Commercial Announcer (4:19)

Sure. So I think the main issue that people need to focus on is the schizophrenic approach of the Trump administration to this issue. On the one hand, they are saying we want to be as transparent as possible. And on the other hand they're saying we're not releasing anything. So they on the transparency part, they say we want to be transparent and we're going to go to court and we're going to ask judges to release grand jury transcripts. Now they know that the law on that issue is dead set against them. So they can blame the courts when they say no. It's also in grand jury transcripts. The actual proceedings in the grand jury are the area where it's least likely that Donald Trump's name appears. By contrast, the part where they are not turning anything over is all of the voluminous investigative material which the Wall Street Journal now is reporting, which something that we sort of assumed had to be true, but now the reporting is it is true, which is that material has Donald Trump's name in it. And of course, that shouldn't be surprising because there's so much reporting that the two of them knew each other and socialized with each other. It doesn't mean that Donald Trump committed a crime but his reaction to this is the thing that' probably the most telling because it certainly is. He protests too much. But that material, and this is sort of the take home, I think, for everyone. And where I, when I think about this, is that material, the voluminous investigative material that the Department of Justice has, that can be turned over right now, today, this minute. There is no grand jury requirement that you go to court to turn that over. So here, if the Department of Justice and the Trump administration is saying, oh, we want to be transparent, that is information that they don't need to go to the court and turn over. We just saw them do that in the Martin Luther King Jr. Files, turning that over. So you really are seeing this continuation of a schizophrenic approach. And the Wall Street Journal reporting gives you certainly a motive for why they are sort of on the one hand saying we're going to go to court and the other hand saying the stuff that's most likely to name Donald Trump we are not disclosing.

Nicole Wallace (6:40)

I mean, Alex, we also get a little bit of the timeline filled in. Let me read a little bit more from this new reporting in the Journal. This meeting they write about set the stage for the high profile review to come to an end. Pam Bondi had said in February that Epstein's client list was, quote, sitting on my desk right now to review, end quote. Trump said last week in response to a journalist question that Bondi had not told him his name was in the files. The administration didn't publicly announce the decision until weeks later. The Journal continues. On July 7, when the Justice Department posted a memo to its website. The statement, which was unsigned, stated that a thorough review had turned up no list of Epstein's clients, no evidence that would lead to an investigation of uncharged third parties, and no additional documents that merited public disclosure. It said that much of the material would have been sealed in a trial to protect victims and to block the dissemination of child pornography. Your thoughts about how far this reporting goes in filling in some of the blanks?

Andrew Weissman (7:45)

Well, I mean, I think it's enormously consequential. I think this is a huge stress test for Trump and his coalition, which, you know, it's not all of maga, but it is Stuart Rhodes, it is Stephen Bannon, it is Michael Flynn. It is a certain significant portion of base that is animated by this notion that the deep state and the dismantling of the deep state are job number one for Donald Trump. It's bigger than any tariff war or any social safety net program. Or even maybe immigration. For them, this is the animating sort of factor in their support for Trump. And it's why Stuart Rhodes said Donald Trump's life was spared during the assassination attempts. He was here to dismantle this elite cabal and open back up our democracy. Right. I'm paraphrasing. They believe so much in that deep state that I think up until this point, maybe even till this article, Nicole, they believe that Trump was shielding the deep state and the elite cabal and not actually maybe just covering his own, but because he was implicated in these Epstein files. And now there is definitive information coming from not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, but Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, the same man who owns Fox News, that Donald Trump's name is not only in the Epstein files, Donald Trump knew it, and Donald lied to the public about that knowledge. That seems really significant. You say that. And we have this information alongside the Department of Justice reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell. This would seem to tie their hands greatly in terms of what they can maybe offer her to help them out. Because quite obviously, it looks now like the President may be trying to hide something to protect himself and his own reputation. And if there is any deal, any pardon, any. Anything with Ghislaine Maxwell, it will be in service to the President's own and not that of dismantling the deep state.

Nicole Wallace (9:41)

Well, it's so interesting, Alex. I mean, you start with Stewart Rhodes. You mentioned Stewart Rhodes, Mike Flynn and Steve Bannon. They aren't just hardcore Trump. They aren't just hardcore maga. They are three recipients of pardons. The only reason they are freely walking the earth is because Donald Trump pardoned those three men. And they are on the other side of Trump and his Justice Department on this story.

Andrew Weissman (10:08)

Yes, it is an important data point and it tells you the degree to which, again, this is the banner under which, like, at the expense of their relationship with the president, who they owe their freedom to, this is their cause, the deep state. And Steve Bannon said, look, it's not that he's going to lose. It's not that Trump could lose his entire coalition in the course of this Epstein saga. It's just that he could lose 10 to 15%, and that's enough to lose the House and that's enough to lose Congress in 2026 and the presidency in 2028. And I think that's real math, Jonathan.

Nicole Wallace (10:45)

Alex has made this point. We made this point. I mean, it's coming from the Wall Street Journal, I think about 65 hours after the lawsuit wasn't just threatened, but I think filed against the Journal, the journalists and the parent company, and Rupert Murdoch personally. What is the significance of these reporters and this news organization not being intimidated, following the facts wherever they lead?

Jonathan Chait (11:11)

It's really interesting to me that Donald Trump said openly that he went to Rupert Murdoch to spike the story. Murdoch said he would do it, didn't follow through, at least indicated to Trump he would do it, which might have been less of a committal response than Murdoch meant to give, didn't do it. And then Trump held up this fact as if it showed that Murdoch lacks journalistic ethics, when really the opposite is the case. In fact, this would actually be a scandal under a normal president that the president tried to go to a newspaper's owner to spike a damaging story about himself. But I think we should be a little bit cautious about how much the fact that it's the Wall Street Journal and not the Times of the Post is going to carry a weight with Trump's base. Trump has always defined fake news as anything that, that reports unfavorable facts against him. At times there have been reporters at Fox News who have broken or confirmed unflattering information for Donald Trump and he just says Trump haters, the rhinos, it's fake news. In his Basel, we'll just go along and just say definitionally, any facts that Donald Trump doesn't like is fake news, regardless of the source.

Nicole Wallace (12:22)

I think that is borne out again and again and again. It's one of the more disappointing and disorienting themes. But I guess in a moment when news organizations are seeming to blink, it doesn't appear at this point that the Wall Street Journal is one of them. Jonathan. And maybe that it's an, it's a significant news organization.

Jonathan Chait (12:41)

The opinions are quite right wing and sometimes very, very partisan. But the news staff of the Wall Street Journal has always been absolutely terrific down the middle, you know, and they, and they break stories that are uncomfortable for people on both sides. The Biden administration certainly didn't love the Journals reporting by Joe Biden, but the reporters are excellent.

Nicole Wallace (13:04)

So Andrew Weissman, with all that stipulated, let me not rush through this and let me read a little bit more from this Wall Street Journal story. Again, it's about an hour old, so I don't know what the newfangled way of saying hot off the presses is, but whatever that is, not even on a wire anymore, but new to us. So the Journal also reporting that FBI Director Kash Patel has privately told other government officials that Trump's name appeared in the files. That's according to people close to the administration. Kash Patel declined to answer an inquiry from the Wall Street Journal about the Epstein case, but in a statement that the memo on the Justice Department website explaining why the department wouldn't release more Epstein documents was, quote, consistent with the thorough review conducted by the FBI and doj. Now, someone with a lot of credibility until this point in this part of the Trump coalition is Kash Patel. And I wonder, Andrew Weissman, how someone so instrumental in the investigation into Epstein and Maxwell is getting away with saying nothing.

