the President” [63:46].

Experts argue that Trump’s strategy of appointing loyalists to key positions and undermining independent institutions poses a significant threat to democratic norms and the balance of power.

---

5. Federal Reserve and Economic Policy Nicolle Wallace shifts focus to economic issues, particularly the Federal Reserve’s response to Trump’s pressure to lower interest rates. Despite Trump’s aggressive tactics, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell maintains independence, holding steady on interest rates amid economic uncertainties caused by tariffs.

• Steve Liesman, CNBC senior economics reporter, summarizes the Federal Reserve’s stance: “The Fed is in a fix here where both sides of what it's in charge of, employment and inflation are both being challenged” [37:46].

• Maria Aspen, NPR financial correspondent, adds: “We don't know yet is it going to be when back to school shopping gets fully... or next year? And that is creating both a policy challenge for the Fed and a bit of a political challenge...” [42:38].

The discussion highlights the tension between maintaining economic stability and responding to political pressures, with Powell prioritizing long-term economic health over immediate political gains.

---

6. Voting Rights and Suppression Efforts A critical segment addresses ongoing efforts to suppress voting rights, particularly targeting military personnel stationed overseas and minority voters. Justice Alison Riggs shares her experiences combating voter suppression in North Carolina, emphasizing the importance of protecting every eligible voter’s right to participate in democracy.

• Justice Alison Riggs recounts: “There were 68,000 voters impacted... voters who followed the rules before an election ought not to be treated the way they were in North Carolina” [78:54].

• Mark Elias responds: “This is not the highest priority for the RNC. They poured millions of dollars into this because they were using this as a test case... to sell a theory they have been trying to sell” [85:00].

The panelists discuss the implications of these suppression tactics on future elections, stressing the need for robust legal and grassroots responses to safeguard voting integrity.

---

7. Judicial Appointments and Political Manipulation The confirmation of Emil Bovey, a controversial figure with close ties to Trump, exemplifies the administration’s efforts to politicize the judiciary. Experts criticize the confirmation process as a blatant assault on judicial independence.

• Nicolle Wallace states: “Emil Bovey is not a Federalist Society candidate. Emil Bovey is just the personal lawyer and henchman for the President” [63:46].

• Julie K. Brown underscores the gravity: “Republicans are confirming him because they are willing to sacrifice judicial integrity for loyalty to Trump” [60:22].

This appointment is seen as a precursor to further efforts to stack federal courts with individuals who align with Trump’s agenda, thereby weakening the checks and balances essential to a functioning democracy.

---

8. Conclusion and Final Thoughts The episode concludes with a grim outlook on the current state of American democracy. The panel emphasizes the urgent need for collective action to restore institutional integrity and protect democratic principles.

• Steve Liesman warns: “Donald Trump cannot be appeased... he will assume every ounce of power that the people of America let him have” [64:00].

• Mark Elias urges vigilance: “We need to be fighting on the same playing field using the same tools that they are” [71:53].

Nicolle Wallace calls for increased public awareness and active participation in defending democratic norms, highlighting the critical role of both the judiciary and the electorate in countering authoritarian tendencies.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• “So Trump knew that Epstein and Maxwell had, quote, taken or, quote, stolen Virginia Gife and some others from Mar A Lago.” – Julie K. Brown [02:00]
• “They have to be fighting on the same playing field using the same tools that they are.” – Mark Elias [71:53]
• “Democrats need to use every single tool available to them to show Republicans that this result will wind up worse for them, not better.” – Nicolle Wallace [66:37]
• “There is a reality in the world, and we are a system of checks and balances for a reason.” – Steve Liesman [55:48]

---

Key Takeaways

• Discrepancies in Trump’s Narrative: Trump’s conflicting accounts of his relationship with Epstein raise questions about his credibility and intentions.
• Judicial Manipulation: The appointment of figures like Emil Bovey signals a deliberate undermining of judicial independence.
• Economic Pressures vs. Political Agendas: The Federal Reserve’s independence is crucial in maintaining economic stability amidst political pressure to alter monetary policy.
• Voter Suppression Threats: Efforts to disenfranchise specific voter groups threaten the foundational democratic principle of fair and free elections.
• Need for Collective Action: Protecting democracy requires coordinated efforts from the judiciary, legal experts, and the electorate to counteract authoritarian maneuvers.

---

Conclusion The “Factual Discrepancies” episode of “Deadline: White House” provides a comprehensive examination of the multifaceted challenges facing American democracy. Through rigorous analysis and expert insights, Nicolle Wallace and her panel shed light on the pressing issues of judicial corruption, economic policy manipulation, and the ongoing fight against voter suppression. The episode serves as a call to action for listeners to remain vigilant and actively engage in safeguarding democratic institutions and principles.

Transcript

[Nicole Wallace]

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 [e-mail] to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744.

[Steve Liesman]

By new customers surveyed who save with.

[Nicole Wallace]

Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations. Sometimes an identity threat is a ring.

[Julie K. Brown]

Of professional hackers, and sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details. I need a coffee. And you need Lifelock because your info.

[Nicole Wallace]

Is in endless places.

[Julie K. Brown]

It only takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft.

[Nicole Wallace]

LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back.

[Angelo Carusone]

Save up to 40% your first [e-mail].

[Julie K. Brown]

Special offer terms apply. Hi there everyone. Happy Wednesday. It's four o' clock in the east. Every time Donald Trump opens his mouth these days, the questions around his own relationship with Jeffrey Epstein only seem to multiply today, supporters and critics alike trying to make sense of his bizarre new articulation about his falling out with the dead child sex trafficker. Here's that moment from Donald Trump talking to reporters yesterday aboard Air Force One. Yeah, he took people.

[Nicole Wallace]

And because he took people, I say.

[Steve Liesman]

Don'T do it anymore. You know, they work for me.

[Nicole Wallace]

And he took beyond that, he took some others.

[Julie K. Brown]

And once he did that, that was.

[Steve Liesman]

The end of him.

[Julie K. Brown]

I didn't like when they steal people. I don't like it. Now, as journalist Tara Palmieri pointed out on this program yesterday, the idea that the falling out between Epstein and Trump happened after Virginia Giuffre or others were, quote, stolen by Epstein from Trump doesn't really add up in terms of the publicly known timeline. Not only did Virginia Giuffre say she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell in the year 2000, three years before that now infamous birthday note from Donald Trump to Epstein. That's according to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, which Trump denies. The Washington Post reported back in 2019 that Epstein and Trump fall out over a dispute over real estate, a Palm beach mansion in the year 2004, what this leaves us with is an alarming new set of data points and factual discrepancies. The Bulwark tries to make sense of it, summing it up this way, quote, so Trump knew that Epstein and Maxwell had, quote, taken or, quote, stolen Virginia Gifre and some others from Mar A Lago. And of course, Trump knew about Epstein's proclivities for younger women at the time. Two years after Giuffre was stolen from him, he infamously told New York Magazine that Epstein liked, quote, beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side, end quote. Or as he reportedly wrote in his now famous 50th birthday note to Epstein a year after that in 2003, quote, Enigmas never age. Have you noticed that? End quote. So in the midst of all these new questions about the timeline, team Trump's half hearted efforts at playing transparent good guy about the Epstein case are falling flat. And importantly, they're falling flat with his own base of supporters. Two weeks ago, Donald Trump asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to push to get the grand jury transcripts from the Epstein case and the criminal case into Ghislaine Maxwell released publicly today. Lawyers for the Justice Department in a filing admit that there's testimony from just two witnesses inside those transcripts, an FBI agent and a New York police detective. The questions around Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein's relationship multiplying by the day as Donald Trump continues to try to explain them away is where we begin again today. Investigative reporter for the Miami Herald and author of Perversion of Justice, the Jeffrey Epstein Story. Julie K. Brown is back with us. Also joining us, President of Media Matters for America, Angelo Carazone is back and Politico magazine senior writer, author of the Rule of Law column, Ankush Khardore is here. Ankush, we started the week, I think, with your timeline reporting and I wonder if you could place Donald Trump's comments about the reason he and Epstein stopped being friends, about the stealing of, of women from the spa, in terms of what we already know about the timeline of their relationship.

[Ankush Khardori]

Well, you know, the timeline I was particularly interested in is how the administration's claims and arguments have sort of evolved since the start of the year and after the inauguration. In particular. The separate timeline that you're describing of sort of the nature of Trump's social relationship with Epstein has never been clear, really. And it's really only gotten murkier, I think, as you, as you noted, as Trump has been talking more about it, both the timing of, of when they actually parted ways and the reason why they actually parted ways. And I don't think the comments he's been making have done much to clarify that at all, really.

[Julie K. Brown]

Julie, I wanted to ask you if you can weigh in on this discrepancy that Tara points out and that we're getting it here that Donald Trump has now provided publicly, just in public statements, in press interactions, different articulations of both the reason and the timing. And I'd never heard him on tape talking about Jeffrey Epstein, quote, stealing, end quote, women from the spa at Mar a Lago. I wonder how much you know about this episode and whether it caused any tension at the time, because publicly, there's evidence that they remained friends. Well, after what Donald Trump describes yesterday aboard Air Force One.

