A (3:33)

It's definitely their plan. One thing that has been a constant throughline of Donald Trump's political career is having really incompetent lawyers. I mean, if you remember, this is a guy who lost more than 60 cases along with his allies after the 2020 election. He didn't actually have much luck in any of the defamation or other lawsuits he filed, except where folks capitulated and decided that they were going to settle bogus claims. And his Department of Justice is the gang that can't shoot straight. I mean, it is, it is not just in this criminal case where they are definitely unable to shoot straight. It is also in all of these court cases around the country where you see them losing. So what they do is they, they make outrageous legal claims that don't have merit. They find lawyers who are willing to sacrifice their own integrity to make those claims. And then when they fail, as they will in the Comey case and the James case and others, they then lash out and tell lies. And so whether it was the big lie about the 2020 election or it's lies now about, about the judge in Virginia or its lies that they are telling about judges or, you know, cases out in the country involving ICE detentions, this is just what this administration does. It is what Donald Trump demands in terms of loyalty from his, from people who work for him. And it's a really sad day or a sad time in America, but it's good for the rule of law that at least the judges are standing up.

C (5:05)

Well, Lisa, can you think of another example where you have seen an attorney complain about a judge in the press.

D (5:11)

Yes, I have, but it's been in this administration. So recently the Federalist Society had its annual convention. And at that convention, Todd Blanche sat for a fireside chat, Todd Blanche being the deputy Attorney general. And he made some comments about the judges that have ruled against President Trump, calling them radical and rogue. And he characterized the administration's sort of policy fights right now as a war against the federal judiciary, a war in which they were recruiting active soldiers to come and join the Justice Department in standing up for what they consider to be justice. But putting aside this administration, have I seen that before? It's not common to see US Attorneys go out and attack judges. I don't think I've ever seen that particular circumstance happen before.

C (5:57)

Well, I mean, Andrew, the stakes are high here. It's happening at a time when threats against judges are soaring. You had the New York Times reporting on data for U.S. marshals back in the end of May of this year that showed, quote, in the five month period leading to March 1st of this year, 80 individual judges had received threats. The data shows then over the next six weeks, an additional 162 judges received threats. A dramatic increase. That rise coincides with Trump's attacks on judges who ruled against the administration. So the point here is they know what they are doing, Andrew. They know what the stakes are, and yet they continue undeterred.

E (6:34)

Well, look, one of the last checks that we have in the system is the federal judiciary. And that is why, as Lisa noted, you have Todd Blanche saying, we have a war. That's the Deputy Attorney General's words, a war on the judiciary. He described them as all sort of radicals. But that would include judges that Donald Trump himself appointed. It would include Judge Wilkinson in the 4th Circuit, a leading light of the conservative judiciary. And it comes with poor grace when we're talking about Lindsey Halligan, where the courts are looking into whether she had violated the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the attorney client privilege, and was sort of grossly incompetent in the way that she presented the case. Those are serious charges. Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, attorney client privilege violations are all being investigated. And her response as a member of the Department of Justice is to go to a tabloid and say, I don't like the judge. He called me a puppet when he didn't. I mean, that is the level that we are dealing with at this point on the war on the judiciary. The last check that we have in a system that's supposed to have checks and balances.

C (7:53)

Well, Lisa, you and I both have two daughters, so we are accustomed to litigating fights like this. She called me this name. Yes, she did. No, she didn't. But let's just. I want to read you come Attorney Michael Dreeben's response to this judge's question. I don't want to use language about Ms. Halligan that suggests anything other than she did what she was told to do. The President of the United States has the authority to direct prosecutions. She worked in the White House. She was surely aware of the President's directive. She didn't have prosecutorial experience, but she took on the job to come to the U.S. attorney's office and carry out the President's directive. And this was a directive to the Attorney General. I think we know that the Attorney General is highly responsive to the President's directives. She doesn't say, excuse me, Mr. President, this is my job. We're talking here fundamentally about the lack of DOJ independence.

