C (5:42)

Hi, Nicole. Thanks for having me. And excuse me. We are still functioning as a Pentagon press corps. We're just not doing it inside the building.

E (5:53)

I apologize. Of course you are. Of course. I guess what I should say is normal. Let's start there. Tell me how it's different to not be in the building. Just explain that to us.

C (6:06)

It's, you know, we've. It's been the sort of. The vice has been closing in since President Trump came to power for the second term and Pete Hexad became the defense secretary. The first thing he did was to take away the office spaces of the New York Times and NBC and a whole bunch of other news organizations. And ever since then, it's been slowly tightening against press with more and more restrictions on the press corps. What we've now lost is the ability to be inside the building without sort of a guide or sort of like, you know, and a company or coming in to watch all of your conversations, all of your meetings, all of your everything. That's basically what Hegseth wants because he is afraid of what the press is going to report. He doesn't like the majority of the stories that the press has done, and he doesn't want that level of scrutiny. So we're now, the press was asked to sign another sort of document that said basically, we're willing. The reporters are willing tothis sort of Damocles that sort of will be hanging over our head saying that if we ask questions or solicit information, you could have your press pass revoked. And you have to. They wanted us to acknowledge that. And that's not something that, as you could see, none of the news organizations, the major news organizations were willing to sign because. Because that again, by basically telling a reporter, you have to be careful about even asking a question or soliciting information. That's the basis of what journalism is, and that's our role. So that's why you have still a functioning press corps, but functioning from outside of the building. And then to answer your earlier question about what's going on with Venezuela and Colombia and these Latin American drug strikes, it's quite extraordinary because that is not how the United States in the past and how the US Military has waged war. The US Military is an instrument of, you know, exerting and projecting power. It's not a law enforcement agency that's supposed to be going out and sort of blowing up boats. We have yet to see any kind of evidence. The administration has yet to present any evidence that says anything about what this, they're just basically saying, take our word for it. The President has determined that these are drug cartels. They may or may not be. But it's also quite interesting that he's been going after Venezuela when most of the drugs, as you referred to earlier, that come into this country are coming via the, the fentanyl is coming via the Pacific, not Venezuela, sort of the, the, the destination for most of the drug boats out of Venezuela and heading through that narrow strip between Venezuela and Trinidad, which, or they're mostly going to Europe. But you know, there is this, this, this belief within the administration that they can target the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro. Whether they're going after regime change, it seems to be that that is the case. But we're not being given any evidence at this point of just who these people are that we are blowing up and we're, the public has not been shown anything and neither has Congress for that matter. You have Adam Smith on the House Services Committee today asking, demanding a hearing and wanting the administration officials in Hegseth and the rest of the military who's exercising, executing this policy to come and talk to the Hill about it. But who knows when that will happen when they've been in recess because of the government shutdown.

E (10:02)

General Herling, let me show you a little bit more of Rand Paul's rebuke or explanation for his opposition to what's happening.

A (10:14)

We know from Coast Guard statistics that about 25% of the time the Coast Guard boards a ship, there are no drugs. So if our policy now is to blow up every ship we suspect or accuse of drug running, that would be a bizarre world in which 25% of the people might be innocent. The other thing about these speedboats is they're, they're 2,000 miles away from us. If they have drugs, they're probably peddling drugs to one of the islands of Trinidad or Tobago off of Venezuela. The, the idea that they're coming here is like, it's a huge assumption. And really shouldn't you have to present some proof? It is the difference between war and peace. In war though, you don't ask people's name. But if they want all out war where we kill anybody and everybody that is in the country of Venezuela or coming out that has to have a declaration of war. It's something that is not pretty, very expensive. And I'm not in favor of declaring war on Venezuela, but the Congress should vote. The president shouldn't do this by himself.

E (11:14)

Let's deal with the second part in A minute. But let me just ask you to explain some things to me. When it's my understanding that drug running boats either have drugs on them or people, but there would be no drug running boats with 11 people on it, five people on it, six people on it, and I'm not aware of any evidence that has been produced before, during or after any of these strikes to prove to anyone that drugs were actually on these boats. What is the conversation among and within military and former military people about the use of the military to do this absent evidence?