Commercial Announcer (14:09)

Well, this is what happens when you don't have any part of the government in the hands of an opposing party, whether you have complete Democratic hegemony or Republican hegemony, is that you don't have the ability to get answers other than sort of great reporting that we're seeing today from the Wall Street. You know, the FBI, you would think, would be very much defending a righteous prosecution, you know, of Mr. Epstein and of Glenn Maxwell, who was convicted at trial of Jeffrey Epstein obviously killed himself before he could go to trial. But you would think a normal FBI, so we're in Earth One, not Earth two, would have a lot to say about trying to have Ghislaine Maxwell strike some deal after what's commonly known as blowing trial. And, you know, that's the kind of thing that you would not normally go down that road. And the FBI director would be standing behind the career people at the FBI who worked on this case. It's worth noting that at the prosecution side of this, Maureen Comey was one of the prosecutors in this very matter and was recently fired against, as I understand it, my understanding from being general counsel of the FBI and being a longtime ausa, her rights were violated by being fired. Her civil service rights were violated. And it remains to be seen what the reason is, because no reason was given by Pam Bondi. And we don't know if it was because of her last name. She is the daughter of James Comey, and we don't know whether it's that she and her colleagues at the Southern District of New York who investigated and prosecuted these matters, the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell matters would have been up in arms and protesting in the exact same way that we saw with respect to Mayor Eric Adams. And so one of the things that I'm keeping, you know, sort of eyes and ears open for is whether we're going to see additional firings or resignations from career people who do think this is really outlandish that you'd be striking a deal and giving somebody who is a convicted sort of child predator some kind of deal. And it may be a deal that's not trying to get at the truth, but is really trying to get at a sort of COVID up. So, you know, that obviously remains to be seen whether that's the road that this goes along. But it certainly is highly unusual to see seek cooperation at this juncture and to have it being sought by the deputy Attorney General of the United States. That is not the person who usually goes and meets with a convicted defendant. You usually have the career people who are in charge of the matter make that decision and assess the credibility of that person.

Nicole Wallace (17:27)

But Andrew Weisman, what do I hate to ask people to do this, but in their heads, what do they think they've done with Maxwell that they couldn't do by just releasing all the files, including the ones with Trump's name in it, them?

Commercial Announcer (17:40)

Well, you know, so thinking about this in the most cynical way, if the information that they could release today, just to be clear, they don't need to go to a court, the information that they have today, if it is damning of President Trump, then clearly they are avoiding that and trying to basically do lots of diversionary tactics, including the grand jury motion, which is, you know, something that they knew would be denied and now has been denied by one judge, I assume it's going to be denied by others. And so they're sort of saying, look over here, look over here. And they don't want that turned over. That's sort of the worst case scenario. And I really do think that, to me, one of the greatest signs that there is a there, there, which, you know, we don't know yet, is Donald Trump's reaction to all of this because he could just turn over the investigative files and say if he says that he wants to be transparent, Todd Blanche says the president has said be as trans possible. Well, guess what that means all of your investigative files could be turned over other than grand jury information, and they're not doing it. And you have to ask yourself why. I mean, that's sort of the key thing. And by the way, if I were the judge in this matter and I was looking at this, I would ask that question. I would say before I turn over grand jury information, which is a very, very high standard, and you say it's so much in the public interest to have transparency. Tell me what you have turned over to the public that you don't is not grand jury information. Because if you think it's so important. Why should I take that as at face value when you have not turned over anything? So walk me through that government, what your position is there, because I think judges know they're kind of being set up to be the fall guy to say, oh, I'm not turning over this stuff. And then they say, look, we really wanted to, but the judges told us no.

Nicole Wallace (19:37)

Yeah. I mean, and importantly, the Wall Street Journal does point out here that details of Pam Bundy's meeting with Donald Trump have not been previously reported and that Trump's advisers have for months, including during the presidential campaign, said they would release the files. And Trump, while at times equivocal, indicated he would support the release. So to answer the question, how did we get here? There it is. I need you guys to stick around. As Andrew said, there is other legal news developing on this story. We'll explain. Also ahead for us on today's program, more on how the Republican Party and pretty much all of Washington are now consumed with the Epstein story. The GOP literally leaving town to get away from it, as though their constituents at home don't have access to the Internet or the MAGA media ecosystem. We'll talk about how Democrats today are responding to that. Plus, retribution is here. It is among us. It is happening and picking up steam from law firms and universities to the media to now former presidents. We'll talk about Donald Trump's push for his aides to prosecute his perceived enemies. All those stories and more with deadline. White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Commercial Announcer (20:54)

Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of their national red tag sales event, now extended through July 27. Stop by any of their participating communities and find select red tag homes at incredible pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss. The red tag sales event extended to July 27th. Discover the Dr. Horton Difference at drhorton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal housing opportunity builder.

Nicole Wallace (21:24)

Hey, everybody, Ted Danson here to tell you about my podcast with my longtime friend and sometimes co host Woody Harrelson. It's called where everybody knows your name. And we're back for another season. I'm so excited to be joined this season by friends like John Mulaney, David Spade, Sarah Silverman, Ed Helms and many more. You don't want to miss it. Listen to where everybody knows your name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson. Sometimes wherever you get your podcasts Cash.

Commercial Announcer (21:54)

Flow Crunch On Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $100,000 when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today@ondeck.com funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by On Deck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend to North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. The attorney General's handle that very well. She is. She's really done a very good job and I think that when you look at it, you'll understand that.

Nicole Wallace (22:36)

What did she tell you about the review? And specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the file? In the file?

Commercial Announcer (22:41)

No, no. She's given us just a very quick briefing. And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen, and I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden. You know.

Nicole Wallace (23:01)

So Donald Trump delivered those remarks on July 18th. We know from this story that before that, July 15th, Pam Bondi and her deputy told Donald Trump, quote, his name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials. I know it's not really breaking news, Alex Wagner, when we catch Donald Trump in a televised lie.

Andrew Weissman (23:23)

Yeah.

Nicole Wallace (23:23)

But just to, you know, keep it real and old school around here, it is still remarkable to see.

Andrew Weissman (23:29)

Yeah. And it gives greater weight to the statement from Dick Durbin's office that he has heard that a thousand Department of Justice or FBI agents were tasked with reviewing these files to check for Trump mentions. I mean, quite clearly there was real concern emanating from the White House about all of this. There was not transparency about what the president knew and when he knew it. To paraphrase a famous quote. And like I have to just touch on Nicole, the idea that somehow Obama and Comey and Biden all cooked this up as some nefarious plot years ago, presumably when they had the express conviction that somehow Donald Trump was going to be elected president in the year 2024, but did not use any of this material in either the 2020 or 2024 presidential campaigns. I mean, like the explanation that they somehow can teleport through time, I guess, and know what's going to happen in the future. Dr. A bunch of files on Jeffrey Epstein to then be used against, to be weaponized against Donald Trump in the summer of 2025. I mean, even for Donald Trump, it's a whopper.

Nicole Wallace (24:38)

Yeah. And I guess importantly, Jonathan, to your point of not holding our breath for the Wall Street Journal to permeate the bubble. The bubble's been permeated by the likes of Megyn Kelly and Stewart Rhodes and others. I mean, this is Stewart Rhodes, quote, I believe 90% of Trump's own base understands that Epstein was up to something. And we know that's the tip of the iceberg. It is really disheartening to see President Trump just declare that to be a hoax. I don't think it is. And I think it's going to cause him trouble in his own base. It already is. Again, this isn't the media trying to lead anyone anywhere. This is, frankly, and we can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. This is the media really following the Trump story in a totally different way. I mean, this is where the heat is within his own coalition. This is where they are uprising against him and against Bondi. And this is where Bongino has either been scarce or wasn't at work for a few days in the beginning. And this investigative journalism is really following a scandal that has ruptured the MAGA coalition.

Jonathan Chait (25:43)

That's right. And it seems like Trump has finally taken his dishonesty to a point where his base is so invested in the issue, he's followed it closely enough that he can't just get them to swallow what he's saying. It's so transparent. I mean, it's as if, you know, he could get his supporters to believe that he has a wonderful, loving and admirable relationship with Melania and we should all wish we had relationships as, as pure and good as that one. But if he just showed up with a, with a 25 year old and said, this is actually Melania, this has been Melania all along. This is the new Melania. This is the old Melania. It's the same person. They would have questions about that. Right. There are limits to how far the credulity can stretch on an issue that really, as others have said, is so central to the, to the MAGA mythology. And when he's acting so transparent about this whole thing, right, where you have Republicans in Congress saying, we want to see the Epstein files, we're going to vote for a non binding resolution, just asking them to release the files. And then the response is just, we're closing up shop in Congress, everyone go home so that we don't have to have this non binding resolution. It's just so clear that they had something to hide that I, that I don't even think their own loyalists can actually look away from this.

Nicole Wallace (27:05)

Well, and Alex, it creates some trouble in, you know, the honeymoon between MAGA and the manosphere. Right? I mean it is the most un macho masculine thing to be treated like a flipping idiot. And you know, here's how idiot I mean, and that's I think where the manosphere differs from, from Speaker Johnson. Here he is with his 11th explanation for why they're going to duck and cover instead of pass this non binding resolution.

Commercial Announcer (27:37)

You saw that you had to pull the rule because of fear of Epstein votes. No, we don't have any fear.

Alex Wagner (27:42)

No, no, hold on.