D (8:40)

We are. And I think one of the things that's most stunning about the quote that you just read is that Dreeben himself, a former deputy Solicitor general, is acknowledging in his presentation to the judge that the President of the United States has the authority to direct prosecutions because no one has ever said before that the President doesn't have that authority. It's sort of in the post Watergate era that the norms were that it was improper and inappropriate for the President to direct those prosecutions. Not that he doesn't have the authority itself. But what Mr. Drubin is also referring to here is when he's talking about the directive, he's talking about the tweet to Pam Bondi in which he says that they need to move fast in going after Tish James, Adam Schiff, Jim Comey, and then follows up by saying that Lindsey is ready and that she likes you. It's within a matter of days that Lindsey Halligan brings this case. And that's one of the things that the judge here was looking into. How do you explain this as anything other than following the directions of the President of the United States? When someone with no prosecutorial experience comes into this office, sees that directive, knows that there is a declination memo on the table, and yet makes a decision four days later to charge Jim Comey, how is that anything but the retribution that the President has promised?

C (10:04)

Let's talk, Andrew, about that declination memo and what it is that we have learned in the last few days about that declination memo, because it became a subject of questioning here. This is, according to the New York Times, one of Ms. Halligan's subordinates, Tyler Lemons, acknowledged that someone in the Deputy Attorney General's office had instructed him not to discuss in open court whether his predecessors had or had not written a memo laying out their reasons for not bringing charges because that was privileged information. So we'll talk about that. In the end, Mr. Lemons, appearing unnerved under questioning, confessed that the prosecutors who had previously handled the case had indeed written a draft of a memo declining prosecution. There's the amateur hour of it all, but there's also the confirmation of all the reporting that we have read about the fact that there were folks inside this office said, there is no, they're there, we should not be bringing these charges. And that is why Lindsey Halligan is here leading the amateur hour.

E (11:04)

So, look, first there's the obvious. The obvious is that the Trump appointed Attorney general, I mean, sorry, U.S. attorney in that district, resigned because he would not do the case. And none of the U.S. attorneys, none of the federal prosecutors in that office are on this case because they're not willing to do the case. So the people who are standing up to do the case are from another their office. So it is obvious that there is a huge amount of protest. That being said, I want to make sure people understand sort of the legal position of the department. Under normal circumstances, there is nothing wrong when someone says, tell me, a judge says, tell me about internal deliberations, who is foregoing forward with the case, who was against going forward with the case. That normally is the kind of thing that the department would say that is subject to a deliberative process privilege. So I'm not at all surprised by that position. You know, let's say there was a vote and eight people were four and two were against. That's not something that a judge or anyone's normally entitled to. The reason it's a problem here is because of the selective and vindictive prosecution motion that has such merit. And the issue of whether they overrode a declination memo goes right to the heart of the issue of vindictive and selective prosecution, meaning that even though all these career people and even a political appointee were against it, they went forward. And so under that circumstance, it is appropriate for the judge to ask for that or to at least have briefing on that issue to say, you know what, normally there's a deliberate process privilege, but it's going to take second place here to the defense being able to really be able to advance their motion. So that's sort of how I see that issue. But it's obvious that there, there was a declination memo and career people and even political people were against this prosecution.

C (13:08)

Well, Mark, on that topic of vindictive prosecution, I want you to take a listen to something former Trump lawyer Ty Cobbs had to say.

A (13:18)

Oh, this case is going to be thrown out. And this is only one of the reasons. I mean, it's a, it's a, vindictive prosecution, B, Halligan was not legally appointed.

E (13:25)

And C, the prosecutorial misconduct here is.

A (13:28)

So severe that almost any, any judge would, would toss it, with the possible.

E (13:32)

Exception of Eileen Cannon in Florida.

A (13:34)

So I think this, this case is dead. Well, I think, I think Halligan and.

E (13:39)

Bondi for sure could face disciplinary action because Bondi has twice affirmed the purported legitimacy of, of Halligan's grand jury presentation before the court. And you know, that, that those affirmations.