B (11:53)

Well, first, what I'd start off by saying, Nicole, when you send a submarine, a couple of guided missile destroyers, 10,000 troops, F35s and you talk about armed conflicts with a non state actor, the drug cartels, you're in a very different strategic zone than standard counter drug work. Senator Paul has it exactly right. The Coast Guard is trained to do this. They do it very well. I happen to have the opportunity to be on a Coast Guard cutter one time when they were intercepting these cigarette boats as they call them, or go fast boats. And what they do is they launch a helicopter, shoot off the engine, and they shoot out the engine with a sniper and then they converge on them with a cruiser. It's very easily done and the Coast Guard is used to doing it. When you're building up this size of force, the risk of this kind of military buildup in a region that's historically sensitive to US intervention, it's going to invite reaction, militarization by the countries, especially Venezuela and Colombia. We've seen that already. And a gross deterioration of diplomacy and a huge escalation. So all of these things are troubling to those in the military who plan these kind of things. Yeah, you can plan counter narcotic operations. It's a different kind of task and mission than a normal combat operation is. So that's what I think is really troubling. Most people who are looking at this from a military perspective, they just don't understand what's going on. In addition to that, you also don't have the press covering it as closely as they should, even though Helena is doing a great job. You know, you don't have the closeness of the media and the journalists inside the Pentagon. And the other thing you don't have is the oversight by the Senate and the Congress. They're trying to do that, but I think it's. They're not being deferential at all to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of Joint Chiefs. But there should be harder questions asked of These people. That's what oversight is all about. I had to go through it as a commander, and I'm telling you, you don't get to tell a whole. And you have to tell the truth when you're sitting before Congress.

E (14:12)

Mike Johnson has made a public display of shoving his head in the sand and making sure we all saw it. Let me show you what that looked like. Tom Nichols.

A (14:26)

Don'T you have questions for him about what's happening in Venezuela? We have this buildup around Venezuela. We have the targeting of these boats. I mean, you must at least have questions. I know we have questions. You have drug cartels bringing in fentanyl and boatloads of it that would kill potentially hundreds of thousands of Americans. What we're doing is restoring. You have no questions about how they're doing this? No, I believe in peace through strength. I think that the President and the Commander in Chief is in charge of ensuring national security and the safety of the American people.

E (14:53)

It would be funny if it wasn't so flipping dangerous that he's that glib and flip. And if you care about the things that he says, he cares about drugs, then why not go to where the drugs are coming from, which is China and Mexico. What is wrong with him?

A (15:09)

Well, this is part of the ongoing tragedy of Congress deciding that it doesn't want to be a co. Equal branch of government anymore, that the Republicans in Congress are simply an extension of Donald Trump's personality cult. At this point, I mean, the speaker has to know that under any other circumstances, he, as speaker of the House, would never say, well, you know, the President has the right to do anything he wants. That's okay with me. That is not how our system of government works. And he knows that. I mean, this is, you know, part of the. What's really infuriating about all of this is the dishonesty and the bad faith involved when people like the speaker say things that they know that they don't believe. No one, you know, really believes that. These boats, and General Hertling, I think, pointed this out as well as Rand Paul. These are boats far away from the United States. They may not be anywhere near us, and we have a Coast Guard that exists to intercept them. What, what the speaker is affirming is this new rule that the President of the United States. And this is, I would argue this is not about drugs. It's not about Venezuela, it's not about anything else, but this new assertion by the President that the US Military will kill anyone he points at for any reason. He deems sufficient. That is not the American way, it's not the constitutional way, and it's certainly not the American system of government. But that's what Donald Trump, I think, is. And the people around him are trying to establish that when the president decides someone has to die, the military becomes his personal hit squad. And I think this really can't go on this way, but I actually thought it would have been stopped several dead people ago. But he's making the point and he's trying to wear us down and get us accustomed to it.

E (17:05)

Well, Tom, to your point, General John Kelly warned us that this is what he wanted in a first term. Listen to his words in an interview ahead of the election.

A (17:16)

Do you think he's a fascist? Well, I'm looking at the definition of fascism. It's a far right authoritarian, ultra nationalist political ideology and movement characterizing by a dictatorial leader, centralized hypocrisy, militarism, forcible suppression.