Commercial Announcer (27:43)

No, Reese, no, there's no fear here.

Alex Wagner (27:45)

No, there's no fear.

Commercial Announcer (27:46)

There's no fear. We're not going to allow the Democrats.

Alex Wagner (27:49)

To use this as a political cadre.

Commercial Announcer (27:50)

Remember, they had four units years.

Paul Rykoff (27:52)

Hold on.

Alex Wagner (27:53)

The Biden administration held the Epstein files for four years. Not a single one of these Democrats.

Commercial Announcer (27:58)

Or anyone in Congress made any peep.

Alex Wagner (28:01)

About that at all.

Commercial Announcer (28:01)

They could have brought a discharge petition at any point in the last four years.

Alex Wagner (28:04)

They chose not to.

Commercial Announcer (28:05)

They waited until President Trump was elected. I think that's very suspect. And I, I will not allow the House to be drug into political gamesmanship.

Nicole Wallace (28:16)

The Democrats couldn't drag them into the bathroom. The Democrats aren't in charge of anything.

Andrew Weissman (28:21)

They wanted to hold on to it, didn't want to use it to stop Trump from getting elected, but wanted to wait until this precise moment. I mean, I will say points to Speaker Johnson for keeping a straight face that this is all a Democratic plot when it's like actually Megyn Kelly and Charlie Kirk and Stuart Rhodes and Steve Bannon and like literally the stars of the Magaverse who are keeping this going. I do think Democrats in House and in Congress need to be careful not to overstep their role in this because I think part of the reason this thing still has resonance within the White House is because the anger and the questions are coming from within the House, if you will. Not the House of Representatives, but the MAGA House. And to the degree the Democrats start trying to use this as a political opportunity, I think it dilutes the resonance, at least for Trump. But look, I mean, you know, Nicole, this is a disaster of one man's own hubris. Someone who stoked conspiracy about the Epstein files for the better part of a decade starting in 2015, who appointed to the highest reaches of his own administration, people who believed in the Epstein conspiracy and knew presumably all along that he would be in the files. Here he is. And now he has launched a lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal. And I'll defer to Andrew Weissman on this, the Wall Street Journal. If the lawsuit against the Journal relating to this bawdy book of illustrations is not dismissed or settled, goes into the discovery phase, which could be depositions, which could be more material, and I would bet you, especially if the President of the United States called Rupert Murdoch and tried to kill the story, they are lawyered up and ready for this fight. Given the climate around media intimidation, they have the receipts. So I honestly, short of, like, one act of hubris is, you know, giving Kash Patel the reins at the FBI, knowing full well the Epstein controversy is going to come to light and Pam Bondi and Jamie Vance in the White House, and another is starting a lawsuit, the end of which may only damn you further. But, you know, I'm not a lawyer, Andrew.

Nicole Wallace (30:22)

I think your name and services have been invoked.

Alex Wagner (30:26)

Sure.

Commercial Announcer (30:27)

Well, yes. First of all, you know, bringing a case where you have to submit to discovery, I mean, this is. It's just not going anywhere. I remember going back, I think it's eight years ago, when Trump threatened that he was going to sue the New York Times. And I remember the general counsel wrote a very funny letter that said, basically, bring it on. You want to engage in discovery, let's go. I mean, this is one where you have them saying, we don't want to release any more information. Like, bringing a case where you have to submit to discovery is not the way to do that. I also just want to comment on what the speaker just said, which is, just remember, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States has said that he was told by the President that they should be as transparent as possible. That is not coming from msnbc. That is not coming from the New York Times. That is the deputy Attorney general saying that from the president. And they're sort of caught between this, sort of like, oh, we want to be transparent, and no, we don't want to be transparent. And that's because from the. The Wall Street Journal reporting gives you the motive, which is that his name is in there. There obviously is something extremely embarrassing, or he would not be acting like this. That is my conclusion from this. It's hard to think of any other conclusion. If you really truly thought this was a Biden, Obama, you know, Clinton hoax and these documents were all fictitious and made up, then make them public and let everyone see it. I mean, none of this makes any sense whatsoever. And there's a reason that you have so many people from the sort of left and right sort of onto this, because this story is not hanging together because it really doesn't appear to be true.

Nicole Wallace (32:16)

It's just so amazing that it was 2017 that Donald Trump told his voters, don't believe your eyes, don't believe your ears, just believe me. And that it's the Jeffrey Epstein story where our eyes can see the two of them doing whatever that dance move is called. Our ears can hear the things he said about Ghislaine Maxwell with Jonathan Swan in an interview where he wishes her well, wishes her well. And this is the one, this is the one where they refuse to believe him instead of their eyes and ears. After Alex and Andrew, I need you guys to stick around for one more. Jonathan Chait, thank you so much for starting us off today on this story. Up next for us, how the White House is still consumed by this story today and doing anything it can literally to change the subject. The latest allegations today from Donald Trump's top intelligence official about the Obama administration will tell you what they're doing next. The director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard is today trying to throw a political lifeline to Donald Trump by showing up to the White House press briefing today, standing behind the podium and doubling down on her baseless conspiracy theory that President Obama's administration engaged in, quote, seditious conspiracy by pushing a lie that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump's campaign, A conspiracy so outrageous and dangerous it drew an exceedingly rare rebuke from President Obama's office yesterday. When pressed today by reporters on how she could possibly conclude that Russia did not try to boost Donald Trump's campaign in 2016 when everyone who has ever investigated this question has made that conclusion. And here is what Tulsi Gabbard said.

Alex Wagner (34:15)

The Senate Intelligence Committee spent several years looking into this and unanimously agreed in.

Nicole Wallace (34:20)

A bipartisan fashion, Secretary of State Rubio.

Alex Wagner (34:22)

Was a member of that committee, that there was no political interference. There was a years long Justice Department investigation into this as well that also.

Nicole Wallace (34:30)

Concluded no political interference.

Alex Wagner (34:32)

So help us from a 50,000 foot level explain what do you now have that refutes those two circumstances.

Commercial Announcer (34:40)

I will encourage you in my role.

Alex Wagner (34:42)

As the director of National Intelligence.

Commercial Announcer (34:44)

My job again, as I said when I came into this role was to make sure that we are telling the.

Alex Wagner (34:50)

Truth to the American people and that we are ensuring that the intelligence community.

Commercial Announcer (34:55)

Is not being politicized. So I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I'm asking you and the media to conduct honest journalists journalism.

Nicole Wallace (35:04)

We're back with Alex and Andrew. Let me do a couple more things that rebut the country's Director of National Intelligence with people from inside, sort of the Trump worldview. This is John Durham in 2023 on the bottom line about his $7.5 million investigation into the investigators, including at the CIA.

Commercial Announcer (35:29)

I don't think there's any question but that the Russians intruded into, backed into the systems, they released information and that was helpful the Trump campaign. Right. And the conclusion in the ICA and in the Mueller investigation was that the Russians intended to assist you answer my question, Ms. Durham. That was helpful the Trump campaign, right?

Richard Blumenthal (35:50)

Yeah.

Nicole Wallace (35:52)

And then let me also quote, Donald Trump's Secretary of State, who I think has four other jobs. I don't remember right now what they were. Rubio, quote, no probe into this matter has been more exhaustive. And that probe found this, quote, Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, comma, help the Trump campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee and undermine the US Democratic process. So none other than Marco Rubio and John Durham found the opposite of what Tulsi Gabbard is saying from behind that podium in the White House briefing room.

Commercial Announcer (36:34)

Andrew, she's saying it, but if you noticed, she has no facts to support what she's saying. And that's really the issue here. What are the facts? And the reporter's question was an excellent one. What facts are you now saying you're aware of that change the unanimous conclusion? And by the way, having been on the Mueller investigation there, you can read in black and white what the Russians were doing. This isn't something you need to speculate. This is not a sort of, gee, I infer from all this evidence what is going on. They say it in black and white over and over again, and then they take actions consistent with that. And so you're really seeing the politicization of the national intelligence. I mean, that could not be more insidious in terms of what the public is entitled to. And it's an area where it's so important that it be on a bipartisan way that it's conducted, which is why the Senate report, which was bipartisan, was so important and needs to be adhered to. So this, you know, really is important for people, I think, to see the big picture here in terms of of people being misled. Final quick point is what Tulsi Gabbard is trying to say is that there is insufficient or no evidence that the Russians actually were able to get into voting machines. And that is something that has been consistently the position of prior administrations is that is that in 2016 the Russians weren't able to actually manipulate votes. But that is a very different issue than what they did conclude unanimously at the John Durham level, at the Senate intel level, the Mueller level, which was that they were hacking into Democratic emails and releasing them in a way that would hurt the Democrats, that they were posing as Americans and fomenting dissent and distrust of Democrats and trying to help Donald Trump. Those are two separate things. And this is an example just connected to your prior segments of really, I think thinking that the people you're talking to in your base are that stupid and gullible that you can just say whatever you want with no factual support and they're just going to be led by the nose. But here, facts really matter here and it's, there's just no question. And that's why this story has really gotten very little play. And it's so obvious that it's a way to try and distract from the, the Epstein matter to protect the President.