A (13:56)

You know, were false.

E (13:57)

There's no way that any seasoned prosecutor could say this was done, according to Hoyt, no way. And Halligan, definitely.

C (14:07)

What is so interesting, Mark, is that they can at once be so hyper competent in their dismantling of multiple branches of government, multiple agencies, the fact that they wrote down this multi year plan and they actually seem to be following it and at the same time so deeply incompetent on the basic blocking and tackling. You talk a lot about what is supposed to give us hope for the future of democracy and the need to fight. In some ways, their incompetence is a silver lining here.

A (14:41)

Absolutely. I mean, you know, let's start with the fact that I don't really understand the fake outrage by Bondi and Halligan. I mean, of course she's a puppet. I mean, like, she was put there to be a puppet. I assume she's actually a pretty proud puppet. Like, I'm surprised she like finds that an insult. I mean, what better to ingratiate herself with the puppet master Donald Trump than to admit and to exalt the fact that you are there to just do whatever he asks, regardless of what the rules are, regardless of what the law, regardless of what the ethics are. And so, you know, you are right though, that that is their great weakness. They are very good at breaking things. They are not good at doing things that are other than pure random destruction. You know, Doge was not strategic. Doge was just breaking things. They're gutting the federal agencies is not strategic. It's just breaking things. And the problem is when you go to court, you know, in many respects courts are very practical places. Right? You have to not just follow rules. But you have to like, move towards an ultimate goal. If you are a prosecutor who brings a case, you have to ultimately move towards a trial. And like, like, they just don't do anything like that. They don't do anything constructive. So it is good news for democracy. It is good news that we are seeing the courts stand up over and over again. And it is great that that's the case. While also recognizing while also recognizing that for James Comey and tish James and Lamonica MacGyver and, you know, a whole bunch of other people, they are bearing an enormous price, an enormous burden in lost sleep and in legal fees and in reputational damages because Donald Trump is surrounded by these sycophant puppets and they should not be able to get away with it. They should pay a price, whether it's ethics bar, whether it's public shunning, whatever it is. They should pay a price for what they are trying to do to destroy democracy, even though their incompetence may be our savior.

C (16:34)

Let's talk about that. Because, Lisa, you had some news about DOJ now contesting what they admitted yesterday.

D (16:41)

Yes. So the big news from yesterday's hearing was the admission by Tyler Lemons that the ultimate two count indictment against James Jim Comey was never presented to the full grand jury, nor was it voted upon by the full grand jury. And yet today, just within the last couple of hours, the Department of Justice has submitted something they call a notice in which they are now contesting the very admissions that both Tyler Lemons and Lindsey Halligan made in court yesterday, saying that a transcript of the proceedings at which the indictment was returned on September 25 showed that of course the grand jury voted on it because they are quoting the foreperson and they are attempting to push off on the foreperson of the jury a mistake that they themselves admitted yesterday in open court, that they made a mistake so stunning that according to R. Fallon Gallagher, who was in court, you could hear a pin drop because of the stunned silence. It's the sort of reversal that literally gives a reporter whiplash. I can't even imagine what the Comey people are thinking right now because as Michael Dreeben said in court yesterday, if that is in fact the case, not only do you have to dismiss the indictment, but it is the kind of error that warrants a dismissal with prejudice because it's as if the indictment never happened, that would make the indictment invalid. And since the matter is now time barred, it would evaporate. There would be no case against Jim Comey, nor would there be a case that could be brought against Jim Comey on these facts?

C (18:12)

Is it also foundation for censure for disbarment?

D (18:16)

I think that. Are you talking about the reversal itself or assuming that what they admitted to yesterday actually happened?

C (18:22)

Both, either.