B (17:37)

Of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy.

A (17:44)

So certainly in my experience, those are the kind of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America. But certainly the former president is in the far right area. Certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators. He has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist for sure.

E (18:20)

Tom, a lot of that interview centered around his vision for the military. And a lot of what General Kelly warns about has come to pass. Troops, National Guard and active duty deployed on the streets of American cities. Missions like these, allegedly. I don't even feel totally comfortable repeating the predicate because there's not a lot of evidence it's true. But allegedly targeting drug boats, allegedly potentially coming here, even though that's not where most of our drugs in this country, which are a scourge, but it's not where most of them come from. What is your sense of where we are? And if it's reaching a point of no return?

A (19:02)

I don't want to say it's reaching a point of no return, but he is. Part of the problem is the United States has granted greater and greater power to presidents over the decades going back 50, 60 years. And now we're at the point where basically we treat the president as an elected king. By the way, Nicole, I agree with you about nothing, not accepting the predicate. But let's point something else out as well. Even if these boats have drugs on them, there is no enabling legislation, there is no authorization, nothing that says that the president of the United States can decide that drug runners are bad and that he can kill them anywhere in the world. Even during the war on terror, the president was circumscribed by an authorization for the use of military force that set out where, when, how, under what conditions, with an organization that had openly declared that it was at war with us and had physically attacked us. So whether these are drug votes or not, let's just say it again. The president of the United States does not have the right to point at anyone in the world and tell the military to kill that person. There is a procedure and a constitution and law that constricts even the president of the United States. So where we are, I think, is that we have just been ground down into accepting this kind of behavior from a president who wants to establish that he can do anything he wants and is determined to conduct these kinds of operations because he doesn't want us looking at a bunch of other things going on in the world, including in his own administration, including his economic record, including Jeffrey Epstein, including the government shutdown.

E (20:44)

All right. Well, we'll turn to all those topics and more. I have to sneak in a quick break and I'll take the general's note that we should spend more time with journalists like Helene. Do all that on the other side of a break. Also ahead, pressure does continue to build on Republicans who are doing whatever they can to keep the full Jeffrey Epstein story from seeing the light of day. House Speaker Mike Johnson's excuses that we're not seating an elected Democratic congresswomen are becoming even more ludicrous than his answer on the strikes against alleged drug boats. She would, of course, be the difference maker in terms of votes on the Epstein files being released. And it all comes comes on the eve of the publication of a new memoir released by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre after her tragic death. We'll get to all of it later in the hour. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

F (21:34)

Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips or manage payroll on deck. Small business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $200,000 exactly when your business needs it. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and full control over repayment, you can tackle undevelop unexpected expenses without missing a beat.

D (21:53)

Apply today@ondeck.com and funds could be available.

F (21:56)

As soon as tomorrow.

D (21:57)

Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota.

F (22:02)

All loans and amount subject to lender approval.

A (22:04)

Everybody sleeps, but no two people sleep alike. At Coop Sleepgoods, we celebrate the way you sleep differently. We believe everyone deserves a great night's sleep with their own pillow and the adjustable, customizable coop pillow makes it easy. Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper or even a starfish, we've got the perfect pillow for you. Crafted with our innovative memory foam and microfiber fill, our hypoallergenic pillows adjust to you and not the other way around. Just tailor the fill for the perfect fit, add some in, take some out until your pillow's right for you. See why luxury hotels and spas worldwide feature coop sleep goods and why we have tens of thousands of 5 star reviews with our 100 night risk free trial, you've got nothing to lose except those sleepless nights. Get 20% off your first order when you visit coopsleepgoods.com podcastnews that's coopsleepgoods.com Podcastnews.

D (23:01)

Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of Angie.

E (23:03)

When you use Angie for your home projects, you know all your jobs will.

A (23:07)

Be done well, from roof repair to.

D (23:09)

Emergency plumbing and more done well. So the next time you have a home project, leave it to the pros.