[Christy Greenberg]

Well, this is the first time I've ever heard that, and I read practically everything involved in the case. We've always been told that it either had A, to do with the real estate deal or B, that it had to do with one of his club members complaining that Epstein had, you know, hit on a young person, possibly his daughter, the club member's daughter. So this is a whole new. It's a whole new story that I haven't heard before. But I'd like to also point out that the story, in a way, doesn't make sense because although ultimately Giuffre ended up, of course, part of Epstein sex trafficking operation, it was Maxwell that actually was going to the spa and was. And recruited her. So the very person that the Justice Department is now considering, I guess, giving some kind of a deal to is. Is the person that recruited Giuffre when she was 16 years old from that spa. She was doing a summer internship at the spa her father also worked at. Mar A Lago helped her get the job. She was just short of 17. She turned 17 that August. So this is. This is a new one that I hadn't heard before. In some ways, it doesn't really add up to what's been said in the past. One would think he would have. This seems pretty innocuous. So I'm wondering why he didn't speak out about this before.

[Julie K. Brown]

Julie, let me do this. Let me play Virginia Gifra on what you're describing. Meeting Ghislaine Maxwell at Mar a Lago. This is from a lifetime special from 2020. Ghislaine Maxwell approached me at the spa area.

[Christy Greenberg]

She was like this really bright Mary.

[Julie K. Brown]

Poppins kind of a. A figure. And she said, oh, you're reading a book on massage therapy. And, you know, we started talking.

[Christy Greenberg]

She goes, oh, you know what? I know this guy.

[Julie K. Brown]

There's an opportunity, actually, if you want.

[Christy Greenberg]

To become a real massage therapist, we.

[Julie K. Brown]

Can get you trained. You can come for the interview tonight.

[Christy Greenberg]

And if he likes you, then you'll be a real masseuse, and you'll get to see the world.

[Julie K. Brown]

And you'll get paid $200 per massage.

[Christy Greenberg]

And no alarm bells went off because.

[Julie K. Brown]

It was this proper English lady who just looked nice. It's haunting to hear that from Virginia. Julie, tell us, for folks that don't know this story as well as you do, what happens next?

[Christy Greenberg]

Well, she went to Epstein's mansion, and she met Maxwell there. And Maxwell took her upstairs to meet Epstein in the same room that he used with all these young girls. I'm sorry, it's hard to see this. See her after all this time. And they. She basically told her to take her clothes off, to strip down to her underwear, which is. Was the method that they usually use with young girls. And start, you know, she would show him her massage techniques and. But it was really just a ruse to get her to, you know, allow them to have, you know, sexual relations. It was very, very uncomfortable for her at first. But remember, she came from a life where she was on the streets for a bit, and she had already been trafficked by another man before this happened. So in her mind, she was thinking, this is all I'm good for. I'm. I might as well go along with this. She. She would really didn't know where this would lead, and I know she did not know that eventually she would have been trafficked to other men as well.

[Julie K. Brown]

I didn't mean to spring that on you, Julie. I know this story is for you, and it's why you're so important to all of us. And our understanding of it centered on the victims. And it just seems if Donald Trump is invoking the victims in sort of a casual exchange with reporters, we wanted to try to center our coverage and our questions around the victims. So I'll warn you this time, this is a little bit more of Virginia, and this is her talking with my colleague Savannah Guthrie. I'm going to play one more if that's okay.

[Christy Greenberg]

Okay. Okay.

[Justice Alison Riggs]

What does justice look like to you now?

[Julie K. Brown]

Justice now is holding accountable the perpetrators that helped him and participated with him and encouraging more people to come forward so we can try to put this puzzle together and understand how it happened. How did this happen for so long?

[Christy Greenberg]

How did he get away with it?

[Julie K. Brown]

Again, I want to center it around her because those are the same questions that animate a lot of Donald Trump's supporters. They're the same questions, and hearing them in her voice is really important because for all the baloney that swirls in our politics. Those are actual questions that she had. They're questions that Donald Trump's own supporters have. They're questions that Joe Rogan and some of Donald Trump's most prominent allies in the media have had. And they're questions now that animate Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Do you think that we're any closer to. To answering those questions?

[Christy Greenberg]

No. It's very sad. You know, I'm glad that you're showing her, because I think that's the piece. In fact, that's kind of the reason why I did this story to begin with. I felt that this story wasn't being told from the viewpoint of the victims. No one had really asked them what they thought about this plea deal that Epstein got. No one. See, everybody seemed to have forgotten the victims. So I'm glad that you show that you're showing her because, you know, as you can see, she was a very, you know, forthright, brave, articulate young woman. And she took on a lot of power by being the most vocal person, the most vocal survivor. You know, she stood up for all the survivors in a lot of ways. So I'm glad that, that you're doing that, because she would want it, too. She would be happy that you're showing, showing these videos of her.

[Julie K. Brown]

What do you think she would make of this moment that Donald Trump's entire presidency is on this taut sort of line of tension that aboard Air Force One on a way home from a foreign trip, he's standing there. He looked rather uncomfortable to me. I don't know how he was feeling personally, but he didn't look comfortable. And he's invoking her name. He's talking about her and about Jeffrey Epstein, in Trump's words, quote, stealing her from his spa.

[Christy Greenberg]

Knowing her, she would be camped out on the front steps of the White House and saying, hey, you better let me in and talk to me about what you're doing right now. She was very hopeful before her death. She had tweeted out about, you know, the fact that she was hopeful that Trump would get to the bottom of this crime and hold other people accountable, because that was just still percolating at the time before her death. So she was very helpful hopeful with Trump coming into the White House. So I think she would be, you know, as I said, sitting on, on the front steps of the White House, knocking on the door.

[Julie K. Brown]

I mean, Angelo Carson. Therein lies the entire rawness of the political predicament. The victims themselves had hope, along with Joe Rogan, along with Andrew Schultz, and along with Millions of people who voted for Donald Trump, that what Donald Trump campaigned on is what Donald Trump was actually going to do on this story, that he was going to rat out the men who had been protected, I guess, in the telling, in the government telling through sweetheart deals, the reporting bears that out. And we are at the opposite end of what was promised. What is your sense of where this story stands right now in the eyes of Trump's most ardent supporters?

[Angelo Carusone]

Yeah, I think that's a good point because, you know, at its core, you know, there's a lot of conspiracies and stories that get wrapped on top of it, but at its core, part of what, what Trump was tapping into when he even engaged on this issue as intensely as he did, we shouldn't discount the volume of intensity that he did engage on this very, very issue, is that people cared. It's hard to get mad at people for caring now, that what they cared about, who they choose to blame. And the story that cracked around was a lot of times really absurd. But they picked up on something very real and very intense, which is that people were hurt, children were hurt, young people were hurt, exploited, and powerful people got away with it, and that there was no accountability. And those two were. They're not the only ingredients then, though. But those are two key ingredients in the story that Trump tapped into when he was promoting QAnon, when all these conspiracy theorists were using it and exploiting that to then advance their own, you know, target their own enemies. But they all believe those two things, which is part of where the energy came from. And the third thing, which is that as a part of his larger drain the swamp, you know, push back against the deep state, sort of get in there and hold all these people to account that they would finally get some accountability for this. And so it's not just that, you know, he's then going in there and not doing this thing. It's kind of at this point like doing art. And this is where it stands. It's like kind of doing like arts and crafts with glitter. No matter how much you try to clean it up, it just keeps getting messier. And that's what's happening here, is that every time he tries to engage on this, do some kind of strategy, PR approach, something to distract, it only then takes what is already a very fractured landscape and makes these figures angry and talk to each other or talk about it more. So here's where it stands. Alex Jones, who is genuinely conspiratorial mindset and I think reflects one part of the wing.

[Ankush Khardori]

He does.

[Angelo Carusone]

Every day he's mad at somebody different. Some days he's, he's mad at Trump. You know, he'll blame Trump and say he's acting guilty. 18 days, this is too much. Why is he acting like this today? He's not blaming Trump. Today Trump is a victim of the doj and the DOJ is hurting Donald Trump. So that's one segment and that's, you know, he's reflective of one core here. But at its end, they're still talking about it, they're still pushing it, they're still saying there's something there. There's another segment. The newer people that Trump brought into the fold, these broadcasts, these manosphere, they're mad at Trump and they don't, they're not tied into the political ecosystem. So this is the, so the other part of the significance that not only are they basically saying Trump didn't do what he did, he shouldn't trust him anymore, but their other criticisms of Trump have all ramped up. So now they're criticizing him on the economy, criticizing him more on immigration. They're weaving in their own complaints. Asmongold, I think is a good example. There's a video game streamer. He's even gone further. He who again supported Trump last cycle, got pulled in, said this is so important because this could mean Trump is compromised. All right, so that's what he's telling his audience. So there's this segment that is increasing their attacks on Trump. And then you sort of have the standard right wing media which is trying to hold the line and defend Trump by pushing his distractions. And then Trump himself, I think his behavior in the last 24 hours is significant. He has promoted QAnon accounts on his true social account 14 times today alone. That's an old standby. And part of the reason he's doing that is because he knows that audience segment is really going to determine at least steer where this is going. And what he's trying to get those QAnon people to believe is that somehow he's playing fifth dimensional chess and that there's something he's going to do. He's going to, he's going to give them accountability soon. They just have to stick with him a little bit longer. So it's still simmering and every once in a while it will boil over. But the net effect of it is that it's not going to go away and it's actually only going to increase the incentivize more criticisms and attacks on him.