Nicole Wallace (39:27)

Alex, why do you think they're doing this? As you said, he won twice. Why is he still relitigating what the Russians did in 2015 and 16?

Andrew Weissman (39:36)

I think you got. First of all, I totally agree that this is, you know, chumming the water to get MAGA redirected to something else and not focused on Epstein. But I think you have to pay attention to the language that Tulsi Gabbard's using. Seditious conspiracy and a years long coup. Nicole, what else uses what other moment in American history do we use the words coup and seditious conspiracy around January 6th? I think this is driven in large part by Donald Trump's deep desire to not be the only president with a mug shot, you know, tweeting out or truth social posting a video of a fake video of President Obama getting arrested in the Oval Office is like Trump's sick, twisted fantasy to not be the only guy in the mugshot club. He is desperate not to have that scarlet letter. And so, you know, while I think it serves an immediate purpose to get the news off of, off of himself and Epstein, I think that there's a broader kind of psychological goal here and that is for Trump to not be so lonesome in a potential future that involves an orange jumpsuit.

Nicole Wallace (40:44)

It is always amazing and breathtaking that, you know, if he'd been hugged more often as a child, he might not be right here where we are. But it always comes down to that. I need both of you to stick around. There's one more story I want to talk to you about. Attorney General Pam Bundy attacking the rule of law, slamming crime, quote, rogue judges, defying a decision by a panel of federal judges. We'll tell you about it next. The assault on the rule of law never sleeps. Yesterday evening, Attorney General Pam Bondi attempted to supersede the votes of a panel of judges after they voted to replace Alina Haba when her term is interim U.S. attorney for the state of New Jersey expired. The judges voted to replace Alina Haba with First Assistant Desiree Lee Grace AG Bondi posting on social media that quote, politically minded judges refused to allow her to continue in her position, replacing alina with the First Assistant. Accordingly, the First Assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey has just been removed. This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges. The move by Pam Bondi to fire the court appointed replacement Grace has thrown the office of the top law enforcement agency in that state into chaos. We're back with Alex and Andrew. Andrew, I cringe when I hear myself say what is supposed to happen, but just, just tell us what is supposed to happen and what happens now.

Commercial Announcer (42:14)

So when somebody is nominated to be a United States attorney, if they don't have their confirmation hearing before the Senate which is necessary for them to have the position within 100, 120 days, then under a congressional statute, the judges in that district get to select the, the sort of acting U.S. attorney who takes over almost invariably. I've, I've, in my 21 years at the Department of Justice, I have never heard of judges not just simply selecting the person who is nominated because regardless of politics, usually the person is competent, they can do the job. But for the, I think really the first time that I can think of that we now have not just Alina Hava, but another sitting nominee in the Northern District of New York where the judges, and that means the judges that are appointed by all sorts of presidents, not just, you know, Republican or Democrats, but you know, both did not support, start selecting that person to continue. That to me is actually the story. It just is so remarkable that these people are viewed by the courts as so unqualified that the bench isn't going to support them. Then you have Pam Bondi with again, no facts saying these are politically minded judges. And my question to her would be Says who? Where are your facts to say that? Tell me about how, why you think that these are only Democratic judges who are doing it and not Republicans. And then explain to me why. You have Judge WILKINSON in the 4th Circuit, a conservative legal leader, excoriating this administration. You have Judge Susan Gallagher appointed by Donald Trump, excoriating this administration. These are not politically minded judges. I'm not saying all judges are, you know, holier than thou and always perfect. But there's no evidence to suggest that that is what happens. It has never happened before, precisely because the people who are selected by the President are somebody you may disagree with in terms of their policies, but that's not your job as a judge. But here they were rejected for very good factual reasons in terms of their qualifications. Remember, Alina Haba had, has no experience whatsoever in sort of the criminal law and holding this particular position. And that there obviously there are lots and lots of people who could be loyal to Donald Trump who have conservative policies and agendas, but who are qualified for this particular role. And it's an important role. And the judges here clearly determined that she was not fit to do that. And then you also then have Pam Bondi saying, we're actually going to sort of go to war with the judiciary over this type of issue, which is again, unheard of, that you would have that kind of relationship between the Department of Justice and judges who you have to appear in front of every day.

Nicole Wallace (45:36)

I mean, the war on judges is a feature, not a bug at this point, Alex.

Andrew Weissman (45:41)

Yeah, and this is coming from an administration that picks rogue judges for the cases that they need support on. I mean, literally goes judge shopping down in Florida, hoping Aileen Cannon will be the judge that gets picked or make sure that their conservative allies get cases in front of Matthew Kacmarek in Texas because he'll do their bidding. I mean, there's something incredibly Orwellian about all of this, Nicole. And having traveled to places like Russia and Myanmar and Hungary where there are dictators, leaderships in place, it's a hallmark of that, right? To sort of turn the world upside down and invert the meaning of language. It's all sort of an absurdist tragedy, right? Like you talk about Obama's fomenting a years long coup and is guilty of seditious conspiracy and the judges here are rogue judges. When you know we have the rogue judges on the Supreme Court who are defying years of established pressure to do Trump's bidding, all of it renders it a bit meaningless, right? These charges become kind of nebulous and it really dismantles a public understanding of the gravity of the situation. And I think just from a layman's perspective, to say nothing of the judicial implications here or the legal implications of all of it, it has an profoundly disjunctive and like incredibly negative effect on our national discourse, our ability to process the wrongdoing here, the wrongness of what's happening with Alina Haba in that position, the wrongness of the charges made by the Director of National Intelligence. I mean, they are stealing the vocabulary for serious wrongdoing and right now seem to be kind of successful at that with at least a certain segment of our population.

Nicole Wallace (47:26)

Yeah, it's look, it's all one story, right? And the asymmetry of Trumpism to me has always been the hardest part of the story to get through. It's the thing that slips through your fingers the minute you try to sort of articulate what has been done today in all of our service. Right. They're all not Trump war. He's not a businessman sitting in his office with a Sharpie circling newspaper articles and faxing them to people like he did as a private citizen. He works for all of us. And it's a perfect articulation of what is upside down. But it also renders so vital the dramatic and violent rupture inside the coalition over what looks like two members of MAGA base, a cover up on the Epstein story. So my thanks to both of you for moving through all those stories with us. Alex Wagner and Andrew Weissman, the best of the best. Thank you so much for spending the hour with us.

Andrew Weissman (48:20)

Thanks, Betty.

Nicole Wallace (48:20)

We're going to sneak in one more break bombshell piece of reporting in the Wall Street Journal, all but ensuring that Republicans will not leave Washington and go home to safe harbors where people want to talk to them about potholes. That's next.

Commercial Announcer (48:40)

Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of their national red tag sales event, now extended through July 27. Stop by any of their participating communities and find select red tag homes at incredible pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red tag sales event extended to July 27th. Discover the Dr. Horton Difference at Dr. Dr. Horton, America's Builder and Equal Housing opportunity Builder.

Nicole Wallace (49:10)

Hey everybody, Ted Danson here to tell you about my podcast with my longtime friend and sometimes co host Woody Harrelson. It's called where everybody knows your name and we're back for another season. I'M so excited to be joined this season by friends like John Mulaney, David Spade, Sarah Silverman, Ed Helms and many more. You don't want to miss it. Listen to where everybody knows your name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson, sometimes wherever you get your podcasts.

Commercial Announcer (49:40)

Cash Flow Crunch on Deck's Small Business.

Andrew Weissman (49:42)

Line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $100,000 when you need it.

Commercial Announcer (49:47)

Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory.

Andrew Weissman (49:50)

Or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat.

Commercial Announcer (49:53)

With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control.

Andrew Weissman (49:56)

Over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently.

Commercial Announcer (49:59)

Apply today@ondeck.com funds could be available as soon as tomorrow.

Andrew Weissman (50:03)

Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic bank on Deck does not lend.