E (23:14)

Get started@angie.com Rebecca Talene, Tom and General Hertling Helene let me just go back to the record of what the former generals said Trump wanted to do with the military. This is as reported by Bob Woodward. Quote Former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis had been so worried that Trump would have a nuclear war with North Korea during his watch that he slept in gym clothes, ready in an emergency to join a secure call to deal with the threat. Trump had delegated the authority to the Secretary of Defense to shoot down a missile that threatened the U.S. if he shoots, he shoots, trump told me during an interview about North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. This cavalier attitude about nuclear weapons and impulsive, combative diplomacy terrified Trump's national security advisors. General Mattis privately went to the National Cathedral in Washington to pray and prepare himself for the possibility of having to use nuclear weapons against North Korea. General Kelly has been reported in multiple books. Also worried after Trump started, I think, calling him Little Rocket Man. That was in early 2017, early in his first term. Former Republican Senator Bob Corker was the first senator of someone's own party to introduce legislation to limit Donald Trump's nuclear authorities. So Republicans and people inside the House were worried about Trump's military power in the first term. I know that it is stipulated that there are no checks on his power now, but tell me how much of that is bearing out and tell me if the high level resignation that was also reported by you and your colleagues last week has anything to do with the pattern in practice that we're seeing with these strikes.

C (24:52)

You're raising such an interesting issue, and especially going back to North Korea in that very kind of scary time in 2017 where Trump and Kim Jong Un were going back and forth. I remember accompanying Jim Mattis to the DMZ in North Korea, the demilitarized zone that's between North Korea and South Korea right at that time, where Mattis specifically went there because he wanted to take reporters with him and because he wanted us writing stories that showed just how close this area was to South Korea and Seoul and just how, you know, I still remember writing a story about, you know, just how, how populated South Korea is. And when you're having a cavalier attitude like that about nuclear weapons, this is something that if you're a resident going to bed at night in Seoul, you're not going to have that same level cab, you know, that same kind of cavalier attitude. So this was something that Jim, Matt is very much worried about at the time. When you jump forward to now, it's an equally interesting and terrifying proposition for military generals. You also, you, you reflected just now with something that you asked General Hertling about what the military leaders think about this campaign in Venezuela and in Latin America. Several generals have pointed out to me, generals and commanders have pointed out to me the Supreme Court sort of giving President Trump pretty much broad immunity over actions that he takes as president, saying that he can't be prosecuted. But they didn't give that to any, to military generals. They didn't give that to military leaders. There's no broad immunity for them. If it turns out that this, this the stuff that's going on and these strikes end up being illegal or war crimes, they can't, they could be held liable themselves. The, the, the resignation, not the, the retire, the early retirement, let's call it what he called it, of, of the Southern Command commander, Admiral Halsey, who was in charge of, of this Southern Command. So he was the lead point guy on these military strikes. Took everybody by surprise. But they really shouldn't have. What we've heard from sources is that he had expressed concerns specifically about the targeting of these strikes and who they were blowing up. He expressed them, I was told, through the chain of command. So he did it. He didn't pull people aside or do that. You didn't hear a peep out of him. But he expressed these concerns. And they went directly to Pete Hexeth, the Defense Secretary and now, as we've seen, he is retiring only one year into a job that routinely a pretty significant, significant senior command job that would normally last three years. So, you know, you read that as you will. We're still reporting this one out. But I think commanders at the Pentagon are, and they should be themselves concerned that at some point they could find themselves being held liable.

E (28:09)

General Hartling, the greatest gift that Donald Trump gets isn't people not paying attention. I don't believe that. I just don't encounter that. I think people are paying close attention. And it is not that people are exhausted. No one is exhausted. People don't feel like they have the luxury of being exhausted, especially if they have a kid or a spouse in the military. Impediment is where we started, right, that there are not trusted sources of information. And the briefing at the Pentagon has a tradition of being, you know, of course, up the chain of command and in service of a commander in chief, I suppose. But what do we do in this moment where while the press corps is functioning, Hegseth has made it very difficult, much more difficult than it used to be. Even after 9, 11 and during COVID it is more challenging to get access to that building. His depths of his paranoia are the subject of reporting in right and left wing media. So they must be true. And the things that the military is being asked to do certainly reflect what Helene is talking about, Donald Trump's correct belief that he has absolute immunity.