[Julie K. Brown]

All right, I need all of you to stick around. There's also some new reporting out there today on this missing minute. Another piece of this story around which there are, at least today, more questions than answers. I'll bring everybody up to speed on that. Also, head for us. Despite Donald Trump's very public and very aggressive attacks on the Federal Reserve's independence, Jerome Powell today left interest rates unchanged even as he holds firm. We'll look at why Donald Trump's intervening and his policies may be what is keeping the American economy from growing. And later in the broadcast, it's been quite the week for the Constitution and the rule of law. Donald Trump and the GOP leading our march toward authoritarianism. We'll talk about what's being done to protect democracy. All those stories and more with Deadline. White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[Nicole Wallace]

MSNBC Films presents Season 2 of Leguizamo does America, an NBC News Studios production on the next episode. John Leguizamo travels to Raleigh Sunday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC and streaming on Peacock. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning, read sharp insights from the voices you trust. Catch standout moments from your favorite shows.

[Julie K. Brown]

The second Trump administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to radically transform America.

[Nicole Wallace]

Stay up to speed with our latest podcasts and documentaries and get fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. It's everything you love about MSNBC delivered to your inbox. Sign up [e-mail] subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad.

[Ankush Khardori]

Free listening and bonus content to all.

[Nicole Wallace]

Of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Why is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja New. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

[Julie K. Brown]

The whole thing was nuts.

[Nicole Wallace]

And then they really he's like, well.

[Julie K. Brown]

We have a film.

[Nicole Wallace]

We're gonna release that film and the film has a minute missing from it.

[Ankush Khardori]

Yeah.

[Nicole Wallace]

Like, do you think we're babies?

[Julie K. Brown]

Like, what is this? We're back with Julie Angelo and Ankish. Ankish, from your great magazine piece with the timeline, you have a response from the White House and I just want to read it to our viewers in the context of that criticism from Joe Rogan. You quote White House Communications director Stephen Chung pushing back on this on your column, saying that it's, quote, nothing more than out of context frame grabs of innocuous videos and pictures of widely attended events to disgustingly infer something nefarious. The fact is that the President kicked him, Epstein out of his club for being a creep. This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and liberal media. I mean, I just played where the questions about the video are coming from. To my knowledge, Joe Rogan is neither a Democrat nor viewed as, quote, fake media. If he is by the White House, that would be news. I mean, just speak to all the holes in the timeline and this shifting tone where it really becomes clear, it seems from what you've assembled that Trump is aware of some line of information from his own Justice Department that he figures prominently, as Elon Musk tweeted in the Epstein files.

[Ankush Khardori]

Yeah, I mean, look, if you go all the way back to, you know, Fox, the Fox News interview he gave last year that we've all seen quite a bit recently, you see him there saying, oh, he's going to declassify the files. But then he offers up unprompted that he's worried about there being phony stuff in the documents and about there being material that could harm third parties. These are typically things that Donald Trump does not care about when they concern an investigation that is of interest to him. So that already is sort of a little curious. Then you get to the start of the administration, you know, after the inauguration, you have Pam Bondi handing out the Phase 1 Epstein binders at the White House. And then, you know, there's all these offers of there's going to be transparency. Then a very terse joint DOJ FBI memo is released in June. And according to the Wall Street Journal, in May, Bondi and Cash Patel briefed Trump and told him that he was referenced in some of the documents. I actually don't find that terribly surprising. But of course, we don't know what those references actually say, which is the key question. After that, you saw an increasing amount of sort of deflection, some non sequiturs, like you saw Pam Bondi, for instance, at one point saying in, in May, well, we were not going to release tens of thousands of videos of child porn or sexual abuse. Of course, no credible media outlet, political figure, public figure or commentator has ever suggested any of that material should be released. You have had Trump saying, oh, we only want to release credible information. We're only going to release grand jury testimony, which we've learned from the filing last night will be extremely limited and it should only be pertinent grand jury testimony he's taken to blaming the Democrats and the mainstream media for spinning this all up, which is almost precisely the opposite of the truth. Trump and his political allies have probably done more than anyone to perpetuate these issues in the, at least in the political media space. And this is something that mainstream media has generally not indulged, at least not the most extreme conspiracy theories. So, you know, what I think you can infer from that, particularly the shift in tone after May is both that prior to his inauguration he suspected he might be in the material, which is why he planted the seed that there might be phony stuff or material that would harm third parties that was uncorroborated, and then after May that he became particularly concerned and interested in making sure that that information was not eventually disclosed. We saw a very quick effort to brush this all under the rug. And then you had increasingly evasive, strange, irrelevant comments trying to shift the blame. All of this suggests that there's something he's worried about.

[Julie K. Brown]

So it's a perfect setup for this missing minute. Angela, let me just read NBC's latest reporting on the facts around this. That was what Joe Rogan was talking about. Some of it was bleeped out. Those were F bombs, in case that was unclear. But this is NBC's reporting on the missing minute from the Epstein jail cell tapes. Quote, the Justice Department and the FBI are reviewing the situation surrounding the report that the so called missing minute from the surveillance video on the night Jeffrey Epstein died in 2019 does exist on copies of the video in possession of law enforcement. The Justice Department and the FBI this month released nearly 11 hours of video from the Manhattan Metropolitan Correctional center security cameras. But the timecode on the screen moved forward one minute just before midnight, leading to questions about the one minute gap. So explain both the heat around this story, what is known to be factual and what has been unsatisfying to people interested in this missing minute.

[Angelo Carusone]

I mean, what we know, you just laid out the facts. What Pam Bondi has said is that that's a normal thing, it happens all the time. And so let's never talk about this again. Although that's continued to percolate. What the story, though, is in the right media, and this is the part to consider, is that that is literally what you just described as conspiracy fodder. 11 hours of recording and there's one minute missing, that somehow it just disappears. And that's like that. Like nobody believes that. Nobody does. Even his defenders, they don't believe it. They just kind of ignore it or they Brush under the rug. Or they direct their ire at Pam Bondi for being bad at explaining it and saying that eventually, just own up to it. The where this is going, though, and this is the weird thing that I've seen sort of happen is that that the direction seems to be. And this is where Dan Bongino enters the picture. He's been pretty quiet. Is that he. They seem to think that maybe if they take this conspiracy fodder and just throw more conspiracy on top of it, that that is the way to deal with it. And by that I mean Bongino sort of sent this very long, you know, emotional tweet. But in it, he said he's been really deep in the Deep State lately, and what he's confronted has shook him to his core. That's it. And I think the implication there is to say, oh, it's. It's so much worse than you can possibly imagine. And to validate the fears that somehow the Deep State is operating in the shadows here. And this missing minute ties into all of that. Because what they're basically trying to say is that there's really nothing to see here. It's actually more about this larger Deep State plot. And to the extent that there's something here to see, it was all engineered by the Deep State to make us seem suspicious to our supporters. And that's why they're saying it's both conspiracy fodder on face. Even if everything they say is accurate about it, it happens all the time. It's conspiracy fodder. And the way they've approached it to a conspiratorially minded audience that is already kind of worked up is to give them more conspiracies.

[Julie K. Brown]

You know, Julie, it sort of brings me back to where we started. The conversations are so far away from the victim's trauma, and I wonder if you can just weigh in on what the missing minute or the missing files or the changing stories or the discrepancies in the timeline. What sort of trauma or renewed trauma or what is. What is all of this doing to the victims that you're still in contact with?

[Christy Greenberg]

Well, let me go back to the video thing for a moment. I don't know whether anybody has read the report of Epstein that the Bureau of Prisons did on his death, but they go into great detail about the cameras in his unit. Okay. There was only one camera that was recording that night, and that camera was not in the wing where Epstein cell was. So the video that the DOJ is given the public is not of Epstein's wing. It is of two other doors that we don't know who was in those doors. And sort of a fuzzy area, which is. Is where the guards sit, which you could barely see. Jeffrey was in a totally other area of that unit. So all these conspiracies and people putting together, where's that minute? They're missing the point. The point is, it doesn't matter if the video they gave us is missing a minute, if the video isn't of where Epstein was. And that's the problem. The camera clearly says in the Bureau of Prisons investigations of the camera that was in. And they even draw a diagram of it, of. Of all the cameras and where they're located. And there it's X's on all of them, meaning not working. Not working. Not working. And the only one working was in an area where Epstein was not housed. So I'm sorry, but it's just frustrating to me because the minute is. I. I understand. I guess it's. It's fun for the conspiracy theorists to go over that, because it. Quite frankly, it boggles my mind that they even put that video out there. So, you know, I just thought I would mention that.