D (18:23)

Well, let's start with what happened yesterday. I think whether or not it's a disbarment is not for me to judge. But I would say that it seems as if what happened before the grand jury itself could be grounds for a complaint to the Colorado bar, for example, where Lindsey Halligan is licensed. And that's true of every state bar in the country. We all as attorneys have an obligation of candor. And that obligation exists, by the way, Alicia, whether you're in court or you're not. That was the basis for Rudy Giuliani's disbarment because when he went on cable television repeatedly after the 2020 election, he was found by the New York State Bar to have lied repeatedly about what actually transpired, that not anything he did in court, not any criminal allegations against him, that was the basis for his losing his license. Now, if Lindsey Halligan went before the grand jury and she misrepresented fundamental precepts of the law, if she stood there as a foreperson misrepresented to a magistrate judge, exactly how that indictment came about, that strikes me as something that someone could complain about.

C (19:28)

Lisa Rubin, I am always so grateful when I get to sit at the table with you. Thank you so much, Mark and Andrew, you are sticking around. When we come back, we're going to talk with Mark about what was a week wild and blistering dissent from a judge slamming the ruling that struck down the Texas redistricting maps. We're going to show you some of that. Plus, the order to release the Jeffrey Epstein files has gotten the very, very reluctant signature of one Donald Trump. But exactly when and what is going to be made public is still an open question. We'll look at what could hold this up again coming up. And later in the show, ratcheting up the rhetoric, Donald Trump calling for the arrest of the what he calls traitors to our country, Democrats who are questioning the legality of actions from the Pentagon. All those stories and more when DEADLINE White HOUSE continues after this.

D (20:16)

The holidays are the most wonderful time of the year. To save with Rakuten, use Rakuten to.

C (20:21)

Get cash back on gifts for everyone on your list, from toys to kitchen gear to electronics. Cash back is automatically added to your account and you can get paid with gift cards, PayPal or check join for free today and get a new member bonus after minimum qualifying purchases. Go to rakuten.com, download the app or install the browser extension.

D (20:41)

That's R A K U T E.

C (20:42)

N Terms and conditions apply. Hi, it's Eva Longoria and let's be real.

D (20:47)

After 40 we should ask for more from our skincare I swear by Revitalift.

C (20:53)

Triple Power Moisturizer by l' Oreal Paris with Vitamin C pro, retinol and hyaluronic acid. It reduces my retinoids, wrinkles, firms and brightens. And it's not a procedure, it's just.

A (21:05)

A hard working moisturizer.

D (21:07)

Revitalift Triple Power Moisturizer by l' Oreal Paris.

C (21:10)

Grab it today in fragrance free or with SPF 30.

D (21:13)

Available at your local Walmart.

B (21:15)

AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI transformation@rubrik.com that's R U V R I K.com.

C (21:47)

A glimmer of much needed hope for democracy this week in the nationwide redistricting fight. A fight started by the GOP in Texas at Donald Trump's urging now sees Democrats with the upper hand. After a panel of judges blocked Texas from using their redrawn Republican friendly maps in next year's midterm elections, the judges found the map is likely an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The lone judge on the panel that voted against the decision was left quite unhappy, penning a blistering dissent filled with personal insults. Judge Jerry Smith began his dissenting opinion, writing, quote, fasten your seatbelts before launching a litany of attacks on the decision, the plaintiffs in the case, the Soros family, California Governor Gavin Newsom and his colleagues. He reserved his harshest criticism for the judge who penned the majority opinion, Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Donald Trump appointee. Judge Smith writing, quote, if there were a Nobel Prize for fiction, Judge Brown's opinion would be a prime candidate. This is the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed, adding, quote, judge Brown prefers living in fantasy land. It's deeply unusual for a dissent to be filled with more attacks like those, but Judge Smith's opinion got a stamp of approval from none other than Attorney General Pam Bondi. She wrote this about Smith's dissent, quote, couldn't have said it better Myself. And we are back with Mark Elias. All right, Mark, this was your case. Your reaction to this dissent?