Commercial Announcer (50:07)

In North Dakota all loans an amount.

Andrew Weissman (50:09)

Subject to lender approval.

Richard Blumenthal (50:14)

By shutting Congress down early, Speaker Johnson has assured that August has become the Epstein recess because this issue is going to grow and grow and grow the longer House Republicans dodge this issue.

Nicole Wallace (50:31)

Hi again Everybody. It's now five o'clock in the east. So begins what Chuck Schumer has called the Epstein recess. House Republicans have indeed fled Washington, beginning their summer break early in order to avoid going on the record with any uncomfortable votes on the Epstein case that would force him to choose between their blind loyalty to Donald Trump and their constituents who want answers and have been promised answers for many years now. It's a move our friend Rachel Maddow says will haunt Speaker Mike Johnson while putting up the New York Times headline that reads, quote, johnson Cuts Short House Business to Avoid Vote on releasing Epstein files. Rachel declared this, quote, whatever else Republican House Speaker Mike John and the Congressional Republicans who serve under him ever do in this life. This headline will last forever and ever for their whole blessed lives. Another headline that will likely be haunting Republicans during the recess, this bombshell from the Wall Street Journal. A story that broke this afternoon that we told you about in the last hour. Justice Department telling Donald Trump in May that his name is among many in the Epstein files. From that piece of report in May, Bondi and her deputy informed the President at a meeting in the White House that his name was in the Epstein files. That's according to senior administration officials. Many other high profile figures were also named. Trump was told being mentioned in the records is not a sign of wrongdoing. More from the Journal's report. Quote, Bondi and her deputy told the president at the meeting that the files contained what officials felt was unverified hearsay about many people, including Trump Trump, who had socialized with Epstein in the past, some of the officials said. They also told Trump that senior Justice Department officials didn't plan to release any more documents related to the investigation of the convicted sex offender because the material contained child pornography and victims personal information, the official said. In response to NBC's request for comment, the White House called the Wall Street Journal report fake news, blamed Democrats and the media. Now, as Republican lawmakers head back to their districts, they will be on the defensive trying to sell their unpopular so called big beautiful bill. They will instead likely be faced with demands for more information on the Epstein files, ones that are sure to surge following this new stunning reporting. It is where we start the hour with MSNBC senior contributing editor Michel Nolan. Also joining us, President of Media Matters for America Angelo Caracson is back and managing editor of the Bulwark and MSNBC contributor Sam Stein is here. Michelle, I start with you. What the Wall Street Journal is reporting is so stunning and to see Donald Trump on July 15th. We'll try to pull the sound over. We played it in the last hour. Ask this question directly. Were you told that your name is in the file files? He says no. Wall Street Journal today reporting based on multiple sources that Pam Bondi and her deputy told Donald Trump the opposite, that he is indeed in the Epstein files.

Michelle Norris (53:40)

Reported with great detail and multiple sources. That's important. That means that people inside the call is coming from inside the house. People in the White House are sharing this information. Donald Trump has tried to distort reality on an almost daily basis and he's just not able to do this in this case. It's surreal that this is coming from the Wall Street Journal of all places. But the Wall Street Journal has been a fierce critic of Donald Trump in recent months. And this report is tantamount to taking a beer can of gasoline and pouring it on top of, you know, the embers of this fire, which they are desperate to put out. And they're just not going to be able to do it in the House. You know, they can run home, they can scramble, they can flee, whatever verb you want to use. But this means that the smoke from that fire is going to follow them wherever they go and they're going to face constituents, you know, even those that are not part of the maga, loyal, that are going to want answers on this. And when we see this litany of pictures of Donald Trump standing right next to Jeffrey Epstein, it's just not possible for him to put the fire up.

Nicole Wallace (54:46)

I mean, this might be a dumb question but this is a story that has spread like wildfire in MAGA media circles. Aren't they safer in Washington? Like where they have offices and assistants and like big doors in their big belt? Like, why do, why do they want to go home? SAM STEIN I mean this, their voters who are most MAGA faithful are the ones that are most mad and they don't have any tie to Washington D.C. they hate Washington in D.C. it's not.

Sam Stein (55:17)

A stupid question, it's a question I've been asking, too. Just think about it this way. Like you said, if you're super into Jeffrey Epstein, if you've been following this religiously, if you believe in your bones that there is a global pedophile, satanic ring of leaders that are running this country and may have the goods on Donald Trump, and if you believe that there's a massive coverage up involving the president states, chances are you're probably going to show up at a town hall with your member of Congress to ask him or her about it. So going back home invites these members of Congress to be harassed, questioned, whatever you want to say about the Epstein saga. As for why they're doing it, you, I don't know. I mean, you would think that they would want to at least have a fig leaf of transparency around the Epstein files, maybe a vote that said, yeah, we are interested in seeing some of the disclosures. Perhaps they were relieved when Trump said release the grand jury testimony, although there was a huge setback today on that. But they are in for real confrontations when they get home. And I think they know that too, because you see now some of the members saying, well, we are going to get to this, we will deal with this when we get back in September. But that just invites five, six weeks of questions around this same story storyline.

Nicole Wallace (56:37)

I want to show you, Angelo, Donald Trump saying the opposite of what the Wall Street Journal, as Michelle pointed out, reported today based on several administration, Trump administration sources, this is Donald Trump saying that he was not told by Bondi and her deputy that he was in the files.

Commercial Announcer (56:55)

The Attorney General's handled that very well. She is, she's really done a very good job job. And I think that when you look at it, you'll understand that.

Andrew Weissman (57:04)

What did she tell you about the review?

Nicole Wallace (57:05)

And specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the, in the.

Commercial Announcer (57:10)

No, no, she's, she's given us just a very quick briefing and in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen and I would say that, you know, these files were Made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden in from, you know.

Nicole Wallace (57:29)

I mean, let me just read. Well, I don't need to read the first paragraph. First paragraph says that Donald Trump told by Bondi and her deputy that his name appears in the Epstein files. Angelo, where, where are, where is Trump in terms of his ability to influence this narrative around Epstein?

Alex Wagner (57:51)

He can't really shape the narrative around Epstein anymore. What he can do is take some of the kinetic energy around it and divert it to other things. And that's going to have to be sort of a scatter bomb approach. And this is not novel for him. I mean, you know, a lot of times people think about this as one of Trump's major assets. But I mean, he came out of New York tabloid, you know, New York tabloid. Society understands the concept of a lead steer that you, you push a story and the rest of the media kind of, you know, goes in that direction. So that's where this Obama stuff has come from because it takes some of the kinetic energy out from the audience, you know, from the media circles and from his base and sort of directs it toward animosity toward Obama. And we're seeing that play out in the more traditional political right wing media ecosystem where they're talking a lot more about Obama exponentially in some, in some platforms and you know, obviously less and less and less about Epstein. That's the best that he can do is deflect. But the problem with that, and it gets to the core here, is that he used to be the lead single steer himself, that when he, especially around Epstein, and not just Epstein, but in this broader ability to sort of take this larger QAnon Pizzagate, as Sam pointed out, this gigantic conspiracy of child sex traffickers, demonic interests on the left, in the media all colluding, he's able to really, he used to own all that. He's able to control that and direct that at any point to anything he wanted. That's why he talks about, you know, at least promoted QAnon more than a thousand times on his social platform because he understood the power of that. He can't direct that anymore right now. And in fact, anytime he even attacks, attempts to do that directly, it's just going to backfire and actually move it in the opposite direction. So the best he can do is deflect. The problem is and is exactly what we've seen reported here today is that he has both been contradictory and every piece of new information just fuels the conspiracy even more. It seems increasingly suspicious. And the last thing I would note that I think is key from the Wall Street Journal reporting and we sort of could have inferred this, at least now we see it. It is that eventually the self interest here starts to overtake people. And people like Bongino, they have a lot to lose. That's why you see these Republicans leaving, you know, closing down early because they know they have to take a vote that's going to make Donald Trump mad. But they also know that if they do that, if they don't take that vote, they're going to, it actually has real political consequences. So they're hoping they could just wish it all away. Same thing with Bongino. The Wall Street Journal reported reporting made it pretty clear that Bongino is pretty mad. He's going to be the first one to break. And that's how this thing consistently starts to escalate over time.

Nicole Wallace (60:22)

Let me show you a couple of pieces of sound that folks may not have seen on Earth. One, the first one is Congressman Thomas Massie from Kentucky on Monday about the permanence of this story. Regardless of where they go.