[Julie K. Brown]

No, I appreciate.

[Christy Greenberg]

I mean.

[Julie K. Brown]

Julie, let me follow up. What are the odds that you have someone like Jeffrey Epstein in jail and you don't have a working camera for somebody that high profile, that no matter the circumstances, you know, there will be scrutiny or attention paid to his conditions and his treatment? I mean, what are the odds that that happened on the up and up or with everyone's knowledge?

[Christy Greenberg]

Well, and not only that, but they knew it before his. He was found dead because there was interviews in that report with the tech people that handled the cameras, and they were. They were reporting that these cameras weren't working, and they certainly knew they weren't working because he had tried to do something alleged, you know, he was on suicide watch for a reason. Something had happened two weeks before, and they didn't have any video of that. So they were certainly aware that the cameras weren't working. You know, I covered prisons in Florida for a very long time, and I can tell you that a lot of things happen in prisons that people don't want to know about. I mean, it's one of the most corrupt areas of our system that there is now. You know, it's a very corrupt system, and there's a whole cottage industry of crimes that occur in prisons. So who knows why the Bureau of Prisons didn't address that problem before Epstein was found dead. But they knew about it, and it's clear from the report that they knew that there were problems with their cameras, among other things that happened that night.

[Julie K. Brown]

I mean, Angela, let me come back to you. We saw you nodding along with some of Julie's reporting here. I mean, what is then conspiracy or the search, if we want to be generous, over the missing minute about this.

[Angelo Carusone]

Is why before this became a controversy that escaped the right wing containment. I'm so glad you said all that, because this was the very reason why people were so mad at Bongino and Patel to a degree, because back in the day, that was what they were talking about, was that there was some kind of a setup here, but they were the ones that helped introduce those ideas to the very audiences that they turned around and said, we saw the files and we didn't. And he committed him, you know, he actually did commit suicide. That was sort of what really sparked that, was them when they first came out there, sort of slowed this down. And what that missing minute is about is that it is a piece of material. The idea is that it's supposed to be dispositive, that, okay, here's the video. You see, nobody went in, nobody went out, he actually did kill himself. But the missing minute is. Is now become sort of symbolic in some ways for the administration's withholding of a whole bunch of other files. Right. Just like the list, to a degree, is really a proxy for information, a lot of people don't actually think there's a list. They just say they use that as a shorthand for saying, give us the insights into the very thing that you promised that you would do. And that's really what I think the missing minute, at least to that audience has become about, is less about the minute and more about the fact that the administration is playing games with them and withholding important information to. To get back to what Joe Rogan was saying when he said, they're treating us like babies. And that's why I think now it's not just going to be an eye or focus toward the administration, but I think they're going to start turning on Steve Bannon because, remember, he's still sitting on 15 hours of recordings.

[Julie K. Brown]

From what. What are Steve Bannon's recordings?

[Angelo Carusone]

He has interviews with Jeffrey Epstein.

[Julie K. Brown]

That he's sitting on.

[Angelo Carusone]

Yes. That he hasn't released, that he did as part of some documentary that he was doing. And he's talked about them, he's referenced them during the big Charlie Kirk thing. He promised at some point they would be releasing them. Maybe they're going to put them into a movie. But now it's basically gone radio silent. Just this morning, Patrick McDavid was complaining about it because, you know, eventually, because it is a conspiracy, they're going to keep pushing on the administration. Sure. But as they don't want to, you know, they're going to keep banging their head against the wall there, but they're also not going to give it up. They're now going to start to try to pull in more information. So as much as we talk about that missing minute, it is as much about that missing minute as about the fact that somebody's playing games with them and they don't like it. And that's why, in a way, I kind of compose the glitter. It's that it is, it's, you just can't. It's everywhere now. And it will keep popping up and there will be these moments where they latch on. And that's where I think some of the energy is going to go. Now. It's directed toward Bannon to start. Hey, give us the thing that you have then, at least, if we can't get any, anything from the administration.

[Julie K. Brown]

I mean, the bigger political question in this moment seems to be are they all full of crap? I mean, are they all replacing one conspiracy theory to cover up a lie with another conspiracy theory to cover up a lie? Because if there's nothing to see here, a human being or an institution does one thing and one thing only, and that's open the files, turn over the files, shine a bright light. There's no example in human history of an innocent example or an institution with nothing to hide. Not firing the prosecutor, not going down and meeting with the convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. I mean, the conduct is so obvious and flagrant on its face, the political questions seem to get a little, a little clearer. For making sense of all of this, I'm so grateful to all of you. Julie K. Brown, Angelo Caracallon and Ankush Khadori, thank you so much for spending this time with us today. Up next for us, despite a whole lot of political pressure, Jerome Powell is holding firm on maintaining independence between the Federal Reserve and the public. Badgering coming from Donald Trump. We'll bring you that story next.

[Nicole Wallace]

He said to me very strongly, the.

[Steve Liesman]

Country is doing well.

[Julie K. Brown]

He said to congratulations, the country is doing really well.

[Nicole Wallace]

And I got that to mean that.

[Julie K. Brown]

I think he's going to start recommending lower rates. Donald Trump, after having exhausted all of his past tactics, which include bullying threats, threats of firing, name calling, turned to Wishcasting hoping that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will give in and just cut interest rates. But Powell, who has made it clear that his only consideration will be what is in the best interest of the American economy and not whatever interest rate Donald Trump put at the top of his wish list and that the Federal Reserve today announced they would be holding rates steady. Powell's caution appears to be justified. The New York Times reports this about new economic data released today. Quote, economic growth softened in the first half of the year as tariffs and uncertainty upended business plans and scrambled consumer spending decisions. Gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, increased at a 3% annual rate in the second quarter. But taken as a whole, the data from the first six months of the year tell a more consistent story of anemic though positive economic growth. Many forecasters expect a further deterioration in the months ahead as tariffs work their way through supply chains, federal jobs, job cuts filter through the economy, and stricter immigration policies take a toll on industries that rely on foreign born workers. Donald Trump, who has never let facts get in the way of a victory lap he has planned, responded to the news on social media with this quote, second quarter GDP just out 3%, way better than expected. Exclamation point. Too late. Must now lower the rate. No inflation. Another exclusive exclamation point. Let people buy and refinance their homes. One more exclamation point. For good measure, let's bring in CNBC senior economics reporter Steve Liesman and NPR financial correspondent Maria Aspen. Steve, take me through the headlines.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, today what happened with the Fed was the Fed chair not only did not cut rates as the Fed President has demanded, but he also sort of raised doubts about whether or not that's even going to happen in September because of the uncertainty that is linked to these tariffs. Essentially you have the, the GDP numbers right. It's about a one and a quarter percent average, which is pretty anemic over the first two quarters. Normally the Fed could cut in those circumstances, but there's a huge wave of price increases that are going to be working their way through the economy over the next several months. And Powell wants to sit back and say, okay, that's fine, we expect it. It's probably just going to be the tariff goods. But we are responsible as the Federal Reserve as charged by Congress to make sure that those tariff and tariff inflation doesn't become broader inflation. How do we do that? We're going to keep rates a little bit high to make sure we don't punish the, the American people again like in 2021. And 22 with higher inflation. So the headline is that the Fed is in a fix here where both sides of what it's in charge of, employment and inflation are both being challenged. And the Fed is saying, you know what, I'm going to be more concerned right now about inflation. I'm going to hold rates steady a little bit above where we think they should be because we want to make sure we don't have an inflation problem.

[Julie K. Brown]

Steve, your point about prices? Washington Post reports shoppers are stressed, but some brands are raising prices. Anyway, to your point, they write Americans up against tariff uncertainty and steadily rising grocery costs are going to see some household staples get pricier in the coming days. This is the price hike that I think it was Wal Mart and Target warned about first. People are seeing and feeling this. And I guess the political overlay is this was largely thought to be an election last November waged over the price of groceries. Donald Trump thought so, too. He stood in front of melting meat.

[Nicole Wallace]

So, Nicole, there's a, there's a report out from Goldman Sachs that this was not the headline, but this is what I would call it. But baby, you ain't seen nothing yet. And what that report said is they looked at the customs data and they looked at the treasury data, how much they've collected and how much was brought in. And they've determined that the average tariff rate has so far only gone up by 7 percentage points. Only. That's a lot. But they think it's going up by 14 percentage points now that these deals are all coming through at 15% and some of them even higher. And then we had talk about a 25% tariff on India today. We talked about those de minimis things. Those tariffs went up again. So there is still considerable tariff inflation to come through the economy. And that's a big reason why Powell is hanging loose and not cutting rates.

[Julie K. Brown]

I see that. Trump announced a 40% tariff on Brazil, bringing the total rate to 50%. Maria, we have to sneak in a quick break. We'll bring you in on this conversation on the other side. Stay with us. We're back with Steve and Maria. Maria, Donald Trump's approval on the economy is hovering near the lowest of his political career. It's at 38% with 55% disapproving. Just layer that on top of what Steve's talking about, the you ain't seen nothing yet report.