A (23:18)

Yeah, I've never read anything like it. I was actually in the middle of preparing for a Supreme Court argument that I have next month, and someone said, you need to read the dissenting opinion in the Texas case case, which is unusual because as you point out, we had already won the Texas case. We just hadn't gotten the dissenting opinion. We'd gotten the majority opinion, which was written, as you point out, by a district court judge appointed originally by Donald Trump to the bench. And that was a really thoughtful opinion. And we were still waiting for Republicans to take that to the U.S. supreme Court. And in walks this dissent, which, as you say, is quite unusual. First of all, I would point out for just for the people watching, there actually is a Nobel Prize for literature. So, you know, just point of clarification there, but it not only attacks the judge who wrote the opinion, but it mentions George Soros 17 times. It actually mentions me by name in connection.

C (24:13)

Do you want me to read you. Do you want me to read you that part, Elias? Do you want to recite it for us? Okay, here's what it says about Mark and his law firm and George Soros. The Elias Law Group draws from the George Soros coffers, counsel for the Instant Gonzalez plaintiffs, David Fox is a partner at Elias Elias, which has collected more than $104 million from Democrat Party committees and donors, including Mr. Soros. Firm chair, Mark Elias formed entities tucked inside large existing nonprofits that raised tens of millions of dollars from some of the richest donors on the left, including from foundations funded by Mr. Soros. Okay, so that's three just in that paragraph there. Your response, Mark?

A (24:53)

Right. So I mean, let's just start with the fact that in this case, as a law firm and as lawyers, we represented 13 individuals who are black and Hispanic, who suffered. Who suffered constitutional harm at the hands of the Republican legislature of Texas. And so we were vindicating their civil rights, their constitutional rights. And I am proud that the work that my law firm did to do that, I literally have no idea why I would be singled out by name. One of my partners would be singled out by name. And our connection to the Democratic Party, which, by the way, there are lots of sources you could use to say we're connected with the Democratic Party. I proudly represent the Democratic Party, although not in this case. In this case, we represented these 13 voters. And then George Soros, who, you know, like, I don't. As far as I Know, I mean, he doesn't vote in Texas. I'm unaware of any relationship he has to this case. And it just is highly, highly inappropriate, to say the least. It is wildly unusual, and I'm not sure that he is doing any favors to his side in this, in making these ad hominem attacks. But, you know, these are like the times we live in. And the only thing that we can do is litigate these cases on the merits, make the best legal arguments. We can, try to convince judges, including those appointed by Donald Trump in this instance that we're right. And in this instance, we were right that the state of Texas discriminated against black and Latino voters by targeting them with a racial gerrymander. And the fact is that was done because Donald Trump wanted it done. The map was drawn at the direction of the White House and the rnc. And I'm glad that we played a part in undoing that.

C (26:33)

Well, when he ran out of energy for you and for Soros, he turned to the judge who penned the majority opinion. Again, as you said, a Trump appointee. Why? What do you think that was about? And what happens to the rule of law when the arguments become so personal, not just to folks on the outside, but folks on the inside?

A (26:57)

Yeah, I have no idea why he is attacking this particular district court judge. I mean, it is. It is a. You read the opinion, and he is citing internal communications, and he's citing emails and voicemails. I mean, his. His overall complaint seems to be that he was not given enough time to review the majority opinion, to write his dissent. Okay. I mean, I have no idea if he was. I have no idea if he wasn't like, you know, that that's sort of between him and the judges. I'm not sure why, what that has to do with the merits of the case or dissent. And again, I just want to keep coming back, understand why any of that relates to me. My partner, my law firm, George Soros, and work that my firm proudly does. It's on our website. He didn't need to go find citations. He could have looked on our website. We proudly represent the Democratic Party in many instances. In this case, though, we were representing 13 black and Latino voters. And, and like, a judge should know that, that law firms have clients, clients, and we represent the clients in court. And, you know, he includes a footnote saying he's not trying to impugn any of the quality lawyering and that we're all ethical lawyers and, you know, and all of that. But, but, boy, if that's the case, then what the hell are you doing with these ad hominem attacks about George Soros?