Commercial Announcer (60:40)

This isn't going away. Look, the victims still exist. Epstein's properties and all the misdeeds he still did still exist. It's not going away. And so the speaker should choose wisely.

Sam Stein (60:59)

When he chooses between whether he wants.

Commercial Announcer (61:03)

Transparency and justice or whether he wants, wants to try and protect the President's friends and our intelligence allies.

Nicole Wallace (61:12)

So that's Thomas Massie of Kentucky. And this is what Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X, quote, if you tell the base of people who support you of deep state treasonous crimes, election interference, blackmail and rich, powerful evil elite cabals, then you must take down every enemy of the people. If not, the base will turn and there's no going back. Dangling bits of red meat no longer satisfies. They want the whole steak dinner and will accept nothing less. Now, Sam Stein, it is clear that over the last nine years, and especially the last six months, that Republicans who oppose Hegseth or Patel or tariffs or any manner of things that Trump has done in 2.0 have been reined in by fear. Fear of being primaried is the political fear. And there's some reporting in some places, you know, that they fear political violence. We're in a moment where that isn't, you know, post January 6th. We live in a, in a, in a moment where that isn't theoretical. We're in that moment, right? The thing that is more dangerous than opposing Trump seems to be opposing people who believe this quote, if you tell the base of people who support you of deep state treasonous crimes, then you must take down every enemy of the people. I would be more afraid of that energy, that belief system than someone telling the FBI, you know, nothing to see here, nothing else to release.

Sam Stein (62:42)

Yeah, well, I mean, first of all, it's kind of crazy that Marjorie Taylor Greene is on Earth one with us, right? I mean, that's, that's notable. I think it's where we are these days.

Nicole Wallace (62:51)

She has like a visa. She's visiting.

Sam Stein (62:54)

What kind of visa does she have? How permanent? Look, I think there's something to this. And I think again, it goes back to do you, how do you bottle back up a conspiracy that you fed and that the people around you fed for years and years and years? Right? And if it was just, you know, Trump casually saying, ah, we need to see the files, maybe they could now sort of walk away and whistle, pass it. But it wasn't just Trump, right? It was J.D. vance, like Weeks before the election saying, this is a priority. It was Cash Patel on numerous podcasts saying, this is a priority and we have to do this. It was Dan BONGIN, Donald Trump Jr. I mean, you could just go on and on and on. And there are certain lines that when you say them enough times and when you insist to your followers that this is a huge, existential, earth shattering scandal, you can't just become part of the COVID up and let it just go. And while Angela is right, like some mag influencers and conservative media personalities have followed the president's directives and stopped covering the story. We've seen that, especially with Fox News, which has really drawn back the amount of coverage had. The truth of the matter is that we lived in this kind of balkanized media system in which a lot of people aren't getting their, their news from Fox News. They get it from different outlets and vehicles. And my colleague Will Sommer, who's followed this stuff incredibly closely, says one of the things that's really hampering Trump is that he doesn't, he can't operate as the assignment editor for all of conservative press, all of MAGA press. These people have an audience that they cater to and that they listen to. And that audience is not, not buying all the distraction and diversions. They're not saying, oh, we're going to go arrest Obama now. In fact, they say, okay, cool, arrest Obama. But also, where are the Epstein files? And so I think that's what makes this so hard for Trump is that he can't just flip a switch, get people to move on. And he also laid the predicate. He and his team laid the predicate for a revelation that they are now saying we can't provide.

Nicole Wallace (64:55)

You. Yeah, I mean, Angelo, I think that what has maybe. Well, let me read you this about the Democrats and then we'll talk about the media endeavor Democrats. Politico writes this. Unlike in the past, senior Democrats have shown a surprisingly nimble ability in recent days to pivot to the GOP's vulnerability du jour, threatening to force votes, exposing a divided Republican Party. The strategy has Democrats sounding more like Megyn Kelly, Steve Bannon than Speaker Johnson. Yet it is working. Not only did Jeffries and his members successfully delay passage of a partisan immigration bill this week, amid the GOP dysfunction, they're above the fold news for the first time in months and seeing a groundswell of support online. Let me just bolster that with some pretty reliable public polling. Trump's handling of investigations into Epstein. The number of people who strongly approve it's about half of Trump's base. 22% strongly or somewhat disapproved. 56%. The vast majority of Americans, including close to 90% of Democrats and seniors. 73% of Republicans believe that the government should release all documents it has about Jeffrey Epstein. Two thirds of Americans, including 84% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans, think the government is covering up evidence it has about Epstein. Only 9% of Americans think it isn't. So you've got a conspiracy theory that doesn't just paint the entire MAGA coalition, right? Everyone from the Rogan adherence to Marjorie Taylor Greene and all the Republican elected officials who abandoned any court convictions along the way. To all the Democrats, this is now a belief that Donald Trump's administration is engaged in a cover up of the Epstein files.

Alex Wagner (66:39)

Yeah, I think, and that's the point about Democrats. A couple things to consider. One, as you know, this has escaped containment. It's no longer something that is exclusively limited to right wing media circles and adjacent media. It's in the American zeitgeist now. And so what Democrats, Democrats do is really important not just in the short term for how they maximize this for their own political benefit, but also for how they deal with their own relationship to audiences that maybe not don't have the best opinion of them. And I think sometimes historically what Democrats do is they do sort of a one and done. It's like, well, I did the thing and so now I need to move on to the next, the next outrage. And that's not the way you drive immediate any kind of narrative in this atomized landscape. You need to consistently keep doing it. When it comes to fails the first time, do it again and again and again to demonstrate that you're willing to act accordingly. If you think that there really is something bad here, you need to actually put your action where your mouth is. You actually have to act accordingly. If you really believe that Trump is covering up a child sex trafficking conspiracy of which he may or may not be a part of, but in some way has her invested interest in covering it up, you need to be doing stuff every chance you get to get out there. And people will see that. And it also then so once for your own relationship. And you can capitalize on that trust that you build when it comes time to politicize it. But then in the short term, it makes it a lot harder for the story to go away. And it consistently creates and takes those fractures that are in this atomized landscape and moves them into full blown cracks. And it builds some strange bedfellows, too. You know, we just said something about Marjorie Taylor Greene being on earth form with us. That's weird, but yet it's an accurate reflection of the landscape that we're in right now. And that's the way that these things, these things move. So I think Democrats one shouldn't mess up it up. They have to keep acting accordingly. And the third thing I would say is at some point, don't make it just about Trump. Remember, part of this is about a whole bunch of people in power did a lot of bad things and they got away with it. Take that high ground and make sure that you're making it about something bigger. And it remains to be seen whether or not they mess it up. But so far, so good.

Nicole Wallace (68:37)

I mean, making it about the victims or centering it on the victims would be a good place to go next. Angelo and Sam, thank you both so much for starting us off on all this. Michelle sticks around for the hour. We'll have more on Donald Trump's Epstein crisis and how Democrats are pushing for more transparency with Senator Richard Blumenthal after a short break. Also ahead for us, an Afghan national who came to the United States after working for the United States military, who risked his life for this country, ours is snatched away by armed, masked federal law enforcement officers. We'll tell you about that. All those stories and more when DEADLINE WHITE HOUSE continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Commercial Announcer (69:23)

Release the damn files. Look, it makes no sense to me. One of two things is True. I believe either it's a nothing burger in terms of the evidence we have. Let's separate it from this guy being disgusting and what he did and the systematic trafficking of young people, minor aged people, for sex purposes. But the promise to release the files during the campaign was either overplayed and we got a nothing burger if the files get released, or it's something really disturbing and that's actually even a more compelling reason to release it.

Nicole Wallace (70:05)

You've been listening to Republican Senator Thom Tillis on the Epstein files. Joining our conversation, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Senator, thank you so much for being here.

Richard Blumenthal (70:16)

Thank you for having me.

Nicole Wallace (70:18)

So we are down to 9% of all Americans. That's it. Including 3% of Democrats and 14% of Republicans who think that the Trump administration is not engaged in a cover up. That may be just the members of Mar a Lago. I don't know who they are. But what do you do to make sure that Democrats are seen as fighting for transparency no matter what's in the files?