[H]

I think Steve made such an important point because we don't know what the full impact of tariffs will be on consumer prices. And we also don't know, know when we're actually going to start feeling them. At npr, we've been reporting on, you know, some of the things that companies and importers have been doing to try to stave off the impact of tariffs on consumer prices. They've been holding off on bringing shipments into the US until they know for sure what the final tariffs are going to be. They've been trying to avoid passing on prices to price increases to consumers. You're seeing that especially at the big automakers, for example, even while they have said in the last couple of weeks like General Motors said, that tariffs have already cost it more than $1 billion. But we don't know yet is it going to be when back to school shopping gets fully, you know, is in full swing, is it going to be when holiday shopping is in full swing, is it going to be next year? And that, I think, is creating both a policy challenge for the Fed and a bit of a political challenge because as long as we're not seen the full impact of tariffs or what many economists are saying will be the full impact of tariffs, we don't know yet what the actual bite to consumers and inflation will be.

[Julie K. Brown]

Maria, it's so interesting, this sort of intersection with the politics. You had Rand Paul on with my colleague Steph Rule saying when Democrats are in power, there's no issue for Republicans to basically seize their own authority, but when it's a Republican, the story is in reverse. I mean, the political questions seem to reign so supreme here and that if voters don't understand that all of this is because of Donald Trump's arbitrary and optional trade war, it does leave a giant question mark over who they ultimately hold accountable.

[H]

As you allude to. I mean, we saw voters last year say that the economy was what determined their vote. And we're now in the middle of a ground shaking change to American economic policy, whatever the ultimate fallout will be. It's just, it's so frustrating because I feel like in a lot of my stories and a lot of my reporting, it's the ultimate conclusion is we still have to wait and see. But we do have to wait and see and we don't know yet when we're going to feel the full effect.

[Julie K. Brown]

Maria and Steve, thank you for keeping our eye on the ball and helping us make sense of all of it and for joining us today. It's great to see both of you. Up next for us with reports of more chaos and threats of intimidation at the Pentagon, could the defense secretary be looking for some sort of off ramp? We'll bring you that story next. There's a new policy at the Pentagon causing alarm today about the politicization of the military's top ranks. Donald Trump is now interviewing nominees for four star general positions before their nominations are finalized. This was first reported by the New York Times and subsequently confirmed by the Trump White House, truly bringing whole new meaning and context to Trump's constantly calling them, quote, my generals. Ordinarily, those candidates would meet with the secretary of Defense. But Pete Hegseth has been a bit busy lately. He's been lashing out at the Pentagon's internal review of his actions in the Signal Gate affair, calling the independent investigation by his own department, quote, clearly a political witch hunt, end quote. And now, reportedly, Pete Hegseth is considering a run for office. NBC News has exclusive reporting that Pete Hegseth has privately discussed the idea of running for governor next year in Tennessee. That's according to two people who have spoken directly to him about it. So I guess everything's going great there. Up next for us, what happens to a country when its president and an entire political party have chosen to ignore and try to destroy the rule of law? Much more to come when Deadline White House continues after a quick break.

[Nicole Wallace]

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda. Follow along with MSNBC newest newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.

[Julie K. Brown]

The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this.

[Nicole Wallace]

Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at msnbc.com project47.

[Angelo Carusone]

Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening? Former senior policy advisor at the National Economic Council, Aya Ibrahim.

[Julie K. Brown]

I don't think that any American is.

[Christy Greenberg]

Going to bed being worried about who has the most compute, who has the.

[Julie K. Brown]

Highest number of GPUs, US or China.

[Christy Greenberg]

That's not what people are worried about.

[Julie K. Brown]

They're worried about housing, healthcare, education, job opportunities. So to the extent that AI is either an enabler or an obstacle to those things, that is what I think.

[Christy Greenberg]

They will end up worrying about.

[Angelo Carusone]

That's this week on why Is this Happening? Search for why is this Happening? Wherever you're listening right now and follow.

[Nicole Wallace]

Last night, I was surprised to see President Trump on Truth Social go after me and Senate Republicans over what we call the blue slip. I was offended by what the president said, and I'm disappointed that it would result in personal insults.

[Julie K. Brown]

Really? You're surprised that that Happened. Happened. Hi again, everybody. It's five o' clock in the East. That is exactly what you get Senator Grassley for being a loyal foot soldier to Donald Trump. Nothing. No allegiance, no guarantee, nothing. No promise that he won't just wake up and turn on you when you do something else that he doesn't like. On that very same night that Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pushed through over the objections of whistleblowers who he's traditionally very open minded about, he pushed through the confirmation of Donald Trump's controversial pick for a federal judgeship, Emil Bove. Trump went after Chuck Grassley over a judicial procedure he wants Grassley to get rid of. Previously, Grassley has given Donald Trump absolutely everything he demands. Bobby is now confirmed to a lifetime appointment on a federal appeals court, despite sharp objections, not just from Senate Democrats and two Senate Republicans, but as well as three whistleblower reports condemning his behavior. And as we said, Grassley used to care about whistleblowers. Bobby's confirmation is a signal of where Donald Trump wants to take the rule of law in our country. Spoiler alert. It's in a direction where the rule of law doesn't apply to Donald Trump or his allies. Here are some headlines just from this week displaying the Trump administration's all out assault on the rule of law. Trump's Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against federal Judge James Boasberg, quote, for making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration, end quote. Boasberg has been the target of an impeachment effort by Donald Trump and House Republicans after he questioned the Trump administration's decision to to disregard an order against the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans. The interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, who was appointed by Donald Trump, moved to drop two high profile criminal cases in Los Angeles on the same day. The Trump administration said it would use a legally untested maneuver to ensure he remains in charge of the office beyond his interim appointment. Over in New Jersey, Donald Trump moved to fire the career federal prosecutor judges in New Jersey picked to be the acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey, underscoring Donald Trump's direct involvement in a bid to keep his former personal attorney, Alina Habba, as New Jersey's top federal prosecutor. That's despite the end of her interim position. And at the National Security Agency, a top lawyer was removed from her job on Friday, according to multiple former officials, after she was criticized by conservative activists over her former work for the Senate Intelligence Committee's Democratic staff. With all of that as just a backdrop To Bovey's confirmation last night. The future for the rule of law here in the country doesn't at this moment look particularly bright. Here's California Governor Gavin Newsom addressing that concern.

[Nicole Wallace]

He's going after political opponents, removing them from key positions of power and influence and putting in acolytes, putting out people that just do his bidding. He's pushing the boundaries on the rule of law. He's threatening to recall not just people he disagrees with. He wanted my arrest. Remember, the President of the United States said Newsom should be arrested. They said on what grounds he got elected. Said he doesn't like the fact that his political enemy got elected.

[Steve Liesman]

I mean, he's not.

[Nicole Wallace]

He doesn't say that lightly. And, you know, once a mind is stretched, it never goes back to its original form. So every time he does this, he's sort of testing these boundaries. And this is what makes me more concerned.

[Julie K. Brown]

It's where we start the hour with some of our favorite experts and friends. Voting rights attorney, founder of Democracy Docket, Mark Elias is back. Also joining us, former senior advisor to President Biden and Vice President Harris, former mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrews back. And to round out our group, former criminal division deputy chief at STMY, MSNBC legal analyst, host of the new YouTube show Courtside. Krissy Greenberg is here. Mark Elias, let me start with you and just your reaction to, you know, we didn't dig deep to find these stories. This is just one day's reporting on Donald Trump's progress in weakening the rule of law in America.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah. So I agree with almost everything that Governor Newsom said. The only thing I disagree with is that we're not stretching the boundaries. He's not testing the boundaries. The boundaries are in the rearview mirror. Like, Donald Trump doesn't have any boundaries. What Donald Trump is doing to the rule of law is he is breaking it. What he is doing to our democracy is subverting it. And those are active verbs. Those are not he will subvert or he may undermine. Like. Like, he is. He is doing these things. He is already going after his political enemies by misusing the Department of Justice. He is already breaking federal law and the US Constitution, and he already is acting like an authoritarian. And as we move towards the next phase of challenges for our democracy, which are free and fair elections in 2026, we need to have no illusions. He has no expectation that he is going to follow what the law is or be constrained. He is completely outcome determinative.

[Julie K. Brown]

What is the defense against the progress that he's made mark.

[Nicole Wallace]

So, I mean, I think it's twofold. It's number one, to some extent, it's the courts. The courts have been imperfect in that regard. But, you know, we have to keep in mind he is still losing a lot of cases in court as he breaks the law. And particularly in the election arena, the place that I litigate, he historically has lost a lot of cases. And so, you know, we cannot give in to the cynics who say that the courts can't do anything. We need to be realistic. We need to be, you know, we need to calibrate our expectations about what the courts will do, particularly the Supreme Court. But Donald Trump wants us to believe that the courts are powerless, because if the courts are powerless, then he's all powerful. So that's number one. Number two is public opinion and public. And voters. And the fact is that one of the, one of the things about elections is voters do get a say. Now, I don't know how free and fair the elections will be, but, you know, but we need to make sure that voters understand the stakes. They understand what's at what, what is going on, and that, that if they care about democracy, they are informed and they turn out.