B (29:22)

Nicole, I'll tell you, when the Supreme Court ruled on that over a year ago or a couple years ago, it was jaw dropping to me because of exactly these reasons. And there was debate and discussion within the military circles with military leaders. I know Tom was involved with this too, on exactly the issue that Helene just brought up. He has immunity from crimes, but he's not the one pulling the trigger. He's not the one doing the actions. He has a very cavalier attitude about moral injury, if you will. You know, soldiers of an American military go into combat knowing they're doing certain things for certain reasons, and they have to deal with the kinds of death and destruction they see. It appears that that cavalier attitude of the President actually transfers to his orders that are cavalier when people are dying on the other side, but he's not pulling the trigger and he won't be held accountable. And I think that's why Admiral Halsey, I don't know the details of his decision to retire. I also don't know the details of many of the other general and flag officers, admirals that were also going into retirement, like the chief of staff of the Air Force. But I would guess some of these kind of issues in terms of conducting illegal operations or trying to back away from being asked to do illegal things as best they could, they finally saw the point that they could no longer sustain that kind of opposition to someone giving them illegal orders. When we saw not only President Trump getting or presidents getting immunity, but Secretary Hegses saying, throw out the rules of engagement. We're not paying attention to those anymore. Well, I'll tell you who is paying attention to those, the Geneva Convention and the rules of land warfare and the Hague. So military commanders who do execute illegal orders are responsible for that. And that's why there's so many senior leaders in the military really concerned about what's going on with some of these operations and some of these strategies.

E (31:36)

Well, we're going to take your note and pay even closer attention with all of your help. Helene, Tom, Lieutenant General Mark Herling, thank you all for starting us off today on the this. When we come back, on the eve of the release of Epstein Accuser, Virginia Giuffre's published memoir about Jeffrey Epstein, which she published after her tragic death, the pressure is rising on Republicans who continue to block the truth from coming out. We'll bring you that story after a quick break.

A (32:06)

It's Cybersecurity Awareness Month and Lifelock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, Lifelock is your best choice. Lifelock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected.

C (32:29)

With a 30 day free trial at.

A (32:31)

Lifelock.Com Specialoffer terms apply.

D (32:35)

OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team.

F (32:41)

Or bridging cash flow gaps.

D (32:42)

OnDeck's loans up to 2, $250,000, help make it happen fast. Rated A by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star Trust pilot reviews, Ondeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by.

F (32:59)

Ondeck or Celtic Bank.

D (33:00)

Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amount subject to lender approval.

C (33:03)

Everybody sleeps, but no two people sleep alike. At Coop Sleep Goods, we celebrate the way you sleep differently. We believe everyone deserves a great night's sleep with their own pillow. And the adjustable, customizable Coop pillow makes it easy. Whether you're a side sleeper, a back sleeper, or even a starfish, we've got the perfect pillow for you. Crafted with our innovative memory foam and microfiber fill, our hypoallergenic pillows adjust to you and not the other way around. Just tailor the fill for the perfect fit, add some in, take some out until your pillow's just right for you. See why luxury hotels and spas worldwide feature coop Sleepgoods and why we have tens of thousands of 5 star reviews. With our 100 night risk free trial, you've got nothing to lose except those sleepless nights. Get 20% off your first order when you visit coopsleepgoods.com podcastnews that's coopsleepgoods.com PodcastNews.

E (34:00)

The highly anticipated release of the House Oversight Committee's interview with former U.S. attorney Alex Acosta reveals just how much Acosta stands by his controversial 2008 sweetheart plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein. Acosta told the committee that a federal trial judge against Epstein would be a, quote, crapshoot, claiming that there were, quote, evidentiary issues with the victims because, according to Acosta, many victims refused to testify or had changing stories. Acosta's testimony is just the latest example of the immense burden that's been placed for decades now onto the survivors of Epstein's abuse. The burden placed on these women is something the co author of Epstein Survivor Virginia Giuffre's memoir calls out in the New York Times, writing this quote, why do we as a society ask those who have been weakened by abuse to do the heaviest lifting, not just calling out the predatory schemes of those who abuse them, but also testifying and being deposed under oath, as well as sitting for interviews and news conferences. And why is it that even when survivors do this, so many of us still don't give them the benefit of the doubt? Instead of requiring the wounded to endlessly recite their worst memories on repeat, why don't we bear down more forcefully on those who they accuse of wrongdoing? Joining me at the table, Tara Palmeri. She's here. She writes the Red letter on Substack. She's hosted two acclaimed podcast series on this topic called Broken Jeffrey Epstein, the Maxwells. Also joining us, MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. Tell me about the memoir.