C (28:12)

I mean, listen, I appreciate that you are confused and I think that's because you are still operating in a court of law and not a court of public opinion, which is what increasingly it seems that these dissents are being written for. Listen, just sort of big picture here. As I was reading news and following all the back and forth, I was thinking about the fact that at the outset of this redistricting fight, it seemed perhaps implausible, impossible that Democrats would have the upper hand. It seemed that way to a lot of people. It never seemed that way to you. And I wonder what you saw or intuited that the rest of us did not.

A (28:47)

Yeah, I'm glad you pointed that out. I mean, you know, I have been writing and speaking out about this redistricting from the moment that Donald Trump said he wanted Texas to redraw and at every stage thereafter after Texas passed its map. I said on TV on MSNow, I wrote about in democracy docket that don't assume that what Texas did is going to stand because what Texas did violates the Constitution. It doesn't violate the Constitution. Sort of from a left wing jurisprudential standpoint. It actually violates the Constitution from a right wing jurisprudence. And all I ask people to do is have patience and not jump to conclusions and not assume that Republicans are going to run the table here and to give those of us who are fighting in court at least the opportunity to make our case before people jump to conclusions. And so here we are and we won the case in Texas. And you know, like the, you know, the Washington Post I think, said that it was a big surprise. And I was like, surprised to who? Like, wasn't surprised to me. It wasn't a surprise to people who were listening to what I was saying. And that's not being arrogant. Like, it's not. I wasn't certain we were going to win and I'm not certain we're going to win before the Supreme Court, but we're making good legal arguments and to the point you had in the last segment about Halligan and you know, and Pam Bondi and I made this point there. Like, they don't make very good legal decisions because they are constantly undermining the law with their own short term politics. And this case in Texas got bollocks up from the very beginning because Pam Bondi's Department of Justice sent a letter to Greg Abbott boasting that they needed to racially gerrymander and Greg Abbott sucking up to the White House said, great, that's what we're going to do, and that's what they did. And so I just ask people, as we now go forward, we're challenging the maps in North Carolina, we're challenging the maps in Missouri. We will challenge the maps in whatever other states that Republicans redraw them where they're not legal. I just ask people to give us the time and the patience to see whether we can undo some of the harms to democracy. Democracy.

C (30:48)

Mark Elias, as always, thank you so much for being with us. If you want to stay on top of all of the legal storylines covered here on Deadline White House, scan the QR code on your screen to have the Deadline Legal newsletter delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Our very own Jordan Rubin breaks down all the cases we talk about here and much more after the break. The Justice Department saying little today about its plans to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Now that Donald Trump has signed the bill, we'll look at what could possibly, possibly hold the release up any longer.

B (31:20)

Why did we build the first American nuclear plant in 30 years? Because we're leading the way to secure American energy dominance. And why announce over $70 billion in energy infrastructure investments to keep meeting America's energy Demand, win the AI race? And because our 9 million customers describe affordable, reliable energy to power their homes and businesses at Southern Co. The investments we make today are powering America's energy future. Tired of drafty windows and rising energy bills? Well, now is the perfect time to get beautiful replacement windows and doors from renewal by Andersen for a limited time, get no money down, no monthly payments and no interest for 24 months with a minimum of six. That's right, two full years to enjoy warmer rooms, lower bills and beautiful new windows without paying a dime up front. Visit renewalbyanderson.com to schedule your free consultation today. Hurry. This offer ends December 1st. AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI transformation@rubrik.com that's R U B R-I K.com.

C (32:50)

The clock is ticking on the release of the DOJ's files and convicted pedophile and former friend of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein. After Trump announced that he had signed the bill late last night on social media, writing this, quote, this latest hoax will backfire on the Democrats just as all of the rest have. Thank you for your attention to this matter. The bill orders that the files be released within the next 30 days, although the precise timing of that release still unclear, as is whether the Trump administration will attempt to withhold them. As the New York Times notes, quote, Mr. Trump's signature does not guarantee the release of all the files. The bill contains significant exceptions, including a provision protecting continuing investigations, which could mean many documents would stay confidential. In a statement, the family of Virginia Giuffre wrote this, quote, this work is not finished. Every name must be revealed, regardless of power, wealth or party affiliation. For Virginia, her sisters and survivors across the world, this is a momentous step towards a long overdue justice. We await the full release of the Epstein files from the Department of Justice eagerly, and we will not stop until the full truth is out. Let's bring in New York Times opinion writer and political analyst Mara Gay. Andrew Weissman is back with us. Andrew, talk to us. What comes next year?