[Julie K. Brown]

So, Mitch, let me show you what Cory Booker had to say on all of this last night.

[Nicole Wallace]

We are standing at a moment where our president is eviscerating the Constitution of the United States of America. And we're willing to go along with that today. No, no, not on my watch. But what I am tired of is when the President of the United States of America violates the Constitution, trashes our norms and traditions, and what does the Democratic Party do? Comply?

[Ankush Khardori]

Allow him beg for scraps?

[Nicole Wallace]

No. I demand justice.

[Julie K. Brown]

Cory Booker sees this moment, I think, perhaps more clearly than any other Democrat in that body. What is your reaction to his reaction there, Mitch?

[Steve Liesman]

First of all, I'm really happy to be with Mark. He's one of my heroes and has done an unbelievable job trying to protect our democracy, which is under serious threat. We have passed the Rubicon. Donald Trump is not busting up against the norms. He's passed them a lot. And to be clear with everybody in America, appeasement will not work with Donald Trump. He will take every inch that you let him have. Cory Booker is 100% right. We are way past anybody being surprised that Donald Trump is going to do everything he can to assume and arrogate unto himself as much power as we can. I don't need to remind the American public that one of the bedrock principles of Democracy is that we are a nation of laws, not of men. Donald Trump doesn't just get to ordain by the stroke of one of his pens that gravity does not exist. There is a reality in the world, and we are a system of checks and balances for a reason. And I would just raise the alarm, as Cory has and as Mark have Senator Grassley, he knows better than to act surprised at what it is that's coming his way. Donald Trump's coming for everybody. And unless you stop him, he's going to continue to come until the American people stand up and say, enough is enough.

[Julie K. Brown]

Christie, can you explain to us what's happening in these U.S. attorney's offices? That these are like an interim U.S. attorney is a temporary post, and just because Donald Trump says Elena Haba can stay, he doesn't actually have the power to secure her post. Can you just explain what's happening in these U.S. attorney's offices?

[H]

Now, with respect to Alina Haba, this feels a little bit like deja vu, because I was in SDNY when this same scenario played out with Jeff Berman, where Alina Haba and Jeff Berman both were in a situation where they were appointed by the judges of their districts. Okay. They were not appointed by Donald Trump. They were not appointed by the attorney general. It was the judges. So I think they are on strong legal footing to argue that it is only the judges who are able to remove them from those posts, because it is the judges who appointed them to those posts. But what they've done in New Jersey is essentially say we, the person that the judges picked, they have fired that person, and they've said that Alina Haba is essentially in this acting role. There are lots of questions about that. Also the fact that she had already been nominated for a permanent role. There is law that says you can't then be in an acting role if you've already been nominated for that. So there are a lot of thorny legal questions, but they are looking for any maneuver they can in districts across the country to get people into these jobs for lengthy periods of time, even if they are not confirmed by the Senate because they are so woefully unqualified. Lena Haba has never been a prosecutor. And so, you know, they are going to have an uphill battle, especially where within Alina Haas case, you have the judges coming out and already saying, this person is way too political. She's actually saying the quiet part out loud. She's saying that she wants to use these, her office as acting U.S. attorney for political purposes to turn New Jersey red. She's saying it. And these are offices that in the past have always been independent, always been nonpartisan, and they're not supposed to be political, politically motivated. And you see more and more of these US Attorneys saying that quiet part out. Like you've got the US Attorney in LA who they're also looking to have a maneuver to have him stay this week. And he's somebody who has said f the Justice Manual, which kind of gives you the rules of the road as a prosecutor. F the Justice Manual. He also said, we're going to use every trick up our sleeve to, you know, go after Democrats, something along those lines. And paraphrasing. But you know, when you, you never used to get hear U.S. attorneys talking about Democrats and Republicans, they just talk about, here's who we're charging and here's what the evidence is to back that up. And we are just in unchartered territory when these offices are being made as blatantly political as they have been here, that the cases against Donald Trump's allies are being dropped and his political enemies are being prosecuted and they're putting in people who are willing to do his bidding.

[Julie K. Brown]

I mean, speaking of the F word, Emil Bovey was confirmed last night. I know a lot happens in a day, but just to refresh everyone's memories, it is a Federalist Society attorney in Danielle Sassoon who fled the Trump era Justice Department because of all of the politicization of sdny, once known, I think, the world over for its independence. Emil Bobby in that office at one point. Here is Senator Chuck Schumer on what Bovey's confirmation means.

[Nicole Wallace]

They're confirming him for one reason only. Mr. Bovey is loyal to Donald Trump, therefore Donald Trump wants him on the bench. The calculus is simple as that. Simple as that. It's unfathomable that just over four years after the insurrection at the Capitol when rioters smashed windows, ransacked officers offices, desecrated this chamber, Senate Republicans are willingly putting someone on the bench who shielded these rioters from facing justice, who said their prosecution was a grave national injustice. This is a dark, dark day, a dark vote, and a dangerous nominee. Republicans are confirming.

[Julie K. Brown]

I listened to that at first and I thought, you know, it just sounded like a senator and the other political party with an objection. But I listened to it. I actually read the transcript and it sank in that what he's saying is that the Republicans who voted for Bovey voted for the person who purged all the prosecutors from the Department of Justice. Who brought the cases against the people who victimized them. The tape of the senators running on January 6th doesn't have Republicans waltzing and Democrats running. Republicans ran for their lives. Republicans ran as fast as they were able to run. I think Josh Hawley ran the fastest of them all. But they all ran. And you don't run unless you're scared of being injured or killed by the insurrectionists. So the twisted psychological piece that to my knowledge none of us are really capable of unpacking is that Grassley and all the Republicans voted for someone who was against holding people accountable, who sought to do them harm, who made them run on January 6th. What does that even say?

[Nicole Wallace]

Mark Elias So what it says is that the Republican Party and its elected officials have lost all sense of dignity and self respect. You know, if you go back and read what John Kennedy was talking about in profiles and curbs and the interviews he gave around it, he said that courage doesn't always come from, you know, people overcoming fear. It is not always because people have a strong sense of right and wrong. Although you hope that that's the case. Oftentimes political courage comes out of a sense of personal dignity and self respect. That if they took an act they would be viewed as nakedly political or they'd be viewed as hypocritical or they'd be look as they'd look like they are surrendering their self dignity. And what's going on in Republican politics, certainly in the Republican House and Senate is a complete surrender of their dignity. You know, we saw it when Donald Trump was running for president and you know, little Marco is now in his cabinet and Ted Cruz, whose wife he called ugly, is now singing his praises. And Lindsey Graham, who he was, who he belittled, is now is now a supplicant. But it's happened to the Chuck Grassley's, it's happened to, you know, the Mike Johnson. It's happened to people on who are true believers in MAGA and people who are scared of maga. It's happened. Look, Thom Tillis who just a few weeks ago some people were acting like he was some kind of different figure. He voted for Emil Bovey. And it's because the Republican Party has shed every ounce of its dignity. I mean Emil Bovey doesn't belong on the federal bench. Emil Bovey is not even like a Federalist Society candidate. Emil Bovey is just the personal lawyer and henchman for the President the United States. Alina Haba was, was like a general counsel to a parking lot company. She's not, she's not an experienced prosecutor. There's a reason why the judges didn't, didn't appoint her. And it's not just because she was Donald Trump's personal lawyer, but because the judges have respect. They have self respect. They have respect for the rule of law. And in order to be on the, on the good graces of Donald Trump, the first thing he makes you do is vote to confirm Pete Hegson to the Department of Defense. He makes you vote to put Tulsi Gabbard at the dni. He makes you vote to put Cash Patel at the FBI. Why? Because he wanted those senators to forfeit all of their dignity and self respect at the front end of his administration so then there'd be nothing left when the Emil Boveys came along.

[Julie K. Brown]

I mean, Mitch, they've taken all the masculinity out of the toxic masculinity that became the Republican brand in the last cycle. I mean, it's just toxic now. Nothing masculine about subverting all of your principles.

[Steve Liesman]

I just, I really just want to weep when I think about some of my Republican senators who I've known over time, who I've known as people of good conscience and good dignity, who have just basically bent a knee. They will regret for the rest of their life not saying, you know, what is right. And they know better than that. But it should not be, it should not be unclear to anybody in America now that Donald Trump will get what he wants from the Republican members of Congress and from the Senate. They will not be a check. They will not balance. That is not where the fight will be had, although that we should keep doing that. And Donald Trump cannot be appeased. It's also true that he will assume every ounce of power that the people of America let him have. So the battleground is going to be in the elections in 2026 and of course in 2028 and before then in the courts. And I pray that the good lawyers that are at the bar understand that they're not here to adorn a king, that they're here to save democracy. They should call balls and strikes as they see them. They should call the cases based on good facts and good evidence. But that is not who Donald Trump is trying to put in the referee's chair. And it's going to be really dangerous for America going forward.