Richard Blumenthal (70:43)

We're going to insist on the full and fair release of all of those files. In the Department of Justice. We have beseeched and written and urged the Department of Justice to come clean with the American people. And instead, what's happening is one of the most corrupt misuses of power in the history of the Department of Justice. The deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanch, who's about to go to a federal prison where Delaine Maxwell, a convicted felon involved in the Epstein trafficking of children, is going to be interviewed by him. Now, keep in mind that no ordinary person could have have their personal henchmen in the Department of Justice go to secure a cover up as a result of that kind of secret meeting and secret deal, giving her potentially a pardon for providing information favorable to Trump. What ought to happen is a full release of those files. That's what we will insist on happening. And it's really the only solution, Nicole, because at this point, there is such widespread view that a cover up is ongoing. And these thousands of agents that spend hours and hours going through the files and finding Trump's name multiple times, I think attest further to the need for revealing and disclose closing all of those files.

Nicole Wallace (72:18)

What is your reaction to the reporting today in the Wall Street Journal, which Trump sued, I think on Friday or over the weekend for their reporting about a birthday card and an illustration he reportedly gave to Jeffrey Epstein about secrets? What is your reaction to their reporting? One, that it's in the Journal again, and two, that Trump was told by Bondi and Blanche that his name did indeed appear in the Epstein files.

Richard Blumenthal (72:44)

Apparently, he was told as early as last May that his name appeared multiple times. The decision was then made not to disclose the files. That stinks. It smells of a cover up. That's my reaction to the Wall Street Journal report. But my other reaction is thank goodness for the free press in America and for the the Wall Street Journal standing strong and speaking the truth to power and suffering as a result the condemnation from Trump and his personal henchmen.

Nicole Wallace (73:20)

You seem skeptical that Ted Blanche is going to seek Elaine Maxwell with anything in the vein of transparency on the agenda. Would you offer to go with him if he offered to take a Democratic member of the Judicial Judiciary Committee along for his field trip to see Ms. Maxwell?

Richard Blumenthal (73:38)

I'd go with him. But I take my lawyer, too. I take my staff. I would take other members of the Senate. But here's what should happen, Nicole, rather than Richard Blumenthal going with Todd Blanche, which in my view would raise similar questions of impropriety because it would be a secret meeting and potentially with Todd Blanche, remember, he's the deputy attorney General of the United States, second in command. We need her to testify in public, under oath, on the record for all of the American people to see transparently and openly so they can judge whether she's telling the truth. And at the end of the day, full disclosure of the Fox files so we know what is there, what was presented to the grand jury in Florida, especially now that the court apparently has denied access to those grand jury transcripts, the full files.

Nicole Wallace (74:41)

I want to ask you about Emil Bove, who I think instigated the first widespread walkout of US Attorneys in the second Trump presidency over the dismissal of the Eric Adams case. He's now careening toward a confirmation vote. He's someone that the Wall Street Journal again enters into the Bovey story by on their editorial page calling him a smash mouth politician. Your thoughts on the lack of any Republicans? I think with the exception of Lisa Murkowski joining Democrats and opposing someone like this for the bench.

Richard Blumenthal (75:15)

Nicole, I wish I could say I'm surprised by the lack of Republican opposition to this plainly unfit, unqualified nominee for one of the highest judicial positions in the United States, this nominee actually abused power as an assistant United States attorney when he participated in failing to disclose files. He urged colleagues just in March of 2024 that maybe they would tell judges to go f themselves to dissipate court orders. He is plainly unqualified. But my Republican colleagues actually closed the meeting that we had just last week without hearing from a whistleblower with more derogatory information. They refused to give us the opportunity to speak, speak our minds before the vote was taken. They are, in effect, running roughshod over the rules of the Senate in their hasty effort to conceal all the bad information. And I would not anticipate that there's going to be any significant number of Republican votes against him. I'd be surprised if there's more than one or two. They're carefully controlling the number of their Republican colleagues were allowed, in effect, to do the right thing.

Nicole Wallace (76:42)

Extraordinary. I want to ask you about one more story, Senator. It's a story you've helped bring to the forefront about a former Afghan interpreter who helped members of the US Military. He was detained by masked ICE agents. He's identified only as Zia by members of Congress and his attorney out of concern for his safety and the safety of his family. He was in the United States of America legally. He was arrested after an appointment in Connecticut related to his application for a green card under a program to protect people who worked for and with U.S. forces. And that's according to human rights advocates. His attorney and members of Congress. Asked to comment on this story, the Department of Homeland Security said he's under investigation for a serious criminal allegation. But his attorney, Lauren Peterson, said he was approved for humanitarian parole in 2024 due to a direct threat from Afghanistan's Taliban rule. She said he has no criminal history. And when asked about DHS saying he's under investigation for a serious criminal allegation, she said she had no understanding of what they're referring to. Senator, I know you're involved in fighting for his release. You describe what happened to him as. As, quote, the worst kind of abhorrent violation of basic decency. Tell us what you are hoping to be able to do and what you're doing behind the scenes. I mean, have you called the White House? Have you called Kristi Noem about this?

Richard Blumenthal (78:07)

We're in the midst of a fight, Nicole, for a promise that America made to Zia s. It's a promise they made to him in Afghanistan when he worked as a transition. Later, he put his life on the line and his family's well being. His brother was seized in Afghanistan by the Taliban and tortured. He escaped to this country with special immigrant status granted by the chief of mission in Afghanistan. He is among thousands of Afghan allies for whom I have fought over the years together with our veterans. Two of my sons served during this period of time. One is a combat infantry officer in Afghanistan. He brought over his translator who helped him there. The other is a Navy seal. And our veterans know well that these Afghan allies who serve to help our troops, in fact, save many of their lives, lives now have targets on their back if they are sent to Afghanistan. And their families are under threat as well. There is no evidence of criminal history here on the part of Zia. There is no excuse for treating him in this absolutely abhorrent way. The only reason that ICE is seizing him and trying to fast track his deportation is to make their quotas. And keep in mind that if we treat Afghan allies in this way, people who serve our men and women in uniform as well as our diplomats, we won't be able to count on any similar help in future situations where we're counting on local citizens to help save safe and protect the lives of our men and women who are in uniform or as diplomats, and so put aside the decency that's being violated, the laws that are being abridged. It's a fundamental breach of our national security. I feel so passionately, but also so grateful to our veterans who have stepped forward. Shawn Van Driver, Paul Wright, Reitman Rykoff. These kinds of veterans who have helped to lead the movement to help save these veterans are really doing the best kind of patriotism and serving their fellow veterans.

Nicole Wallace (80:41)

Well, we're going to talk to Paul Reichoff about this very story as soon as we're done here with you. So it's nice to know that he's working with your office in trying to help these folks who, you're right, they risked everything to help the United States of America and deserve far, far, far better than this. Senator Richard Blumenthal, thank you for your time today. Paul Rykoff joins us with much more on this story after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Commercial Announcer (81:17)

I am in awe of Savour. I'm in awe of what he did when I was there. He was a. He was an interpreter. He was far more than that. He was our adviser, and not just for me, but for hundreds and hundreds of US And NATO troops that came through where he worked. He poured himself into the.

Jonathan Chait (81:32)

He was indispensable.

Commercial Announcer (81:33)

Nothing happened without the man that you're looking at on the screen for Americans and our mission in Afghanistan. We could not have accomplished what we did without Sabour and Habib and other men and women like that. And what we're doing right now is, as we close those gates, is we are closing the door on their hopes and their dreams and on that belief that America would be there for them when they needed us the most.

Nicole Wallace (81:58)

That was Pete Hegseth. He said those things in 2021. He's now, of course, the country's defense secretary. But in that interview, he was speaking about a hero, an American hero. Afghan translator Sabor Shakazada Hegseth was on Fox News, and he was advocating for his friends to get help for his translator and his family and to get them out of harm's way as the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan. Joining our conversation now is host of the Independent Americans podcast, founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America. Paul Rykoff's here. Michelle's still with us. Paul, you were name checked by the senator for your important work and advocating for these heroes, these people who helped keep men and women Americans alive. Your thoughts about this story that the senators helped draw attention to, and I'm sure you're working behind the scenes on Nicole.

Paul Rykoff (82:55)

In my over 20 years in the veterans and national security space, I've never seen an issue that unites our community more than this one. I mean, you've got Pete Hegseth and Bloom and agree that betraying our allies is awful. It's outrageous. It's un American. It's bad for our national security. It's bad for our allies. But there's another really important part of this. This violates a sacred compact with our veterans. Veterans are experiencing some deep moral trauma when they hear that the people that they promised that we would keep safe, that our government promised we would keep safe, people who died for us, people who were wounded, people who took bullets for us, are now being hung out to dry. And even worse, they're being dragged off of our streets. And the way the Taliban did it in Afghanistan. I've got two Iraqi interpreters that live in America now, ESAM and Mohammed, who are shining examples of what can happen. We got them out, and they're here and they're thriving. Another one of my interpreters, Sid, is still in Iraq, and I don't know how he's doing, but we are betraying not just our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but our allies around the world. And we're in such deep conflict with our American values that I hope this sends a shock across all parties and all Americans to understand that this is not what we do in America. And it's got veterans outraged. It's got our allies hanging out to dry, and it's got our enemies celebrating. If this is what you do to your allies, Putin, the North Koreans, everyone else are celebrating this moment in American history.