E (34:04)

Well, there's very good reasons for people to be cynical about whether this administration is going to reveal everything. Why do I say that? Because in this particular situation, it doesn't require Congress to have done anything. The President of the United States can simply order the release of everything in those files. And he could also just make it very clear to the American people, including on Truth Social, which he goes to repeatedly, that everything about him will be released. In other words, he can deal with his own privacy interests and say, every single time that I am referenced, any image of me is going to be released. He has not done that. And that is notable. So he didn't need to have a congressional bill. He could have, if he wanted to be transparent, do it on his own. And he still today could answer the very simple question of whether everything with his name on it or his image on it will be released. Let me give you an example. Senator Whitehouse asked Pam Bondi about reports that there was an image in the Epstein files. Just a report. He didn't say it's true or not. But a report of President Trump with young women who are half naked and asked whether Pam Bondi had seen that and she refused to answer that question, was notably silent in spite of being asked that question twice. And the question is, will we know that? Will there be a commitment from Donald Trump and Pam Bondi that if there are images like that, that it will be made public? And that is something that is so easy for the administration to answer. And they are not doing it, which makes you incredibly cynical, certainly makes me incredibly cynical about whether they're going to, going to actually be forthcoming with damaging information about the president that could, could be in the Epstein files.

C (36:04)

The reason this story continues to stay in the headlines is in part because of the work of survivors who have been on a multi decade crusade to ensure that there is justice here, to make this bigger than partisan politics. In part because Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have been beating this drum over and over and because there were MAGA loyalists who decided that they were to go to the mat on this issue. I wonder, as we enter the next phase, what it is going to require to keep that level of pressure up.

F (36:36)

Well, the survivors are going to have to continue to play that role, which I can only imagine takes an enormous toll on them, if you think about survivors that have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein and the just unthinkable amount of public pressure that they come under. So this is, this scrutiny is enormous. The other thing here, the problem for the President, is that we are in an environment not only in his base, but with the country at large where so many Americans are especially cynical about powerful people who continue to operate above the law. And so the reason that this story really has its teeth, you know, into the MAGA base, you know, it's because of that and it's Donald Trump's promise to drain the swamp and to run as an outsider to begin with, that has brought this story to the forefront. And I think it's not going to go away because it's now all of America wants to know, well, who else is in these files? And the thing I can't figure out even still is, you know, the news today, this is a step forward for sure, for transparency. The question is, why would you continue to keep this story alive by just releasing a trickle at a time when.

C (37:57)

You have the power, when you have.

F (37:58)

The power to put an end to.

C (37:59)

It because you are trying to distract. No one is going anywhere. A quick break. Up next, new reporting on an investigation into two Trump officials. We're going to bring that to you next. Two of Donald Trump's most vocal allies inside the administration are under criminal investigation. That's according to some incredible brand new reporting from our colleagues Ken Delenion and Carol Lennick. From that reporting, quote, a federal grand jury in Maryland is investigating whether Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte and Justice Department official Ed Martin improperly appointed unauthorized people to help in mortgage fraud investigations of President Donald Trump's crime critics. The probe, according to two people familiar and documents reviewed by Ms. Now is focused on whether the mortgage fraud investigations of Senator Adam Schiff and possibly of New York Attorney General Letitia James have been tainted by the investigative methods allegedly used by Pulte and Martin. The Justice Department had no comment. Mississippi now also reached out to Bill Pulte. We're back now with Mara and with Andrew. Andrew, your reaction to this news.