[Julie K. Brown]

All right, no one's going anywhere. We'll have much more with our esteemed panel in just a minute. As Donald Trump continues to escalate his assault on the rule of law in our country. Also ahead for us, how Republicans in a key battleground state tried to disenfranchise members of the military stationed overseas. The very men and women who wear the uniform for our country. What's being done to ensure the right to vote for some of the bravest Americans later in the hour. Deadline Whitehouse continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere, Mark. Mitch and Christy are back with us. Mark Elias, this news broke shortly before we came on the air. In the New York Times. Texas Republicans Unveiled Gerrymandered House Map trying to Please Trump Quote the Republican dominated legislature in Texas on Wednesday unveiled an aggressively redrawn map for the state's U.S. house districts, proposing to carve up five Democratic seats so that Republicans would now be likely to win them in 2026. The redrawn map was condemned by Democrats as a baldly partisan attempt at a rare mid decade redistricting that has been pushed for months by President Trump and accepted by Greg Abbott and the Republican leaders of Texas. It's something we've paid attention to here, I guess. I want to ask you what the response is again. We know what they're trying to do and we understand why. We've been talking about it for nine years. But what is, in your view, the appropriate democracy centered response?

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah. So let me start by saying I supported the Freedom to Vote act, which would have banned partisan gerrymandering and the voting the for the People act, which would have done the same thing. Both of those bills, by the way, were supported by every member of the Democratic House and Senate and opposed by every Republican member of the House and Senate. So that said, you know, we cannot allow a system of elections and a system of district drawing to go on where one party plays by one set of rules and the other plays not just by a different set of rules, but not even, not even really playing the same game. So, you know, for years it has been the case that a number of Democratically controlled states have used nonpartisan redistricting approaches, while Republican states have tended to engage more in gerrymandering. And that has been an unfortunate circumstance, but one that has worked, ish, within limits. What we're seeing now though is, is something that is totally, totally of a different kind. What the Republicans are doing in Texas is not mid cycle redistricting. It is not even gerrymandering. They already gerrymandered this map. The 2021 map that the Republicans drew in Texas is a gerrymander. I know because my law firm and I are suing them over that map, it violates the rights of black and Hispanic voters. What they are doing now is taking an illegal map and they are actually making it happen. Five seats less fair to Democrats, five seats worse for minority voters. So it is time that Democrats not just match this, but actually make it clear that they will not not only play what the Republican game they're playing, but actually exceed it. So I think every Democratic state that is controlled by Democrats needs to be looking right now at redrawing their maps beyond the five seats that, that Republicans are gaining in Texas. Because if they only try to match what Republicans are doing In Texas, Ron DeSantis will show up in Florida. You know, the governor of Missouri is already looking at redistricting. Of course, Ohio Republicans have said they may redistrict. So Democrats need to put on the table that they will play as hard or harder with every tool available to them with a goal not of having both sides gerrymander the country into oblivion, but rather to try to, to back the Republicans down, try to show them that, you know, Mike Lawler, if you are a Republican holding a seat in New York, you're not going to have that seat anymore. So maybe you should be talking sense to your Republican colleagues and to the Speaker. Ultimately, if it comes to it, then Democrats need to fight fire with fire. Hopefully we get to a place where, where, where the forces of democracy reinvigorate the Republican Party. After Donald Trump's gone, we return to a more normal system and then we can do away with this scourge. But in the meantime, Democrats need to use every single tool available to them to show Republicans that this result will wind up worse for them, not better.

[Julie K. Brown]

Mitch, do you see Democrats doing that?

[Steve Liesman]

I hope so. Mark is 100% right. So the American people understand this. I was in this state legislation in Louisiana for four terms. I went through two reapportionment terms. It normally happens every 10 years. It is high, highly unusual for them to call themselves back into session and redraw the lines for a specific political benefit, which is what they're trying to do. So to be clear to the American people who don't live in Texas, what they're trying to do in Texas is to rig the 2026 election so that the House of Representatives remains in Republicans hands no matter what. I don't believe that Democrats ought to bring a knife to a gunfight if Texas is going to do that. You know what? It's giddy up time. California, New York, every Democratic state, you ought to do the same exact thing And I think Mark is exactly right here. You make sure they know if they're going to swing, we're going to swing back. Now, this is not a place where we want to be. I don't think this is good in the immediacy for the country. But you certainly can't sit back with your hands tied behind your back and let these people pummel you and then just take a knee. That will not work, and that will not save democracy. So every Democrat in America, get ready for this. Every governor, saddle up. If Texas continues to go forward, we ought to meet fire with fire.

[Julie K. Brown]

Mark, what role will the courts play in this?

[Nicole Wallace]

Look, I think that the courts will play a role. I think that the Texas redraw will be challenged in court in large measure because what it will do to minority voting strength. There may be other legal challenges available. I think that there will be a lot of litigation around all of these efforts. Efforts. But in the end, you know, we cannot. And I say this as someone who is involved in that litigation. Right. So, like, I am all for litigation. But in the end, we cannot stand by. Our political leaders cannot stand by and just assume the courts will clean this up. We need to be fighting on the same playing field using the same tools that they are. I and my law firm and my team of lawyers, we will do everything we can to fight back against this, as we have in Louisiana, as we have in Alabama, as we have in state after state around the country. But. And as we have in Texas. But that is not an excuse to do less than everything possible to fight back against the Republicans, plan to destroy our democracy.

[Julie K. Brown]

I mean, Christy, we're back to where we always end up, which is that Donald Trump hamstringing some of the most prominent law firms in the country. And taking lawyers off the battlefield is, at its heart, this political. I don't want to give them credit and call it a chess move, but it is this political whack a mole, if that's more appropriate, on the Trump administration's behest, to try to advantage the sides not rowing in the direction of democracy.

[H]

Yes. Seeing Emil Bovey be confirmed yesterday, you know, really got me thinking. Like, you kind of have three buckets right now where lawyers are finding themselves. You have the ones who see the path that Emil Bovey took and the ones who say, look, he played the game. He did exactly what Donald Trump wanted. He sold his soul. Donald Trump supported him and it worked out for him. And his lifetime judicial appointment played the game and it worked. You're going to have more people look at that and say, we want to do that as well. They're going to take advantage. They are ambitious, they seek power. And then you have another bucket of people who are willing, willing to fight, who are not willing to compromise their values, who have integrity and who are willing to say, yes, we are going to stand up for what is right, even if it means losing our job, even if it means losing certain business or certain clients from our law firms. Because we see that this is about something bigger. This isn't just about one person. This is about. It wasn't. Isn't about one law firm. It's about something larger. It's about our democracy. It's about our role of law. And then you have the third bucket, which is, I think, you know, people in the middle who are kind of maybe paralyzed by fear. Some of them may enable and go along. They're at these law firms, they don't like what's going on, but they need the job. And they, you know, they're not going to make waves. They're not going to leave and go somewhere else. You know, so they're silent, they're complicit. And, you know, they are the people that you need to have more and more stand up and say in those meeting, in those partnership meetings, hey, this is not okay. We shouldn't take on a pro bono client that, you know, something that Donald Trump wants us to do that we don't believe aligns with our values to, you know, stand up against anything that they're asked to do, that that is improper. And there really have to be consequences to that. And part of it, you know, I think this is, to Mark's point, too, is you want the public opinion on your side. You want the strength in numbers, so that when clients have to say, who do I want to represent me? What lawyers do I want to pick? You pick the lawyer that's going to fight for you, not the lawyer who is going to capitulate and be a coward. And so I think, think those aspects, too, I think, are really important, that there have to be some consequences for people's actions. If you are the person that's going to sell out for the ambition and the power, that there should be some consequence to that, too. You should be somebody who, you know, takes a reputational hit for that. You should be somebody who's called out with discipline, with lawsuits, with, you know, I don't know why, you know, there were parts where he wasn't disbarred or where there weren't parts where he was disciplined law before we got to this road. I mean there have to be consequences for doing things that are wrong.

[Julie K. Brown]

It's just so surreal that everyone is acting as though this moment will last forever. No moment, nothing lasts forever. And that there are entire prestigious law firms and universities and institutions and businesses acting like this won't end is stunning. Thank you all for helping us make sense of it. Mitch Landrieu and Christy Greenberg, thank you for starting us off. Off. Mark sticks around a little bit longer. When we come back, deadline democracy how Republicans have taken aim at military voters stationed overseas trying to take away their right to vote. The North Carolina Supreme Court justice who beat back their efforts will join our conversation and tell us what is being done to safeguard voting rights going forward. Don't go anywhere.

[Justice Alison Riggs]

Other voters who had their vote challenged were over 60,000 voters whose registration allegedly lacked a driver's license or Social Security number. My parents were two of those 60,000 voters. Do voters, not politicians, decide elections? And if the answer to that is no, then no voter will ever come out of a polling place feeling confident that their vote will count. Instead, it'll depend on whether partisan politicians have enough money to throw at a race to litigate the outcome after the fact.