Nicole Wallace (84:24)

Well, Paul, what is the status and what is the prospect for helping and protecting these folks from the mass deportation program that Trump is implementing?

Paul Rykoff (84:36)

Like everything else, it's in flux. And we're now hearing about at least I think, two or three Afghan interpreters who've been dragged off the streets by masked American agents. Right. ICE agents. It's so demented because it's exactly the kind of stuff we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now to see that kind of authoritarian ridiculousness happening here at home is really infuriating. But it's also unifying because veterans are now working together. You know, Sean Vandiver, who the senator mentioned, and countless other folks across the veterans community have created kind of an underground railroad over the last 20 years for our Iraqi and Afghan allies. And they are uniting. And now American veterans are being paired with these Afghan allies to be kind of bodyguards, to be one watchdogs, to say, you know, if you're going to be in this situation, I'm going to be standing next to you. I will be your voice. So this is going to be a really important, galvanizing, organizing moment, not just for the veterans community, but I think for all Americans. And veterans are going to lead the way. We're going to stand with our brothers and sisters who saved our lives, even if that includes standing up to ICE agents and pushing to change these ridiculous policies that are hurting us all.

Nicole Wallace (85:45)

I mean, Michel, it's certainly, I mean, cross pressure isn't the right word, but it's certainly pressure pressures Donald Trump in an area where he likes to think he does a decent job. We know that's not true. He does a terrible job for the men and women of the military, for US national security and in terms of keeping the faith with our allies. But a real test as to whether or not they can walk and chew gum, as well as a test of Pete Hegseth's sort of moxie and power in the Cabinet. Can he help these folks?

Michelle Norris (86:18)

I think they've already failed that test. You know, he says he cares about veterans, but look what's happened in the so called big beautiful bill and the cuts that they've made to veterans services. They claim to care about police officers and look at the way that they pardoned all those J6 folks that were involved in January 6th in the marauding of the Capitol without thought to the police officers that were either killed or hurt or still suffering because of what happened there. I mean, our friend Paul just said that this doesn't happen in America. I think we have to acknowledge that it does, it does happen. It is happening. And in this case, it happened to someone who was absolutely following everything that he should be doing. He was picked up while he was at a biometrics appointment which was required for his green card. He had a Special Immigrant Visa S1V SIV. So that he was on the path to doing this the right way. And he's someone who, who protected Americans. There are Americans who are alive today who are going to go home and have dinner with their families because of the work. The interpreters like this. And I am so glad to hear that the veterans are standing up to support them. I think you're probably going to see confrontations of the like where clergy are actually accompanying, accompanying some of the immigrants who are showing up for their immigration hearings. And it will be interesting when that happens. If the veterans are, are basically standing toe to toe with ICE agents, I don't think that's going to be very easy for ICE agents to comfortably carry out those deportations. I'm so glad, though, that you began this with Pete Hesseth and his words, because I think that that was the true Pete Hesseth. I think he actually does care about interpreters and he is actually marching to orders that he probably is not comfortable with. And maybe we can take a little bit of comfort in that and knowing that somewhere deep down inside he knows how important these people are, are how important they were to the men and women who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and that they deserve better than they're getting right now.

Nicole Wallace (88:14)

All right, we'll stick with the category of Pete Hegseth News in our next conversation. Coming up for us, the Trump administration tried to claim that Pete Hegseth never shared classified information on a group chat. Brand new reporting knocks that down once and for all. We'll bring you that reporting next. We're back with Paul and Michelle. Paul, the Washington Post today is reporting that Heg says signal messages came from email classified secret. Your thoughts on this scandal that won't go away.

Paul Rykoff (88:51)

Remember Gomer Pyle? Surprise, surprise. Like, who is surprised by this? I mean, this is exactly what we've been sounding the alarm about for months. It's not, not over. They violated protocol. They exposed operational security, they put lives in danger and they're hoping, you forget. They're hoping that they can spin it into something else. But it's a serious issue. The serious of the highest level. And we don't even know if it's over. They could still be using these unsecure chats. They could still be using other unsecure methods. And they want to just, you know, wave the magic wand and act like they're pulling a mind trick on you. I mean, everybody in the national security community knows that this is still an issue and they must be be held accountable. If it was a private, if it was private, Pete Hegseth, he'd be in Leavenworth right now and handcuffs are in a jail cell. So it shouldn't be any different if he's a secretary of defense who is.

Nicole Wallace (89:41)

Responsible at this point for making sure that there's oversight or something as basic of classified information being shared on Pete Hegsest signal app.

Paul Rykoff (89:54)

Everybody, I mean, this is the thing you learn in basic training is at loose lifts sink ships, and everybody is responsible and everybody's accountable. So I've argued from the beginning that anybody who even went on to that signal chat was screwing up and should have been held accountable. Even if they didn't put anything out, they knew what was happening, they were aware of what's happening, and they were compromising themselves and each other. So I think some members of Congress, especially veterans, have been trying to push forward some accountability. I think that needs to be more bipartisan. I want to see folks like Seth Moulton and Don Baker coming together. We need senators from both aisles coming together and forcing accountability because I'm going to keep coming back to this. He's overseeing operations every single day. And this is a pattern. So if it hasn't been corrected or even acknowledged, they could keep doing it. And next time it could literally mean people's lives. They got lucky this time. Nobody died because they disclosed this operational security information. But next time it could be much worse.

Nicole Wallace (90:53)

Well, we understand from reporting that hasn't been updated that he put a computer in his office to continue to be able to communicate on non secure channels. Paul?

Paul Rykoff (91:05)

Yeah, they don't. They think the rules don't apply to them. I mean, and it's outrageous because you're supposed to have the highest standard possible if you're in leadership in the military. And I wonder what Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld would say if a private was caught doing the kind of stuff that these guys have been doing that Hegseth specifically has been doing. So it's about standards, which in the military they've been talking a lot about raising standards and improving the warrior ethos. Well, that means ensuring that the standards are in place and that they're in place for everyone. So there shouldn't be one set of rules for the political appointees and another set of rules for the men and women who are in combat right now and putting their lives on the the line.

Nicole Wallace (91:45)

Paul Rykoff and Michelle Norris, thank you both so much for spending time with us today. One more break for us. We'll be right back.

Commercial Announcer (91:55)

I just shot a movie called Reykjavik. Hardest thing I've ever done because I had to come up with a Ronald Reagan. It was the 1986 meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev. They met in Reykjavik, Iceland, in a little house to discuss lowering nuclear weapons. Because we were at a, it was a, as I researched it, it was like, oh, my God, were we close? And there's a story there, especially now with Trump and Putin and what that relationship is. Reagan and Gorbachev was not that. I mean, he says things in, in, in the Reykjavik movie that we got from the transcript. He tells Gorbachev, we are a nation of immigrants, giants. And he's for that.

Nicole Wallace (92:46)

Jeff Daniels has made a career playing moral giants and towering figures. ATTICUS Finch, Will McAvoy in the newsroom, James Comey. And next up for him, as he discusses Ronald Reagan. Jeff Daniels is my guest on this week's episode of the Best People podcast. Scan the QR code to watch on YouTube or download this week's episode where every wherever you get your podcasts. One more break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes tonight. We are grateful.

Richard Blumenthal (93:17)

Hi there, it's Andy Richter, and I'm.

Commercial Announcer (93:19)

Here to tell you about my podcast, the Three Questions with Andy Richter. Each week I invite friends, comedians, actors and musicians to discuss these three questions. Where do you come from? Where are you going?

Richard Blumenthal (93:31)

And what have you learned?

Commercial Announcer (93:32)

New episodes are out every Tuesday with guests like Julie Bowe and Ted Danson, Tig Notaro, Will Arnett, Phoebe Bridgers, and more. You can also tune in for my weekly Andy Richter call in show episodes where me and a special guest invite callers to weigh in on topics like dating, disasters, bad teachers, and lots more. Listen to the three Questions with Andy Richter wherever you get your podcasts.