E (39:07)

This is fascinating and one of the reasons it's fascinating is how much it tells you there's a difference between normal administrations and this one. We are used to hearing in a normal administration about investigations of that party that's in power and the other party because people don't just say, oh, I'm only going to investigate Republicans or I'm only going to investigate Democrats. Remember, under President Biden, the administration had an investigation of the president's own son. And there are many, many other examples of Democrats who are under investigation here. What's remarkable is this is one of the first times we're hearing anything like this. Remember that Tom Homans, even though there are allegations that he took $50,000 in cash in a kava bag, that investigation did not go forward. There was Pete Hegseth and the signal gate where any other administration would be investigating that people are in jail for what appears to have been done in that situation. So here what's remarkable is that you have, according to the reporting, Maryland doing something that suggests that the let's just say the longevity of the sitting Maryland U.S. attorney is one that I going to be keeping my eyes open for as to what happens because it would be normal in any Republican or Democratic administration that I have ever served in where there would be investigations regardless of political party. And that's true of the member of both administration, both types of administrations I've served in. But that does not happen here. And so it'll be interesting to see whether Pam Bond is and Todd Blanche are going to put their money where their mouth is, where they're saying that they are apolitical and they don't weaponize and weaponization, it's over. Well, let's see what happens with respect to the Maryland U.S. attorney and whether she remains in office.

C (41:12)

I just want to say having sat at this table with you many times, Andrew Weissman, that is the closest you get to prognosticating. And so we will in fact watch to see what happens within that authentic margay. Sort of wild to watch the tables turn.

F (41:25)

To watch the tables turn. But also as Andrew pointed out, the Maryland U.S. attorney is essentially a fiefdom, let's say, that has not been weaponized by Donald Trump and his Justice Department. And so what we're getting is a little bit of reality about just how far afield from democratic processes that are normal. Donald Trump's DOJ officials have gone elsewhere, specifically with the obviously the investigations into Letitia James and James Comey. So this is essentially a little bit of government that is functioning as it should. And it's going to allow Americans to peel back that layer and take a look at the actions of a Justice Department that has been weaponized. And I think when we see the details, it's very important that those are ultimately released to the public because we need to understand exactly how the DOJ has been operating in these cases. And I don't believe they're going to stop there. So the hope is transparency will come from this, even if the longevity of the attorney there may not remain.

C (42:32)

Also notable that we received this news about 12 hours after Robert Garcia, the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, drafted a letter to Pulte asking for all of this information. Mara Gay, thank you so much for being here. As always, Andrew, welcome, Weissman. Thank you for spending so much of the hour with us. New York City Mayor Alexa Ramani heads to the White House tomorrow despite the name calling coming from the president. What we can expect just ahead. Tomorrow, New York City Mayor Elect Zoran Mamdani will head to the White House to meet with Donald Trump. This after relentless attacks from the president during his campaign. But here's what he told my colleague Chris Hayes just last night. Take a listen.

E (43:17)

We did reach out to the White House and my team reached out because of a commitment that I made to New Yorkers that I would be willing to meet with anyone and everyone so long as it was to the benefit of eight and a half million people who call the city home and their struggle to afford the most expensive city in the United States of America ever.

C (43:32)

On message there. Mayor Elect Mandani told reporters this morning that he is not concerned about the meeting, looking at it as an opportunity to make his case case. We're going to stay on that after the break. Trump accuses Democrats of seditious behavior punishable by death. We'll tell you why and get reaction. The next hour of deadline White House starts right after this quick break.

F (43:54)

Did you know that skin care can start in the laundry room? All freeclear is the number one laundry detergent brand recommended by dermatologists, allergists and pediatricians for sensitive skin. All freeclear is 100% free of dyes and precision perfumes. It provides an effective clean that's gentle on skin while removing impurities like dirt and body oil without leaving irritating residues. Plus, all free clear liquid is safer. Choice Certified by the US EPA for a clean you can feel good about. All you need is all Freeclear.