[Julie K. Brown]

North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Alison Riggs before U.S. senators in Washington today warning about the consequences of voter suppression efforts nationwide and the importance of fighting back in every instance, as she did earlier this year when her opponent tried to overturn her election to the state Supreme Court after a full machine recount and a partial hand recount confirm he lost to Riggs. Jefferson Griffin, a Republican appeals court judge, filed hundreds of legal challenges to try to disenfranchise more than 65,000 voters, including, according to Politico, those who have never lived in the US but whose parents were declared North Carolina residents even though a state law passed in 2011 had authorized them to vote. And military or overseas voters who didn't provide copies of photo ID or an ID exception form, even though a state rule exempted them from that requirement. But in the end, quote, U.S. district Judge Richard Myers, a Trump appointee, agreed with Riggs and others who argued it would be a violation of the US Constitution to carry out recent decisions by state appeals courts that directed the removal of potentially thousands of voter ballots deemed ineligible. Justice Allison Riggs joins us now. Mark Elias is here as well. Justice Riggs, thank you for being here. Just expand on your message to the U.S. senate today.

[Justice Alison Riggs]

Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me. I feel it's important as a Constitutional officer that I continue to share my story about what happened after my election and to 68,000 North Carolina voters. Because we keep having these near misses on constitutional crises where the very fabric of democracy is about to rip, and then we move on to the next crisis or catastrophe. But we have to drill down and we have to talk about the fact that every eligible voter should have their vote counted. And voters who follow the rules before an election ought not be treated the way they were in North Carolina, which is scared and threatened because of disappointed politicians.

[Julie K. Brown]

Justice. Just remind us what your opponent who lost tried to do.

[Justice Alison Riggs]

So there were 68,000 voters impacted. The largest category were voters who were allegedly missing information from their voter registration. So my parents were an example. For example, my father registered using his retired military ID. He served 30 years in uniform. His military ID doesn't have a Social Security number or a driver's license on it, but it's a valid form of id, and he's used it to vote many times. That was 68,000 voters in one swipe there. Then there were military voters who used a federal law to assist them in voting while they were overseas or deployed at a base away from home. It's what their families used to vote. And my opponent targeted some of those voters, not all of them. Only if they registered in one of four heavily Democratic counties, not the other 96 counties. So this is what we faced for six months and two days after election Day. And it's why I felt compelled to come up and share my experience with the senators so that they understand as they develop policy. I'm not a policymaker, but as they develop policy, I want them to hear the stories of the North Carolinians who came so close to losing their fundamental right because it's my obligation as a constitutional officer to do so.

[Julie K. Brown]

Justice, this may be a stupid question, so I'll beg forgiveness before I ask it, but aren't some of those people potentially voting for Republicans? I mean, what was he trying to do in throwing out military ballots?

[Justice Alison Riggs]

So because he focused on only four out of North Carolina's 100 counties, presumably those votes favored me. Now, we don't know that. It's speculation. If it had been all 100 counties, maybe that would have been a different situation. But I had the opportunity to talk to many voters whose ballots were challenged, who didn't vote for me, and got the opportunity to say to them, I'm sorry I didn't earn your vote in 2024. I will work hard in the future to earn it. But you should know that there's one candidate in this race who's standing up for your constitutional rights, your due process rights, and your equal protection rights, and it's me.

[Julie K. Brown]

I mean, that seems to be the most glaring and example of how committed they are to disenfranchising voters. I want to bring Mark Elias in on just that point. I have to sneak in a quick break first. We'll all be back on the other side. We're back with Justice Riggs and Mark Elias. Mark, this is a case that you kept in front of our attention and focus the whole time it was going on. What are your thoughts to what the justice is describing? The Republicans doing the quiet parts out loud now?

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah. So I think that you need to add a couple more facts to what they did in North Carolina. You know, one of the things that I always set off alarm bells for me is that the losing candidate, the Republican, only lost by, you know, 700 and some odd votes. Right. This was not, this was not an election that he lost by 10,000, 20,000, 40,000 votes. So, you know, you would expect that if you had a losing candidate. And by the way, he lost Election Day. He lost a recount, he lost a second recount. Right. But, but if you imagine that a candidate in that, in that position would normally, if they were seeking to contest the election, would go find, you know, 800 votes, 1,000 votes, 2,000 votes, a combination of ballots that should have been, that they believe should be counted, counted that weren't, maybe some votes that they think shouldn't have been counted, but were. What's interesting here is they didn't do that. Instead, they sought to disenfranchise 68,000 voters. And the Republican National Committee, which, you know, has an interest generally in state judicial elections. But, but, you know, this, this is not the highest priority for the rnc. They poured millions of dollars into this. And that is because I believe that they were using this as a test case. They were using this to sell a theory that they have been trying to sell, going all the way back to Donald Trump's efforts in 2020 to essentially change the rules after Election Day to disenfranchise voters who, who did everything right under the rules as they were. So it's essentially this retroactive disenfranchisement effort. And we saw them try to do it in 2020. We saw them try to do it in, in some cartoonish ways in 2022 in Arizona. But this was a very systematic and frankly, professionalized way. And I think that this is the trend of what we should expect for 2026 and 2028. They are going to try to change the rules to fit the facts as they have them. And that should be, that should be raising everyone's alarms today. And it is something we need to start preparing for now.

[Julie K. Brown]

Justice, we asked you about your message to the Senator as well. What's your message to voters not just in your state, but all over the country.

[Justice Alison Riggs]

We know that holding the line for democracy in 2024 in this one race isn't the end of the story, but we have created a blueprint for holding consistent to our values. We didn't challenge any voters and winning elections. And so we know in North Carolina we're going to have the most competitive U.S. senate race in the country next year. We have a critical state Supreme Court race as my colleague Justice Earls runs to keep her seat and restore a pro democracy majority to the North Carolina Supreme Court. We have to be ready and unwilling to give one inch when it comes to the constitutional rights and freedoms of every person in this state and this entire country.

[Julie K. Brown]

Mark, what is your message to people who think, oh, it won't happen here? Talk about what you see on the ground on the other side.

[Nicole Wallace]

Oh, it's happening everywhere. I mean, you know, the fact is Donald Trump and the vote suppressors, the election deniers, they look at the results of 2024 and they say we won, right? We did, we did. We accomplished what we wanted wanted to accomplish. And so sure, they didn't have to actually steal any elections for president after 2024 because Donald Trump won the popular vote and won the Electoral College. But they then rolled that out in North Carolina to try to do just that. And they are quite emboldened. You know, they, they view North Carolina not as a defeat, but as a lesson learned for the tactics that are working and the tactics that need to be improved. They look at their voter challenge program in states like Georgia, again, as, as tactics that they will refine as we move forward to senator offshore reelection there. And it is happening in every state in the country. I mean, there is not a state in the country in which Republicans and the RNC and the right wing, vast right wing dark money groups funded by billionaires are not active. I mean, I see them in court. My law firm and I, we are in, we are in 50 lawsuits in more than, more than, more than 25 states. Like we're in half the country. The RNC, by the way, is litigating 75 lawsuits in 40 some odd states. I mean, there's a lot of going on here. And from the Republican standpoint, they are emboldened. They think they have the courts at their back. They have the president with executive orders. They've got a grassroots army of vote suppressors. They've got a team full of election deniers and local and county boards. So we all need to buckle up and be ready, ready to fight back.

[Julie K. Brown]

Justice Riggs, thank you for telling your story. Thank you for not disappearing after this really close call for democracy, and thank you for spending some time to talk to us about it. We're really grateful to have this chance to talk to you. Mark Elias, thank you for sticking around for the whole hour. We're always grateful to you. We're going to sneak in one more break on the other side. We'll have another peek at the new episode of the Best People podcast. Don't go anywhere.

[Ankush Khardori]

The main group that I think is important to think about in this whole Epstein case is the folks that listen to Joe Rogan, as you mentioned, these sort of manosphere guys who aren't ideological.

[Angelo Carusone]

They're not many of them voted for Democrats. They're not Christians.

[Ankush Khardori]

They're not weekly churchgoers in any meaningful sense. They got attracted to Trump because he was like a finger in the eye to the establishment. They liked the anti woke stuff. These guys don't want to be evil.

[Angelo Carusone]

They're not.

[Nicole Wallace]

Stephen Miller.

[Julie K. Brown]

Right.

[Nicole Wallace]

They might say things inappropriately and they.

[Ankush Khardori]

Might do things that you would tell your teenage son that you wish they wouldn't do.

[Nicole Wallace]

They're not perfect men, but they don't want to be evil.

[Ankush Khardori]

And they also really believe that something weird happened with Jeffrey Epstein and that people should get to the bottom of it. And it's bad that people are covering it up.

[Julie K. Brown]

The Bulwarks Tim Miller is one of our favorite people to talk to on the show. It's easy to see why he is also my guest on this week's episode of the Best People. Scan the QR code on your screen to watch our interview on YouTube. You can also download it wherever you get your podcast. One more break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes today. We are grateful.