F (35:37)

Well, I haven't had my hands on it yet, but I've been told from people who have read it already that Virginia writes about a journey that we went on together over a number of weeks around the country trying to find people that worked for Jeffrey Epstein that would help corroborate her story, because for over a decade, she had been called a teenage prostitute and a liar. And she just was desperate to find someone who was. Could say, I see you. I know you. I remember you from that period of time. And so we spoke to people like. We tried to reach people like the chef, the pilot, the house manager, and he actually opened the door for us. And it was one of the few people that actually let us into their home. And it's on. It's in the Broken Jeffrey Epstein podcast. I also write an essay about it. It'll come out tomorrow. But, you know, it was heartbreaking to watch this, because this was a man who testified that he had to clean up dild and make the massage bed while after picking up girls from high school and then bringing them to Jeffrey Epstein's house. But yet he could really accept no wrongdoing in the situation. He just kept saying, I didn't know. I didn't know, over and over again. And it was incredibly frustrating to me to be sitting on his couch and watching this man play mental gymnastics, walk some sort of moral tightrope. And for Virginia, she was just so happy to have someone see her and remember her and be there, and just like. Just almost like they had lived through this shared experience, and she needed someone to kind of make her feel like she wasn't alone in this experience. And so I remember when we got out of the house and we were in the car, I was like, how do you feel right now? And she said, I feel happy. I was like, how do you feel happy right now? I mean, he recalled seeing Prince Andrew in the house and Alan Dershowitz, but he said they were with women, never with children, you know, and. And she was like, well, he gave us 10%. And if that's all you get, you know, that's all you're going to get. None of these people are going to admit how much involved they were, and it was just really, really heartbreaking. In the book, she also writes about this profound disappointment that she had really hoped that the people who worked for Jeffrey Epstein for decades would actually come forward and do the right thing and say, I stand with you now, Virginia. But it just wasn't the case. And she took the breadcrumbs that she got. And he was a. He did end up being a crucial witness in the case against Glenn Maxwell. Actually, while we were there, the FBI called him and asked for an interview, which was crazy. I mean, it's all on. You can hear the phone call. It was all recorded. But, yeah, he was. He was. You know, he was a useful witness, but he also was unwilling to accept the depravity of it all. And how he stood by for two decades working for Jeffrey Epstein.

E (38:32)

On the outside, it's impossible to make sense of. And I imagine in the innermost ring, as a victim, it has to be sort of the final act of betrayal and gaslighting.

F (38:43)

Oh, absolutely. I mean, she had so much hope, though, and strength, and she believed that President Trump would release the Epstein files. She told me that. She said that Elon Musk dmed her and told her on X that he would release the Epstein piles, and she believed them. I mean, that is someone who's just so desperate to be acknowledged, to believe that there are better angels and that people will do the right thing. And I was inspired by her because I was jaded. I gotta tell you. I was jaded and I was furious. And doing that podcast made me see the worst of the world, not the best. And to see her feel like, oh, this is great. And I was like, what? This is great. And then it just reminded me of what she's lived through. I mean, in the book, she writes about being sexually abused as a child by her own father. You know, she writes about being trafficked, being homeless, trying to turn her life around. And that's when Ghislaine Maxwell comes through and finds her, just to bring her. And then it's just this life cycle of abuse she's lived through. And so many of these victims, they just. They can't even be heard. They've never been heard. And even now that the piece that Amy Wallace wrote was brilliant, because it's true, why do they have to keep telling their stories over and over and over again? Why does she get some justice after death? She lives with the trauma from it. And that is why she died. She killed herself. She. I mean, I spoke to her before she died, and she was not well. And all the conspiracy theories about her being killed, she killed herself. Because. Because when you are a victim of this type of abuse, you live with that trauma for the rest of your life. Those demons, those nightmares, they play in your mind. And I just find it to be horrific that people use this whole thing to spread more conspiracy theories about a story that, frankly, doesn't need any more conspiracies. The truth is bad enough.

E (40:33)

Alex Acosta's line that there were evidentiary issues and problems with the witnesses is sort of the final slander, right, of these women. The witnesses are victims of sexual assault from some of the most powerful men the planet has ever known.

D (40:48)

Nicole, reading that transcript was like living in two different times, because you had Alex Costa on one hand, who was sort of representative of the old guard and the way people used to see sexual assault. And yet he was facing an onslaught of questions from women who came to Congress having had very different life experiences and representative of a new generation. So hearing him being interrogated by Jasmine Crockett, for example, who really wanted to drill down on, I'm sorry, what exactly were the credibility problems with these women? Why did you not find them credible? Why did you think you couldn't rehabilitate them in front of a jury? He sort of sputtered. And he also insisted at one point during the transcript that it wasn't a sweetheart deal after all. And his reasoning for saying that is because on his recommendation, the original non prosecution agreement would have had Jeffrey Epstein do two years in jail, which he said was the sentence Jeffrey Epstein would have received had the state not been so crooked. But of course, that's ignoring the fact that a prosecutor under his own supervision had written something like an 80 page memorandum recommending that they bring 50 to 60 counts against Jeffrey Epstein, as opposed to a single state count to which he pled, as a result of sort of a framework that Alex Acosta himself. So I found the whole thing sort of galling as well as it was both galling and useless, because as you and I have discussed before, Alex Acosta was interviewed by the Department of Justice as part of an investigation they did into the professional misconduct of lawyers associated with the Epstein case. He relied on that throughout his interview. He hugged it to him like a child has a stuffed animal and he just kept going back to it. I don't have an independent recollection of this, but here's what the report says and like quoting it chapter and verse as if it were his defense manual, as opposed to sort of having organic recollections of what had transpired. The whole thing to me, was both disappointing, upsetting, and yet, not surprisingly, so.

E (42:53)

So her book, her memoir, comes out obviously after her death. What will we learn from the book? That might have a corollary if and when the files are ever released?

F (43:07)

I mean, the book is incredibly graphic. If the files are released and they are truly released and they are unredacted, then you will see the names that are associated with those descriptions. And they're very powerful people. I mean, she was trafficked to incredibly powerful people, as many as three dozen men. And I think it would be jaw dropping for. For Both political parties. And, you know, you can read and you can figure out who these people are. And it's incredible that in her death she's seeing some justice, but she has to be dead to see this. I mean, it's just so. It's heartbreaking.

E (43:50)

What's amazing is that her story will be about being trafficked and about the trauma, but the story about the men, these broken men who may. Some of them may be fathers, some of them may have daughters, will be about broken men as well. And then I think the question in our politics turns to why are they protecting broken men? I mean, what will the answer be to that?

D (44:13)

I have no idea. And to your point about the memoir, there is a portion of the memoir that I believe addresses a person to whom she was trafficked. And she was told to go over to a hotel room that this gentleman was staying in with him, his then pregnant wife. And she was told to give a proper massage to the pregnant wife, who then retired to the bedroom and went to sleep. And then as she was preparing to give what she thought or hoped would be an appropriate massage to the husband, learned that he expected exactly what she had been giving to Jeffrey Epstein. So to your point, these are not only powerful, powerful men, these are people with children. And I think for Virginia, one of the. The big breaking points is when Ghislaine and Jeffrey ask her whether she will bear their child, and she wonders, am I being asked to bear their child solely so that they can raise someone that they will then themselves sexually exploit? That was sort of the point in time where she decided, I need to get off this island. And I mean metaphorically. But that was the point at which she began to think about, how do I escape this? And that's when she took up the offer to go to Thailand and get back massage training.

E (45:21)

When does the book come out?

F (45:23)

Book comes out tomorrow. It's already a number of excerpts have been released, and I wondered what kind of impact this book would have. But I think what you now see is the violence that was involved in the assault. So many people do not understand how violent the assaults that she endured. I remember we were driving past the Palm beach airport where the Lolita Express plane Epstein private jet was parked. This was in February of 2010. And I saw her body physically recoil at the sight of the plane. And she closed her eyes and she remembered being assaulted in the air and how it was a brutal assault. And I think you're going to see those details in the book.

E (46:07)

Would she want the book consumed and shared with as many people as possible.

F (46:12)

Absolutely. She created a nonprofit. Victims refused silence. She believed that she beat the drum forever, even when people said she was a liar. And she never stopped. And I hope this lives on, on forever in perpetuity so it never happens again.

E (46:24)

So when it comes out, we'll, we'll share as much of it as, as we can with our viewers. If you guys will come back, we'll do that together. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. When we come back, we are getting our very first glimpse of the physical decimation, demolition of the White House to make way for Donald Trump's new ballroom. Let that sink in. We'll be right back. Despite Donald Trump's claim that the construction of his $250 million ballroom won't interfere with the existing building, the Washington Post obtained this photo of what they described as construction teams demolishing a portion of the White House. That's the East Wing at the front center of the image. That backhoe ripping through the structure. Sounds of construction could be heard across the White House campus. It's an 18 acre plot right there in the middle of D.C. at the time when he announced his quarter billion dollar ballroom, Donald Trump said it won't interfere with the current building. It won't be, it'll be near it, but not touching it. And pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm a big fan of. It's my favorite. It's my favorite place. I love it. I want to bring in MSNBC senior White House correspondent Vaughn Hilliard. He destroyed what he loved then. I mean, this is a picture of complete destruction of what we should explain is it's an East Wing entrance, but it goes right into the colonnade, which takes you directly to the West Wing, which is where the Oval Office is. And anyone that's left and worked in the White House or in Washington, I think has a physical reaction to these images of man made. Donald Trump made destruction of the White House building.

A (48:17)

Right, Nicole, to kind of give you an idea, everybody, the size of the scope of this ballroom that we're talking about that is now currently underway in its construction phase, it's going to be 90,000 square feet. The current White House itself, including both of the wings, it's 55,000 square feet again, 90,000 square feet for the ballroom. And as you're, we're looking through some of these renderings here. And I think it's important that East Wing that you're talking about, that area is going to be completely removed. Those images that you're seeing these are just the first initial photos here that we are getting. We believe those photos were obtained by the Washington Post for today, taken out of a window at the Treasury Department. But the East Wing is going to be replaced by this new ballroom. It will then lead into the foyer. The president was just talking about it in the East Room, in which he said soon that there are some windows that are going to be knocked out and that's going to be the new entranceway here. So really, the construction project, we haven't seen anything like this since the Truman balcony 80 years ago and the north portico being added 200 years ago.

E (49:21)

Nicole, it's amazing what a banner week of AI generated disrespect for the country and literally bulldozing the White House complex. Vaughn Hilliard, thank you for your reporting on this. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. The scale of the suffering and the depravity of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein has a unique ability to animate and enrage Americans all across the political spectrum, even people in the MAGA base. Now, one of the most influential political thinkers and talkers has a message about that. If you're demanding answers on Epstein, keep it up.

B (50:02)

They should still be pressing the issue.

C (50:04)

You know, on the Epstein files, because.

A (50:06)

It'S the only thing that I've ever seen make that MAGA base be like, yo, he's lying. Out of the millions of lies we've heard, you know, him tell, that is the one that has made people be like, okay, something's not right right over here.

C (50:23)

When you're talking about the government shutdown.

B (50:25)

When you're talking about military being, you.

A (50:27)

Know, in American cities, you still should always punctuate it with, and what about the Epstein files? What is he hiding in the Epstein files?

E (50:38)

Charlamagne, the God is my guest on this week's episode of the Best People podcast. Scan the QR code on your screen to download our conversation or listen. Wherever you get your podcast, let me know what you think. Thank you for letting us into your homes today. We are grateful.

C (50:51)

Did you know 39% of teen drivers.

E (50:53)

Admit to texting while driving?

C (50:55)

Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with greenlight. Infinity's driving reports monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus with weekly updates updates you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teen safe. Sign up for Greenlight Infinity at greenlight. Com Podcast.